Education Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB72
· 5 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB72 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNI…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL. | J. Sturch | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB71
Act 96
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…Sen. Charles Beckham REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle 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 |
|
SB113
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ENDA *Bills in Red added 01-27-2021 Number Sponsor Subtitle SB113 L. Eads TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS WORKFORCE CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM; AND … | L. Eads | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB120
Act 650
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB120 B. Davis CONCERNING RULEMAKING AUTHORITY UNDER THE SCHOOL C…”
|
CONCERNING RULEMAKING AUTHORITY UNDER THE SCHOOL COUNSELING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2019. | B. Davis | Notification that SB120 is now Act 650 |
|
SB129
Act 252
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB129 J. English TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERN…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING PRIVATE RESIDENT AND CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOLS. | J. English | Notification that SB129 is now Act 252 |
|
SB66
Act 133
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E DEFINITION OF "APPROVED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION". 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 |
|
SB83
Act 95
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB83 B. Davis TO ADD A STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDU…”
|
TO ADD A STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE EXEMPT … | B. Davis | Notification that SB83 is now Act 95 |
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 7, 2026
Members, it's 2 o'clock. We are, Chair sees a quorum, and I'm calling this meeting to order. If you'll take your seats. Members, we have a regular agenda, and then we also have a consent agenda. If there are changes that are substantial changes by amendments and we need to move those to a regular agenda, we can do that. um but without objection the bills that are in red and when i say in red if you pull up the
online version of your agenda those bills are in red on an on the consent agenda so without objection um those bills are added to the consent agenda anyway um but we will move through this systematically um all right with that we are going to go to i'm going to actually um let's go through the regular agenda first. So, Senator Sturge, if you'll present your bill from your seat, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 71.
Speaker 6
1:03
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Members. I do have two small amendments I would like to present and adopt. I guess we'll do those one at a time. Amendment 1 is simply adding a co-sponsor on the House side, Representative Vaught, to this bill,
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:16
and I apologize for not getting it engrossed ahead of time, but that
must be Amendment 1. Okay. Is there a motion to adopt this amendment? So moved. Second. Those in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed. It is right here. The amendment is to add Representative Vought as a co-sponsor of the bill.
There's a second amendment, but we're doing the first. We're not there yet. All right. All right. Amendment is adopted. And then the
Speaker 6
1:45
second amendment. yes ma'am this is a correction of the sentence we're trying to make sure that we got the right person referred to so we're adding staff of the professional licensure standard board we had just put professional licensure standard board but I needed to clarify that to be the staff of and that's amendment number two in that line 15 page 3 that's all the amendment number two does is add staff
of. Okay. Are there any questions on this amendment? Is there
an objection? I'm just going to say without objection, this amendment is adopted. Is that okay? All right. All right, you may proceed to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee
Speaker 6
2:44
members. Committee members, Senate Bill 71 is essentially trying to line up statute with what the actual duties are of the Ethics Subcommittee and the Professional Licensure Standards Board. This, I'll just say PLSB for short. They're made up of a managing attorney, a licensure attorney, two senior investigators, three educational investigators, legal specialists and assistants, and so forth, but the ethics subcommittee then meets once a month to authorize the investigations of allegations they receive. Once a case is authorized, then the complete investigative
process can begin, and it's conducted by that investigative staff that I just mentioned. The ethics subcommittee then hears the case once the investigation is complete, and then makes that initial determination regarding the case to the educator. So the requested change then to the response is trying to tighten up this process. For example, in the
Speaker 19
3:34
current law, it's 30 days each step. I'm trying to ask then for 14 days each step because we still have a mandated in the law that it gets completed within 180 days. You think about it as a teacher, you have an investigation, you have a appeal, you have all these other things going on,
you keep racking up 30 days, that's your entire summer. And you're then sitting there without, you know, knowing as far as your job status or the legal status of the case or anything like that all summer long. So I'm just asking then we lower that from 30 days to 14 days each step of the process. The appeal process is still there. There's also a way to waive that timeline if more time is needed as far as if something needed to be done longer for the investigation or for the teacher to appeal or whatever. That statute has not gone away. We're going to keep that to where it's
Speaker 20
4:23
necessary. They could ask for more time but simply that's what we're doing in
this bill, Senate Bill 71. All right. Are there any questions?
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
4:37
Senator Elliott, you're recognized for question. I just wanted to thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Sturge, the difference between receive and investigate, I get investigate, but what do we mean specifically by authorize? What does that mean? When the case is
Speaker 25
4:51
authorized to complete it. Authorize the investigation.
Speaker 19
4:56
Okay, so when a allegation is received to the PLSB board, the ethics subcommittee of that board meets to hear it first. And then if they feel that it is necessary or warrants an investigation, then they authorize that investigation to take place. If it does not warrant an investigation, so for they don't find it founded or something, then they don't have to
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
5:18
proceed with that. So, well, then inherent in the word authorized, that suggests they have received it and investigated it. That is investigated enough to proceed?
Speaker 19
5:28
Correct. Okay. Okay. All right. They've read the reports they've gotten, or they have gotten, excuse me. They've read the
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
5:38
teacher's, you know, perspective and so forth. I, you
know, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have authorized defined because when it's being changed, you know, some people might interpret it as receiving an investigate, but authorized
means something else. But, I mean, I don't have any reason to question your intent,
What do you mean when you authorize something? All right. Thank you. I actually have that same, a little bit of that same question, because when you read, you're changing the language from shall investigate an ethics complaint that it determines is credible to shall authorize an investigation. And so this ethics subcommittee could actually, I'm not sure what criteria they're using
to either authorize an investigation or to just dismiss it outright. And I'm not, I mean, unless, is there a clear direction as to what they're going to use in order to, quote, unquote, you know, what criteria are they using to, quote, authorize this investigation or not authorize the investigation. I'm a little concerned about that just because it lends itself to a little bit of subjectivity and I'm not sure if there's a specific
you know direction that they use and what I don't want to see is that an ethics subcommittee could be swayed one way or the other and not authorize an investigation if that makes sense. Right well I guess I'll ask
Speaker 19
7:21
for help then from ADE because it's my understanding that the ethics subcommittee is not the one conducting the investigation they're the ones reviewing the results from the investigation and so that
Speaker 6
7:34
change then is for them to authorize
the investigation take place and then they will review it so but now I may have misspoke as far as then what
Speaker 20
7:41
criteria they use to authorize it if you'd like a better answer from ADE that that's up to
you all. I would. Is there somebody here that can answer that question please?
Speaker 43
8:08
I'll state your name for the record and you may proceed. Okay
Speaker 44
8:13
good afternoon Ivy Pfeffer Department of Education and so currently this this language is just clarifying what the what the process is so a complaint comes in in a written form and then it is reviewed by the subcommittee to determine whether or not the complaint has merit to go forward and be investigated so there is criteria yes that they use in determining which ones go forward for example in 2019-20
there were 158 allegations received and the PLSB subcommittee authorized 85 of these to go forward for an investigation. Okay. Who
then, does the ethics subcommittee conduct the investigation? No. So
Speaker 43
9:01
it starts with the complaint comes in, it's logged. The
Speaker 44
9:06
PLSB, so it's a larger board, That board is the one that reviews and says these need to be investigated.
So the PLSB staff conducts the investigation, and then the report from the investigation is then shared with the subcommittee, and the subcommittee reviews everything and makes a determination whether or not there are sanctions to apply. Okay.
Are there any other questions? Senator Elliott?
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
9:40
they're recognized? I was reading and following along, so to be sure I understand what you said.
When it comes in, then the
PLSB looks at it and decides whether or not they think it should be investigated, and then the staff actually does the investigation. And the staff, who does the authorizing, the staff or the PLSB? The
Speaker 44
10:12
PLSB at the very onset authorizes the staff to move forward with an investigation of the complaint.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
10:22
Got it. Okay, so the way the old language is, would this be the PLSB that received it and investigated it? Was that the PLSB? And I
Speaker 44
10:38
don't have the entire code to look at what was coming before that, but I think the clarification was needed because of the word investigate. It wasn't clear that it was the staff of the PLSB that conducted the investigation. Yeah,
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
10:52
on the other hand, it's totally clear to me, though, whether they did it or not,
it's totally clear to me we were saying that they receive it, and then they investigate. but when they authorize, what does somebody do for it to be authorized? Is it just because the PLSB says we
Speaker 44
11:15
think you should go ahead? Yes, so the PLSB, and that is comprised of, I believe, 22 members. I may be wrong on that. But yes, they look at the complaint and determine it
because there are times when a complaint comes in that it is, it's just a gripe from someone who's angry with something a teacher did say. So, I mean, there are some of those that don't rise to the level that
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
11:49
warrant a full investigation. Okay. So if the PLSB says that something
is authorized to move ahead, does anybody have their right to say, no, really, it doesn't rise to whatever level for us to move ahead?
Or does that automatically trigger an investigation by the staff? That
Speaker 44
12:15
would automatically trigger the investigation by the staff,
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
12:18
yes. Okay, so the staff, the criteria the staff uses is the recommendation from the... From the entire board. From the entire board. And the way the entire board decides to authorize is using their professional judgment, I'm assuming, because they are not investigators. They just received it.
Speaker 60
12:41
Yes, so it's a committee of peers from an educator standpoint. Okay. Okay. And
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
12:48
now lastly, so let's say y'all are the peers out here and you just got the complaint. Do we have any criteria to decide whether or not to say move ahead or is it simply a matter of professional judgment? I mean, there may be some rules or
Speaker 44
13:10
something that's broken. So the office of PLSB over time has developed, I'm trying to search for the right word here,
they have developed guidelines based on past practice. So whenever this was first formed back in, I don't remember the year, you know, 2009-10 when the office was first formed, since then they've gone back and looked at all the cases and the criteria by which not only cases are investigated but then also for the sanctions so they've developed the guidelines around and guidelines based
all right thank you all right thank you are there any other questions all right seeing none what is the pleasure of the committee motion do pass second all those in favor say aye and opposed eyes have it the bill passes as amended oh my apologies I just received that somebody was here to speak against the bill I
I apologize we are is that person here okay I'm going to let you go ahead and come forward and I apologize I didn't see this I'm going to make a motion to expunge the vote by which that bill passed to allow this member to to speak of the public to speak I'll make
Speaker 35
14:57
that motion all those in favor oh that's
correct okay all those in favor say aye and opposed all right I apologize we are trying to work out these kinks because of COVID and so I did want to recognize you if you will just state your name
Speaker 67
15:22
and position I'm Michelle Lynch the executive director of the Arkansas State Teachers Association and we have been
Speaker 68
15:28
in discussions about this bill and understand that there some there are times that could be shortened but the one we're very
concerned about and is the initial response where they have only 14 days to respond because there's having 14 days to say okay I'd like an evidentiary meeting that's that's not a big deal but having 14 days to respond to an ethics violation allegation is just not enough time we work with these all the time in our office and we have to keep in mind that when an educator receives this then they are teaching
full-time they have classroom full of children and they're that they're responsible for there they don't have a job where they can go shut an office door and work on this and they have families and so giving them that full 30 days was always critical because oftentimes they have to they have to request information pull documentation go back to two notes the responses go back and forth between us aren't you know our attorney on staff and them and
and making sure that it is as strong as it can be. So we have requested, have been requesting that that one time limit of the 14 days to respond be changed to 30. Okay. Are
there any questions from the members of the committee? Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. I'll allow Senator Starch to go ahead and respond and then close for your bill.
Speaker 6
17:14
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will say I was not directed any opposition before the meeting, so I apologize for that. But under the current law, and this doesn't change it, educators have three opportunities throughout the whole process to provide feedback and response each time. And so I was just going for consistency with the 14 days each time. Like I said, it also allows for an educator and the PLC staff to agree to waive any of those timeline requirements if they needed more time when necessary. So I feel like we've tried to cover that as best we could.
Like I said, the whole process, you know, it gives them three times for feedback and response, and it still allows them to ask for additional time and to waive that 14 days if
needed. Thank you. I'll be closed. Great. Thank you. All right. What is the motion, the pleasure of the committee? Motion do pass by Senator Sturge. And is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed. Ayes have it. Thank you.
And I apologize for, sorry, as amended. Yes. All right. Thank you. Moving to the next bill. Senate Bill 72. Thank you, Madam
Speaker 6
18:35
Chair. Members, if you recall, two years ago, we changed in statute a way that if a
Speaker 19
18:42
teacher's license was revoked, after 10 years of that offense, if it was nonviolent, if it was non-sexual,
they could have their teacher's license reinstated. I'm simply asking for that same consideration to be given on the front end, So when someone goes to apply for a teacher's license, if it's been 10 years since that offense, if it was non-sexual or non-violent, that we give them the same consideration, that the background check that you have when you go to get your teacher's license wouldn't kick them out of qualifying for that initial license. That's essentially what Senate Bill 72 does. We're also allowing for a change then that would give the flexibility to schools to pay that.
Right now, we do it kind of in a weird way. On your initial, you have to pay for it yourself, but
Speaker 20
19:26
once you're teachers, most of the time the schools will pick that up. We're wanting the same flexibility here for both classified employees. We did it for certified last time. I'm asking for classified employees to be given that same consideration that's on in the bill. So those are the two changes that this bill, Senate Bill 72, would do. I'll take any questions.
I have just a question under section 4 on page 2. Can you explain to me the language here on a public school district shall require criminal background checks and child maltreatment central registry checks of existing and newly hired non-licensed employees at least one time every five years.
Why would we include at least one time every five years as new language? Well, because this
Speaker 20
20:32
is for classified employees. So as a certified teacher, I have to do this every five years. And so we're asking for that to be also then for classified employees. So this would be bus drivers, cafeteria workers, you know, aides, that type of thing. We're asking for that same consideration here. Every five years, there would be a new background check completed.
Okay, so it's not changing what is in current law. It's just adding an
additional check every five years. For classified, yes ma'am. For classified. So that's actually increasing. would you say that this is increasing the strength of checking for against a criminal background check in childbirth? Because the reason I ask is I'm the one that added the child maltreatment registry, central registry check due to a very serious issue that occurred at one of my schools
where criminal background check did not reflect what was actually factual. incredible behavior, which then led to unfortunate behavior with this classified employee and students on the campus. So I just wanted to make sure that we are not in any way watering down what we currently have, but that we're adding to it and strengthening it. Is that the way you interpret the additional language? Yes, ma'am. We'd be treating them the same, certified and
classified. Okay, thank you. Are there any additional questions? Yes. Who does, do
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
22:13
we still use, who do we use for the background checks? We still use the, is it the state police or whoever? Yes, ma'am. That's still the same thing, and there are no, so where the background check is performed is that is initiated by the, by
the hiree, the teacher, or the non-certified person in this case? Yes, ma'am. Or if you're already in it, then, like
Speaker 20
22:37
I said, we already have it every
five years when we're employed.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
22:42
But for the teachers of employees, every five years, does that teacher then have to go get that, whether the school district is paying for it or not, the teacher
Speaker 20
22:54
has to do it, initiate that? And typically, it correlates
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
22:59
with your license renewal. With the renewal. And so
all the school districts know not to use these commercial entities out there that are doing background checks that sometimes really have wrong information.
Everybody's on board and using the state police. I can only speak for
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
23:18
mine, but yes, as far as I know, every time I've had to do it, it was always through state police and then FBI and
Speaker 35
23:25
my own treatment. I don't know if we have a law requiring that or not. Do you require that we use the background? Does
anybody know? That they're required to use state police? Is it required? I mean, it states in the language of the bill under Section 4 that it's upon completion of the statewide and nationwide criminal records,
background checks, and child maltreatment registry check the Division of the? Identification Bureau of the Division of State Police. That's all I've
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
23:52
ever known they've used. Okay. All right. That answers that question. Senator Elliott, I did. I
Speaker 20
23:57
conferred with them, and it is part and required if state police be the ones doing it. That's good. Thanks. Thank
you. All right. Any other further questions? All right. Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill that has or has not signed up? Okay. All right.
Seeing none, what is the pleasure of the committee? Move do pass. Motion do pass. Second. And all those in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed? Ayes have it. Bill passes. All right,
moving on to the consent agenda, Senator Yves. Senate Bill 113. Thank
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
24:38
you, Madam Chair. This is a very brief bill. Actually, there's only one line changed from the current statute, and it's
involving the Workforce Challenge Scholarship, and if you've noticed that we already have eligible estate
supported two-year or four-year college or university or a private nonprofit two-year or four-year college or university with its primary headquarters located in Arkansas that receives Title IV federal student aid funds. And we added a third line then it says, or the Northwest Technical Institute. And that's the only change to the bill so that they would be eligible. Doesn't change any of the program requirements or anything like that. It just adds them as an eligible institution. I'd be happy
to answer any questions. My question, are there any other institutes like this
that are excluded in the state of Arkansas, located anywhere else? As far as we know, they're
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
25:29
one of a kind, left kind of on an island by themselves. So that's the reason I think they
were omitted originally. So. Okay, all right, any other questions? All right, seeing none, pleasure of the committee. I move do pass at the appropriate time. And second. All right, those in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed, ayes have it, Senate Bill 113 passes. Thank you. Senator English, Senate Bill 66. I have an amendment. Okay,
Senator Jane English
Unverified
25:56
if you'll explain your amendment. And co-sponsors, that's it.
All right, without objection, we will add this amendment. I just, I just wish I were also a co-sponsor on it. would like to be all right you may present your bill as amended we
vote on the amendment without objection i just include
it's an amendment for if there's
an objection we can take a vote
Senator Jane English
Unverified
26:39
but thank you this bill is a concerns of tuition benefits for soldiers and the National Guard, soldiers and airmen of the National Guard. When we initially instituted this, most of the courses were intended to be for guardsmen and reservists to go to a college. Well, in today's world, that just doesn't work anymore. As we've experienced
over the last year so many of the school programs are online and there is a greater opportunity for our guardsmen and reservists to be able to take classes online to complete their degrees or to get their degrees so basically this just gives them the opportunity to take advantage
of online classes as well as classes at a college in class all right are there any questions
members of the committee. Senator Sturt should recognize for a question. Thank you madam
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
27:42
chair. Senator English I want to make sure I guess from the last line then in your bill it's an online degree offering but it still has to be
Speaker 20
27:49
a state supported institution it's not one of these fly-by-night Liberty University. No it has to be a
Senator Jane English
Unverified
27:54
state supported institution. U of A, U of A LRB, exclusively online. It's state dollars, it's going to state schools. Okay thank you. Yes. Are there any other
questions? All right. Seeing none, what is the pleasure of the committee? Motion do
pass as amended. Do pass. All right. As amended. Second. Second. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Bill passes as amended. All right. Senate Bill 129.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
28:28
Senator English, you're recognized. Thank you. This is during the transformation, the private the Career College has moved from the Department of Career Education to the Department of Higher Education. This is basically clean up language
that would have technical things for them
to be operating under the Department of Higher Education. Okay, are
there any questions concerning the bill? Seeing no
questions, what is the pleasure of committee?
Do pass. Motion do pass. There's a second. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed? Ayes have it. Senate Bill 129 passes. Okay, Senate Bill 83 is Senator Davis. Is there somebody from Arkansas Tech University that can come to the table? I am going to present this bill on behalf of Senator Davis, because she is in public health presenting a bill, and she has people there to testify for that.
So, I am passing the chairmanship over to Senator Elliott. Okay,
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
29:53
you're recognized to present the bill, Senator. all right
Arkansas if you'll please come to the table I'm going to stay right here we're trying to eliminate a lot of moving around because of COVID so Senate bill 83 like I said I'm here to present this on behalf of Senator Davis she's tied up and so with that I'll let you go ahead
and introduce yourself and make comments about the bill that I'm helping you
Speaker 103
30:28
present hello I'm Linda Berkner and I'm the Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance at Arkansas Tech and I'm here to answer any questions you have. We do want to be added to this legislation. It was enacted years ago and it gives colleges and universities an opportunity to do some extra things in construction for projects that exceed five million dollars and we feel like
we need to be part of this so that we have that opportunity like other colleges and universities
Speaker 104
31:03
within the state. Are there any questions from anybody?
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
31:08
I have one thing I would like to understand. So are you
talking specifically about, is it specifically about Arkansas Tech or is it other institutions?
Speaker 107
31:21
Specifically about Arkansas Tech. Okay. We were left out of the original legislation and then there was another one that was enacted. It was 662-314 and that added several
other universities within the state and also some community colleges and at that time a prior administration made the decision not to be included and now of course we have Dr. Bowen in charge, and she's been there about seven years, and it just makes sense for Arkansas Tech to be part of this legislation. So we've just been adding
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
31:53
people, institutions one by one, rather than just... It's only been added,
Speaker 109
31:57
I think, once or twice in probably 10 or 15 years. Yeah, and do you know
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
32:03
if there are others who are not a part of other institutions? That's just a curiosity question now, because I was under the impression, because I know some colleges and universities who are, I thought this covered all the state universities, but
Speaker 103
32:19
it does not, huh? So many are within the systems of the U of A and ASU. They take up a large number of them.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
32:27
Is this the legislation too that you're being added to that also makes it possible for you to hire,
Speaker 114
32:36
I've forgotten the word now. A construction manager. Yeah, a construction manager.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
32:41
Yes. Okay, all right, I fully understand now. And because one of the things in hiring those construction managers, one of the things that I would ask you to, you know, to be really thoughtful about is we've had to have some discussion in cases where we let contracts with folks and then they have certain duties to follow or at least try to follow, for example, like meeting minority hiring
and making sure they are following those laws. And at first there were people who were using the construction managers to get around that Coastal University were saying, we're not the one who's doing it, it's the construction manager. But I just want to put on the table that no, that's not the way you're supposed to work, so people will know that on the front end, because that was the only negative thing, I think, that was coming out of that, and it was real negative. I agree with you. Yeah, yeah, thank you for that. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Okay, Senator Sturge.
Speaker 20
33:38
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask, It only allows you the exemption if you've done certain things within your policies as far as, you know, awarding those contracts and things. So
Speaker 6
33:49
can you give us just a little insight of what's happened at Tech then? What have you put in place as far
Speaker 103
33:55
as being eligible then for this criteria? We have not started developing those policies because this is not a possibility for us at this point. If this goes through, the amendment is passed and we're added to the law, then we'll have that ability to go to our board with a set of policies and procedures.
And the original legislation actually included a statement that it encouraged colleges and universities around the state to adopt similar policies. So we intend to look at the others that are out there so we don't recreate, and we
Speaker 109
34:23
do maintain what was in the original legislation. Could I have one more, ma'am? Sure.
Speaker 20
34:29
Yes. Is it then, it's just a matter of design and construction, or is
Speaker 6
34:34
it also about bonding and financing and things like that? Does this cover both, or does it just cover the contract?
Speaker 107
34:40
I believe this only covers construction
and what we do there, but it does touch all
Speaker 109
34:46
areas of the design professional selection and the construction manager selection, et cetera. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
34:54
Chair. Yeah. Any further questions from anybody? If not, Senator Urban, are you ready to
close? Yes. Actually, it's a privilege to step in and help Senator Davis and Arkansas Tech with this bill and in full disclosure, my daughter is a construction manager,
so it's good to see minorities getting into construction management fields. So with that, I would ask for a good vote from the committee. All right. And I'll make
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
35:24
a motion do pass. Is there a second? Moody's second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The motion passes. Thank you so much for
visiting us today. Thank you, thank you, Senator Elliott, for chairing the committee. All right, we are going to pass over Senate Bill 120
and she's not ready to present that bill at this time. Is there any other business to come before this committee? All right, well, Senator Chesterfield rising, I think that's our cue. We are adjourned, thank you members. You
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
SB72 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL.
SB113 L. Eads TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS WORKFORCE CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "APPROVED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION".
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.
SB129 J. English TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING PRIVATE RESIDENT AND CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOLS.
SB83 B. Davis TO ADD A STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN STATE LAWS THAT GOVERN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES.
SB120 B. Davis CONCERNING RULEMAKING AUTHORITY UNDER THE SCHOOL COUNSELING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2019.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — EDUCATION COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE MEETING JOINTLY WITH ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, Jan 27, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Missy Irvin Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 20
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 25
Speaker 35
Speaker 43
Speaker 44
Speaker 60
Speaker 54
Speaker 67
Speaker 68
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 103
Speaker 104
Speaker 107
Speaker 109
Speaker 114