Public Retirement & Social Security Programs-Joint

Co chair this morning. I'm all good thank you Mr chairman all right with that being said it remind me I think that if we got more than two mikes on in here or three mikes okay so if we got more three mikes member remember that somebody's not gonna get to talk so the chair will keep his off just come in a little delay that way it'll allow for flexibility cage we have multiple witnesses at the end of the table with that being said we're gonna get started Ready there's no minutes or anything like that right yeah okay we're assured house bill twelve twenty five representatives Smith would you come the end table and bring anybody want to have testify and introduce yourself in them for the record please Sir. Thank you Mr chairman Stu Smith represented district sixty three. Joined by Mister Clint Rhoden. Thank you later so for the record please. Yes of Clint Rhoden Arkansas teacher retirement system all right with that you're recognized you in present house bill twelve seventy five and is there a financial impact that. Is attached to so members please be conscientious of that go ahead representative Smith. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the Arkansas teacher retirement system process for establishing reciprocal service. This is for participating in a reciprocal alternate retirement plan this bill establishes the basic rule to all funds must remain in the alternate retirement plan in order to establish reciprocal service. However exceptions for withdrawals after the member reaches the age of fifty nine and a half an eligible rollover transaction transactions under the Internal Revenue Code all out. This bill is needed to add fairness to the system for members that have served Arkansas at both the higher education level and the secondary level. If the IRS does not penalize certain withdrawals from an alternate retirement plan and they should not be penalized by the Arkansas teacher retirement system this bill will allow some members to be eligible for retirement benefits in keeping with the spirit of our recent process the loss the calculated Arkansas teacher retirement system benefits will still be based only on service credit and the teacher retirement system and the system actuary found that this bill would not have any significant cost effective. Click anything you want to add into it no Sir that was a of an accurate representation. Members have any questions. And I speak for the bill. But sorry it may speak against Bill. And they speak for the bill. Any other questions for members. Representative you're recognized close reveal like to close of make a recommendation do pass recommendation do pass as their second. Got a second Senator Elliot any discussion to the motion second. All favor say aye opposed. Congradulations represents you pastor bill. Thank you all right next up on the list is Senate bill two thirty one senator Johnson and Senator Johnson has a handout that would ensure in staff to pass out please. Senate Josh if anybody wants to speak with your present with you would you wouldn't have come to the table. All right center Johnson would you name and. Title who represent for the record you're recognized to proceed thank you Mr chairman mark Johnson State centre District fifteen. Mr chairman Senate bill two thirty one is the first bill ever filed after I was elected to the Senate it failed last session for a number of reasons including the incompetence of the sponsor hopefully I have learned and iron things out and. Got a little bit better grip on things this bill is really simple we have had a. I feel such an understatement so we've had a problem when we have specially elected officials who abuse their office Many people familiar with a gentleman by the name of Nick Wilson who is a former senator committee chairman of very powerful member of the legislature Former senator Wilson was convicted of corruption related to what he when he was in office related to him being a senator. he went to the federal penitentiary retired and drew his pension from a purse while he was still. In the federal penitentiary and the best of my knowledge to this day continues to draw that pension it was outrageous when it happened and it's still outrageous Let me make clear that if someone totally unrelated to their job. as a state employee is an elected official if they. Make a mistake if they do something wrong but it's unrelated to their job as a as a legislator or working in in an agency or whatever that's between them and the judge and the jury it doesn't of that would not a this bill would not affect their their pension but if someone abuses their position they use the trust that was placed in them by the voters or the taxpayers of Arkansas then they they would forfeit their pensions now. We claim this bill up several as is it we have to make it clear that under iris rules arisen everything else that relates to pensions the Member of the system is entitled to a refund of everything that they paid in. And that's in the bill it makes that perfectly clear I hit the handout I had shows that what other states have done and some are stricter than others I think we fall somewhere in the middle maybe a little bit above the middle as far as being more firm about this but there was a question two years ago about we're other states were in all this I have found this information this is from NASA which is pretty fact that they even had this chart tells me that there's quite a few states I didn't count them per se because some are a little bit different in others you can't say they're all exactly alike but it's something like its over thirty states have some Clause like this I think it was like thirty three thirty four that that do this in in one manner or another again this is a simple bill this just says to the crooks if you do this don't don't do this for you might lose your pension and again there is a. I always believe that life is a series of incentives and disincentives. And this is a disincentive for corruption now is it going to stop all corruption I'm I'm not so naive as to believe that but it certainly can maybe put a damper on it and I believe for that reason that it's a good bill and I would be happy to answer any questions about. Senator Elliot. Thank you Mr chairman good morning senator good morning Sir. Do you provide for I was trying to be sure I wasn't missing that provide for Say the family that has clearly might have depended on Pledis pension for their livelihood going forward does the. If the family for for everything as well sadly Senator that's correct they do and and let me point out that in that same family member was not a state employee or elected official and they decided to go rob a bank and the Rob the bank they were convicted they were sent to jail than that family would suffer as as all families do when someone is punished during court incarcerated now. Again I don't that's not the targeted this and maybe it'll save some of the pool out there from doing something that would harm his family as well as himself but it's no different in that case then it would be for any criminal that that committed something that would hurt not just his future but that is family if that isn't a concern now it wouldn't deny the committee the public benefits or other things it be available and certainly the the residue of the contributions that that employee that member of the system made would be something that could go to their family but this would to the the answer question is it worth. Well it seems in the example you gave up if somebody is in the job and it was a job that's different from the pension if an example. For the person commits robbery or whatever loses his or her job if that same person on the private sector had a pension that person wouldn't lose the pension would he or she. I don't know about that I do know that that that each individual plan has its own rules or regulations that could be that a company plan or and and again just from a statistics standpoint I have no answer that I would bet that there are some protections for the other members of the systems you know we've had some infamous cases where. someone stole from their company pension plan and in doing that they were jeopardizing that the future of every member that plan not just themselves so this is a and I hope they do have some kind of disincentive for bad conduct in those private plans but I try not to get too far out of what we're actually trying to cover in one notice here you know and then the right out from our consultants federal retirement law has a provision that would clearly prohibit the actions proposed in these bill and and such bills and I I guess I kind of have this I think this sounds like deja voodoo me and that I had the same concern last time around it's one thing to punish the perpetrator and if you lose your position you've lost your income so that the family but I'm just curious as to how you do what do you say to a family or you say that's too bad so sad to the family that clearly is going to be impacted by you know by something that's long term like this that's a result of employment but it's not loss of is this that's different from loss of a salary that was coming in are you comfortable with that have in the family they're the brunt of this comfortable is not a ward I would you senator I I feel for people who are indirect victims of someone else's misconduct and I think that we all are and frankly you not have colleagues that are their families are dealing with incarceration right now former colleagues I should say and that's it's a sad thing all the way around but the misconduct was sad and the Lack of of consideration for the public in the taxpayer's is also said but they're they're a lot of things in life as I said life is a series of incentives and disincentives so while I'm not comfortable that does trouble me to some extent I cannot see any way that you could to allow this to go any other way now that says a said certainly every bit of of a public assistance or anything would be available to those families as if they had a person that could no longer work or whatever but I need to thank you senator I appreciate your time thank you. All right members of a tell you who's on the list and if you're if you're not actually speaking of. Go ahead and turn your Mike off because in this room pushing your button doesn't get changed greater recognition sir but uh got to representative warned sample and then records up to represent one Senator sample representative right uh are up so represented one you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair the. Senator Johnson completely appreciate what your bill is trying to do I guess having worked in trust I have a concern because there is a contractual obligation that is established with a retirement plan. Where monies are put in it becomes a separate. The obligation of that plan. That. Moneys put in have to be distributed per the plan. So. There's a contractual obligation to make a distribution at a given point in that plan so. I'm just concerned if we go down this road. This is going to be challenged in the courts are we going to be putting the state in a position to defend. This position this piece of legislation. So I don't know if there is someone in the room Mr chairman that could speak to the legality of what we're we're talking about if there is an attorney on board that could speak to this or someone that could address that issue. I've only got one person signed up to speak against anybody in the room that. Can speak to that from a legal standpoint of you. If the if I could Mr chairman and represent warrants question is is legitimate but it's we're not exactly looking at a of zero sum equation here you you also have in the case of someone that that does this they're prosecuted and that cost the state money to prosecute them also and I mentioned do we know what the the courts would rule we know that we have a majority of the states that have some form of this already now if any time. Someone breaks the law and and violates the trust. There's negative ramifications outside that individual and as far as a contractual obligation representative Warren it's yes it is one but like every contract there are certain it both stated rules and implicit rules when the rules is that you don't Evander take it to the extreme is you could say someone stole. Ten million dollars out of a fifty million dollar retirement trust and then they retired it it's almost equivalent of someone that that murder their parents and threw themselves on the mercy of the court is because they were an orphan I mean I'm not making light of it I'm just simply saying that you you created or move toward creating the problem therefore you have to suffer the consequences. Okay thank you and at a to what I'm going to in a little bit because I've got a question about Jodie's analysis someone get Jody to the table in just a minute okay but we're gonna go through the questions of the members and then we'll get to that and just second okay and then anybody wants circle back up get the Q. Senator sample. Thank you Mr chairman. Members we've been down this road several times over my tenure in this committee and. We never have Leding thing like this out because the ramifications of the. It being. In conflict with our its rules and everything. but center question is if you're trying to. And your testimony there you talked a lot about about elected officials if you're trying to do that why don't you just do that rather than taking everybody everything else and including all the other members just make it. But for the elected officials I think you'll have a lot better look at passing this bill. Then including everything. Well Sir sample I'm not trying to get left and I'm not trying to prove a point here I'm trying to pass a bill that I think the vast majority the people of Arkansas want they don't like corruption either in elected officials or and people within the bureaucracy I think that is a point to our Kansans that we would say it's okay if you work of say in a. The I will pick a particular agency but in an agency and you take a bribe or you do something wrong to look the other way or break the law while you're under the under the cover color of law you you're being given given the trust you've been given a job and even in the long run you've been given a pension and if you break that trust there should be a penalty for and this is all it says it it causes people that do something quite wrong there could not just for a felony Senator not just any crime of felony and misdemeanor would not put anyone at risk in this so I'm not trying to be play hardball on this but I feel strongly and many many people I've talked to feel the same way that we don't need to coddle criminals a specially those that violated the public trust and that's that's the purpose of the bill so I won't I won't change it just because I might not pick up a vote here they're from people that to maybe want to protect someone down in the lower level that made a mistake but I do feel strongly and many of my constituents I've talked to feel the same way. The center I'm glad you feel strongly about this but I think you're going about the long way and we will just see how vote comes out okay thank you senator. I might add to that you mention the R. S. Senator. The R. is only talks about federal retirees there's nothing in. If if there weren't we wouldn't have a majority of states that have some form of this so this is not prohibited under federal law and I think that two years ago there was an implicit statement that it is prohibited by federal law in the Mr Carrero came down very hard saying of the IRS probably won't let us do this will the IRS let him do it in these other thirty plus states. So I challenge that remark and hi. This the committee in the General Assembly may do as it wishes on this bill up or down but don't say it's because it would violate federal law because I think it's pretty clear it does not. So Senator Johnson I take it that you're turning right think about what Sir that you're an attorney no Sir I'm not an attorney. You saying we've well I'm just pointing out these facts senator and let them speak for themselves okay we'll we'll we'll ask the experts next. All right moving on the representative I. Yes Sir thank you Mr chairman Senator Clark I have one question con conserving let's just say that Person there's something wrong in nineteen seventy eight. And they're they've been drawn attention for forty years how will this affect that situations or. I'm not a lawyer is appointed at Senator sample representative right however I do know about the constitutional prohibit prohibition on ex post facto this if someone it might use the example of former senator will say he'll still get his pension it won't change anything you can't make this law retroactive it would only be from someone who was convicted from the effective date of this this act forward. You don't. It would be from this point forward from the date of the effective date of the act forward to location thank god thank you. Representative Maddox. Thank you senator I appreciate your tenants have a question about frankly about the intent on line thirty one it states if a person is can if a person is convicted of a felony offense related to the duties of his or her office as a public employee I'm thinking broadly about frankly travel I'm one of one of our duties but one of other people's duties it is travel let's say that someone causes an accident doing it very excessive speeds in injure someone seriously they can be charged criminally with that if someone's are bad enough they can be charged with a felony. Would that it is your. Is that something you want to cover in this. I appreciate your insight on that represented Maddox and and the fact that that it yes there are criminal say there's someone. It's drunken driving the state card in a crash and somebody dies and they could be charged with a felony That that's a extreme example of it it's probably you're probably correct that could be considered in part of their duties but this is primarily related to what their official duties are not the peripheral things related to it I mean if but I get your point and I think it's a valid point but I think it's probably in a minuscule number of what we're talking about here we're talking about your duties are to be stewards for example of of public monies and if you is gone with them then this this act would apply. Follows yes certainly understand that I understand the theft component and I I've frankly I I do get that I do know though if you're just forget intoxication if you're driving a very excessive speeds I'm not committing reckless conduct which can be deemed a felony that concerns me frankly I don't think that's what you're trying to do but that's pretty broad language Basically. That's a concern of mine I don't know that that again I don't think that's what you're wanting to do but you know we're trying to think through all the possible scenarios so that's that's very good point it is not what I'm trying to do however if someone did this multiple times if they were a habitual drunk driver and they did it on state time I would like to think that are their supervisors would would catch something like that and they would be without a job again they could be all these scenarios could happen but it would have to rise to the level of a felony before they would be at risk to to lose their pension. Done representative Max okay we're on Senator Teague. Good morning Mr chairman I was late because I went to the wrong. room Senator Johnson I don't worry so much about the employee who is in trouble by worry about their lives and maybe you in kids or grandkids are loaded with them I worry about how they continue to live when you take intervention away. Senator Teague before you got here senator Elliots asked a similar question. And of course you did. And my answer to her two two breviary eight laws that that's a sad situation but it's also sad situation when a father commits a felony goes to present his family loses the income he was otherwise making but we don't give him a pass because he has dependents and we certainly don't deny public assistance and other benefits to those families of incarcerated individuals so and as I said to her and I'll repeat it again life is a series of incentives and disincentives this is an incentive for people who have a public trust to do the right thing. I'd sure hate to have to live up on public benefits thank you Mr chairman. And am I a follow up Senate take the public doesn't want to pay. For a lifetime of leisure for someone who stole from them and that's really what this is about. Any other members have questions. At a regular rate to a representative Richardson then representative one representative Richardson thank you Mr chair of the Senate isn't is it true that in the event there found guilty that what they contributed will go will be going back to them yes Sir absolutely are doing something yes Sir it is and that again that is a federal law and it is in case law and it to they would receive every penny they contributed to the systems so it it's not that there's there's no money involved it's is there they will get their money back that they have a property right in that that now they may have restitution or fines or other things that can be garnished but that's between the court and the plans and I at least listen to exchange the last two years when I had been working on this then there are cases that where there's garnishment a partial garnishment of pensions and I don't know the percentage that the that's allowed to be garnished but it would be. Good okay represent one. Thank you Mr chairman Quigley skip the actuaries opinion on this sure can into a Modesto Senator sample raises hand and then we'll call you good okay all right any other questions at this time for members. Jody comes for you all have questions feel free Jody would you mind coming up represent warn you're recognized for. Specifically what is it you want Jody to do. I guess I go back to. My concerns Jody it just dealing with trust documents because. Attorney's draft trust documents that are designed to protect the beneficiaries of these trust documents so would and and I feel like we're violating the beneficiaries rights with this bill so and I understand it's being done in other states but I also don't want the state in a costly battle so would you speak to. What we're trying to what we're attempting to do here. This is going to be a difficult task and what are your thoughts on. Yes Sir I. For the record Jody Carreiro and I'm actually for the committee and what one of my concerns and one that I listed in my letter will. Well I'm sorry the other thing I meant to say was that I'm not an attorney but I'm an actuary I practiced in pension pension issues for over thirty years and so I have to deal with pension law but. Not not a practicing attorney but one thing that does concern me representative warned that I mentioned was the the contract because it's in our state constitution and and the way that I understand that way that attorneys of explain that to me in times past is once that everything is signed in and you sign your documents that you retire and I'm talking about a retiree at this point but once you sign all your paperwork that you're retired and you started receiving a benefit that that would most likely be considered to be a contract with the state that that would you would have good reason to think that they could not be could not be broken that. Rec center Johnson is is accurate that many states have some form of of this and every state's contract clauses are a little different and that's always one of those things that gets talked about when I go to go to sessions on public pensions is that you know how that error every state works and how that they each work and operate a little differently that would be a concern I would have the way that I understand the Arkansas contract clause. Thanks for personal. Jody let me ask you this right based on what you just said that would only apply. If the individual had retired and signed that contract is that correct the the example I stated was was with a someone who has retired and sign their retirement paperwork yes Sir okay so as this bill is written and centers of senator of Johnson way in because I'm just looking for for what's the right thing. As this bill as written know if an individual is working maybe they're in their tenth year and we hear so much and legislative audit that individuals within agencies you know embezzle money we get these reports all the time and that person is convicted. In their thirteenth year they have a sign that contract yet. How would in that scenario. This bill not have any weight or. We wouldn't have to worry about this particular situation you're dressing because I haven't signed the contract yet. Yes Sir that that that's correct I would I would still. The there are still concerns for me in that situation but the particulars of a contract clause concern is not as strong it in a situation where someone is still working I would just I would still have the the other the other concerns that I stated and what one that I'd like to let let me mention one other is that. you know two years ago and then again this time uh talked all the system directors as to what the practice is in what happens in our various Arkansas systems and there are cases in each system. Where there the court has came to the system and said we need to do something well they don't directly in most cases don't directly garnish the pension but they work out a deal with the judge that part of the pension might go to a different account and then that account then as garnish or whatever and so they keep they they they work with the course but they keep that outside of the pension plan and I think that that I think that is important even though we're not directly prohibited it I think that is important and to me since there is another way to accomplish this it's the safer way to accomplish. Mister chairman I'll respond to the questions and and Mr gross comments in this way The intent of the Is a state employee not after they've retired now if someone commits a crime totally unrelated to their job before they retired they're getting a pension that is an asset that according to other laws and how it's limited in how much you can garnish I know things like social security and and veterans pensions are protected to some extent I don't know the percentages off top of my head but the fact is that you have money coming in and you all were fine or you restitution then the court can garnish that an asset believe that's basically what Mr Kerr said but this is separate in and to answer your in in my answer to the representative rise question this bill is not retroactive in anyway if someone retires and there do something wrong and they conviction of a crime and they owe money whether it's fine or restitution any assets they have or. Assembly subject to being taken but the pension could continue and at my last conversation with the papers people's under the previous administration they said that the they were still look a garnishment from a court that senator Wilson's pension was being garnished so this is a this is perspective. there are many people that we have a lot of things going on in in in our wake that we sweep there it's back behind us now but this is going forward so pick a date July one this bill is affected from that point on a state employee that that participated in felonious conduct as a part of their job related to their job and I and I agree with the representative Maddox that needs to be clearer and and I certainly wouldn't if that's a the only sticking point we can clear that up but I I think it's a clear to know that it's only about when you do something wrong as a state employee or elected official you violate your oath you violate the trust of the public then you're not entitled to the benefit that the many many many good people out there that have served our state well and and kept their nose clean and never succumb to the temptation for corruption they need to be rewarded they their their money in this trust needs to be protected from the crooks even though it's a it may be a less than infinitesimal percentage of these you know multi billion dollar pension plans it's still the principle is that that bad guys shouldn't be rewarded with a lifetime pension from the state of Arkansas okay and I'm asking questions I'm going to Senator sample Senate simple you get ready. Based on what you just said as far as the intent it's not so much directed toward the retirees as much as is the current employees but yet in the title and throughout the bill it has retirant mentioned in there so could you clarify what you just said against the language in the bill. Mr. Mr chairman I just simply submit that it did that the test to do so otherwise would would be violating the principle of ex post facto you can't make something that happened yesterday a crime today you've got to pass the bill going forward I mean to be like well I don't I don't have to explain this weird that we're dealing with smart people here to understand that concept this is a bill that will have an effective date if it's becomes an act and it'll apply only going forward it won't apply for anyone going backward I I even ask myself in doing that in drafting this. What about someone that steals a bunch of money from the state. And then retires. And then it's discovered say audit comes in and finds gosh this guy just plain Ole stole this money and then they take it to the prosecutor and they're prosecuted in their convicted with this supply I'm not sure. I'm not I really think it might not because it was they wouldn't have been a written retirement at the time effective date of the axo that's what I want to retire but they hadn't Committee traffic that anything that's gray. Has to be construed. In favor of the individual even if they're criminal because we do not pass laws that affect people retroactively that violates both word and the spirit of the US constitution Senator sample. Thank you Mr chairman I find but with your questions and Senator Johnson's testimony has answered my questions about. If if if a state employee stole from the state then the judge can Take is or parts of his pension as restitution and so. That was marketing going to be my question I think Senator Johnson and both Jody have answered that question okay thank you senator samples thank you Mr all right last one on the list is represented right. Yes Sir. By Senator you know I thank you on my end it kind of gets back to what representative John was speaking about earlier in the conversation I don't think that we would. Need to mention anything. Being a. Applied up against this unless it was directly related to the job you know good and clear because just like save is failing maybe a failing outside the realm of where we work or any other official not we had a situation happened in Jonesboro and I can understand that totally because that was at the job but you know if you mention India's felony count loosely or it could break outside the realm of of of the job description that the person is involved in. When you commit a crime yes I believe this. Represent pricing you're speaking of the the Clerk issue in Craighead County Without this bill that that individual and I know he was a young man I don't know we're free was vested in the system or not but without this bill he stole in the millions of dollars I don't know how much but a lot and that he would be able draw pension under without this bill he would be able to drop pension now What but again everything is perspective it's going for we're not gonna go back twenty years ago and and get someone so what you did that now we've got a law so we're going to cut your pension off that would not happen. One more yes Sir. But but center on the question of anything other than the job description itself does this cover a felony like if the situation were representative John was speaking about he got out and got loaded or something and he he got a job you have for a third time you sick person we got a a data we have for the third time and it becomes a felony what would cover that too. My personal opinion represent right is that would obviously of prosecutorial discretion here the the prosecutor would have to decide on that type of thing on the other hand it's an egregious thing if someone had a of do you I that went so far as it could be a felony in other words it was maybe a a death involved or or something like that but I do know that if that person were driving a stake Kerr was working for the state on state time you could bet that the State of those individuals will probably be coming to the claims commission and because of of a of a state the state having a liability on it now the details of that are just that the details would would. Probably have more to do with how that came down than anything else and we we can sit here and think up hypotheticals like that all day long but the prosecutors would be making that decision in in my opinion it is gonna come down I think it's a gray area clearly and I appreciate the representative mass looked at that and and saw that but I think the we're like a lot of things we do here we can't cover every single eventuality and that's I'm trying to again create a disincentive for people that have a public trust at all kinds of levels from violating that trust today to run do got representative Richardson and then we have one person signed up to speak against the over. Just read motion motion at the proper time okay all right I'll consider that a little bit will let's let the process work a little more thank you all right NO other members are signed up to asking questions or going to go to the speak for against. we have signed up to speak against L. spoke chief of the state capitol police and. If you will come to the Microphone please miss Fulton the state your name and also the organization or interest that you're representing please and you're here to speak against the bill right. Yes Sir thank you Mister chair my name is Alice full can I am chief of state capitol police but I'm here representing the Arkansas chiefs association in much the what I've said is actually kind of been covered by some of the House remarks earlier but again mainly we just kind of wanted to go on record that we we are against this bill we do feel like the report from your Act chair I mean from your committee actuary identifies that there are some iris concerns we also have concerns about beneficiaries that would you know potentially be subject to to this bill and again you know we don't typically take four oh one K.'s we don't take social security from somebody that's been convicted of a felony and and of all people be in law enforcement I'm I'm not condoning any kind of felony but also have a little bit concerned with just some of the verbiage. You know when you talk about you know a felony offense related to the duties of his or her office as a public employee I just wonder how would you apply that in particular to like a law enforcement officer you know what it just be when they're on duty or because many times people feel like a law enforcement officer you're always on duty at I just feel like it it could be tightened up a little bit I think it's really broad and and I I have some concerns but again that that just we just want to go on record as opposing. What let me ask you a question yes Sir your position on opposing it is it because of the way in which the bill was written the practicality or the principal or what your what what is specifically your that the principle of it but even looking at the wording the wording I think is too broad brush for even the intent that that Senator was saying because he keeps mentioning corruption but you know I look at things that I I could read even if I were or in the mind set to to be for it which principally I'm against it but just the wording of it if it's against corruption say you have somebody it's a police officer and we consider them you know kind of a role model so we you know went when is their course their duty when is not teachers are role models say they get out here and unfortunately they've had a few too many drinks and they're involved in an accident and someone dies and they're charged with negligent homicide which is a B. felony. Is that corruption I just kind of look at that and I see some. Some things that could tweak it but in principle we are against it okay and then I'm one question I recognize Senator sample when when somebody says or against something in principle I interpret that to mean that in this case you would not be supportive of people being held accountable for their action as far as the money being reboot and then there's being against something on the principle that it's just the way in which the language is written that you disagree with which one is it principal at that the first one that the just that you know what we don't take your social security if you're convicted of felony we don't take your four oh one K. if you're convicted felony there are some IRS concerns in this whole. Whole bill and then also you know I think the beneficiaries of these plans are another major concern so that's why we're we're against it and have you based your opinion about the IRS on consulting with an attorney or you're just taking it from Jodie's report or Mr Carrera's report okay all right Senator sample. Thank you Chief. If one of your officers. B. his wife pretty violently. Would he be. Eligible to receive his So his retirement benefits according to this piece of legislation. I don't. So. If anyone be to live. Like that I'm not saying that that's. Should be allowed but I mean there's a lot of a lot of things that this bill will take in the I don't think it's been recovered Thank you Mr. Right any other members have a questions for misspoke. Okay thank you. All right any Any other questions of the committee for allow Senator Johnson to close for his bill. Senator Johnson you're recognized close for your bill thank you Mr chairman. I appreciate the chief coming and giving that perspective I think police officers are a good example and maybe unique example let's let's just say she talked about off duty of. A police officer courses a police officer twenty four seven many of a moonlight and security jobs and that's fine nothing wrong with that let's say in their off hours they decided they wanted to start a little sideline business they want to become drug dealers. and they got caught and they were convicted of a felony then I don't believe that they are to be able to say well I was off to this had nothing to do with my job. Because there sworn officer there their job is to protect the law and to protect the citizens all the time now if a school teacher for example Decided. And to get some of these cases are so ludicrous I have to laugh at him but let's say a school teacher decided that I'm going to. Become a bank robber and I'm like you know go knock off the First National Bank of forever and they're convicted of that now that's a crime they should be punished but it had absolutely nothing to do with their duties as a school teacher so I think that you don't eat we can all disagree on some of the finer points in and that the group excellent example that to representative Maddox made but I think there's a it's easy to differentiate between someone who is occurred for example like a corrupt police officer versus a school teacher that commits a crime totally unrelated to their their job as a teacher's so I want to make that point clear We keep coming back to this issue Mr Guerrero's view what the IRS says the reason I pass this Lestat is it shows what is going on in the real world in our other states in Arkansas we actually have a restriction. It says a retirement system beneficiary convicted of murdering a member of a public retirement system of the state forfeits the right to benefit from that system so we we set the bar pretty high murder will cause you to lose your pension. And the IRS didn't make a differentiation between other violent and serious crimes and murder so I guess to this point maybe or maybe not we're LOL you could lose your pension is if you murder somebody and M. negligent homicide or some other type of felonious conduct would not affect that at all. and that's where we are today and I I've I have sincerely believe that the people of Arkansas expect us to hold. I know they expect this to hold Blake servants to a higher level of scrutiny that you should not be rewarded for the rest of your life if you commit a felony in the line of duty not outside that. Not outside that but to. In your official duties you broke the law I needed broker break a little low you broke a big law you committed a felony so I'm I'm grateful the committee for this discussion and I appreciate the the the the fleshing this out this is a great part of the process and those of you that disagree with us to let me respect in those that Harrison for me I'm I'm grateful for your support in Mister chairman I'm close all right Sir Johnson's close for his bill representative Richardson you wanted a motion at proper time this proper time move do pass get a motion to pass have second. A second. Senate Johnson bill fails on lack of second and thank you and thank you Mr chairman thank you represent Richardson for yours because sponsorship in your motion. Just friendly word from the chair maybe get with representative Matix and address of the concerns that were addressed. All right this summer moved on are you going to present Senate bill two thirty to represent one. Okay. Represent Max. Insurance and Commerce. That's right. It is what stay here but it it is what it is. It is what it is I don't think the recipes run take very long. All right to. Members represent worn is presenting for senator letting Senator Leding had a of property engagement with his family that prohibited him again down here time and so represent wards going to pick up the bill run it represent when you're recognized to present Senate bill two thirty two AM please acknowledge yourself and have your guests go ahead for the record knowledge himself Les Warren representative district twenty five. Clint Rhoden Arkansas teacher retirement system all right go ahead you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman currently a teacher retirement member employed under contract for a hundred and eighty one days or more is required to make contributions on their salary to a TRS this current law was adopted in the nineteen nineties at that time the typical teacher retirement contract was four hundred eighty one days now the typical teacher retirement contract is four hundred and ninety days the purpose of this bill is to allow teacher retirement members who are still in non contributory status to be able to accept contracts up to a hundred and eighty four days and not be mandated into the contributory designation over the past twenty years the typical teacher contract has increased from a hundred and eighty one days two hundred ninety days it makes sense to increase the contributory designation mandate two hundred and eighty five contract days. This bill is needed to allow for better recruitment of employees who work primarily on the days that students are present school. But school employees serving as pair professionals food service staff and bus drivers employed based on the Hendren and seventy eight days that students are present school by increasing the contributory mandate the number of available paid training days will be increased from two days to six days this change is essentially technical in nature to adjust for an increase in the typical certified teachers contract the system's actuary found this bill would not have any significant cost back to I would be glad to entertain any questions and questions from members. This road you got anything to add I do not know it was a fair and accurate representation of the bill good anybody speak against the bill. And I speak for the bill. Representative you want clothes for Senator lettings bill I do this is just bring us up to current school days and I would ask for a do pass all right we've got to do pass as their second got a second any discussion. All favor say aye hi any posed congratulations you pass the bill for Senator Leding. Zero nine to twelve ninety nine The representative warn you gonna finish it up this morning so twelve ninety nine anybody wanna bring to the table yes I would ask Julie Bates to please join me at the table and I think we've got an amendment to this so we're going to pass out the amendment is that right yes Sir okay. Yes ma'am. It's a wave. Would you go ahead and explain your motion please I may explain your amendment amendment yes Sir and I apologize committee members I thought it already had the two amendments that are going to be presented this morning and five four members own but last week or two or a little crazy and it did not so we're going to ask for adoption of those amendments this morning the. This amendment basically is the crux of the bill what we're doing is asking for an increase from the one percent that's allowed in statute right now two five percent of the aggregate paid for personnel costs during the preceding fiscal year of an institution to be used as incentives for getting people both tenured and non tenured two incentivize M. go ahead and retire. So that is the Basis of the amendment so I would ask for adoption of the amendment for take that motion Julie would you introduce yourself further I'm sorry. Julie Bates CFO at the Arkansas state university system our thank you all right we've got a motion to well we got a motion to have second. All right which would take questions first and Senator Elliot. This is just regarding hiring it is this yes well okay and I'll get into that explanation president eighty of president presenting the bill what will a part of your explanation well that they will tell us why we need to incentivize people to leave when it seems like we can't get enough people so let's just help me out with that part yes ma'am. Okay we got a motion do I have a second to accept the amendment got a second any discussion to the motion to adopt the amendment all favor say aye all right a post all right you're recognized to present your bill as amended thank you Mr chair house bill twelve ninety nine will allow institutions of higher learning to go from one percent to five percent of the aggregate personnel cost in the preceding fiscal year to use as early retirement incentives this is not new money just reallocation of funds being allotted for specific purposes for institutions of higher education this move should lead to cost savings at as the end result will be to eliminate some of the higher salaried individuals both tenured and non tenured this does not impact the state retirement plans. This the and all this is is and I'll ask you only to clarify if I get off base here these are people who are like one year away from retirement and this is a one time incentive to encourage them to go ahead and retire because the salaries have gotten to a really high level allows them to go on and recruit someone to come in and replace them but I talked to also taught Kevin Anderson he said the only thing that he could see in this was cost savings so Julie if you would I would appreciate any additional comments you would offer. Anything else. Yes Sir Senator Elliot it definitely is a voluntary program so it's it's opened up the retirement window is opened up and then at the employee may choose to take the window if it's best for them but if they ought to take it then that allows institutions to restructure their positions and possibly not reveal a position or refill it at with the new person just coming into the job market so it's that kind of a win win for that personnel. For the for the employee and for the institution. Senator I need to I want to add a couple of comments there. At one percent. With all of our higher education institutions. One percent at a Henderson state university and one to one percent at Arkansas state or the University of Arkansas is really different to go to five percent it is a big help. The other point that I want to make that I didn't in my opening statement is that. I visited with several University systems. As I understand it everybody is on on board with this this is a move that everybody likes I do not know of any opposition to this so. Do you have questions Senator really okay go ahead. My concern is totally different from money out. And I just. When we have. Difficulties right now I think getting and maintaining good people if you really wanted somebody to remain and maybe we don't maybe the consideration is only salary and I have to say that would bother me some. We've got some people who want to keep it just kinda gets me that we want to incentivize them to leave that because just because of cost savings and that seems to be the only reason This and then we're gonna get somebody in it's going to cost less and all that where does it where does how do we ever way getting somebody for less money less money and quality of staff and. What's afforded to our students how do we balance that because that didn't even into the conversation. And that's my concern nobody is against saving money but at what cost. Okay I I'm going to let the the University systems answer that but as I a approach this my a understanding was that the quality would not be affected replacements that come in would be quality people so Julie I'll let you answer or any other. University personnel. thank you representative Warren I would agree it really is honestly a You're not going to see somebody probably take disincentive unless they're really at toward the end of their career and it really is a chance for some younger people like my son just that just got his first job hope to come in and enter and you know work and enter the workforce and bring some fresh new ideas and I in I cannot remember size enough this is voluntary on the part of the employee to accepted or non accepted so And speaking to the one percent and it very unfairly punishes the smaller schools because it limits their ability to offer the incentive and I've I appreciate represent warrant and introducing this for higher education. Senator Elliot done. Well I just I do want to be on record saying I'm not against the notion of anything anything that you just said but it is kind of bothersome to me to that. We pay our higher ed people such a pittance to start with. And it seems to me we ought to be on the side of making sure that new person who comes in is not just a. Less costly person And if we were supporting higher read as we should this wouldn't be such a big deal and to me that's the down fall and all of this we are enabling even more so policy that is already a bad policy of not supporting higher it as we should because when you look at some of those salaries especially for starting folks it is just an embarrassment to this state. And I'm not looking for more of that that doesn't mean I'm I'm I'm going to vote against the bill I'm not but is just bigger than we just can get somebody out so we can get a cheaper person in and that bothers me considerably. But represent right. Yeah sure thank you senator. Representive last could you explain this just a little bit on this five percent aggregate paid where does that come from server and how would that affect the overall picture for persons retirement. Okay that is each university's budget. It's it's allowing them right now they're allowed to use one percent of the total personnel costs from the previous fiscal year. We're increasing that amount to five percent of the total personnel costs from the previous fiscal year is what they can the aggregate amount. That they can use to incentivize people who are close to retirement to go ahead and retire. Follow up. Yes Sir what represented less would this be like if someone was making of fifty thousand or less later they were based on fifty thousand dollars over the past three or four years with this with this be like five percent. Added to the overall picture or what how do you explain that from the year before representative Lee is. Okay the five percent. Is multiplied times the total. Personnel costs from the previous year that is the lump sum that that university system has to incentivize anybody that they want to. Incentivized to go ahead and retire that year they can use part of the for one employee they can split it among one or twenty employees whatever they whoever however many they want to incentivize but that's just the aggregate total of what they can use it's not for anyone. The each individual gets. Is calculated by what the system wants to give them to incentivize them that's that total is just the total to get to work with. It doesn't affect the retirement as. No it does not is just an incentive that's paid to the employee to the teacher. Represent one let me just had a couple of quick bullet points out number one what you're doing is creating a greater margin from one to five percent in order to level the playing field on the very spot because we have very size universities yes Sir smaller ones are disadvantaged by not raising the cap to five percent is that correct that's correct second thing is this is simply voluntary in that if the university chooses to offer this or maybe who knows maybe the professor leverages and says Hey I might do this if you consider this and let the negotiation happen between the professors in the universities is that correct that's correct okay and as far as cost to the system is is there by taking the green sheet there is no additional cost it's actually covered within the current budgets of the systems is that correct that is correct Sir okay any other questions. Nobody speak against the bill. If I speak for the bill. No other questions from the membership here to close for your bill I'm ready close I think this just even sell the ability for each system to be able to do this something sorry being done a little bit more fairly I would ask for it to pass good do pass their second. As amended a motion that motion do pass from represent worn as amended seconded by representative Perry does your hand all right as amended or a discussion to the motion of the men of passing as amended. All favor say aye hi post congratulations pastor bill thirteen twenty five thank you. Thank you Sir. House bill thirteen twenty five the purpose of this bill is to streamline and find specific terms used throughout the retirement code. In addition some of the proposed changes or to give flexibility for each retirement system to manage their benefits as determined within their section of the code as well as by their governing boards one change in particular. Excuse me. Is to allow each system to define average compensation as it applies to reciprocity this bill as a result of discussions between apers teachers what the and Asher's over the last year myself Jody Carreiro system directors and key staff have participated in the drafted bill. Systems collect employee and employer contributions based on salaries paid an individual Payton individual while employed in a covered position these contributions along with investments are the only means of funding and individuals annuity benefit. In situations where an employee changes jobs and moved from one system to another system. That system ceases to receive funding for the benefit. Once employee terminates employee employment currently at retirement an employee's benefit annuity is based on their high salary with the state. So we'll assume the high salary was with system be a system a system a is required to base their benefit payments on the salary that was paid under system B. I'll give you two system let's say system a was at thirty thousand system be at fifty five thousand. So there's a big difference in this one example that I'm looking at. It causes system one system where there was a lesser salary to pay five thousand dollars more. A year out. Because they're having to pay it the state high salary. So I'm just going to give you my two cents forcing a retirement system to pay out on a higher salary than what was used for collection purposes for the time the person was in that system is a recipe for disaster. What if your business had to pay out more based on what your employee did at another job. And that's what. We've been under with the standard language. In retirement plans by saying state high salary. One system let's say in your younger years you work for one system. And as is typical. You make a lesser salary when you start out. You contribute based on that lesser salary. You decide you want to take another job it's under another system you go to that system new system. You leave your contributions that the old system. You go to a new system you work up you get a better final average compensation over here. So. This benefit is going to be higher. What is currently in the law is saying that this other system that you started out in has to pay out of what you did on the latter end of your employment. And that's a strain on the system. These are defined benefit. Plans we do not need to burden these defined benefit plans by making them pay out. At greater rates than what they took in. And so if you've remember throughout this committee we have been having the plans come in and setting their own final average compensation. That's fair to that plan. So what this is doing right now it could be construed there's a conflict. Between what the individual plans have done and the language that exist for the overall retirement system so this would put would make it where there's no longer a conflict that the individual plans can establish their own final average compensation so with that I would be glad to take any questions. Members have any questions. Senator Elliot. Thank you Mr chair is sold we've had these discussions in here already a I think you know this since we've been and and this session yes well. Are we on doing anything that we. I have already done in this session. We're making it where there's no conflict with the old language. But I'm trying to be sure we we have not passed something already in in this in twenty twenty one. We've not pass something already that this would then on do I'm confused about that because we talk so much about the reciprocity issue that's correct okay yeah that's correct we talked about it now the question are we on doing anything that we have done already in this session by passing kind of an omnibus bill that includes all of the of all the retirement system's I will last Jody Carreiro to come to the table I'm going to answer you and he can correct me if I am okay wrong on this what we are doing we have passed several bills between last session and this one that is allowed each system to basically set their own final average compensation. There is. Language that has been in the statute for a long time. It could be construed that there is a conflict between what has been passed last session and the session that someone could argue wait what wait. It shall past and what was written years ago there's conflict we want to do away with that conflict. And allow these plans to only pay out based on what people have contributed while they've worked in those plans. So. DO you are recognized self please and go ahead address senator Elliots question please yes Sir Jody Carreiro actually for the committee and yes and and some of my notes I've noted in the bills for the systems that they they could create some conflict with this section unless this bill is passed unless thirteen twenty five is passed because of the you know some of the things as representative warns pointed out some of those definitions here. Seem to conflict with this general definition and and that's that's part of what's kind of overlap there. But those of always existed center I guess maybe that's the point I want to make is that that that there's been there's been some things in the definitions of the individual systems that don't necessarily match the reciprocal code the the piece of the code that's reciprocal has been built up over a bunch of sessions a bunch of years and doesn't. As with those type of sanctions it is become kind of cluttered there was multiple definitions of final average cop in that section so what we part of what this does is it cleans up all of a notice that there were large chunks that were just deleted out and then re written in a more logical form so This cleans up any possible conflict with what's what's been done. It doesn't clean up any conflict with any bill we have passed in this session is what because I'm trying laws we pass something that we thought was going to be low. And now we're past the we now passing something that's going to do that and I and I totally understand the premise here I'm just trying to be sure if somebody's looking at a bill we've already passed and they think this is what it's going to be and then we passed this bill that's more that's more encompassing and now no actually what we passing you thought that was going to be the case that's not going to be the case now because we're going to pass this law which is going to you Sir the former one we've already passed in this session yes ma'am I understand I'm I'm I'm just wanna be sure I'm understanding correctly and and let me let me try let me try again by example an example is Senate bill one O. four only because I remember that number Senate bill one O. four was in Asher's bill where they changed their definition of final average comp and they took out a reference to state high salary if if this bill it as it is that it is passed and I've been signed everything's good if this bill is not passed if this bill is passed there will not be a conflict if this bill is not passed there is a possible conflict so this does not harm anything that is already been done by this committee this would supplement and clarify anything that's already been done by this committee. If I can add Senator. But my word would be. This bill reinforces several bills that we have passed last session and the session. It makes it where those bills. Our. Without question there is no possible conflict anymore what we've done stands. Well with this build vehicle yeah I'm still wrestling so. Are you saying I'm person a out there and I saw one four pass okay and I'm thinking okay this is what this is what the law is now this is what affects me and now the person out there sees of passing this to date if it becomes law that person now is to understand although up one oh four past and this is what's going this is how what your situation is going to be governed then we pass thirteen twenty five. We're set of that person nothing changes for you and what all for but thirteen twenty five is just gonna make it just going to enhance it off whatever of what we want to use it is that what I'm to understand because I've got to explain this to some people yes well. It's taking away any possible conflict that excess. All right. So let me let me take a run at. What this bill is doing is if you work twenty years and a person. And then you go to work for Lotfi. For ten more years when you retire you're gonna get your retirement check for your twenty years of service. At. We're rested yep pers papers thank you and then you're going to get a separate check for ten years from Lotfi is that correct that's correct okay. Prior to this bill happening if I worked twenty years at a person but by moving over to Lotfi. I've got a salary increase. Would how's that how's this bill going to affect that scenario. Because what if I what if by my move I got moved over to Lotfi and I was getting paid higher. Yes Sir you you would those two pieces right right and it would not change the low fifties but it but if the apers peas you would still be at the final average salary in a first if. If that is the choice of I mean it would push the the choice to the individual systems so if the apers board defines their. Reciprocal salary in a different way than it could be different it could be but it couldn't be any less than what you've already earned in a purse so in the that is that's the one thing we haven't talked and discussed is that it leaves the decision as to what salary used for reciprocity with each system but in your in your example the a first piece could be what it was at the time that you left a purse but you're you're lawfully piece would be what your lawful basis the benefit that we often don't talk about is that now that you have thirty years maybe you're just sixty years old you can retire at age sixty and because you're over twenty eight years and whereas you might not have qualified for retirement under either system at age sixty. With with the number of years now it's gonna be is different every system so but you might not have been able so you be able to you still have the benefit of being able to add your eligibility service together and retiring earlier than you could have otherwise. Okay so what's the what's the purpose for what we're doing here to strengthen the retirement systems to everybody back in their lanes or what's the purpose for this bill. But I know technically what the language says but layman's term what's the purpose of the bill why are we doing it went when the directors got together their first purpose was to make the sections of reciprocal code where they could explain it when somebody came in and said now what do I get I'm I'm trying to read this here and I can't read and so purpose number one was to clarify all of that And then purpose number two was to have the final average salary compensation be done at each system level so they could control costs a little bit okay so Senate bill five that we dealt with earlier. Does the grandfather clause stand in that if we passes or house Senate bill five going to be impacted by the passage of this that's that's another example and I would say that that that Senate bill five would that's that grandfather clause would still hold and they're still allowed to to staff was reciprocity before whatever the date was April first I believe and and okay so that would still hold it would not change that bill at all all right so this is a moving forward bill not so much a looking back we'll yes Sir okay all right. A representative right. Yes Sir Jody can I ask you maybe you can give us an example here let's just say a person was working let's just say twenty years for often and made twenty thousand dollars. And they worked in another ten years under the A. for system at sixty thousand dollars how would that be figured. Well that. The in in your example then the the Lotfi peas would be figured it whatever the final salary was from wealthy and then using Luffy's multipliers which if you're not so security are considerably higher than apers multiplier and then the apers piece would be their multiplier and your final average salary in there you still get to add the two services together but the salaries would be different for the two systems. I don't have anybody else signed up for the member says question so anybody speak against the bill. And I speak for the bill. Is this agreed upon by all the systems. Yes I worked with all for the system director shall I told him I would not present this bill unless a all four were on board individual communicate this to your membership thoroughly so that if we were in a game below back on this would be here in it by now because I haven't seen anything I I have ask all for the directors as we came into this session said make sure that everybody's on board I don't want a room full of two hundred people again and as you can see our our room is not full okay I don't think there's anybody in the holding room either Senator Elliot. You Mr chairman I just want to be just a bill certain that a. Clear that nothing we have already passed that somebody is depending on because we've already passed it is going to be affected and change because we pass this. No ma'am the only thing that we're doing is solidifying what we have passed all right thank you okay. If the questions. Represent your clothes for a bill. I am close for the bill I would ask for a do pass or do pass or second. The second from representative Maddox any questions or discussion to the motion second amendment on the trip okay. Fite L. favor say aye hi a post. Our congratulations we got bless bill by the best of the bill of the date say the best for last I'm ready. Forty three is there of amendment there is an amendment. What's good start discussing amendment was being handed out for the okay time there for the three main provisions the first is at the bottom of the first page the section two item the the division of Arkansas state police is employer shall make contributions to the state police retirement system it was twenty two percent that is being increased to twenty six percent of active member payroll. And then on page two section four we are increasing the tier one. Multiplier from one point five five percent to one point six six percent. And then on page three section seven we're changing the tier two multiplier from two point four seven five percent to two point six five percent. I would ask for the approval of the amendment got a question for you for yes Sir take that increase in twenty two to twenty six percent that's paid by the employer correct. This that is just a shift within their budget when we were working on this the state police there was a cost impact to do this of one point two million the state police I was working with colonel Bryant and Secretary cook they said that they could absorb seven hundred dollars seven hundred thousand of that cost within their budget this move from twenty two percent to twenty six percent gives them the latitude to use have enough in their budget to cover that increase in cost. And then the additional cost of five hundred thirty thousand is what the governor has committed to us so that allows them latitude to increase their budget percent to cover that okay. All right of. I need to aid any questions about the amendment. Need of did you make a motion there represent worn on your moment I ask that we approve the amendment second. A second any questions to the Amendment. All favour say aye aye opposed all right you're recognized present your bill as amended and house bill thirteen forty three thank you Mr chair today I'm excited to share with you the specifics of house bill thirteen forty three to change the number of years required for an Arkansas state trooper to retire from thirty years to twenty eight years if this bill passes Senator Rapert and I have worked together with the strict with secretary cook and colonel Bryant to come up with a bill that will take our state police in a positive direction this bill is taken multiple parties working together to make this a possibility the key components are as follows the Arkansas state police will allow a slightly greater percentage of their budget to be used to fund the annual retirement cost for tier one and tier two members this will cover roughly seven hundred thousand of the one point two million dollar cost. The governor has also committed to an additional annual amount of five hundred thirty thousand dollars to cover the difference between the budget change above and the cost to implement this change the big key in all of this is that the multiplier will be adjusted to allow for retiring state police officer or member to receive the same credit at twenty eight years that they would have had had they retired at thirty years Arkansas state police officers will get to retire two years earlier at the same retirement pay. Our state police officers put their lives on the line every day this is about a move that I believe we owe them. Almost all of our neighboring states Our at twenty five years for troopers to retire we need to do this to be competitive for good troopers. It's also the right thing to do. I would ask for any questions at this time okay. Any other members have questions representative war. K.. The colonel you're in your staff have anything to you want to weigh in on our share. If not. Good okay all right anybody speak against the bill. And they speak for the bill. I forgot to ask Mr garner to join me at the table he's he's sort of like the lead guy for the state police on this but I have enjoyed working with all three of these. It's so you wanted this year are you good. Good. Okay all right your clothes for you will. I am close I would ask for it to pass for a great bill to take care of our state police. Hi I got a motion to pass all representative Ryan the second any discussion to the motion from the members. As amended could we get back as amended representative Roger second still good for the bill as amended okay thank you. Of all right. Initiations motion. All favor say aye hi the opposed congradulations passion Bill thank you Mr chairman all right members real quick we got nine bills left we have several shell bill sitting out there but it's bills that are filled out ready to go R. nine including one that didn't get out of here today so we'll see you next Monday morning at eight thirty a a business without we're Jr.