Insurance & Commerce - Senate

Owns and if we have anybody in the audience who wants to speak for against the two bills were gonna here today please make sure you sign in so we can get about that we also have a I guess an apology from the chair work kind of switching hats today we show five bills on the session agenda today and I know we've tried to stick to that but we're only hearing to bills today several members had amendments and those are coming forward they'll be on Thursday's meeting. Hello you're right by way of announcement we also as a group I've been informed have not taken our picture and so we're going to shoot for next Thursday not this week but next Thursday upon adjournment we're gonna meet on the second floor on the way here snap a pic and get down here and let the committee get to work okay so next Thursday where your fancy is tied up this Thursday next Thursday all right are we ready to have Senator Hickey yes just the just the second would like to welcome you Center preaches are a new chair we really would would also like to working Senator hammer as a new member of this committee so we are us we really are going to have you were headed in I don't think we're headed in a different direction but a new direction you're right. Thank you a great day does enter a thank you all right let's get rolling in the meeting with members I believe the first bill we have for consideration today is Senate bill one eighty four Senator Irvin are you ready to present your bill. Is he talking to. Senator rand you're recognized to present your bill thank you senator pets Mister chair and Senate bill one ninety four comes to us to for consideration from the departments and I have Mr contributor Steve to at just to discuss the bill and to answer any questions what this bill does is the acts requiring licensure as the pawnbroker's it was passed in twenty seventeen and the administration was axed under this and enter twenty seventeen Arkansas acts nine eighty five administration was with the Arkansas Commission on law enforcement standards and training and the commissioner commission members were appointed that no appropriation was ever passed and so no licenses ever been issued and the rules of ever been adopted so the department of labor and licensing staff have been advised there were a couple of meetings but then no minutes were located the secretary of the department of labor and licensing had a meeting with the commission chair approximately a year ago to to cut discuss repealing and that's the bill you have before you today since that time and Commission member or member of the industry has contacted the Secretary regarding this commission. And so that is why they are asking for this to be repealed. Happy to answer any questions committee members we have questions Senator Elliott. The nice I thank you Mr chairman I sent Irvin is what you just practice to adopt the discussion with them about the discussion. Is that considered the investigation that was necessary to take place to determine if indeed it's time for us to And to just get to repeal the pawn broker act and that being the case. What authorizes them to exist now. All of the department of the question. Please identify yourself. Steve Gunter by the Department labor licensing Senator I I I may not completely understand your question but when the when the department was created an inherited the pawnbroker's board we went through every single board and we discover that this board one did not have an appropriation once it was created and that too that they it never issued a license so we're looking at methods of what we needed to do as far as make the board functional I guess so the secretary met with the chairman a chairman Bryce will I believe was his name discussion of what needed either go forward with the board creation of the board or elimination of the board and he was in favor of elimination of the board. What does this mean for people who are active business people as part brokers who regulates what's going to happen now this board was created to the four years ago that they they would operate I guess as they always have they've never been there's never been a board to license them in the past this board I'm not sure who created the board but it was created to license them there was never the members were appointed but no license was ever ever handed out so they get a license for that they just operate thanks to my knowledge they just operate they there is no license that I'm aware of. Are they regulated. that are. I don't have that answer for you. Okay what I'm struggling with is is is we need to do we need to Get rid of the board I make it a board that is operational consent and maybe I'm wrong in thinking that somehow they are somebody ought to be licensing them more or they should be regulated in some way just because of the nature of the business and so that's that's what my hesitation is the it's a bad thing because the board existed and and it's not done anything or is there a board that should exist and we are uses of the vehicle to created a could you comment on that or are we okay with their just. Operating like any other group that they are but they don't need to be under a board or any regulation. Permit department standpoint we were just looking at the board's existing we were necessarily determining if it was in need or not we were just looking at this board did not have an appropriation had not for more knowledge a minute maybe once or twice so they really weren't an operational board we had no minutes of their meetings and it was our understanding that the chairman the necessarily want. Didn't want the board created in the first place and was willing to dissolve the board if of legislation was created so this meeting was held about a year ago and we agreed with him that if we did create legislation there would be no issues from him or His fellow pawnbroker shop owners okay someone we take one more and let's go three and Q. so so are we send them the the chairman is speaking for everybody because that would just give that person the power to speak for everybody is that not is that not questionable. At the time we just met with the chairman I do want to say whether or not he has the authority to speak for all pawnbrokers okay just all right it was good dialogue we need those questions answered but let's stay with the question and then the requested follow up as best we can hear Senator Teague you're next in queue. Thank you Mr chairman So. We're not gonna regulate pawnbrokers at all now is that right. At bay and to my knowledge they have not been regulated they were regular we were trying to do that I think four years ago and so should the department of labor taking care that and run it and put committee together and make sure they are currently under you. The yes Sir there under us why didn't you follow up and and the. Well I mean you follow up and make sure they were doing their job instead of just doing them now because they didn't do their job well there was no appropriation for them real well I don't question their all of okay so go in for one more follow up the leads to question follow up let's follow protocol. Okay so I mean I think there's several boards and don't have appropriations that many. unless they all get I don't think the I think they're still boards of meat without appropriation I don't I'm not clear on. I'm not clear why you would do away with them because. It looks to me like you had some responsibility to follow up make sure they were doing their job we did we met with the chairman once we inherited the board wants the Department inherited the board we met with the chairman discussion was held on which direction to take it and it was agreed upon that the board did not. D. five local you have a yet more question let me get you behind the other two that are in there we'll come back to you senator hammer you have a question. Thank. There we go you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Just for the record they have no appropriation which means I have no cash funds Sydney where this can be swept somewhere is that correct. Yes Sir second thing is I noticed in the language on page. Something the Page four. That this is in this bill it has a cap as far as the interest rate that the pawnbroker's are able to charge in a member several years ago if I remember right you know as far as loaning money pawnbroker's had that ability on a really came if they still do or not but by us doing away with this is what's going to be the accountability that would prevent them from going above the seventeen percent that's mentioned in the bill. I would have to get back to you on that senator. VOL okay alarm in the queue let me come back to you Senator Teague U. on the microphone again. You're recognized. Well. That was that was your second question to ask Senator hammer your follow. Thank you Mr. And that's the you know if they're not meeting their not having a purpose I totally get that but I'm I'm just wondering how we got address said that it wouldn't open it up to the. Kind of wild wild west as far as what they're able to charge if we don't have something in statute somewhere that caps what they can do or is that covered somewhere else. I would have to get with our legal to determine if that was a covered somewhere else I do not have an answer okay. Follow your granted and I'm I'm not trying to be difficult or anything but I'm just a little concerned that if that's not covered somewhere else were fictional pulled a little something so I might not be in favor of advancing this until at that addressed thank you Mr Senator Ingram you're recognized. Here I'd like a little more of research done on this number one just sponsor the bill was what the intent four years ago was I'm certain that most eight most organizations of the bonds or the total board wouldn't like to not have to be regulated and I think this was passed for a certain reason and now we're just pulling the plug I mean I'd like to know how many states regulate these before we pass this up just a little due diligence it might be fine but I'd like to a more due diligence run if you want to direct that to the sponsor after that may I just like to do more due diligence you know I think that's fine and appropriate I mean that way if you give you the opportunity to hear the concerns and questions from the members of the committee just so I'm clear and I ask the members of the committee really quickly for a list of the questions one is consult with the legal team about at the sections be on page four lines seven through fourteen is that correct Senator hammer okay and then Senator Ingram at once more information on sponsor of the bill and twenty seventeen and the purpose in their attempt hind it and is that correct Senator Ingram. And how many other states have the regulatory body infrastructure in place. and then also. If. I think also what you're asking for two is I mean it even stated that no commission member or member of the industry had contacted the Secretary regarding this commission so I'm assuming if maybe we need to check to see if there's any other folks in the industry that has contacted I think that was part of the questioning that Senator Elliott. And Senator Teague also happened. So I would just say pond center before you pull that down I think there's two other questions I saw Center hammer first and then I'll come back to center and okay Sir no that's fine. Thank register. What also would like to have you checked if you don't mind is if this bill goes away. Is the Attorney General and the complaint division over there going to be the ones responsible for handling this and if they are. Are there any adjustments that need to be made to the appropriation budget if they feel they would have to add on any additional staff or do they have enough over there because. If all this goes away and there's nothing out there to guide and direct what is expected how is a complaint going to do any good if the language in this bill goes way so would you mind checking on that are at nine on wish to please. You might put a double check by that because I believe that was Senator Ingram and I think I had that same question who's who's got oversight at whatever level of there's criminal activity or etcetera any other questions before she pulls down the bill for rehearing earlier I think the only alternative without there being some administrative oversight is set to go to court well that's what I hope you can afford to go to court you know I hope that's what we can find out in our research so senator and you want to know and then yeah and then also I think to you say you inherited this bill so we need to make sure that we understand how this is affected due to transformation. Correct so I guess I'm probably going to ask you and I can no I'm question or go ahead and bring in a reasonable it down and that's why I like I said and then get all the answers to these questions okay. All right let's move on I believe you have a second bill do you want to present it next are you getting this is also with the department's one eighty five for the members yes Senate bill one ninety five so this bill is a true clean up bill that's dealing with obsolete language it does not have a financial or other impact on the regulated community the general public for the board and this board was created in two thousand and three Until the board had sufficient revenue the sector of state did provide administrative support by statute the transformation inefficiencies Act substituted secretary of department of labor licensing for surgery of state and the statute the substitution added confusion regarding this already obsolete language. Do we have questions. I have recognized Senator Elliot for question. Okay I want to be sure present I was trying to listen fast and I think I didn't so is there somebody if there's something who does home inspections if we get rid of this board is. But takes the place of this art is there anything that does. Yes I'm the home inspection licensing board is another board that's under the department of labor licensing this language was when it was originally created in two thousand three the language where you see the Department labor secretary was secretary of state so during transformation that was substituted for secretary department of labor licensing but because they're under our umbrella there was no need to this is language is kind of redundant they are we are responsible for for the sport. Okay the we are who is that we labor licensing relicensing yes thank you thank. We have any other questions of committee members. Seeing none is there anybody in the audience to speak for this or against this. Seeing none. Are you close for your bill senator. Yes I make a motion to pass a motion to pass all in favor of the motion passing of Senate bill one eighty five police say aye aye All opposed same sign. Motion carries. I may have messed up already we had a motion from senator vendor one of the committee members want to acknowledge being the second I guess I've got Senator Ingram as a second there. Okay your bill has passed it will transmit to the Senate floor is there any other business we need to do we've talked about picture we will try and get the committee members we will try and get your five agenda Bills for next for this coming Thursday in your hands we're probably going to have to take a stab at what the other FOR OR her other we know she's bringing this one back so again we need to get regular on which bills are coming and that's gonna take me a little time to get all the members coordinating with me so with that meeting adjourned.