Judiciary Committee- House

Senator I believe there's an amendment on there yes ma'am so let's present if you're paying our members the members will be passed out to you and then what's members have the amendment then Representative would you make a dinner for yourself and then proceed to present your amendment. Thank you manager. Represent what you're recognized to present your amendment thank you Mr chairman thank you committee members of first of all well Go through the amendment and then I'll I'll give you some background information on H. B. ten ninety eight of this amendment is simply states the owner operator service provider director of a child care facility shall provide written notification the restaurant sex offender is has been or will be on or near the premises of the children's facility to the parents legal guardians persons having lawful control or person standing in local for instance of of a child who attends the childcare facility if the owner operator service provider Director of the childcare facility becomes aware that a person who is convicted of a sex offense of sex offense against a minor or is required to register as a sex offender under the sex offender US Russian Act of nineteen ninety seven and that's Amendment we change the the language to become aware in order to the read the some some protection for the owners of the facility the there was a if if for a sex offender was present and they didn't know about it then then they're standing would be would be different then than it is if they're aware of it so madam chairman this the amendment as well. Members represented witness presented is amendment is there a motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion. A. You have discussions. Okay. All in favor of the motion police say aye. Any opposed motion to adopt has been granted you may now present your bill as amended okay thank you madam chairman of first of all let me give you a little background about the legislation the reason for. We have a situation to develop in my district in which a of daycare owner who owned a facility and and Brian S. Evans District he's also a part of this is a a bill with me of. Who is married to a sex offender and she moved to the city of ball property and nine districts and open another facility and it's my understanding now that she's building a third facility the AJS. the HHS head of a given her a notice in twenty sixteen relative to the fact of her husband being convicted sex offender and the. He was conduct not to be around in or around the premises and any time a trial was there well with the parents were never told. About it parents were never notified the parents well that'll balance and by the way she she registers my understanding of restaurants the the facilities and and her maiden name or for a former name and not the married name of the of the of the person has been convicted of a sex offense but anyway the parents found out about it and it created a outpouring of sentiment up there and so I don't have contact with DHS and the they did not have a rule. Where the parents had to be notified of the prisons then owner hello was a many who is a sex offender convicted sex offender in a hole in the registry and that was not a rule at DHS thank you they they were concerned about it so as a result of the parents concerned and DHS concern we develop House Bill ten ninety eight which simply states that. Parents are to be informed about the presence of the owner or employee or any no knowledge of the sex offender in or around a daycare facility now let me make the member makes this point because it came up we have addressed it in even addressing it still came the. This is not. Precluding. A sex offender being able to bring their child. To the facility and drop off or pick him up. They're they're still permitted to do that is most of you know many their daycare facilities or in churches. If a sex offender is a member of the church it does not preclude the person from being able to attend that church. And take part in a program at the church in addition to that because of the fact that we're not attempting to hurt the child of a sex offender in any way. If there is a program at the daycare center that parent who is convicted cannon ten. What we are attempting to do with this legislation is two things one make the parents aware of the fact that the sex offender has a relationship with them facility. And to that let sex offender will a cannot be around the facility thirty three and thirdly that the parents I guess it would be first really that the parents would be notified. Upon the enrollment of the trial. Then the manager owner employee there was a presence of a sex offender well they would be on the premises but the parent the person should be made aware of the relationship and with that madam chairman of the and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Represented college you're recognized for a question. Thank you ma'am Sharon thank you represent a wooden You know as we've talked about I think that there's some terms in this that are pretty vague and I get a little bit concerned when we're talking about. Taking away anyone's individual rights if we're not real clear about what we're saying so I guess I'm wondering if you could explain for me to start with what is your understanding of is has been or will be present because that's past present and future what are the limitations on that as you see it as far as somebody being present at a facility. Well. Primarily. Is. But they can't be there. But if they should be and and the owner is aware. The the the the the parents or the bill made aware of it. Follow up. You're recognized for a follow up. And I understand that as a general idea but I think it would seem like we would need some. Some clear definition of what the limitations are because someone could have been at the facility years prior really wouldn't have any impact on people's lives but according to this. They would have to notify everybody so I there's no limitations I see do you see it differently. I was calling to make a valid point. And I'll be happy to I'll be happy to we're we're gonna have a shared room the chairman to amend Germany yesterday we're going to have to amendments. if you would be willing for use by a suggestion relative to how to deal with that. in my in my. Looking back now since you made that point in the House within those same thing. Well we're primarily after here is when we know that there is a relationship that the parents be told about. Hello committed to reach when you talk well in the past present future but if when the person in roll and roll is there shall in a daycare facility in the owner knows that her husband or her assistant manager or her daily workers that they have a sex offender that's a spouse they need to notify those parents is that what you're after clarification. What. They are thank you that is partly what I'm after I I understand what you're trying to do and I don't think I'm against what you're trying to do but I just I see that and I see in or near as far as where someone lives how close is near that's another one where I just. I think this is DHS rule in or near yes as defined in okay. And then the reason that is written in there because there is a house in close proximity to the facility in B. B. that she purchased and she purchased the house at the same time. There is been some. There has been some indication the. This person has been present it has not been able to be verified by law enforcement at this point. Do you know how close near is is a number of reasons twenty five or fifty feet of the facility. Residing in within twenty five or fifty feet. It's close. Measured it but it is it's it's only it's on the same course. Request our manager you're recognized for a follow up thank you I and just to be clear I'm saying about this a here resides in or near the premises of the healthcare facility is in or near to find a number of feet or miles that a definite number we haven't I have a sense of that to the. Well. Thank. Represent County you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair thank you are presented Wooten FOR this bill it's obviously I think we're on the same page in terms of keeping our kids safe in our parents informed my question kind of D. backs on Representative Collins which is just the scope of what we've got before us right now when you're talking you mentioned while children are present I don't see anything in this bill that limits the requirements that were laying out four times when children are present I'm thinking of things like maybe a janitorial service or someone's got you know somebody that works for this service has something on their record their registered sex offenders but they're only at the facility after hours when everything is closed and there aren't kids anywhere around with this impact you know would would would facilities need to provide notice to parents in that instance it's it's it's clear when children the intent is when a child is press. Not not. Good. You're recognized for a follow up represented cloning. Thank you I I hear that that's the intent I guess my question is can you show me in the bill where it is limited to one child or children are present. No ma'am okay thank you. Represents like you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Representa would not only this it's a so is it any sex offenders said all classifications remains very leased to the maximum yes okay thank you thank members or. Represent Ferguson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair represented within just a quick question for clarification so the bill would pretty much mandated the owner of the facility let the parents know that is a sex offender in visiting or sex offender present but the bill doesn't preclude them from telling the parent who the sex offender he is right. Of this again I'm sorry. Well well the bill. The pretty much mandate that the owner of the facility let the parent know that there's a sex offender present but the bill does not preclude the owner of the facility from telling the parent who the sex offender E. is. Is that correct no that's correct I mean we don't call for the. We don't call for the individual to be named okay but just simply say that they must make parents aware that there's one present helpfully tell them who it is amendments that's their responsibility okay all right thank you manager. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I really do appreciate what you are trying to do here and think that there should be some sort of communication as well I just have a couple of. Concerns I guess. You down below your you have the section about not prohibiting someone who is convicted. if they have a child participating in an activity or an event. But I wonder if someone who has been convicted of a sex who's a convicted. sex offender. Has a child that they have to drop off every day and I wonder how. The owner would know that and be able to share that. and if they didn't know you know what is their culpability so I. It I am I'm I'm with you on trying to do something especially given the background and what you shared and what happened. But this seems to be so far reaching and even when someone asks earlier. About the different topics because of slate asked about the levels you know. You can have someone who is convicted of a as a sex offender because. Of you know a consensual situation between two young people and so that sex with a minor and ten years later they have a family and right you know so I'm I'm just saying there are some circumstances where I don't think you're trying to reach that far and my guess my question would be. would you be willing to address some of those issues and maybe with DHS to clear that up because I really do want to support it. Well up. I understand what you're saying and and With the council bill in such a way. Is not. If I understand what you were saying the council bill in such a way that it would not Her. Affinion. A child. The sex offender and and that's a delicate line that we will all but there is one of the reasons for the provision of the three provisions we have in there relative to the church relative to the of being able to drop the child will be able to attend the program really was designed to keep the the owner from having this the Susie your your mom or your dad can't come today because they've they've been convicted if if they were aware of it so that's the reason they were and also the fact that in in that setting the other parents would be there. This is simply making the parents aware of that when they're not there. The the the this person is married to or that this individual who whose spouse works has been convicted but there to DJ for the issuance rule sent the stunts were simply that they can the president of rail or in this is designed not to address that rule but the dress the fact that parents need to be aware. It's it is a tight rope to all but I still feel parents need to know that the. A sex offender is is there it is not the parents fault so the owners for all these is no one's fault but the individual who has been convicted of that and the man that's regrettable but it's the fact is to stated public known fact through the register that that person is a sex offender I hope I hope I've answered your question. Four you're recognized for follow up well. So I think you spoke to my concerns what you're trying to do what I do I think my question is given that there seem to be questions around some specific words that. Kind of each broaden the scope maybe beyond what you were looking to do. the level of sex offenders you know how this you know what the culpability is of the owner operator when you're talking about parents who could be a sex offender does that mean that people have to. You know Reveal the record so I and so I guess my real question is. Would you be willing because the I've heard you mention to represent Collins. Specific to his concern but it just seems like there are several issues that sort of just out there. I will be willing to address those issues at. Let me let me go at this from from the standpoint we have attempted. More the hill is herein Katie Brennan's going from the metro law firm of they have worked very closely with me on this legislation and is is Jennifer Lovell is BLR and then also the University of Arkansas has a daycare center. And the a issue of both the list of rust and the and Shane Broadway have visited with me about the bill and they're they're they're satisfied then there please and I've heard from daycare owners throughout the state from around eight in their organization is represented by miss seal the you know the there please with the legislation we didn't make we did make some changes it's just hard to is re honest with the it's a it's a hard piece of legislation to rye I mean I will first one is to do was to write in such a way that Senate of a person owns a daycare center and their husband is convicted of a sex offense they can own one a constitutional and then feel like that would fly so we came back we were told that some more we put it out ms hill the contacted me we worked with her and her firm and and others to come up with what we have today and and like I said willing to look at Representative Colin suggestions and will certainly We're certainly look at it represented flyers we're going we're going to up is assured with the term we're going to. We've got a couple of changes that will make. Once it gets over to the Senate when it gets over there will amended because I have already as the chairman the Put it on the calendar in here for today so we will we will we're we're receptive let me put it that way represent the flyers. Thank you. Represent you're recognized for a question yes madam chair motion at the proper time. We have some folks signed up but I don't get to you in a moment any other questions. All right thank you Representative wouldn't we have a couple of people who have signed up to speak against the bill Carlos Watson this Watson if you'll come forward. Represent wouldn't if you might wanna move over and get a chair just so we'll maintain our social distancing. Miss Watson and want to sit down please identify yourself for the record. And then you may proceed. Okay. Yes. Hi my name is Carla Swanson I represent. You know what the numbers are sex offenders that live in the State of Arkansas. Someone we don't know about me but I still represent them my organization is called Arkansas time after time and I've been told I need to change my name. But let me clarify that is not because ex offenders re offend over and over again it's because they get punished over and over again. That's the reason why we have our name. I wrote down a few points that I want to bring up about this bill. Mr Woodin said that Allah the daycare centers are for this bill but to me if they notify all the parents are going to lose business what parent is going to want to send their child to a day care center that has a sex offender that may be on the premises so to me that would be almost a death trap you know as far as they will do business business over this. Plus the bill does not say anything about naming who the sex offender is does it say that they can't so who's to say that they won't misinterpret the Bill and actually name the person who is a registry which would basically be somebody walking around with the scarlet letter on their head you know as soon as that parents walked into the daycare center all my gosh there's a sex offender and everybody just kind of. Clear the way. which would make the child even. Embarrassed. it also does it say how to notify the the parents do they yeah all as soon as the sex offender walks into the room or do they send out a letter saying that there's a sex offender on the premises doesn't say that and how do they know that this is a sex offender is this something that they have to volunteer the information or is this something that the daycare center is going to have to look on the registry and if they do level ones and twos will not show up so that means that they're not even going to see everybody. Other things it is. If this ends up happening where's the sex offender supposed to take their child if this ends up becoming a problem you're going to have a parent female or male who now can't find a day care center for their child because they risk the daycare center finding out and now they can't take their child which means now they can't even go to their job because they have no day care. Also and I say this over and over again. Ninety five percent of all sex offenders do not re offend so why do we keep making laws to keep punishing the ones over and over again what this. You know you've got a sex offender who's on the premises of a daycare center what about the guy who may be the handy man that comes in every now and then and does this and does that for the owner maybe is the janitor may be is to help or they're not on the registry yes. That's the ones we need to be worried about when you have ninety five percent of all sex offenders or a first time offender no background check does not keep your child safe. It's you keep an eye on your child and their surrounding this bill will do nothing to keep your child safe all it will do is hurt the sex offender in their family employs maybe make the daycare center even lose business. So I can't figure out why we keep making a bill over one percent we've got this bill we got other bills that are just because of one person who made a mistake just caught like we had the a the guy who put the bomb in issues now we all have to take off your shoes when we go to the airport because the one percent I I don't understand this anyway. I'm against this bill thank you. Are there any questions of this witness thank you miss Watson oh I'm sorry. Represent the Smith you're recognized for a question yes miss Clarkson right here. I think you made some interesting points but when you lead off with profit. The motive of profit as opposed to protection. That creates problems for me so is that how you view this as profit over protection and secondly you said ninety five percent do not re offend can you cite a source thank you I did send you a whole bunch of sources also known to you by email that way you will have them. As far as profit and protection like I said we give you a scenario you're sitting in your home you look up you guys sex offender who lives on one side of you you got the soccer coach who lives on the other side of you you tell your kids don't go over next door he's a sex offender I'm worried about that meanwhile your daughter his soccer coach lives next door goes over there all the time now this and she doesn't want to play soccer you can't figure out why you keep encouraging her you keep demanding that she goes over there you find out years down the road he's got multiple victims and your child is one apple he's on on the sex offender registry there's nothing that you could have done to protect your child the same thing with this bill. You know that there's a sex offender on the promising but what about the other ones the other parents the other helpers the other people who were there on the day care center you know nothing about them. That does not protect your child. There's no law there is nothing that can protect the child except for you know in their surroundings even if you know there's a sex offender is still does not tell you anything about the person who is not on the registry. How do you protect them you just do the best you can. Thank you miss Watson. Our next individual who signed up to speak against is Jeff Rosen select. You come to the table and identify yourself and then you may proceed. Thank you I'm Jefferson twice representing the Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers all right miss once in course made some remarks two and I just want to bring some matters to your attention one L. one but represented I think this provision slate mention it or question does it apply to all levels one two three and four this would that is a deviation from how these things are normally handled where the restriction or disability or of prohibition normally extends to levels three and four and not ones and twos in fact five fourteen one twenty eight which is cross referenced here which is the prohibition on residents near a day care center is Ricky is only for levels three and four a level one or level two can live right next to a day care center under current law of but the also the of the distance I think of the sponsor of the legislation so summing up fifty feet I didn't meant cast all of it quit the wine five fourteen one twenty eight the residential restriction is two thousand feet there's no exception for an interstate highway of being between the two places or anything else like that of I think it's a slippery slope of the legislature has been a pretty good about restricting the sale of prohibitions and disabilities to levels three and four and not of burdening one's and two's ones and twos tend to be your of your so called Romeo and Juliet the offenses and their number of people required to register for things that are are no longer crunch for instance and the end of course there's also the has to be an which is obviously very broad we're talking about fifty years ten years five years two days or whatever so I. Think it needs to be significantly amended tighten up before it leaves leaves this room and not wait to fix it in the Senate I think the one of the duties of this committee is to try to have things in ship shape before they head to the head to the floor and then off to the other body shall I would ask that are. this be amended in accordance with the concerns of miss one has not having some of the membership. Members are there any questions represent the county you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Mr Rosenzweig I know that there's probably a ton of law on this but can you briefly summarize with the current state of the law is it with respect to what sex offenders are able to do a daycare facilities in other words they're not allowed to work in day care facilities currently or there they're not aware they're and they're not allowed to their expense on on who they are I mean your level your levels three and four a number of a number of them of course are also under parole or probation restrictions and therefore you know have have have those as well so you're talking about people who are no longer under criminal justice supervision. you can people who were off probation now offer role at centre they tend to be levels three and four which is a whole lot of people there are some you know you are allowed to maybe to go in at night and. You know will do carpentry work things like that but you certainly can't can't work there and of course the the daycare regulars also regulators also regulate that type of thing as well thank you. Any other questions. I see no additional questions thank you for coming to the. We have no one else who signed up for against the bill representing Sweden you're recognized to close for your bill. And represent Britain represents Smith has a question for you you're recognized. Representative wouldn't you mentioned. Maybe two different amendments that you want to place on the bill but you want to take care of it on the Senate in can you. Let me know what those amendments are well. Pusher pusher microphone please. It's in the we're we're working around the language in the in the current amendment becomes aware. When we were looking at perhaps changing that to knowingly. I've been the advisement the attorneys and the attorneys on this body very well question becomes aware and so we're looking somewhere between becomes aware and knowingly and then we're looking at the section that deals with the distance how how close to of the facility in or near we're gonna either strike that out just leave it that is that the facility and that's known to request of the university daycare center and physical so that's that's the two that were looking is yes. Wars. Resented Collins suggestion represent college a recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and and kind of to that point represent would I just wanted to ask would you be willing to consider taking it down and making those amendments before we vote on it today I think it would be significantly different and I would feel more comfortable voting on something that's been signed off on in the languages some everyone's comfortable with maybe rose Mr Rosenzweig said not pertinent to put his feedback and is that's and be willing to consider you may pull it back and work on it yeah I would be willing to do that. I just hit. You want me to close nail or let me I was just getting ready to ask you a question represent would need just a responded to Representative Collins a question as to whether or not you'd like to pull it down so that your question to you is is that your request would you like to pull it down to work on these amendments yes we you know I'd be willing to do that because there's been some valid points made in the the first agreed to that agree with Collins and this fires in county and then the trial lawyers of not being will be more than happy to do that okay with that members of Representative Wooten is requesting of this committee to pull his bill down to work on some amendments do I see any objection to that request. Seeing no objection represented with we're going to let you pull it down to make some amendments and come back I think you had some good feedback I think the committee's very interested in your bill and I think that a lot more work come on that will will set you soon as we can okay thank you madam chairman and I apologize committee I thought we were ready to move without understand will will take no no apologies necessary Committee questioning committee so don't don't feel bad you're not the first one in the session and had to pull something down and come back so no knowledge Jeez thank you you're welcome members the next bill that will be considering today will be house bill eleven fifty nine Representative makes please have a seat you're recognized present your bill all right thank you madam chair and colleagues as I understand it I'm the only thing standing between us and the weekend so I'm all try to be pretty succinct with this so this this bill came about by conversation the senator Johnson I had following L. C. one afternoon now we are both interested in running bills regarding juries and so we kind of put our heads together and created the product that you have before us what this house bill does is it does two things first and and for my half of of the puzzle is I was summoned to jury duty during the twenty fifteen General Assembly and in speaking with the judge he was very courteous and let me out of that so I could continue with my legislative duties but it brought the question of what would happen if a judge decided that either for political reasons or personal reasons that he would not let a lawmaker out of jury duty it could create a situation where as lawmakers we were having to decide between representing our citizens or else being fined or otherwise penalized by the court for not fulfilling our roles as jurors and so the first part of this bill just says that to thirty days prior up to thirty. Today's post ani di one word session that we can do for our jury duty until time or not in session or special session so forth the second part of the bill this is the section that senator Johnson brought forth is as we all know with age comes frailty and what this bill does is it allows for those over the age of eighty who choose to do so that they may opt out of jury duty if they believe it's going to cost undue harm or burden so with that that's the two things that are that it's does the administrative offices of the courts of looked over this provided some of the language no no in opposition and also said pretty basic pretty basic built that the I am open for any questions anyone might have. Members anyone have any questions represent a sleep you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair of represent makes understand on the second part of the elderly one for oil and getting there and specially in today's cases we have to serve on the jury but on the first part of it doesn't saying just a little bit self serving that this body is saying well we're going to be excluded from jury because the public The date nobody likes juries you know have to do jury duty unfortunately and it puts the judges in some really bad parts and if the judge says will almost show that Representative or senator something that's not very good political of the aspect to going about to retain your job on something like that so what the ideal but I do want to clarify something it doesn't let you out of this leads you deferred until after out of session the first deferred yeah yeah okay I the the option to defer it so if you actually want to take time out of session then you could serve on a jury but the last thing that I think we would want to happen is to be called to like a grand jury which as I understand it that's like a six month obligation and our son you've been elected to represent the people and the people don't you have you here representing because you're have this other obligation but all this does is it allows you to deferred that obligation until after we get out of session so so as not to get out of jury regarded okay yeah yeah that's that's not the intent is that might be a flip of the coin though session or jury duty right right right yeah yes yes some some actually might welcome jury duty to get out get out session but it so now it just creates the option for us as lawmakers to defer that until after our legislative related to use of been been taken care. Represent college you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and represent me stacks there are no other professions excluded from this section that you're amending so legislators would be the only one and then people above eighty but it has written it looks like the judge can already excuse someone for a number of more broad reasons including interest of the public is that your understanding that the right now the discussions led to the judge and we would be. Removing an essentially. Yes. From my understanding you're you're right so ask current law stands the judge has discretion whether to excuse us or not and I would even submit that it could create a constitutional question between separation of powers like I said do you. Have the you know you've got the constitutional duty to be here to represent your citizens but also you have this other duty to perform on a jury and it creates an obvious conflict you can't can't be in two places at once and so this allows you to fulfill both of those duties. Our. You're recognized for follow up are there other professions that have constitutional duties who are included in this legislation Yeah I mean you know the governor is obviously not included or the constitutional officers. But I am not ready and again that's you know I just didn't include those In what I'm trying to do here that's beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do I guess is a better way to answer that. Members any other questions. Seeing no additional questions we have no one who signed up for against the bill representing makes would you like to close for your bill I'm I'll close for my bill and I appreciate a good vote. Members with the wishes of the committee. Both in the past. Members I have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The US have congratulations you've passed your bill. All right members we are. We'll be back to stay with House Bill twelve fifty six. House Bill thirteen seventeen and Senate bill one seventy three and I'll text you of any