House Rules
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (4)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1353
Act 342
· 2 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “going to House Bill 1353. Representative, if you just introduce yourself”
|
TO AMEND THE PROHIBITIONS ON ADVERTISING AND USE OF CERTAIN SYMBOLS REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA. | Haak | Notification that HB1353 is now Act 342 |
|
HB1354
· 2 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “…EAR THAT PROBABLY LATER IN THE SESSION. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO HOUSE BILL 1354, REPRESENTATIVE KAVANAUGH. JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE”
|
TO PROHIBIT GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS TO CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENT SECRETARIES AND DIRECTORS OF STATE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES; … | Cavenaugh | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1365
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…h Rep. Mark H. Berry REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1365 Pilkington TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, AL…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, ALSO KNOWN AS THE "ARKANSAS MEDICAL MARIJUANA AMENDMENT OF … | 2021-02-01 14:01:49.000 | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1370
Act 271
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…ND TO AMEND THE LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1988. HB1370 Bryant TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR ACT; T…”
|
TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR ACT; TO INCLUDE AN ESTABLISHMENT THAT PRODUCES … | Bryant | Notification that HB1370 is now Act 271 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:00
MEMBERS, THE FIRST BILL, HOUSE BILL 1365, THE SPONSOR IS GOING TO HOLD OFF ON THAT ONE. WE'LL
Speaker 2
0:08
HEAR THAT PROBABLY LATER IN THE SESSION. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO HOUSE BILL 1354, REPRESENTATIVE KAVANAUGH. JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
0:30
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Fran Kavanaugh, State Rep, District 60. This bill, in its simplest way to tell what
it does, is it takes cabinet-level secretaries and puts them under the same guidelines for taking gifts from lobbyists that is currently in the statute for legislators. And that's exactly what the bill does. All right, members, are there any questions?
Chair
Unverified
1:00
Representative Gray, and I'll just second it. You're recognized.
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
1:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess my question would be, is there a reason that we have just lobbyists in here and not all state employees? Or does that be something you'd be
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:16
willing to consider? You mean cabinet-level secretaries? Yes, that's something I'd
be willing to amend to if that's what the will is to put all in there. I don't have any trouble with that. I went with cabinet-level secretaries because they are the ones that's really setting policy,
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
1:32
and that's why I went there first. Okay, and I think we would like, I know I would like to see all employees, especially because you've got your secretary level and you've got all your directors, and they also have a
Chair
Unverified
1:48
lot of authority, too. Yes, I think that's a
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:52
good idea. Thank you, Representative Gray. Representative Eubanks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Kavanaugh, I asked you before the meeting about whether a compensation plan that is received by a cabinet-level secretary, that it's in addition to their government salary,
Speaker 19
2:05
if that could be classified as a gift under this bill. My
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
2:10
understanding is no, and I just verified before I came to present, is that the only way that
that could be classified as a gift is if that entity that gave that money was registered as
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:23
a lobbyist. Follow up? Is there any way that that organization that we're talking all around could be classified as a lobbyist, a lobbying group? You're stating they would have to be registered as such.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
2:37
Yes, that's my, I asked the drafter and they said they had to be registered
as a lobbyist. Thank you. And my understanding is this organization is not, it's a nonprofit, but it's not registered as a lobbyist that
Chair
Unverified
2:53
we're speaking of or around. Thank you, Representative Eubanks. Representative Wardlaw, you're
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:57
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'm sitting here watching Mr. Sloan's reactions. I'd love to hear his
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
3:04
answers to some of these same questions members are asking.
Speaker 33
3:09
Absolutely, Mr. Sloan. Come on down. That's why these meetings can't be Zoom. I couldn't have
Graham Sloan
Unverified
3:25
seen that. Mr. Sloan, if you would introduce yourself for the record and then we'll get your opinion on this matter. Thank you. My name
Speaker 36
3:30
is Graham Sloan, director of the Ethics Commission. I don't want to play poker with Representative Wardlaw. I guess I've got my tail. But to go back to Representative Gray's point
about including all employees, there is a gift prohibition statute that applies to public servants, and that would be anybody elected, appointed, employed. And it prohibits them from receiving gifts if it's intended to reward them for doing their job or to influence past or future action. And as used there, the definition of gift excludes anything with a value of $100 or less. And then the law that this mimics was passed in November 2014.
It was the constitutional prohibition on gifts from lobbyists that applied only to the members of the General Assembly and then the seven other constitutional officers. The Citizens Commission on Salaries was included in that. But it's pretty close, except as used there, gift doesn't exclude anything worth $100 or less. And so just you would be prohibited from receiving anything of value from a lobbyist.
But it's not necessarily a registered lobbyist. It's someone who meets the definition of a lobbyist, who employs or contracts a lobbyist, or who is acting on behalf of a lobbyist. And so the Article
Speaker 38
5:02
19, Section 30, Constitutional Prohibition, it's, you know, it's broader and then it doesn't exclude something worth 100 or less. But, you know, anybody elected, employed
Speaker 36
5:16
or appointed is already subject to 218801, which is a gift prohibition statute that's been on the books for quite some time.
Speaker 3
5:26
So are you, based on what you said, is there a need for this bill if we're trying to keep
Speaker 36
5:36
the department level secretaries from receiving gifts? If they would be currently prohibited from receiving anything worth the, well, let me stop there. As used in the old gift prohibition statute, which still applies to everybody, 218801, gift is defined as anything of value. it excludes something worth $100 or less.
And so if something's not worth $100, it's not a gift, it's not prohibited, even if it was worth more than $100, it might fit into one of the other exceptions. But the constitutional prohibition on gifts from lobbyists was just a ban on anything of value. So it didn't have that worth $100 or less exception. And so, um, it just, it's a, you know, on the 142 people, I guess if there's eight people on that commission, the 150 people that that particular constitutional amendment applied to, it was a stricter or higher standard.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
6:32
All right. So, so this just spreads that higher standard out to all state employees once amended
Speaker 36
6:43
to Representative Gray's point, correct? Yes, it would. As in its current form, it would expand the greater level of restriction to cabinet secretary people. And then if you expanded it to include public servants, it would be everybody.
But then there really is not a need for two separate gift statutes. It would just be, you know, because then you'd just have everybody subject to the 21801, 21801, everybody subject to the Article 19, Section 30. And so you'd really just have, at that point, you'd have a belt and suspenders. Representative Boyle, are
Chair
Unverified
7:29
you good? I'm good. Representative Dalby, you're recognized.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
7:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it seems like to me, instead of having two statutes, we just need to amend the GIF statute. Would that not cure any of the questions that we'd have? It appears to me, instead of—I guess I'm not following, once again, why we need two statutes, if we just need to amend one to add some additional language. Could you speak to that? I mean, is that, I mean, isn't that what we're hearing, that we have two statutes, one's already in place, I mean, we have a proposed statute, one's in place, already taking care of all of this, and if anything, we might need to add the word lobbyist to the existing statute.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
8:17
Well, my understanding, from what I'm understanding, is the current one that prohibits
it for all state employees is not at this high standard. This is a higher standard. It's the same standard that as elected legislators that we're under. The one that prohibits the gifts across the board is at a lesser standard. And that's why I was bringing it under this, so they would be under the same high standard that we as elected
Speaker 2
8:47
officials are. Right. Is that different just the dollar amount, Graham? Is it of any value versus more than $100?
Speaker 36
8:54
Well, now that I've thought about it for a little bit, the 21801 gift prohibition statute prohibits you from receiving a gift if it's intended to reward you for doing your job or to influence past or future action. It wouldn't prohibit a gift's conferred on account of a bona fide personal professional business relationship. And then the constitutional prohibition on gifts from lobbyists really doesn't have an intended reward for doing your job part to it.
So it's really more of a just cross-the-board prohibition. And the gift prohibition statute, which applies to everybody, it wouldn't keep your spouse from giving you a Christmas present. and it wouldn't keep your high school best man in your wedding from taking you duck hunting. And then the constitutional prohibition on gifts, if the best man in your wedding is now registered as a lobbyist, you can't go duck hunting with him, or you'd have to pay your own way.
You couldn't. So there is a little bit of a different, there is an intent requirement on the 21.8801 gift prohibition statute that, again, applies to everybody, And then there's the more narrow Article 19, Section 30 constitutional prohibition on gifts from lobbyists. There is not an intent requirement there, and the hundred or less is out of the exceptions. And so it is more of the Article 19, Section 30 is more restrictive.
It doesn't have an intent requirement. The other one does, and so they do
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
10:38
reach different things. REPRESENTATIVE BERRY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, SO, LET'S SAY I'M A PURCHASING AGENT OR CONTRACTING SPECIALIST FOR AN AGENCY, AND THERE'S A $50,000 CONCRETE BID OUT THERE, AND I'M WORKING, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS WITH THIS CONCRETE COMPANY, AND CAN THAT, AS AN EMPLOYEE AND NOT AN ELECTED
elected official or a director or a secretary, is it covered in the law if I accept the gift from that contracting or the contractor that has the concrete
Speaker 36
11:18
company? I don't know if there's anything in the state purchasing laws that would address that, but as far as laws under the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Ethics Commission are concerned. Uh, the contractor couldn't give the employee something worth
$100 or more, but if they, uh, you know, they could, um, they could spend less than $100 on them. Uh, but they, if they went over $100, it'd be a gift and it'd be prohibited. So that's, to follow
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
11:50
up, so that's already covered in the statute?
Speaker 36
11:55
It would be. For all employees. Yes. And then in the purchasing laws, there might be something even greater. I know, for example, the Lottery Commission, their employees can't take anything from anybody.
And then, you know, but just your rank and file government worker, they can't take gifts intended to reward them for doing their job influence, faster, future action. But as used there, the definition excludes anything worth a hundred or less.
Speaker 28
12:22
You good, Representative Barry? Yes, sir. Thank you. Representative Eubanks, you're recognized.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
12:32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question for the parliamentarian. In section two of the bill, it states that we're amending initiated act one of 1988.
Is this going to require a higher threshold to pass in the House or in both ends? You
Chair
Unverified
12:51
recognize, buddy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I believe it would.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
13:02
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Eubanks. Representative Dalby, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Looking at the bill, Representative Kavanaugh, I see in Section 2C where then the Ethics Commission shall investigate complaints of alleged violations.
And if we expand that to all employees, that would be statewide. and I guess whether you answer or maybe Mr. Sloan can answer, but it seems like to me that multiplies your responsibility at the Ethics Commission if we're talking about every employee from every county all the way through, would it not? Because then you'd be required. Would the Ethics Commission, I guess the question, would the Ethics Commission be required to then investigate each complaint for every employee?
The way I think this is crafted, they would. if we amended it to say all employees. Then they would. That's my understanding the way it's crafted. And that, you know, when I crafted the bill, when I crafted the bill, I was just going at cabinet level secretaries because of their position and their influence in policy. If it's something that you want to look at
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
14:10
going at across the board with all state employees, I think there will have to be changes made beyond just adding all state employees.
Speaker 3
14:18
In the amendment is my... Thank you. Graham,
Speaker 33
14:28
so I'm getting a little bit confused. Don't we already ban those gifts if they're, you know,
Speaker 36
14:35
greater than $100? Yes, current law would ban a public servant. Again, that's anybody elected, appointed, employed by a governmental body from receiving a gift if it's intended to reward them for doing their job or influence past or future action.
and then, you know, but it, but as used there, gift excludes anything worth 100 or less. The Article 19, Section 30 only applies to 150 people, but it's, there is no 100 or less exception, and there isn't any intended reward you for doing your job, so it's a higher standard, but then if, you know, if you're talking about gifts from lobbyists to just rank and file employees, I'm not sure that's, that that's a prevalent practice that, you know, you've got lobbyists,
you know, I mean, they're going to, you know, you know, give to elected officials at the state and district level or want to give to elected officials at the state and district level. I don't know that they're going to want to give to just an employee, you know, that they're, that they're not, they don't, we don't cross paths with any of them. What I'm
Speaker 33
15:47
really asking, though, is we already have this in place, so all we're doing here would be creating,
and maybe Representative Kavanaugh can answer that, creating a higher standard for all state employees, including department-level secretaries? The way the bill is drafted
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
16:00
now, it is only for state-level secretaries. To get them to the higher level that we are held under. Higher level that we as legislators are held under. But
Chair
Unverified
16:10
in your bill, would a cabinet-level secretary's chief of staff be able to accept gifts? Yes, because this is only cabinet-level secretaries.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
16:16
All right. Thank you for that. Members, are there any other questions?
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
16:23
Representative Gray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think there's been some good discussion here. And so I guess my request would be, and I don't know if the rest of the committee would like that, I think we'd like to do something. I know I would, but I'd like for you to look at amending it, probably to broaden that scope and try to figure out if the section of statutes you're in or what the where you're working is the correct place or do we need to look at that 28 that 21 8 801 let's figure out where we need to work it would you be amenable to pulling it today and then working on that yes I'd be glad to okay thank you yes all right members any other questions
Chair
Unverified
17:01
all right seeing none representative Kavanaugh do you want to
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
17:04
just pull it down we'll just pull it down and then we'll work on is this the place to do it who all we want to include and to make sure
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
17:12
that we're not going to have a duplication of statutes
Speaker 3
17:16
thank you members without objection she's going to pull the bill down thank you representative kavanaugh appreciate your
Chair
Unverified
17:22
testimony thank you graham members we're going to go to house bill 1370 representative bryant representative just introduce yourself for the record and you can get started
Speaker 71
17:32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bryant, District 96, Benton County. What I have before you today is hopefully not a fool's errand, as some bills may turn out to be. So what this bill is attempting to do is codify language of mead into the Small Farm Winery Act that That was passed, I believe, in 2007 and since been amended through the process of just different
issues being brought before this body. So what the pandemic did is it allowed people to be entrepreneurs of spirit when they're stuck at the home. So what an individual did is he went and turned his passion for mead into a business. In doing so, he went through federal statutes to get labeling correct, and then he turned the state to be able to to bottle and produce wheat mead for sale and what he found is the mead had to it didn't really have a definition there's one section in df and a's rules section 2.74
that discusses wine it says small farm wine means wines made from grapes berries other fruits honeys and vegetables small farm wine includes mead and that's that's the extent of mead that's currently in statute. So when he went to work with the state to get permits and sell mead, he was told he could only sell mead at his location to people that come to his place of business. He could not ship it out to consumers without having people come to his business.
So that's what this bill attempts to do, because currently we allow small farm wineries in statute 13-5702 to sell small farm wine out to consumers within the state and to other states that accept out-of-state products in certain quantities certain under certain certain rules obviously so this is just simply putting that into statute that way he can be comfortable that it's not just
a rule that he's told he may or may not be able to do but statute actually allows mead what is mead? Mead. Mead is an alcoholic beverage made through fermentation of honey as the primary ingredient. Includes without limitation, Sizer, Braggot, Methilgan, and Melomels. That's exactly what I thought it was. Okay. Representative Dalby, you're recognized. Sorry,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
20:17
Mr. Chair. Well, I think you already asked my question.
I was just going to ask for what
the definition of size or bracket and those other things were, but it's mead. It sounds like honey
Speaker 71
20:28
wine or something, right? Yes, if you call it honey wine, I think meaderies would tell you it's not wine. They'd say it's its own category. Thank you. You're done? Yes. Okay, members, are there any questions? No.
Chair
Unverified
20:40
Seeing none, is anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill? No. All right, what is the will of the committee? The motion do pass. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed? The bill has passed. Thank you, Representative. Now we're
Speaker 77
21:02
going to House Bill 1353. Representative, if you just introduce yourself
Speaker 3
21:13
for the record, you can get started with your testimony. Good afternoon I'm
Speaker 78
21:20
Delia Hawk from District 91. We would like
Speaker 79
21:26
to present to you today an amendment
to make sure that medical symbols are not used in the advertisement of medical marijuana as used in dispensaries or facilities, cultivation facilities. This includes the medical symbol, a caduceus, as well as any other symbols that are commonly associated with medicine, the practice of medicine, or the practice of pharmacy. In
addition, it includes, not without limitation, a cross of any color that That could be used in the advertisement and promotion of medical marijuana. Representative, hang on just
Chair
Unverified
22:09
one second. We need to get your amendment adopted. Thank you, sir. Yes. Thank you very much. So just explain what your
Speaker 79
22:19
amendment is real quick. I would like to present this amendment to the last line of the bill to read the practice of medicine or the practice of pharmacy as opposed to any other wording.
Chair
Unverified
22:31
All right. Thank you. And I heard a motion to adopt amendments. So without objection, we'll adopt the amendment
Speaker 79
22:39
to the bill. Now you can present your bill. Thank you. Thanks for helping me, educating me in the process. This bill is to amend prohibitions on advertising and the use of certain symbols regarding medical marijuana, and in particular, the images or symbols of a cross of any color, a caduceus, or any other symbol commonly associated with the practice of medicine or the practice of pharmacy.
Chair
Unverified
23:03
All right. Thank you, members. Are there any questions? All right. Seeing none, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill? All right. Seeing none, do we have a motion? Motion do pass. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Yeah, motion do pass as amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? You guys have it. Congratulations. Thank you. Members, that is the last thing on our agenda. See you next Wednesday. We're adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — HOUSE RULES, Feb 10, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 2
Speaker 3
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 19
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 33
Graham Sloan
Unverified
Speaker 36
Speaker 38
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 71
Speaker 77
Speaker 78
Speaker 79