Senate Convenes
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (45)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB156
Act 486
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB156 AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM -…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM - STATE PARKS AND TOURISM … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB156 is now Act 486 |
|
SB18
Act 604
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB18 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CHILD CUSTODY AND VISI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION. | A. Clark | Notification that SB18 is now Act 604 |
|
SB245
Act 160
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…ool and declare an emergency. Senate Bill 244. Revenue tax. Senate Bill 245 by Senator Blake Johnson, an act to amend the Arkansas Unif…”
|
ACT TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS UNIFORM COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE ACT; AND TO DISQUALIFY A DRIVER … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB245 is now Act 160 |
|
SB248
Act 1040
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “Senate Bill 248 by Senator Ballinger to”
|
TO CREATE THE FOOD FREEDOM ACT; AND TO EXEMPT CERTAIN PRODUCERS OF HOMEMADE FOOD OR … | B. Davis | Notification that SB248 is now Act 1040 |
|
HB1025
Act 60
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1025 Watson Stubblefield TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRAININ…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRAINING OF CORONERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Watson | Notification that HB1025 is now Act 60 |
|
HB1051
Act 61
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1051 Eubanks Stubblefield CONCERNING ADVERTISING FOR LICENSEES R…”
|
CONCERNING ADVERTISING FOR LICENSEES REGULATED UNDER THE PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCY, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, AND SCHOOL SECURITY … | Eubanks | Notification that HB1051 is now Act 61 |
|
HB1056
Act 56
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1056 L. Fite L.Eads TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC PUBLIC MEETINGS DURING … | L. Fite | Notification that HB1056 is now Act 56 |
|
HB1058
Act 219
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1058 Dalby Clark TO PERMIT A JUROR TO DONATE HIS OR HER PER DIEM…”
|
TO PERMIT A JUROR TO DONATE HIS OR HER PER DIEM COMPENSATION AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT … | Dalby | Notification that HB1058 is now Act 219 |
|
HB1216
Act 64
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1216 Dotson Dismang TO REVISE CERTAIN ARKANSAS LAWS APPLICABLE T…”
|
TO REVISE CERTAIN ARKANSAS LAWS APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF … | Dotson | Notification that HB1216 is now Act 64 |
|
HB1217
Act 65
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1217 Dotson Dismang CONCERNING THE EXTENSION AND REPEAL OF ADMIN…”
|
CONCERNING THE EXTENSION AND REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES. | Dotson | Notification that HB1217 is now Act 65 |
|
HCR1002
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “house concurrent resolution 1002 by representative board compare the engrossed copy of the o…”
|
TO ENCOURAGE CONTINUED COLLABORATION AMONG HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATORS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND THE ARKANSAS … | Boyd | Approved by the Governor |
|
SB123
Act 78
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB123 L. Eads TO MODIFY THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELECTRONIC RECORDI…”
|
TO MODIFY THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING COMMISSION. | L. Eads | Notification that SB123 is now Act 78 |
|
SB133
Act 24
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Senate Bill 133 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 135 by Joint Budget Senate Bill…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR - LEGISLATIVE LIAISONS APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2020-2021 … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB133 is now Act 24 |
|
SB135
Act 23
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Senate Bill 133 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 135 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 144 by Joint Budget Senate Bill…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS - COURT PERSONNEL APPROPRIATION FOR THE … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB135 is now Act 23 |
|
SB144
Act 22
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…te Bill 133 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 135 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 144 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 156 by Joint”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM - CAPITOL ZONING DISTRICT COMMISSION … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB144 is now Act 22 |
|
SB148
Act 157
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB148 B. Johnson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW RELATED TO THE RECORDING O…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW RELATED TO THE RECORDING OF COORDINATES BASED ON THE ARKANSAS COORDINATE … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB148 is now Act 157 |
|
SB155
Act 837
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB155 B. Davis TO ESTABLISH LILA'S LAW; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMIN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH LILA'S LAW; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES REGARDING ACCESS TO … | B. Davis | Notification that SB155 is now Act 837 |
|
SB20
Act 255
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB20 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VACANCY, SUSPENSION,…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VACANCY, SUSPENSION, AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR COUNTY ELECTIVE, COUNTY QUORUM … | D. Wallace | Notification that SB20 is now Act 255 |
|
SB205
Act 288
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB205 TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF EXPENDITU…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF EXPENDITURES, TRANSFERS, AGREED-UPON COMMITMENTS, OR OTHER … | Hickey | Notification that SB205 is now Act 288 |
|
SB23
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “whom is first Senate Bill 23 by Senator Blake Johnson. Compare the engrossed copy with t…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION SELF-REGULATION ACT OF 2021. | B. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB243
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Callender. Senate Bill 243 by Senator Mark Johnson, to amend the law concerning interl…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INTERLOCAL COOPERATION CONCERNING THE HEALTH INSURANCE OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES. | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB244
Act 914
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…rance of retired employees, Senate Bill 243. Public Health. Senate Bill 244 by Senator Hammer, to amend the definition of instructional…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS” FOR PURPOSES OF THE SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB244 is now Act 914 |
|
SB36
Act 37
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “We your committee on enrolled bills to whom was referred Senate Bill 36 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 44 by Joint Budget, Senate Bil…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES - BUILDING AUTHORITY DIVISION APPROPRIATION … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB36 is now Act 37 |
|
SB38
Act 524
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB38 AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DIVISION OF A…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DIVISION OF AGING, ADULT, AND BEHAVIORAL … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB38 is now Act 524 |
|
SB4
Act 72
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…mittee on Joint Retirement and Social Security whom was for Senate Bill 4 by Senator Sample, recommend due pass? Count her. Committee…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISABILITY RETIREMENT, EMPLOYER ACCUMULATION ACCOUNTS, AND EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE … | B. Sample | Notification that SB4 is now Act 72 |
|
SB44
Act 36
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…bills to whom was referred Senate Bill 36 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 44 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 46 by Joint Budget,”
|
AN ACT FOR THE ARKANSAS ETHICS COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB44 is now Act 36 |
|
SB46
Act 35
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…te Bill 36 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 44 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 46 by Joint Budget,”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES - ARKANSAS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB46 is now Act 35 |
|
SB47
Act 34
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Senate Bill 47 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 48 by Joint Budget, Senate Bil…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING - WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB47 is now Act 34 |
|
SB48
Act 33
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Senate Bill 47 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 48 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 52 by Joint Budget, Senate Bil…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT - LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS BOARD APPROPRIATION … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB48 is now Act 33 |
|
SB52
Act 32
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…te Bill 47 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 48 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 52 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 53 by Joint Budget, Senate Bil…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - ARKANSAS TOBACCO SETTLEMENT COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR THE … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB52 is now Act 32 |
|
SB53
Act 31
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…te Bill 48 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 52 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 53 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 70 by Senator Blake Johnson, S…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - ARKANSAS MINORITY HEALTH COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR THE … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB53 is now Act 31 |
|
SB66
Act 133
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB66 J. English TO ALLOW THE TUITION-FREE BENEFIT FOR SOLDIERS A…”
|
TO ALLOW THE TUITION-FREE BENEFIT FOR SOLDIERS AND AIRMEN OF THE ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD TO … | J. English | Notification that SB66 is now Act 133 |
|
SB7
Act 73
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…tee on Joint Retirement and Social Security to whom was for Senate Bill 7 by Senator Sample, recommend due pass? Count her. Senate Co…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLANS AND INTERNAL REVENUE CODE-QUALIFIED PLANS OF … | B. Sample | Notification that SB7 is now Act 73 |
|
SB70
Act 66
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…te Bill 52 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 53 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 70 by Senator Blake Johnson, Senator 74 by Senator Hill, Senat…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COUNTY FINANCIAL RECORDS AND THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF A COUNTY. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB70 is now Act 66 |
|
SB71
Act 96
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB71 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNI…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING ETHICAL VIOLATIONS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATORS. | J. Sturch | Notification that SB71 is now Act 96 |
|
SB76
Act 68
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ll 70 by Senator Blake Johnson, Senator 74 by Senator Hill, Senate Bill 76 by Senator Eades, and Senate Bill 79 by Joint Budget, Senat…”
|
TO ESTABLISH AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT; AND TO AUTHORIZE AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT HOLDER TO … | L. Eads | Notification that SB76 is now Act 68 |
|
SB78
Act 135
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB78 Hill TO ESTABLISH ARKANSAS OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING OF UNIFOR…”
|
TO ESTABLISH ARKANSAS OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING OF UNIFORMED SERVICE MEMBERS, VETERANS, AND SPOUSES ACT OF 2021; … | Hill | Notification that SB78 is now Act 135 |
|
SB79
Act 30
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…or 74 by Senator Hill, Senate Bill 76 by Senator Eades, and Senate Bill 79 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 91 by Joint Budget, Senate Bil…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - PAROLE BOARD APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2021-2022 FISCAL … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB79 is now Act 30 |
|
SB91
Act 29
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ll 76 by Senator Eades, and Senate Bill 79 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 91 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 92 by Joint Budget Senate Bill…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB91 is now Act 29 |
|
SB92
Act 28
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…te Bill 79 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 91 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 92 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 93 by Joint Budget Senate Bill…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - ARKANSAS SENTENCING COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2021-2022 … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB92 is now Act 28 |
|
SB93
Act 27
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ate Bill 91 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 92 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 93 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 96 by Joint Budget Senate Bill…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE AUDITOR OF STATE - OPERATIONS AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY PROGRAM APPROPRIATION FOR … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB93 is now Act 27 |
|
SB96
Act 26
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…nate Bill 92 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 93 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 96 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 98 by Joint Budget”
|
AN ACT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB96 is now Act 26 |
|
SB98
Act 25
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…nate Bill 93 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 96 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 98 by Joint Budget”
|
AN ACT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR COORDINATOR APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB98 is now Act 25 |
|
SCR1
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “to whom was for Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 by Senator Teague, recommend due pass? Count her. Committee…”
|
TO REQUEST THAT THE ARKANSAS STATE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR HOLD A REFERENDUM TO DETERMINE WHETHER … | Teague | Approved by the Governor |
|
SCR4
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…te Bill 7 by Senator Sample, recommend due pass? Count her. Senate Concurrent Resolution 4 by Senator Chesterfield, celebrating Black History Month du…”
|
CELEBRATING BLACK HISTORY MONTH DURING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2021. | L. Chesterfield | Approved by the Governor |
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
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
7:30
Secretary, please call the roll. Ballinger,
Speaker 5
7:37
Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismaine, Eades, Elliot, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram,
Speaker 8
7:55
Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample, Stubbafield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace.
Chair
Unverified
8:11
Everyone please stand, including those in the gallery. Senator Wallace will lead us in prayer. Thank you
Speaker 14
8:24
for this day. thank you for these blessings Lord give us the strength
Speaker 16
8:29
and the wisdom that we make good laws for the state of Arkansas and help us to watch over those who need help Lord thank you for our families
Speaker 18
8:42
and our loved ones oh Lord bless our country and bless the 101st
Speaker 21
8:51
Airborne Division in Jesus name Amen Amen I pledge allegiance to the flag
Speaker 22
8:56
of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
Chair
Unverified
9:05
all. Any announcements? Any announcements? Senator Irvin has an announcement.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
9:12
Senator Irvin's recognized for an announcement. Members, we are not going to have an education committee meeting this afternoon at 2 o'clock, but I also want to make an announcement on any bill that affects, any bill that has a financial impact to the lottery, we are going to hold those bills in Education Committee. We, our group of us, Senator Eades, Senator Hickey, myself, and others are working on the lottery issues and making sure that there's a system in place for some financial accountability
and transparency, but also fiscal responsibility with the lottery itself and those scholarships and how they flow. And how they come about so we're working on that and so because we're working through that system and putting that system together We're going to hold lottery bills in committee So just to let you know if you have a question you
can reach me or Senator Hickey or Senator Eads. Thank you Any items be right across the desk? Yes, sir.
Speaker 32
10:15
We your committee on enrolled bills to whom was referred Senate Bill 36 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 44 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 46 by Joint Budget,
Senate Bill 47 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 48 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 52 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 53 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 70 by Senator Blake Johnson, Senator 74 by Senator Hill, Senate Bill 76 by Senator Eades, and Senate Bill 79 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 91 by Joint Budget, Senate Bill 92 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 93 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 96 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 98 by Joint Budget
Senate Bill 133 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 135 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 144 by Joint Budget Senate Bill 156 by Joint
Speaker 33
11:02
Budget Compare the enrolled copies with the original at 9.35 a.m. Delivered to the Governor for
Speaker 36
11:11
his approval. We are committee on engrossed bills to
Speaker 32
11:15
whom is first Senate Bill 23 by Senator Blake Johnson. Compare the engrossed copy with the
Speaker 38
11:21
original and find the same correctly engrossed.
Speaker 37
11:25
Revenue and tax. Insurance and commerce. 23. It's marked through. Huh? They changed it to
Speaker 15
11:31
revenue and tax. What? They didn't make sure I could. I know. Yeah,
Speaker 39
11:35
but they've changed it. He changed it? They didn't make sure I could. On
Speaker 32
11:53
New York. Insurance of Commerce. Your Committee on Engrossed Bills to whom is first sent Bill
85 by Senator Bledsoe, compare the engrossed copy with the original and find the same correctly engrossed. Public Health. Committee on Engrossed Bills to whom is first sent Bill 161 by Senator Garner and compare the engrossed copy with the original and find the same correctly engrossed. Education. Committee on Engrossed Bills to whom is first sent Bill 172 by Senator Letting, compare the engrossed copy with the original and find the same correctly engrossed state agencies committee on gross bills whom is first sent bill 194 by senator sullivan compared the engrossed copy with the original and find the same correctly engrossed state agencies committee on gross bills whom is
first sent bill 195 by senator sullivan compared the engrossed copy with the original and find the same correctly engrossed state agencies committee on engrossed bills whom is first sent but 196 by senator sullivan compared the engrossed copy with the original and find the same correctly engrossed state agencies committee on engrossed bills to his first symbol 208 by senator sullivan compared the engrossed copy with the original and found the same correctly engrossed state agencies committee on gross bills who was first sent bill 227 by senator rakeford compared the engrossed copy with the original and found the same correctly engrossed
Speaker 58
12:59
Will your committee on engrossed bills to whom we as far as
Speaker 32
13:19
house concurrent resolution 1002 by representative board compare the engrossed copy of the original and find the and directly engrossed. I will count.
Speaker 33
13:28
Will your Committee on Joint Retirement and Social Security
to whom was for Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 by Senator Teague, recommend due pass? Count her. Committee on Joint Retirement and Social Security whom was for Senate Bill 4 by Senator Sample, recommend due pass? Count her. Committee on Joint Retirement and Social Security to whom was for Senate Bill 7 by Senator Sample, recommend due pass? Count her. Senate Concurrent Resolution 4 by Senator Chesterfield, celebrating Black History Month during the month of February 2021, Senate Concurrent Resolution 4.
Speaker 32
14:03
Callender. Senate Bill 243 by Senator Mark Johnson, to amend the law concerning interlocal corporation concerning the health insurance of retired employees, Senate Bill 243. Public Health. Senate Bill 244 by Senator Hammer, to amend the definition of instructional materials for purposes of the sales tax exemption for instructional materials purchased by a school and declare an emergency. Senate Bill 244. Revenue tax. Senate Bill 245 by Senator Blake Johnson, an act to amend the Arkansas Uniform Commercial Driver License Act to disqualify
Speaker 33
14:39
a driver convicted of a felony involving a severe form of trafficking in persons.
Senate Bill 245. Transmutation. Symbol 246
Speaker 32
14:49
by Senator Blake Johnson, an act to amend the law concerning electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles and to create an exemption to the requirement that an additional fee be paid for electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, Symbol 246. Transmutation. Symbol 247 by Senator Blake Johnson, to amend the law concerning the penalties for a violation of the offense of racing a vehicle on public highways, Symbol 247. Transportation.
Senate Bill 248 by Senator Ballinger to
Speaker 33
15:19
create the Food Freedom Act and to exempt certain producers of homemade food or drink products from licensure, certification and inspection, Senate Bill 248. Public Health. Any other announcements
Speaker 69
15:37
agenda? Senator Clark. Senator Clark, SB 18.
Speaker 32
15:50
Senate Bill 18 by Senator Clark to amend the law concerning child custody and visitation.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
16:15
Thank you, Governor. Members, Senator Chesterfield, Senator Rayford, if y'all indulge me a few extra
minutes. This is a very important bill, and there is nothing that we can do to fix custody cases that won't be fixed.
where we have mothers and fathers that want to use their children as weapons and psychologically abuse their children to try to hurt their spouses, ex-spouses, etc. We can't fix that. The courts can't fix that. There's all kinds of things we can't fix. But there are things that we can make better. And you have a handout that shows that the vast majority of the population
prefers joint custody, and for good reason. It's not nirvana. It doesn't fix every situation. It's not for every situation. We passed a law in 2013 that said that the courts were to favor joint custody. The Judicial Council and the Bar Association
both said that was good enough. Let me read to you from the Arkansas Circuit Court Judicial Bench Book, Domestic Relations, updated June 2018 from page 75. Now, after our Judiciary Committee meeting Wednesday, they updated it again. What I'm going to read to you, this first part, is still the same. In an action for divorce, an award of joint custody is favored in Arkansas per 9-13-101A.
That was passed in 2013 by this body. However, case law, both before and after adoption of code provision above, indicates that joint custody is not normally favored unless circumstances clearly warrant such action. This is, you know, I passed a, we passed, I sponsored and ran, but we passed a law for relative placement when children are taken from their homes in 2015,
but we already had a law. And we passed a new law because we had a judge that had a standing written order that any DCFS employee who placed with relatives was in contempt of court. And so we're frustrated by what do we have to do in order to pass a law that is a law, that is honored. They have removed this next part as of the weekend.
Joint custody or equally divided custody of minor children is not favored in Arkansas unless circumstances clearly warrant such action. That's what's been there since 2013, even though the law said that we passed that it did favor such action. Now, what the Bar Association, who I greatly respect, and the Judicial Council, who I greatly respect, have said is that this law is too strong. i have met with the bar association for probably i think our first meeting was close to 18 months ago
and up until today they offered me nothing except a vote to oppose after we passed this bill through judiciary committee seven to one i called them again and said, if you really think this is too strong, write something that isn't too strong. I said, I don't care if you tear it up and start over. They finally sent me an amendment a little while ago
that I have not read yet. I will look at it. I will sit down with them. And again, if this language is too strong, we will work with them. We will work with judicial counsel. I have been trying to work with them all the way through. One of all the attorneys that they had call you, many of you had them call me. Some of us even had conference calls. Every attorney that called from the Bar Association favors this law being stronger
and was not aware that I had been working with the Bar Association or that the Bar Association had opposed this up until now. One dad they had called, many of you would know, professional, who was afraid that this would cause him to possibly lose custody. You know, and I called, I said, you know, you're the exception. I said, for you, there are 10, for every one of you, there are 10 dads that have a different story.
And he said, no, Senator Clark, he said, for me, for every one of me, there's 100 dads. He said, I'm a unicorn. I have been about doing the right thing for children and families and dads have been left out of the equation way too much we need to start with joint custody and then we need to do what's the right thing joint custody is not going to be the right thing every time and so I'm going to ask you
to trust me that all I care about is getting good law and until we passed it through judiciary 7-1 I didn't get anything from them and you know how this works if you will vote to support me we will continue to work with them to get the very best law we can get and getting this through house committee and through the house is a very tall hill to climb which will of course take amending regardless
and will mean it will have to come back here So I would very much appreciate your support today in passing this bill, that we need to move forward. It may not be perfect yet, but it isn't because I haven't tried to make it that way. But we will continue to do whatever needs to be done to do the best for families and for the children in Arkansas who need both of their parents. And I'll be happy to take
Chair
Unverified
23:07
any questions. Before we take questions, I want to recognize Senator Eddie Joe Williams.
I don't have good eyesight, but I think that's who that is. now we'll take questions any
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
23:27
questions for Senator Clark Senator Chesterfield has a question thank you Senator Clark and thank you for the bill I do take exception to the and I know it probably affects men more but it affects women as well and it is particularly troubling because one of the things I'd like for you to begin to work with me on is addressing
the ad litem part of this because so many times the ad litems don't respond to either parent in a timely fashion. But we are going to have to try to do something so that our kids are not made footballs between their parents. Would you agree? Absolutely. And I'm glad you said that instead of me, Senator Terrell. I hope that the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
24:04
head of the ad litems was watching and listening to you when you said that. Any other questions? Senator Irvin. Thank you, Senator Clark. Just quickly,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
24:19
is there a certain section that they're wanting it to be amended, or can you highlight where the issue might rise or what you anticipate might needing to be amended? You said that when it goes to the House or if it
Speaker 84
24:32
gets voted to the House. And we have folks that think it's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
24:37
find the way it is. I'm not a lawyer. I just want the best law. One is they say here on on page one, line 26, the presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child may be rebutted.
They say that this presumption itself is too strong, that a presumption is so strong that you that you have to have overwhelming evidence to disprove that. Now, I have other attorneys, including those on board with this who say that's not true but nevertheless I listen to these very serious attorneys of the Bar Association and I'm paying attention to them I'm just saying bring me something else other than this but that really has been their main their main contention
is that right there Okay Thank
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:32
other person they presented, they never presented to me Question Senator
Flowers Thank you. Yes. Isn't it true, Senator Clark, that in presenting this bill in the committee, there was clear communication to you concerning this bill that beyond that line 26, 25 and 26 that you referenced,
is line 27 and 28 that the bar and the judge who spoke against the bill had serious difficulty with. It says if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the best interest of the child, that's when you say that presumption may be rebutted. And the point they were making, was that you've changed the burden of proof in these type cases. In the cases that
come before the family law judge, it's generally beyond a preponderance of the evidence, which is less stringent than clear, convincing evidence. You pretty much have to have experts in there to overcome this rebuttable presumption that you say has to be found by the court with clear convincing evidence that it's not in the best interest of the child.
Is that true? Didn't you understand that it was the burden of proof that you're changing when other parts of a divorce case or issues dealing with family law is simply preponderance of the evidence, which
is just greater weight of the evidence. Yes,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
27:25
Senator Flowers, you are correct. I answered the question to the best of my memory, but you are correct. And we actually, from our meetings, had actually offered the Judiciary Council
a chance to change that. They had not. And I do not think that changing that to a preponderance will be a problem. Actually, they just had never offered language to change it to a preponderance of the evidence. But yes, that was another sticking point, Senator
Flowers, and I appreciate you bringing it out. My question to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
28:00
you is, why wouldn't you today pull the bill down until you read what they have sent you
to understand what the contentions are and would maybe make your bill better? And you read from the Judiciary Bench book, that's not the law. That's just some advice that's written up for judges to have a starting place. But before the court come the parties and lawyers that argue what the law is and present to the court what the law is. Would you agree to pull your bill down so that you can get it together with the Judicial Council?
lawyers that are involved in these type cases, because to me, what you fail to say and what you didn't read in the bench book, but the beginning start of that 913-101 that you want to change says that the court should be considering what is in accordance with the welfare and best interest of the child and the language that you have in this bill is so tight to me as a family
lawyer i don't see how we are why we would be taking out the welfare and best interest of the child as the focus as opposed to you wanting joint custody uh of the party so
so much It should be about the children, not about fathers. If you want to speak on the
Chair
Unverified
29:49
bill, we can do that. But this is question time.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
29:53
I asked him a question, which is, why won't he pull it down to work with judicial counsel on getting some language that is less confusing, less contentious and
better for the welfare and best interests of the children? OK, let's get an answer to
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
30:11
that question. Thank you. I pulled a bill down Thursday pull bills down all the time this body is very well aware of why I'm not pulling this bill down I have met with these parties
for 18 months and was offered nothing till today I will work with them I will take as long as it takes but except I move forward they have not demonstrated that they will work with me and I would appreciate your confidence in me in allowing me to move forward and putting the pressure on them. Any other
Chair
Unverified
30:46
questions? Senator Elliott has a question, then the senator starts. Senator
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
30:51
Elliott, it's recognized. Thank you. Senator Clark, do you have
the proposed amendment with you from the trial lawyers? No, I have
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
31:01
not seen it. Oh, it's not come to
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
31:04
you yet? It has come to me, but I was driving. Oh, okay. Do you have it somewhere on one of your devices or anything like that, but do you have it anywhere on
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
31:13
one of your devices or anywhere? I'm sure. They told me that
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
31:18
I have it, yes. And just because, I mean, I understand, you know, that when you get something going, you want it to go, but
it would be helpful, even if we delayed for a bit, we could hear what the suggestion is, the amendment is, that we could just see that. Because that would make some difference in my thinking about how I want to vote on the bill. What I know it is you're entertaining about adding to the bill. So that's why
Speaker 102
31:49
I'm asking. I didn't hear a question. Yeah, okay. Senator Starch, then Senator Rice, then Senator
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
31:54
Hendricks. Senator Starch. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Clark, I just want to ask because I don't know. You mentioned that the bill was, or the law was changed in 2013, eight years ago, but that the bench book had not been updated since then so no go ahead i'm sorry can you tell me then who is it that updates it or how often is it updated as far as i mean if we pass this bill and we add this new language is that up to the bar association or judge association or
Speaker 78
32:22
who actually does this to give it the advice thank you for the question senator sturch uh this was last
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
32:27
updated in 2018 so it had been and it refers to the law passed in 2013 that we had passed a law that says joint custody is favored and gives the law the number of the law and then says however twice case law indicates that joint custody is not normally favored and then says joint custody or equally divided custody of minor children is not favored in Arkansas in spite of the fact that the law had been passed in 2013 and
then the letter, the email that the Senate Judiciary Committee received came from AOC that they had revised it, so I'm assuming AOC is the one that does that. Senator Rice then
Speaker 110
33:16
Senator Hendren. Thank you, Senator Clark. You've explained it very well, but just in case we're
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
33:21
distracted sometimes. Everybody here can understand. We had a good lengthy debate on this in judiciary.
Doesn't mean that we're right on everything, but it was covered as good as I could have hoped for, and as you said, a 7-1 vote. You have explained, and this is not the first time, that last-minute tactics have been waited to be used in legislation that you brought forth to help children and families and while I know
you don't disclaim that judiciary wants that too Senator, do you state again here that do you see this is the only way to continue with some pressure to get something that they would not do with you
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
34:23
before? I was completely stonewalled before, yes. I would appreciate people's trust in Senator Clark.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
34:32
I've listened to it, and I believe he is very well justified. Thank you.
Speaker 24
34:37
Thank you, Senator. I just want to point out that when we're having questions, let's
Speaker 115
34:40
ask questions. If people have more than a question, you can come on down at the appropriate time. Senator Hendren.
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
34:47
Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Clark, this is a tough one, and I was one of the seven and the one that voted for this, but I still have a couple questions, because I know a big factor for many of us was the book that you showed, where the courts had basically said, the legislature says this, but we don't care. You just mentioned that they had changed that, and what did they change, and when did they change it, and was it a result of that vote out of Judiciary Committee?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:12
That it was a result of the vote out of judiciary. The email went out to all of us. I understand the volume of emails we get, so I'm not assuming that everyone read it. And they noted, having watched the committee meeting, that they apologized and went back and they had revised it. And I can't tell you all that was revised, but I can tell you that those two paragraphs are still the same. It is my memory that the third one is not there.
But the second one, however, case law indicates that joint custody is not normally favored, is still
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
35:51
there. Okay. You know, we all have our personal experiences with how this has worked and how it had. And I guess what I want to know is, worst case scenario is the legislature now is raising the bar to fairly heavy level for not to have joint custody. And one of the concerns that was brought to me, what about a poor family, a poor couple that's divorcing in a situation where the husband has been abusive?
Chief, is it going to be too hard for that husband to not enjoy joint custody in that situation under this proposal the way it is
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
36:30
now? Senator Hendren, that is a valid question. I think it's also a valid question for the dad who wants joint custody currently. What kind of burden that he has to bear and does he have the money to hire that attorney? like the one man said who called me who did have money
I'm a unicorn and so I'd like to deal with that and that's what I have asked them for all this time and I don't think anyone here doubts my sincerity they can tear this up and start over because we want good law and that's all I've asked for their help from the beginning I said if this is not right But their members who called me because they had been contacted against this law, when we talked, favored, they said, no, we need stronger law, and we have judges who aren't following it, and said they would go back and call the Bar Association and say, y'all need to work with Senator Clark in order to come out with
Speaker 127
37:37
a better law, not just to oppose this.
So you think there is a way, working with them,
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
37:44
you can ensure that both those interests are protected without setting the bar to a point where that
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
37:49
situation I described would not occur? I absolutely do, Senator Hendrick. We, you know, on child welfare, y'all are aware of how many child welfare bills we have been passing per session. I sit week after week with every party, the ad litems, DCFS, parent counsel, I can't remember, someone from the governor's office, et cetera, et cetera. And sometimes on a two-page bill, we will fight week after week after week over two words.
But we finally get it right if we're determined to get it right. And I am determined. I just haven't had the partners yet. And I just need the partners. Senator Hammer. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Clark,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:35
how long have you been working on this? I picked it
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
38:39
up. This failed in House Committee two years ago, and I picked it up after that.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:45
Did you have any interim study proposal meetings or any meetings between then and now that this subject was before committee for discussion?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
38:56
I had no discussions with the legislature. I did sit down with legislators, with the proponents of the bill, and with the Bar Association to discuss the bill, and especially with the Bar Association, since they had opposed it. I do not believe Judicial Council opposed it last time, or they would have been invited,
but for any suggestions they had for improving
Speaker 87
39:20
it and changing it. And subject to what the amendment says that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
39:25
you haven't had time to read, if it deviated away from where the bill is currently, would it stop you from going ahead and running the bill anyway because you believe the content of the bill as is is what you've been pursuing for the last
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
39:43
two years? we're going to pursue joint custody as being favored and in a way that it has to it can't be
ignored i do believe that there is a way to sit down and get this written if they do not think it's correct to get it written where it is correct sometimes it's hard as we all know to separate the dramatics and the theatrics from what is real but they do seem to be sincere and and so i sincerely say, then show me what it needs to say.
Speaker 95
40:16
Thank you, Mr. President. Any other questions? Senator Hickey.
Speaker 134
40:22
Would you be, based on what you've said, would you be willing to pull this down for a week because I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
40:28
know they're watching and let them get this the way that you feel is correct and then if they don't just bring it back before this body? Could we try that? Because I hate to pass something out of the Senate that we know it's basically you're sitting here saying that it's not exactly right. Would that be too much to ask? Senator Hickey, it's coming back to the Senate.
Speaker 134
40:53
I understand. I would just rather it be right when it
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:57
leaves the Senate. I would rather it be right when it leaves the Senate, too. We've had that discussion on another bill, not necessarily you and I, but I as some others. And I've been quarterbacking this bill. And I would have much rather that it was it was what you said. This is the better. This is the better path. But I do appreciate I do appreciate the question. Y'all don't have to send it.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
41:25
Continue the only thing is you kind of phrased it. Well, if we trust you, which I trust you immensely. But I hate to send something out of the Senate that's not right. So that's the that's the bind that I
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:41
feel like I'm in at this point. So, like I said, there's two questions here, and we're early in the session. There is the question of child custody and joint custody, and there is the question of how we, because a lot of us are senior now, of how we work.
And I, not just on this bill, but on every bill, when somebody comes to me with a bill, I say, here's what I do. we get it written we sit down with the proponents and then we sit down with the opponents always we sit down with the opponents and we say what do you not like what's wrong with it and often they point out things that i would have never seen and we fix everything that we can fix and once in a long long while we actually come up with something everybody agrees on
But at the very least, we come up with something that's much better. And, you know, I'm not new at this. And then we come and we get to committee and then a lot of times we end up amending it there. But when you get one argument, okay, when you get one argument here, when you're meeting in meetings, and then you show up in committee and you get completely different arguments and y'all get called with completely different arguments,
that's not, I mean, we're used to it, but that's not the way it ought to happen. And the fact is, I have been up front with them. I have been up front with you. I will continue to be. All I want is a good bill. I'd rather tear it up and throw it away than leave here with bad law. And I hate to ask you to do this, but I am asking you to do this because they think that they can just stonewall, and
Speaker 127
43:30
maybe they can't. That's what y'all had to decide.
Chair
Unverified
43:34
Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Any other questions anyone wish to speak against? I
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
43:47
do. Senator Flowers is recognized against. Thank you. I won't be long. I'll just point out some things. I think, like Senator Hickey suggested, should be held until he at least reviews what has been offered by members of the bar that practice in this area of law, as well as the judicial council.
But to change up burden of proof, have two different burden of proofs in divorce cases, And not only in divorce cases are we talking, but this language that he has in his bill clearly states that in an action for divorce or an action to modify a child custody order. So we're talking about people coming back to court that are already under a child custody order that's been decided by a court that asked for it to be modified.
And so I can't help but think about the influx of cases that will be filed requesting modification based on this change in the law, which I think is overbearing. I think what I heard from the sponsor of the bill is his dissatisfaction, as expressed by some fathers, with some judges. And he specifically referenced one judge with his written order.
Judges' orders are subject to appeal. And before they even get to that point, they're impressed with argument of counsel. for both parents. And it's the duty of the lawyers to bring the law, the current law and the accurate law before the court, the law that the court should apply to the case. So to say that some lawyer said that judges are not getting the law right,
I can't even imagine a lawyer saying that and hasn't taken a judge's order up on appeal if the law is wrong. I think we're going down a dangerous road when we are tying the hands of courts to decide what is in the welfare and best interest of children, young children, minor children we're talking about. And he already said parents can can feud and fuss over custody of the children, how much support they're paying.
A whole bunch of issues are involved when you talk about child custody and parents and why they fight over that issue of custody. So I would ask, again, that Senator Clark pull the bill down, take it back to committee, work on it with the persons who have offered him some difference and some variance that would make it a better law.
but one other thing i'd note uh senator rice suggested since it got seven votes out of committee uh it must have been hashed out well i sit on another committee and in during this session i've seen bills a bill come out of a committee with seven votes and then when you got to the floor with the bill, those seven individuals didn't even vote for the bill. So I'm just
wondering, what is the motivation here? Just to get something passed because you're upset with some judge and you're trying to stand up for some constituent or several constituents that have come to you complaining about judges and about the fact that they didn't get custody of their child? that's not appropriate. When we're talking about children, we should have a higher level of understanding of the ramifications of the things that we do and put in these bills.
So I ask you to vote no for this
Speaker 145
48:13
bill. Thank you. Anyone wish to speak in favor of the bill? Senator Irvin and Senator
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
48:25
Irvin. Members, I think this is more than just about dads. I think it's about moms and dads and children and families. And, you know, when I read this bill and I asked the question because I wanted an honest answer, and Senator Clark gave us an honest answer.
You know, I'm not sure if the amendment is actually something that, you know, is needed or not. But I can make that judgment, and he was honest in his answer to me. So I'm for this. I trust that Senator Clark, if it needs to change, it's fine. but in my reading of the bill, you know, and again, and speaking with some of the attorneys that I've talked to on this bill, I think it's really talking about making sure that children have two parents involved, if at all possible. And if somebody is financially not able to challenge
this in court, that is where I think the issue has arisen and where this bill has come from is a place where you may have a dad or you may have a mom that just doesn't have the money to fight this in the legal justice system. And so we need to make sure that our laws don't allow for somebody, if they have the money to be able to fight for custody of their kids, they get custody or not just because they have the money or the means to do it. I'm not sure if that's where I want to be. I want to make sure our laws are equally applied,
and it doesn't mean that you have to be super rich to take advantage of a situation or being able to fight for your rights as a parent. So, you know, I trust in the way that the language in Section 2 says, a court shall consider the best interest of the child when making a child custody determination. The evidence is going to be before the judge. I think presuming that a child is better off with two parents in their life is probably the best place to start. Clearly, there's going to be evidence one way or the other
if the judge sees differently and that it's an unsafe environment for a child to reside or be in. But I appreciate your answers to the questions. The reason I asked the question was because I wanted an honest answer and I appreciate you giving it. I'm for the
Speaker 15
50:35
bill. Thank you. You always speak against. Speak for. Senator Johnson, Mark
Speaker 37
50:41
Johnson is next. Go ahead, Senator Blaine Johnson if it's okay. Johnson and Johnson.
Speaker 148
50:48
The members sent through the testimony, and I'm pretty
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
50:53
much a black and white kind of guy, and was told through witnesses that the law is gray. Well, I guess on a sunny day, you can see gray and blue, but, you know, there's a lot of evidence in past history that children have not gotten both parents and have been
weighted one way. And I think Senator Clark has tried to correct that and a request at the last minute, not even on paper here at the floor. But in testimony, I'll tell you the three levels of the burden of proof. There's a preponderance of evidence, which is you might have been convicted of something with preponderance of evidence. And it might be weighted against you in this custody case.
And this is asking for clear and convincing evidence. Well, that's for a child. The preponderance of evidence was on another case. But if the person is clearly unequal, then a judge can see that with clear and convinced evidence. There's also the third level, which is the highest level, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, it was said in testimony that this would require more expert witnesses.
Well, I've talked with attorneys that never brought an expert witness to the court. and, beyond a reasonable doubt, had a person convicted of murder or other things without that. So, to say that this is going to cause a great uproar and cost in the process is not true.
It's just an argument. but whether the senator and makes amendments further down the line, I think he's made a convincing argument, and I think there ought to be equality in the law for both parties for the betterment of the child. I'd appreciate a good vote on this. Anyone who wants
Speaker 15
53:29
to speak against? Anyone who wants to speak for Senator Johnson, Mark Johnson?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
53:41
thank you mr president this bill it seems like remember that that movie uh uh groundhog day and that's tomorrow by the way mr president where the guy wakes up in the morning and it's like the same day all over again i really thought this had been taken care of a few years ago i've had several parents speak to me about the issue in general uh of course anytime it's in general
it's like that saying about being average if you got one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other a bucket of boiling water then on average you're about right well these are people's lives children's lives that we're talking about here it's come down to really there are two issues about this bill. The first one is the simple one that that has taken a lot of work over several years and Senator Clark is is carrying the ball this year and doing a great job in my opinion
but it starts out with something that we many of us feel fundamentally is that as to the extent we can a two-parent coalition preferably married and in the home but as we know In this day and time, certainly that doesn't always happen. But even if they're divorced, it's best when parents work together for the good of their children. But to the extent we can have both a mom and a dad involved in parents' lives,
and this is to not in any way disparage the wonderful single parents that have done a great job with their kids. And some of us, both in the House, maybe we failed in some instances. We're all human. But systemically, we've got to set up what Senator Clark has called a presumption. We have to presume that it's best if you have two parents. And that's what this bill at its core is about. The second issue is one of separation of powers.
we don't apply the law but we do make the law and it's clear that in this instance we've had situations certainly not all judges i wouldn't dare criticize all judges of that and i certainly respect senator flowers as a lawyer who practices in family court and seeing these things up close and personal but it's important that we make sure that we the general assembly are not ignored and blown off and if we have to go back
and make it a little bit tighter, a little bit stronger and a little bit clearer then I think that's what this bill does and I appreciate Senator Clark and Judiciary Committee and everyone that's worked so hard on it and I would appreciate a
Chair
Unverified
56:41
favorable vote on the bill. Thank you, Mr. President. Just point out, please refrain from entering the well when another senator
Speaker 15
56:48
is at the rostrum. Anyone wish to speak against for senators closed senators closed
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
57:04
much time talking about the bill I did not promise in judiciary committee I didn't make any inference that I would amend the bill when I pass it out of judiciary this bill if passed the way it is makes the law better than it is now there has been some talk that some people would be harmed more people are harmed now more children are harmed now more families are harmed now than could possibly be harmed the other way
i only made the statement i made because after leaving judiciary i called them after they had stonewalled i reached out and said if you're serious show me give me something else because all i want's good law it's not that i don't have good law but all i want's good law so i didn't i didn't pass this out of judiciary promising
to amend anything i came here today to tell you that i have offered to them with their reservations that if they've got something better bring it to me because that's all I want. But we have a great disparity when it comes to fathers. And I will close with this. A young man, right after the Jonesboro school shooting, a young contractor walked into my store, a friend of mine, and he said, Alan, I hope this never happens with my sons, who are
about six and three. And I said, Aaron, this will never happen with your sons. And he said, how can you be so confident? And I said, look at the record. And the record is still the same. every one of those school shooters almost everyone not everyone but almost everyone did not have an active father in their lives now i want to tell you i i'm not discounting mothers you know when i was running you know one of the biggest decisions i had to make during my campaign i went down and sat with my mom and dad but it was my mom's advice i wanted
so i'm not discounting moms but i'm telling you that we have have a great disparity in our system when it comes to dads and there's a reason why we want to start with joint custody but i have promised you that i'm going to work to be sure that we get it right and i would appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Speaker 3
59:33
Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Ballinger. Aye. Beckham. Aye. Bledsoe. Aye.
Speaker 8
59:41
Caldwell. Aye. Chesterfield. Clark. Aye. Davis. Aye. Dismayne. Aye. Eades. Aye. Elliot. Aye. English. Aye. Flippo. Aye.
Speaker 5
59:56
Flowers? No. Garner? Yes. Gilmore? Yes. Hammer? Aye.
Speaker 33
1:00:06
Hendren? Aye. Hester? Aye. Hickey? No. Hill? Yes. Ingram? Aye.
Speaker 8
1:00:15
Irvin? Aye. Blake Johnson? Aye. Mark Johnson? Aye. Letting? Aye. Pitch? Aye.
Speaker 5
1:00:26
Raebert. Aye. Rice. Aye. Sample. Sample. Stebafil. Aye. Sturge. Aye. Sturge. Aye. Sullivan.
Speaker 8
1:00:38
Aye. Teague. Aye. Tucker. Aye. Wallace. Aye. Senator Sample. I
Chair
Unverified
1:00:51
don't see Senator Sample. Anyone wish to change their vote?
I see none. Cast up the ballot. 31 yeas. 2
Speaker 69
1:01:02
nays. The bill is passed. Transmit to the House. Senator D. Wallace. Senate Bill 20 by
Speaker 32
1:01:12
Senator Wallace to amend the law concerning vacancy, suspension, and removal procedures for county
Speaker 33
1:01:17
elective, county quorum court district, and township officers. We're starting the second hour, Senator Wallace.
Speaker 167
1:01:26
Thank you, Governor. Simply stated, this bill allows us, allows actually the quorum courts to replace an elected county
Speaker 16
1:01:35
official who has stolen money and has been suspended by a court. It allows that court, that quorum court, to replace that officer. Now, we ran into a problem them in Craighead. And I have found in life and found in business and I'm finding out
in politics that the person you don't trust will probably never steal very much from you. But the person you really trust has the opportunity to steal a lot from you. And that happened to us in Craighead County. We had a county clerk that stole $1.4 million. And then after we suspended him, we found out we couldn't even stop him from coming back into the courthouse until the county judge finally was able to bar him from the
courthouse. So we've got a little quirk in our law that we need to be fixed. And specifically, Senate Bill 20 sets forth the provision for a county quorum court to appoint a replacement for a county-elected official when that office holder has been suspended from office by a court for stealing money in the office. The quorum court will replace or will make a replacement for the remainder of that term
and then that person cannot run for the following term. With that, Governor,
Speaker 21
1:03:10
I'm prepared for questions. Any questions? Anyone who's speaking?
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:03:17
Senator Elliott has a question. I'll get this off. Senator Wallace, I was not aware of the genesis of this case until you said so, and I do know about what happened in that area. I was just reading through this and wondering, what's the discussion about maybe unintended consequences that a lot seems to be based on that one issue?
And just give me some solace, I guess, for my heartburn that maybe we should deal with that issue and is it necessary to have a law like this to deal with it. All of the things that are in here, are they missing from something we can do right now? Senator Elliott, I
Speaker 16
1:04:10
appreciate your question. the issue in Crickhead simply points out the problem that occur over and over and over.
And what we have to do is to trust our local officials, in this case, our local quorum courts, to make the right decisions. Local folks, local government making local decisions. As it is now, without this law, an individual can still, may be suspended, but not be replaced.
Speaker 18
1:04:45
So we need to give our quorum courts the ability to replace those individuals
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:04:51
when they see fit. Do you mean not be replaced at all or they have to wait until the next
Speaker 14
1:05:01
election cycle? Well, they would have
Speaker 171
1:05:03
to wait for the next election cycle as it
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:05:09
currently stands. And that's a long wait. And in this case, Is 30 days kind of the norm? Is that something that you were guided by, by what's happening in some other arena? 30 days just seems like a quick time.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:05:29
days. I'm sorry? I didn't say anything about 30 days. Well, it says, unless I'm misremembering what I read, I think it says within 30 days. I might be, maybe I'm not remembering that exactly right. Page 2133, is that what it says? Page 2133. Yeah, it says vacancies in all county elective offices
shall be filled by the county quorum court shall be within 30 days of the declaration of the vacancy. Well, what that
Speaker 16
1:06:02
means is not 30 days from the time that the person steals the money or something. It means after due deliberate discussion among the quorum court, it might be six, eight, nine months after the event has occurred, before they make the decision. And then after they've made the decision, they've got 30 days.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:06:23
After they make a decision that somebody cannot come back to, that a person's going to be, after they make a decision that the person's going to be removed,
Speaker 99
1:06:32
then it's 30 days after that point when they make a decision somebody's going to be removed after a person has been
Speaker 16
1:06:43
suspended because they've been to court then after 30 days after that they
Speaker 14
1:06:48
have the right to remove those folks and replace them okay I'm looking at
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:06:59
the reference on page 5 to see if I can get all my stuff right let's see within 30 days of the order of suspension,
the county quorum court shall temporarily appoint an officer in his or her place who should hold the office until the suspension is lifted or for the remainder of the term. So it's going to be up to the quorum court to, I'm going to appoint you, Senator Wallace, for a temporary time, or I can appoint you for the remainder of the term.
It just seems like a lot of a lot taken out of the hands of the people. That's really what's bothering me, and really in such a
Speaker 185
1:07:47
very short time. Well, the people are represented by the elected officials at a
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:07:51
quorum court. Oh, I understand that, but they also were the ones who had elected the person who got in trouble. It might be a good idea for them to elect somebody to put in that office since that person is gone. That's just what I'm restricting. I understand. Okay. Senator Ingram.
Speaker 189
1:08:13
Senator Wallace, you mentioned when it
Speaker 191
1:08:15
was asked about, I guess a vacancy has to be declared in order for it to be fulfilled, correct? Yes, sir. And I think Senator Elliott asked about, and I think you said it would take place at the next
Speaker 18
1:08:32
general election but that's not the way this is written. Well, I was answering a question she said if it remained
Speaker 191
1:08:40
as current law is. Oh, okay. I misunderstood. Tell me the thinking about
why you would not want to allow the election to be taken at the next general election instead of for the remainder or the term, which could be three-plus years. Well, my logic to that is
Speaker 167
1:09:02
if we're looking at any time at all, especially if it's three-plus years, you would want somebody in that position.
Speaker 18
1:09:11
I'm sorry, would you repeat that? I believe that, especially in the case of three-plus years
Speaker 16
1:09:19
or even two years, if that individual was suspended, that position being vacant, you would want to have somebody doing the work of that county
Speaker 191
1:09:31
clerk of whatever position. Oh, I don't disagree, but the person, as I read this, that is appointed to fill the vacancy. Yes, sir. It says that they shall serve the entire unexpired term instead of at the next general election. So my question is, and of course that person is not eligible
to run for re-election, but my question was, why not set it for the next general election instead of for the entire term? Because somebody could be in the first year of a term, and then before the people would have a chance to vote, it would be three additional years rather than just one year. Well, that's a good question.
Speaker 16
1:10:25
It's just, I'm not sure I have an answer
Speaker 189
1:10:30
to that. Okay. All right, then. Give me just, give me the fourth degree of consanguinity. What would that be? That would
Speaker 185
1:10:40
be your great-grandfather, because I looked that up. Or
Speaker 167
1:10:44
a second cousin. Thank you. I was waiting for that. Thank you,
Speaker 194
1:10:51
sir. Any other questions? Anyone wish to speak against? Anyone wish to speak for? Senator closed.
Speaker 5
1:11:11
to vote on this? Please roll the vote. Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark,
Speaker 11
1:11:20
Davis, Dismang, Eads, Elliot, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin,
Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Raypert, Rice, Sample, Stubbefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker,
Speaker 8
1:11:39
Wallace. Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, cast up the ballot.
Chair
Unverified
1:11:45
35 yeas, 0 nays. The bill is passed. Transmit to the House. Senator Jane English,
Speaker 69
1:11:53
SB 66, it looks like. Senate Bill 66 by Senator English to
Speaker 32
1:12:01
allow the tuition-free benefit for soldiers and airmen of the Arkansas National Guard to
Speaker 33
1:12:07
apply to programs of study in which the courses are taken exclusively online.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:12:15
Senator English. Thank you very much. So this is a very simple bill. It will not take two minutes. Basically, when we passed the law that allowed tuition benefits for soldiers in the National Guard and airmen in the National Guard, they were basically all in classes, in classrooms. Well, the world has changed, and many of the courses that are now being offered are online, and so this just gives them the ability to take those classes online.
Chair
Unverified
1:12:48
Any questions? You know, we should speak against. For, Senator's closed.
Speaker 5
1:12:59
vote, please roll the vote. Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell,
Speaker 11
1:13:05
Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismaine, Eades, Elliot, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson,
Letting, Pitch, Raypert, Rice, Sample, Stubbefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. We should change the vote. Seeing none, cast up the
Chair
Unverified
1:13:30
ballot. 35 yeas, 0 nays. Bill is passed. transmit to the House. Senator
Speaker 32
1:13:40
Sturge to amend provisions of the Arkansas Code concerning ethical violations applicable to educators. Senator Sturge. Thank you, Mr.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:13:51
President. Colleagues, Senate Bill 71 if you'll notice has a little bit of a cleanup language there
at the first and then I'll explain the next, but this is trying to put into statute what the actual responsibilities and duties are of the Professional Licensed Standards Board as well as their Ethics Subcommittee to distinguish between who is actually calling for the investigation and who's actually doing the investigation. So right now in law, we have 180 days. So 30 days each step of the process for an educator to get a determination when they have an ethics violation brought against them. I'm asking for that to be cut down to 14
days each step of the way. And that would allow then, instead of a teacher waiting all summer to actually get a decision made, that it would kind of get us in somewhat of a tighter spot as far as the staff being able to dedicate their time and resources to a case-by-case basis. We are still keeping, though, the waive. If they need additional time, if more information is needed or whatever, they can waive that 14-day requirement to ask for longer days or whatever. But we're just asking that time to be cut from 30 days each step of the process to 14 and allowing them, teachers, to get a decision faster.
Speaker 206
1:15:00
questions. Any questions? Senator Garth. Thank you, Mr. President. So if the educator doesn't
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:15:05
respond within those 14 days, they'd probably get a judgment against them. Wouldn't that give the educator less time to prepare for any potential ethical violation?
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:15:15
Say the first part, Senator Gardner. I didn't
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:15:17
quite hear. I'm assuming that if the educator does not show up within those 14 days or respond, there'd probably be like an automatic judgment against them, for lack of a better word.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:15:27
I don't know the process. No, sir. No, sir. I don't think so. So that initial process then is just a letter of receipt
of the ethics violation itself. And then the next couple of steps is when you would be producing evidence and then the judgment is in the last step. And so they would still have an additional time after that. But 14 days, if you acknowledge it, you're not necessarily saying, no, I didn't do it. But you're acknowledging that the process would move forward. Does that
Speaker 15
1:15:53
make sense? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone we should speak against for Senators closed?
Speaker 5
1:16:04
please roll the vote. Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe,
Speaker 11
1:16:09
Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismain, Eades, Elliott, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Hitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample,
Stebbelfield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, cast
Chair
Unverified
1:16:36
up the ballot, 35 ayes, 0 ayes. Bill is passed, transmitted to the House. Senator Hill, this bill has an emergency clause.
Speaker 32
1:16:58
Senator Hill. Senate Bill 78 by Senator Hill to establish Arkansas occupational licensing of uniformed service members, veterans, and
Speaker 33
1:17:15
spouses of Act of 2021 and declare an emergency. Senator Hill. Thank you, Governor. Colleagues,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:17:22
what this bill does basically is it sets Arkansas apart from any other state
out there. This bill allows us to be ranked really high by the Department of Defense. With this bill, it causes or allows us to have automatic licensing for veterans that have moved to the state and their spouses. The word spouses there is the main word that continues on from last time when this bill was presented. It also covers our National Guard and our reserves. This makes us a military-friendly state. We'll be the top military-friendly state in the country,
and all other states will look up to us for a number one ranking with this bill. This bill allows us to do the things to make us friendly to our military personnel and their spouses with automatic licensing for them. I'd appreciate a
Speaker 194
1:18:17
good vote, and any questions? Any questions?
Speaker 191
1:18:22
Senator Ingram. So, Senator Hill, if you have an electrician's license in Massachusetts, then we're going to recognize it here.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:18:28
That's what we're talking about. If you're an active military spouse or member, yes.
Speaker 10
1:18:41
Elliott. Is it just automatic, totally, Or does
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:18:44
somebody do a comparison between, say, if I were certified in Alaska and they have, you know, very lax requirements, is there anything in there for requiring something that to make sure for safety and so forth? If
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:19:02
it's comparable. I'm sorry? Comparable.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:19:05
That's the key word comparable. So, you know, but we have some kind of metric for some, we do a check off to see who
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:19:14
does that. Who makes that comparison? If you're an electrician in another state and you come to the state of Arkansas, yes, we're going to accept that. If you're a teacher, we're going to accept that. If you're a nurse and you decide you want to be
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:19:29
an orthopedic surgeon, we are not going to accept that. Yeah, what I'm asking, though, let's just say I'm a teacher, but I'm a teacher in, I don't know, Maine.
And Maine has very relaxed standards for being a teacher. What I'm asking is, when we do the comparison, is there some measure that you have to at least reach to before we just say yes? That licensing board will decide that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Senator
Speaker 206
1:19:58
Garner. Oh, and then Senator Hendrick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President. I believe to answer
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:20:04
Senator Elliott's question, that would be on page 6, line 30, where it talks about the automatic issuing would come from the licensing entity within the state of Arkansas.
And the key language there is to have a similar scope of practice. So if their standards were so outside of the norm of our scope of practice, then it wouldn't fall under that automatic licensing. But the vast majority of states do have a similar scope of practice and would be applicable underneath this law. Is that correct, Senator Hill? That is correct, sir. Thank you. Senator Henry is recognized. Yeah, I think Senator
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
1:20:38
Garner made the point. This is a change to a bill that we did really in response because four years ago we asked for this to occur.
They never got the rules and regs done, so we put in automatic licensure. So they still have procedures that they have to follow for this licensure to occur. It has to sit at the scope of practice, but it just gave them
Speaker 15
1:21:02
a deadline. If they didn't do it, automatic licensure would occur. Is that right? Yes,
Speaker 69
1:21:07
sir. Anyone wish to, any more questions? Anyone wish to speak to get the bill,
Speaker 3
1:21:14
for the bill? Senator's closed. Objection to ruin the vote. Seeing none, please roll the vote. Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield,
Speaker 11
1:21:21
Clark, Davis, Dismaine, Eades, Elliott, English,
Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample, Stubberfield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. We should change their vote. Seeing none, cast up the ballot. 35 yeas, zero
Chair
Unverified
1:21:47
nays. The bill is passed, transmit to the House, and the emergency clause is adopted.
Speaker 32
1:21:55
Senator Eves. Senate Bill 123 by Senator Eves to modify the law concerning the Electronic Recording Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
1:22:06
President. This is an update on the Electronic Recording Commission, and there are a couple things that it does. Some of it's just cleanup language. If you remember when Amendment 95 passed, it changed many of the county elected offices from two years to four years that precluded active legislators from being part of this commission and this just strikes that information from this part of the statute to match that amendment
it also adds in a line that says that the one a member shall be from banking title or real estate industry which is a good fit for electronic recording to provide a little bit wider net for people to be able to be recruited to be part of this commission it also changes the current or that the new commission members from a two-year to a four-year term and the last thing it does is says that the current commissioners will, their commission will expire at the end of this year so they can start the new
four-year terms beginning in 2022. And I would be happy to take any questions and appreciate a good vote.
Speaker 15
1:22:58
Any questions? Anyone wish to speak against? Four. Senators close. Any
Speaker 3
1:23:07
objection on the vote? Please roll the vote.
Speaker 11
1:23:12
Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismayne, Eads, Elliot, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample, Stubbeville,
Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. None wish to change
Speaker 196
1:23:39
their vote. Seeing none, cast up the ballot, 35 yeas,
Chair
Unverified
1:23:44
0 nays. The bill is passed, transmitted to the House. Senator
Speaker 32
1:23:49
Blake Johnson. Senate Bill 148 by Senator Johnson to amend Arkansas law related to the recording of coordinates based on the Arkansas Coordinate System 1983 and repealed proximity to station requirement. Senator
Speaker 37
1:24:04
Johnson. Members, this bill comes from GIS and Transformation Shared Services.
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
1:24:09
It updates language from, I think, 1991. This used to require triangulation within 15 miles. This was previous to GPS. Now we have GPS, and they just want to get rid of this language. I appreciate
Speaker 15
1:24:26
a good vote. Any questions? Anyone we should speak against? Four. Senators, close. Any objection
Speaker 5
1:24:38
the vote. Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismangue, Eades,
Speaker 11
1:24:44
Elliott, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample, Stubbefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, cast up the ballot. 35
Chair
Unverified
1:25:10
bill is passed, transmit to the House. We're passing over Senator Davis's SB 155.
Moving on to the House Bill. Senator Stubblefield. House Bill 1025 by Representative
Speaker 32
1:25:23
Watson to amend the law concerning the training of coroners and to declare an emergency. It has an emergency clause. Senator Stubblefield. Thank you,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:25:36
Governor. Senate Bill 1025 simply gives deputy coroner's in the state an extra period of time to get their certification. They have one year to get that certification after they sign up to do their jobs. And as a result
of the constraints and the COVID pandemic of this last year and some of the training canceled, they did not, I'm sure you're aware, a lot of them didn't have time to get that training. This simply gives them some
Speaker 194
1:26:07
extra time to get that training. Thank you. Any questions? Anyone wish to speak again? Four. Any objection to the ruling?
Speaker 3
1:26:17
Have you closed, Senator? Yes, I will. Any objection to
Speaker 5
1:26:20
the ruling of the vote? Please roll the vote. Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield,
Speaker 11
1:26:25
Clark, Davis, Dismayne, Eads, Elliot, English,
Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample, Stubblefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, cast up the ballot. 35
Chair
Unverified
1:26:51
yeas, zero nays. The bill is passed. Return the bill
back down to the House. Emergency clause is adopted. Senator
Speaker 32
1:27:04
Stubbeville. House Bill 1051 by Representative Eubanks and Senator Stubbeville. Concerning advertising for licenses related under the private security agency, private
Speaker 33
1:27:13
investigator and school security licensing and credential act and declare an emergency. Thank you, Governor.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:27:21
House Bill, excuse me, 1051 One simply deals with security and alarm systems providers and the information that they have to disclose and how they disclose it.
Speaker 15
1:27:34
It's basically a simple bill. That's it. I'd be happy to take any questions.
Speaker 3
1:27:45
Any questions? Anyone we speak against for Senators Close? Any objections to rolling
Speaker 11
1:27:54
vote. Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismaine, Eades, Elliot, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson,
Letting, Pitch, Rayford, Rice, Sample, Stubbefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, cast up the ballot.
Chair
Unverified
1:28:17
35 yeas, 0 nays. The bill is passed. Emergency clause is adopted. The bill is returned
Speaker 69
1:28:25
to the House from whence it came. Senator Eads. House
Speaker 32
1:28:29
Bill 1056 by Representative Feight and Senator Eads to amend the Freedom of Information Act of 1967 to allow
Speaker 33
1:28:37
electronic public meetings during a declared state emergency and declare an
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
1:28:42
emergency. Senator Eads. Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this bill comes from the, is brought to from the Quorum Court Association. If you remember, in 2020, we passed a temporary bill that allowed local entities like Quorum Courts, city councils to meet electronically and remotely. This expired December 31st. This is an extenuation for this opportunity to give them the choice if they want to do this. It's only allowed during a statewide emergency that's authorized by the, declared by the governor.
Most of you, probably most of you know that many of our locales have already gone back to meeting in person, whether it's a city council or a quorum court or whatever, but this gives them some flexibility if something comes up that people were needing to be quarantined or something, they could continue to get their business done and move this forward. Because of the expiration of the temporary law at the end of 2020, this is why we have an emergency clause on this. And this was approved unanimously by the FOIA task force after they reviewed this. And I would take any questions and appreciate
Speaker 15
1:29:44
a good vote. Any questions? Senator Mark Johnson has a question.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:29:52
Senator Eads, you said the temporary law, I guess we passed during fiscal session or thereabouts, the special session in the spring, expired on December 31st. Yes, sir. That's correct. So if a quorum court met during any time between January 1 and today, would that be, well, or when this bill would take effect in emergency clause, would that
be an illegal meeting? I'm not attorney, so I'm not sure how to answer that question, but I
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
1:30:21
know that's the reason we want to try to get this done as quickly as possible.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:30:26
Because I know that Pulaski County Quorum Court met this month, and they met electronically. And it's
possible that—possible, not disparaging the work of the FOI coalition. But I just—I'm just not sure that we don't need to—like, anything to do with emergencies, my antenna goes up. And I want to make sure we're all on the same page. So as far as you know, obviously, it can't be retroactive. retroactive, but it has an emergency clause and would be a case for the future. I just
could see possible challenges to any actions taken in a meeting that wasn't authorized under this. And most of our counties are doing everything they can to be open. Unfortunately, that's not true in Pulaski County. In some cases, I'm just wanting to get clarified on it. But thank you. It's probably a good bill, and I'll support it. Thank you. I appreciate it. Any other
Speaker 157
1:31:26
questions? Anyone against? Senator Garner's against. Senator Garner.
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
1:31:31
Thank you, Mr. President. Just pretty briefly, I'm going to vote President on this. I don't like the telephone part of this bill. I just think it's too rough for fraud, and somebody could call in and you couldn't verify who it is, since it's an official government action at our local levels. I agree with everything else, especially during a pandemic or another emergency. Just like we do in the Senate, I'd prefer we'd be able to
Speaker 145
1:31:52
see the actual person voting. Thank you. Anyone wish to speak in favor? Anyone wish to speak against? Senators closed.
Speaker 239
1:31:58
Any objection to rolling the vote? There's no objection. Roll the vote.
Speaker 3
1:32:04
Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis,
Speaker 11
1:32:13
English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Raper, Rice, Sample, Stubblefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker,
Chair
Unverified
1:32:37
Wallace. Anyone wish to change their vote? Cast
Speaker 69
1:32:42
up the ballot. 33 yays, 0 nays. Bill is passed. Emergency clause adopted. Return to the House. Senator Clark. House Bill
Speaker 32
1:32:53
1058 by Representative Dalby and Senator Clark to permit a juror to donate his or her per diem compensation and mileage reimbursement to an eligible non-profit entity. Senator Clark. Thank you, Governor.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:33:06
Madam Secretary, you may have to help me with this, but I think I've got it.
I want to re-refer House Bill 1058 to Senate Judiciary for purpose of amendment. Without objection? I need to
Speaker 250
1:33:27
re-refer it to Judiciary. Without objection? Yeah. Yes.
Speaker 32
1:33:41
No one objected, at least I didn't hear it. Senator Dismayne. House Bill 1216 by Representative Dotson and Senator Dismayne to revise certain Arkansas laws applicable to administrative rules
Speaker 251
1:34:02
to allow for the development of the code of the Arkansas rules.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:34:07
Senator Dismayne. Thank you, Governor. Members, both of these, House Bill 1216 and 1217, we're fixing to hear, both tie back to Act 781.
If you remember, we had a very convoluted code system. There was no categorization that took place, and so you might look in 30 to 40 different places to find out what rules apply to you and your specific industry. So the goal was to allow BLR to go through and first eliminate unneeded rules, those that were outdated and unused, but then also create this system, and then after that, follow up to be able to have a systematic look, which is essentially every 12 years for a group of six different areas of rulemaking.
And so first, House Bill 1216, first it adds respectful language provisions. This would allow BLR to make changes or make recommendations and consult with the agencies to include respectful language as they're going through this process. Number two, it concerns exemptions of what's defined as a rule under the Administrative Procedures Act. And then Section 3 changes the authority and allows BLR to make technical corrections. But, however, do remember the Bureau cannot make any change of substance to the rule and that those can always be appealed
or those changes can be appealed by the agency to legislative council. And then Section 4 extends the completion date for codification until January 1st, 2024. There has
been a delay, and so this has allowed them to have some more time
Speaker 15
1:35:44
to get things in place. Any questions for the senator? Anyone wish to speak against? Four.
Speaker 196
1:35:51
Senators closed. Any objection to rolling the vote? Please roll the
Speaker 3
1:35:56
vote, because I see no objection. Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell,
Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismain,
Speaker 11
1:36:05
Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample, Stubbefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. Anyone wish to change their vote? Cast up the ballot. 35
Chair
Unverified
1:36:29
yeas, 0 nays. The bill is passed. Return to the House. Senator Dismayne.
Speaker 32
1:36:39
House Bill 1217 by Representative Dodson and Senator Dismayne concerning the extension and repeal of administrative rules. Senator Dismayne. Thank you,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:36:48
Governor. Members, what this does, there was currently most of what was in Section 2 was moved up to Section 1, so you're going to see that language added to Section 1 and then stricken from Section 2. This just allows us to work better in how we use our regular rules on the review process. Section 3, the change there, will help the rule process as
we create the code of Arkansas rules and then also will allow for relief or repeal of current rules that do not meet the definition of rule under the APA. And then section four is temporary language that sets out the dates and time frame for which each of the six rule review groups will come up for evaluation. Again, that's every 12
Chair
Unverified
1:37:34
years then. Any questions? Anyone wish to speak against. Four. Senators close. Objection. Rolling vote. Please roll the vote. Ballinger, Beckham,
Speaker 3
1:37:43
Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis,
Speaker 11
1:37:49
Dismain, Eades, Elliott, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Raypert, Rice, Sample, Stubbefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace.
Chair
Unverified
1:38:14
Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, cast up the ballot.
Speaker 69
1:38:21
35 yeas. Zero nays. The bill is passed. Return to the House. Senator Dismay, moving to the budget calendar, we have two amendments.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:38:47
million appropriation section for veterans mental health grant program.
This appropriation is a continuation of the program the division began during the fiscal year 21 from the CARES Act Appropriation Funding. We have to take
Chair
Unverified
1:39:01
any questions. Senator Dismayne, have these bills been withdrawn from committee for purposes? Yeah, we're just
Speaker 15
1:39:07
adopting the amendment at this point. All right. Any questions?
Speaker 262
1:39:16
Senator Blake Johnson. Senator Clark requests to be present, voted present on budget bills.
Speaker 170
1:39:23
Senator Clark wants to vote present on
Speaker 263
1:39:26
the budget bills. Okay. These are amendments, but
Chair
Unverified
1:39:29
we got it. Fair enough. Thank you. Any questions? This is just one
amendment at this time. No questions? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have
Speaker 32
1:39:43
it. Amendment is adopted. Amendment 2 to Senate
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:39:47
Bill 156. Senator Dismay. Thank you, Governor. Remember, this is just a technical correction. Changes the division special language in Section 23 from Division of Arkansas State Parks to Division of Arkansas Tourism.
Chair
Unverified
1:39:58
Any questions? All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed? Ayes have it. Amendments adopted. Senator
Speaker 32
1:40:15
by Senator Hickey to amend Arkansas law to require the reporting of expenditures, transfers, agreed upon commitments, or other obligations of funds from the Rainy Day Fund, and declare an emergency.
Chair
Unverified
1:40:29
I would point out that this takes only 18 votes for this bill. Emergency clause takes 24, but even though it's on the budget calendar, it only requires 18 votes. Senator Dismay. Members, this is related
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:40:41
to the current Rainy Day Fund. It would require a report to be given to the chairman of joint budget for us to demonstrate or send out to the members if there was a commitment from the governor's office to any member or any project out of the Rainy Day Fund. It's my understanding it's a 24-hour turnaround for that and be up to us.
I disclose that back to the members. There is a time
frame on which this expires, and that's the 31st day following the Sonny
Speaker 194
1:41:10
died adjournment of the regular session.
Speaker 82
1:41:14
Any questions? Senator Stubblefield, I think you barely beat Senator Teague. Barely.
Speaker 270
1:41:18
Senator Stubblefield. Senator Justine, thank you, Governor. Senator Justine, would you
Speaker 271
1:41:21
mind elaborating on that agreed-upon commitments, just real briefly? Yeah, and I may actually
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:41:27
let Senator Hickey kind of go in depth on that a little bit,
but I'm sure he's going to want me to see it now. But let's just, on the agreed to, and there has been discussion on this, I mean, I'll just give you an example. If you're going to go to the governor's office as a member, you walk in and the governor commits and says that he's going to fund a project in your district or somewhere else in the state for that matter. At that point, that becomes a commitment. The commitment of funds from Rainy Day for a project which you think could be not utilized elsewhere because they're committed to a particular
Speaker 15
1:42:01
item. And Senator Teague, did that answer your question?
Okay. Any other questions? Anyone
Speaker 214
1:42:10
wish to speak for? Senator's closed.
Speaker 3
1:42:16
Any objection rolling the vote? Please roll it. Senator Sample says
Speaker 11
1:42:24
roll it, so let's roll it. Ballinger, Beckham, Bloodsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismain, Eades, Elliott, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample, Stubblefield, Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace.
Chair
Unverified
1:42:52
Anyone wish to change their vote? Senator Mark Johnson wants to be present. Senator Blake Johnson and Senator Clark is present. Senator Clark is
Speaker 69
1:43:14
present. Senator Blake Johnson is aye. Now we're good. Any other changes? Cast up the ballot. 33 yays. Zero nays. The bill is passed. The emergency clause is adopted.
Speaker 24
1:43:29
Transmitted to the House. Any announcements before we adjourn? Senator Caldwell.
Speaker 275
1:43:37
Thank you, Governor. Ag will not meet tomorrow. Senator
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
1:43:42
Eades. Thank you, Mr. President. Senate rules will meet tomorrow at 1130 in room 309. Okay, anything else? Senators adjourn. Subject
Speaker 24
1:43:54
to the clearing of the desk and this announcement by Senator Tucker. Thank you, Governor. Apologies for the delay.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:44:07
Just want to recognize today's Doctor of the Day. We have Dr. Richard Nicholas Jr., an orthopedic surgeon here in Little Rock, and also our Nurse of the Day, Brenda
Agenda
Call to Order
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Announcements
SENATE BILLS FOR THIRD READING AND PASSAGE
SB18 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION.
SB20 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VACANCY, SUSPENSION, AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR COUNTY ELECTIVE, COUNTY QUORUM COURT DISTRICT, AND TOWNSHIP OFFICERS.
SB66 J. English TO ALLOW THE TUITION-FREE BENEFIT FOR SOLDIERS AND AIRMEN OF THE ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD TO APPLY TO PROGRAMS OF STUDY IN WHICH THE COURSES ARE TAKEN EXCLUSIVELY ONLINE.
SB71 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING ETHICAL VIOLATIONS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATORS.
SB78 Hill TO ESTABLISH ARKANSAS OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING OF UNIFORMED SERVICE MEMBERS, VETERANS, AND SPOUSES ACT OF 2021; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB123 L. Eads TO MODIFY THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING COMMISSION.
SB148 B. Johnson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW RELATED TO THE RECORDING OF COORDINATES BASED ON THE ARKANSAS COORDINATE SYSTEM 1983; AND TO REPEAL THE PROXIMITY-TO-STATION REQUIREMENT.
SB155 B. Davis TO ESTABLISH LILA'S LAW; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES REGARDING ACCESS TO ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION.
HOUSE BILLS FOR THIRD READING AND PASSAGE
HB1025 Watson Stubblefield TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRAINING OF CORONERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1051 Eubanks Stubblefield CONCERNING ADVERTISING FOR LICENSEES REGULATED UNDER THE PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCY, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, AND SCHOOL SECURITY LICENSING AND CREDENTIAL ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. st
HB1056 L. Fite L.Eads TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC PUBLIC MEETINGS DURING A DECLARED STATE EMERGENCY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1058 Dalby Clark TO PERMIT A JUROR TO DONATE HIS OR HER PER DIEM COMPENSATION AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT TO AN ELIGIBLE NONPROFIT ENTITY.
HB1216 Dotson Dismang TO REVISE CERTAIN ARKANSAS LAWS APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE OF ARKANSAS RULES.
HB1217 Dotson Dismang CONCERNING THE EXTENSION AND REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES.
Budget Bills
Bills to be Amended
SB38 AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DIVISION OF AGING, ADULT, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR.
SB156 AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM - STATE PARKS AND TOURISM DIVISIONS APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2021-2022 FISCAL YEAR.
Bills and their Emergency Clauses to be considered which have been introduced by Senators
SB205 TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF EXPENDITURES, TRANSFERS, AGREED-UPON COMMITMENTS, OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF FUNDS FROM THE RAINY DAY FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Announcements
Adjourn
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 5
Speaker 8
Speaker 14
Speaker 16
Speaker 18
Speaker 21
Speaker 22
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 33
Speaker 36
Speaker 38
Speaker 37
Speaker 15
Speaker 39
Speaker 58
Speaker 69
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
Speaker 84
Speaker 87
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 102
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
Speaker 78
Speaker 110
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 115
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
Speaker 127
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 95
Speaker 134
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 145
Speaker 148
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 158
Speaker 167
Speaker 171
Speaker 99
Speaker 185
Speaker 189
Speaker 191
Speaker 194
Speaker 80
Speaker 11
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 203
Speaker 206
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 10
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
Speaker 196
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 157
Speaker 239
Speaker 250
Speaker 251
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 259
Speaker 262
Speaker 170
Speaker 263
Speaker 82
Speaker 270
Speaker 271
Speaker 214
Speaker 275
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 111