State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Bryant because I believe you have a non controversial bill. At least I've been advised that most right. We love for you to come and present house bill thirteen seventy two. And serve your state your name for the record you're recognized Sir thank you Mister chair Joshua right Representative district ninety six bring for you today house bill thirteen seventy two which I believe will clear up and an issue with carryover funds re regarding offices that do not have a salary currently our statute addresses carryover funds are up to them out of the office being held or being sought. M.. But it doesn't allow for the carryover funds for those elected officials who provides services state or the county or their city or their school boards that do not receive. An annual salary but yet they do receive Compensation for meetings or compensation through per diem so and looking at the statute says that you seven a six that's two nine B. two a actually allows such as County JP's the ability to read. To file for the amount of funding retained by the candidate. Yet when you go to the carryover funds it again references only them out that you can make by salary so without House Bill thirteen seventy two does is it allows for those that do not receive a salary to be able to at least carry over up to three thousand dollars. Right members or any questions on this bill. Cecile Bledsoe senator Blitzer you're recognized. Could you just give me an example of an office like this that we're talking about yes in the county office of justice of the peace I thought state they do not make a salary if they do are allowed per meeting so sampling been County JP is are paid to a fifty dollars for a requirement a hundred twenty five for every committee. school boards. City County a city offices such as city to get paid up to a hundred dollars and per diem allowance per month for their meetings but they do not retain a salary so allow those candidates for those offices to carry over all right thank you. Right members any other questions on this bill. Seeing no questions is there anyone that would like to speak for against this bill in the audience. Same menu grocery bill Sir yes Mr all right and motion from Senator Bledsoe do past I have a second second from Senator Davis all those in favor say aye All opposed no thank you sure you faster bill. All right members again passing over SB thirty I've been advised that S. B. one ninety six one ninety five is being pulled down at least for day one we run today And so senator Solomon I believe we're ready for you for SB one nine six as B. two zero eight Sir. Senator so. At least to state your name for those they're observing the proceedings yes Sir senator Dan Sullivan I appreciate the opportunity to be here thank you Committee Mister chairman I have a Mister Roberts but come up and join me today yes of course thank you. I guess a member here we have a amendment to run for that's exactly right members you should have an amendment here that looks relatively simple I take a motion. For the motion from senator garner for the doctor to men meant to Senate bill one ninety six I have a second for Senator Davis all those in favor say aye. Opposed no the minute passes and you're ready for your bill Sir thank you Mr persistence the. A good bill I think we I'm sure many of you are aware of the four year process we before the coalition and we have for the task force and we took this bill before both of those bodies and it's my understanding that in both of those bodies approved at this bill and give their thumbs up to it I think we went before that the commission the task force several times and made several changes in order to accommodate the things that they I felt like we needed to change I'm going to turn it over to my friend Mr Steinberg here to explain the bill so. Well first and then go ahead yes Sir I am Robert Steinberg I'm a professor of law here in Little Rock at the Baldwin school of law I'm here in my individual capacity of course. Well if you make a for your request currently. Law and you all are successful in and to the agency doesn't supply you with those records. And you're successful in getting those records you're entitled to attorney's fees. Now. Does that include after suing when the agency provides those records to you before the judge rules. In other words you settle. Well I can tell you in practice it does because the Municipal League in localities routinely write checks to attorneys. When they settle cases for the attorney's fees for sure. This is the law and fact across fifty states of our great country and the federal government. The concept is called the catalyst fury for those of you that might remember high school chemistry a catalyst to make something happen. And so the idea is if you sue and you make it happen whether or not that's because of an order by the court or the other side on the courthouse steps realizing what's going to happen they provide you with the records then you one. You have been successful in your entitled to attorney's fees. It has now come to light. That some governmental agencies want to contest this simple motion that has been the law four years in yours across the country and in Arkansas. Indeed in the treatise on the Arkansas holier some of you may be familiar with it on the last name listed as a co author we describe this process and we see substantially prevailed should not be limited to victory after a full trial which would also apply when the plaintiff prevails on summary judgment or upon reaching a phase favorable settlement we're not law an entity subject to the freedom of information act having did not access to records and forced to request you to file suit could avoid a few award by disclosing the records when it became apparent the judge was about to rule for the requestor on the merits. This is a simple motion. This bill four dollars. Is that in. Well in the statute itself. So that there can be no longer any debate. Thought there wasn't the debate for years now there seems to be a bit of debate by governmental agencies seeking to push back. We have one of the strongest for use in the country we should be incredibly proud of the level of transparency that we provided to the citizens this legislature of course is is has operated the same way as every try your legislature that is holding the strong commitment to our for. This bill does just that there are of course there's opposition the Municipal League spoke with me very politely very tightly but we disagree with one of their changes that was the amendment that the good senator just put into place I say that this simply highlights that if we hear a good idea we like a good idea but it comes as no surprise that those bodies those organizations that represent entrenched bureaucracies don't like. Excessive transparency I get. But. Good evening that's not this legislature so I am available for questions that I hope for a good vote. Senate so so would you have anything further noticed over for questions thank you Mister sea Senator Bledsoe for question. I just wanna be sure that I understand what is happened is now. The when someone request a free modem art has a freedom of information request a. They are sometimes denied that they may have to hire an attorney and of for a long time people of into that request and paid the Attorney is that right but now they're debating whether or not they should do that and this just clears that up is that correct yes ma'am thank. Five eight is that on that that yes I have I really don't understand all this quarter bills but the simple understanding is exactly that thank you have a judgment that you're going to pay the attorney fees. Thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions do you have anything further reform of all of those there are people signed up to speak against and for committee okay I have three people signed up for against and then Mr Steinberg I believe you already spoken really for and I have one other person on there and so without objection due to the time I'd like to ask that each of these people please keep your comments less than five minutes if we could that are going to speak against. I thank you think you need to to move so that people can come testify yes. David current you're the first person on the list would welcome you to come in and Purposes of speaking against the bill. Please state your name and who you represent the records yet Mr chairman my name is David current associate general counsel of the University of Arkansas System and in the interest of full disclosure I have been representing the University of Arkansas at little rock in a for a lawsuit that professors time back filed in two thousand fifteen we are concerns that a goal of this B. one ninety six maybe to try to fact that litigation or the only remaining issue there is attorney's fees after a negotiated resolution of the claim particularly in section one of the statute or the the Bill usually this do not codified legislative history section is not really like that is that important to hear the word clarifies used to suggest that this is already the law in Arkansas when in fact it is not the law and Arkansas now and I'll point out and the treatise that professor Stein back referenced on page four twenty three it says it is not clear whether a settlement without some sort of judicial temperament sure insufficient that word referring to a judicial order or a consent decree that kind of thing and then it concludes that there are no Arkansas cases on this issue so it's uncertain issue in Arkansas. Now well we think it's not Arkansas law now a second we're concerned that the bill might infer as it's currently worded might impose liability on government entities for attorneys fees even if it's the request or as opposed to the government the switches position on a contested legal issue and if you need a an example of how that might work I'm happy to provide one and then finally you know it's worth mentioning that these objections are not ever come by the room by the provision that removes liability for the the government's position being supported by clearly established law because these areas are often very murky and there is no clearly established law often we get these done difficult scenarios where federal privacy law comes in the clash with the Arkansas freedom of information act we have to balance our obligation to disclosure under state law with federal law requiring non disclosure and there's often no cases or anything to give definitive guidance and that's a really great area were inquire as a judgment call so ultimately we think this bill up my alternately serve as an impediment to negotiated resolutions of for a claims and for therefore we would urge the committee to a to vote now. Ninety happy to address any questions the committee and I have she was current you're telling me that this this is used you're still in active litigation correct correct there's that attorney's fees component this lingering in the claims commission that will hopefully resolve this year. So it's still in the claims commission is not in in in court the judicial cases concluded right there's some non Fauria claims that nothing to do with where they were going to get on the court system that's resolved as ever and and that losses ever would you also say that on any given time in this state as we pass laws that there may be cases some of which never get proper force that may be an action and be active that we simply have no knowledge of that yes Sir an emotionally affected. Right I do agree that's possible okay thank you should lead so I think I saw you for question. You offer to give us an example of what you were talking about yes yes so I'm I'm thinking M. and context of this case and and I I data request we get lots of requests for data suppose the request or ask for ten categories of data about every student who graduated over ten years I want their race and want their sacks someone where there are part time or full time student I went there state of residency at some point the quantity of those categories allows you to re identify that person because there might be only one Asian female nineteen student graduates from a law school in the winter right so in that scenario suppose the request or files a lawsuit. Seeking unredacted records I want all ten categories and then is there a question he says well wait a minute I see the point now I'll let give me only half of those categories give me five that will reduce the problem every identifying as people when you're negotiating you come up with that an appropriate solution to that and you might come together and say okay the five categories we can do and that position and that situation the government hasn't really changed our position at the request or who you initially put the government entity in a position a risky position of violating federal law and then turn around and change their position so that's why this material change The language in the current bill would fix that and government of that position there. Well I think my concern about this maybe not being the law is that you have someone who asked for something and they ask for it in a you know they're just a good person they want to know something they want the information but they don't have a lot of money all right and so if they have to hire an attorney and the because they were told no they couldn't have it then without this law. It seems to me like in this would be very important but it seems to me like to be those people who could not carry that farther after asking for information because they'd say well wait I mean they said so that I can afford an attorney to take this on one of the local law I mean doesn't that the standard now allows for attorneys fees in the law just kind of amends that standard so it's not really creating a different path to resolution of the issue that exists in current law and I don't deny that there might be a way to word this bill that's actually addresses the concerns I have raised us well simultaneously reflects the sentiment your suggestion right now I just don't think this particular languages exist does does the job okay so you don't think it would be better for the public to have this law of this especially for those that might want that information but couldn't couldn't hire an attorney to to push that issue to get the information that they had been tone perhaps a lot like this but not this particular one. One is that. They're coming for the reasons I just discussed I think it the example I just explained against the get to govern the vine yes I mean it position when it with the government literally did not present to all right thank you. Mr for the for the layman out there it's in German this whole discussion and I will ask about the case this effect the mention that you're involved in with Mr down but list is just think about this because this is basically starts with what normally would be a normal request right so reporter someone makes for a request of a public entity here and state of Arkansas and then under the law they have is it not right three days. Transponder's latest three days three working days typically three days before they at least advise the person that the request that you may be so expensive there's no possible way to do that so they at least need to respond to correct okay if they then respond I'm give you give an example so if they would then respond all right and they find the person finds out somehow. That the public entity did not actually reveal all of the record which. Then obviously there is a violation correct correct all right under the law a media at Lee. Because they didn't comply and they in especially if they responded they did comply and they're found they did not then immediately that's a misdemeanor under the laws that correct that's correct okay yeah I says I think the standard is maybe negligence I can remember there some mental you can't can't do spare accident I think. It can't be an accident okay well. Well that's in there but there's for another discussion right of the day I think they all are declared as an accident my lord you never get anything but it so so that that's a scenarios is very simple scenario straight up request something happens in somebody absolutely finds out maybe there's whistle blower maybe there's somebody says you know what you didn't give up all the records in under the law it's it's a violation it's a misdemeanor and so you end up in this conflict and then you go to court correct that's what we're hearing here did you go to court and then they went against you and so what this is trying to clarify if I'm not correct that they would be able to get compensated from you. For the cost that they did have to go to court with you is that what I'm hearing. I'm I'm having a hard time following that discussion of the criminal misdemeanors I apologize for all try to make it to you yeah I mean the this is this is the current law and Arkansas does allow fees for the victorious plan if this is the government entity and substantially prevails and has there's a standard there and this just amends that standard that exists but I don't think it has anything to do with the criminal situation that you mentioned in the manner all right of members and senator garner. Thank you so if I'm not. Attorney for one is agencies or somebody's being for request and we go to court and I feel the last hour that I will lose the case I just released information and I can kind of four go the attorney's fee of it is that correct that's kinda what this is rectified. I mean if it was eleventh hour I went there is a role loses I can still from the court because I'm attorney said from the judge. FOR release information we don't have to pay attorney fees so that I think the judge might decide that the case still isn't it in that situation but it that scenario maybe as possible and that's why I do recognize there could be some room for this kind of legislation in Arkansas I just think the wording of this bill raises problems that maybe can be addressed by different legislation. I thought I saw senator Tucker looks like I didn't members there any other questions for this witness and thank you for coming being here today custom is we would take for and against and so sunny Eldorado if you're here. you'll be recognized to speak for and I don't have anyone else listed on the force signed so after you will go to Mr Gruber and Mr Wilkes. We're doing good folks work for fifteen so just be aware will will continue to move. That satisfy. Okay in your name. okay thank you Sir. All right we'll. Mr everado if you would state your name for you represent for the record sure my name is Sonny Alber auto I'm represent representing the Arkansas Freedom of information coalition which is a an organization of journalists lawyers. Regular citizens. and others interested in open government. And the we meet under the auspices of the Arkansas press association. Our. Further identify myself I'm a retired journalist addition I retired a year ago in January of from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. A. The coalition a is supporting this let this bill and I think all of the arguments they have made been made for it should suffice I just want to get our position on the record you. Any questions members for this person. And so I think you register your for the bill correct yes Sir all right thank you for being here Sir and I thank you for the work that you do on the thank you for the commission. I have one remaining in that would be John Wilkerson. To speak against. She will question if you state your name and who you represent the record John Wilkerson general counsel the Municipal League first I want to think Senator Selvan for speaking with me this morning and encourage me to speak to assist I'm backing him and he's out to the correct with a very polite conversation and very much appreciate him listening to us and by what I know about the minute it does satisfy one of my biggest concerns I tell you that obviously the league we've had executive committee yesterday voted to oppose the bill I will say this though we understand the gap in the law that that right now you have to go all the way through education is this Lisa seems that way before you get attorney's fees we understand that the intent of the law as I understand it I think it's pretty clear that you have to if you have a a municipality on a city or town who is F. a wide and then chooses not to do it for whatever whether it be bad faith or or or you know I misunderstand the law it does seem we understand that does not seem quite fair that you have to sue the city to get the records with that said however we we do we worry that this may be a little bit Friday and the reason that we thought that at least regionally in and now that concern is largely been mitigated by the striking about clearly established this example I keep using is a somebody Kansas city today and FY documents in the city Clerk is out because of covert for week setting aside a three day rule and it really has to be given over meet Lee I I do worry that that would not be a reason that would satisfy the judging not awarding attorneys fees with that said that the bill does go back to law about substantially justified and I would hope that the judge would say that with a city would be substantially justified and and not giving it over immediately because of that we got for Kobe by the city Clerk but that again I really. Thank you center Sullivan and professor Simon FOR for striking out that by clearly established law thing that does help it but I just wanna voice our our concerns on the bill so. The members any questions first workers. Thank you for being here Sir thank you for testimony members I have no one else signed up on the bill Senator Salman would you like to close for your bill. Real quickly one the objections that the. Lots of the University of Arkansas had was the language that we struck in the amendment that's the line three took out of request I think that is you heard satisfies a lot of what the opposition is and senator garner got it right that we're just trying to fill that gap when you heard that word several times and I think this is the best way to do it after talking to all the folks involved so I'm close Mr chairman I appreciate it okay I do see a lady coming question here do would you mind taking one one of the question senator Tucker. We'll see. You can hear the question first. He starts and number two. Thank you senator Solomon and I do I do think the amendment and improves the Bill. One of the. Concerns raised by the council for the for the UA system in section one I just wanted to ask you about it Senator Rapert the chairman Rapert mention this I think the distinction. Is that in section one when you say that this bill clarifies thank you current law. That makes it more retroactive to existing litigation where as typically a bills forward looking only and I do view this and I I appreciate the gap along think we need to do something to address that professor stomach and I had a good conversation this morning I probably would do it in a slightly different way but you know that's okay but my question to you is if you would consider taken that out because I do think this is a change in the law and it not a clarification of existing law and if we did that then we would remove the possibility as in my judgment that were affecting pending litigation so what are your thoughts that that's my question you know if I'm okay with that change the amount that gets substantively changes what we're trying to do I would like to get this on out of here so if you can pass we can change on the house floor we can pull it down amended Medicaid co sponsor and you can run. Those six year on fine without thing Senator I've got a question on that because. As I understand it. This this is before the claims commission. And course it's tough because I don't have all the facts in front of me either but it's it's not if it's from the claims commission you know claims commission is going to make a decision either way. Correct and I don't think it I don't think that necessarily be change. That they would be bound by this in fact is a seven merged across. It doesn't have an emergency clause I have no idea of knowing unless someone wants to offer that information I have no idea of knowing when the claims commission is going to be done typically during session there will be a meeting convened of of if it can if it ends up coming to the committee that the commission is different. Senate guarded you have something on. I know the claims division thought his head and the thought process on on Facebook or Twitter about bono I just you know I just offering that because obviously I know in the legislature we definitely don't like to see legislation that is particular for a unique situation unique person and we know about that on our ethics rules and all of that however this piece of legislation does not seek to carve out a unique situation it applies to all parties concerned mom. I would just say just put out for purposes of discussion that you know on waiting layer without knowledge we could be affecting something of a lot of other people the chapter that we don't even know what's on the table right now so it it makes me I'm just putting that out as a counter to what you're suggesting so I have I'm just just wanna make sure we're talking about this a little bit because you know first of all is but and again I I'll bequest will wait for discussion about that will decide what you do match on minister chairman yes Sir senator kind I think is I'll I'm pro talking it out and so I may be wrong certainly I'm willing to entertain that possibility I think my understanding is the distinction is that word clarify and. For it which is in the one twenty four the first line of section one if I were a lawyer in court and legislature passed a bill saying they were clarifying existing law that I would argue to the judge or progress in this case the claims commission this will this applies to our case because they just clarify what's already. it is the law and that's that's the distinction again I may be wrong about that but that's that's what I was raised I see the point in active members by the yes Sir yeah they went through the coalition it went through the The task force we talk with universities we talk with a municipally and that to the discussion around your point about clarifying yeah that was never brought up. So I don't understand respect your opinion but this has also gone through several I also want to be respectful this committee's time I know you all got a lot of things come up and I'm you know whatever we can do it's a good bill everybody agrees or problem everybody seems to agree this is a good solution it may not be a hundred percent of everything but it moves us forward and I would appreciate a good vote by the committee. Well this release where to find out what happens is whatever the committee decides to do and so it's up to I'll defer to you do you would you like to committee for two and make a decision on your bill today or what would you would you say yes because I if it doesn't pass we can make a change in bringing up again if we need to but again I think we've gone all the way we can far as we can go about talking to all the interested parties and I think we've resolved everything we can resolve so I'd appreciate a vote and if we have to clarify will will decide whether we can come back or not. All right committee we've heard form against we've heard discussion was pleasure of the Committee. A motion to pass senator garner I have a second I'm sorry. As as as amended motion do pass as amended is our second. We have a second. No second the no decision at this time and that would allow you then to maybe have further discussions with members you can bring it back proprio thank you thank chair soaking Committee understand. All right Uh this brings us to Senate bill two away from work for twenty five so we've got a good shape. Since you're showing you're recognized for Senate bill to await I believe we do have a an amendment here do you want to speak briefly to your amendment I make sure I got the right amendment here. Yes again and in talking with several folks online Page one. Line thirty one. A. With the lead at the ward may and substitute it is reasonably foreseen to. Okay. And again that was in negotiations with people that said this they need some clarity on that Mister chairman I have Mr McCutchen come up and join with the day yes Sir thank you. Members we if with the school and take action on the amendment to you have a motion for adoption amendments Senator Bledsoe moved production second Senator Davis all favor say aye. Lows NO. The Bill is amended. And you're recognized for your presentation thank you. Thank members this is a benefit of really controversial bill a lot of people talking about what it does in trying to clarify what a meeting is and that has been before lots of groups I know our our county associations and our county officials elected officials are very concerned they want to follow the law I met with a group of my folks just around coffee one evening R. J. peas were of a what we're talking about an issue and they they said board and we can't talk about that there's three of us here we can't talk so this bill just seeks to clarify what a meeting yes you want to things I hear continually come up it's about the information that we have to provide and and how we You're being conscientious about those meetings in those conversations so we'll I'll let Mr McCutchen explained the bill and then be will be open for questions. All right if you please state your name and who you represent the record Sir thank you Senator Rapert I'm here on that individually I'm also the founder of the western state your name your email question I'm sorry thank you I'm also the founder of the western Arkansas transparency in government group as well as a founding member of the Arkansas transparency in government group I'm gonna talk to you today about some cases some real world cases that I've been involved in what we talking about attorney fees because my firm's literally put in hundreds if not thousands of hours representing folks in violation of for you whether it's in a records case or whether it's in a open meetings case we've taken three cases up to the Supreme Court without any compensation we don't plan to seek compensation in the future because we feel so strongly about transparency in government and that's the reason I'm here today the first issue I would like to visit with you about as it regards Senate bill two away. Which we thanks a bill this necessary to clarify the law there's literally of if we want to talk about pandemics there's a pandemic out there of the the secret meetings by emails text messages and other forms I want to talk about efficiency I've heard that that this would prohibit efficiency by local local and school boards and maybe city government We try the case and location versus city of Fort Smith about twelve years ago I we took the case to the Supreme Court As a result of the city of Fort Smith argument and the circuit court granting. There and it's city of the the court found in that case that for you was unconstitutional and I'm talking about the circuit court found that the forty was unconstitutional because it was overly overly broad we appeal that case and the Supreme Court ruled at which I think is significant here that that an administrator or as superintendent in this case it was the city administrator can have a one on one conversation with. The individual board members and we think that's important to efficiency in government and that was the ruling in that case the court also ruled the the fact that that the city had received a informational packet was also appropriate under the open meetings provision as well as one of the problems that we had with he made a recommendation he also had individual conversations with which the court said was okay so and. So not only can local school board members are local and city folks who were serving on in city government have those one on one conversations under this bill. And they can also have conversations with citizens they can have conversations with the city attorney they can have conversations with lobbyists they can have conversations with virtually anyone but other board members And that's for obvious Transparency reasons they can do all their homework this doesn't prohibit in one iota from pursuing that objective. I do want to talk to you about some real world cases some that I've been involved in one of the most recent cases which the Supreme Court ruled on and was city of Fort Smith verses way you'll notice there's a pattern Fort Smith is involved in many of the Supreme Court cases. the city of Fort Smith verses way was a was a case where there were secret emails amongst and board members Square where in they were talking about abolishing the civil service commission we filed suit the circuit court granted summary judgment in our favor the city Fort Smith appealed the case up in two thousand and nine the Supreme Court came back with its ruling which is really the reason that I'm here today the Supreme Court in that case rule that three board members having secret email conversations was not a meeting. and I want to quote at one of the dissenting opinions in that case from just as hard. Just as hard and if it said in her dissenting opinion that what the Supreme Court has done on wittingly has imposed a requirement that they constitute a meeting an email and it would also apply to two conversations is local diners are at football games or head to meet three criteria number one they had to directly solicit a response that is the administrator had ask you how you voting on this number to a decision had to be rendered number three it had to involve more than three sevenths of the city board. That case literally obliterate obliterated fifty years of of law regarding four yeah it created confusion in the law and then the catching case that I told you about the the Supreme Court in that case in that two thousand and twelve case which which I was the named plaintiff the Supreme Court said in that case if the legislature's responsibility to define what a meeting is and I know we've been having those discussions about who has power to do what the legislature in that case that the Supreme Court in that case it was the legislatures duty to define what a meeting was. And I think that's important just as hard in the dissenting opinion in the way case went on to to state that today's majority opinion denies the electorate in Fort Smith insight into the into the performance of its elected officials and allows those public officials to make decisions in secret secrecy is a poison to democracy she said. So let's talk about other cases which I think will be good examples for you to determine whether we in fact need to define what a meeting is which we have attempted to do in this bill in Bradshaw versus Fort Smith it was a secret email case in which the Fort Smith school board and in a email meeting. Casted. At all it's discussion made the decision to elect its School board officers in a over a secretly email chain which we obtained by for you we received a summary a summary judgment we settled okay in fact we settle that case we can get a summer yet we settle that case that case would clearly violate even the weight standard but the problem becomes if in fact. You look at the way the case if if the school board in that case where everyone of them voted on a secret email chain to elect the office if it to elect their officers if in that case. they weren't there wasn't a solicited vote or they said well I'm a vote this way in other words they're gaining consensus according to the weight standard that would not be a meeting. Larry Austin versus the city of Mansfield is another case which we tried pro bono that was a series of text message. Jane that was discussing the ouster of the mayor of Mansfield. Again a secret email chain as skews me a sacred text message chain Under Wade that would not be meeting. A under the standard that we have proposed that would be a meeting. Can it cannot. You're one. Okay Steve Whitaker versus the city of Ozark it that was a meeting held by again secret text messages dealing with a desired special audit and after the way the case we had to dismiss that case they filed a motion for summary judgment we had to dismiss it because of the court's ruling that three members. Texting each other about public business was not a public meeting I've got other cases that that I could talk about sorry it's taken me so long that and over the years we've had substantial issues with the what's the definition of a meeting and again I'm sat down and listened to those so there are a lot of examples that they go through I think one and we had a case and rules of the with the casino where there are some of the same same thing going on but will I'll stop and take any questions Mr thank you all right thank you members do you have any questions Senator street you're recognized. Senator soul and you know I I'm thinking as I'm listening to all this and going to work secret comes out like it some you know using a clearly a negative tone like. For all of us we're here making law we text constantly have meeting so that I don't know how we would ever come to consensus without you know if we if we were forced to use the same rules we asked a piece to use in city council school board why is it different for us and then them. That's what the law is. If you would like to run that bill were were for we are brought that same standard then I think we can but that's kind of a universal it's not just here in Arkansas that's a kind of a universal around the unit all across the United States that's the law this is a law for county so you admittedly there is a different standard but there is an issue here that that is going beyond you know the it is secret astroloy evading the peoplesoft Trinity and you're out I understand your question in your thoughts and I think it's it's a valid point but if we continue to let this happen in our cities in our counties are going to struggle with this same usurpation of the power of the people Manser there's thirty eight states with for you laws no state has a law that applies to a state Representative in nineteen sixty seven when Republican governor Winthrop Rockefeller passed what many say is his crowning achievement as governor the four year he did not include that in in the for you law I think the reason that he didn't do that is the new that he would never get the law passed if he included state legislators he would never get the votes because of the inefficiency the the body is is certainly a bigger body then then that's why I wanted to speak to efficiency because everything can happen they can ask questions they can get informational packets you know there's just. The fourth for use by an operating like that since nineteen sixty seven without state state senators or state representatives although I'd like to and encourage you to pass such a law because I think we would I think we have a lot more transparency in government and I think but I think we can see the the the issue here is that these these caucuses on a local level as they develop consensus and is the Supreme Court has said in a couple of different Kazin we the people are entitled to see the wine we're entitled to see the reasons why they're voting when they the reason that we saw in the Fort Smith school board K. so that they that they are electing officials they had zero discussion and when I forty and the emails and I see the emails they're having all these discussions there was a lot they didn't one out there to the public but we're entitled to see the wine that's is is the court said that's the essence the end of the wine is the essence and it's happening all over the state I'm giving you a few where we're not seeing the winds were you see in the final final result in center The yeah I think it's a valid point that you make there's no straight line and we're we're trying to straighten that line a little bit and that's you know what hope we could could achieve that today. Any other questions for senator senator Davis you're recognized but you were able to get that information correct when you S. I light it you were able to get the emails. yes in in in in in really six of these cases I've either gotten and I I do use the word sicker because they were secret I've been able to get either text messages or emails but in in one case that in the McCutchen case that I took up to the Supreme Court it was conversations so there wasn't a clear record on but I think what we have to resent any in the in the in the in the the way the case the city of Fort Smith made the argument that emails could not constitute a meeting at the Supreme Court held that emails could in fact constitute a meeting with but again that's why we need clarification from the legislature and that's why cities and counties I've I've recently had a conversation with with JP's in Faulkner County or their representatives asking about what's a meeting because they don't know and you can on it you what what's clear from the way the case is is the standard is so high to constitute a meeting that's the reason Senator Davis and in Polk County this special investigator had to be called in to determine and I can get my phone out of it like that I got the language but the special investigator in the casino case down there talked about backroom deals in secret meetings that was so so I think. This is happening that we need a clear definition of what a meeting is so that so that so that there's not a guessing game it's not confusion and it's a legislative it's a lot of the legislatures rode the Supreme Court invited you in two thousand twelve to to to to to to take that action and we need it since way in my my opinion. Yeah and the county situation and was a little bit different it was like and almost the entire quorum court and they knew what they were doing and and did not notify the press two hours at a time like they were supposed to so that was like to be a clear violation of what it is to hold a public meeting and. Are you I'm sorry five I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding this but you're saying two or more members of any of these governing body so you're saying if it's a school board member talking to you a quorum court member no no no okay I just need to clarification on that they were more members of the governing body I mean I I do think it is pretty clear I mean I served on the rest of the school board for nine years and we were you know very carefully understood that our emails were at the liable we understood that we could not discuss and in casual conversation you know making a call driving down the road to the law school school board member or and you know having at a private conversation otherwise an executive session or informally and on something we knew was going to be on the agenda and that was something that we and it is hard to do and actually I think it is and a low standard for public meeting I'm not advocating we should you know do anything different but and it it's a hard thing to do because you deal with a lot of issues that are very close to home and when you're dealing with the education of children and and just working with parents across our community and so it and it did force our conversations to be had publicly and and so to me I don't know I I mean I feel like we were and pushed pretty hard and in being clear with what was public meeting what wasn't we got clarification we checked with newspapers media to make sure that we were a body and by the rules and we were not I mean none of us wanted to break the law and so and I remember calling newspaper saying okay if I call and talk to the board member about this thing it's we're not plan on it being on the agenda and that is that violating FOIA or not and so. I think this is and just I am additionally burdensome and I don't really understand and the purpose for it there are bad actors everywhere in they're going to violate the law they're gonna violated and you know putting like additional burdens on top of it I don't think it's going to magically fix a human problem. The the the Supreme Court has created confusion with what a meeting is and the legislature I'm like thirty eight other states is never defined what and what a meeting is That I don't consider it to be a burden when you when you see case after case where you're having discussions of of a public public body and insecurity email change text message chains and no telling no tell what I served on the force and the school board thing and I understand what you say and sometimes it's it's a difficult all we're asking is is these discussions they can have all the discussions that they would like to have but it needs to be in a in a a forum in where where we the people are able to listen to that conversation. Procedure you know affect their some questions that we need to answer and at the H. okay of the committee will pull this down and see if we can get with committee members and and talk through. That your decision Sir we do have people that have that have come here to speak for sure a lot about the I'll let people speak also so if you tower with raw that require the respectful don't know how for some of these folks have come but I guess I guess I'm so I'm just saying the do you think that you're going to make substantial changes here or. From what I'm hearing from the Committee I think they're members of the committee that have some questions okay and I don't I appreciate the people of driven away is and I apologize for that if they'd like to speak. Why don't we do this to try to be as first possible if there is anyone that wants to go ahead and speak and and they're not maybe not able to come back I don't mind letting them speak is that okay with you yeah absolutely thank you and senators. Okay we have about ten minutes left and so Center we we're gonna just state that we will not take a vote on this bill today for a minority stipulated right now but for those that want to speak on this bill if you would like to just be for now at this point if if there's anyone here at all who still wants to speak please make yourself known staff. Seeing none center so when thank you very much appreciate or more for their time today and with that the meeting is adjourned drive home thank you Committee texture.