Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1210
Act 361
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…REMENTS FOR COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS BY COUNTY COLLECTORS. HB1210 Hillman TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE MAKEUP OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD; AND TO REQUIRE GOVERNOR APPOINTMENT AND … | Hillman | Notification that HB1210 is now Act 361 |
|
HB1248
Act 265
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1248 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN LEVEE DISTRICTS AND BOARDS. | Bentley | Notification that HB1248 is now Act 265 |
|
HB1249
Act 266
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1249 Bentley TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DISSOLUTION OR ABOLIT…”
|
TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DISSOLUTION OR ABOLITION OF A LEVEE DISTRICT. | Bentley | Notification that HB1249 is now Act 266 |
|
HB1250
Act 267
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EDURE FOR THE DISSOLUTION OR ABOLITION OF A LEVEE DISTRICT. HB1250 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ASSESSMENTS IN CERTAIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ASSESSMENTS IN CERTAIN LEVEE OR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. | Bentley | Notification that HB1250 is now Act 267 |
|
HB1251
Act 359
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SSMENTS IN CERTAIN LEVEE OR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. HB1251 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND PROTECTION DISTRICT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLECTION OF … | Bentley | Notification that HB1251 is now Act 359 |
|
HB2012
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ress the legal challenges currently facing the plant board. HB 2012 addresses the issues by having the governor appoint, which…”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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
here so we'll pass over hers and representative hillman are you ready you are recognized thank you madam
Representative David Hillman
Unverified
0:26
chair today i bring before you house bill 1210 it has to do with the state plant
board and how they're appointed and who serves the little bit of background on it is the state plant boards 104 years old they have I think it's nine representatives that are elected by different organizations throughout the state that have an interest in in the things the plant board might do there has been a lawsuit that has been filed in this currently before the state supreme court that says that is not legal so the supreme court has not ruled but in case they do rule
against the state on it I think this bill fixes that process and and what it does you've had it before you there to look at it gives the governor the authority to appoint people to the state plant board these organizations that have normally been electing people that board shall submit two names to the governor and from those two he will appoint his choice of those two that's It's not dissimilar to other boards and committees that we have in the state.
And I think this will fix the problem if it turns out that we need to have a fix for it. There's been a lot of discussion about the plant board and the makeup of the plant board lately. But that is not contained in this bill. It doesn't change anything about who serves on the plant board or why. and I'll be glad to take any questions. Representative Lynch, you're
recognized for a question. Are there any questions?
Speaker 9
2:11
Representative Aves, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
Speaker 11
2:19
would like to get your take on how this would either keep us out of or put us back into a lawsuit based on
Speaker 5
2:26
the one we're currently fighting, I guess, now
Representative David Hillman
Unverified
2:29
at the Supreme Court. Well, to answer the take on it, anybody can sue anytime they want to. If they don't like the way it's done, they have the authority and the ability to sue. But as far as fixing the problem that's over at the Supreme Court right now,
the Attorney General's office has said that they can defend this one as constitutional. The bill that you proposed? Yes. Okay. All
Speaker 13
2:50
right, thank you. are there any other questions is
there anybody in the audience signed up to speak for against the bill it looks like mr perry galloway is against the bill you're recognized to come to the end of the table make sure that you state your name for the record please
Speaker 16
3:13
thank you and i've got a handout if that's possible We'll give
it to the staff. They'll hand it out. Thank you.
you're recognized state your name and who you're
Speaker 24
4:23
with thank you again for having me and uh my name is perry galloway i'm a farmer from woodruff county excuse me i'll take this mask off that's okay i appreciate the opportunity to speak today unfortunately i found out about this about 7 a.m this morning i was out of state so uh my comments today are going to be very similar to last week's any of y'all who heard this let the senate on the senate bill so again i'm perry galloway
sixth generation farmer from woodruff county ten thousand acres of corn rice soybeans wheat and also a former cotton grower i'm an aerial applicator and a business owner a seed grower a seed dealer and ag retail business owner a livestock owner who has spent a lot on forage already this year a pesticide applicator a certified crop consultant a substantial user of plant food fuel and oil my great grandfather jd elders were one of the original four plant board
members representing the cotton growers 104 years ago my two-time woodruff i'm a two-time woodruff county farm bureau president and a member of the ag council and i can also play a little little piano. So a quick overview that most of you likely know by now. No other state in our nation has anything resembling the state plant board, the Arkansas State Plant Board. Not one anywhere. Times have changed since this board was created 104 years ago. It's time Arkansas changes as well. And while I
supported Senator Wallace's bill, let it be noted that it didn't go far enough. And with all due respect, Mr. Hillman, I feel like your bill, House Bill 1210, is a wet band-aid for an already infected wound. I believe the Arkansas State Plant Board should be transitioned into an advisory-only entity. Let the people who have PhDs and experience as well as no personal or professional bias or conflicts of interest regulate our plant industries. I pass out a visual of the state plant board table right now. So if
you would please take a look, because once you see how ridiculous the current makeup is, you can't unsee it. The first thing you may notice is the Arkansas soybean growers seat, or lack thereof. Arkansas raises 2.6 to 3.1 million acres of soybeans, or about two billion dollars in revenue. Nationally Arkansas Arkansas is eighth in soybean production, yet no voice on the Arkansas State Plant Board. Arkansas feed grains, including corn, wheat, and grain sorghum, are also lacking a seat
at the table, even though we currently produce as much or more corn per acre than all the Midwest states, resulting in over $900 million in income. So back to the handout. On the upper left corner of the table is two seats, the Arkansas Horticultural Society and the Arkansas green industry. These seats are redundant at best as a green industry, in its online mission statement states they represent the horticulture industry of Arkansas. The Arkansas Horticulture Society has no website and based on an excerpt from the story about
them it's clear they should not have a seat on the plant board. I'm quoting from the article here, due to a decline in membership and financial difficulties in maintaining its services to members, the Arkansas State Horticultural Society voted in 1998 to discontinue its own annual meetings and merge with Oklahoma horticulture groups under the umbrella of the Horticulture Industry Show. These joint meetings broaden the horticulture base of interest and incorporate sessions on sustainable and organic production of all horticulture groups.
The Arkansas State Horticulture Society still maintains its identity, but its activity is minimal. Based on that statement alone, it seems ludicrous this society has a separate seat on the State Plant Board. The Green Industry, formerly the Arkansas Nourishment, in their mission statement describes itself as a professional trade organization dedicated to serving the green industry in the state of Arkansas and to the advancement of horticulture.
And I did a little research. The revenue from the horticulture industry in Arkansas is around $45 million. So essentially they have two seats with $45 million worth of revenue, and soybeans has $2 billion, and the feed grains has $900 million, just shy of $1 billion. horticulture society should be immediately removed from any future state plant board composition and maybe add a seat that represents one or more of the
largest commodities in the state. I realize the state plant board has been around 120 years which is why some of the seats are antiquated and no longer relevant to the regulatory capacity they once were. For example, as stated earlier, my great-grandfather was an original plant board member back when they monitor the spread of gypsy moths. I'm not even sure what a gypsy moth is, but I guess it needed monitoring. And per Senator Sample's gypsy moth comments, there's still a problem. So I would hope that the forestry division of the
Arkansas Department of Ag could address them and not the plant board. Which, let me note, the two of the plant board seats currently have their own division within the Department of Ag, livestock and forestry, and they also have a seat on the State Plant Board. Is it right that these separate divisions, division representatives should come over and further regulate my industry? Does that make sense? I think not. All that said, let me show an example of the lack of fairness and transparency involved with one seed at the Arkansas State Plant
Board. Here's my personal example as a broken system. I grow a substantial amount of seed each year, so I decided to join the Arkansas Seager Association so I could have a voice when that seat on the Arkansas State Plant Board is speaking for me and my peers. I sent my application and my membership months ago. After the Senate hearing last week, it was brought to my attention that I had been included, finally been accepted as a member, which is a start. Unfortunately, my voice will still not be heard.
As the annual meeting was canceled due to COVID-19, which is also interesting considering every other entity i know has been able to host a virtual meeting which brings me to another point the arkansas sea growers association has no website and i've been able i have just as of an hour ago received a membership list i guess they had a big boom in membership because their membership uh tripled or quadrupled since i sent an application back last year so maybe maybe now
Now that I'm a member, they'll be more transparent with this type of basic information. As it stands, this association is a biased unknown ghost with no public paper trail or certainly no public or more importantly industry accountability. A ghost that has a seat on the plant board, the official regulator of the largest industry in the state, a seat that's the chairman's seat, and me along with others had a hard time even becoming members to ensure we have a voice as to who represents our industry
Speaker 28
11:50
and what the voice is. Coincidentally, on my trip to Little Rock, I received this letter
Speaker 24
12:01
welcoming new members. I guess I wasn't the only one willing to join since their membership had tripled or quadrupled, including Dan Scheiman, the head of the Arkansas Audubon Society. Curious on what kind of seed he raises. Maybe bird seed. Does it seem right that a biased, inaccessible association like this gets to regulate how
I operate? Over the last four years, I've watched a person who has shown unending bias almost to the point of my personal vendetta, of a personal vendetta, have an unchallenged opportunity to represent my industry. It's not right. It's why allowing, and here's my point, it's why allowing private industry organizations is unconstitutional. I, a member of the public, have no way to hold this person accountable. I didn't vote for them, I can't vote against them, and yet it's to be seen whether I'll
ever get to have input in any way. There's a reason no other states operate like this, and it's time to put a stop at this. The Arkansas Agriculture needs a regulatory agency free of industry biases that are accountable for its actions. It's about aligning with the rest of the country and objectively and scientifically doing what's right for the Arkansas farmer. Let's look at what the other states are doing and finally catch up to the pack instead of standing alone, lost, and at the back. Arkansas farmers have enough challenges, and having a good old boy club regulatory entity shouldn't be one of them.
Thank you, and I'll entertain any questions. Does anyone have any questions? Representative Eves,
Chair
Unverified
13:35
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Galloway can you go back where are you
Speaker 24
13:44
saying row crop farmers are not don't get a seat on the plant board no they're there are two farmer positions uh in the upper right corner there's two farm positions as well as those are called uh well two farmers have a seat and then the rice industry has a seat as well as the cotton industry so there's actually four seats dedicated to uh
production act. The majority of the other ones are made up by these industries or associations. Well, so I'm seeing the rice industry has, I
Speaker 32
14:14
mean, that's always going to be someone from the rice industry no matter what, right? Yes, you would assume someone involved
Speaker 24
14:20
heavily in the rice industry. But there's no position
Speaker 32
14:23
like that for soybean farmers? Not for soybeans,
Speaker 24
14:26
not for, as I said, feed grains, which includes corn and wheat and grain soil. So you just
Speaker 11
14:35
get lucky that one of these farmer positions is someone who is a soybean producer
if you want representation from the soybean industry.
Speaker 16
14:42
Yeah, that would be certainly a possibility,
Speaker 24
14:44
but it's not spelled out. It doesn't have to be specifically a soybean farmer. So
Chair
Unverified
14:50
do you know if the Secretary of Ag has any ability to either review or approve any of the
Speaker 24
14:59
rules by the plant board? There's a process. The plant board makes a rule and then it goes to the governor and then gets legislative approval and the secretary of state files it and that's when it officially becomes a rule.
But one issue with the plant board and its organization is they make the rules, they judge, they're the jury, and they're the collector or the
Speaker 23
15:24
executioner. So they're not only making the rules, they're the judge, jury, and executioner, unheard of. All right, thank
you, Mr. Galloway. Thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
15:38
Lynch, you're recognized for a question. Most of the farmers that
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
15:42
I know, row crop farmers, raise multiple crops.
So I would assume that any farmer, especially out of the prairie area, usually raise soybeans, rice, and corn and rotate their crops as a soil management practice. Is that not true?
Speaker 24
16:02
Yes, sir. I think that could be assumed in a lot of cases. But for farmer seats versus the balance is not fair to production ag.
Are you through, Representative Lynch? No, yes. Are there any other questions? Representative Annett,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
16:29
you're recognized. Hello. Thank you, Chair. I have a quick question. You mentioned other states. They're not doing this. Which states or which state do you have in mind that's doing it good or well? I don't
Speaker 24
16:43
remember the number, but certainly none of the surrounding states. There is no plant board system or similar system in the whole United States.
The most common form of agricultural rules regulation, government, goes to the Secretary of Ag. They do have advisory boards in some cases, and they can make decisions based on these advisory boards. And then I don't know what the rest of the process would be. I guess go to their state legislature and governor for approval, ultimate approval.
Does that answer your question? Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank
you, sir, for your testimony. Thank you so much. For the bill would be Matt King. If you'll come to the end of the table, state your name for the record
Matt King
Unverified
17:44
and who you're with. That would be. Good afternoon. My name is Matt King. I'm the Director of Public Affairs at Government Relations at Arkansas Farm Bureau. Madam Chairwoman and committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
Arkansas Farm Bureau supports Representative Hillman's bill, HB 1210. After a lengthy debate by our delegates last year, Arkansas Farm Bureau members adopted the following policy. We support the current structure of the plant board with associations nominating members and being appointed by the governor. HB 1210 does just that. This policy was adopted because our members are concerned about the pending Supreme Court case. In 2019, Judge Piazza ruled the nine seats on the plant board where associations appoint directly to the board was unconstitutional because there was no government oversight for these positions.
The plant board is the only regulatory board in the state where the associations elect a member to serve on the board and the code does not require the approval of a governing body. Our members feel the legislature should fix this issue instead of requiring the Supreme Court to rule. This bill will fix the challenge currently before the Supreme Court by requiring associations who currently appoint members to the board to now submit two nominees to the governor who will then appoint one of their nominees to the plant board.
The changes in this bill address the government oversight issue currently in question at the Supreme Court. You have heard several concerns regarding the current makeup of the board and questions of why some of these members are on the board. That is not the purpose of this bill. Instead, this bill is meant to address the legal challenges currently facing the plant board. HB 2012 addresses the issues by having the governor appoint, which means the Arkansas Supreme Court should not have to rule on associations. Our fear is that a ruling from the Supreme Court could be interpreted to have a far greater reach
and impact numerous boards across the state. Again, Arkansas Farm Bureau supports the passage of House Bill 1210 and would be happy to answer any questions
you might have. Representative Eubanks, you're recognized for
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
19:49
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So basically you're saying this bill is just to deal with the court challenge, but it doesn't necessarily address the
makeup of the board or whether this is the appropriate makeup of the board. Is that correct?
Speaker 49
20:06
That is correct. The reason why this board is here is because there's a legal challenge for the plant board at the Supreme Court, and this bill would fix that challenge.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
20:18
A follow-up? You're recognized. So what do you think about the makeup of
Matt King
Unverified
20:23
the board? Our Farm Bureau policy supports additional farmer representation on this board. So you would support a bill that
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
20:30
would possibly change the makeup of this board? Depending on what that bill looks like.
Speaker 49
20:37
That would be something we would take to our leadership and look at. Given the current struggles that we see right now with
Matt King
Unverified
20:45
the plant board and the makeup and things like that, there's a lot of concern, like Perry was talking about there with the Seagrowers Association and other groups coming involved. We don't want to see the plant board being changed and structure of this being changed right now because there's a lot of fear that you could have outside groups come in and have influence on this board.
Chair
Unverified
21:09
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Reeves, did you have
Speaker 11
21:17
a question? Yeah, just real quick. So how did you come up with, or maybe I should ask Representative Hillman, but how did you all come up with these
Matt King
Unverified
21:27
industries nominating two people instead of three or four or ten? The structure of this is based on how the promotion boards are done right now. And in discussion or in comments back at the December 19 meeting of the plant board When the Attorney General's office came and briefed the board on this, the Attorney General, the person who's handling the case there, said that a simple comma is appointed by the governor.
It's what's needed to provide that oversight, provide governmental oversight of this. And I'm
Speaker 49
21:51
not going to speak for Representative Hillman, but that is the basis of the... So the
Speaker 57
21:57
argument that could be made is that in the past, associations were appointing one person. Now they're appointing two, and the governor just gets
Chair
Unverified
22:05
to pick. They're not appointing two. They're just nominating
Matt King
Unverified
22:07
two. And with the promotion boards, the way it works, if you appoint two members and the governor doesn't like either one of them, he can send those back to you and say, I need two more names.
Speaker 49
22:19
And this works the same way? This would work
the same way. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing no other questions, thank you for your testimony. Does anybody have any questions for Representative Hillman? Would you like to
Representative David Hillman
Unverified
22:56
close for your bill, Representative? Representative, thank you for noticing I have trouble getting up.
I'm older today than I've ever been before, and sometimes it shows and sometimes it's pretty good. uh like i said in my opening statement madam chairman the uh this bill does not address the makeup of the plant board that's a different discussion for a different time what this does it addresses the problem that we have uh and i would appreciate y'all passing this out and remember that sometimes wet band-aids do stick
representative lynch are recognized for your motion
what's the will of the committee all in favor say aye oh wait hold on discussion on it yes sorry Les it's okay I tried to
Chair
Unverified
23:50
catch you a little bit quicker I understand where we're going
Speaker 11
23:53
with this bill but I agree with I suppose where representative Eubanks was headed in that I mean I'm not a farmer for full transparency but I don't believe that the plant board gives proper representation to row crop farmers, and I think that's something
we need to look at. I also think that the Secretary of Ag ought to have some ability to review or approve, deny, or at least have some further oversight on the plant board, because I just think that's important. If he's going to be Secretary of Ag, that seems like something he would be able to deal with. The third thing I would say is, and while I understand what we're doing with this bill, I still think there could be some legal challenges by the industries appointing, or excuse me, nominating two people and the governor picks one. It seems like a pretty
small pool. And I certainly appreciate Farm Bureau's stance on this and where they're coming from, because I think we do have a lot of problems that
Chair
Unverified
24:49
we're going to need to fix. So with that, you
know, I just wanted to get that out there.
Chair
Unverified
24:57
Thank you. Representative Fortner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to, I understand why this bill is here, but I have to agree with Representative Eubanks and Representative Eaves. The makeup of this as it sits right now just does not represent what you would think this board would represent.
And I think we need to look at, we need to
look at that further. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? The motion is due pass. All in favor say aye. Those opposed by no. It looks like your bill has passed. We'll meet again Wednesday. Our next meeting will be Wednesday at 2 o'clock and we are adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1248 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN LEVEE DISTRICTS AND BOARDS.
HB1249 Bentley TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DISSOLUTION OR ABOLITION OF A LEVEE DISTRICT.
HB1250 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ASSESSMENTS IN CERTAIN LEVEE OR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.
HB1251 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND PROTECTION DISTRICT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS BY COUNTY COLLECTORS.
HB1210 Hillman TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD; AND TO REQUIRE ORGANIZATIONS TO SUBMIT NAMES OF POTENTIAL MEMBERS TO THE GOVERNOR FOR APPOINTMENT.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- HOUSE, Feb 1, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative DeAnn Vaught Chair
Unverified
Representative David Hillman
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 11
Speaker 5
Speaker 13
Speaker 16
Speaker 24
Speaker 28
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 23
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Matt King
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 57