Transportation, Technology & Legislative Affairs - Senate

Jerseys quorum of the Senate transportation committee. Come to order members without to objection we're going to move house bill sixteen seventy four of the top of the calendar so member can get back and House Bill fifteen fourteen to the bottom of the agenda Representative Wardlaw you're welcome to proceed. Thank you Mr chairman committee this is not the ninety thousand wait bill that. Everybody's been waiting on the bill still yet to come. This bill is to help our loggers move there he quit my from job site to job site at the current moment when they load does skaters and now to those loading machines or delivers. They're illegal and a lot of times they're in areas of the state where they have no phone service no internet and no ability to access a day apartment and I had some pictures to pass around a committee so you know the equipment that we're referring to. So major bigger staff myself and myself went down and we weighed numerous pieces of equipment and we work very tires lead to figure out how to work a yearly permit into this other states do a yearly permit for the same reasons and he's yearly permits when they write the rules. And I'm not really keen on giving Highway Department allowed leave way but will only let him write the rules they're going to write the rules so that we take into account all the way bridges that we have throughout the state because most of us have rule areas in Arkansas district that have very low weight bridges so we'll make sure we don't damage any bridges. And with that Mister I take any questions. The major maker staff if you want to. Recognize yourself and and you're welcome to to add any additional. Thank you Mr chairman of you have made director staff Arkansas highway police so I'm open for any questions that you may have. Any questions from members senator garner. Thank you so right now when they're moving equipment you're saying in general there exceeding the gross weight. Under current practices and in theory you could be right now violations for moving that is that what you're saying that there are writing them violation or write in violation two years ago we adjourned for session in the middle of April and it was about may first may second it was literally we were before the signing died date and I got a call from a lawyer in Union County or been a to be a factor and he had gotten a ticket for a Skinner and he was at ninety three thousand pounds and he was unaware that Skinner would weigh ninety three thousand pounds right now currently we give a with exemption and that's reason I sent one of those pitchers around because it shows the with of that Skinner they aren't legal to haul any with as long as they have of escorts improper flagging and and tied down but they are not legal for those weights and the reason that we never gave him those exemptions for those weights is because of our bridges so what this will do is set up a way that I can get a yearly permit where they don't have to contact the highway department once but they get a map that will show those bridges are they'll get an alert there shall those bridges that they cannot cross with this equipment. Okay thank you. Other questions from members. Senator Chesterfield. Is this an agreed to be also represented absolutely association of counties agrees this bill the highway department wrote the bill and the log in association there were stuck in another committee but they usually come to take with me their full support of this bill thank you so much yes ma'am. This any other questions Senator Tucker. Apologize I came in late but you're just talking about Holland Quitman here not not this is not the Loganville GA I this is not the not controversial ninety thousand that's what I got that but in the bill years you're just talking about forestry equipment that you would be in the process are meant for right okay thanks job site to job site. Thank you Sir. Any other questions. The no one signed up except for major your staff to speak on this bill it does three main audience will speak for against the bill saying nine was so will the committee The motion by Senator Chesterfield second by Senator Pitsch all in favor say aye All opposed like sign. Any discussion I'm sorry I missed that in between there so if none then you passed your bill thank you Mr chairman committee. Next on our list is Senate bill five twenty six Senator English you want to. All. Welcome to particular English Senator Jane English district thirty four basically this is a very simple bill it kind of renames the transparent that a transparency panel to reflect the transformation department directors and their agencies. There any questions from the members. Sure there's no one signed up to speak for against the bill of Senator Pitsch. There we go. Is this a lot the same questions Senator Chesterfield on the last bill is this an agreed upon bill again mean transformation is for at I. see people writing starting with with added transparency panel but it's had different agencies on it now with transformation there we have departments and so it reflects that okay. Okay Sir Chesterfield. The anyone else have a question saying ninety one an audience will speak for against the bill saying nine what's so will of committee senator Chesterfield do pass second by Senator Pitsch all in favor say aye. The discussion. Seamans Thank you senator. Senator Elliot on Senate bill three five thirty one. If. Welcome to proceed Senator Elliot. Thank you this is my first go around in this committee Members except for the two or three people who are watching this committee I suspect most of you already know what's in this bill so I won't belabor it you may ask me anything that you wish to ask me but for those two three people have to say aye this bill is the result of three years of work of working with the R. tensions for the arts and I want to give them a lot of credit for where we are now because they really have position us I think to be on the fourth in a on a new frontier when it comes to economic opportunity and development in Arkansas by marrying the arts and technology and taken advantage of all of the talent in the assets that we have around our state I and making sure we're defining the arts in a way that is more inclusive and that can accrue to a great deal of in place economic development for we are not waiting for the next next of factory to come in this is about building in place. And if you don't know that Arkansans for the arts has Arkansas broken up into eight districts and they have done the research where they can show it in every one of those our districts what's possible to happen economically culturally and so forth in those districts and so this creates a boot camp a legislative boot camp that will allow us to do the work to catalog and create a report thanks a create Something that people can see that's real and say in district eight here are the things that are possible district two in and so forth. So I want to be sure to give them that credit but as a result of that eight of their working with us in creating the rights caucus and then most of you been a part of this bill that's what we're talking about today and in the bill it leads up it lays out what are the areas that we are going to be looking at and the timeline for creating the blue cap and they're going to be two people hopefully from everyone of those districts that would be evenly divided we don't mandate that because it might not be possible but they're sixteen legislators that will be a part of this boot camp and I'll take any questions Mister chair. S. PH. Thank you Mr chairman thank you for bringing the bill senator I know you've done a lot of work with that are honored to be a part of that I think it would benefit the committee members if you talked about. The it the Associated if there are any cost how this is going to be it's that are because I think whenever we see lots form of a campus or whatever I think we instantly got oh my gosh how much yes and we're doing this very creatively so yeah the question yeah we are of the four I even filed the bill hi eight wanted to be a legislative endeavor and then we will bring and other agencies and even private individuals as we are going through this process but I did check with bill are to make sure we had the funding of for carrying out the boot camp because the boot camp will be something better like a committee meeting and we have the funding from bill are and that we are not asking for any further appropriation or anything of the kind so that we can find what we're going to do. US senator garner. Thank you just for clarification is going to be the chair and co chair of this this okay it would be that it will be the cochairs of the art coccus and I am the to Senate chair and representative Les Warren is the House chair okay and that's because we set it up we tried to be very very careful to make sure it was a bipartisan caucus with six of successful in doing yes ma'am. Your other questions from members. Saying hope center Chesterfield. That no other questions US we have a motion by Senator Chesterfield and the second by Senator Pitsch all in favor say aye. No discussion All opposed Like sign thank you senator English Christians coming. Thank you so much committee. Going on to the next bill is Senate bill five thirty seven Senator Flippo. Senator Flippo your your welcome. Preceding thank you Mr chairman thank you members in pharmacy by say center Chesterfield your hair is looking particularly on point this morning I just want to compliment you on that members. Five thirty seven it's just a technical clean up bill from a bill that I ran two years ago regarding our seatbelt law so at the time when I ran that the intent was to cap the fines at forty five dollars with the exception of a few pled not guilty went to court and were found guilty that you could pay or you know associated fines and court costs this there is some language in here to refer to a section of code that stuck by me that allowed to them to charge up to sixty five dollars and so what this does is this just clarifies that the intent is to cap it forty five unless a person pleads innocent goes to court and found guilty to greet a pawn builder is no opposition be happy to answer any questions. The questions for members. Seeing none no one signed up to speak for against this bill is there anybody in the audience will speak for against the bill saying nine was a will of committee motion by Senator Pitsch do pass second by Senator English all in favor say aye opposed Like sign thank you Senator Flippo. Moving on to our final bill is house bill fifteen fourteen the. Representative makes. Whenever whenever you get down down to the table if you're if you're other party would introduce themselves. All representative Stephen Meeks. Kevin White with legislative audit system legal counsel and staff auditor. Thank you representative make sure what I'm saying thank you Mr chairman so colleagues this bill was I brought to me by legislative audit is based on an incident that occurred and and kind of brought this issue to light there was a sheriff's department that had a contract for some data hosting data services that contract came to an end and unfortunately the contractors that are returning the data back to the sheriff's department essentially held the data for ransom and expected the sheriff's department to pay a huge sum of money to return what rightfully belonged to them and so what this bill does not is very similar or the very simple it does a couple things first off and I'm just gonna read section to hear. Is this. Fifteen fourteen. Being fourteen. Sixteen seventy four remove it was represented Wardlaw said any. Right is about what minds about that. We're gonna we're gonna take Senator Flippo comment backed by a one point. Yes removed so it just clarifies that the data that is stored by data company for public entity is the property of the public entity and that the data company is not to sell disclose or otherwise use the data. outside of the purposes for what the contract was expressed unless the data is already considered open or available to the public and payment I think this makes common sense if a data company is hosting private personal citizen data we don't want that data being used for You know commercial purposes or purposes that may compromise the integrity of that citizen data. The other thing that requires that upon termination of the contract award to dresses the issue that brought this up that the data is to be returned in a readable format we want to make sure that they you know. Didn't out of spite encrypt the data but that the data has to be returned in a common readable format back to the public entity has to be done so in a timely manner and upon return of that data the data company then has to destroy their copy of the data again to for security reasons we don't want them to keep it Sullivan a belated so forth on Laos there is a contractual agreement that the data company is allowed to keep the data in that contractor will agreement will not express what the data can be used for the length of time it can be captain and so forth so that is in essence what the bill does now you can see by the all the agencies that are represented here behind me the importance of trying to get these protections in place and I with that I'll let to Mr white make any comments you'd like and then we'll be open any questions. I think that I represent makes that a great job explain the bill and I'm here to help answer any questions. Senator Chesterfield you're recognized thank you I'm I'm on the bill why is there so much push back from industry about the bill. when I originally filed the bill in the bills out there for almost a month before I actually ran it on the on the house side there was a little bit of concern from some of the the larger players about the ability to maybe keep some of the data afterwards and that that's all been addressed so to my knowledge we have. A peas to everyone that I know of except for one entity that I know of AT&T is not right and that's that's only one is is there a way to get that done so that we have an agreed to be on the desk so I offered an amendment I understand right that that you did not accepted you explain why that is sure so they they offered amendments the lawyers over at like audit take took a look at it and unfortunately the amendment that they offer pretty much got of the intent of the bill so had we done that we would have been. Almost but right back where we are now okay now. Why is we're talking about the storage of of It's to prohibited data company from presenting authorize access by a public entity to the public entities data. What is their specific objection to it that would got your bill if the amendment were added. Yes some of the various provisions that they had an amendment one as they would have narrowed the scope of this just to cloud services data when it was stored with cloud services in one of our concerns is that was not the intent of the bill just to be the cloud but it as well could be whether a server was hosted just a different location owned by the data company in providing that storage so we didn't want to exclude that You no limit this to just cloud services another thing is dealing with the ownership clause we say that any data on any data stored for the public entity is a property of the public entity the proposed amendment would kind of flip that and it would have said when a public entity stores its data with data company it doesn't transfer any rights and then I guess one of the final pieces that it would have done as well as it would have removed the specific applicability to contracts in existence today and art is a part of this because yes what we've had is when we've been dealing with local entities we've had problems when we have gone in to try to get financial data that was held by a data company and that they the public entity was unable to get that data from the vendor once they had terminated the contract. Senator. Senator garner. Yeah I mean I've listen AT T. is concerned I don't like being on the other side of joint. Audit on this for all the good work you do and I've been on the the Committee since I've been elected but that part about existing public contracts really concerns me whatever you think is right or wrong whenever I have a company and I enter a contract with a public entity. I'm doing that on the assumptions that I'll be following the rules of that contract and so if there's financial obligations I made were I was using that data for XYZ that's legal and we enter that contract and now you're going to do that that put me in a financial burden I could. all kind of problems on me in and under his constitutionality of us just basically changing contracts that are already existing if this was in the future I probably much more willing to accept it but something about that just doesn't smell right to me can you address that please sure and I'll make a few comments and then you can follow up with me the larger companies like the eighteen teas of the world once I have all the high priced lawyers most of this has probably already been addressed and so shouldn't really have any impact on those contracts and that may be something that you know when they come to the table you can you can clarify with them that the aim of that the. These are my mind the aim of us including that was for the small to medium size contracts the you know the local library the local sheriff's those small towns that don't have all the legal resources that is larger entities do to make sure that we're protecting our lakes our libraries in cities and smaller towns in contracts that currently exist because as you mentioned. We have contracts that are already out there and these contracts are going to expire and do we want to tell them that the data doesn't necessarily belong to the state. Until you get a new contract. John Sam or that you can still go ahead if you've got a current contract with us knowing that you know if we remove that that going forward you won't be able to hold data hostage but because we didn't include that that when your contract expires this time you can hold that data hostage for as much as you want and in order to prohibit that from happening that's why we included understanding that there may be some concerning their but it was a decision of. Do we wait until tomorrow to protect our these entities or do we put those protections in place now and I defaulted that we need to put the protections in place now and then I'll see if he has any further comments on that. You senator I think that's a great question great point you know the first thing I would say this bill is meant to gap fill it's not meant to override the express terms the contract Nicks expressed in their in various places in the bill you know with what that data company can do with the data if it's expressed in the contract that's what's going override as well as the way to transfer the data upon termination of the contract as well as to the terms can be agreed to not to be contradictory but I mean you're saying if my express contract says I get to collect keep the data and then we passes law that would be in violation of the contract who wins that it seems like this law was supersede the what the contract said they will be required turn it back on I'm not discussing the policy consideration if that's a good idea bad idea I think what you're trying to use a good policy consideration that's what's concerning to me is that when you enter that contract and now I say if I was allowed to keep data contract you're the party we agree to it now you gonna supersede that I have to give it back just I think that would overtake the contract it do you disagree with that statement. I think there are certain there's some language in the bill that would help address that for one of them is that you know on one page two lines fifteen through seventeen talking about the data can't do anything disclose or otherwise for any other purpose without express authorization is one thing that could help over come that in the one of the other pieces as well as on page into page two to first of Page three is dealing with the return of the data when it hasn't been addressed in the contract you know it specifically says unless there's a contractual agreement that specifies what data can be capped how long that it can be kept on the purposes for which the data can be used you know what at the end of the day yeah I cannot say have a court would rule on the issue I think there's a strong argument for the constitutionality of applying to contracts today but you're exactly right and that it is a policy decision and. I. And and I'll just on that's one of the amendments that we made to try to address that concern is that if there's already contractual agreements on what to do with the data following the termination of the contract that that would be captured in that section there so as you said is going to be primarily areas or contracts where there is currently nothing. In the contract stating what happens to the data upon termination of the contract. Thank you. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chair. And I just pick up right where senator garner left off I'm not sure that we have the authority as a legislature to add a term to an existing contract I'm open to being persuaded otherwise on the. I think you know just because a contract maybes to shift gears slightly I think just because a contract may be silent as to who owns that data doesn't give the contractor the right down the data and I think the sheriff's auto litigate that point I appreciate what you're trying to do I think you know what you're trying to do is the right thing absolutely and you know I don't know maybe one way around it would be to say that unless a contract expressly says otherwise than in the data. Is the public data is owned by the public entity and and that way or not to to this just say outright that this section applies to all existing public contracts I just I don't think we have the authority to do that Leding I'm open to being persuaded otherwise on that another point that I know that they race which I think is valid because I see this all the time in my. A practices. I think there might be a lot circumstances where the public can see didn't want to data back but this mandates that they have to treat transfer it back and there can be a lot of costs associated with that and I think that the public entity in the contractor ought to be able to agree mutually on either the evidence being destroyed or being returned I think that would be you know a positive amendment because there may be sometimes when they go to a lot of expense to transfer it back to comply with the law in the public can see just throws have the trash afterward because they don't need or want it anymore so that's another concern I have and then the last one is I totally understand that I'm an I don't I didn't get into the weeds on this the scope and if it needs to be broader than just cloud based I think you know that's totally valid and legitimate I am concerned that this may be too too broad. Any public entity for storage services or saw software services I mean I think that could apply to a cell phone even you know which I don't think it's really the into and so those are really kind of the concerns that I have and yeah. He's. I would like to speak to one of those concerns the last one you made as far as the scope so I think one of the important definitions like the most important definition probably in here is data company that's the most important definition we have and in order to be a data company you're gonna have to provide software and store data for a public entity that's one way you're going to provide software and actually be storing that data for the public entity and the other way is when you're providing the storage services so I feel like that's you know that maybe there's some your concerns in that that's that's the key definition to focus on I would believe to determining the scope of the bill. Okay. I still think that could apply even to just a simple cell phone if you're providing store services. yeah but a public entity is not gonna pay me to store information on my cell phone for them. Yeah but they're not have a contract with me for that so they might have a contract with eighteen T. or somebody like Verizon or whatever you know so anyway. I appreciate your response. Senator Pitsch. Well I don't want to rehash what's been said committees been set very well I have the exact same concerns is Senator Garner for one served on audit I don't think I've ever been opposite of a lack audit issue but I find myself pretty opposite on this the second thing I'd stay before I went to my comment is many of us myself included would like to think of ourselves as people that confined in Amendment find something and I'm looking at their side of the amendment. And they state that what they're amendment sought to do and it's got four bolts on there and I've heard back just recently that the the thought is that goods the entire deal. But I look at what Senator Tucker just pointed out and the second bullet on their list in the fourth bullet on that list deal with a lot of contracts to specifically be negotiated for a mutually agreed upon and I think there's gotta be some lily pad the middle of the river there that we can find to get our our industries and our businesses and maybe in this case our business that's out there. To find a mutual agreement there the fourth one is eliminate the requirement that this legislation would be applicables the contracts already in existence again it's already been said I don't need to rehash with the attorney Senator Tucker said. But we dealing contracts all the time in my businesses and there is no way this body should ever tread into an environment where we say that contract has the okay because legislators said it's okay to change it and I maybe ending this is maybe a comment but. Tell me again why we couldn't find an amendment that got an agreed upon the center Chesterfield said bill because I sit here today and I'm hearing it got of the system but those seem like pretty common sense pro business request from a large business doing business in Arkansas so maybe take another shot at telling us why there are amendments were just persona non grata and they go to the bill we couldn't do. So the the we were looking at the amendment as a whole that the amendment as a whole would have got or the gun of the bill What center give me a second first side bar here with the counselor and then let me decide what how we want to proceed going forward on this okay. So I thank you Mr chairman for that to that opportunity for us to to confer so hearing the the feedback from the from the Committee it sounds like that overall that to the Committee seems to be supportive of the idea of but there are maybe one or two areas where this could be improved and we're willing to maybe look at those one or two areas we don't want to got the bill this is that would defeat the whole purpose of the bill but I do think there looks like there's a few areas or we could we can get the Approval of the committee or get committee more comfortable so um if the committee has any last minute questions or suggestions will be open to those but once that's done then I think what we've agreed that we will go ahead and pull this down and see if we can't to tweak a few of those concerns and then move forward from there. I have two in the queue Senator English first and senator garner. So I just have a really probably a stupid question but why would the why would entities want to keep the data what what's what is the advantage to having a contract keeping in keeping the debt why wouldn't why wouldn't you want to return it. So that is kinda silly I'm sure but I think about cyber security and stuff like that so in my mind a lot of this goes into that same arena a bigger arena sure then just state contracts or DHS contract for Medicaid data whatever so I I'm having a hard time understanding what is the benefit to an AT&T or somebody for keep in the data why wouldn't it be easier just to return so while one of the entities that I heard from that kind of precipitated that part that I had amendment was an entity that does not data storage for counties and they have had several circumstances where following termination of contract with the county that the entity held on to the data and then the council for whatever reason either through mistakes mismanaged anyways they lost the data and so they went back to this company to ask them if they still have the data on hand and the company did still have the data on hand and was able to supply that back to the counties so kind of served as a as a as a backup and so that's why I wanted to include the provision that allow them allows companies to keep the data upon agreement and you know specify how the data can be used and and so forth so and this is in this instance the company was essentially acting as a as a back up to the county is at no cost. Senator garner. Yes Sir is my comment so. Like I said the the contract issues really my sticking point in talks eighteen teens is on the concerned some I agree with like that maybe could change what the data is given back to him similar stuff I'll still be on your side too so you think what they're going to is going got the intent of the bill don't think me personally I'm not still be against the bill the contractor thing I'm worried about you get that fixed and you still have disagree with AT T. on some of the other ones that you believe guts the intent and purpose of the bill I could very likely still sport bill what if that concern is addressed for me personally thank you thank you senator. Anybody else have a question thank you senator makes and and I'll work on that and come back thank you senator Chesterfield. If if their representatives from eighteen T. who are here now do you want to wait and hear them and would you like to hear them now and then perhaps they could reach the when we hear what their concern is and what help was the facilitating of reaching an agreement there's no one signed up okay if there is somebody here from A. T. and T. if you wanna come down speak you're welcome to. There's no one so she didn't well here in if they have further testimony or concerns will follow up. Thank you members if there's no no other business to come before the committee we will meet the at eleven o'clock or and on Tuesday as senator. Well if if there's any business so transportation is adjourned.