JBC-Personnel

Good morning we'll call the personnel committee meeting in the order. We've got. Several items to cover first of all I will apologize to the committee for missing the first two meetings and thank of Senator Davis and representative Scott for handling the meetings of I tried my best to not have a heart problem and I surgery but you know how that goes it didn't work out but anyway of we're called to order the bills and amendments will be presented in section B. and the first one Tony of give us the title thank you Mr chairman item B. one is an amendment to house bill eleven forty six for the division of community correction this is by Senators Bledsoe Hester injuring Leding in Ballenger. One here's the for the amendment. Senator Bledsoe were Hester. Hendren okay you're you're recognized representative of senator. Shall the court to get their ratios where they need to be on counselors and. Probation officers. Identify yourself and proceed to my name is Christy Beaumont a circuit judge in Washington Madison County. Michelle if you feel comfortable would you remove your mask yes Sir if thank you. Michelle Barrett I'm the coordinator for the Benton county drug court and veterans treatment court. You're recognized act of sorry we've never done this before so we're a little nervous and we apologize if we do something really wrong. To slap us it's OK Act of so we're here today we're trying to get positions for our specialty court's myself in judge Smith this is not just met this is Michelle Barrett his I'm. All court administrator and drug court administrator and that court administrator what a total not trial court but everything else is correct hi so a. Right now with the drug courts and veterans treatment courts Our two programs I can say without a doubt or doing best practices we're taking high risk high need individuals I can tell you this within the past week or two I took in three individuals all three of them were on parole and for parole violations and had picked up new charges on those are the individuals that were focusing on because our courts are doing everything and anything that we can to try to cut down on the prison population and to stop the cycle of addiction right now as far as Washington Madison County our Madison County drug court does not have an official I guess probation officer ACC was nice enough to allow us to use the probation officer in Madison County to help us do our drug court there and they they have been nice but they put us at a cap to make sure that we couldn't go over a certain number because they're probation officer couldn't handle the case load because there are she's already overworked so we're asking for a probation officer for our Madison County the numbers are there if we're allowed to accept people into the program currently we have a grant position that handles our counselor position for Madison County and then helps out in Washington County and we're also asking for the counselor position position for Madison County because our grant will run out Both of our programs. Every year are constantly trying to seek out federal funds in order to supplement our programs to help pay for residential treatment to help pay for medically assisted treatment to help pay for positions but it would be really nice because we never know whether we're going to get grants and if we lose these positions then we can't we can't get our numbers as far as continuing to help the people of Washington Madison and Benton County both of us Actually do run our recidivism rates and it's it's in the letter but taking high risk high need individuals people that have either failed on probation or been to prison and have addictions our success rate is seventy seven percent and that's since I've been working there which has been eight years and I continue to keep running on back even back to the eight year mark I know a lot of people do recidivism for only three years. It doesn't matter to me if they recidivism after four years or five years or twenty years down the road that still to me counts and so our rate for them getting arrested for another felony offense Less than twenty three percent of our graduates so that's a huge success when you're talking about individuals that have been to present sometime seven times. M. and I would agree with that with all that she has said in our specific program we've actually funded to grant counselors one of them since two thousand sixteen one of them since two thousand seventeen and actually prior to that from two thousand eight my position was funded as a counselor and then moved into this position over time and so we have continuously funded programs since two thousand eight and again as she said at some point the federal government as we funded these positions a very long time and we just never know when they're going to not want to fund those anymore and when we look at our graduation rate we're we're similar at about an eighty percent graduation rate M. R. last recidivism study showed us that our graduates had a nineteen point five percent recidivism and actually those who failed our program we're still at thirty three percent recidivism which is below your normal probation parole recidivism indicating that while they may not have successfully graduated there were things learned and and I'm it was beneficial to to their program to their processing into the criminal justice system here in Arkansas. And so we're also needing the two positions that are grant funded as well as a counselor in addition to that to be able to stay within the numbers that are set out in this state legislation of forty per PO and thirty per counselor so we're needing three councils in a probation officer to be at the right level to provide the correct services. Any any questions from. Senator head you're recognized. Is this a. If you don't get the grants you're not going to not only get these positions but lose the once you have that correct correct in our grants actually for those two positions run out on September twenty ninth of this year and we what we do not have a current funding source and Sampson has not put out new grants for this year yet so we we don't we would not have those after that date would your grant request cover these new positions to or just the one that you currently have we we we we don't have there is they would be just the current ones would not necessarily cover anything we on that it's very limited what grants will actually provide it will actually allow us to cover PO so if we appropriate this and then the grants do come through would you still need to this funding. We could we could look at problem possibly. Going ahead and finding them during the grant period if we got the grant funding thanks. And just say no probation officers aren't covered in grants only the counselor positions. Thank you. Any other questions. Any other questions the chair has one and the I'll need the Secretary graves is he here come up. Mr secretary this so. Come as no surprise to you sure but I'm just I'm just curious were adding seven additional positions and you all have a hundred fourteen positions vacant is is there a reason why we can't look at some of those and see if we can reclassify them or use them rather than adding seven additional positions. We'll work represent will of I'm sorry of the morning Sullivan great secretary of corrections of the first keypoint represent who is of what judge Beaumont alluded to in her testimony before the subcommittee drug court positions by statute are restricted by the case load that they can work a joke what officers can only have a case load of forty Joe court counselors can only have a case load of thirty by statute so if we take a regular or parole probation officer position and convert them over to a specialty court position we actually lose capacity to serve our fender populations of while we do not object to the request for these positions are concerned is that they are not included in the governor's balance balance budget in as they stand now would be under funded by the department. The We we gave you additional positions in the parole And probation officers that the last within sixty position. Or have those all been filled. In the let in the last session the General Assembly gave us thirty positions and as of this past Monday we have a total vacancy of twenty seven within the department within the division I'm sorry. Okay this is not the. It's not the program it's the utilization of the vacant positions so you're you're saying that you can't do that. Bob put by converting our regular case load officers to a specialty court officer we would lose capacity one of the things that the General Assembly is constantly charging us with the is reducing our average case load state wide by using a regular parole officer converting them to a specialty court we actually drive our average case load up because those specialty court officers by statute have to have a lower case load. Thank you. Committee any further questions or discussion on be one H. B. eleven forty six the department of corrections any further discussion. Do I have a motion. Motion by Senator Bledsoe do pass I have a second. Okay okay all in favor of the K. was saying a. All opposed. Your bill is passed given a do pass thank you. Thank you all so much three really appreciate your time thank you. Mr chairman item number two is amended by Senator Hester. Four Senate bill one twenty two state order and Senator Ballenger I believe it's going to present this for Senator Hester this one. She Senator Ballinger. Identify yourself in you may pursue the. Senator Ballinger Senate district five and have to please the committee it be good for Mr McMahon to be up here so that he can answer any technical questions and speak to the need. Bob McMahon on prosecutor coordinator representing the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association. So amendment is pretty straightforward it just basically kind of rearranges some of the some of the numbers there at to view more positions and a little bit more money and it's just basically based on need and I'll let Mr McMahon provide a little more detail on that. Thank you Mr chairman thank you yes as best as Senator Ballinger said with this man does a couple things it does reclassify thirteen positions we have us me to visuals that are pretty much career prosecutors in on their career path they're getting to the end of their pay grade and so we have reclassified thirteen of those positions there's not any additional money added to the amendment to take care of those things again they're very very close to their pay grade should the governor approved merit in individuals getting married next time then they would go over there pay grades were anticipating that but again there's no money in this particular amendment for that the the actual new money in this bill comes from the addition of seven positions in there's one part time position that we currently have to being converted to full time and then there are seven additional new positions in the way the prosecutors do that for those that are probably unfamiliar with that process is the state took on give the prosecutors back in January of two thousand and we agreed with the legislature to assist with the F. will distribution of deputies so when a prosecutor wants an additional deputy they come to our board they make a pitch in our prosecutors here that in rank the proposals and then asked the legislature what we think is appropriate so all of these requests have been vetted through our prosecutor coordination commission ranked and then presented to you all in the form of one bill which is supported by all twenty elected prosecuting attorneys there are about ten to twelve districts that benefit from this particular amendment but they've all receive benefit from the procedure that we follow through the last twenty years that's why all prosecution twenty eight support this amendment and I'll be happy to try to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. Any questions. Any questions. So. Thank you. Any further questions. Anyone else like to speak for against this bill. What's your pleasure Committee. Yeah I have a motion. motion do pass for centre Hendren second US senator Bledsoe all in favor say aye. Pose like ones. Your bill is been given a do pass thank you thank you committee committee. Mr chairman item number three at an amendment by Senator Eads for Senate bill one ten which is for the Department higher education but is actually for the northwest technical institute which is included inside the higher it appropriation bill. You're recognized. Thank you Mr chair committee this amendment is for northwest technical institute they're moved into and and to try to expand some of the reading the capacity to be able to provide some commercial driver's license training as well as looking at a couple other expansion of programs as well but this mainly is that they need to for additional positions that they don't currently have authorized and the preparation for a total of twelve the other eight there have authorizes reappropriation for to be able to expand these programs and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay so this this is a new CDL program they're attempting to establish yes Sir okay any questions from the committee. Because I have. Is it what is anyone from the agency here. You're recognized come. You said. Sir John with the. My name is don rains on the personnel director from northwest technical institute okay. My question is if you have thirteen vacant positions and I understand that this is a specialized program but is there a reason why that you're then use some of those positions to fill these four new positions Mr chairman currently we have five vacant budgeted positions that we are feeling or attempting to feel three of those are vacant as a starting in January two of Amer specialized technical faculty positions in our nursing program and one is an education program manager that's over our monitor free to ration and industrial maintenance program we have two budgeted unfunded positions that we have not sealed since the fall one of them is that administration to administration officials to and one is a computer support coordinator we do have eight positions get senator reaches spoke of that we have that are under budgeted so we do not have a we didn't have any money to fill those positions and we're asking that to be. Any further comments the senator. I think that covers it okay any questions from the. Committee. Do we have a motion. Motions can see okay. The motion to have a second second of all in favor income was saying Pose like ones thank you your bills do pass as she can remember thank you. Mr chairman item for on the agenda is by representative Charlene Fite this is a house bill twelve seventy seven for the department of finance administration. You self and proceed with your bill I representative Charlene Fite District eighty. Good morning everyone I am bringing that for you a proposal asking for for positions at one time Arkansas was a leader and services to the deaf and hearing impaired we were recognized nationally and even internationally for the services we provided through an office called office of the deaf and hearing impaired. A few years ago that was absorbed into rehab and that the IDF community has asked that we bring back this office because it used to be very successful and now the services are not being provided to our deaf community so they're asking for these four positions on a two year trial basis and if that works well then we would come back and seek funding for that to be put into full time. Any questions regarding this amendment. is anyone here from the agency the judge. Jake please give the office of budget. Did you have a question or yes well we. There's seventy positions over there thank representative dressed it can can we accomplish what she likes to do within the framework of the positions that we have. I would say no Sir this is a totally new division for DFA we didn't work with the sponsor on preparing this legislation was filed and we asked her I think a joint budget earlier this week about it we're not as an agency prepared to accommodate these kinds of services an additional the funding is not currently in our budget for the. What. Thank you for. We say. That's what we told. Well I understand that because we can we amend your appropriation where you can take care of this. If that's the desire of the Joint Budget Committee. Well this the this discusses after which I do not want to do anything to and be the representatives bill. In order to be able to get it through and get it done but I don't understand why creates a problem. Over there when we've got seventy vacant positions at some matter of amending appropriation. I do we have any GS fourteen positions that are vacant Tony. Will this this get together after we get through here and see if we can work something that I'll. No representative you have anything else yes I just wanted to add that to the I ask about how the salaries were determined. The group that came up with this looked at similar positions in surrounding states and they said to recruit people with the specific skill sets we would need to have that the salaries in place to recruit out of state applicants if we were not able to find people within the state of Arkansas with the specific skills also the salaries need to be slightly higher because this is a two year trial period not just everyone's going to be willing to move here to do something that may only last two years. Thank you any questions from the committee any other questions. Do we have a motion I have a motion to have a second I have a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed Like was. Thank you representative your vote thank you committee members has passed. Hi Mister chairman item five on the agenda is by representative Jett and Senators Johnson and Dismang there's also an amendment to this bill so house bill fifteen sixty seven and then Amendment LC W. O. five zero five zero by representative Jett we'll we'll go with it Mister chairman how let them speak billing and amendment represents Jett you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman Committee the limits pretty much the bill last session Senator Dismang centre Johnson worked hard on tax appeal commission bill if you will basically the the premise of this bill is right now if you have a tax issue with the if an eight unit bill that process would be if in a given a actually comes in they're they're they're Forsman an action there the judge or jury right now over the last several sessions a minute for ten years now going on ten years they've been pushed actually start an independent tax appeal commission the for whatever reason we just had a hard time getting it all lined up his last session Senate dismaying Johnson brought this bill down to the house and just lack of a better way of saying that we just ran out of time to get this thing we want to do so through the this last past session lot of people work pretty hard on this this is a great upon bill with inspector general's office the governor's office of the state chamber folks business leaders CPA bar association twenty what is proposed to do is take the pill process away if you have an appeal with the FNA this takes appeal process away from the F. and I insisted into an independent tax appeal commission inside the inspector general's office and so what I'd ask the the segment Secretary Smith inspector general's office to just give us a list of what he thinks it would take to get this up and running and so and I I totally get more than what she thought she needed and that way we will have a discussion later on about hearing this thing down you would DFA to see what we actually think that we can get this of the we don't set him up to fail if you will so long story short the amendment is is we come out with at first an original bill of sixteen positions and now what we've done is we pared it down to nine positions with the help of a the Secretary Smith. So with that the. Senator want to add anything to it or I'll be open to answer any questions. To the motion. One okay. Any any questions. Any questions. Let me share with with the committee at what what I was director that DFA this is one of the major. Challenges for the director for the secretary of the of some of these appeals wind up on your desk and you find yourself in the position relative to go against your staff or going in favor of the taxpayer and by the time it reaches your desk no one is really taking a position on it so I think that I think this is long past due. and it is something that will benefit be of benefit to the taxpayers and and to the Department because it separated out and gives them gives the taxpayer a independent appeals approach. I'm gonna do pass do I have this do you have a question yeah. So the the people who are doing these appeals at the F. A. now are we gonna have any reduction over there or you is that is that going to be yeah I just it something we have thank you senator hatch I want to dress and I slipped my mind but DFA promises through attrition what what's going to happen and Department how many folks have an apartment hearings an appeal three Christian those folks will be reassigned to new duties and to attrition though those will never be replaced and that's going to be the offset of what's going on right now to help fund this bill okay thank you. Thank you thank you motion to pass okay I have a motion Is have a second. This is the second all in all in favor indicated saying aye. All opposed. Your Bills goes do pass and the amendment okay so that's amendment and Mr misalignment and bill yes amendment in the bill thank you committee president. Mr chairman item six is the last item on the agenda this is Senate bill three ninety by Senator Ballenger for the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman this bill's gotten exciting over the last twenty four hours and and I think that it's I think it's warranted probably should of a have a little tension paid to this prior to prior to the last twenty four hours but let me kind of explain to you I'll give you the thirty thousand foot view that I'm happy that to answer any questions so essentially the way this came to my attention is actually the constituents in me a link to a Jew to a judicial opinion and it's a simple opinion dated February eleventh in which justice Womack was concurring in adding to people to the judicial discipline and disabilities commission and in it he explained what his opinion was towards the constitutionality of the commission itself so amendment sixty six created the judicial discipline and and and and disabilities commission and the nineteen eighties. The the commission was was created pursuant to what they call judicial authority right there judicial power in the opinion and I you know I I'd be happy to share that opinion with anybody just woman goes over it and you know just woman didn't contact me Bavand read the peeing in one part of this which I'll get to the second requires legislative action but in the pinyin he cites to the fact that this this a in nineteen sixty set or in the the members sixty six created the judicial discipline commission pursued to judicial powers well then in two thousand we passed and the people but Amendment eighty in place which in Amendment eighty it says all judicial powers is vested in the judiciary Supreme Court. And in any specifically says that it repeals all other amendments that are in conflict with amendment eight so essentially what should happen sometime back around two thousand is the judicial discipline commission should have been moved underneath the Supreme Court and should have been made now I thank I'm not making any arguments here as far as that being good policy that's that's not what my arguments are at all I'm not make any arguments here against the just list one Commission I at you know from my standpoint I think they're doing a fine job I probably disagree with them sometimes in their decisions but in the end that's the you know I'm I'm not I'm not out here don't have an axe to grind with them in fact what I would say is if if I were I have no opinion about this because I'm not the in the judiciary but if I were in the judiciary or maybe as a practicing attorney my opinion would be that the Supreme Court shouldn't change anything when it's moved underneath them at least four times so that so that stability can be shown in the process. But usually what we have is Commission this act acting outside of constitutional power and authority which would be a illegal exaction so the vicious attorney has the ability to file a lawsuit that I think would would eventually find a very fertile place in the Arkansas Supreme Court. And it's also any decision that's issued by the commission could be challenged and if its appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court I think it's going to get overturned and so you have a bit of a good people on their do good work that that as of right now or basically a paper tiger without any teeth because of the fact that they're operating outside of the the constitution state of Arkansas so. Most of this has nothing to do with us we don't have the ability to set up the commission change anything Amendment eighty gives all that to the Supreme Court and how that set up that you know from from my standpoint we don't have a say in it but the one thing we do have a say in the one thing that we have to be able to do is actually appropriate the funds and so if we don't move the funds with which this doesn't this preparation doesn't change anything from the just discipline commission preparation the positions are all the same the money's all this and everything exactly the same but we're just basically moving that from a separate entity over to which is operating judicial powers over to the only branch of government that has that the forty operate all judicial tires or to exercise it is buyers which is Arkansas judiciary. Seven so that I'm happy to answer any questions. You have any questions Senator you're recognized. So who's going to the work that they're doing now. It might so let me say this we we don't have a say in that but my hope is it's exactly the same people so if if I were them if I were the Supreme Court or firearms spring court or if they came to me and say Hey you know I want to know what your opinion is it would be leave all the same people in the same places do everything exactly the same at least for a time at a moving under their and honestly they need to set up a structure that that the provide some independence because essentially they could create a situation when the fox guarding the hen house because these the Supreme Court is also you know under the under judicial ethics so so that I mean if they were if they were smart and do a good job they would set up to be an independent but the truth is I can't answer with that that'll be and I have no authority to do so. So who's been so the Supreme Court is going to decide who is who's who and how any judicial discipline it's going to be handled including their own that well ultimately yes so they're if they're they're smart and they don't want to see a big rebellion they'll create something that's independent but ultimately we don't the date that answer will be whatever the Supreme Court decides it's going to do. It I I definitely see where that is that's not an easy thing to do I mean I I'm not even saying that that's great policy but that's what the people of Arkansas did when they made to the constitution. That's what the constitution requires so it was one amend the constitution then I think that we have an obligation to trust the judiciary to set up the system that would be fair and balanced and with could hold them accountable but I do understand I don't mean less yes seven paying attention you know I don't always agree with the judiciary but that amendment that you're talking about that to that basically doesn't give us the authority to have this commission was passed when a two thousand. So for twenty years it's not been a problem but now. Because of Justice Womack's decision we're going to scrap the whole commission yeah what I would say is I don't think that it it is not been a problem I'd say that the problem hasn't risen to the point where I mean seriously I think there's probably a pretty good illegal exaction lawsuit I think that there's probably it had been appealed to the the Supreme Court not really start recently under this court but if it does the commission is going to be overturned so it's just one of those fundamental questions that we talk about when he sets rulemaking rulemaking authority for the courts is is this because we don't have the authority to set this up by statute now I would say because this is so specific even if we had rulemaking authority there may be some questions I think at least at that point if we had a rule making authority we can have an opinion in this matter it still would probably be be the responsibility the judiciary the ultimately set it up but but yeah I mean this is an example of of Amendment eighty moved all judicial authority to the Supreme Court including discipline of themselves including disciplines but they didn't do that the people of Arkansas that that. Any further questions. Anyone else Senator Stubblefield you have one. Thank you Mr I did have a question Senator Hendren mostly asking. But it does seem to be like that this is a situation where. You do have the foxes guarding the hen house because if you have a couple Supreme Court judges or maybe even more that have a unique behavioral issue or get in some problems they're gonna discipline the sale. Well the answer would be no there be some form of a of a commission set up with the but we don't know what that's going to look like to alternately ultimately the court will have authority over whatever body it depend on how they set it up so they could could have the ability to do it although let me say this the I mean this commission is made up of of judges judges now are destined responsibility of of basically disciplining judges so the argument of the the fox guarding the hen house is is probably probably it may be even more intense under this but under the current regiment that's that's kind of the way it is we just trust them to be fair and balanced and honest in their approach and I hope that the court would do the same thing but the. I don't want to say that these arguments are moot because I think it's all relevant to talk about whether this is good policy but ultimately it's not a question of good policy or ultimately it's a question of is a constitutional or no is it constitutional for for this commission to exist which was merged into the the judiciary in two thousand when Amendment eighty was passed by the people and and since then has been operating outside of constitutional authority and so from our standpoint the only part of this that is really our business is exactly what you know the bill is designed to do is to move the preparation all the money all the structure exactly the same to the Supreme Court and say look go figure out what you're going to do I hope you do a good job that ultimately all of our our only responsibility when it comes to district is the preparation of the ward. Thank you thank you Mr. Any other questions from the. I believe we have any anyone for the bill of the audience. Anyone against the bill like to speak. You're recognized. Please please identify yourself. My name is David J. Sacher on the executive director of judicial discipline and disability spent thirteen and a half years their of my twenty two years in public service it's an honor to be here and speak with you I am here to oppose the bill and I've spoken with the sponsor about this a couple things that need to be pointed out before we even begin is there has been no Supreme Court order overturning amendment sixty six there was one opinion of one justice in a per curiam any more than a dissenting opinion would make you overturned the death penalty by one of seven justices there's been no order so there read as it stands today you have a constitutional office that this bill endeavors to dissolve which it could not do any more than it would with the attorney general's office so it's not right well and while I agree with the senator whole heartedly that there are discussions that need to be made for what happens if I also believe that nothing has happened yet that being said Amendment eighty does specifically say that constitutional provisions are repealed and it lists them. And then so their specific parts of says repealed it says everything else stays as long as consistent and then says in less they all survive in less you're reconciled will conflict with Amendment eighty and practically we operate under the power of the Supreme Court we they make all of our rules aye aye aye was put in a minute sixty six they make our procedural and substantive rules they have a third of representation on the commission no single body controls us more than Supreme Court all of our appeals have to go to them we cannot institute certain punishments without their approval even when they're agreed to by both parties in fact the Supreme Court of is the only body outside of that that that runs as I also agree that we all agree I believe that the best practices nationally and internationally is for judicial conduct commission to be independent I'm on the the list for Ohio because they have the same problem they're Supreme Court runs their discipline mechanism and therefore if they had a complaint against a Supreme Court becomes cumbersome they have to get some infirmity or someone different to do so so but I also agree with the senator that if it's unconstitutional it's unconstitutional but that's a discussion we need to have to find out is the Supreme Court we we only know of one justice five of them did not bring this up on their own when they had JDC matters with the special counsel they didn't defend that way so it would be strange to me to find out that while adjusters Womack and retired justice heart did the other five didn't bring that up so maybe there are the votes to overturn and say that we're merchant Amendment eighty maybe they're not but it's certainly not right right now and it's certainly not something where this body should dissolve the constitutional office and and go without us having some time to try to work that out if we could of course we'd like to know transition is is done I don't want my staff worried about their jobs being a disappearing in July. And I have told them that's not what this is about no one's out to get us or no one's complaining about our our jobs however you can understand how that is in this time uh that we when we have stuff like that going on So again until until there's a. You know irreconcilable conflict declared by four justices and that's how we do it we don't want four justices speak they speak as the court and that is low in so that read this quandary where the senator foresees an issue in the future I agree with them that could be an issue. But right now this should either go to interim study or should trust Senator US than Supreme Court to get together and try to work something out for if it does have anticipatory legislation and if it doesn't. What with the next case in controversy for the court I will determine that and I'm always happy to answer questions that I can I know you probably heard from some of my my commissioners are eighteen volunteer commissioner six judges six lawyers six laypeople who are appointed by the governor the Senate governor Speaker of the house there if they know you they know who you are and they're willing to speak to you about this as well I know it's not about the weather the JDC should exist and whether it's a good policy I agree with senator Stubblefield best policy would be for to be independent allowing all judges to be reviewed however while this is an issue it's just not an issue right now and it has not been declared unconstitutional as of yet so always happy to take any questions. Thank you any questions from the committee of the witness. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. I don't have any questions we have an opportunity to visit so we we know where we stand I'm happy to close for the legislation if you guys are ready for that. The thank you. I have a motion hi I'm sorry I'd like to just make a comment in my clothes if that's okay. Yeah yes Sir. Or so essentially I I mean I think he's he's right there hasn't been a decision by the court declaring it to be unconstitutional but once that happens that's going to happen it doesn't it let me say this it doesn't mean that it is constitutional because the Supreme Court had declared it the Supreme Court is not what makes something constitutional and unconstitutional the Supreme Court is one who has the ultimate authority to declare it one or what one way or another but it it it sits today as unconstitutional and so all I want to be able to do the same thing he wants to have the ability to do and that's for them to go work it out right but the problem is if we aren't in session if we're not here to be able to to work it out we don't have the ability to modify the appropriation so today we have that ability to modify the preparation and then give them the opportunity and time to work it out I don't I mean I I totally understand where he's coming from I don't want anybody to feel like their job is in jeopardy I and and I'm I'm glad that he understands this is not about getting him and it's not about their their function of their job what this is about is about what our job is as an appropriating body in order to get that done for them to be able to do their job I do understand that we've only heard from one justice the problem is they can't come down here and sit down here they have to recuse but I'm telling you the reason why I'm bringing this is because I'm confident that once this gets to the court they're going to declare it to be unconstitutional and so Evans said that you know I I appreciate it you know whatever happens today. This is not this issue isn't going away right so at some point we're going to have to address this and and to me it's better to get on the front and then after we have a big illegals actual costs. But I appreciate a good vote. Thank you senator do we have a motion. You saying No motion your bill does. Thank you very much that just a moment a personal privilege yes okay but let me just at it I kind of anticipated that that this would happen today and in I'm I'm in agreement that we probably need to need to have some more time to work on this we're going to be coming in a in a special session because of redistricting right to work there's no doubt we're gonna be coming back here in the fall I would just want to say that this body needs to be ready to address that the so I'll be drawn shall be filing a preparation to deal with this at that time so my hope is the court judicial discipline commission will get together to work it out and have everything. You know put together by the by the fall my hope is you as the body was a legislative body in general will also be prepared and ready to to deal with that at that time anyway appreciate appreciate y'all paying attention this matter thank you. Thank you senator thank you for your approach. Any any further by others business to come before. What makes means thirty first the thirty first okay make a note if you would our next meeting will be the thirty first of March at seven thirty on the thirty first being no further business we're adjourned and thank you very much for being here.