State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1153
Act 127
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1153 Ladyman TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT OF 197…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT OF 1973 CONCERNING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF … | Ladyman | Notification that HB1153 is now Act 127 |
|
HB1214
Act 372
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1214 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT OF 197…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT OF 1973 CONCERNING FUNDING. | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1214 is now Act 372 |
|
HB1051
Act 61
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1051 Eubanks CONCERNING ADVERTISING FOR LICENSEES REGULATED UNDE…”
|
CONCERNING ADVERTISING FOR LICENSEES REGULATED UNDER THE PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCY, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, AND SCHOOL SECURITY … | Eubanks | Notification that HB1051 is now Act 61 |
|
HB1053
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1053 Dotson TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE…”
|
TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO APPOINT THE DIRECTOR … | Dotson | Died in House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1202
Act 128
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1202 A. Collins TO AMEND ELECTION LAWS; TO AMEND PUBLICATION REQ…”
|
TO AMEND ELECTION LAWS; TO AMEND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTIONS; AND TO REQUIRE PUBLICATION OF … | A. Collins | Notification that HB1202 is now Act 128 |
|
HCR1004
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HCR1004 Bentley CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY VESTED IN T…”
|
CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE PEOPLE, THE STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. | Bentley | 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 7, 2026
taking their seats, let me just remind everyone that if you're here to speak for or against the bill, if you're here to speak for or against the bill, there's a sign-up sheet at the end of the table, so be sure to sign up there and make us aware of it so we can get you on the agenda. Also, a little in-house notice here, just
a reminder to everyone in the room, I forgot to remind you this the other day but a reminder that both to the members and those that from the
public that are here to pick up any trash that you have and discard it but don't leave it laying around in the committee room on your way out make sure you get it and dispose of it and with that chair sees a quorum meeting is
called to order first item on today's agenda is house bill 1153 Representative Ladyman, are you ready to present your bill? Yes, sir. Okay. While Representative Ladyman is going there, let me just say we're glad to
have Representative Love back with us.
We missed you. Glad you're doing good and glad to have you back,
my friend. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Representative Ladyman, you're recognized to present House
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:25
Bill 1153. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1153 is an act to amend the Arkansas Emergency Services Act of 1973 concerning the powers and duties of the Division of Emergency Management.
If you all will recall, the Arkansas Wireless Information Network, AWIN as it's referred to, was moved to the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management July 1st, 2019. Over the past few years, the agency identified a need to have language allowing AWIN the ability to accept monies from other governmental and non-governmental units that would be coming onto the AWIN system.
These monies would allow AWIN to increase the capacity of the system in order to support those larger users. Currently, these larger users bring equipment to the system to support their added need for capacity. However, many of these larger users have wanted to provide funds instead of purchasing equipment for the system.
This ability to accept monies would satisfy the needs of the AWIN system as well as the request of many potential users to just provide money for that. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have, uh, A.J. Gary and Penny Rubo with the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management here to help with answering any questions that y'all might have, and I'd like to have one or two of them to come up, if they would.
Here, take this, Chair. okay if you would just uh just identify yourself and who you represent
Speaker 13
3:35
for the committee good morning aj gary i'm the director of the arkansas division
of emergency management okay representative ladyman are you ready for questions from committee yes sir committee members you've heard the presentation by representative ladyman Are there any questions? Representative Love, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
3:53
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just trying to get a clarification. So I know that, like, the city of Little Rock gives money, I guess, to invest in AWIN. Is this what we're talking about, just trying to
Speaker 20
4:09
accept those types of funds? Yes, sir, it could be. When AWIN was moved over
Speaker 22
4:14
to Adam, before that it was with DIS and ASP. both of those agencies had the ability to receive funds. Adam doesn't. So it could be something as simple as another federal agency
that wants to put an antenna on one of our towers to help, you know, to be able to give us money to do that, to help for the maintenance and stuff of the tower. For a larger agency, it depends on what kind of build-out there needed to be done. a lot of times those agencies like Little Rock will do that infrastructure themselves but if there was ever a reason that the state could do it and
Speaker 23
4:55
then they could just give money
to the state we would be able to do it
Speaker 24
5:01
that way too. And so follow up Mr. Chair You're recognized.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
5:04
And so Adam will always get the appropriation to expend the funds but you just need a way to accept the funds is that what you're saying? That is correct yes sir
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion to the
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
5:21
proper time. Representative Dodson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I get that that was
governmental entities that could be potential contributors to the system.
What sort of non-governmental entities might want to contribute like that? Not really
Speaker 22
5:39
sure. At one time, we talked about the ability, say, if maybe a utility company, a private utility company, you know, had a radio system communication system and maybe where one of our towers was at, you know, they could put an antenna on that that might help their coverage. With the upgrade in the system, there may be some, you know, possible broadband opportunities.
All that is really kind of general and vague, because with bond issues, you know, some things you can't do, even if we would want to. Okay. Thank
you. Representative Payton, you're recognized for a question.
Representative John Payton
Unverified
6:21
It's been answered. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome, Representative Payton.
And Director Gray, you said something a while ago that if a larger group wanted to, I guess,
wanted to hook on to AWIN, there would be a fee
Speaker 40
6:38
included. Is that correct? Well, there wouldn't have to be a fee. But if, depending
Speaker 22
6:43
on the capacity of the system in that area, like now when a city or a county wants to join AWIN, like if they've got a large population, they may have to build a couple of towers or a tower to increase that coverage. and so that's a possibility, but there's no really a requirement, you know,
Speaker 20
7:04
I guess to do that unless it's a very large, you know, like a large city or something that would take a lot of money or a lot of infrastructure to
that. And they would usually pay for that. All right, so okay, to that point then, while I've got you here, What about our rural volunteer fire departments that's having difficulty with their radio system? What's the path they can take as far as hooking up on to AWIN,
and would there be a fee to them
Speaker 22
7:45
have to give you kind of a depend answer on that because it depends on the capacity. A lot of them are, or I don't want to say a lot of them, there's many of them that are on AWIN. And so the cost to them would be for their radios because they hook in either into an existing county system or possibly a city system as that infrastructure backbone. And I've got Penny Rubo, the director of AWIN, that's here with us.
So I'll be right up front. If we get too technical, I'm going to have to have her answer those questions. But I think I'm correct in that answer. okay so the
so there is an avenue there for the rural volunteer fire departments to be able to hook up without without them being charged an installation fee is that a yes or no yeah that would be a
Speaker 22
8:31
yes that would be a yes yes okay yeah and there are some already on it okay now
that's through a win so do you know of any other fees that would be charged to them if they wanted to
hook up okay i saw you shaking your head no okay thank you no further questions uh
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
8:52
mr chairman uh the one call i got on this bill was
a a volunteer fire department was asking about would their fees increase and i talked to the agency and they said it would not so there definitely are volunteer fire systems fire departments on the system okay thank you representative lady i
just i was just trying to make sure we had a way for our
rural volunteer fire departments to be able to hook up to this system and without anything being charged to them because we know they no way they could afford that so and we know they need to be hooked up to it just for the coverage that they provide out there and being able to communicate from one rural fire department to the other so i appreciate y'all doing that and looking at it that way, and I'll be discussing it with you further, and Representative Laideman, thank you for presenting your bill.
So, Representative Laideman, are you ready to close?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
9:47
Yes, sir. I'm ready to close, and I'd make a motion to
approve. Okay, we've got a motion. Representative Love, did you have a motion? Okay. We've got a motion for a due pass from Representative Laideman, and there's
any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Congratulations, Representative Ladyman. Your bill has passed. Thank you.
Next bill on the agenda this morning is Representative Woodlau, House Bill 1214, House Bill 1214 to amend the Arkansas Emergency Services Act of 1973 concerning funding. Representative Warlow, you're recognized to present your bill. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask for permission for
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
10:46
Director A.J. to join me again. We did a good job
coordinating all these emergency service bills at one time.
So with that, I'm going to recognize the director to explain the bill, and I'll be here to answer
any questions. Okay, you're recognized. If you would, just give us your name
Speaker 63
11:14
and who you represent for the committee. Thank you, A.J. Gary. I'm the director of the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management. You're recognized. Thank you, sir. So this bill that we're working on now, it's got some cleanup language in it. But one of the biggest part of that is to increase the mitigation fund from $3 million to $6 million.
Speaker 22
11:37
And if I could just kind of, for those that may not know what the mitigation fund is, we know that throughout the nation for every dollar that a community spends to mitigate disasters saves about $6 to $7 in disaster recovery and response. So we're real big on mitigation. So this is funding that will go to our cities, to our counties for mitigation projects. And this could be something as, you know, maybe a low water bridge that washes out every time there's a heavy rain.
These are funds that they can apply for. And currently the program will pay 50% up to $150,000 to assist the cities and counties on those mitigation projects. So anything from washouts on roads to, you know, bridges to, you know, maybe raising the pumping station at a wastewater area or something to keep it from flooding out and damaging every time there's a flood.
Okay, any questions from committee members? Representative Love, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
12:55
Chair. Um, what are the sort, what is the
Speaker 20
12:59
source of these funds? So, uh, they are general revenue, um, through the disaster fund. This is the governor's disaster fund. There's, uh, currently $13
Speaker 22
13:08
million that's appropriated, uh, every year. Um, a portion of that for, uh, disaster response, uh, also a portion for disaster recovery.
And that could be public assistance or individual assistance. And then, of course, there's the $3 million that's currently in there for mitigation projects. Okay,
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
13:26
so this is general revenue. Okay,
and follow-up, Mr. Chair. Are levy districts included in being able to apply for any of this funding? Because, I mean,
they're the biggest mitigation, especially when it comes to floods. So is levy districts included in this?
Speaker 20
13:43
I would say it is possible that there could be some mitigation.
Speaker 22
13:48
They are covered under natural resources. has programs that the levies can get that out of, it is possible that some of the mitigation, this mitigation could be for that. Where it really, and I say could be, because when we get into, if the damage is caused by a failure to maintain, then that may not fit into the actual mitigation project, or our program, I should say. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Representative Payton, you're recognized for a question.
Chair
Unverified
14:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it seems by the language here that you're consolidating multiple funds and ending up with fewer funds in the end. Are all these funds, as far as the approval to spend money or grant money out of them, do they all have the same regulatory process for the approval of expenditures? Or are we consolidating into the ones that have the most convenient access? No, it
Speaker 20
14:50
would be the same format that we've used for years on how to expand
Speaker 22
14:55
those or to utilize those funds.
The other language change is to make it very clear, and this was a request from DF&A, say, you know, we can move, you know, so much as for public assistance, so much for individual assistance, move those back and forth as the need is there. So if we have a disaster that might be more than the original, I think it's $2 million, for public assistance,
and we could move some for MA over into the public assistance deal to kind of be able to move it. It's always been done, but DF&A wanted to kind of clean up that language to make sure that there was no question that that can be moved around in there. But it's all expended through the same form it's always
Chair
Unverified
15:49
been allocated through. Follow-up, Mr. Chair. Recognized. Thank you. So what's the fiscal impact on general revenue? Is it more or less? Because as I read this and we're consolidating, I get lost in the math.
Speaker 20
16:02
What's the bottom line? Yeah, the bottom line would be that additional
$3 million for the mitigation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
16:15
Whitaker, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just so we can get our heads around this, it seems to me that this looks like a gap filler, something that we're doing, that we want to do, that we're not currently doing. Rather than being direct response to disasters after they happen,
And you're looking at chronic problems throughout the state that could help mitigate future disaster problems. Is that correct? Yes,
Speaker 20
16:45
sir. So the mitigation program, that's what it is about, is cities and counties identifying those things,
Speaker 22
16:51
you know, that they've either had damage at or they know they will be damaged at, and they can apply for the mitigation funding to help build, again, like a low water bridge, like a road that is going to have a problem with washing out or it does wash out
and kind of how much it impacts that community. Follow-up, Mr. Chair? You're recognized.
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
17:19
Thank you. So do we not do anything now or is this just an increase? Is this just trying to bring it up to a level we feel would be more appropriate? So
Speaker 22
17:31
we currently in the mitigation program is $3 million. So what I'm asking for is to increase that to an additional $3 million to $6 million for mitigation projects.
And, again, this funding goes out to the cities and counties for those mitigation
projects. Thank you. Representative Dodson, you're recognized for
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
17:54
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, looking at page two, uh, line five and six says that the governor's disaster response and recovery fund may be increased from time to time at the discretion of the governor. Um, does that mean that it can be increased above the 16 million, 250,000 total, or is
Is there still a limit there within this that that's the most that the
Speaker 63
18:29
governor can use? No, by this, it could be increased. The only thing we're changing is clarifying its response in recovery. It's a disaster fund. It's a response in recovery. We didn't change the rest of
Speaker 22
18:43
the language, which is currently in there. So it can be increased. Okay.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
18:51
Okay, so there is no limitation on how much?
Speaker 63
18:59
I'm not sure I'm following you. On line five and six, the governor's disaster response and recovery fund may be increased from time to time at the discretion of
Speaker 22
19:11
the governor. So the only thing that we have made a change in
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
19:17
that from current law is the response in recovery. Follow-up? So I guess the question would be, is there any
sort of legislative oversight before these funds are expended at all and before that increase happens?
Speaker 20
19:38
Yeah, I mean, it's the same as it's always been. We're not changing anything in that. This is the... Representative Dotson,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
19:47
the way that currently works today is it's a review process on emergency expenditures through the governor. So when there's a disaster in your district and your downtown area is destroyed by a tornado or some type of storm, the governor can expend those monies and then that comes to ALC as a review. So there is no approval beforehand.
And that's the way it's been in the past and that this law doesn't or this bill does not change that. Okay. And the reason for that is the response time has to be quick
to those communities. And if it had to come to us beforehand, you're looking at upwards of a month before
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
20:32
those funds could be expended. Well, it is, though, opening up the restrictions on the various types of funds. So now basically you only
have two different funds, the disaster recovery response and recovery fund,
as well as the mitigation fund. So that $10,250,000 is what I'm wondering, if that $10,250,000 can be expanded beyond that without coming through a legislative process for review first. It seems like this would be more of an appropriations type deal than it would be a straight or should be a straight law.
Speaker 63
21:17
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm following you. Again, the response, everything is response and recovery
Speaker 22
21:23
with the exception of that mitigation piece, which the mitigation is specifically for those mitigation projects. Okay. Thank you for your answers. Representative Gonzalez,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
21:46
Chair. Mr. Gary, it's my understanding that a couple of legislative members have asked you for some information regarding emergency declarations.
And as far as I know, they have not received that yet. Do you know
Speaker 63
22:01
where that is in the process? The only ones I have dealt with is the discussions
Speaker 22
22:08
were with the governor's office. So I would say it probably lays within the
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
22:14
governor's office. Could you not respond, follow up, Mr. Chair? Could you
Speaker 63
22:20
not respond directly to those members? Well, I guess it depends. I
Speaker 22
22:26
mean, I'm not sure exactly which one.
I mean, I do talk to members. I have to go through the process as a state agency to send that up through the secretary and the governor's office on any communication like that. But, sir, I mean, I try to respond and be available for anything I possibly can. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 94
22:47
Chair. Motion to the proper time. Representative Gene,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
22:59
I've got a question on the $10,250,000 for immediate emergency response. Is any of that federal or all that state also? Yeah, sir,
Speaker 40
23:08
this will be state. The whole $16 million is all state funds? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. There is federal funding
Speaker 20
23:15
for disasters, but we're just talking about state.
Yes, sir. Representative Beck, you're recognized for a
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
23:24
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is going to be a little bit different. so we're increasing
the catastrophic fund I mean the mitigation fund from 3 million to 6 million help me out with the story where we came up with 6 million did we just kind of pull that out or do we have 6 million dollars worth of have we denied 3 million dollars
worth of request because we didn't have
Speaker 105
24:02
came up with that number that's a great question um
Speaker 20
24:10
i'm sorry um so the uh it was really just a looking at
Speaker 22
24:16
uh some of the projects uh that we've
had um you know we use uh you know almost all of that money talking with some of the the cities and counties um this additional money would allow us to maybe even tweak that program so maybe instead of a 50 50 split on some of those projects we might could do a 75 25 uh split um there was also some discussions about maybe some larger mitigation projects so um to to answer your question on why 3 million that would that just to me that seemed like a um just a you know a good
number I didn't want to go go too much uh but I wanted to make sure that we had some additional funds to to help out those cities and counties on those mitigation projects so I guess no real mathematical evaluation to come up with that it was just uh you know it hadn't been increased as far as i know since it was created many years ago and uh you know if it's if the money's not spent if there's not enough projects and it stays in the in the general fund i mean it it reverts back
every year that's not spent so and it can't be spent on anything
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
25:29
else follow up you recognize so give me the history on So how much has been turned back and not been
spent? Or have we pretty much took this thing to the max every year? I think
Speaker 22
25:44
we're real close to, I mean, we get real close to spending all of it. I think where it may not is if a project doesn't get done in time to do the reimbursement,
then it rolls into the next year. But, again, we would, you know, mitigation is a great program. It reduces the cost when a disaster hits, so it saves money in the long run. So, you know, my goal would be is, you know, if we've got the projects to spend it on those mitigation projects. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Spakes, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
26:24
Bottom line, and I'm trying to thank you, Mr. Chair. Bottom line, I'm trying to figure out, so what are you asking us today? You're wanting us to appropriate this? I didn't think we could do that. Yes, that's not appropriation.
Speaker 63
26:39
We're just asking in the language of law, it puts the mitigation currently at $3 million. So what I'm
Speaker 22
26:45
asking is that we can move that up to $6 million. So adding another $3 million to that on the mitigation piece. Recognize for follow-up.
Speaker 117
26:56
So you're asking us to increase this today, the $3 million? We would still, my understanding,
Speaker 22
27:03
we would still have to go through appropriations and go through budgeting. And I
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
27:08
had the question asked to me while I go by Budget Chairman Gene about this being included or not included in the governor's balanced budget. I text DF&A, and I just got a text back, and there are governor's letters on their way to budget committee that address this $3 million, and yes, this funding is included in the balanced budget.
there has been a need for this type of activity we we've needed to mitigate some of these counties and cities for years we've seen these reoccurring problems with these rains as the director alluded to earlier that's the reason he's seen to increase it by double it was just the foresight of his i mean we can keep paying for these same culverts we can keep paying for these same low water bridges, that's the committee's decision, or we can fix these things and be done
with them for good. And that's the purpose of this bill. And with
that, I'll be glad to answer any other questions. Thank
you. Representative Bladyman, you're recognized for a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
28:14
question. Well, Representative Beck asks part of my question, but I'd like to add to it about the amount. And you stated, Director, that it hadn't been changed, to your knowledge, in quite some time, the amount has not been changed? That is my understanding, yes, sir.
So this amends the Emergency Services Act of 1973. So I guess, can you tell us, has the need gone up? I mean, is the requirement for funds, has that gradually gone up? Because prices have gone up since 1973, I'm sure. any mitigation work do you know if that's the case has it gone up so does that help you determine
you need to double it well yeah yes
Speaker 20
28:59
sir i mean i'm sure the costs have gone up i can't say exactly
Speaker 22
29:04
when the last time this this fund was changed um i think from my understanding it's been this amount for for a while um but you are you are correct i mean projects do cost more now than than they did for our previously. I know things as simple as building a house is costing a lot more right now than it did just a year or so ago. So I know there are, you know, additional costs to the mitigation projects. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Richmond, you're recognized for
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
29:37
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a clarification on my part. The reimbursement or the amount of money that a county or city can request is, what, $150,000? Up to $150,000, yes, sir, currently. And that is, they can't come back and make an additional request at any time? Or is that good for one year? That's for that project. Now, a city
Speaker 22
30:04
or county may have more than one project, but that's for that one project.
So they will submit what the project is that they want to do. That's approved. Uh, and then it's a reimbursement. So when that's what project's done and they submit the, uh, uh, the paperwork on it, then that project is reimbursed or that city or county is reimbursed for that project. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Wardlow, are you ready to close with your
bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chairman. Can we have a motion at the due time by Representative Gonzalez? Representative Gonzalez, what
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
31:02
is your motion? Staying consistent with what we did last week, and I think it's very important that our members get questions from these agencies in a timely
manner, I make a motion to table this. Committee members, that is a
non-debatable issue. By Representative Gonzales, all in favor of the motion, say aye.
Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The ayes have it. The bill
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
31:33
will be tabled. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, can I get a clarification?
Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, Representative. I'm sorry. Yeah, I just
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
31:42
need a clarification. So how many how many votes does it take to raise the bill up off
the table? Well, oh, just it's just a motion and then the committee votes.
OK, just like we did there. Same thing. The committee would vote and majority would get it off the table. All right. Thank you. OK. OK, next item on the agenda today is House Bill 1202 by I'm correction. in House Bill 1051 by Representative Eubanks.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Eubanks, you're recognized to present your
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
32:33
bill. Thank you. I have Ms. Angela Delisle from Cox Communication here as well. as she's available to answer any questions. This bill is really very simple. It deals with companies that offer private security, home security, and it basically just states what information needs to be disclosed and how it's disclosed to the public, and that's the extent of it.
I'll be willing to take any
questions. Okay. Committee members, you've heard Representative Eubanks, present the bill. Are there any questions? Representative Richman, you're recognized
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
33:16
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Eubanks, what brought this bill? Why is it needed now? What has happened? Can
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
33:26
you just give us a little background? This is something the industry has been working, trying to get implemented for some time. Currently, the way the current law is,
it deals with how the license numbers are disclosed on electronic media, whether it's television or radio and that sort of thing. This simplifies that where it refers them to a 1-800 number or a website. They're still required to disclose all the license numbers, et cetera, on all printed matter, on any trucks that they use to deliver services and install systems.
Thank you, Mr. Eubanks. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Representative Cozart, you're recognized for
a question. Do you have a motion? Okay. Seeing no further questions, I don't... Representative Eubanks,
Major Williams, are you here to speak against this bill or for the bill? Well... I see you on the list here, but I'm not sure if you're here to speak for or against the bill.
So also, if you would, just identify yourself for the
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
34:48
committee, and we'll go from there. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you, committee members. My name is Lindsey Williams. I'm a major with the state police, and
Speaker 145
34:58
I'm responsible for the regulatory division of the agency. We did have a concern or two with this. we'd like to respectfully present to you. And in this, I can't dispute, to be totally honest with you,
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
35:12
I can't dispute what Representative Eubanks mentioned about this, having been out on the table and discussions about this ongoing for some period of time. I do offer an explanation for that on why it's taken a little bit of time to do this.
Speaker 145
35:31
At the time, this was the only matter we had in rulemaking. We had been approached by Cox and others about a modification to our rules, and we were not really opposed to that.
However, I don't have to tell y'all how complicated rulemaking is, and to change one rule is just as complicated as it is to change several. And so we had been looking for
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
36:02
an opportunity about that time to to consolidate some efforts on rulemaking. While that was going on, here comes the pandemic, then followed almost immediately by by civil
Speaker 145
36:15
unrest. And our attentions were were totally directed to those matters.
And to be quite honest with you, this took a little bit of a backseat for that. I will say that here very recently, we filed, we started rulemaking to modify our rule on this. And because of that, and our rule, our proposed rulemaking will address the concerns that are outlined in this piece
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
36:49
of proposed legislation. and our modifications are the direct result of meetings that we've had with Cox,
one of the leading companies in this area for this. Because of that, we feel like the rulemaking will make this bill unnecessary. We do
Speaker 145
37:08
have a little bit of a concern with one particular part of the bill also So in that, it seems to only address and regulate people who are already licensed. It would not allow us to
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
37:25
deal with people who do not have a license, and that's noted
there in the subtitle. But having said all that, we would respectfully suggest that this piece of legislation is not needed as we plan to follow through with the rulemaking that's already started. And like I said, Mary Claire McLaurin, one of our attorneys is here and can offer any other explanations to go along with this. I'm not sure
Speaker 145
37:53
if Mary Claire has anything she wants to
add. Committee members, you've heard testimony from
Major Williams. Are there any questions from committee members? Lynch, if you would,
stay at the end of the table until we're finished. So Representative Cozart, you're recognized for a question. I've got to
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
38:18
take this off. Mr. Williams, you know, I've worked with you on a lot of different things, and I try to be as cordial as I can here. But how many rules have y'all promulgated since Cox first come to y'all with this
and tried to work with y'all on this? Was there a problem in trying to fix this, I guess,
Speaker 149
38:41
my question? No, sir. It wasn't really a problem with trying to
Speaker 145
38:46
fix it. And like I said, we were not that opposed to the relief that was being asked for. It was just the fact
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
38:55
that our efforts, you know, we wanted to combine those with any other rulemaking that we might have rather than exert all the time, effort, and energy on one small rule that,
Speaker 145
39:09
and I don't mean to diminish the importance of this rule, but one rule that we did not see was an extreme emergency to deal with. Got a follow-up?
Major Weasel, I've got a question. How long ago was this request made?
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
39:30
Oh, my goodness. It's been a considerable amount of time. It was before the pandemic
Speaker 145
39:36
started, so we're talking about probably how long.
So was there ever a response to the request? I'm sorry? Did the state police ever provide a response to
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
39:51
the request for the change? We talked to Cox Communications and Mr. Pitchcock several times that we were working on it and that we would be looking at it. But like I say, our attorneys, we were short-handed an attorney at the state police. And I think Ms. McLaurin was just inundated with a lot of other matters.
Speaker 145
40:13
And that's, you know, that's the truth of the matter. Okay.
Keep your seat. I think we've got some more questions for you. Representative Richman, if you have a question for Ms.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
40:28
Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what you're telling us is that the rulemaking, the effort to go ahead and address this issue got pushed back priorities because of all the other emergencies, and you just couldn't get
around to it. Is that what I'm hearing? That's pretty accurate. Do you have an estimate on how long it's going to take you to get around to it? We've already filed the
you, Representative Richmond. Representative Beck, you've recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
41:10
Mr. Chair. And this may be more of a legal question and it depends on what section this code is. But I noticed that actually in the code itself,
it talks about licensees. It doesn't talk about the security. Could this be applied to other licensees, because it doesn't mention security in the actual bill, other
than the subtitle. Representative Beck, I agree with you. I've seen more like a legal question, and I
think the—Mary Clare, would you please come to the table, please? This is the attorney for the state police. Maybe she can answer that question.
Speaker 160
41:52
This code— If you would identify yourself as a committee counselor. I'm Mary Claire McLaurin. I'm the staff attorney for Arkansas State Police. I specialize in the
Speaker 161
42:05
regulatory section, but I'm also the legislative liaison. This section is in the chapter that addresses the private security alarm installation and monitors. So it would only apply to those licensees. Thank you.
Dave, thank you. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
42:28
you, Mr. Chair. I think it's more discussion, so I'll wait, and I'll have a
motion at the proper time. Representative Dodson,
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
42:39
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Looking at this bill, it looks as if this has
an emergency clause on it, so if it passes, it goes into effect immediately. I mean that that would be you know immediate relief within a couple of weeks potentially
depending on how long it takes to go through this process I understand you've got a rule filed but that at the earliest wouldn't be considered until we're out after we're out of session if this passes would that rule even be necessary it seems like that that complicated long drawn out process of rulemaking would be moot if this were to pass.
Speaker 160
43:21
Would that be correct? I actually think the bill is moot. What we haven't
Speaker 161
43:26
discussed yet today is that the rule that
exists, we have a rule that exists addressing this same issue, that if it were not amended, I'll just read it. It says, it's Rule 5.8, contract display. All contracts, bid sheets, invoices, and or bills given to a customer or client and or any advertisements authorized by a licensee shall contain the company name and license number. So, there is an existing rule
that requires all advertisements to contain the company name and license number. And so I am not sure, and I think part of the delay in addressing the request by Cox was that we are not sure what need existed, and I have not heard one set forth today that is not addressed by the currently existing rule.
One of those, the point that I would like to make is with regard to the emergency clause, part of the complaint in the emergency clause is that unlicensed companies are advertising in Arkansas and not including their information. Well, this bill doesn't give us authority over unlicensed people. It only refers to licensees. So that part of the emergency clause would not give us any greater authority.
The second part of the emergency clause is that licensed companies do not list the company name on the advertising or marketing materials. but as I just read to you rule 5.8 requires them to list the company name and licensing number on their marketing materials already the only change that we were asked by Cox to implement was that
on some of their documents that they be allowed to include instead of the name and licensing number a toll-free number and a website where people could get that information and that is what our new rule adds is that on advertising materials people can companies can include the website and the phone number instead of just the number that's really the only change between the bill
and our current rule. Our main concern that we had some back and forth with Cox was that the initial rule they proposed to us was going to allow them to only list that toll-free number or website on all advertising and marketing materials, including invoices, contracts, bids, estimates. we had an objection to that because we felt that there are some less savvy individuals
that might be targeted by some companies maybe not Cox but some other companies people who don't have access to the internet and we felt like if they were entering into a contract with a company or given an invoice by a company that those documents that bind the citizens of the state of Arkansas should include the company's name and licensing number. So we revised the rule
as requested by Cox. We had it approved from the governor's office in September. And then It has been filed. The public comment period ends February 16th, and I would imagine we could get it on rules agenda as soon as y'all begin meeting again. Follow, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
47:55
You recognize. So, in your proposed rule, does it, I don't know if you have it in front of you or not, but does it say that a website or toll-free number has to be displayed, or is it just a website, or is it
Speaker 161
48:16
a website and toll-free number? The proposed rule makes the difference between, obviously, advertisements and then contract type of documents. So contract documents, they have to include the name and the licensing number.
But on advertising and marketing materials, the company name and either its license number or a statement referring
Speaker 171
48:39
to a website or toll-free number to obtain licensing information. So it's not
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
48:46
really much different than what this proposed legislation is? It is
Speaker 161
48:53
not, but I will say that the bill that we currently have addresses, the one that is currently in place, addresses everything that is complained about in this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Makes,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
49:15
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question, I want to try to get to
the meat of the matter here. So far in your testimony, the only complaint that I've really heard from y'all concerning this bill is that you have a rule. I haven't heard any other substantive concerns other than y'all already have a rule that you're working on. And in my mind, the will of the General Assembly trumps the will of rules and regulations.
So it seems what's going on is, and correct me if I'm wrong, if there's another concern here, but it seems like the concern is if we pass this, we, the General Assembly, are taking away the authority from you to make rules. Is there some other concern here that I'm missing by us adopting
Speaker 171
50:06
this legislation? No, Representative, that's not exactly. What I would say
Speaker 161
50:10
is that we already have a rule that addresses this. And so the legislation is not needed to address this issue.
The proposed rule would address some of Cox's complaints, but I don't actually think those are addressed by this legislation. It's kind of a side issue, really, on that. And then I do disagree and wanted to be present to provide informational, be an informational source as to the statements that are made in the emergency clause.
Because it is our duty to regulate and we will be responsible for enforcing this act. And if there are expectations based on this emergency clause that we will be able to do things, new things that we can't currently do based on this law, we wanted to be able to be
Speaker 174
51:14
here to advise the committee that that's not quite true.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
51:21
Follow-up. We recognize. So, again, I still haven't heard anything other than the regulatory that
you're not concerned about any bad actors or that there's any negative ramification. It still goes back to whether you should have the rulemaking authority or whether it should come through this bill. I'm not hearing any substantive concerns like, you know, someone's going to go out and rob a bank because we passed this. No.
Speaker 172
51:50
No. It's only that we already have a rule that addresses this issue. That's it.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
51:55
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative. Representative Love, you have a question? Yes, sir, because
Speaker 73
52:04
I'm confused now. All right. So we do have
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
52:07
a rule that addresses the concern in
the bill. And so you're saying that the bill is moot because we have a rule that already addresses it. Okay. So I guess my first question would be, well, then if we pass, if we pass the bill, then it in effect does nothing. Is that, is
Speaker 161
52:33
that what you're, it does not change how we enforce, um, advertising restrictions.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
52:39
Okay. So what, what would this, what would this bill change in your operations? it would not change anything okay then follow up Mr. Chair you recognize okay then I guess what are we trying
to do what are we trying to do here because I'm I'm utterly confused if we have a rule that already does this what are we trying to do I do
that's Linda, did you want to answer that question? What do y'all want to answer that question? I would defer
Speaker 172
53:21
to you. Okay. I mean, we don't, I mean, obviously it's not our bill. So I would defer that question to the sponsor. Do you want
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
53:36
me to answer that, Representative Love? Yes, sir. Well, I'm a little confused myself because if we have a rule that already addresses the issues that I've brought before you, then why have they already approved a rule that they're putting out for public comment?
I also have, like I said, Angela Delisle from Cox, who can explain why this bill is being brought to you. So with your permission, I would like to ask her to come and address that. I think this would be a
good time to do that. And if you would, just go ahead, Representative Eubanks, and bring them to the end of the table. if you would just
identify yourself give us your name who you represent for the committee
Speaker 189
54:19
sure thank you mr chairman angela de lille i'm the manager of government affairs with cox
communications okay you're a representative eubanks did you have a statement or you would like
Speaker 190
54:32
for i'm happy to answer any questions um sure i mean however you would like
to do it Okay. Representative Love,
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
54:41
you have a question. Okay. So what are we exactly trying to do with this bill? Because we've heard testimony that says that you have a rule in place right now that currently addresses this. I guess what are we
trying to do outside what is already established? Sure. So
Speaker 187
54:57
as you heard, the state police is absolutely correct. The current rule
Speaker 189
55:01
requires us to print our security license number on all advertising materials or to speak the license number. I'm sure you've heard it very quickly at the end of radio and TV advertisements. You know, the number that's said so quickly you can't interrupt you, but could
you either get a little closer? We're having a difficult time. Committee members are up here. I apologize. We
Speaker 189
55:25
appreciate it. Thank you. So at the end of TV or radio
advertisements, you hear the numbers spoken so quickly you can't even probably understand it certainly can't write it down. What we had asked and what we would like to be able to do is refer people to a website, cox.com backslash, or I'm sorry, it's four slash licenses. And then the license number will be for all of our states that we operate in will be written on that website so that our customers can go to the website and seek our license number, our security license number on the website instead of said so quickly you can't understand it in those commercials.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
56:05
That's all the bill does. You recognize for a follow-up? Okay, so then with that being stated, which I guess I don't mind about that piece, how many states do you operate in that have
Speaker 189
56:23
passed this current bill? Well, we operate in 16 states. The language that I sent to the state police is modeled after language in Oklahoma, which has recently adopted this. And I apologize if there
was miscommunication. I never asked for a change on contracts or anything like that. That was not our intention. So I apologize if I was unclear on that with the state police. I cannot answer your question directly. I don't know. I would have to go back to Atlanta, to our legal team to ask for information on how many of those states never required this to begin with. I know Kansas never required it on advertising to begin with. So I would need clarification from our legal team in Atlanta on how many of those 16 states never required it to begin with and how many we've made
the change in. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
you, Representative Love. Representative Peyton, I guess he left. Representative Richmond, you've got a question. You have a question.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
57:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier, and I'm sorry, the question is not for you, but I actually would be state police, but maybe you can address this. Earlier, you mentioned that this particular legislation, if there's somebody that is not
licensed that they could possibly take advantage because it's not addressed in this legislation does your present rule or the one that you're working on right now does that address
Speaker 171
58:02
that potential problem so the present rule does is directed at licensees but we do have the authority throughout both the Act and in our rules to enforce the Act against people who are doing things required to be
licensed by the Act without a license. So if we get notification, had Cox or anyone brought to our attention someone practicing activities that required a license in the state, and they weren't licensed, we could
Speaker 161
58:37
then fine them, do all sorts of things to them. This bill will not change any of that. We already have the authority to do that, and this bill
Speaker 174
58:50
is only addressed to how we enforce the law against
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
58:55
licensees. Follow up, Mr. Chair? You're recognized. So if this bill passes, you'll still be able to deal with those people that
Speaker 171
59:08
are unlicensed? Yes. Is that what you just told me? Yes. I'm not sure it would make any impact on their advertising because advertising is not something that is, You're not required to have a
Speaker 161
59:23
license to advertise. You're required to have a license to do the activities, the alarm installation, monitoring, things like that.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
59:32
Okay. Well, maybe I imagined it, but I thought somebody said earlier that that was a potential problem with this bill. So, anyway, thank you very much. I
Chair
Unverified
59:46
appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. McLaurin, you're an attorney. Can you explain to me the difference in the strength of a section of code versus rulemaking? In other words, if you have a rule or if you have a law,
Speaker 198
1:00:03
is there a difference in how strong that is in the court of law
Speaker 160
1:00:09
or how you approach it? There's legal precedent that says that a rule has the force and effect of a law. I think most people would – it's a lot – it is easier generally to change a rule simply because, I mean, in Arkansas, our legislature only meets every two years, and a rulemaking can be done at any time. Okay, if I could have a follow-up.
Chair
Unverified
1:00:35
You can. So along the lines of what Representative Richmond was just asking you, this bill, if it passes, does not diminish your ability to go after those unlicensed people, but it does require a licensee to include the license information in their advertising. So if you see advertising without license information, wouldn't that help you by exposing those that are unlicensed?
Speaker 160
1:01:05
I don't know that I understand your question. Okay, if
Chair
Unverified
1:01:15
I could rephrase it. So licensees would be required to include their license information in advertising. So if unlicensed people advertise, they would be easily exposed, and it should make your effort to track them down and
Speaker 160
1:01:32
go after them much easier. They're already required to include that information in their advertising.
Chair
Unverified
1:01:39
By rule, but not by code. That's correct. I just think that code should have more force and effect than rule, but thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. Representative Gray, you're recognized.
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
1:01:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the rule that we already have in place, is it worded exactly like this? It allows everything that's allowed in this, including the website? The website is what we have added,
Speaker 160
1:02:05
which as I believe the representative, I'm sorry, I don't want to try to say her name and mispronounce or say it incorrectly.
As she said, that is the change that was requested and that we are working on the new rule. We've always had the rule that required them to put their name and their license number in advertising. What was requested is can they also put the
Speaker 171
1:02:30
phone number or the website, and that's what we're changing in the rule. When was that requested, and where are
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
1:02:38
we in the process, and I apologize if I missed that earlier.
Speaker 160
1:02:43
It was before the pandemic, and public comment period ends February 15th or 16th.
Speaker 172
1:02:49
Okay, I have a motion at the proper time. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Representative
Leiterman, question? Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:03:00
Chair. I have a question for Ms. DeWill. I think I pronounced that right.
Ms. DeWill, if I understand your statement a while ago correctly, for
your company, I'm confused as well, and I'm trying to figure this out, but what you said was the purpose of this bill is to allow you to, say, go to a web page instead of add your license to all advertisements. Yes, sir. I know I'm shrinking that down and simplifying, but is that the bottom line? Yes, sir. That's the bottom line. So are you doing this to make your company more competitive in the 16 states you operate in?
Yes, sir. It's just continuity. So that would help your business be more competitive and be
Speaker 187
1:03:53
able to improve and grow. It is just to get, it's
Speaker 189
1:03:56
to draw people to the website, as all things are, right? I mean, it's continuity across markets. Okay, let me
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:04:03
ask you another question, follow-up, Mr. Chair. Would your competitors have the same advantage if they did
Speaker 188
1:04:10
this? Yes, sir. I mean, it's not specific to
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:04:13
Cox. So this is a business-friendly bill that would help you and your competitors be more competitive?
Yes, sir. Thank you. okay thank you representative representative Cozart you said you had a motion representative Cozart representative Cozart you say you got a motion okay hold up on that representative Wardlaw you have a motion I
Speaker 163
1:04:42
have a motion to immediate consider representative Cozart's wonderful motion okay we
have a motion for Bell we're at the end of the line here so we're going
to do the motion for a due pass. Representative Eubanks, are you ready to close?
Speaker 212
1:04:58
Yes, sir. I am. Okay. I want to give the committee
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:05:03
a little background on this. Cox won it two years ago in that session. Whoops. I'm sorry. Hold on. We
sir. Okay. Representative Eubanks, my bad. We've got
a motion for immediate consideration, which we have to consider at this time.
That is obviously a non-debatable issue. All in favor of immediate consideration, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. So now we're going to vote on the bill. So all in favor of House Bill 1051, say aye. All opposed, say no. Congratulations, Representative Eubanks. Your bill is passed.
Thank you, committee. I'll close in a second. Next item on today's agenda is House
Bill 1202 by Representative Collins. Representative Collins, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you,
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:06:21
Mr. Chair. Committee, it's good to be back before the very thorough state agency's committee.
This is a bill 1202 with Representative Boyd, and all it does is require counties to post their sample ballots online to the Secretary of State's website before each election, using the existing VoterView website so that voters can see their ballot before they go to the polls. This is something that most counties are already doing. About 55 out of 75 counties do this. Representative Boyd and I, in discussions with some of the agencies involved, just believe these
benefits of having the ballots be available should be there for everybody in the state. The transparency really is the goal of this, as well as voter education, convenience, and And something that one of the election commissioners here in Pulaski County Reyes, Christy Starr, mentioned, they actually were able to avoid an error or catch an error when the ballot was posted online in this past election. There was a misspelling of one of the candidates' names.
So the burden that is involved with this for counties is pretty minimal. It's something they already have to do is produce these sample ballots, and they have to post them on the courthouse door currently. So the only change would be having them upload to the Secretary of State's portal, which all exists and they have a username and a password and they put that in and then it's about a 90-second process per ballot to get the ballot uploaded.
There are, depending on the county, there can be a large number of sample ballots, But even in the largest county, Pulaski, in the most heavy election as far as number of ballots, which would be a primary because you have Republican and Democratic and nonpartisan, that's around 600 or so sample ballots. And that takes one person the better part of a day. So that's really all that it would be going into as far as the county burden. It's not particularly technical in nature either.
I do have someone from the Secretary of State's office here. They're supportive of this, as well as the State Board of Election Commissioners, also supportive. My understanding is that the counties, the Association of Counties is supportive, and the clerks are good with it as well. It's something that, you know, is already, again, being done by the largest counties, as well as many of the smallest. So I don't think it's a size of county thing. Calhoun County is our smallest county, and it does it as well. And, of course, there's no cost associated with it.
It's, you know, available to counties already free of charge through the Secretary of State's website. So with that, I know that the folks I mentioned are here and be happy to answer questions as well, and so would I.
Okay, Representative Collins, we'll go ahead and open it up to the committee. Then if it's a question that you need one of your guests to come to the end of the table, we'll bring them to the table at that time. Committee, you've heard the presentation by Representative Collins. Representative Meeks, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:09:42
There I am. Thank you, Representative. I appreciate
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:09:46
this bill. The only question I have is, the bill requires that this ballot, these samples, be submitted 10 days prior to the holding of a general primary, general runoff, school, or special election. I know before the preferential and general election, there's a two-week early voting. And I'm not sure, is there a similar two-week early voting on these primaries and runoffs? And if so, that 10 days, you would, you know, these sample ballots will be posted after early voting begins.
So that may be something that the Secretary of State's office needs to address.
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:10:26
Sure, we can invite either the State Board of Election commissioners or Secretary of State up. We would like to field
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:10:32
that. It may just be that before those runoffs and school boards, it's not
Speaker 84
1:10:36
two weeks. If you would, recognize yourself for the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name
Speaker 220
1:10:43
is Daniel Schultz. I'm the director for the State Board of Election Commissioners. Okay, thank you. Representative,
you make sure you have a question for...
Speaker 222
1:10:54
do you... That's all right. You're correct. The bill is designed to mirror the periods for the different elections. So 20 days, I believe, is actually the notice of election requirement. I think the early voting is a little shorter than that, but that's correct. Those 10-day elections have a shorter early voting period. Seven days is off the top of my head, but it's something close to that. Okay. All right. So it sounds like
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:11:14
that concern is taken care of. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative.
Chair
Unverified
1:11:22
Representative Payton, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, currently, the posting at the courthouse door is required to be the same timeline, 20 days and 10 days? I believe that the current
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:11:48
law requires the posting to be at the courthouse door 10 days
before the election period and without the distinction between the 20 and the 10. So we are
Chair
Unverified
1:11:57
changing the timeline. When you said we're really not changing it, we're just making them do what they're doing on the courthouse door. via the computer, we are changing the timeline by 10 days when we tell them they have to do it 20 days prior. Is
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:12:16
that correct? Well, sure. I mean, I guess they would have to be ready 10 days before those elections, sir.
Chair
Unverified
1:12:22
And then if I could have a follow-up, listening to Representative
Meek's question, I didn't quite understand your answers there. If there's only two weeks till the the runoff, how can you get a ballot posted 10 days ahead of the early voting? I don't think I really
Speaker 222
1:12:46
understood your... First of all, it's worth saying that this isn't the State Board's bill, but we certainly support the policy of making these simple ballots available, so I'm not as involved
as much with the drafting. But the language, it appears to me the language is designed to make these sample ballots available online approximately the same amount of time as early voting. And I can appreciate that. I just want to make sure it's doable.
Speaker 228
1:13:11
Would it be helpful to have the Secretary of
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:13:17
State come up here and maybe see what people have been doing? Because, I mean, I know they've been doing these in the counties, and we can get a sense for the timing through them, perhaps.
Yes, sir. Would you identify yourself with the committee? Kurt Naumann with
Speaker 233
1:13:37
the Secretary of State's office. Yes, sir. Did you understand Representative Payton's question?
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:13:44
I'd just like some assurance that it's doable. Do what?
Chair
Unverified
1:13:47
I'd just like some assurance that it's doable in those runoffs. Yes, sir. It is doable. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay.
You need, is that good enough, Representative, or do you need to explain how it's
doable? You good? Okay. Representative Gene, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
1:14:12
you, Mr. Chair. I see that this is, they shall publish this. What's the punishment if a county doesn't
do it? Because it didn't say may, it says shall. Right.
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:14:26
Shall is something that has been in place for the existing publishing.
I'm not aware that there's any punishment, but maybe Mr. Schultz can correct me if I'm wrong on that. So
Speaker 222
1:14:37
as this would be a civil law, non-criminal law related to the elections, it would fall within the enforcement jurisdiction of the State Board of Election Commissioners. So if it was violated, a complaint could be filed with us, and we could enforce it administratively. Okay. Thank you. thank
you representative ward law you're recognized thank you mr
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:14:56
chair can you uh go through where all these
ballots are to be published and where i know you guys are changing it for
online are they still required to be published in the local newspaper where where all they have to be published
Speaker 222
1:15:14
at after this passes so the sample ballots is what we're talking about posting
Speaker 223
1:15:20
online their posts they're made available in the polling site and that's the only other place the information as far as what the candidates uh the measures that is posted at the courthouse as well which is the section that's being amended here but and the information is also published in the newspaper
but these are the sample ballots so the benefit of this is so that the voter can look up their exact ballot their issues their the ballot that has the combination of issues and races that they're going to see and that's what's being placed on the line the only other place you can get that is
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:16:00
in the poll follow up mr chair follow up i'm pretty sure the sample ballot has to be run in the county newspaper at the moment is
Speaker 223
1:16:10
that not true well no it's not true to the extent and be sure we're clear on the terminology
you have to run all of the information that are on the ballots but there are as representative alluded there are sometimes as many as hundreds even theoretically thousands of sample ballots in any given election in a county so you wouldn't publish all of the end of those sample ballots in the newspaper you could
Speaker 242
1:16:32
if it was simple enough if the county wanted to The law does not require that. Okay.
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:16:44
I think, Representative Ward-Law, I mean, what you're saying I understand, and that isn't unchanged.
I mean, the publication of the information in the newspaper remains. What we're calling the sample ballot is something that's unique to an individual voter, and that's how you look it up on this VoterView website. You put in your information, your name, and your birth date, and then
Speaker 5
1:17:07
you get a sample ballot that's just yours. Okay, thank you.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:17:13
Representative Sladyman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Collins, maybe I misunderstood you,
but you said over 60 counties are already doing this. Did you say that? 55 counties. 55. And so Pulaski, the largest county, is already doing this? Yes. And you said the smallest county is already doing this? Yes, sir. So these counties decide at the local level whether they want to do this or not. Is that correct?
That's the current law, yes, sir. And they're allowed to do that? Right. And then this bill says they shall do this, so we're going to make all the counties do that
and take away their option whether they want to do this or not. Is that
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:17:56
correct? I think the idea is to try to put the public interest first and make sure this is available to all people in the state. So, yes, that's true that the counties would need to do this, but the goal is to make sure that the individual has the right to get this information, every individual, regardless of where they live in the state.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:18:18
But if the local public interest wants to not put it on there,
then we're requiring them to do it. Is that correct?
Yes, sir. That's right. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Representative Whittaker, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:18:45
Mr. Chair. Motion at the proper time. Okay, Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question, again, is related to the 55 counties do it now, so we have some that obviously aren't.
Can you share anything with me as far as those who aren't? You know, sometimes election commissioners are hard to come by in some of the more rural areas and the workload on them,
you know, because of the workloads. Is it more rural that's not doing it, or
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:19:10
what have you seen? Sure, and I, if I may, if it'd be all right, invite someone from the Association of Counties up to discuss this. This is something that they ask their clerks about to see, since clerks are often involved in this process. But, you know, I think it's been a long effort to try to get more buy-in into this and to get the counties to do this.
And this just sets forth what we're expecting out of them, makes it a clear requirement. I think that, you know, maybe Ms. French can speak to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:19:39
the reasons that some of the counties haven't been doing this over the period of time. Okay, if you would,
Lindsay, just identify yourself for the committee and who you represent. Thank
Speaker 249
1:19:51
you, Mr. Chair. lindsey french association of arkansas counties okay is there a
question representative beck or representative collins at what question did you do we need answered do you want me to repeat my
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:20:03
question sure if you don't mind well earlier it was said that 55 counties do it and there's some that's not my question was is is there any information as far as who is not doing it yeah is there a hurdle that these counties can't get over that we're saying you got to get over at this point you know is it more rural counties is it more the bigger counties who is not doing it and and you know in some of the rural areas commit
uh commissioners are hard to come by so sure and additional
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:20:37
burden on them sure representative and um
i don't think the secretary of state would be able to tell you more of what counties are doing it now and which are not i don't think it's a rural problem as they mentioned the the smallest county is doing it pulaski county was not doing it until the most recent uh circuit county clerk was elected they just did it on their own personal website and some of the counties that are not doing this are putting it on their own personal website so the reason they're not doing it in short to answer your question a lot of them is because it's not required um i don't
i don't see it as a problem i did um representative collins reached out to me last week and i sent this out to all 75 clerks, and I did not get one negative feedback from any clerk saying that they would have a hard time. So I think the short answer to your question is that it's
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:21:31
not required. Follow-up? You recognize. So, but you're talking clerks. The bill talks about election commissioners. And the clerks may be okay with it. It's almost like saying I'm okay with it because I got to do
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:21:44
In a lot of cases, Representative Beck, the commissioners will send it over to the clerk and have them do that work. So they're working together
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:21:52
on this. This is how it's, in the conversation that I've had, that tends to be the
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:22:01
way it goes. It just seems like it needs more definition at that point where, you know, who's actually responsible. Maybe the clerks are responsible for getting it from the commissioners or something like that. I agree with the concept of the bill.
I think transparency is great in elections. It just seems like, you know, it says the county board of election commissioners. Right. So we felt like it was
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:22:24
important to leave the responsibility with the board of election commissioners since that's who has it to publish in the case on the courthouse door. And if they work with the clerk, that's fine. But that's not something that we felt like it was appropriate to require of them.
Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Representative Collins, seeing no further questions from committee members,
are you ready to close with your bill? Yes, sir. Sorry, Representative Gene's got a
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
1:22:56
question. Sure. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. French, this is just for the Internet only posting. Most counties, at least the three I represent, have them in their weekly circulation. Do we have any counties that are not posting any sample ballots at all that you know of?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:23:18
No, sir. I believe if that was the case, then the State Board of Election Commissioners would have gotten complaints and would be handling that as necessary. So this is for
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
1:23:28
the 20 counties that are not posted on the Internet to post it on the Internet. And I'm assuming all 75 counties are on the web. Yes. Okay.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:23:39
All right. Yes, they are. And like it was mentioned earlier, the purpose is for any voter in the state of Arkansas to have one central website that they can go and see their sample ballot.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Jean. Representative Collins, enough other questions from committee members? Are you ready to close? Yes, sir.
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:23:59
I'll close. And just to say I appreciate the questions. I think that the benefit here is for the individual who wants to know what races are on their ballot, who's on their ballot. And I think there's an expectation that we'll make these things available on the Internet for them, as that's where people tend to be going. So I'd appreciate your support on this.
Thank you, Representative Collins. Committee members, Representative Collins is closed with a bill. We have
a motion by Representative Whitaker. Representative Whitaker, recognize, state your motion.
Move, do pass. Okay, we have a motion from Representative Whitaker for move, do, pass. Is
there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The ayes have it. Congratulations, your bill has passed. Next item on the agenda is HCR 1004, Representative Bentley.
representative bentley you are recognized to present your house bill hcr i appreciate you give me a chance to present this
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:25:14
resolution and i appreciate the good work that i've listened to you guys do this morning very thorough committee and good job uh this is a resolution to bring to the awareness of our constituents and our colleagues the 10th amendment i think uh too much of our constitution has been left by the wayside and we've really forgotten what's in there. So with the okay of the committee, I'd like to read a little bit of what's in
this resolution. I think it's a great thing for us to remember and to think about. When our Constitution was set up, it was set up for the federal government to have very few powers. Unfortunately, we have relegated too much of our authority as a state legislator to the federal government. It's my hope that we will regain that and take back our rights and take care of our constituents because I thoroughly believe that we will do a whole lot better job than what they're doing in D.C. So I'm going to read a few things. I'm As I read a few things from James Madison, I'm kind of amazed at how intelligent these men were and their foresight when they lived in tyranny and saw what the freedoms to our country would bring.
So I'll read a couple of these and then I'll rest and ask for a good vote. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45, The powers delegated that is enumerated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments, that would be us, are numerous and indefinite.
The formal federal powers will be exercised principally on external objects such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which, thus, the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The power is reserved to the several states which extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state. I'll rest with this one. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads and, in short, everything from the highest object of the state legislation down to the most minute object of policy be thrown under the power of Congress.
I'm afraid, my colleagues, that's exactly what we have done. So I just wanted to reiterate what the Tenth Amendment is, and with that, we'll take
a due pass if I could get it. Okay, you've heard the presentation of resolution by Representative Bentley. I don't— Representative Leitman, if you're recognized for a question. Motion at proper time. I've already got a motion for due pass at the proper time, but we'll take it. Any questions for Representative Bentley?
Seeing none, I don't see anyone signed up to speak for against the resolution. Committee members, we've got a due pass by Representative Gonzalez. Did you make it? Yes. I thought you did. Representative Gonzalez made a motion of due pass at the
proper time. This is the proper time. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye.
Aye. All opposed, say no. Resolution's passed. Congratulations, Representative Bentley. Thank you, committee. I appreciate your time.
Unknown speaker
1:28:48
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1153 Ladyman TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT OF 1973 CONCERNING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
HB1214 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT OF 1973 CONCERNING FUNDING.
HB1051 Eubanks CONCERNING ADVERTISING FOR LICENSEES REGULATED UNDER THE PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCY, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, AND SCHOOL SECURITY LICENSING AND CREDENTIAL ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1202 A. Collins TO AMEND ELECTION LAWS; TO AMEND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTIONS; AND TO REQUIRE PUBLICATION OF SAMPLE BALLOTS ON AN INTERNET SITE.
HCR1004 Bentley CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE PEOPLE, THE STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
HB1053 Dotson TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO APPOINT THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSMENT COORDINATION DIVISION AND TO STATE THAT THE APPOINTEE MEETS THE LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITION.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Jan 25, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Dwight Tosh Chair
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 13
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 22
Speaker 23
Speaker 24
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Representative John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 44
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 63
Chair
Unverified
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 94
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 105
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
Speaker 117
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
Speaker 145
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 149
Speaker 160
Speaker 161
Speaker 171
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 174
Speaker 172
Speaker 73
Speaker 189
Speaker 190
Speaker 187
Speaker 198
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
Speaker 188
Speaker 163
Speaker 212
Speaker 213
Speaker 214
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 84
Speaker 220
Speaker 221
Speaker 222
Speaker 228
Speaker 233
Speaker 223
Speaker 242
Speaker 5
Speaker 249
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified