Education Committee - Senate

Okay. Even though we're already working on will call the Senate Education Committee to order so just for today we are going to I have to pass over Senate bill two fifty because we've has set at per request of the University of Arkansas pine bluff I think they have some meetings if they want to do with some thoughts on that I will also entertain a motion to allow for us to suspend the rules to allow that as senator Chesterfield to run Senate bill three eighty two on today's agenda center back and makes that motion Is there a second all those in favor say aye. And opposed Is habits motion carries so we will suspend the rules to allow us to place Senate bill. Three eighty two on today's agenda for consideration. All right and we will do that at the end of our and engine does so at this time I'm going to invite and and and just FYI Senator Clark if somebody can text him and his Senate bills three forty eight three forty nine are still pending fiscal impacts that he cannot run those today. All rights. And we will get the rest of these organized for Wednesday. M. and run a lot of schools on Wednesday I mean a lot of schools a lot of bills sorry we often a lot of bills on Wednesday so buckle up for Wednesday is going to be probably a longer meeting so with that we will recognize senator I mean at Senate bill one ninety one is senator Sullivan in the room. Okay if you can come to the table. Appeal to state your name for the record you're recognized senator Dan Sullivan madam chair may I have the for for the first time book join me at the table. Members shall go ahead again well the pressure is getting his notes together but if you remember we passed a great bill forming open and robust university minds two years ago with bipartisan support and I think that passed overwhelmingly in the house and Senate it went on that kind of become a model nation wide far free speech and what it did was essentially got rid of the free speech zones and can open the campus up. To my knowledge there's not been had any problems with that universities have adopted will. There hasn't been an issue with people infringing that Moscow through the bill real quickly before I left Robert elaborate a little bit. If you're looking on. Page two of the bill a line seventeen it just talks about the rights to free speech of members of campus communities so it kind of expands the our population is protected here not just to students but the faculty and staff. And then on line seventeen of page three it talks about expressive conduct. And course it is stretched out there protected by the first amendment that's understood so it also includes conduct or. Speech. And then on page four. it in lines one and two. Any matter except for a matter prohibited by state or federal law so it doesn't extend what state or federal law covers far what is protected speech now. And that in line for it cannot interfere with state or federal laws for the prohibition of harassment or discrimination I know that's a big concern right now I'm working with two teachers are K. twelve teachers who are I have a hearing before the state board of education offer things they had on their Facebook post and of their licenses being threatened for that this bill does not affect that it doesn't affect K. twelve it only affects our higher education. A line six it may impose reasonable restrictions regarding the time place and manner of carrying out expressive activities so it still does allow the university's some latitude and how and how and when and where these things occur and again this is very similar to the law that we passed previously far the free speech zones they still have that reasonable accommodation in there so that's not unusual language in line sixteen on page four indoor areas are generally accessible to members of the campus community. Line twenty three regarding the they still can't have time place and manner for carrying out expressive activities we crossed out the out door so it moves it to indoor also. and then finally on line thirty four it talks about in the public area of campus not just outdoor but any public area. Thank online on page five line thirty four it is not require members of the campus community to take an oath other than the oath required by the law on academic or professional accrediting body. Sir I think this bill is just a natural step up from what we passed two years ago. I really. Learn quickly you can't sometimes take a full bite at the apple you have to take a little bit at a time and see if it works and see how over time if people are having trouble with that I thank the first bill that we passed the freedom on can't perform bill now demonstrates that the colleges can manage that and handle that faculties and stop staff can handle it reasonable seems to have been worked out with reasonable and this bill is just another step forward and fifth time I let Mr Feinberg make a few comments. Thank you feel just state your name for the record you're recognized. Yes. Okay my name is Robert Steinberg I'm a professor of law here in Little Rock I'm here in my personal capacity. So of course the senator stated well the overarching notion of this bill last legislative session you'll have the for mac it was like ninety nine one in the house I think ninety nine is your own house and something similar here in the Senate so would have overwhelming support is the format and this act by the way it's not about left or right about right or wrong so that bill said on outdoor areas now remember I'm sorry step back just one moment AS. How to incident where a student outdoors trying to pass out some literature for conservative groups. The the local copy and then they are wrestled with third board or that's what gave rise to the format in the first place so we said outdoor areas you have to let students communicate with each other about issues that they want to communicate you can control it but you can't just say no conservatives but yes liberals or no laws in yes conservatives it has to be an open for hence the name the format. We do and only two things in this revision for the four of Act as a center up we put into incremental step forward for those indoor areas that are common areas not classrooms not whole ways in front of classrooms we're talking about the eating area or the big seating areas outside. Students are allowed to do something similar they want to hand out flyers they want to communicate all of it still fully regulated by the school time place and manner no legal activity no disruption it's all in the bill that is prohibited but they have to be able to hand out flyers and that type of activity in the common areas only non disruptive activity. The second thing. We've got allow with a broad notion of academic freedom on campuses students teachers anybody and off campus. And this relates to the point that senator Solomon brought up if you put something on your Facebook outside the school that has nothing to do with the with illegal activity that this protects that those are the two teachers that Dan was used a sentence Solomon was using as an analogy because this would relate to K. through twelve. Again it's about allowing all view points to be expressed and nothing more Newton every step in this bill says no we legal activities allowed in the school can we regulate time place and manner so if you hear claims from AS you I know that my friend Mr Phelps is here that this will be disruptive and I don't know what is going to say but if he says it in right. I will further tell you that the part about full academic freedom is a policy I Mark school. Of Arkansas at little rock and so far the walls of Jericho have not fallen down so if it's good enough for the **** school in this system will be this you may not agree with that characterization that's or joke for you. they're probably good enough for all of the other schools as well free speech really does mean free speech I'm available for any questions. Thank you and one of the questions I have a one and one of the things that I really loved where my kids go to school and is they had at this wall and which was this I don't know how it was it was a wall they constructed this wall outside of the student union and they allowed and so it was a it was an expression wall or whatever Senate it was really cool and and they were so many kids that participated and take part in it that they also have an area in the city where the the university is located where it's like all graffiti to and it's it's a section of concrete and it's therefore expression I guess you could say it changes all the time depending on what you know but that it was really cool to see this expression wall because that you know in provided by the university for the students to be able to contribute in their way as and I thought it was just such a brilliant way of being able to provide the opportunity for freedom of speech there was no and and in a way that became I a really beautiful creation of all these diverse opinions and divers you know Ed perspectives and it became this like work of arts and it was one of the coolest things I've I've I've ever seen in my kids and were they participated in it and it became a really unifying thing and that the university was in control of or ends provided and you know where there was division actually that expression of artwork became unifying for so many of those kids and I just wanted I whenever I read your bill and and stand this that immediately is what came to my mind and so what I hear you saying is like an a student union or a common area that this could be extended then to that as an arena for freedom of expression that the school would still maintain kind of the parameters around how that would occur is that correct okay yeah exactly begin the you the the form bill was agreed bill at the legislature passed it it affected we won the first stage to pass that among the first in it became the model for a nationally a lot of states picked up on that quickly and I think it has had broad bipartisan support and again the the the critical factors can school control what goes on to they have a reasonable ability to control that and I think that we've demonstrated that yes they do they can understand reasonable the students understand reasonable and they work together on that yeah they provided markers and paints and you know materials and it was really really cool Center Chesterfield you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Thank you senator so. Robert Stein Mart still the less S. T. E. R. N. V. U. S. C. H.. could you please tell me what is prohibited by law State. On page board says yes. For example any form of racism sexual harassment all of that is prohibited by law so you can't get out there and start harassing people that's against the law all right so anything that prohibited by law you can't this doesn't give you a get out of jail free card so to speak it just. Thank you well. Title nine title seven depending on who the actors on the campus or yes ma'am so if. The free speech of the individual instructor leads to. The institution being in that matter whether it's meant to be that way or not. Or if this speech of the trustee leaves to deleterious impact on enrollment it doesn't matter is that right. We is illegal and it hurts the school yes if it hurts to school and I guess that would be the ones opinion whether Kirk school or not other than that the role what went down obviously it hurt at par students nine I'm not going to that school because these professors asking that I'm particularly offensive maybe coming by the first amendment right but it is deemed to be offensive it does not always have to be racist or misogynistic rhetoric and needing to be hostile. In S. not covered by federal law we don't have a definition of hostility do. Well it. Yes no I mean some hostility falls under well unfortunately the law isn't so clear I wish it were so so you you know because customer environment is a type of prohibited illegal behavior so would constitute a hostile environment it is the legal it may not be perpetuated but to be clear senator Chesterfield if a professor says I believe in this conservative ideals or of course I believe in this liberal and there's no doubt that I'm a I'm a conservative I don't want to hear that liberal teacher I'm a liberal I don't want to hear that conservative teacher you may result you may have a result with some students choose not to come and others choose to call for that he of all the most important aspect of your education. Not that I'm getting taught in the public schools for some thirty years I appreciate discourse right. The exchange of discourse yes ma'am but I also recognize there is an instructor. All to be able to. A corral myself if you will yes because everything I say. Is dean by somebody. One way or the other yes even though I have the right to say it sometimes I should not say that what you're saying here is it does not matter if it's offensive. It does not matter if it's on county jail it doesn't matter of this disagreeable he's got to be protected that's what you're saying in this line that language is in the initial part of the bill as well which is in the existing law for Max if you look in its underlined here yes ma'am yes ma'am that means it's also moved into that section but if you were earlier in the bill you'll find similar language I have to find it if you. I'm just trying to get to yes really I just need some yes or no answer okay how about my balance my that I think you're looking on page are you referring to page on page three at this time right okay on line thirty three and I read the other part of the bill as well I am of free speech proponents because I taught school for a very long time and I propose that one of the most important things we can do is engage in free exchange of ideas. There were many times when I knew one student was that one way and another student built another and I would assign them just the opposite because that's what learning is all about but at the same time as an instructor I have a greater responsibility to make sure that what I'm talking about speech that is offensive. Speech that is disagreeable to non collegia. You can have a deleterious impact on the institution so I'm trying to get to. Of. If you don't mind I am trying to get to. You're saying that racist speech is already covered. Thank title seven is that right yes ma'am. misogynistic speech is covered by title nine. For students title seven entitlement yes ma'am. But the intelligible speech words occur what I'm going to each other was mentioning if you look on page two of. A twenty eight through thirty four at the bottom lines thirty three through thirty fourth this is from the original format this is current law so you see that language individuals may find on welcome on collegial disagreeable or even deeply offensive that's current law that was moved forward as well into the next section but that language exists in the current format that was passed two years ago but that was in reference to children is that right references duties were not a reference to the instructors to to me saying any higher level I believe in this free speech I'm I'm just having some difficulty with the terms with the job thank you. Yes ma'am thank you I other questions. Senator Elliot you're recognized for questions. All right. Be a little specific with me about I move my page and lost my myspace what's meant by. Rights beyond the first amendment I want to be sure I've got got that understood correctly. Where are you on the bill well I'm I'm lost. She's on page two I'm on page two line thirteen at the end it begins what are off campus and is it going to say those rights beyond guaranteed by the first amendment I just want to get an understanding what we're talking about their so the first amendment offers a very narrow area of protection that most people think all the first amendment you know what I consider what I want to say the first amendment the first amendment offers an extremely narrow area of protection other than for things like political speech for you all and that it's virtually unfettered in that context so that is simply a recognition that we believe that there is a broader goal did just that narrow role of first amendment when we get to the context of higher education we want people to be communicating about all sorts of ideas whether or not we agree with the. and so you know there's a lot of debate is but a lot of debate in Arkansas and elsewhere about what you really teacher at all and and I kind of come to it from the mind of. Everything everything and then let the let it all get hashed out until that's what that refers to it allows for free debate and discussion. what I'm just gonna give you a scenario just let me know if the universe is in trouble and are not afraid for to do this I'm going to give an example of something that we've done here so we we passed a law. S. the standard ground bill we passed. And legal. But is not that is that is at issue. But if there is a and this is and if so I want people to have their minds open a little bit when we talk about controversial subjects this is a good example do that. Yes there is there is a notion in our state yeah we have the right to do that but it is such a destructive thing that. The collegiality or you could Hart our state in general. So because we can do it should we do it and in the case of a university that same kind of not the exact same examples exist. When does the the college or university got to say clarify for me it's so destructive. And it's beyond you know the. But the first amendment I just kind of wanna understand safe is even inside my classroom when do I get to say no this is just a bridge too far well let me jump in person but you are that's one of the reasons we didn't go all the way the first time through you know this bill is the form Act we heard that same argument that if we let people speak have broad free speech on campus it'll get out of control and that we won't be able to control our campuses and and what's reasonable may you're with we don't we don't trust which reasonable will really happen can be positioned and we just haven't seen that yet so when the first form Act passed two years ago one would one would think that if that were a problem determining what reasonable was are that the on where is that bridge too far it wouldn't appear to have happened on the first four mac two years ago nor any time between them so you not a I just think this is a natural step to that next level because we haven't switching good things happen is Senator Irvin discussed like good things have happened not bad some of the estate so now you're stretching my ability to understand that. We were not seeing a problem. If I made center. Yes okay. The good things did happen when we saw the Bill passed and good things happen so this bill will help more good things happen and just make does not and I encourage those opportunities and encourage what professor Steinberg was talking about about people's right to free speech and their individual ability and reasonable nice for them to curtail themselves as senator Chester it was talking about we've seen that happen we've seen students do that it gives people an opportunity to exercise their own self control or if. I need to finish this of the and and I don't. Because. Yes if you lord knows they're always complains about things that we discussed in my question without insisted on so I'm I'm I'm I'm here for this discussion but I'm not I'm just I'm not following that because good to know that things that happen because of our first bill that we can then extrapolate that from that no bad things going to happen if we just keep going further. The. One no my my. Eleven year old rides her bicycle really well. Nothing that has happened now she wants to drive my car. Is nothing bad going to happen. Big cannot do that kind of extrapolation and my a lot of thought so just give me something to make me feel better about yes ma'am no nothing's going to. Yes I think the word came from the bill is good things yeah we had we had a lot of good things happen I think more good things a result of this there's more good things will happen even if it's just people learning to control themselves and people have in the the ability to speak freely on college campuses I think it's a good thing so I it's not just the absence of the bat if the if the prevalence in the moving forward with these things go ahead I would just add one technical point Senator then that is on page five line three and this is from the original bill when it and obviously continue so it cannot what started going to of course any of the a speech can't be unlawful also does not materially and substantially disrupt jadi you know that goes on the state supported institution so there is a control mechanism invalid. What what what the the specific question I was getting to I think I ask it we just kind of lost and in our discussion probably my fault for that at what point do I get to decide in my classrooms that wait a minute this is a bridge too far we cannot do this because people come here to one of. The Bill say no you can't passed out. How do I tell that that problem I don't think this bill addresses that. And I don't think that's not the intent of this bill to address that so we're not. Hesitate to address instances not in the bill about something we're trying to do because I want to know I think we can pass this and that's a separate issue that we need to address that separate understanding the bill and that I I read it as the things that that perhaps that the free thought we have outside quote unquote that we are now under this bill you'd be able to bring them inside the classroom I am I misunderstanding that. What was it maybe this alliance and I'm not you tell me of course that is we have that component that you're talking about about the free speech we have it at the University of Arkansas at little rock that is policy at the school so far we haven't had any problems in fact I think it fosters better communication. FOR will observe one thing about that you know I don't make lawyer jokes I'm John start there because I think it's too easy and when you need one you need one you're not joking that so I think there for jobs so I will give you one thing I would say to a law school that I think makes a difference. This is a generally and I love it a place where people can have the most heated discussions and not go off the rails because I think that is intuitive and systemically better within pointed me to learn how to become a lawyer that's not true most of the places that I can understand what the law school yes ma'am but if it's not the rule of the law school it's a good rule of the University of Arkansas at little and I I would I would think that is a very good thing that is that nothing that has happened yes ma'am. In think a lot of good things. Okay just I'm just gonna finish up with the other any other questions Senator Sturch and then I have a question I read this as doing two things number one for extending the ability to Extending the ability to freedom of expression as long as it's lawful. To indoor venues that are common in. Areas. And then number two. Discusses the par on section on page three of the restrictions that that are at the bottom of page three is that is that correct the two main things that you're trying to do here this bill yes okay right and then you know I would just say I want to Randolph Macon woman's college let me just tell you will we we did not down drag outs and it was awesome it was the best the best educational experience in the world was Randolph Macon women's college because we were all in the table sitting around tables like this in every single one of our college courses and debating every you know all these issues and it's pretty cool that you never former Representative Kathy went of in Senator Missy Irvin are both graduates from Randolph Macon woman's college and we're both political science majors this is a testimony to really good education and and anyway I just have to throw my little two cents in there so Senator Sturch you're recognized for a question. Thank members to serve someone I'm sorry I was reading bills costs this I missed your initial presentation that I just I wanted to make sure I understood when you're answering the question Senator Elliott asked about whether we had any problems under the foreign actor any reports of you know abuse of it or are you know whatever from students or faculty there hasn't been any in the last two numbers I'm not aware of any and I did I have spoken to representatives from the university and I would thought that if that was a problem we would have heard it I now this bill's been out there forget the data file that but I've and we've also been You're in communication with them I just haven't heard it so with that if there are there may be honored I remember a couple years ago when we were we had different graphs of something similar with the form back before we got Farmington and I remember you know there was always talk about well if we don't do anything we're going to get sued professors are going to service our students are going to service you know or whatever and that was kind of the impetus you know for and trying to do something so that I guess that would be my question is in the last two years and no one has sued faculty or students as far as any university for not allowing them to speak or not allowing them to have a form or debate or anything like that. I'm sorry just that you know of there's no longer was a suit that was the impetus for this so all there were there is concern that would people sue with people so what yeah they did and there is also some people that wanted to. were encouraged not to sue if they could resolve internally which is a good thing if you can do that that's fine but that was the initiation of why we had the for mac but I'm not aware of any. To have an hi read I am aware of staff and K. twelve that her there and people going after licensure for expressing their free speech in their opinion and whether that how that plays out I don't know but this. This relative to that in that yes it is happening and this tries to look forward to giving protecting the first amendment rights that since the form Act was passed we haven't seen any member of the system okay thank you nineteenth. Yes thank you other yes under aids. Yeah I have a couple questions one is on the the indoor areas that are generally acceptable to members and you mention pressure that that would include would include hallways of the buildings but it says I mean Journal Publishers except in excess those hallways outside the classroom so is there a way to clarify that a little bit of what that what the intent is versus what it actually says on there I mean she would yell out here first I love Robert follow up but you know they can they have the university can take reasonable steps that is not disruptive so there are disruptive things happening in the hall ways in academic areas this gives them that ability to protect the house so again what what what how one defines reasonable yeah I thank is has worked well. That that was going to enter my second question is what who gets to decide what. What reasonable is regarding the institutions or universities okay those they decide that. All right any other questions Senator Chesterfield and we have at two as someone signed up to speak for and somebody signed up to speak again thank you let me be clear I am not opposed to first amendment rights for. Individuals in campus community. I just wanna make sure that in this bill you are differentiating between the individual speaking as an individual and individual speaking. Because he is a member of the community being perceived as speaking for the university. That's my greatest area of concern we start talking about all of this freedom of expression for college professors they're adults they're in an environment in being one of those who tricked by Hendrix College myself. I appreciate all of that but at the end of the day if you don't make sure that you are not representing the institution when you decide you're going to say whatever the heck it is it comes to your mind and I don't see that I don't see that in here and that's what's of concern to me are you gonna make sure that the institution is held harmless because you decided you want to say something is perceived as the position of the institution of higher rated is there something in your that I missed. The center The if someone like me when I started speaking to you might recall I identified myself by my name of course where I work and then I said I appeared I am appearing in my individual capacity I'm required to say that and nothing about that disclaimer would change under this bill. I have this bill gives no great all rights to any members of the campus community to claim identity for the health of the university so it's very very inappropriately usurp the identity of the university they can be sanctioned under existing rules all universities so what would be grounds then put dismissal I ask for a speech is concerned this size right. For me there's so many things that I find objectionable okay you might not find objectionable because your culture is different from my own. So how does one get to that so that the cultural differences that in mission us. Or take it into account as we discuss this so that individuals are not free to just say anything that they want to in the name of free speech. In the center I don't think they are free I mean as we discussed a few moments ago if the school determines that it mature that the speech materially or substantially disrupts the functioning of the higher education institution that cries out so the the steel left the into the institution to determine whether or not yes ma'am this is a this is a deleterious impact on the institute's yes ma'am thank you. Just to follow up with that a little bit I think and I've dealt with this is Senator Sturch was talking about where people made political comments on a Facebook page are in an email using their university Facebook or using their university email and those are clear violations of what they do. Thank you any other questions all right fifty nine thank you I would like to have Mister broadbill. Come at the table. If you will introduce yourself for the record and then you may speak on the that's the one ninety one. The. Thank you sent me okay thank you senator that Mike up a little bit hard to hear with the masks on Senate before this is my first time in a with the masks if you have trouble hearing me let me know. Thank you senator and and thank you center so improve of the bill I Brad Phelps and general counsel for the Arkansas state university system is centre Sullivan said in two thousand nineteen the General Assembly passed for Max it was signed into law in February of twenty nineteen it took effect in July twenty fourth of twenty nineteen I should add that after the law took effect each higher education institution in Arkansas was required to submit a report to the legislature within ninety days with a copy of your policies and what you implement the act. Speaking only for a issue we have not. Contacted by anyone about that Act we've not had controversies since the passage of that act I'm not aware of any dispute since the passage of that act. SP one ninety one of makes two major changes that I think are problematic to the form Act of first is that expands the definition of public forms it's and current law to include indoor areas. Senator so often mentioned that the foreign actors based upon the laws in other states and in fact loss of been passed since the passage of the format I took a quick survey of those laws in two thousand fifteen Missouri passed a campus free speech act applies to outdoor spaces in two thousand seventeen you talked last outdoor spaces two thousand seventeen Tennessee applies to outdoor spaces two thousand nineteen Texas only paused outdoor spaces two thousand nineteen Kentucky applies to outdoor spaces and I found one in December of twenty twenty in Ohio that just applies to outdoor spaces I will say and not do a comprehensive search across the country for those so please don't act as though that is a comprehensive list but it does appear from that work that outdoor spaces in the generally accepted standard when these laws have taken effect so on page four line sixteen it does apply these to indoor areas and the language in the bill says generally accessible in. professor Steinberg does not believe that includes classrooms I do believe that could include classrooms I do believe that could include hall ways I do believe that could include indoor student union areas and I wanted to add one other thing which is since our campuses were impacted by covert nineteen we have continued to have in person classes on our campuses but that has required us to convert spaces into classrooms it's required us to convert spaces in our student unions in the classrooms as required us to convert spaces inside centennial hall to classrooms as required I was talking today with someone on our campus or intramural gym and one of our campuses is now a classroom so because the students are able to distance and we can set up appropriate measures and distance between faculty and the students so I do have concerns about expanding it to indoor areas both because it seems to be against the trend but also it's it presents a real practical This pandemic. so as I stated I think it does apply to classrooms classrooms certainly are not exempted I think it does apply to hallways hallways are certainly not exempted in the law so I'm concerned about the scope of the application the second piece I wanted to mention is that I do think that some of the language in the bill is a bit of a departure from the two thousand nineteen for Act if you read the background section in the two thousand nineteen for Max. the law sought to amend what they what was stated is a critical component of the educational experience for students. if you look at this bill senator Sullivan mentioned earlier that faculty members were added to the list of the campus community I think actually if you if you look at the two thousand nineteen bill there's a definition and member as members of the campus community and it does include students it doesn't quite faculty and it does include staff. If you look at the language and one ninety one. The first amendment has been stricken three times and in its place we now have what I consider to be expanded employee protections there if they're designed to even go further than what the law allows of it if you look on page I think three the very bottom it talks about speech that is and collegial disagreeable we focused in on the meeting on what occurs within classrooms I think Senator Chesterfield a lot of your focus was on the classroom as well Senator Elliot I have other concerns about this bill because if you read the definition of the campus community members it also includes staff. And so my concern could be hypothetically we hire a student recruiter who's charged with recruiting students to our institution if we later find out that during the recruiting tumors that that recruiter is telling people you know this campus really isn't the best one for you you should go to Missouri should go to Texas are going to Tennessee. I think this bill provides greater employee protections to staff members to do things like that at least it would be a concern of mine I don't know that it would. that this bill now my prohibit punishments for conflicts of interest the legalized insubordination you know even on our campuses among the faculty and staff everyone has a boss there value waited there told how to do their jobs and what they're doing well and what they're not doing well and my fear is that if this law were to pass that those interactions could be threatened so I'd I'd have read the additions to the public employees and what they're allowed to do I don't know that this vehicle is the I would submit is not the appropriate way to. To handle it I do think there existing laws and in fact there's at least one of the bill I think that's dealing with the expansion of public employee rights that I don't I don't believe it's relevant for related to the form act certainly academic freedom is something that we respect practice preach on all of our campuses but this bill in my view creates new controversies and seeks to amend a law that has really only been in effect since July of twenty nineteen and to my knowledge I had no problems since its enactment so for that reason or oppose the bill senator. Thank you have any questions. Per Mr Phelps Senator Sturch. I just wanna ask or make sure that I understand and so in the last two years or nearly two years we haven't had any student groups out there any faculty members of said you know had any objections or any hard feelings because they weren't able to protest inside. I'm not aware of any center not aware this senator Sullivan in the interest of full disclosure did represent reference a lawsuit that was filed in twenty seventeen twenty eighteen that is the last event of which I'm aware that that that actually predated the format. All right thank you. Are there any other questions. Great thank you and then to speak for the bill we have Josh Silverstein Stein. Okay well which one do you prefer the stock okay. and. Well I will refer to you as Josh Silverstein saw and you'll state your name for the record you are recognized to speak. I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify my name is Josh Silverstein I'm a professor of law at the university of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law but as my colleague did as well I'm speaking in my individual capacity not on behalf of the school. I have two different sets of comments I've some affirmative comments I want to make in support of the bill and I'd like to respond to some of the points that have already been made during the discussion. I want to begin by framing with I believe the issue here actually this. In my view the question is not whether we should increase protection for free speech at universities instead the question is whether there are any legitimate objections to the free speech protections set out in Senate bill one ninety one. Let me elaborate on that. Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in the American system of government it is protected by the federal constitution or the constitution of every state by numerous statutes and by countless rules of both public and private entities across the country. In the United States we start from the presumption that speech is a good phone speech as the lifeblood of democracy because there's only through free and open debate that the electorate and the representatives can decide on a proper course of action when addressing issues of public policy. Freedom of speech is especially important in higher education for more than a century many universities have gone beyond the protections of the first amendment when it comes to speech that is because the academic enterprise of truth seeking in the context of teaching research and public service cannot be accomplished without robust an uninhabited exchange of ideas. Since we start with the presumption that speech is a good thing in this country it logically follows that any statute intended to increase the protection of speech on campus and off campus employees and students it's a good thing that's the default position. To overcome that the fall opponents of greater protection for speech must come forward with objectively justifiable concerns establishing the greater protection for speech will directly and substantially interfere with the mission of the university. The summer my first point I submitted the question you must address today is not whether we should do more to protect speech in higher education rather the question is whether there are any good reasons not to increase protection for speech on campus I further submit the Northridge reasons exist and that's why I urge you to vote to pass the three thought and higher education at. My second point that the changes in Senate bill one ninety one or rather modest has already been identified they're really only to. First the bill increases protection for speech of college employees students and others made off campus activity that is otherwise at the corner of the first amendment. Second there's a modest expansion of locations on campus that are considered public forums. No further as others of all the mentioned that the bill permits reasonable time place and manner restrictions to the university can make sure that expressive activity does not interfere with the core mission of higher education such as teaching. You can't hold a protest in the middle of the hallway outside the classroom if that's good interview the class that's taking place in that room. My final point of my initial opening comments is that. The protections implemented by Senate bill one ninety one per extremely important modest though they are. Let me focus on protection for what is known as extramural speech speech off campus like on Facebook or but in gauging a political protest. Recently public employees of many times not just those in higher rates have suffered consequences for engaging core first amendment protected activity my colleague rob Steinberg is currently working on a case where teachers at a public school were disciplined for attending a rally in support of president trump. No I'm a Liberal Democrat everyone knows that generally and I'm an active supporter of the Democratic Party in many level because but I was appalled at the prospect of teachers being punished for attending a rally for president trump that's an outrageous violation of the first amendment and it should be a violation of statutes to now Senate bill one ninety one only concerns the University Center but it it's a good thing that would bar a university for disciplining political activity happening outside the university study and I hope that one day there's a similar bill that applies to primary secondary schools that provides the same protection. Freedom of speech should be strongly favored by liberals and conservatives it shouldn't be a partisan issue because freedom of speech protects everyone from across the political spectrum. Not just a few more comments on some of the points that have been made already. Senator Chesterfield raise the concern about on offense isn't on collegial speech. The problem with those labels as anything can be treated as on collegiate when anything can be found offensive no matter whether it's about abortion the death penalty affirmative action any area of law that's talking made. If we restrict speech on grounds of it being offensive on collegial we no longer have freedom of speech at all. Secondly I think you're a hundred percent right center Chesterfield we have a responsibility not to throw speech bombs for the sake of doing so but if we say something that's on popular and hurts enrollment in the university that's the price we pay for free speech and a free community. Next Senator Elliot noted about well why do you need to protect anything more than the first amendment. The first amendment provides very strong protections for those of us acting shortly citizens provides less protection when you're acting as employees and many believe the public employees do not have enough protection under the first amendment as it currently stands I've written about this previously so as my colleague rob Steinberg. This statute helps to provide some of those additional protections that are critically important even if not explicitly guaranteed by the first amendment. Also add that when it comes to control speech in the classroom Senator Elliot mentioned academic freedom gives professors control over what happens in their classroom so if a student starts engaging speech that's disrupting the ability to teach the class the professor can take over and control the dialogue and require the student to move on and get back to what the subject was concerned with. Senator I would also mention that law schools are among from the areas of the university of the most robust in their debates and I think I take that as a great compliment I appreciate that but I still I studied philosophy my mother studied literature when you think of history biology there are ferocious debates within those fields as ferocious as the debates we haven't law and so I think the idea of robust uninhabited speech needs to apply throughout the entire campus not just among the law schools finally a few points in response to Mr Phelps. Before mapped led the way with the protections that provide and even if Mr Phelps is correct that no other states have adopted protections for indoor for we in Arkansas can lead the way again and so the fact that other states have gone as far as we have I don't find it persuasive this is an opportunity for us to set the trend for other states the second time. Mr Phelps so to raise the concern of classrooms and hallways. But if someone tried to engage in a protest the whole way earned a classroom in the middle of class that is the classic example of where time place and manner restrictions would stop that problematic behavior. He also mentioned Covin. Coleman has been issued for all of us and if required many institutions to increase what is currently a classroom but one some other areas turned into a classroom you can no longer just walk in and give a protest in that area. I also add that hopefully excuse me because it is going to end in the not too distant future and I don't think we should or shouldn't pass statutes based on the extreme circumstances of coal that would hopefully they will shortly be over. I also want to add in response to Mr Phelps the first amendment sets a floor. State municipalities colleges other public bodies are permitted to provide more protection for speech the first amendment saying that we are going to protect more than the first amendment does that's not contrary to law it is completely consistent and permitted under the law. The final thing I'll say is that the first amendment and no context allows employee of the university tend not do their job so a recruiter for admissions to start saying disparaging things about the university they're not doing their job they're engaged in speech that is directly in conflict with their professional responsibilities I teach contracts if I taught property law instead of contracts in my class the university could fire me and they should do so because I'm not even doing my job so I don't think any of the concerns that he raised are going to be implicated by anything that's in this bill and of course I would be happy to answer any questions you have. So let me ask a quick question I mean you know we we talk about robust speech on law campuses however you know to me freedom of speech is an expression of who you are as a person what you believe it's all those things and so. Granted I took the same philosophy courses that you're talking about I took the same political science courses you're talking about I took communications class I have a degree in political science communications and dance however let's not forget it the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech that you find in artistic expression artistic expression can be sometimes very offensive to people and sometimes that the aim of the choreographer is to provoke a response correct so I mean I could go down the whole path that nobody in here would really want to hear Senator Missy Irvin talk about that as a dance major and as somebody who studied intricately you know the precise to the history of dance in the history of artistic expression three choreography and three U. what are pioneers of modern dance did in artistic expression you want to talk about robust discussions and robust debates let's talk about the pioneer women he really broke the surface when it came to modern dance and the choreography that they put out there that to many many people were incredibly offensive you want to talk about Isadora Duncan how offensive she was in her dance as the as the mother of modern dance that's how we got that expression that freedom of expression of of of dance and have self expression so I want to make sure that you know it's important that we not just have this discussion on words in my opinion and so I know that we are focusing on that but I would feel remiss if I did not speak from that position And and I you know as somebody who. I have seen and have had children hurts because of what's been posted on social media and those kinds of things. Yes this is a tough topic to have I get I mean you know I've I've one of our colleagues in the house of representatives got an email that she's a grandmother and they called her horrible horrible names and it was so wrong and so out of line and I'm glad it was just sent an email but those things are posted on Facebook and social media and yeah we definitely have a problem when it comes to social media adequate eye completely one hundred percent agree with that I will recognize you at that time. But I feel very passionate about protecting our right of freedom of speech and let me give you another example and you can ask I will let you answer the but. It concerns me that students are given that certain topics that they must write about and that they must opine about that are completely contradictory to perhaps what they personally believe. But they are threatens that if they don't agree then they're gonna get about great. And you know that bothers me however I think it's a good exercise for that young person to actually see and understand I guess what this is what freedom of speech is and when you're in a classroom that's your professor whether you agree with them or not so you know one of the things I just want to encourage you know and ask is do you see this as an ability to In response to Mister Phelps and his concerns do you see this as some sort of a protectionism piece of legislation you know for somebody who can say things that may or may not be in opposition to the to the employer with which they are employed. Those are already in place. Imperfect personality Josh's express more monitor censure those built those. Rules and rags are already in place at university so I don't see it that way. This meant prohibition art and changes. I don't have anything to add on top of that I think that's right okay thank you senator Chesterfield you're recognized for a question. Whether we agree and disagree. What we feel comes from where we've been yes. And for ad in that which is offensive. It certainly doesn't mean that I'm not being grown I can give as good as I take. But I worry. We're in France I'm worrying needlessly. But I worry about the young people who come to our colleges and universities and your from professors who have no. No self censure. I do not think about what happens when what they say. Can be so hurtful. And that is only. I didn't come from the dance world. I came from the. Segregated world. Arkansas. What was it okay to call me anything. As long as it looked like you. This experience in that is why I'm always concerned when he says we don't you know services already covered that you know just you can just say that in god we would just take that when you're representing the university you have a great responsibility it seems to me. To put a muzzle on it. Not that you can't say what you want to we are using social media now in such a way that it is killing people later. That's why you got the doxing be others like it cyber sira yes. Yes. But I am still worried I don't want to come across the entire first demeanor. The first amendment gives you limited rights. You're right to supposed implement again and it seems to me that that's not what this is doing there doesn't seem to be a muscle here and I know you said it can't be racist but how do you define was racist how do you define was misogynistic IT not defined as an apology how do you define that. In speech. And you are representing the university I don't care where you go my grandmother said wherever you go you are representing the institution where you teach so whatever idea. In the in the in the cachet of the of the community. I wish you reflecting the institution I represented. And that's all I have to say about it because we just have differences of opinion be based on what our experiences are and and be in and I worry about this I'm asking you worry about the one where nobody said anything to say because most accused opportunity we passed down here some of them don't even know. So that to me is just a horrible example of living memory and after so far because most and don't even know. Because what they do the keys they don't pay attention to you without the intention. They're just kids so anyway that's my concern end up with that I'll now you're recognized okay I'll recognize Senator Elliott and then we'll move to action. Thank you I guess I I I am going to speak from just to quickly print to concerns I have one is our. I love the idea and the reality that we passed the bill and nothing that has happened as a result of that that has such a good thing the second thing is I guess the thing that caught my attention the most was that my biggest concern is what can happen in the classroom That the teacher maintains the ability to make sure nothing disruptive happens in the classroom. I cannot even begin to tell you how many students and this does have to do with who and where you are who you are and what your experiences have been. I classroom wasn't disrupted the teacher was totally comfortable. Saying and doing things that were just I felt like somebody was picking me apart with the razor blade. The class was not disrupted. Because there is there is this little me along to a three of me and everybody else is totally comfortable and when we live in a world where we don't have so many of the cross cultural understandings that we don't have that we that we don't because we insist on I mean we generally not anybody in this room necessarily personally we insist on not living among each other knowing each other socializing together. It does out of neighborhoods including all of us to strive to make us crazy. I am saying this from experience. On a college campus. Or something as innocent as. Should have been as innocent as reading this on it and discussing the sonic the dark lady. I'm sitting there with the big Afro the dark lady has wired hair if you read it can you imagine how many ways that one off the rail and nobody thought anything about it. And so. You know I don't want us to just be two cavalry are about this. Because what we're going to look at this just from the standpoint of. Whether or not the classroom was disrupted in the way that you traditionally think about it and I will have to say when you come from the majority world you can't help but have a different perspective about things going to be okay that's I get I totally get that. And you will nine times out of ten and be more comfortable with just saying things going to be okay. I would predict that since since there is not a problem and lord knows I feel this this just I feel like I'm I'm a pickle in a in a jar of gender because. The first amendment and for an extraction are just sacred to me. But I know we're talking about this and too little bit of a sure fashion. So I want to take that into consideration. Just because people are not throwing things across the question does not mean there's not mental destruction going on that will stay with a person for ever as it has for me right at this moment. So let's think about the. Some responses you have to try to talk me down on this because I'm going to be topped off the switch thank you are there any other questions senator regardless respond a couple of points very briefly yes and then we we need to move on so I I love that you brought up the word responsibility center Chesterfield effective wrote it down before you even set because I was thinking the same way in the same light we do have a responsibility to be careful and to recognize that things that we don't think might be offensive to one person could be very offensive to someone else because of our different backgrounds. But that gets back to the point that because anything can be offensive to anyone offensiveness is the standard when there is no longer any freedom of speech offensiveness cannot be the grounds by which we limit speech because anything can be offensive to someone depending on the context finally on the very important issue raised about racism and sexism those issues who do we how do we define this. As my colleague already said title seven title nine and other bodies of law already delineate things that constitute the types of racism and sexism prejudice based on religion they're already for being included in principle be protected by the current bill because those things are regulated by federal law and federal law overrides state law so that's why I'm not concerned about those areas because we already have huge numbers of court precedence administrative regulations and statutes that regulate that the override anything that would be in state law all right. Thank you thank. I just want to say one thing to and that I don't want to prolong this but it comes to the point that you just made about what's offensive and what's not and. I will I will never forget when I was in fourth grade and a friend of mine we were talking about the Bible verse that it was easier for a rich man to go through the eye of the needle it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven and this this this this this guy in my classes boy in my class he immediately sent well I guess Missy Irvin stepparents aren't going to go to heaven. And you know it was a joke but he had no idea of my backgrounds where my mother was raised in a barn because her her from family home burned to the ground for my dad was a migrant farm worker he came from nothing poor poor poor both of my parents for super super poor and I just remember being so offended and thankfully the nine he was my teacher just let me respond and state my arguments that was my first arguments you know in debate with back when I was in fourth grade and when that was said and you know I think that's it was a really good point that you made that we do have a responsibility for the things that we say and sometimes we say things that we do things that aren't meant to be offensive but they are taken that way and that is I have a good responsibility that we all should for members I just wanted to add to that senator Solomon your closed recognized to close for your bill yes I think you've heard all the arguments and I'm close to the bill okay thank you what is the pleasure of the Committee. Motion to pass is there a second. Is there a second. Our motion and dies for lack of a second thank you senator sellaband your committee all right Representative Mayberry H. B. twelve hundreds. Members as I represent a Mayberry is coming to the table and. I would just want to ask for all of us if we can and have a moment of silence for the tragedy that has occurred this morning. And there was a student shooter and a student victim who died at Watson chapel and so if we could just all please take a moment of silence at this time I would appreciate that. He hasn't. The state has not passed. All right thank you and. At the update summer saving is that the student is on life support we will continue to keep that. No ninety. Yeah he's on life support so let's just always list please just keep. That student and the whole student that that entire school and are in our prayers and our thoughts today please it's very difficult situation. And. Representa Mayberry you're recognized present your bill. Thank you madam chair I bring to you today H. B. twelve hundred on behalf of Arkansas rehab services the game came to me with this bill and I said well that sounds like a nice efficiency bill clean up some things that are going on in the state I think that we can look at this bill and see that right now we might have reward before work and what this bill does is actually puts work before the reward and I'm going to lead Arkansas rehab services Charles Lyford explained the bill to you. Before you go on Senator the young man being that. I'm sorry. You to pass. He was shot in Watson chapel. Okay. I think I think there was some confusion and I think they're adjusting their messaging that from what I'm getting that he is on life support so let's just yes a man in a. We can collect and pray together after this meeting is over center Chesterfield and you will I'll let you lead us in that prayer. Okay sorry to interrupt go ahead well the that's all right in the thank you your state your name for the record unless. Got your internet trolls Lyford general counsel for Arkansas rehabilitation services in that time very said regardless of what happened to the to the job thank you for mentioning that as I represented Mayberry said this is a bill that makes two changes that are simple but I think much needed to the student loan forgiveness program that Arkansas rehabilitation services offers as a recruitment and retention tool to certain employees I'll briefly summarize the way the program works now and then get into the two changes from the bill it currently anyone who is a full time employee of Arkansas rehab as a counselor vocation of vocational rehabilitation counselor can apply for payments of up to ten thousand dollars stored a student loan forgiveness if they have a degree bachelor's or higher in the field of vocational rehabilitation those payments are issued directly from the agency to the student loan lender when the person is determined eligible and the idea as a represented Mayberry mansion behind the program it is that retention and so when we make the payments we the the employee agrees to work for the agency for two years but under current law those payments are made at the time of the application and so in that two year interval if the person leaves whether they're terminated or just resigned to take another job they then that money back to to the agency and that would be an out of pocket payment because we're making the payments to the to the lender it never goes that money does not go directly to the employee so that is one problem that that this bill addresses the the other thing more minor that the bill does instead of as under current law the program only being available to councillors the the bill changes that eligibility expanding it somewhat so that regardless of your job title as long as you're a full. Time employee who has student loan debt connected to vocational rehabilitation you can be a manager you could be anybody whether or not your your title as a counselor then you're still eligible for the program and you can apply and I should mention too that there's an eighty thousand dollar maximum for the program each fiscal year currently that's in our special language we like to bring that into the to the code it's a current requirement but it would now be of the at this bill stated in this code section so I appreciate your concern consideration and happy to answer any questions. Yes senator specified you're recognized for a question thank you. If you can maybe you senator I'm I'm just not getting it because I thought it went and he went to work for we have. Whether it was as a rehab counselor or not when you worked as a counselor because she had a counseling degree you could qualify for this. Was it my right what I think the answer to your question is yes and and one thing that may help is that in order to be a vocational rehabilitation counselor this is a little bit outside the scope of this bill their requirement is that you have a license official counseling degree which is a bachelor's degree or you can have a masters in rehab counseling so that may be what you're referring to but what I what I'm referring to is this back adding this language. A regarding eligibility payment in program management consistent with the second employee of Arkansas rehab services is required to satisfy the following order to be eligible completion of a six month probationary period beginning. A provision somewhere I'm reading that you have to have the degree in rehab counseling in my right yes that wrong well the the degree has to be in the in a field related to the area vocational rehabilitation yes ma'am. Okay so if if I come in for instance review medication today. Even if I have enough hours I can qualify to be a counselor. But I need to be totally certified in the area. So if I can be in and I have most of the requirements. Okay. Right in general. But it's not specifically rehab counseling am I eligible for this scholarship so the I think so what what I will represent to you and to to the Committee is that we would to find that further with our program rules but but it would be bounded by the language in the statute and if you will and the builder through give me a minute I can find so it between lines twenty and twenty three on page two a number of degrees such as the general counseling degree that you're talking about senator might qualify a person to be eligible but that degree would have to be in the field of vocational rehabilitation would have to be that exact that feel. And to get what is in it sure constitutes the feel of okay now we have so anything from that that the maybe I should back up and say vocational rehab counselor works with people who have disabilities in order to get them jobs so that they can find a job or advance in their jobs that they have a. Degree in special education but that. Could qualify yes well I'm I'm just I'm I'm not against your bill I'm just trying to make sure that we have that we are trying to get as many folks because we have is a very defined area but I don't want us to shut off the ability of a person who has every other requirements from like those basic courses that one must take I don't want us to be precluded we to be precluding them from being able to go into rehab what we need those folks to work with that the individuals that we're talking about well the that's right and that's one of the main aims of this program in order to recruit those people and and you're right there aren't necessarily a lot of degree programs that are just called vocational rehabilitation there are some at the bachelor's and master's level but the program rules would really further defined that we would have a good list and that'll come back before the Legislative Council when we propagate the to to really tell you what those programs are the jobs of the right we want to feel to be as broad as possible I just don't want to kill I don't want to kill the opportunity for those who would have any interest right that is my major concern thank you. All right are there other questions. Yes Senator Sturch recognized for a question thank you ma'am I just wanna ask kind of about the timeline that I guess I may be getting off to the I'm trying to figure out then why the need for the six month probationary period if they're not receiving installment till two years after they started working or I am I am I reading that right that is the two years doesn't necessarily count towards the five it would be that you have to work to before you get anything right the that's correct and in order to you have to under current program rules you have to work two years in order to fully are and that payment this bill would would change the timing of the payment such that only after you've worked at two years would we pay the student loan creditor but to be eligible in general you have to be pastor probationary period that's the six months another was someone who was just hired by air as yesterday would not yet be eligible to right but that's what I'm asking I guess that is because the two year requirements in there too so why do we need both what we need to six month probationary period but then you don't get anything until after you've worked two years the the five I understand the question the six months is an eligibility requirement before the person can even apply it that that's what we want to the employees to have been with the agency passed their sort of standard six month period of probation okay as soon as that it is passed and you can apply for this program and then you're locked into the two year commitment so that to two different things so then after two years you start receiving installments you have worked five years in total to get the full benefit that you you were two years per installment payment and you can get under current and and still with this build program rules up to five payments of of two years at a time. You get your first installment after six months. Well you you're eligible to apply after you've passed your six month probationary period right and then after two years you're qualified for star and receive the five installments. It in a way that the the two years is the commitment it once someone applies and is determined eligible then they have to work two years in order to fully are and that payment under the current law okay we make that payment medially upon approving the application but then if the person leaves in that two year time They Might owe it back so this bill makes it so that we wouldn't even make the payment until the two years is fully served okay and so then I am final question will make sure I understand this how long do you have to work to receive all that's eligible all five installments of two thousand dollars how long would you have to work to do so depending on how often you applied you can apply once per year okay I think the answer to your question that to to work it out but I I think it's seven years total if you applied acts where I'm going okay so seven years for youthful that okay thank you Sir your thank you ma'am. Okay any other questions. Right C. N. nine what is the pleasure of the Committee is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. CNN motion do pass second all those in favor say aye and opposes Is haven't I seem to close for your bill senator. Sorry. We've made things on request thank you so much okay centers Chesterfield you are on deck. Yes thank you for coming to the committee thank you for the presentation thank you for the good work. Senate bill three eighty two members you'll may need to pull this up on your phone or your computer. Senator Chesterfield you're recognized to present Senate bill three eighty two thank you madam chair members of the committee the bill is very simple it puts the ArFutures grant on the same level as of every other grant. Or look for a scholarship all of the scholarships can be applied if the student a chance either a public or private institution this is the only one that precluded them from attending a public instrument a private institution and receiving it but they have to follow the same rules and Greeks in order to get the grant. Okay yes English. I guess one of the things with this I don't know how much money is in that fund but I think when it was set up as the ArFutures it was to be off for demand driven jobs in regions so would we be able to identify private colleges around the state that the southeast part of the state or northeast part of the state a private college that could apply for these can't be just all one location it has to be across the state and I actually the other thing my question is is this is the last dollar. H. the last dollars so every but I guess. How what's the difference in the cost in a private college or would there be again only be the same amount of money. The card it would only be that we would work with then what is but then what is already budgeted for this particular program once the moneys are expended their expended I guess my question is is that if the if the private call I mean not all colleges across the state are much more expensive than our public colleges so I guess my concern is if we're paying the last dollar on a thirty thousand dollar a year tuition. Versus a R. six thousand dollars a year tuition the last dollar. Most is that makes sense. It does make sense I mean that's my concern is that we would have I have run it by doctor Markham and I run it by the governor and they were in support of it simply because those two year institutions they are not a whole bunch of private institutions that provide a two year study so we're not talking about the totality of the of the tuition we're talking about if they have a two year certificate that is available to them for a work or certificate then they would be able to access that money their first and second year. And only the first and second year I didn't hear the last part I'm sorry the second year of the first and second year a state supported to a four year college university state a private nonprofit to a four year but this will allow them to access that money in order to make sure that we have something that is available. that would allow them to have to meet the needs of the program that is set up by our futures. So if you need more information I'm happy to pull it down and that you have that information I just I I just thought I might want really big call concern is that the outside cost I just know what public colleges but two year colleges in the state cost I know well pretty much what four year colleges in the state cost but I know that the you want to Hendrix you know how expensive that is so if we're paying the last dollar in with that grants that cover everything up to six thousand dollars in the cost is twenty five thousand dollars are we paying that. That's right I have a concerns are we paying that extra amount of money the last all if Dr Martin is here I would ask that you come up and maybe I'm confused ideas. That may not be concerned at all. It would be talking about a technical school to I mean it could be a welding college me would would they be able to take advantage of these with the may be able to use those that Maria Markham director division of higher ed and so we have caps the award amount that the average cost of a two year college public two year college so that's already in the statute so that's the most we ever pay out okay so if and if a student wanted to go to you see a for a certificate program or to Philander Smith we use the average cost of the public two years and that caps it so they're never going to we're never going to pay out more than that amount so that's how we control that last dollar amount for private institutions this will allow us to use it about public and private but not the put public for profit so it has to be that the the private nonprofit institutions so that would cover are eleven four year and private it's an R. one two year private institution but it's only for those degrees and certificates that we've identified as high demand you mention that and it's the state wide demand list so we look at that list we look at the institution and see if they have one of those programs and then we cap it at that two year college rate so I think that answers most of your questions they could not use that it like one of the private for profit truck driving programs or welding programs would have to be one of our nonprofit institutions much like our challenge scholarship. Did I answer your question is did it okay I was just concerned there. Senator Elliot I think this is also the scholarship went in during the budget hearings during the budget hearings I think we lowered the appropriation and I had a question about it why we Laurie we're not using as much as that of that money as we thought we were going to need to that we needed to we thought we would use and so there I don't mean to say there's an oversupply money I'm not suggesting that but there is plenty for funding is that's correct we did a fiscal impact study on this after senator Chesterfield got the draft we think that it will be just south of three hundred thousand dollars a year in which we have adequate funding and all of our scholarships and grants and you know this wasn't part of the governor's balance budget but it is something that was a fairly low uptake I think on on funds that would spread that money across different institutions of populations to make sure everyone had access to that so as to your point yes we've had less uptake with your future grant initially if it goes up and up and up every year but it's one of those new programs is taken of it so that yes we do not have an nexus Scholarship grants but is it what is your message on record. And just to be sure I did check with the governor's office even though it was not a part of his original. budgetary that provide so he is in favor of the bill. Okay. That K.. And all right of center by comic the motion to pass you've cause for your bill senator is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill scene nine center back and makes a motion to pass the bill in seconds there's a second all those in favor say aye opposed Is habit bill passes members I M. couple different things before you leave Senate bill sixty four is that bill in committee I accidentally pass the bill out of the committee without putting the amendment on the bill. And we have the amendment in the committee but I need to. We don't have the amendment a. Posted. The Amendment is posted we don't have a copy of it. It's my bills Senate bill sixty four. She is. The The Amendment is technically in committee we just have a copy of it is that correct okay so members what I'm here is it's it's it's just a change that they want to. Okay so first I need a motion to suspend the rules to allow for Senate bill sixty four to be placed on today's agenda so many of this are second all those in favor say aye and it has. As amendment for number one amendment number one to Senate bill sixty four Amendment motion to amend the bill to adopt the amendment their second all those in favor say aye ayes have it opposed as habit so amendment is adopted to Senate bill sixty four. At no. Senate bill sixty four to pass as amended is that your motion okay and there's a second all right all those in favor say aye and oppose ayes have it Senate bill sixty four as amended is passed. Four hours. Yes. Is there. Okay all right. Sorry yes let senator at Chesterfield Senator Elliott we had conferred with her and she just like that so she went. okay before we leave in the journal I've got it these bills for Wednesday Senate bill two sixty five Senate bill sixty one. Senate bill sixty two House Bill Levin seventy five Senate bill one sixty one Senate bill two ninety one Senate bill two forty nine. And Senate bill three ninety seven. Three ninety seven no we don't three ninety one if we can get that fiscal impact if we can get the fiscal impacts before. Wednesday Senate bill three ninety one would be added Senate bill three forty nine three forty eight and two sixty four would be added to you Wednesday if we can get all of this fiscal impact statements in manager I have a one I have a member's own amendment tomorrow if if we get it done in time we still have time to get that on the gender language at yes what bill number is it Senate bill one fifty nine one get one fifty nine I will put you as Wednesday you're running the amendment as members and tomorrow is chamber okay. Well I note so just so you know yes says Senate bill two sixty four three forty eight three forty nine and three ninety one Are awaiting a fiscal impact statement so hopefully will have those back if you could check on those to see if we can get those so that we can places on Wednesday's agenda that would be great okay is there any other business to come by so buckle in on Wednesday we're gonna be for a long time but we gotta get our state Senate bills move in and out the door. All right thank you members of the committee and remember to please keep the young man in