House City, County, Local Committee Meeting
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1197
Act 218
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1197 Dalby CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ORGANIZATION, STAFF…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ORGANIZATION, STAFFING, AND PERSONNEL MATTERS. | Dalby | Notification that HB1197 is now Act 218 |
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
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
0:00
from the governor's task force on law enforcement in Arkansas. As you recall, the governor formed a task force June, July of last year, and this is what is the result from that task force. I have with me today with the chair's permission, Secretary Jamie Cook, who is the secretary of the Department of Public Safety and also the director of the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training, which you'll hear us refer to as CLEST. So I appreciate Mr. Chair for allowing her to be with me today.
Members, let's delve right into the bill. It's really a pretty simple bill, but it does a lot of great things for the state of Arkansas. I think all of us can agree that we have a good law enforcement in our state. We have folks who really work hard to abide by the rules, who work hard to get the training that they need. and I'm very proud of our law enforcement, proud of the work that the Department of Public Safety does throughout the state. What this bill is going to do is going to make even those departments stronger
and where we have weak departments, it will help those departments become better departments that we can be proud of. So let's look at Section 1. I've had some questions on Section 1. Section 1 is only going to apply to new or inactive law enforcement agencies. It does not apply to existing agencies. What section one does is if it's a new agency or one that's been inactive, that inactive period is being
taken down from one year to six months, and they reapply to become an active law enforcement agency, they're going to have to designate someone to be their chief of police, someone who's in charge. just makes sense. You've got to have someone who's in charge and so they're going to have to do that if they're new or they're coming back online. And the other thing that they're going to have to do in section one is have a set of policies. Those of us who I've had the fortune, very fortunate in my
career to work with law enforcement agencies a lot of times in various different positions in my career, and one thing that always stands out is that they have good policing policies. And so Section 1 is going to require new or agencies coming online again to have policies in place, and that a part of those policies will be the section on racial profiling. You may or may not know that the federal government requires that those types of things
be able to be reported. So that's really what Section 1 is going to do. If we move on to section two, this section is going to mirror the requirements for auxiliary officers under Arkansas Code Annotated 12-9-306. I've also had a few questions on that because this is a totally new section. It's not new to the code as to the concept because we're doing that for auxiliary officers. It's new to the code because it's for part-time officers.
this is going to allow for two part-time officers per one full-time officer. Now, there are a lot of ways for that to be met. A lot of communities will have part-time officers only. Well, oftentimes one of those part-time officers is a full-time officer in another agency. Their full-time officer in another agency, they're not going to be part of the cap of the one full-time to two part-time. And you ask why might this be significant?
What difference does it make whether they're part-time or full-time officers? A full-time officer will have gone through the training, and part of the training of which Secretary Cook's office is in charge of. They'll go through the training to know what they need to do, and what are the best practices, and what's important for that officer to know. I had the opportunity last week to go over to the state police headquarters and see their operation and some of the training and preparation of being here today.
And one thing I asked, showed my ignorance, I said, how much does this cost? All training of police officers in the state of Arkansas is free. Doesn't cost the city anything, doesn't cost the community anything. What it costs them is to pay that person while they're there getting training, just like they would if they were on the job. But the training itself is free and they have a great online training too so they can keep up their hours. And another interesting thing in regard to the training
that I found out is every licensed police officer, they keep a list, it looks like to me, forever and ever, of anything that they have ever taken, any kind of action as far as what they've gone through in training. So it's really quite an impressive thing. And this is what this is going to do. It's going to hopefully force some training. It's going to also, in Section 2, it's going to allow the agency to request a waiver from the commission if they need more than the part-time officers, more than the two-to-one ratio.
they need three to one or four to one or whatever, they can come to the commission, explain to the commission what it is. And of course, the overriding question in all of this is going to be, what's in the public's best interest? And I think that's what we always have to keep in mind. What is in the public's best interest? It's always in the public's best interest to have officers who are trained and well-trained. It's always in the public's best interest when we know who's in charge. It's key. It's always what we need to look for is what's in
the public's best interest when it comes to law enforcement. Also, the one thing that I learned in studying this bill and looking behind the scenes and trying to find out is CLEST is already starting to talk to these smaller towns who may have a lot of part-time officers. And what they're finding out as many of the smaller agencies that hire part-time officers are, one, they've got to misclassify. They may be employed full-time someplace else. And so that's not going to count
against their cap. And secondly, the other thing is a lot of times they have not taken people off the roles that no longer work for that agency. So once they clean up their personnel part there over at CLESS from these agencies, they often will fall within this. And then I wanna move over, I think I've covered everything in section two and hit the highlights. Oh, one thing, it does not restrict the number
of honorary police officers who don't have law enforcement authority. A lot of times policing agencies have honorary officers. It's not gonna change that. So if we'll look to section three, which is the last section of this bill. Already under Arkansas code annotated 12-9-602B, they already, agencies already have to report reasons for firings, terminations, and other reasons for separation from an agency.
They already have to report that into the state. And that goes on someone's record so they know. What this is doing is oftentimes an individual has been fired for excessive force or for untruthfulness, but that just gets rolled over into one of the other reasons. So what we're doing in this section is separating out the excessive force and the untruthfulness. So it gives Quest another data point,
gives them two additional data points to try to keep up with someone. And of course, you can see what the benefit of that is. If someone's fired in one jurisdiction and wants to go and gets fired for excessive force or untruthfulness, and they go across state, across the state, and they want to be hired someplace else, I would think as an employer, you're going to want to know those things. And so that is what that does. Those are the three sections of this bill. And with that, Secretary, do you have anything that maybe I've not covered
Speaker 16
8:38
think she covered. Secretary Cook, would you identify yourself with the record, please? Jamie Cook, secretary for the Arkansas Department of Public Safety. And I think that you covered everything. I could just add that we were so delighted to have had the task force to advance law enforcement in the state of Arkansas. And I think that what it did was it showed us a few things that we can do better. And certainly we're always willing to do that. But it also shows the very robust system that we have in place in Arkansas that truly leads the nation
and how we make sure our officers are trained and accountable. And so with this bill, I think we'll do that even better. And so I'm glad to take any questions.
Speaker 19
9:19
Okay. Representative Warren, do you have
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
9:24
a question? Okay. Am I on here? Okay. First of all, commend the committee for their work and I am one who believes in totally supporting our men and women who wear the
uniform. A couple of questions. I like the addition of ENF in Section 3. What is the reporting requirement? It's where the law enforcement officer was separated for excessive use of force or the ENF, the law enforcement officer, was separated for dishonesty or untruthfulness. When that occurs, and someone goes out of state or somewhere else in the state
to apply for work, is that required to be reported on an employment check?
Speaker 16
10:22
Yes, sir. Representative Warren, we are a participant of the National decertification index. And so when an officer's terminated in Arkansas for certain reasons, there may be a move forward for decertification. If you're decertified in Arkansas,
you're decertified for good. And we put all of that information into that national decertification index. We have almost all 50 states working on it. We just have a few states that aren't contributing because they don't have decertification authority. You'd be real surprised in the states that do not have authority to decertify police officers. We do in Arkansas. In fact, we do it quite frequently in Arkansas because our standards are high and we expect those standards to be maintained by our officers. If a person comes into Arkansas that's been a police
officer in another state, we check that person in the National Decertification Index. In fact, we checked all of our new officers through the National Decertification Index. If they've been decertified in another state, they may not be certified in Arkansas as a police officer unless the commission says that they can be, and that's never happened. So to answer your question, yes, we do check those
Speaker 13
11:38
with the surrounding states, or all of the states actually that participate in the
Chair
Unverified
11:43
decertification index. Thank you for your work. Representative Bryan, you're recognized.
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
11:50
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only question I have, this looks real good, but the only question I have, I'm kind of echoing Representative Donald N. It says the law enforcement officer was separated for dishonesty or untruthfulness. Now, who writes somebody up for that? Well,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
12:10
in response to that, Representative Rod, I had an interesting conversation with one of our colleagues.
he's not, oh, he is on our committee, who told me about an incident when he was a duly elected sheriff about an individual who got up on the stand, one of his deputies who got up on the stand and falsely testified on the stand. And so that's an example. Someone who maybe falsifies a police report gets up on the stand, testifies falsely, that would be just examples of what untruthfulness
would be. It'd be untruthfulness in their official duties. And as you may or may not know, when someone is separated, and Secretary Cook, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding, you know, when someone's separated, they're separated at that local level, and they have those, that ability to appeal, to keep going up the ladder to, you know, to dispute the reason why they were. And if it's coming to finally to decertification, it will get to the state on
the state level. And they will present just like in a court of law, will present the reasons why and why they shouldn't be decertified and all of those kinds of things. Follow-up? Yes,
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
13:34
sir. Representative Carroll, let me ask you a question. Like if you had, like in Poinsett County, you had the sheriff, and you have all these folks down the line, but let's just say in a tier of four, you had someone that didn't like someone that was in a tier of three, okay?
And he didn't like that person that was in four. And he said, well, he's just a liar, or he was dishonest. does it cover that type of stuff or where would
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
14:08
if i understand your fact scenario representative rog it would be someone who is lying about somebody else is
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
14:15
that your question representative carol it would be like someone that could tell anything like if you had an officer that was in charge on top of of another officer and and they did not like this
person and they said well you know he just told you know he lies and stuff all the time would that cover that or well how
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
14:36
would that be certainly i under i think i understand your question first of all this bill is is affecting zero sheriff's department so i want you to understand that so let's not let's not muddy the water with sheriff's department because this bill's not covering that but it would be anything it would be just like anything else in
a hearing Yes, ma'am. You're going to have to present your evidence. You're going to have to present your arguments.
You're going to have to present your witnesses. And I think that's true. Now, is it going to always hold someone's feet to the fire to make sure they tell the truth? There's no 100% guarantees in life. But I think once they get through that process and it gets to the state level, there's even additional safeguards so that someone's not unfairly targeted. Does that answer
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
15:27
your question? The only thing is, Representative Carroll, if this did happen inside of a local office
and you had someone that was in that tier that actually wanted to get rid of someone else that they didn't like, could they use that for leverage to say this person is untrustworthy or he's a liar? But they didn't have anything in black and white. They just made
Speaker 16
15:57
an accusation there. Thank you, Representative Wright. So when a department, let's say Poinsett County,
they terminate someone for untruthfulness. That's just a reporting element to us. And so that's going to be the chief administrator's decision on why they terminate that individual. And that's the same now. I mean, they have to report four elements to us already. And so really, these elements of untruthfulness and excessive force are already a part of those four elements. What we're doing is separating those out for the specificity, like Representative Dalby said,
to have those data points. If it comes to us and a decertification ensues, we follow the Administrative Procedures Act of due process for those officers that have been terminated for any of these reasons. The reason untruthfulness is so critically important for law enforcement officers are the two Supreme Court cases, Giglio and Brady v. Maryland. And if an officer has been found to be untruthful, then they are impeachable witnesses and therefore they
really devalues their testimony in court. So what we're trying to see is we're trying to track that. And it may not be that we have a lot of officers that are terminated for untruthfulness or excessive force. But until we pull out that specificity and those data elements, we won't know that. And so that's what we're trying to do with dividing them or separating them out from the already four reportable items to CLEST. Does that answer your question?
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
17:34
Yeah, Jamie. And Jamie, basically what you're saying,
it's all documented in black and white. It is. That's what I
Speaker 18
17:42
need to know. Thank you, sir. Okay. Representative Bryant, did you have a question? You recognize?
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
17:47
No, sir. Yes, I just want to make sure I understood part of the testimony. Does this apply to
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
18:01
the Office of Sheriff as well? Saratoga Cook tells me the part-time does not, but as far as the
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
18:07
reporting elements, it would. Okay, so the sheriff still has his constitutional authority under the office to still hire and fire as many part-times he wants without seeking guidance from the commission?
Speaker 16
18:17
they can do that this what she's talking about is when we did an analysis we did a thorough analysis on the part-time ratio before you know to make sure that we weren't hurting any communities and this doesn't affect any sheriff's departments none of the sheriff's departments operate outside of this ratio that we're requesting now and so the the sheriff's a sheriff is a constitutional officer. They're not a certified law enforcement officer unless they opt to carry that certification.
However, all of their deputies are statutorily certified police officers and therefore
Speaker 13
18:57
have to fall under the rules of CLEST and the laws that guide us. Follow up?
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
19:06
most sheriff's office that have deputies on staff, the larger the county, the larger the patrols force. But if that sheriff decided that he wanted to exceed a two-to-one ratio for an event or something happening in the community, or he just felt like he wanted to exercise that power, would he need to go get approval?
Speaker 16
19:34
his constitutional authority as sheriff? I don't think so. Representative Sleight may help me out on this one as a former sheriff, But the sheriff himself, if they need more part-time officers, they just come and justify why they need more part-time officers. We already have this in existence with our auxiliary officers. An example, we've had requests come in from cities and sheriff's departments before on having additional auxiliary officers outside of the CAP for school resource programs or for natural disaster events and things like that.
So as long as it's of the public interest, it's fine. And I don't think the sheriffs, I've ran this past the Sheriff's Association and they're on board with this. And so I think that doesn't diminish their authority at all.
Speaker 13
20:25
Obviously, they'll still run their department as they see fit. And we'll work with them to make sure that
Chair
Unverified
20:33
they can do that. Okay. Representative
Tallett, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is on Section 2, as I understand it.
Section 2 would apply to all existing agencies right now. And I guess when the task force was looking at this, and I commend your work on all of this. I think it's great stuff. I was just curious to know how many departments would be in violation of the 2 to 1 ratio right now and would have to make an appeal before the commission. Do you know those numbers? There's
Speaker 16
21:12
around 30 that we're still looking at
that could fall outside of the two-to-one ratio. But again, like Representative Dalby said, what we're finding is, and I looked at one this morning for Representative Kavanaugh, what we're finding is that, and I haven't even told you this yet, but the one that she asked about, they're not necessarily out of compliance it looks like it because they have three full-time officers and 11 part-time officers but when we look at all their part-time officers many of them are full-time officers somewhere else I mean it's not uncommon for a police officer to work part-time
somewhere else to supplement their income and so they're not out of compliance so I mean there's about 30 on this list I'm going to say that we're probably half of that just a good guess and of those i'm going to say most of those are would would be eligible for an exception from
Chair
Unverified
22:08
the commission follow-up mr chair yes what what would be something um i mean as they're running their departments right now what would be something that that that would get them denied from having
exactly what they have right now in that scenario they had to come before um before the commission What would knock that out for the commission to be able to say, no, we're not going to allow you to maintain that ratio any longer? So I think a
Speaker 13
22:42
good example and some of the things that we're trying to combat is to
Speaker 16
22:47
ensure that when we have departments that they're operating legitimately.
And I spoke with one other day that was very concerned about this bill because they have three part-time officers. they're only part-time and they fill a gap and they they do that well and they're good on their training and they're very progressive and they write maybe you know three or four tickets a month and so they're kind of a model for what we're talking about if but if that same scenario came before the commission and you're say you have a population of 150 people and you've got 10 or 15
part-time officers and they're writing two or 300 speeding tickets a month, then we're probably going to say, no, that's not in the public, you know, the best interest of the public. And so that's, that's what we're trying to do is to make sure that we, we believe, and I've got Deputy Director King here that's been a police officer since the seventies, retired police chief in Pine Bluff and UALR, and he can attest to this. We, we believe completely that the vast majority of our law enforcement agencies and officers do exactly the right thing and they want to do that because
that creates legitimacy in our profession which is very important to us and to society as a whole but the ones that aren't we want to be able to say you can't operate like that anymore because it only brings bad light to all of the ones of us that are trying to do it well Okay. Representative Cavanaugh,
Speaker 51
24:17
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
24:21
Secretary Cook. I just wanted to clarify, because we did have a talk this morning, that when it comes to the waiver for the part-time officers, as you and I were discussing, a lot of these people, they may classify them as part-time, but they turn out not to really be part-time, either because they work more than 24 hours or they're full-time somewhere else and they're certified, which I'm glad to find out that happened.
with my department. But I just want to clarify, if one has to get a waiver, and we talked about this this morning, that that waiver is a one-time waiver unless an incident occurs that would bring up it to be reviewed again by the commission. Is that correct? Yes,
Speaker 16
25:02
ma'am. Let's say we had a department come and say we want to operate outside of the two-to-one ratio. We need six part-time officers instead of four. And so the commission, you know, finds that it's in the best interests of that community to do that, and they grant the six. The only way that that's going to
go away is if the commission reverses that. If the department wants to go above six, they'll have to come back. But what you and I were talking about, I think that, and Deputy Director King and I've had extensive conversations about this, if we have a waiver that's been issued by the commission, and then we begin receiving complaints in our office that that agency may not be operating as legitimately as the commission believed that they were when they granted the waiver i can see very very much that the commission might call that department back to uh in front
of them and uh to determine if they're still acting in accordance with the waiver that they've been uh given but no it's not something they have to come back annually or anything like that it's one time unless we have reason to call them back or they have reason to come back. Yeah. A follow-up. Yes. I appreciate
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
26:16
that because my small community, that's their greatest fear because they have to use these part-time to fill in gaps, as you're talking about. But as long as they can get the waiver and still continue to operate and operate in good
faith under what they presented as that waiver, I mean, that should give them some type of, you know, leeway that they feel a little more comfortable
Chair (Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.)
Unverified
26:44
with it. so I appreciate that. Okay, Representative Beatty, you're recognized. I guess my question is still on section two, line 20 through 24. I listened to what Representative Dalby said and what she stated about the full-time employed law enforcement
officer of another agency. My question is when I read this, the language is specifically on 24, uh, says the appointing law enforcement agency. So I would think that was specific to the law enforcement agency that has the, the full-time employee drawing a salary there. I don't read that to, to understand that that means if they're a full-time employee of another agency, that, um, that would count for the part-time, um, part-time officers. Um,
And am I reading, am I the only one that read it that way? Or, I mean, maybe A or N appointing law enforcement agency instead of V? Because I thought my reading of that means it would be specific to that enforcement agency. And so
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
27:51
you are correct. I read that. I mean, I looked at that, and I was like, are we sure
Speaker 16
27:58
we're clear here? But we have an attorney for the commission on law enforcement. We had her look at this, and it's more of our operational-level interpretation,
and she thinks that it's good the way it's written. Deputy Director King and I have looked at it extensively. And so we think it's fine. I understand where that confusion could come in because I looked at it, and I was like, wait a minute, are we saying the one that's paying them as a part-time officer? But what we're looking at is we're looking at it as they work full-time in the state, somewhere and that's not going to count against their cap on as a
Chair (Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.)
Unverified
28:36
part-time follow-up i i understand that but to the lay person reading the sr to
the person trying to make those hiring decisions that's very unclear in this language that it that it would allow for a full-time employee of another agency to count toward the part-time. And then another issue I have with that section is what you specifically mentioned full-time certified law enforcement officers, but what about the part-time certified law enforcement officers are out there that would not maybe, you know, we didn't address that in the language that there are part-time certified officers that take care of duties. And those
folks aren't represented here maybe about counting against the number restricted. Representative Beatty, I'm not
Speaker 16
29:28
quite sure I understand. We have three classifications, or actually we have four classifications of a police officer in the state of Arkansas. We have a full-time certified police officer, which works greater than 24 hours, and we have part-time certified police officers, which work less than 24 hours, and then we
We have auxiliary police officers that do not receive compensation and then specialized police officers. So this specifically has to do with paralleling our part-time certified police officers with the auxiliary certified police officers because of their training requirements are the same. So I don't think I'm understanding the question. my point was that
Chair (Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.)
Unverified
30:12
maybe part-time certified should have been excluded from that two two part-time minimum and and those those folks could have been in in addition to
the part-time that are not fully certified to maybe match more with the intent of what this section was was written for because the section's written where you have better trained and capable law enforcement officers and not have part-time officers that maybe not be, that are not up to the training level is the purpose of the reason I'm reading that paragraph. So if you've got
part-time that are certified, then, you know, the only difference is the number of hours they work in a week as far as being able to
Speaker 59
31:05
perform the duties. So a part-time law enforcement officer in arkansas is a certified officer in arkansas they just require less training than our full-time certified law enforcement officers i may not be following you i'm sorry i i i
Chair (Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.)
Unverified
31:20
may be making an issue that's that's not a big issue but also i would like to have seen some grandfathered
uh a grandfather clause for those 30 plus agencies uh that may be affected because i feel certain and maybe some of those are going to be in the rural part of the state and in
Speaker 16
31:38
my area. I can assure you that we're working with each and every one of these, and we're going to make sure that as long, like the one that I had talked with the other day in Omaha, you know, he was quite concerned. I mean, extremely concerned. And we had great conversations, and then by the end of it, he was like, I will come and testify for this bill because it does absolutely legitimize what they're doing as part-time.
They're doing a great job. They're filling a gap, and they're doing it right. And so we don't want to do anything but help all of these communities. And he's excited now about getting his waiver because he believes that a waiver from the commission absolutely legitimizes his department. So I understand, but I'll give you my word that we're going to work with all of these departments to make sure that as long as they're operating legitimately, that they get that waiver if they
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
32:30
need it. Follow-up? Well, just the point that I think, you
Chair (Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.)
Unverified
32:34
know, being a legitimate department shouldn't rest on a waiver or not.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
32:49
statement back to where you said that a waiver to legitimize that department, that more to your statement. Well, when I say
Speaker 13
32:59
legitimize, that they've met that expectation that the public has for law enforcement officers and that
Speaker 16
33:04
they've come before the commission and they have that waiver on file that just means that the commission agrees that they are, in fact, meeting that public interest. Maybe the word legitimate wasn't a great choice of words on my part, but that's what we're trying to do.
We're trying to make sure that if we have departments operating in the state of Arkansas, that they're operating
Speaker 59
33:27
within the expectations that we all have for our police departments. Okay. Any
Speaker 51
33:34
other questions? Representative Bryant, you're recognized. I just want to
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
33:38
follow up with Representative Beatty. So the language, you know, we don't carry in the state of Arkansas like class one officer, class two officer, class three. It's all full-time, part-time, auxiliary. So this really is identifying not part-time so much as
hours worked, but as training received. So another way to say this would be an enforcement agency could hire as many full-time officers they want and only pay them for 20 hours. But whenever they're hiring part-time officers that have only part-time training, that it's a two-to-one ratio. Yes, sir. We want
Speaker 59
34:11
to make sure that we have some full-time certified out there because if they're not as trained to the level as a full-time, at least they have someone that they can call and get guidance from.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
34:25
Any other questions? Yeah, Representative Rye, you're recognized. Yes, and this is a great piece
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
34:34
of legislation, Ms. Carroll, but I do wish that where it speaks about dishonesty and untruthfulness, I wish that we could have a little something added to that that would say that it's been fully documented. I understand your question.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
34:51
I think it's going to have to be fully documented for it to stand
through the appeal process. Every situation is unique to that particular situation. So if we get into, and this bill is not designed to set forth all the rules and how you do it and that you got to have this piece of paper or that piece of paper because every situation is unique and we need to remember that those decisions are local decisions and so if if there's a issue in a in a
police department or a law enforcement agency where there's people out to get somebody else they've got bigger problems than this bill yeah follow up please
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
35:41
yes but i don't think you can be too safe of miss carol when it comes to something like that i i it wouldn't hurt to put that on there but you can do what you think but i just feel like that it could just be one person's word against another and if you had it fully documented on the situation why this happened a lie or whatever took place it would
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
36:06
just be a little better. I appreciate your comment, and thank
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
36:20
you. Representative Bryant, you're recognized. Yeah, motion at the appropriate time. Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. I just want to speak to what Representative Rice is speaking about. Just make sure that we understand. When it talks about these data points that you're doing, this is not someone making an acquisition. This is someone who has been terminated, and it has already been documented to be the truth.
Speaker 86
36:40
Correct. And it's gone through the appeal process. Correct. Thank you.
Speaker 51
36:47
Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, we've got Deputy Director King has signed up. Would you like to speak? Okay. Okay. All right. Would you like to close your bill? Hello, Representative. Yes, thank you. Thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
37:04
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Once again, I do want to reiterate, it has been my honor and privilege to bring this
because I think it's very key to our state to, we have a great police department. We have a great law enforcement agency. We have great people out there working. We want to make sure that the public has great confidence in what we're doing and I think that's what
this bill does. And with that, I'm closed and I would make a
Speaker 18
37:34
motion to do pass. Okay, Representative Bryant, she made that motion. Okay, any discussion on the motion?
Speaker 51
37:44
Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. Congratulations, your bill has passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. And we are adjourned with that.
Agenda
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1197 Dalby CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ORGANIZATION, STAFFING, AND PERSONNEL MATTERS.
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 16
Speaker 19
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
Speaker 13
Chair
Unverified
Representative Joshua Paul Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 18
Speaker 41
Speaker 50
Speaker 51
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Chair (Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.)
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 35
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 86