Education Committee - Senate

The ex testimony will be live streamed if you are testifying on a bill today we ask that you be please be in this room and if you're not testifying if you might want to give up on to your seats for somebody who's testifying that would be appreciated all right we're not going to go in order of the agenda I'm we're gonna run Senate bill three fifty four and we have people that are catching airplanes M. so we will try to expedite this and so I'm gonna turn the chair over to senator Elliots and then I will run Senate bill three fifty four. Okay. The Amendment. I'm. I know I don't think so. Members as you should have an amendment to that to this bill it appears all it does is add sponsors and so a motion to adopt the amendment motion second all those and all those in favor I all those opposed no the amendment is adopted. Does everybody have the bill in front of you have what you need. All right I Senator Irvin you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you and if you would like to set the doors that would be fine please Chuck Scott and close the door so that could that will interfere that's okay Senator I. I thank you thank you members of the committee Senate bill three fifty four is the firemen the fairness and women's sports act and this act does really one thing it preserves the fairness and women's sports by making sure that girls have the ability to compete on a level a level playing field this bill ensures that biological male males do not compete in girls sports students deprived of an athletic opportunity or who suffer direct or indirect harm from a violation of this bill will now have a private cause of action and and that's really as simple as the bill is and I will I am incredibly passion about this and I'm bringing with me today my soccer ball that might students in my players gave to me I was a volunteer girls high school soccer coach here in Arkansas and I want to read one of the things that Granda said to me on my soccer ball it says Missy thanks for all the hard work and making me believe in myself I didn't know what I would have done without you and this team you're an awesome coach I love you ran to. And. You know. I want to talk about the difficulty it was to get the soccer program into the school system just all by itself you know we are predominated by baseball and basketball which is great but these young ladies and these girls one of the opportunity to play soccer and I want to thank south side high school because southside high school in the coaches there helps me get the girls soccer program into Mountain View and then also the boys program but the opportunity for these young ladies to come together and experience the field of play in that competition on the soccer field convey and dreamed of doing that since they were little girls was really really important to me and so honestly is probably one of the best things I've ever been able to do what's to help those young ladies take the field and competes and plays soccer together and I've had daughters and lots of friends he he compete in golf and tennis and track pole vaulting you name it and I think it's very very important that we preserve the fifty years of gains that girls sports have made under title nine federal let right federal law and so for that reason this bill is absolutely necessary to preserve girls rights and women's rights in the state of Arkansas to compete on a level playing field and to give them that opportunity that's afforded to them to a to experience what it is about playing on a team about being part of something that's bigger than yourself than to coming together and to achieve that but also on a personal level there are girls that are working so hard just to shave those mere seconds off their times and off their records in order to win those titles and to break those records and earned those spots on those podiums and that translates into success and opportunities at the next level for them in college and so this bill and sure. Hours that that rights for those women in the state of Arkansas is protected and and I'm just pleased to be able to present the bill today and to speak on behalf of my of my daughter my daughters and all the young ladies in the State of Arkansas on this bill that that have reached out to me and and and parents as well I have with me Matt and he is going to speak specifically on the bill if there are questions about the bill but we will just open it up for questions. Are you are you're not going to speak at all Maddon was I thought is is he going to speak for you yes he can few words and then we'll just got a question if you just introduce yourself please for the record thank you madam chair and my name is Matt sharp I'm senior counsel with alliance defending freedom and we're a law firm that is involved in this issue we're actually representing for incredible female athletes in Connecticut that our first hand experience what happens when biological males are allowed to compete on female teams they lost about fifteen instances where a championship I was captured by a biological male sixteen instances where records were broken by these two biological males allowed to compete that had previously been held by several other females and over eighty instances where they had lost a spot on the podium lost a chance to advance to another round of competition or otherwise lost out on an opportunity and so we have represent them firsthand we're also representing to collegiate athletes in Idaho there also standing to defend Idaho's version of this bill that was passed last year as well. Thank you for clarification here because I wanna be sure I'm hearing you correctly so these girls that kept that were winning these huge numbers of times that they ever breaking a record that was set by a male and a male athlete. I'm thank you for that so when when these two individuals were competing for several seasons that competed and male track and field and and one of in particular it competed in the winter indoor track and field sports season and then a few weeks later in the spring season was competing on the female side on the mails category they were middle of the road athletes not breaking any records not doing anything like that and within just a short period of time of transitioning over to the female side they were breaking several records and capturing these championships but they weren't actually that were there were females according to what we do with what science it was females competed against females when they moved over. This is not correct or not correct so not correction in sports biology is what matters it's the reason from title nine and other laws that we've always recognized there are physiological differences between males and females and that's what we recognized males category female category so these to biological males regardless of how they defy they are biologically male I'm into part of the issue that cases they were taking away these opportunities that were set aside for females under title nine and and he's been does not want to be sure I'm not trying to this is I'm not trying to a gotcha thing but I'm I'm thinking when they weren't competing as males date did not break any records they're not as one and then when they started competing according what you're saying aye girls. They still didn't break any records. All right that would help by mail that's what I'm asking you when they were competing as girls that somebody say I don't know do do of a hundred meter faster than any man has that's what I'm asking about when they were competing as girls no Sir because they were competing in the girls category the records they were breaking were girls records and so they are now recognized as the record holders of these various events areas championships and things like that I get that on paper but let this is the last Arkansas just wanna be sure I do this right right now if Joyce Elliott god help me let me do it if I were to run faster than say I don't know the. Any mail I'm competing against. People would make note of that. Well I'm a woman or a man they would make note of that so what I was asking is when they were running in their summation as a girl I just if they have broken a record against man that would have been news that's what I'm asking you what is it that were running against them. But it ran faster the some guy on the team they used to be on that would be news and all I'm trying to find out was one day so good that they were breaking the record set man work no yeah I got that thank you for that clarification no at throughout the time they have always been never breaking any records winning any championships anything when they were competing as males or even afterwards there times would have been very low ranked or middle middle ranks for males but when they began identifying and competing as females as when they started capturing those championships at center for females I've all the okay members of the committee your question I'm sorry Senator Irvin were you going to say something else I don't mean to cut you off members of the committee. Okay all right senator Chesterfield you're recognized. Thank you so much so in essence what this is an anti trans gender bill. This is no senator Chesterfield this is a pro women's bill but in being pro women it means then the trans gender he it's cannot compete in the same sport with women is that correct no ma'am those individuals can participate this is a bill to protect women's sports and girls sports this is about giving women the opportunities that they have fought for for over fifty years under title nine of policies that's what this bill is correct this that's what this bill is for an amount is essence if you were Trent if you're trans you are a trans gender female. You are not allowed under this bill to compete. With other girls is that correct you are I biological male then you are to compete in the biological I am answering your questions Senator sensor filled if you're a biological male you're to compete in the biology section of males so instance boards just like laws and rules we have eligibility eligibility as set by age it's set by sacks it's that by weight in some instances it set by even districts and what district you live in is is defines where you can compete so we do have our laws and our rules are based on factual information not on feelings not on on choices but actually on fact and so this bill is about girls it's about women and it's about protecting women's rights to have a level playing field when it comes to sports and competition and athletics N. as a result of that transgender olds cannot compete in the same category as males which is what this gentleman is the is that correct transgender transaction to this agenda and I'm answering the question transgenders but I'm not S. R. their biological males based on their anatomy and their physiological feet physiology they compete and male sports so transgender kids. Can not compete. In this category this bill is based on the biology of the individual okay and their anatomy and I will just further say there are reasons why we banned performance enhancement drugs there's reasons why we banned steroid usage because then you are altering your biology and your altering your physiological and make up in order to gain a competitive advantage that's what Barry Bonds isn't in the hall of fame that's Walmart require is is not that's why Lance Armstrong got down of all talking about any of those I am talking about them and have the ability to answer that question center Chesterfield because this bill is about girls and women is this gentleman at the table he is legal I tell you what what is a legal expert. On the annex no stop if we're going to do this and get out of here today could we give each other curtesy of you ask a question whoever you ask the question please just give the answer let's not make this something that and then if you want to come if if senator Chesterfield ask Senator Irvin Senator Irvin answer the question and then if you want to comment on it Sir comment on it but let's not do each of the service of talking over each other now let's start over this is the way this is gonna go today. All right so the Chesterfield would you ask what the question you want to ask and ask it to whom ever you wish and if the owner wants to comment then you do so without my intervention. Mr what is your name. Shark in Connecticut I'm familiar with the case in Connecticut the young women who were competing with trans gender females is that correct they were biological males that identify as female that's because we don't we don't call them transgender in Connecticut well I think in terms of talking about sports we we need to be accurate and talk about biology legal argument is this chair smoking and I'm fine with that one of the young ladies who filed the case because he had lost I felt she was going to lose get an actuality beat those young ladies that were competing is that correct. Thank you for the question there was one of the track meets it was sort of a one in a million shot and she did win that day but I think what we're focusing on is not just who's that the top of the podium one of the biological males came in second that day and that means another girl was knocked off the podium she didn't get second another girl was denied the opportunity to advance that's why this bill so important yes girls deserve to win to win championships to break records but they also deserve to compete they deserve to get a spot on the team to get a chance to advance to the next round of competition and that's ultimately what we're trying to preserve as those opportunities for girls all the way from that being at the top of the podium to having a spot on the team and what did you suggest that we do with the transgender children thank you so under this bill as it's always been every student is allowed to compete on teams with members of their biological sex or on co at teens so this particular instance any biological male no matter how they identify whether it's a male that identifies as a male as a female or even as non binary has the ability to play on teams for males or on coed teams and nothing in this bill would take that away rather what we're doing is making sure that the female category in terms of protecting title nine of those advancements is reserved for biological females to Senator Irvin. Problem in Arkansas with the sin thank you for the question. What's important to me is that within weeks this can become a problem and so we have seen I have for instance the biological males and in a different state we're competing in the male category and then with wind week say whenever into the female category the same thing could happen here in Arkansas that's why we're in session now and it's the time to act is now so it has not happened in the past in Arkansas what you're working to do is to preclude that from happening I'm working to make sure it doesn't happen today to a young girl has been training her whole life in order to win that title and so that opportunity could be taken away from her tomorrow and so yes it is important that we pass this bill in Arkansas. stuff any. Which other member states the okay any other members have a question. No I would like to clarify for the sake of Arkansas I'm just I'm trying to figure out. How is this going to happen in Arkansas Senator Irvin because to triple a has a policy about how if if it's a transgender girl or mail arsenal actually. They have rules about what it takes for them to participate. Can you comment on that And square for me how it could happen so quickly unless somebody is already hearing to that rule to the triple a roll. So I mean again this is a the matter of the law and so we set the law and and they obviously will have to follow the law and and so we will be facing this these decisions we made biology of that individual so the triple a will follow the lead of of the legislature and the laws that we pass. Does. What is it about what is it about the triple a. Rules that the better in place I think a couple years now what is about that law about about their rule that does not fix this issue that causes us to need to have a lot. Again I think it's important that we clarified that it's based on the biology of the individual and that the legislature speaks on this issue and we pass the laws and then triple a will then have to follow the laws that we pass I'm not going to comment on the rules of the of the triple a where the legislature and where's we're the ones that set policy in the state well I I will just common enough to see about the triple a lord knows I have my bands within. But the rule is actually passed a rule is actually based on something that is. Part of the first part of the bill is based on this idea of got testosterone. They're actually in the rules they actually talk about that issue to try to make sure that what anybody thinks is an uneven playing field that they can't even. What do you think about the either one of you I don't care which one I'm I'm for the is the NC double a rules are the NC double a rules not sufficient. To address this issue. So thank you good question and I think it's and I think both of us can comment on this the state of Idaho did pass this bill and have not no repercussions or anything from the NC double a so I think they're hosting events next week and I think it's at some matter of clarification and actually this is consistent with the NC double a because of their involvement in part in making sure that there's equal opportunities for athletics for women as well and I'll refer to Mr sharp he he knows what's going on and all the okay all right in and on that specific with the NC double its policy is they have with a permissive policy so what they say is that if the school decides to allow a male to compete on a female team as long as the the mail it's been on testosterone suppression for about a year and maintains that identity then the female team does not become a co at. Entirely permissive that it does not mandate anything that's why when Idaho passed its law there's been no repercussions but even with the NC double S. policy there's been several recent studies that have come out analyzing that and actually looking is a year of testosterone suppression sufficient to take away the advantage and so that was actually studies in Sweden where they have looked at individuals that have been on testosterone suppression there is another study of Air Force personnel and what the studies have consistently held is that one year to year even longer does not take away the advantage the biological males continue to have a female athletes so even these scientists are speaking out and saying the NC double a policy or the the international Olympics committee policy is not fair because it is still allowing males to compete with unfair advantages in sports and I think that's why there's a lot of attention being drawn to this issue because the policies that NC double a and others have even other permissive are still unfair and allowing unfair advantages over female competitors I noticed in the bill the very first person that cited here is a psychiatrist and that is what got my attention and on an article is cited of. By him or he talks nothing at all about athletics and yet it's used as a part of something here to justify what would quit doing today I find that pretty unfortunate and if that did and see the the triple a rules are are very closely and see that weight rooms at the rate the triple a rules Arkansas thank you it's it's been awhile since I've looked at them but my understanding is that they did kind of have similar today and my last question then we'll get on to somebody else how do you know I'm sitting here today how to know if if I'm or strands female not to know that how do you know that for these kids. How do you know the band the. We'll a couple things I would say in the instance of Connecticut the two biological males are very open about and that but I think also when you look at when students compete in sports I have to go through sports physical and part of that sports physical that every student goes through is the physician I did find you know the student's age their biological sex and things like that and so I would hope that the physicians are being accurate that they're not doing anything unethical that's what schools can rely on is that sports physical form that accurately identifies with the student's sexes and then based our participation on that sports physical form. And it. I'm going to ask if I may also add that like in wrestling and boxing wrestling there's weight classes as well so that was another another eligibility that would be determined through a physical. just physicals period well that are like not not been able to they all have to have a sports physical before they start Latics yes okay all right if there are no further questions from the committee out we have folks. We're here to speak for and against and Six we the first on the on the list is of Dr Michele Lynch. Three to three of three fifty four are you speak for against the bill I guess we should have some is that the procedure we have somebody against somebody. Who are are you speak for against the bill. Okay so with anybody here to speak against the bill let's start that way okay but there's not come on up okay I guess the bill okay you're you're right next. And then our doctor will get to you after you'll be next. What. We do have an. Mr this bass sell thirty who is a come it has come in from out of state she can testify first because she has okay that's on the front of her so she can okay first I would appreciate the me first before she by four of the bill are you at the for the bill right okay and then we'll get to her first yes thank you for the bill okay. The introduce yourself for the record and you may proceed to. I'm here thank you Senator Irvin. Thank. Again so we can start from the top please answer my name is Holly Dixon and I'm the executive director for the ACLU of Arkansas. I'm here to express our strong opposition to SB three five four. For more than fifty years we worked in this state to defend the civil rights and civil liberties of all our Kansans especially the most vulnerable among us. Because they're the ones whose rights are usually referred infringed. And it is so with SP three fifty four. To be in transgender students from participating in athletics in a manner consistent with their gender identities. Title nine. Of the education amendments act of nineteen seventy two in the U. S. constitution protect transgender students rights to access six separate programs and facilities consistent with their gender identities. Our concern is that SB three five four. But violate the constitutional rights of transgender women and girls. To equal protection under the law. Privacy depending on how this is applied and enforced the right to be free from unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment as well as title nine. These constitutional concerns are not at academic. They are real world and this bill will harm. Not only trans women and girls but also all the other women and girls that the bill purports to protect. This bill opens up all girls and women to inspection and scrutiny and questions and accusations about their femininity or their masculinity or if they're too good at a sport or are they a real woman or girl. It also reinforces the harmful stereotype. That women and girls are weaker inferior. And in need of protection because we're not able to compete against boys and men. And that's simply is not universally true. TransAfrica's do not have an advantage. In sports. Women and girls who are transgender. Face discrimination and violence that makes it difficult for them to even stay in school. According to the U. S. transgender survey in twenty fifteen which is the largest survey of transgender Americans in the nation twenty two percent of trans women who were perceived as trans and school or harassed so badly they had to leave school because of it. Another ten percent were kicked out of school. So the idea that they have an advantage because they're trans. Ignores the actual conditions of their lives. TransAfrica's very an athletic ability just like cisgender athletes do. And I know this bill doesn't prohibit transgender boys and men from project perhaps dissipating and girls and women's sports teams even if those trans boys and men are taking testosterone. Efforts to ban trans girls especially but also trans women. From the ability to participate in athletics and be on a team and get the benefit of all the advantages that athletics brings. Jeopardizes their mental health their physical well being and their access to education. And it reinforces with the government prohibits them for participation it reinforces the harmful stereotype. That there miss fits or outsiders who don't belong in they're deserving of hostility and exclusion rather than inclusion. Conversely if we include transgender athletes that is continue to include transgender athletes. We're promoting values of inclusion and diversity and belonging and taking care of the girls who otherwise it will be stigmatized. Three people of all ages have been participating in sports consistent with their gender identity four years. With nothing but positive outcomes for cisgender and transgender girls and women. As has been discussed. The international Olympic committee. Has specifically provided for participation of transgender athletes since two thousand and five. For right at a decade now the NC double a has had an inclusive policy that is allowed trans women and girls to participate on women and girls teams because they are girls and women. Those are rules that include people. Not be in the room. If there's been no destruction of. I went to college sports by inclusion of transgender athletes consistent with their identities. Our elementary middle junior high and high schools certainly can and should continue to do the same. We ought to protect women and girls sports absolutely by finding them in supporting those activities. but this bill. Stigmatizes women and girls which includes trans women and girls and for that reason I would ask that you reconsider your support for the bill and vote no on the bill. Thank you is anybody have any questions of the sticks and. I thank you very much thank you. If you're just identify yourself and your you are recognized madam chair committee members my name is best older I'm a former medical laboratory technician now a wife mom our lifter and the founder of the grassroots nonpartisan coalition C. women's sport I'd like to share with you what brought me here today. I found power lifting later in life and it empowered me through many life struggles including PTSD I suffered from domestic violence and stalking. My lovely no husband brought me to a two state championships hoping that it would give me the courage to compete and I surpassed many obstacles including training to the loss of a pregnancy to achieve my goal however activists disrupted the entire event because the mail was not allowed to compete as a female and they have now filed the lawsuit against USA powerlifting. Thanks to Dr Christopher hunt we know that in power lifting the mail competitive advantage is sixty four percent when half a pound can determine the winner that type of advantage is huge and studies continue to confirm that even after hormone replacement they are not mitigated for example my friend one of the women's world champion French press holders is UL listed by her male competitor around the same age and weight by over two hundred pounds. Miller dissipation female sport is a growing problem across the world and we should not ideally wait by for a female in Arkansas to be seriously injured to do something. Countless females have been directly harmed by mail to to championships destroyed long standing records and denied females the rewards of their years of hard work those who speak out risk losing opportunities sponsorships and even their jobs we are slurred as transphobic bigoted and even racist. I have received death threats for trying to see women sports. Out of fear we have become the silent majority but I am here today to share my story to represent all of these women and because it should not rest on the shoulders of the young women like those in Connecticut to fight this if we continue to allow males to compete in female sporting events and will have always sports still be coed sports but girls and women's sports will fade away. This bill is not a band it is simply to protect females you are one of twenty seven states to introduce legislation to protect female sports in this section please join Mississippi and South Dakota who Senate voted today in putting this issue on the governor's desk support SP three five four and Seve sports for girls thank you for your time today thank you for your testimony any members have any questions. If not thank you very much for testifying and so are so that was for I've got on the list against the bill Brody parish Craig. Is he outside. If you will ask of Mr Craig is out there please. Three. Just take a seat at the table out there. If you just introduce yourself and you're recognized go ahead with your testimony hi I'm very cranky I am an educator in the state of Arkansas I have taught with K. twelve and college level students and I'm here today to demand that you vote against SP three fifty four to protect trans youth and protect equal access to sports throughout the state of Arkansas. I'm not an athlete I can assure you of fire to compete against anyone today in any sport I'm come in last because I'm not practice trainer develop my athletic skills well I am not an athlete I am transgender the truth is being transferred thank you man advantage in sports. Just like any other athlete I we need to train practice build muscle commit to a dietary and exercise regimen and work toward competing against any other athletes if I were to do these things maybe I'd when maybe I want the truth as my gender identity does not change anything my commitment to increasing my skills is what makes the difference. As an educator I've seen firsthand how virtual learning has dramatically affected mental health and my students. I just English I read papers from college students about missing their peers being depressed feeling like they have nowhere to turn. Then to make has shown us that the youth mental health declines dramatically when they're separated from their peers this legislation relies on separation of trance you from their peers and I the scene isolation leads to many health mental health issues much less intentionally separates children from meaningful social relationships. Two cheers to pass SB fifty three fifty four it's intentionally separate children from meaningful social relationships raising rates of depression and suicide and other mental health issues within the trans community. Studies show that team sports ward off depression increased social skills and help children develop team and leadership skills I read dozens of assets from college students over the years that explain how their coaches change the course of their lives this we all agree on their sports team save them from drug addiction unsafe home environments that use any other mental health struggles to have trans youth of the ability to place where it isn't just about sports S. the three fifty four dramatically affects youth mental health inability to find a healthy community outlet in Arkansas it also hinders you feed your future ability to maintain promising work and peer relationships. Further. This bill demands that no state government entity can accept the complete based on gender bias as outlined in section two D. line sixteen two line sixteen to twenty three because this bill denies any complaints based on gender bias will actually open the door for more discrimination against all women session entrance women in sports this building lies all women and girls the ability to file any complaints for gender bias this means that women not just transient or women have them have no ability to file a complaint for gender discrimination and the state. Including those are claiming to protect through the bill. Without the ability to file complaints for gender bias to eight teams to deny women participation without recourse intramural sports and athletics could deny anyone entry based on gender for any reason without any repercussions this bill has far reaching effects that impact women negatively throughout the state of Arkansas as an educator mentor and transient or cans and I urge you to vote against SB three fifty four today and protect for tax equity in sports but against this bill to protect our children our athletes and the future of Arkansas you. Thank you very much anybody have a question. Thank you for your testimony appreciated thank you not against the bill is Dr Michele Lynch. I mean for the apartment for the bill which shall. I Michelin's executive director of the Arkansas state teachers association or the non union association representing thousands of teachers across the state and one thing that we are is member driven so we survey our members and then bring that information to you form of our advocacy we pull this this bill last week and at the survey was open for about four days actually a four days in a few hours and within an I did the stats plus or minus two percent margin of error eighty seven percent of those polled agreed with the bill five percent were indifferent and eight percent disagreed with the bill a couple of the comments that the that were made to this bill it's Baltz Camille's have their own sports teams and have had them for much longer than biological females have had their own sports teams allowing Nelson to biological males and a female teens would be discrimination against females as their physical strength would be an unfair advantage stealing from females the opportunity to earn sports scholarships and other honors another comment I want transgender students to have an opportunity in sports yet I don't want an unfair advantage to be given to males competing in women's sports the teams across the comments were caring concern for transgender students everyone wants all kids to feel safe. And accepted. But also for competition to be fair. Thank you any questions members. Not thank you document. Our is that that was for the bill against it for the bill and against the bill Dr Janet Cathy if she's out issue. She's not in here when you see if she's outside please. Yes. How many do we have a list speak today I'm going to ask I'm going to ask and our officer to check to see because they're not quite a few here but I need to know how many outside systems just a second. Oct six. Thank you so great he had something. It is. Receive the taxes of the Senate fee has gone down so just wanna let staff know that case what has gone down the the live feed has gone down to people who are watching remotely are able to watch right okay the fee just on them okay. This is everybody that's outside of that that is at the your this is the rest of them okay all right. Well it the let doctor capital had testified and we will talk about how you want to do with the time. Okay I apologize if something's repetitive we've been kind alcohol and it's been a little bit hard to hear what's going on I'm Janet Cathy I am a. Practicing physician. I'm at the I'm a lifelong or can send in a proud product of Arkansas public schools and secondary education. And I to have a passion for public schools. As a board certified OBGYN of taking care for transgender patients since I began private practice in nineteen eighty six I've also served transgender patients in academics as faculty and co founder the U. image gender clinic I'm now the director of education for I'm not a director gender education or a regional nonprofit in it and I am a practicing clinician. I've probably taken care of more transgender patients in any position in the state and I say that very competently. And I've learned a lot of things that one medic beyond well beyond my medical education. I've learned that human biology does not always fit into categories. That for years as an OBGYN I would assign a gender based on anatomy and that's what's going on or certificate. And in the years since what I've learned is that an assigned gender. Is only a piece of what creates a gender. I can tell you from seen hundreds of patients that gender identity is not something that is created. It is an eight and it cannot be changed. Your gender identity is how you feel about yourself how you present yourself to the world. When I have new patients one of the things I always ask is what are your first memories of being transparent now I direct this talk to transfer the mail because that's what this bill is directed at. And it's always very consistent very early memories when they were three for five year olds before they even had concept of gender segregation. A patient told me and it's always stuck with me it was that I wanted to be a girl. I knew I was a girl. Sports in all the years I've done agenda sports is never been an issue I've never been called intimate mediate or at the indicate someone sports. Up someone's agenda for sports I can tell you that deciding to come out X. share identified gender is not a sudden of being. It happens over time and by the time someone a child comes out as trans identifies as trans female. They've they've been through tremendous struggle to get there it's not a decision that's made lightly. Now in Madison. We practice on evidence on evidence based studies how we decide to treat someone medically. Is not based on our opinion. Or social ideas it is based on hard factual evidence. And there is no where in the medical evidence that says that trans female athletes have any advantage over. Fite biological females when you're looking at a non of the sports level. So we're talking about kids through high school and even college most of these kids are not at the elite level they're just kids who want to play games and running field day and be in on the swim team. So there as I said The the studies from Sweden I've not seen those and so there's a lot thanks to look at that the medical evidence does not support that. The medical evidence and medical societies such as the A. M. A. Clark college but we tend American academy of pediatrics American Association of family medicine the Internal hottie but all say that transparency. Our email. And I think that goes to your questions Senator Chesterfield but you're asking. By these associations medical evidence says these. Women these girls that are girls. And. And I I would have you know. I know educators do the same thing they look at people who are specialties in the field. Educators don't teach the same way they use to. I knew that when my kids came home with long tradition. But. We should always regardless of our field look for what's that experts recommend. Mention the international Olympics committee are the IOC are the NC double a. They did not develop trains inclusive policies. It's just on a whim are widely they looked at the opinion of Madison have educators of lawyers of athletes and they put together a full and complete and comprehensive policy. And just and none of these policies include western atomi yes with the chromosomes are. No more what you're Burch a ticket says. So I would think that if the use of the guidelines for international and national competition I don't understand why we think we need something more exclusive. The trick this most these kids are not going to go on to play college athletics but it's their athletic career ends at high school. And what they have learned from sports. We know it's so much more. Then we had a. I don't think that there's any trans person of life you know teenage boys that would. Senate they were female to win any kind of competition. I don't think that we have any evidence that trans gender females are stealing are taking the majority of athletic scholarships. Nor on the college level. Our transgender athletes being drafted by professional sports. So I think that as we design a policy what I would do not look at what experts have already determined. Is an inclusive policy. The word inclusive I know it's one of those trigger words that seems to be partisan. But I would tell you let's forget the word inclusive and let's think about what our mothers taught us and our mothers taught us you don't leave anybody out. Everybody gets to apply. You know and it taught us that if we have the little kid on our team are the most uncoordinated kid on our team. We learned teamwork and we learn sportsmanship. And we were better he pulled. Because we include everybody. I think that one of the things that this bill I think as a blanket statement it really to me to means girls and yes I've been in this fight for women's rights for fifty years and this is saying to girls to make things fair we have to exclude people. In the sense that message that you're not good enough from sports other parts of our lives I think I think could to wrap it up to to serve several yes than the bomb I don't want to say is it puts no value on winning qualities that involves strategy or team work our initiative I say that these are children. And we should let them play. I thank you so much for your testimony if anybody have a question Dr Kathy. I want to get a quick clarification not one of the judges don't get along as if you don't have to okay The case that some are some children born with both genitalia yes and it in her Texas you know a whole different categories such yes it is what I'm check what will the question they're not for me is the reason I want to be sure I was you know that I'm speaking scientifically in cases like that what would happen to that child under this bill well that would be excluded. And not have the choice to my understanding if they were there are X. Y. little girls yes but don't have don't respond to testosterone have high testosterone that included that's thank you thank you very much members at this point if correct me if I'm not on this but I think we've had three speak for three speak against so this would be a proper time I think that up for us to talk about how we want to handle going forward we we don't have that many more we have a week's. We've had Holly Dickson and we have these people who are C. one we had that one against the bill and we have one more person signed up to speak for the bill and I ask your officer to keep track outside to make sure we're not excluding people and then we have three people to speak against the bill three more people to speak against the bill. Yes. For just one second please. nobody else so okay cut it off then Senate just filled. We'll. Yes. Yes. Ninety. Okay. All. All or. For. Of this. Clause. Yeah what. Thank you for R. is. It. This is. Thank you for the question so let me break this to out so to speak of subsection D. talking about a government entity licensing accrediting organization undertaking any the following with respect to a school so what that's trying to accomplish is we don't want whether it's a state athletic association accrediting association or anything like that punishing a school that follows the small what we're wanting to do is win this if this laws passed that schools that follow it get sort of a a shield that we're trying to protect them so that they're not at risk of losing their accreditation or being punished by the government or something like that for anything related to this all of that section D. as directed against government or an accrediting organization et cetera can't go after school for following this law and that includes opening an investigation against them any adverse action et cetera. The. If a child who is biologically. One female. As a complaint. Is this preclude that person from filing a claim. Because it would seem to do so that's my concern it seems to me overly sweet overly broad. Because then you're saying that even in the in the midst of this suppose they want to file a suit them sales it's saying that you cannot accept the complaint when you're dealing with an scholastic activity. concerning gender bias you can open an investigation take any other adverse action it does not specifically say if you are trying to get it saying any key it cannot do this so why would we write that broadly. Well again subsection D. is not the part that talks about what right students have under this so that's where subsection easy deals with the rights of a girl for example that loses an opportunity because a biological males allowed to compete that's where she her rights kick in that she's able to get a court injunction saying Hey school you can't have that policy that allows a biological male and the female teams because that's taking away opportunities for this females so that subsection the is is very narrow that it's really dealing with we don't want schools being punished for following this law and that is all is it doing it saying that the government entity can't open an investigation or accept a complaint against a school for following this law this law is entitled there in this in women's sports ACT if a woman does not feel she is being treated fairly. According to the she this you can accept a complaint. I never speak to any of the stuff that you're talking about that's not what this bill say what you're saying is this is their innocence was for women and at the same time you say that you can't accept the complaint concerning Jindabyne you can't open an investigation you can't take any other adverse action against the school if there is not fairness in women's sports that's the name of this bill. That that's correct and again I would I would go back to nothing in this prohibits claims of sex discrimination sex discrimination is prohibited under title nine all of that is protected so if there was a complaint or sex discrimination that's already protected under federal law you saying gender and sex are different the that's correct. Sexes biologically based and that's what this bill goes to that we're focused on not how student identifies or the perception but what is their biological sex and so that that is where it sort of the precision of terminology really matters to us because we are dealing with biological sex which is understood to be the. Is illogical Terrence males there is a difference between one's gender where is that in the law I center Chesterfield this bill is focused on two things it's provides that girl an opportunity to bring a cause of action that's what this does this is about women and it's about girls that's what this bill is about I thank you for the questions that again yet the testimony that you're hearing is not about this bill this bill does not ban somebody from participating they can participate this is about protecting girls sports protecting a biological female. That's what this is about this is about protecting what we have fought for under title nine for over fifty years so that we can have an equal level playing field this bill is very simple allowing those individuals who feel that they have been wronged that girl who feels she has been wronged she has the ability to bring that relief and not I'm. She can not according to the law I'm twenty one and I'm trying to get your bill. I'm not arguing one way or the other about you already know how I feel about the. But I'm saying to you that in law I'm trying to determine in law there is a difference between sex and gender. And if there is not in law a difference between sex and gender what you are actually saying here is in your. Protect women's their innocence but what you are saying in essence that the nobody can accept a complaint concerning gender bias open an investigation or take any other adverse action. Senate to me is from I know this question be on the table was resolved when we talk among us because our people testifying assented Beckham you're recognized I would make a motion for immediate consideration you're recognized. You're recognized by the make a motion for committee consideration okay there is a that. Okay that's a motor second for immediate consideration all and all those and that's not debatable all those in favor I. Those opposed okay The motion passes and I want to be sure the people outside who can hear me if you were here to speak for or against the bill you may relax because you want to add result that the motion you don't speak and that's that's up there issue in a parliamentary procedure so it's not against anybody please be aware of that okay so what's the pleasure of the Committee. Okay motion do pass and a second as amended all those in favor I. All those opposed no. The motion fails. Thank you Roquan. Senator Linda Chesterfield. No Senator Jane English. Yes yeah. Senator Lance Eads. Yes Senator Greg Leding. No. Senator James Sturch. Yes. Senator Charles Beckham yes yes. No. Yes Missy Irvin yes. Thank you committee members by a vote of five to three the bill passes. Thank you for your participation. If. I guess next on their agenda Senate bill three fourteen. Yes. The president and someone. If the feed back up can we determine from the Senate offices. If the bill is the Senate feedback at. We will move on to Senate bill three fourteen. Senator Elliot. Can you please close the doors can the police officers please close the doors thank you. Thank you please escort those that are yelling out of the capital thank you. Senator Elliot you're recognized to present Senate bill three fourteen. While the sublime talking here. Thank you madam chair and members I'm presenting this bill three fourteen as a matter of this What is your question I think could long have been resolved differently but it hasn't and so I want to I would like you to give consideration to how we think we should conduct ourselves as a matter of fairness well it can you please keep the door shut and I'm sorry Sir can you please shut the doors and not allow anybody in or out we can't hear so we need to shut the doors and not allow anybody to come into the room. No nobody is allowed to come in or out we cannot hear thank you. Senator Elliot. For. I don't have a copy of. I need to come. I'm a copy of the of the of my bill this bill right at the end of my desk there that if you've just handed out of somebody I would appreciate it okay all right now shall we try again try again okay. Senate bill fourteen has to do with how we carry out the law when it comes to schools that have been taken over. And I'll bring in this bill today because I think it is gotten to a point we either need to really rethink this law and tighten it up so that I think it doesn't read result in some of the issues that I have seen particularly I'm talking now about what's happened in the little rock school district when ACT nine thirty I think it it Senate bill nine thirty maybe it was was passed we passed that bill I'm sorry to say without a great deal of discussion before it was cut off a really big bill where my contention was that we should have thought about it more that it gave way too much power to the state and in particular it gave way too much power to one person in terms of that time what was called the commissioner and that was about who ever is the commission or not the president Commission or just in general. So. In this case for little rock school district and others have been taken over a school district can be taken over for three reasons one is academics. The other is fiscal and the third is facilities the first two I have seen used the third one I have not. Of the schools that have been taken over there is a clear pattern. And the schools that are under control right now there is a clear pattern right those schools our PC of Pulaski County special school district Helena West Helena Lee County school district Dollaway school district pine bluff school district and the Little Rock School District. I'm sure you can pick up the pattern. But what I'm not that pattern is something we ought to take into consideration is up to you but I think it's a little bit odd that we have such a pattern and then assume it's just the school districts that cannot carry out their business without taking over and there are not others. So to get to the little rock school district is the one I can speak about I think most coherently. The Little Rock School District in over in January twenty eighth twenty fifteen for academic distress academic distress and six out of forty eight schools in the district six out of forty eight. The state did not have to take over the over forty two schools but the state chose to I think that was the first big foot movement. And then after that happen. We proceeded to remove that the state board. proceeded to remove the school board basically a newly elected school board that was accused of not having done its job and they had barely been in office and this was a school board that had been elected by the people because the people wanted something different as a school board because they wanted school board members who had pledged to do things differently in Little Rock School District and make sure all kids were being treated fairly and attended to. I'm not school board wants removed. The superintendent was left in place. As superintendent subsequently left the school district. So now we don't have the superintendent that was hired we don't have the school board that was elected. And since that time. We've been under state control all this time we got a new superintendent a new superintendent who's still there I'm one of the questions that I ask even at that time how was that just one day under superintendent was just announced into this district but it happened this is what we been living under now for six years. Since that time. In in accordance with the law an advisory board has been appointed and has done its is to diligence but keep in mind this is a school district with an advisory board that has no authority when they were put in place per the law. Because the commissioner in the state board can give that advisory board what ever duties they decide. And at no time could anybody in the little rock school district assume that what the advisory board had suggested had any authority whatsoever because they didn't have any. Since that time. We've elected on November sixth of this year a duly elected democratically elected school board which is a good thing. And all of this came about as well to the result of this our body and most of us on this committee voted to expand the number of school board members from seven to nine which is a lot of people now I didn't see the merit of the expanded from forty nine but we did and now we have a large of much larger school board where people are working hard to make things work. We have the election that's a good thing. In the meantime. After five years according to the law. The district can hold a school district for five years. And then it says of course it's time to give it back but they are supposed to have made a transition and at the end of and end up for years and three hundred and sixty four days there was no no transition. The district is at the board decided to have his transition at the end of the five years. Resulted in the little rock school board having been under state control for six years. Six years. That is abuse. Six years. So what so what is that such a big deal here's why. When we had no school board. And this district was taken over because of academic distress I want you to remember that not fiscal not facilities. We proceeded to. Close schools in our district. Close schools. Because of efficiency and even if you accept that efficiency was a reason to close the school. It's not going to stand up under re under reason because we immediately started opening charter schools. If you close the public schools for efficiency. And you start to open other schools how is that efficient. Because the money that was going to the traditional public schools going to go to the charter schools now there's nothing efficient about it so what you what you did was you disenfranchise people with their traditional public schools and then you open some other schools because somebody else wanted them. And by my count since this district has been taken over we've opened at least four and it looks like seven charter schools since the district has been taken over when we had no school board. We had no superintendent the school board had hired. But so it leaves the appearance that this district has process been held in abeyance so people can do what they wish with the district. We have in this district right now according to my cat my account for what was was on the eighty E. website. We are trying our best to figure out how to prepare for our schools go for our school district to go forward well in this district there twenty one charter schools. And some of those schools either forty seven depending on what date the I could discern from the website. Have been put in place since we've been under school under state control. And imagine if you were trying to plan. But you don't know what's going to happen imagine somebody saying we need to plan so that the little rock school district and moved for it but we don't know what we're going to have twelve schools left or three schools left. We don't know how many kids depend on because this for ever a moving target that's what's happen under school takeover. So what else matters we can't extend the millage we've not been able to and we need to I'll be the first to say we need to we can't raise the millage and we need to. Because there are things we could do to be an absolute world class school right here in Little Rock School District if we weren't being picked apart every time we turn around but that's what the take over has resulted in. I don't know if we don't pass a millage if we don't extend the millage. The next thing is going to happen. Now we're going to take you over for fiscal does it for fiscal distress. You can you can mark my words. Because I know how this works and for some reason there is real big reason in somebody's mind to keep Little Rock School District under control. And I'll remind you of of of house bill eleven thirteen. Remember when we discuss that bill that we're going to build some below poverty housing in the little rock school district in the most and and the the most challenging part of the city out in southwest little rock. We're gonna build some homes there that probably would last maybe seven years. And that's going to attract and open enrollment charter school so we're looking to have even more charter schools. And we're supposed to plan. We can't do it. I'm further. When I worked at so we're going to have more charter schools according to what's on the website that's what I'm using here. Right now we have two applications. To open to more charter schools in Little Rock School District. We have two more letters of intent. To open to more charter that would be for and the little rock school district so what I'm saying to you is we've elected a board. It's been six years when we thought it was gonna be five. As a matter of fairness how do you defense and continuing to hold onto a district because where ever the district is right now. The state had this district for for these years the state did. Not the people of the district. So if after all this time if the district is not where it is supposed to be don't you think it's time to give it back to the people so they can have at least the opportunity to move their school district forward. Still can't stop people from rabbit in this district and continuing to raise to open more charter schools we can't stop that. But we ought to put a moratorium on it. The state board of education are to put a moratorium on it so we have a chance to do what we need to do. So that's why you have before you Senate bill three fourteen. I wanted to ask you to do. By June thirtieth thirtieth of this year. But the school district be given back to the people who are paying for the school district. Thank you very much. All right I will open up for questions Senator Chesterfield you're recognized for a question use thank you madam chair a Senator Elliot when the district was taken over there were six schools and academic distress could you share with us how many or an academic stress at this time I don't know the number off the top of my head I'll the I'm sure somebody from the department of education was going to speak on this but I was the last I heard we were being transition back there were as many as eight yes so I need to know if that's true I don't know what the number is two day out Ms so I'm I'm sure somebody can tell us though. Senator Beckham you're recognized for a question. Do you know of those six schools are still open R. their closing commander. What happened to those six schools the run recommendations. Well it to those because they were under distress some are still let's see who might be still open they were all close as far as I remember I can bring the department at one of the better answer that questions as secretary Katie. questions I think. Little bit from what senator Chesterfield asked and then also Senator bekommen probably and updates as to what that situation is and this is this is specifically on the state takeover of the yes at the school if you'll just identify yourself for the record and then you'll be asked your position and then answer the questions. John he department of education. So Senate. There is not an academic distress designation any longer that went away with that nine thirty of twenty seventeen so there are no schools that are designated as being an academic stress then why are you still limiting the take over the the ability of the district to operate on its own. If you are why did you not do it for all of the other district if you to go Senator Elliot to gave a brief history of the of takeover in Arkansas. Well one of the things we have learned as the state has been involved in that is that there have been districts that once taken over and then return to local control of began to repeat the things that got them into state controlling the first place when we re wrote the and remember this is a not a takeover bill the the the legislation ACT nine thirty twenty seventeen was not a takeover it was a rewrite of the entire cat. Accountability system as we're moving away from No child left behind to the every student succeeds act we had update our own accountability system as well so when we wrote when we drafted ACT nine thirty. We intentionally put. A provision in there so that districts that were when being returned local control if the if the state board deems it necessary could have some level of gradual release in the five years is simply that timeline this as if it the the provisions of the exit plan have not been met then you gonna do one of three things you're going to consolidate an axe for you can return to local control but the law also allows a state board to put those limitations to a school board that is duly elected as the senator said and in this case there are three provisions and wasn't Commissioner that did that it was the state board there are three limitations that to the they put on the newly elected board one is regarding hiring firing of the superintendent. the other is the recognition of a collective bargaining agent. for teachers and staff in the third is the suing the state of that they restricted from suing the state of Arkansas until such time as they have completely exited level five. We have been working with Mr portent administration and at this point there is one piece left in it is a budgetary piece of a of the district is deficit spending this year and one of the the requirements in that exit plan is a balanced budget which can be resolved as soon as the district does its budget for the next year and once that. Issue has been resolved then of we would go back to the state board to say here's where we are the exit plan and once all the conditions have been met then the state board can take that action to. Remove of whatever limitations are are you know that would be up to them but obviously all recommendation is that as soon as all the explain components have been met then we would be releasing all of we would advise and recommend that they release all of those remaining restrictions. I hope that helps senator Elliots senator back center Beckham had the floor someone to go back to center back on I was just curious how many of the. Six schools or an economic economic distress are still open. I do not have that list I cannot remember if Franklin was one senator but I have to get that for you senator one one. All right are there any other questions you senator Chesterfield you're recognized for a question then Senator Sturch thank you. If this happens if what you're saying is true then in actuality this state has some form of control for seven years instead of the six is already been. Is that correct. The under the limited authority provision it's as long as it takes to. To resolve all the components of the exit plan whether it's Little Rock or a roller or the member the goal is though to raise the limit to remedy all those prior to that five years so Little Rock I guess was troubling me commissioners this. If the school district has been under this superintendent for almost like four years. We still have schools and academic whatever you call it. Intensive support. But the board cannot remove that superintendent. Because the state board of said doesn't matter how they perform you're stuck with the superintendent now everything is my court all but that's what you're saying I guess this was troubling to those of us who represent the Little Rock School District we have been treated differently. Because every other school district that has been restored to local control has been restored to local control. Now this school district it has been under this superintendent schools are not performing. To me a whole lot better maybe they are but no matter what happens with the superintendent they can't fire him for cause because the state board of education says they cannot do it. Which means in essence that you're steals dictating to this district what it can and cannot do and I'm not sure that you've treated any other district the same way no other district Pulaski County was let go after five years. David this question. You have one I'm just asking you have a question and answer okay they didn't let go I represent both Pulaski County as you know and Little Rock why would they treated differently. Pulaski County of the the decision to takes classic county school district under state control was due to fiscal distress so that's a separate completely separate statute that governs how that works I understand that but during this would you agree that the bill that I pass it you have to kill them from the beginning if you take me over this is what I need to get out but once you took the district over the ball kept moving down it's like Lucy and not with the football you get moving the goal post you tell me one thing had to be done to get out get the six out of academic distress then became fiscal distress then I suppose it's going to become facilities distressed because you can't pass a millage so I'm just saying that you're treating us differently and it will be seven years going on eight before really this district can be returned to local control thank you. Thank you. Hi Senator Sturch you're recognized for a question. Thank you ma'am to city I want to ask about the process that if looks could kill Senator Elliott already have made it under the table. And if so who and that's what it looked like to me everybody looks over here and I and I and I remember when the bill was passed about school boards I remember when we change the you know accountability plan for S. and so forth but we never did change as far as my knowledge anything about the five years or what happens at the end of the five years or anything like that so my question then is what is current law state as far as a school going back under distress of any kind academic fiscal what it how long does it have to be between the end of the five years and for the state would take them over again for another distress is there any time or is it there is no time I mean is and I mentioned to districts Dollaway was one and more recently Lee County of was one and in those situations there was quite some time that that the peer to couple three years that that passed so there's not a set time but again and in those situations if the state board had had had the option to allow the election of a local board with some restrictions then it is our belief that. Those districts would not have fallen into the same practices that got them in trouble the first time so that that's one of the legislation was written White was very specifically to allow that so that it would just be turned over and you would have the cycle we don't want to cycle of state controlled release state control we we want to issues whatever they are to be corrected so that the district can have long term success. I can ask for. So then I mean senator Elliots bill doesn't change any of that as far as you know after five years what happens is just after five years then the distributee given back to the local school board so for so I guess I'm asking then with the current account bill plan that we have does any of this process in jeopardy with S. R. or how to how the moving parts all work together as far as I get what you're saying as far as there is criteria that needed to be met and so forth so I guess my question is that is how would this jeopardises or does it jeopardises as far as the current accounted plan we have for everybody would we believe that it would undermine the the other provision that allows the state board to put restrictions limitations on a newly elected board even after they've been returned to local control those are the only three things that this district the new board is limited in of those three that I mentioned this board can move forward with a military action it can move forward with the all the day to day operational processes that the school board because it's only in these three areas that the state board places limitations thank you Sir thank you ma'am all right thank you are there any other questions all right C. N. nine thank you we're gonna go we do have some people to use this Madam chair yes may I just clarify something Republican representative yes Senator Sturch I am not at all suggesting that there cannot be a vote for millage on extension of a bill which there can be. But I I wonder who in this room will continue to vote for a millage vote for more taxes without representation without full representation that's the issue that is exactly why we've not been able to I cannot make the case to people nor should I that you. You don't have full representation but you go ahead and and pass a millage so somebody else can keep using the money and now that we do have a duly elected board. I feel comfortable with it because whatever happens we can't know who to hold accountable but is not that we can't it's just that practically speaking who among you would want to be in that position that's the main thing and I had a question I'm sorry for short a key I'm so sorry you left the table before I got my question and policies you can come back to the table real quick. So just just I mean I do have do you happen official position that I think I would like to ask you know what your official position is with the department of education we're against the bill okay yeah all right I just wanted to clarify that ends in Senator Irvin I think if if. If senator Elliots looks could kill I probably would've been dead at the Podium of the. I'm just trying to let me Senator Ellie and related to you know that that I'm sure that she did look at heart as hard as you at you as Steve has looked are at heart as one body to the office. All they have to do is get that look there's a lot of their you there's a thing known as the teacher look yeah I know enough Senate Chesterfield has it Senator Elliott has my team has it and I believe me I've gotten it from folks a few times to I know I have it too my husband says Missy you need to smile smile. But anyway thank you okay I just want to clarify that as well and and then Senator test for your talk about Pulaski County school district in Little Rock School District but just for my clarification you're referring to the little rock school district is I wondered if I represent all four districts yeah I know right but you're referring to the Little Rock school district with the issues with the takeover right well Pulaski County was taken over correct as well as level okay and I was referring to the difference between how they were treated and released because Pulaski County was restored to full released after five years Little Rock was not okay that's the difference okay thank you I just wanted that clarity for clarity for myself all right thank you we're gonna go to speak for and against we have speak for this bill Greg Adams is Greg Adams in the room Mr Adams if you want to come to the table please. And if Carol for I don't have anybody else to speak against the bill I have Carol Fleming to speak for so we just have to to. To speak for. No I have three. Okay feel just state your name for the record you're recognized. Push the button. Thank you my name is Greg Adams. Thank you I appreciate the chance to speak today regarding this bill I served in our school board at the time to take over and from two thousand ten to two thousand fifteen at the time I was the board president. And then in two thousand in November of this year of two thousand twenty I was elected to serve on the first board that was elected after the. The takeover and we were sworn in and and begin our work in December. With both of these experiences that I think I have a unique perspective about being taken over and it's not just real and frankly for the little rock school district but for school districts across the state. Let me say upfront that I'm not speaking today as an official representative that are still busy Courts board I'm speaking as a private citizen. I disagreed with the judgment of the state board of education and January two thousand fifteen when it voted to take over the drug school district with a one vote majority. I did not and I do not object to the state's right and responsibility to intervene and local school districts to ensure that all Arkansas children are provided an adequate education I just agreed with a dissenting state board members at that time that a taker were was not the right decision in that situation. Taking over a school district is a drastic and painful step for community at the eliminate our system of representative democracy at the local level. And in such a step is deemed necessary and has taken the goal should be to return to full representative democracy and local governance as soon as possible. My set expectation at the time of the takeover with that the state would keep control of the district for the maximum time allowed by law which would have been five years. However I was wrong. For whatever reasons the state failed to return the district a local governance in five years. And instead it was a month shy of six years before locally elected board was in place. And then as they continue to violate the spirit if not the letter of the law by limiting the ability the locally elected board to fully govern the district as other elected boards empowered to do across the state. Three restrictions are guardrails are put into place limiting the authority of the newly elected school board. In principle the most concerning one was the one that the senator Chesterfield mentioned to me resist limiting the ability of the school board to make decisions about its on superintendent. The school board hires only one employee a superintendent it's the state does not allow the newly elected board to have this responsibility. My concern is there is one of principal and is in no way a reflection of of concern regarding our present superintendent. Also it would like to comment about the issue of that Mr Keyes spoke about regarding the budget requirement to exit and head into a full local governance the budget was not the concern when the state was taken over into the district's taken over and the budget that we that Mr queue mentioned it would have been in deficit spending would have been approved developed and approved under state control. And so it is not the fault of the Little Rock School District local governance that if there was deficit spending concern and so it seems to me that that is an unfair situation at a state's decision about what to do with the budget last year now hampers the full control and the government local governance of the school board this year something that we had no control over at all. There is a natural tension and and balance between the state and local communities when it comes to the public education. I submit that the experience for the little Little Rock School District six instead of a lot the allowed five years of take control and hamstringing and newly and duly elected school board demonstrates that the system is out of balance not just for little rock. Hey but for any districts across the state and for those of you with homes that are outside of the rock I ask you to imagine your perspective if your local school district was mistreated in similar fashion. Five years as a significant amount of time for it to be without a local local governance and it should be the upper limit as a legislature had attended. One local governance returns after five years or before it should be allowed to return to in full reality without restrictions as is the right and responsibility of all other elected school boards in Arkansas. Having experienced the described governmental over reach which I believe that's what that has this has been by the state board of education. I strongly encourage passage of Senate bill three fourteen. All right thank you are there any questions. I'm okay well I just wanted to ask a question could you clarify what you said again about the budget issue that you talked about. Yes so what I understood in the exit criteria that we have part of it is the budgetary concerns Mr Q. referenced that we need to have a balanced budget going forward but any mention that we had a deficit budget in this past year but the deficit budget was not the responsibility of local governance there's deficit budget was developed and approved under state control where the commissioners functioned as a school board. Right but I do recall that in twenty fifteen you had the desegregation money and then that desegregation money did go away did the board before twenty fifteen have a plan in place for the retirement of those desegregation funds and did they have a plan in place because I mean we are we can talk about that you know as far as the taker of the State but they came in to that situation did the board have a plan for that before we and we were right in the middle of that when that when that happens they took over I was a part of that process within we initiated getting out of desegregation because we want to have control over what was happening and we are concerned that the court was going to take away the control what was happening so there was a draw down of the of the funds that we were in and we were not to the end of that draw down when the state took over and we were right in the middle of having to develop and face or how we were going to cut the budget at that point we didn't have a chance to really develop the planning and implement that plan because we were taking over well and kind of in the same way the state that has control over the budget clearly has been impacted by COVID just like every other schools budget has as well well but it but if it I would suggest and if that's true then then that if every others the district also was impacted by that then why should that be question that the actual distribute penalized and not be able to be in for local governments because of a pandemic that we had no control over and then the state was over the budget we don't have control over that either so it seems like we are burying the negative consequences of something over which we had no control and I I just I hear some complaints against the state takeover in the budgeting process however it's you know it I think there's issues that impact that are there other. Tions. Right thank you for being here today thank you appreciate your testimony okay for that is there anyone here to speak against the bill. He went here to speak against I don't know if there's anybody outside for the bill we do have a few others Vicki hatter. What school district board president Vicki. Okay no problem just for the record I will state that Vicki hatter of the rock school board president is here to support the bill I also have Clarke Tucker. To speak for the bill. Thank you your name sorry go ahead thank you madam chair Clarke Tucker a senator for district thirty two which is mostly in Little Rock a sum in Pulaski County as well and I'll I'll be brief I appreciate your indulgence me at the main point that I want to make is that I believe this bill as a clarification of existing law and specifically clarify that five years means five years and I want to dress the law you raised questions Senator Sturch. The law. As it is right now. Says if the public school district has not demonstrated to the state board and the Division of elementary and secondary Education that the public school district district meets the correct criteria to access level five intensive support within five years. Of the assumption of authority the state board shall annex consolidate or reconstitute the public school district under this subchapter. A subpar to of that law also says the state board shall promulgate rules to establish the criteria by which a public school district may accept level five intensive support specifically as the Little Rock School District. You know we have not asked by we I mean people in Little Rock bag Department to put forth exit criteria for years ultimately they did in February of two thousand nineteen which was more than four years after state takeover you know question was raised to me should there not be a transition period back to local control and I think there should be I think in recent months there has been more of a collaborative spirit it as evidenced by the the newly elected democratic school board voting nine oh in favor of the extract hearing and conjunction with work from the Department but for years there was there was nothing over four years with no execration area the law requires the department to promulgate. Rules to establish the X. criteria and the Department did not go through the administrative procedures act to promulgate the X. criteria for little rock school district so that's another problem but bottom line is this the statute says five years and that's to and the three options at the end of five years are annex consolidated reconstitute no one has been able to point to me and I remain open to it no one has been able to point to me this nebulous fourth option where you're able to put restrictions on a school district for an indefinite period of time I've not been able to find the authority for the department to do that in the law and in fact even if that did exist I think he would be an unlawful delegation of power from the legislature to the state board of education and so I think that would be unconstitutional even if that is what the law said but I no one has been able to point to me on that that's what the law says and so you know I I think just to stay a step back from a bigger picture though the reason that I think believe the statute has five years is because everyone I think everyone agrees that it's better for a a local democratically elected school board to be in control of the of their school district and it's a very serious thing for the state to disempower elected officials in order to take control of the school district and so there should be a time limit as to how long they can be and it's either five years or it's indefinite and the the law currently says five years in this bill would just clarify that five years means five years the second big picture philosophical point I would make is if the state has been in control of a district for five or and in this case we're now into the seventy year were about six weeks into the seventh year of state control if a school district has been under state control for that long still meets criteria for level five intensive support and who's responsible for that at that point in time. And it's it's at that point it's time for a change just as the state may be determined it was time for change before when they originally took over and and and that's why there should be a finite time period for how long the state can take over a district the law says five years and this bill would just merely confirm that. I'll be glad to take any questions but it's it's senator Elliots bill all right are there any questions. Right Senator Sturch recognized for a question the nature center then let me ask this question. Is it rule or should it be in law about how the sex criteria is done and about what time frame it could be done there should be done whether it be a year away are you in advance or something like that is that you understand that it's just by rule that they have the ability to do it whenever or should it then if it's not or if it isn't just a rule should we and acted as a bill. That's a good question center and maybe we should put it into the coat how quickly the department must promulgate rules to establish the action right here I think that's a good suggestion right now all it says and by it I mean the law is that they have to do it within five years which is the same time period that are authorized to have control of the district so I think you would be a good idea to put in the code because that's what we were on again but we we were back in for four years was exit criteria and it didn't come until four years and one month after takeover and so if it was in the code that the department had to promulgate exit criteria by you know two and a half years into this state controller three years whatever the case may be I think that would be a good suggestion. Was it January eighth twenty fourteen year in January of twenty fifteen I guess I'm getting confused fifteen okay well then give me the seven year I couldn't figure out what the seventy year reference what we have a six so in January of twenty one would be six oh going on your we're six weeks into my seventeen year yes Sir I guess I'm thank I just turned forty a six weeks ago so I'm into my forty hours tire right now I understand now thank you. Thank you senator Chesterfield you're recognized for a question thank you when I passed my bill concerning takeover. It was my understanding about my bill said when you take over school district you need to be able to tell them what they need to do to get out of control. And I was not aware that that was changed maybe it has been but it was my contention if you take over a school district in the district and you say they're probably going to be able to tell the district from the beginning has taken you over you need to do this to get out this is been going on add infinitum and we keep having as I say the ball move. Because when you've had a district this all. If there are fiscal distress issues that has nothing to do with decent money decent money's been gone for some time. The state board had an opportunity state board and the superintendent of schools at that time was the commissioner or the secretary had an opportunity to create a budget over the last several years that would have put us. in the blank as for spending was concerned. That is not taking place and now Board is hamstrung one more time. Because of actions that were or were not taken over this five or six year period you need to balance the budget you have the people there at the state department should have been able to do that some time ago rather than looking in twenty twenty one and I'm going into the seventh year and saying oh by the way we do need to balance the budget. Why wasn't it balanced over the period of six or seven years that the district. That's my concern with all of this five years is a long enough. A stop just stretching out. If you're asking me if I agree the the answer is yes and. Okay Senator come. Senator this question for you actually you can service a local control issue yes Sir I do thank absolutely. All right are there any other questions all right C. N. nine thank you Carol Fleming Care of women in the room. And this is the last one and then will allow you to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair good afternoon committee members I'll make sure I don't give that look. Because. Because I am Carol Fleming and I am a speech language pathologist in the little rock school district currently serving as president of the Arkansas education association the A. proudly represents thousands of educators from across our state including members in those other districts that are currently under state takeover. As a parent of an individual with special needs I know the importance of having a democratically elected school board that parents can go to to raise concerns the students or the educators who work with them are left without the tools or the support that they need to do their job. Without this critical lever I would have had limited ability to advocate for my child. A child school is his or hers learning environment and equally the educators work environment and everyone should be working together to make that a safe and healthy place for our kids. Furthermore as a tax payer without a democratically elected school board with full decision making authority I am left silenced. It is also critically important that we recognize that the state takeovers are happening almost exclusively exclusively in African American and Latino schools and school districts. These are the same communities that have experienced decades of under investment in the public schools and consistent attacks on their property. Decision making ability. And self determination. Students in all schools deserve resources and support. That includes counselors librarians updated textbooks and modern classrooms with the resources to prepare students for the future. The best way to ensure this is school districts that are governed by the people who live in the same community as the students they represent. AT a represents educators who know the names of their students having a democratically elected school board gives them and their parents an opportunity to advocate for our children. I appreciate senator Elliots in the other lawmakers who have brought this important legislation forward and ask for your consideration and favorable vote. Thank you. Thank you I just have a quick question yeah so no do you would you ever see an instance where a school would need to be taken over I mean do you would just agree out right that it's not something that we should as a state come in and do. Because I hear the arguments about a democratically controlled board and elect elected I hear that I understand that however there's also the flip side of the argument which says that if a school is not operating and in meeting its its obligations to those students. Then then are you just completely opposed to any state takeover of a school district no matter what the circumstances are because to me the issue is about if that school. Is mismanaged or if it's poorly run and it's failing that students. Then the state has the ability to come in with corrective action so so I hear I hear the local control issue I hear that argument however we're really talking about the students we're trying to focus on if it's if a school is mismanaged and it's failing its students who who then are you again do you advocate for the state of Arkansas or the department of education or the state board of education to come in with any type of corrective action so with all due respect Senator Irvin that is not the intent of this bill the intent of this bill is that if a state or if the school district has been in state control after five years they should be returned when you have a locally elected school board to the school board to the district. So I'll just ask my question one more time okay do you do you see at any point where do you would you supports the state taking over a school if it's an academic distress or fiscal distress okay. There is already statute for that what I am here to advocate for today is that after five years that the school district be returned to the school district under local control with the democratically elected school board okay thank you thank you. Are there any other questions all rights and then thank you Senator Elliot you're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you madam chair thank you committee for for hearing us out I will just start with and try to make this real quick. It if there are three reasons the school board is not now fully in control and the district is not returned to the people who are paying the taxes here the three one has to do with the the superintendent and I can assure you there are not people on the board not talk with these board members I don't know anybody in the community who is clamoring to get rid of the superintendent I don't want that I don't want that to even be something that you have to consider because that's that's reason number one that's not a problem if it weren't though it should be the school board who doesn't but it's not a problem the second thing has to do with you have the control of a bargaining with that with students teachers and the rest of the employees of the district that's one of the that's one of the things school boards exist for to decide these things locally so that should not be a state problem and that's that's the third thing had to do with See what was it maybe maybe what we might be moving toward fiscal that no they can't see the state that this district will have no opportunities in the state Does any district can any is there any district in the state who can sue the state. If there is then why not Little Rock. If there is not there okay not Little Rock so if these are the reasons we are still under state control I think you need to get I ask you to give us some real serious considerations because I don't think these are reasons to do so and the second thing is it I thought long and hard about this I would bring this frivolously. But I do believe you do the same thing if you were in this position you should. You absolutely should. Because if this district has not met the criteria for exiting state control. Well as the state why that's the case. Since we met the five years we've gone all the way through this six year. As centered as senator Tucker said we're into the seventh year. I don't think this is asking too much. So I ask you for good vote. All right thank you I what is the pleasure of the Committee. I move to pass senator Elliots center Chesterfield second all right all those in favor say aye. And opposed. All right please call the roll. Senator Linda Chesterfield yes. Senator Jane English. No Senator Lance Eads. No Senator Greg Leding. I. Senator James Sturch. No senator Charles Beckham. Yes Senator Joyce Elliott. All right. At the the bill fails. Thank you. All right next is we have in the room I believe Senator Clark. And as Senator English. This is house bill eleven thirteen. Thank you madam chair. Senator Jane English district thirty four. And Senator Alan Clark is here with me as well. but basically this is a bill that allows of this state land commissioner. Two of donate property. In a low high income area to build schools. Where no housing has been built this isn't a bill about whether or not we have more charter schools this is only a bill about whether or not property could be donated. To the Committee all right are there any questions. Senator Clark did you have something you wanted to say sorry. That's okay madam chair think Senator English summed it up very well. All right are there any questions. Senator Elliot you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Senator English L.. Even even though it's it's. Not something they're. On the paper. How could it not be when people. When the testimony last time we heard this bill was that. We do intend to build. Low income housing and southwest little rock. Not. Near anybody's neighborhood in here. And and those that housing will attract. New schools and that there was a person prepared questions to. Make application for a charter schools right but those homes would be built why would that not be. So I said we we we can talk about this before and the issue here isn't whether or not we build another charter schools in Little Rock the issue here is whether or not property any could be used anywhere across the state to build a school and it could be a traditional school or could be a charter school in HIGHPOVERTY area. I I I understand that but do you recall that that discussion on what we when we met last. And when I ask about the schools I ask if little rock school district is planning on building a school there no anybody else planning yes and that person said charter school. And I'm not I don't quibble with you with an audit could happen someplace else. But I know sometimes we have to surgically look at what is what's the what's the motive and what's going to happen as a result of it Do do you do you not think it has that that implication for the little rock school I think it could be but I think it also could be any other place in the state of Arkansas I agree but do you do you remember that it was stated that that was that's what's on there was an intention yes okay I do agree with that. So as thank you just a quick summarized so one of the comments on the legislative impact statement said that the goal of this act is to prevent waste of valuable real property certified by to the Commissioner of State lands for non payment of property taxes but that wasn't six not successfully sold at public auction so basically to put this land to good use fine I mean that's is that your assessment I mean at some of that has just been sitting sitting sitting sitting and growing weeds and things like that and and has not been used for its intended purpose which was for housing so there could be some alternatives they could help the community. Right okay thank you I have another question and share yes Senator English under this bill Could. It would that could be used for something other than low income housing. No this is HIGHPOVERTY area. And that Hempstead at the homestead act that basically everyone calls for. It's housing in a low income I mean high income area donated property that community. Should be building some housing but obviously housing has not been built in some of these areas. So. Would you would you agree to disagree that if this is an area any area and for the state in an area that's already depressed in an area where. Probably not anybody who would want to build their home. That we are. By our state imprimatur. Setting up a situation where we are putting. More people for people this call is could be. What people. In the same area almost have been the effect of packing people into an area where they're already struggling. As opposed to say more integrated housing where we have neighborhoods Where are perhaps we could make the case on the sum of the scenario that we would had mixed income housing I know we can't I think it's quite possible but one is this this doesn't exacerbate the situation with the intent of doing something good I'm not question that actually central at the. Of Senator Clark. If the this bill does not change what allow. The property is use force force housing it's already it was used for housing before it is allowed to be used for housing now. in many of these communities that has been discovered that there is no market for housing that there's not there is some housing's been built but there's no more housing to be built we have just vacant land sitting there on the community's not been improved and this bill offers that if a public school or public charter wanted to use that landed as one more use other than housing and so your point that baby housing could be built somewhere else is a good point this just allows at a school or public school can come into that community and use that property of which would be a good thing for those communities. Well I'm that is if it's a if it's a matter of. Any but any school who wanted to locate there could locate there at I don't I I couldn't change that I'm just trying to think about this in terms of our over all policy do we want to be a part of. Taking a situation and let somebody else too but does the state really need to be a part of almost helping. By building a school there or allowing so to build a school there created almost a Cabrini green type situation where we had you know these huge high rises where people lived and everybody there was struggling poor in some in some kind of way and we actually not those down because it was not a good thing and now it seems to me where if we can do that I think it would be a bad idea to do below poverty housing because what is that. It is a below poverty what is a house look like generally that somebody who lives below the poverty line can can by what would that look like I am if you have some idea I'm really asking that question because I'm concerned that we are saying this is a good thing I'm actively involved will have to have a detrimental so on the those houses look like this to any other houses but I mean dispersed actually I aiming I'm not sure it would because because this is this is a donated land for the use of educational purposes that's what the bill does right so we're we're not we're not really the bill's not about public housing yes manager doesn't do anything with public housing of the I was just answering the question but back to what it does do is. It is we wouldn't want to pull schools out of of low income areas and parking areas to cause people to leave of the or force them to leave it's got to be a good idea to. To put schools closer to people to put schools in a community to try to help that community and or at least give them the the availability of public school doesn't have to have have to locate a school there a charter school doesn't have to locate a school there but this allows them it's a very permissive bill allows someone to do that they currently couldn't do that with the they could with this bill rather than the property just sitting there I am not being use I thank you are there any other questions yeah I didn't we didn't hear testimony last time around and because it centers Elliott let me ask if there other questions from the members of the committee all right last last question What was stated in the committee last time is that we will be located school there and that would that would attract people to move into the area. I don't know that we ought to be using located school somewhere to attract somebody to an area so that we can basically as I said continue to pack people into an area who had not had the opportunity to live someplace else that's all I don't I don't know that I would agree with that either Central it but I would agree with giving the opportunity for public schools and public charter schools Los que schools and our lower income communities in order to serve them. Thank you are there any other questions. All right so that's a motion and a second all those in favor for immediate consideration say aye and opposed ayes have it. But is the pleasure of the Committee. Of do pass **** their second second all those in favor say aye aye and opposed. Is habits. Please call the roll. Senator Linda Chesterfield. No Senator Jane English yes Senator Lance Eads. Yes Senator Greg Leding. No Senator James Sturch. I senator Charles Beckham. Yes Senator Joyce Elliott. Senator Irvin I votes on a. The Bill pass The. All right we have got sent thank you senator garner is heat Ballinger is here I'm gonna let you guys go ahead and I will wait to run my ability and so Senator Ballinger I believe this year if you're up next we have house bill. Is that a Levin seventy five. Okay house bill eleven seventy five as Senator Ballinger roof recognized thank you so much and and honestly this is nowhere near as exciting as what you've been dealing with today so it It is directly just clean up language a few years ago we we modified it so that school boards can actually help holder election on the or will holder election on either a primary or general we left one part of the code out that that Basically use the old eight as of at six of that and the other thing is is if it's a opposed it just puts in the same category as everybody else that's unopposed if you have any technical questions lenses hearing she's been hanging around the whole time just for this bill so she's happy to answer any questions are there any questions on the bill. C. nine is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill C. nine what is the pleasure of the Committee motion to pass and second all those in favor say aye opposed ayes have it the bill passes. Thank you thank you senator garner you're recognized to presents Senate bill. Are you. One sixty one. Senator Clark Is Senator Clark bills we're supposed three forty eight until three forty nine I think the fiscal impact wasn't ready on those bills that we need to put those on Wednesday's agenda okay Senator Garner you're recognized a measure I told staff to send over an amendment to add yes co sponsored you have that yes we do have the amendment sooner get the adopted before moving yes. It's just to add a co sponsor yes ma'am it is. Very simple. that's the only thing the amendment does yes and a motion to adopt the amendment. All right and the second. All those in favor say aye. And oppose ayes have it the amendment is adopted you may present your bill out for the amended as did the manager this is a fairly simple bill what it does is allow a hunter safety course be tall in our school system to teach people about how to hunt. How to do proper firearm safety and a host of other issues basically the blame base it on the Arkansas game and fish a current course they do actually got my safety course at a high school whenever I was in elementary school their Cormier over the only other real big issue about it is at school district if they develop and if they decide could use of the operative firearms to finding code we don't think anybody will turn have like a shooting range or anything like that but if a school district wants to use an actual firearm and they put in safety procedures to make sure that is all usable and I compared to you know doing as a driving safety course you got to drive a car so if you're doing a gun safety courses operate is needed to have that kind of a tool there with that I'll take any questions committee Senate senator garner actually there are a lot of schools that do have traps traps sports in trap shooting teams and my all for my kids And competed on trap shooting teams and so they actually do have ranges a fire at firing ranges on their school campus campuses so at this would allow them to teach that curriculum safely on their in connection with their shooting sports teams I yes ma'am I said they're already the capacity in certain schools to do that if they follow this guideline by the game in fishing others so this would just expand that to allow it and this safety courses well and it's permissive language yes ma'am Senator test failure recognized for a question is a state board on board with this and they ask me when I first put it out to do some amended I don't know if there for against it they had pushed back and I think they're fine with it you'll find the bill I got a lot with this Senator Sturch you're recognized for a question. Thank you mentor senator garner I I guess I'm a little confused currently right now those that are offered or just considered electives that right hi this is I have to look at school district the way I did in school was it was actually a game and fish course that allowed me to go huntin Fishin what this would do is serve dual purpose you can get that credit by doing this can also be certified by the state the horn to the hunter education program so that you would apply as soon as license yes Sir you have to take a safety course to in order to do that this will be served at dual purpose allow school districts if they want to to be able to right but you're saying that at least this is what I read it now is that it can replace their P. requirement or their health class or something else if they take this classic replace that because it can for I believe we originally had like a half credit credit in the department's cation want to narrow down also school district and decide how they want to see okay Sir thank you Sir thank you Mr thank you so allows for maximum flexibility yep yes ma'am okay. Okay all right and the other all right. At all right we have a motion to pass in a second you've close for you is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. When center fielder makes a motion I am definitely close okay our motion is to pass as amended to correct yes ma'am all right all those in favor say aye. And opposed ayes have it bill passes congratulations members I have one last bill Senate bill three ninety seven this was the amendment as engrossed in the bill a person Chesterfield's request. And I'll come to the table presents. You're recognized okay members at this is this is the engrossed amendments that I presented in committee the other day to create the higher add a consumer's guide acts and I have those up and people here in support from the bill from higher and and the Department happy to answer any questions. At three ninety seven. And this guy was just a second so we can find. Okay. Senator Sturch did you have a question thank you ma'am chance this is the day that I was going could I just a little more X. what is this guy what is it sorry yes so thank you for the questions Senator Sturch though and this this was something hours with higher and on and and as well as department of higher ed and the department of education it's really to provide a higher education consumer guide two so that students have the ability to see how much it's going to cost them so that they can make a better choice about perhaps where they're going to go or what they're going to study to see what the return on investments going to be once I graduate how much money they're gonna make and how much debt they might incur so it's really just a consumer guide for that up front information so that students can make and their families can make a better informed choices about their higher at and also can plan for it so and we actually put together this bill with the career coaching bill and with the Arkansas and five to nine plan and which we are proposing to rename the Arkansas brighter future fund because it's really about trying to get as much information could together as possible in front of that student in their families so that they can make a better informed decision about how much debt they're going to occur and what the return on their investments going to be and that may differ decide what path they want to go down and they can start planning for it early. So that's what the bill the bill doesn't collect all that information and put Senator usable place okay and then the the students are prospective students going into higher and will get a copy of that well statewide guide is not yet institution based on it's not like you are would have theirs and that would have there is it would be just a statewide guide our all the information be collected from all institutions yes yes all the all the information's going to be collected but it's going to be something that they're gonna be able to access and have for them and then we're asking for at that institutions up to put that on their website and then to also give a copy of it to a prospective students thank you senator. Are there any further questions. If not what's the pleasure of the Committee. A motion to. I'm sorry was anybody audience speak for against the bill I'm sorry. Seven okay. I got a motion to pass and second okay I see two fingers that you're doing all right motion and of those a second all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no motion passes. Thank you. I want to thank senator Elliots for chairing the committee at while we were running bills and also members of the committee thank you for your time and attention and for sticking and us in this with us on this and the folks that came into this committee meeting I just want to say I really appreciate all of the testimony I appreciate the people that showed up either in support of bills or opposed to bills we appreciate that and I think it's very important that the public have that ability to participate in this process so to all of those that did attend today's hearing in this committee I just wanna say thank you for coming for showing up and we hear you we see you and we appreciate you and with that we will see you on