State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1056
Act 56
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1056 L. Fite TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC PUBLIC MEETINGS DURING … | L. Fite | Notification that HB1056 is now Act 56 |
|
HB1217
Act 65
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE OF ARKANSAS RULES. HB1217 Dotson CONCERNING THE EXTENSION AND REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIV…”
|
CONCERNING THE EXTENSION AND REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES. | Dotson | Notification that HB1217 is now Act 65 |
|
HB1053
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1053 - TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND A…”
|
TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO APPOINT THE DIRECTOR … | Dotson | Died in House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1216
Act 64
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1216 - HB1216 Dotson TO REVISE CERTAIN ARKANSAS LAWS APPLICABLE…”
|
TO REVISE CERTAIN ARKANSAS LAWS APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF … | Dotson | Notification that HB1216 is now Act 64 |
|
HB1052
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 1/20/21 @ 4:05 PM) Removed Bill HB1052 House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF A REGULATORY DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND … | Dotson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
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
Tag, or if you would, hand Lane to his name tag, please.
Where'd Lane go? There he is. Can you pick
for Love? Yes, I was going to ask you to do that.
Frederick Love is next. David, would you pick for him?
Okay. Gary, if you're where you want to be
right there. Okay, good deal. Bruce, Bruce Cozart, Representative Cozart. Where are you at, buddy? Pass him upstairs. Oh,
guess, John, I guess just put him, put him the other side of you there, I guess,
Cozart, I don't know, or I don't put, he maybe want to be on this side, put him, put him somewhere right up here next to Representative Dotson you're next. Get your
name tag and find your seat. Representative Dotson where'd you? I didn't see. Okay. Dotson you already got your seat.
Representative Miller's already got his mate. Representative Whitaker. Alright. Representative Payton, Representative Ladyman, you know where he wants to be? Find him a seat, Michelle. Put him on this side, that side's filling up. And after you've seen him, just you're next, Representative Gray.
Speaker 22
2:17
Jeff, did I skip you? It's okay. I'll sit right
here. I'm tickled pink. I apologize. I'm tickled pink right here. I just looked up. I looked up and saw you and I thought I didn't call your name. I'm happy. Is that okay for him to sit there? Okay.
All right. You got your seat right here on the end? All right. Good deal. Good deal. All
right. Michelle, you're next. Michelle Gray, there you go. Representative Beck, you're up.
Representative Nelda, you're next. Okay. You got it?
I'll slow down a little bit. All right, let me slow down just a second. Nelda, you see where Representative Speaks is at? And then Representative Gray is on this side. And then you've got Representative Beck next to her. And Representative Richmond, you see. Okay, we got you, buddy.
Austin McCollum, just set him on this side somewhere, yeah. Representative Johnson, where you at, buddy? Right here. Okay, I got you. Did you see him? On the far right down there. And Representative Hawks. I want to be by a property.
Now, are we going to be able to do that?
Unknown speaker
4:00
Thank you. Committee members, listen up just a minute.
What we're going to have to do, we're
going to have to, Coach, you're going to have to move down one. Jim, you'll have to move down one. Is that right, Maddie? All right, let Maddie just take that mic and tell them what they need to do. Y'all listen up. She's
going to. Oh, y'all got an empty slot
Speaker 36
4:54
there? Okay, you're good then. Members, my apologies. There should only be eight seats on either side of the table. so Representative Johnson and Representative Hawks may need to move to the side
table over here. My
Chair sees a quorum. This meeting is called
to order. Guys, could I have your attention, please? We've got a lot of business to take care of here and we need to get to moving. So, the first thing I want to remind you of, committee members, is that there's been a change in the rules this time so that committees don't get too bogged down with bills coming up later. It's the members' responsibility. If you've got a bill that's been assigned to a committee, it's your responsibility to contact the chair of that committee and make arrangements to run your bill so unless you contact that chair
personally then that bill is just going to sit there in that committee but it's up to you so we're kind of getting behind in this committee because i've only heard for a cup heard from a couple that wants to run their bills so we're going to try to get the word out secondly is we do have a few bills that we need to present today and we'll get to that here in just a little bit before I get there I just want to first of all just tell you what a great honor it is for me to be able to chair this committee I was able and very blessed last year to be to chair it and I'm
honored to come back again this year and and I look at this committee after the selection was made and I'll just be honest with you I was almost in it was almost in disbelief that we've got this committee is made up of so many veteran lawmakers i mean i don't think we've got anybody on this committee maybe one or that's got less maybe two that's actually in their less than four terms starting their fourth term that's amazing i don't think there'll be any other committee here that would have this kind of veteran legislators and i'm honored to look around and see people that
i've been here with so long and i know you and i it's an honor to have you on this committee So thank you very much. Don't forget, we're not going to be furnishing. If you notice, there's not any laptops in front of you. And I'm sure you've already heard of this from other committees that you may have attended. But you'll have to bring your own laptop to work off of. So they're not going to be furnished.
Anything else? Just a couple more notes here. you know, this committee is going to have a lot that we're going to be faced with during this session. And I mean, it's to the point it could almost, if we're not careful, overwhelm us. So we're going to be obviously state agencies. This committee is one responsible for, you know, putting out a constitutional amendment. So we're going to be hearing those. And what I'll do is I've got to be off for a few weeks for some surgery,
and I hate that, but it's one of those things that happen that I didn't have any choice over, but I've got to get it taken care of. So we've got a good person to sit in while I'm gone for a couple of three weeks, and that's our good vice chair, Justin, and I appreciate him. And he's sat in before, and he always does a great job. But we're going to have to deal with the constitutional amendments. When I come back, I'll lay out the plan for you then as to how we're going to deal with those constitutional amendments. Also, this committee has been given the task that we also have to be involved with the redistricting of the congressional districts,
which is going to be a huge undertaking. But I'll also lay out a plan for you concerning how we're going to approach that. So just hang tight. I'll be back in here with you in a few weeks. And at that time, I'll give you how we're going to proceed and move forward with addressing those constitutional amendments and the congressional redistricting. But if we're not careful with those two huge tasks, we're going to have quite a load taking care of that and keeping up with the bills that come before this committee because state agency has assigned a lot of bills.
But we're up to the task, and that's why I'm so glad there's so many veteran lawmakers on this committee because we're going to be able to handle it. And I look for you and for your guidance and
your help as we move forward. You think of
anything else? That's it? Appreciate our guests
being here today. And I don't know if there's anybody over there we need to recognize. We appreciate y'all.
We know you'll be attending a lot of the meetings with us, and we always welcome you. Thank you for being here. Committee members also, you know, those of you that served with me last year in here when I was a chair, you know that the way I like to do it is that if you have a question, I'll recognize you. If you have a follow-up, be sure to ask for that follow-up, and I'll recognize you for the follow-up. If you have another question, whether or not I recognize you would depend on how many people are in line waiting to ask a question.
So, but be sure to ask for your follow-ups and try not to get off into a, engage in some type of dialogue with whoever you're talking to. Let's keep it on a question and answer basis and let's keep it running in that type of manner. And I think we'll all be better off. So with that said, any comments from any of the committee members before we move on with the bills? I think I've covered what I want to. Where's the phone list?
Right here. Committee members, I'm going to start
here with Justin. And as we're going to pass this around, all I want you to do is look at your cell phone number. And if it's correct, just put a checkmark by it. If it's wrong, mark through it and put the correct phone number out beside it. And while that's going around the room, I don't think that'll be any type of distraction. So we've got a few bills that we need to run. Oh, let me introduce.
I apologize. This is our staff member from BLR. And I'm going to tell you, I've been in contact with Maddie over the last few weeks. And I can already tell you that she is absolutely going to be fabulous. I mean, she has been working and putting things together and doing an awesome job. And I'm telling you, we are blessed to have her. And let me introduce her. And, Maddie, do you have anything you want to say? You want to brag on your chair or anything?
I mean, you had your chance there. I mean, you let it get by. No, she's great. I appreciate you. We're going to be leaning on you. You know our vice chair. He was vice chair with me last year, awesome guy, does an
awesome job, and a dear friend of mine. Justin, you have anything you want to say? Okay. All right. And any committee
members? Nothing? All right, let's move forward. First item on our agenda today is House Bill 1056.
As we know, Representative Fyde is unable to attend, so I believe Representative Hawks, you're going to sit in for him and run the bill. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. It's House Bill 1056 to amend the Freedom of Information Act of 1967 to allow electronic public meetings during a declared state of emergency and to declare an emergency. Representative Hawks.
Also, I will tell those, if you have anyone that is here to speak for or against the bill,
I need you to sign in and get that information to Maddie, and then she'll get it to me and I'll make sure you're recognized during the meeting. So Representative Hawks, you are recognized to present bill, House Bill 1056. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
14:05
honored to represent Representative Lanny Fyde presenting this bill today. As you can see, this is a bill that has already been passed
and we are utilizing currently as we are in a state of emergency with COVID. It can also act for other states of emergency. The Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1967. We've come a long way with technology since then, and we have learned a lot through this virus. What this does is it allows us to conduct meetings, municipal and county meetings through telephone, video conference, video broadcast. If an open public meeting is held under subdivision e one of the section and uh the public uh has to be engaged in the meeting
so they do have that ability uh this is a good bill and i have miss lindsey french here uh with the association of counties and if she would like to comment to that i would invite
Speaker 46
15:01
her up but if you have any questions i'd be open for questions any questions from committee members
at this time for Representative Hawks. Seeing none, Representative Hawks, did you say you had
someone that you wanted to bring to the end of the table, or did I misunderstand you? We're good.
Okay. All right, committee members, we have a, I believe we've got a couple of people signed up. Representative Gray, did you have a question? I'm sorry. You're recognized.
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
15:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page 2, line 13, it says a public entity shall maintain the records of the open meeting for a minimum of one year from the date. Do you know what the current standard is for any public meetings? Is it one year for an in-person meeting, or is it longer currently?
It is one year. Okay, thank you. Any further questions from committee members? Seeing none, we have Paul Calvert signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Calvert, are you in the room? Yes, sir, I see. If you would just take a seat there at the end of the table. Just identify yourself, please, to the committee.
Paul Calvert
Unverified
16:29
My name is Paul Calvert. I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone other than myself today. Sorry, this thing is bouncing around. I
don't have a whole lot of problem with this bill. One of the things that concerns me is that if laws are going to be passed where people can actually be penalized, I think it's better to have the meetings that are basically full, normal meetings. And then the other thing is if laws are going to be passed during an emergency meeting, I think it might be appropriate to go back and revisit those as soon as the emergency is over
so that you can actually have these things passed with better transparency. Because I think there's just something about having people in person with a normal meeting that can improve communications and such between the public and the representatives, whether they be city councilmen or quorum court members, and then also just between the members themselves. And so I would be okay with this if it was just maybe a little bit more limited in scope.
Otherwise, I'm not terribly opposed to it. Thank you. Mr. Calvert,
Speaker 59
17:44
are you through with your statement? Yes, sir. Sorry. Okay, that's fine. Any questions
from committee members? Hold just a minute, Mr. Calvert. Let's see if we've got any questions from committee members. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, excuse me, thank you, Mr. Calvert. We appreciate you coming. Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate you.
We have signed up to speak for the bill. Ms. Lindsay Bailey French? I'm passing. Okay, you're passing. Also, I have a Mr. Richmond, the second. Would you like to speak for the bill, sir? I'm passing. You're also passing, I understand. Okay, thank you both. All right. Representative Hawks, where'd you go, buddy?
You're recognized to close with your bill. Hold up just a minute,
Representative Hawks. Are there any further questions from committee members for Representative Hawks? Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
18:59
question I have is, in your opening statement, you said that this was mostly geared towards county municipalities. Is this something that we as the General Assembly would fall under as well, or how would this affect how we do business?
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
19:13
This does not include the General Assembly. Representative
Gonzalez, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
19:21
I agree with the general idea of this bill, but I'm a little bit concerned about how the public will have input in these meetings, how they have input now, and what's going to be the process going forward if you do this by telephone. I mean, I know we've had meetings with the governor and amongst ourselves through telephone, and sometimes it seemed to be a disaster when you're trying to take questions from people.
from people uh same way with zoom or the video conference sometimes it gets kind of a little bit hard to have input so are there any
Speaker 68
19:55
rules outlining how that will will happen i'd like to have
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
20:01
ms french come up here to address some of these questions okay thank you Ms. Frencher
just have a seat there at the end of the table or somewhere where you've got access to a mic if you would just
excuse me identify your Spencer is
Speaker 71
20:27
okay there's never problems with technology
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
20:38
what are you talking about uh lindsey bailey french
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
20:43
association of arkansas counties um i agree with everything you said
representative gonzalez and it's certainly not ideal we've all had um several months now of dealing with virtual meetings and and we don't we don't love them I'll be honest with you from the quorum court side of things I know of one county that's held completely virtual meetings the rest of them have all done some kind of hybrid where most people are there in person and you have the option to zoom in if you are quarantined or ill or otherwise don't need to be there and I believe
that most of them have also had limited capacity for um the public to attend in a safe way currently all the counties have are under a plan approved by adh for meetings of 10 or more that allows members of the public to come and speak so i think 99 of the time they're they're going to be able to come in person if possible. But if not, we have given out guidance to counties to allow
them to submit questions ahead of time, whether by email, by calling in, just making sure that they have some way to
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
22:04
submit their questions, comments, or concerns. i hope that answered
your question representative you're recognized with poor follow-up
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
22:19
so if they're already able to do this now what's what is the purpose of this legislation
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
22:26
um in the fiscal session of 2020 we passed this provision temporarily there was a sunset on December 31st. So that is actually not the law now. So that's why we're bringing this back up for any time during a state-declared emergency. Okay. If you need another
follow-up, Representative. Okay. Representative Speaks, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
22:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For you, Ms. Lindsay, so this will go away with what the gentleman had asked. This will go away when this emergency ends. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Representative Payton, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question is, when
Speaker 92
23:21
you're on the virtual meetings, which we've all become familiar with, if you were to take a voice vote on something, it'd be nearly impossible to know who voted how.
So is there any provision here that would require a recorded vote in these virtual meetings? It would be
Speaker 84
23:42
similar to what you do here. If a member asks for a roll call, then a roll call could be done. The way
Speaker 96
23:50
the statute actually reads is that the yays and nays shall be recorded. Can I have
Speaker 92
23:58
a follow-up, Mr. Chair? You're recognized. So I think it's important that we do this, and I recognize the need for it.
I would just like to see incorporated in it that if you're on a virtual meeting of some point and you're taking a vote for legislation or rules or ordinances or something like that, that it would be a recorded vote. That's all I've got to say.
Thanks. Thank you, Representative. Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized. I don't know that
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
24:31
this is appropriate time for this, but, I mean, as of right now,
I don't think I can support the bill in the way it is. I think it needs some outline of how these meetings should be conducted. To Peyton's point, you know, requiring recorded votes. I think there needs to be some more amended to this bill before
I'd be able to support it. Thank you, Representative.
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
24:58
Do you want to comment on that, Representative Hawks? The current law regarding quorum court meetings in general, 1414-905,
It does require that the yays and nays of every vote be recorded. Also, there's currently in the law a bill that Representative Flowers passed back in 2019 that all public meetings have to be recorded either by audio or audio and visual. So that is already being done. Those have to be kept for a year. So every vote is being recorded not only by the clerk who takes the minutes, but also by an audio-video recording.
If you need to follow up, you're good. Representative Bank, you're recognized for
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
25:48
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my concern may be addressed somewhere else. But the concern that I have is like there doesn't seem to be any hard guidelines as far as let's say that a quorum court could only allow 10 people to come in and speak.
And the 11th person doesn't really have access to video or whatever where they could video in and watch the thing. It almost seems like we need something in here that says that if I'm denied the right to be there at the meeting and to have my voice heard, that I would be assured of some way to listen in and make comments during the meeting. Now, maybe it's somewhere else, but I don't see that here. Well, it
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
26:35
is addressed in the code that I was talking about earlier.
The public is always guaranteed the right to comment on an ordinance or anything the quorum court passes before a final vote. These ordinances are read three different times at three different meetings, and there is already a provision in the law that a member of the public is guaranteed the right to give reasonable comment before a final vote is taken. Follow-up, you're recognized.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
27:09
So, during the, let's say, during a quorum court meeting, and I might not understand exactly how quorum courts work, but could they suspend the rules and read something three times in one meeting? By two-thirds of the vote, yes. So, a person that wasn't at the meeting the first time would not have heard that and would therefore not be heard because it's not going to be read again,
Speaker 105
27:35
is my concern. That could potentially be true, yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you, Representative. Representative Devin Ball, did you have a question? No, sir. Okay. Department of State. Representative Cozart, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
27:54
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a procedural question. We have members that are watching remotely. I don't know if you have contact with them or not. Representative Love is watching, and he has mentioned to me. Are we going to allow them to motion or vote remotely?
Yes. Okay. We will. Does he have a question? No, he
Speaker 108
28:18
has a motion at proper time. At proper time.
Are you going to make the motion for him, Representative? I will do that for him. Find out what the motion is and just make it on his behalf and
Speaker 108
28:28
let me know that you're making it for him.
I will at the proper time, yes. Okay, we'll do that. Representative
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
28:36
Whitaker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is going to show how we're kind of making this up as we go along. Mr. Love sends a question through me.
Oh, he gave you the question, okay. But what we'd like to know, what Representative Love has asked is, how is the public given notice of electronic meetings? Is that in another section? Because it doesn't really seem to be very
clear in here. It is addressed in the bill on page 2, line 2. Notice of the method the public may attend shall be published with the notice of the open public meeting.
Speaker 114
29:17
A follow-up? You're recognized. That's great. Is it how are
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
29:30
folks who want to attend electronically going to know that the meeting's taking place? I guess is what I want
to know. It's published in the newspaper as required by other law. And it will say in that notice published in the paper that the means that it's going to be held, if it's going to be by Zoom, by virtual, teleconference, it's all required to be in that notice in the paper.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Also, correction from the Chair on a question that Representative Kosard asked. If the member is allowed to ask a question, but for him to vote or for him or her to vote, they have to be able to be seen. That's what Representative Dawson and I were just talking about. Okay, so I got clarification on it, and I apologize for it. Well, that was my procedural question. Yeah, that was a great question, too. But I wanted to clear that up so they can't ask a question like you did, Representative Whitaker, for him.
But for him to make a motion or vote, he would have to be seen, and that's not what's happening. So the answer to that is no. Can
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
30:40
I ask you a question? You can. How do they go about getting on that up there? Do we have the... Finish your question. I was going to say, how do they know how to get on to this meeting and be on that board in a Zoom? Is that posted somewhere before our meetings? I think Jeff just said something to it.
Great question. And I've just been advised that they would need to contact the House staff, somebody like Roy or somebody there, and make those arrangements to get that taken care of. Okay, Representative
Speaker 126
31:17
Love, I hope you're listening. They're
keeping me informed up here. That's why I was bragging on them earlier. It has to be by 4 o'clock the day before the meeting for us to be able to get them logged in.
Okay? All right. Representative Wardlaw, I got him. I'm good. You good?
We covered? All right, got it. All right, Representative Gene, did you have
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
31:53
a question? I've got a question for staff. Okay. My understanding was if you're voting in the House, it had to be on an issue computer by the state, and you had to be either Capitol Hill, Big Mac A, or in the Capitol.
Is that not correct? Well, I'm going to let staff answer that, but I do know part of it is correct. I know if you're voting from the House floor, you have to be present in the Capitol. On the committees. But in a committee meeting, I'm going to let... Okay. I just need to... Yeah,
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
32:30
we'll get clarification on it. We're going
Speaker 132
32:34
to have to main person talk. Senator Tosh, you're right. There are different rules for the House floor versus House committees. For the House floor, you do have to be in the Capitol.
But for committees, you do not have to be. The rationale is that this is only a recommendation to the full House. And the House takes the official action. Okay, and it's also,
while you're there, it's my understanding that if you wanted to vote on the House floor, you could do that at any time. You don't have to log in the day before. You've got that icon on your computer as long as you're here at the Capitol or in this vicinity. You can do that from your office. But if you're going to do it in committee, you have to notify staff the day before by 4 o'clock
to make sure that we have you on the agenda for the next day. That's the way it works. I'd clear it up for everybody. Good. Thank you all very much. We appreciate staff. Appreciate. Representative Miller, you're recognized for a
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
33:34
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't really care about this bill all that much. I'm just wondering why is it needed? Like, can cities and counties not make these decisions for themselves and let them just handle it however they want
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
33:52
and us stay out of it? There was some ambiguity in the law, specifically whether ordinances that were passed in a virtual meeting would be valid or not. Lizzie, you need
to pull your mic up. We're having trouble. I am. Kind of want to hear you. Thank you so much. Can you
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
34:19
hear me now? That's great right there. Thank you. Yes, I'll repeat my answer. The law was somewhat ambiguous whether counties could
already do this, and I'll let the city speak on their behalf if they need to. But there was some concern that ordinances that were passed in a virtual meeting may not be valid. So we just wanted to pass this to be crystal clear and make sure that nothing would be challenged in court and found to be invalid because it wasn't passed at an in-person meeting. The law says that the they shall assemble and gather in a place and pass their ordinances there. So it's kind of an abundance of caution. Can I have a follow-up? Yes, sir. You're recognized. Thank you. And I
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
35:03
understand that. I served on city council for four years before I came down here, and I know that we we kind of set our own rules in accordance with what freedom we had to do that. And I don't, if counties and cities want to set their own rules, do they not have the ability to do that and then let that go from there with whatever they're,
kind of like we in the House and the Senate, we in the legislature, we set our own rules. That's how we conduct our business. I'm all for local control and local government. I want them to have the freedom to do whatever. I'm not really in opposition to this. I'm just still trying to get
Speaker 136
35:55
a grasp on why it's actually needed because I thought that they had the ability to set their own rules. You're correct,
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
36:02
Representative. They do have the ability to pass their procedural ordinance as long as it doesn't conflict with established state law.
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
36:11
And this bill, it doesn't require them to enable virtual meetings. If the county judge and the quorum court decide they don't want to have virtual meetings, they don't have to. It just gives them the option to pass that procedure should they choose and make it clear that anything they pass there is lawful. And they don't have that ability right now? It's not clear that they do. Okay, thank you. thank you mr
chair thank you any further representative wicker you're recognized for
a question thank you mr chair motion at the proper time it's a proper motion any discussion by representative hawks are you ready to close yes sir you're recognized to close
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
37:04
uh i want to thank you guys again for hearing this bill and i I want to say, let's not miss a tree for a forest. These are crazy times, and we're in the midst of a pandemic. Ironically, I'm running a bill in a state of emergency with the gentleman who's supposed to run it has COVID.
He was a county judge. Is this a perfect bill? Does it need some ironing out? Yeah, we can iron some of these details out later, but this is for a state of an emergency. So let's pass this bill
Speaker 46
37:30
and get this done so cities can operate the way that they want to operate with that clarity. And then if you guys want to change stuff later, I know that we all have questions about how to handle a state of emergency, and those are questions that we can handle later. But let's pass this bill so our cities and counties can run. I appreciate a good vote, and I close with a motion due pass.
Okay, we have a motion for due pass from Representative Hawks.
Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Ladyman, you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
38:02
Mr. Chair. Well, this is a good discussion, a lot of good points brought up here, but I just want to make a comment. This bill does say may hold these meetings. I'm going to take this off. It says may. It does not say shall. So the counties, I guess the cities are covered on this too, would have the option, it allows them to have a virtual meeting,
and it's in law. And the comment about do we really need it or not, or is it really required, I mean, those are good questions. But if a county or a city passed an ordinance that was a very expensive ordinance and included a lot of money, and that went out and was done and then was questioned and the law was not absolute, and I know we have attorneys in here that probably know what I'm talking about, if that law was not absolutely,
If that was not covered under absolute law, it could get very expensive for a county or a city. They could get into a real mud puddle on that. So I think it's a good bill. As the presenter said, it's not perfect, but I think it's good, and I think it does give local control to the counties and the cities. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Leitemann. Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized for a comment on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
39:28
Again, I think the whole premise of this bill is good. I think we're heading the right direction, but I think it's also the responsibility of this committee to make sure that the bill is right before it gets out of here. I believe it does still need quite a bit more work before it passes this point, so I'll be
voting against it. Thank you, Representative Gonzalez. Representative Payton, you're recognized for discussion on the motion.
Speaker 92
39:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And while I think that it'd be a good addition to the bill, that we require any votes held in a virtual meeting to be recorded,
I think it's permissive language. I'm all for local control. I'm for this bill in its present form. I'm going to vote for it. I'd like to see an amendment that may be nailed down that recorded vote, but I wouldn't want to kill the bill for the absence of it.
So I'm voting for it. Any further discussion from committee members? Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
40:37
I agree with Representative Payton as far as local control goes, but the way I see this, it's limiting public access as well, and that public should have the ultimate control of the issue. So, therefore, I'd still be voting against it. Any further discussion
on the motion? Seeing none, Representative Whitaker, do you have a motion
at the proper time? Motion's already been made. Oh, that's right, Representative Hawks.
We have a motion from Representative Hawks for a due pass. And what's the will of the committee? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. Representative Hawks, your bill has passed. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Committee members, the next item on today's agenda is House Bill 1053, House Bill 1053
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 the legal qualifications for the position. Representative Dodson, you're recognized to present House Bill
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
42:00
1053. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. If it please the chair, I have Paul Goering with DF&A here to help present if there's any questions
from the committee. Boy, first bill of the committee, first bill of the session, It already feels like we're toward the end of session. So House Bill 1053, just a little explanation of what it is. It's fairly short, simple bill you can read through pretty quickly. But basically, Arkansas law currently allows that the governor appoints the director of the assessment coordinating division, which is now part of the Department of Finance Administration and works for the secretary of DFA.
And, uh, what this bill would do would place that responsibility directly under the, uh, secretary rather than having the governor appoint, it would have the secretary appoint that director for, um, uh, you know, just purposes of functionality under their department. Um, it would also require that the, because of the way the law is written already, it It would require that the secretary make sure that the assessment coordination division
director has the proper qualifications in order to hold the position. I think that's pretty straightforward. And if anybody has any questions, oh, we do have also the new assessment coordination division director here with us if there's any questions for her. So I'm open for questions, Mr. Chair. Committee, you've heard the presentation by
Representative Dotson on his house bill. Are there any questions? Representative Payton, you're recognized for a question.
Speaker 92
43:53
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Dotson, is it reasonable to think that the secretary would appoint somebody different than what the governor would appoint? And are we not just allowing the governor to escape responsibility for this appointee? I don't know if I – to the
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
44:13
first part of your question, it's highly doubtful that they would appoint someone different than what the governor would want. And to the second part, I don't necessarily see it that way, but I can understand that viewpoint.
Speaker 92
44:27
Yeah, I mean, I don't see the point in changing who's doing the appointing on paper when really the governor is still going to be the one in control of the appointment, but he's no longer going to be responsible for
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
44:46
the outcome. They could be blamed on the secretary. Well, Representative Payton, ultimately the old adage, the buck
stops here. Everything falls on the governor one way or another, whether it's direct appointment or one of the secretaries.
So this kind of streamlines the process for a division of the Department of Finance Administration. It made sense when the Governor was the, I mean, the Assessment Coordinating Division was a separate entity, not under DF&A, but now that it's part of the overall head, I think this is a reasonable request from the agency. Thank
you. Representative Ladyman, did you have a question?
Okay. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
45:40
Chair. I'm a little confused on why you want to change this. I mean, is there an instance that you ran into where this has become a problem? Because I'm kind of like all the other members that have spoke. I mean, the governor pretty well can. That's the governor's agency. So I'm lost.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
46:01
Representative Dotson, can you help me? I'm not sure
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
46:07
that I can. Well, I'm trying to figure out why you're wanting to change this and what's the problem with it in the past. Does the governor ask you to
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
46:16
relieve this appointment from him? Yeah, it was brought by the agency and signed off by
the governor. Directly? Yeah, directly signed off by the governor. So this is coming from the administration. That's
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
46:27
light in a dark room. That's better.
Speaker 59
46:33
Representative Dodson, any of the people you have, will you there? Can
they answer Representative Wardlaw's question? Representative Wardlaw? Representative Wardlaw? I've got someone at the end of the table who's going to try to answer, see if they can
Speaker 164
46:53
answer your question for you. Paul Goering,
Representative John Payton
Unverified
46:55
Arkansas Department of Finance Administration. Thank you for your question, Representative Wardlaw. This is a part of DFA's agency legislation for the current session.
And as Representative Dawson touched upon, as a part of transformation that was passed in 2019, the Assessment Coordination Department used to be a separate entity from DFA. And now that ACD has been under the umbrella of DFA, under transformation, the requirement of a governor appointment for the executive director of that division of DFA, in our structure, had preferred that the Assessment Coordination Division Director be appointed by the DFA
Secretary, because currently the DFA Secretary is appointed by the Governor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm fine with
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
47:47
it now. I mean, I was worried that this was a member bill, but you guys are telling me it's coming from the agency and the Governor,
Speaker 161
47:55
so makes a lot of sense i'm good with it okay
thank you representative ward long representative grade you have a question you recognize
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
48:07
thank you mr chair um i'm just trying
to figure out first of all how you're going to get this through the senate because you've taken the senate uh out of the confirmation process um i guess i just i'm not understanding the reason here this is essentially taking the legislature out of an appointment process and it takes something away from us i don't really know that i have a question i'm just telling you i have a concern with with taking that appointment privilege away from us thank you representative
gray representative jean did you have a question sir well
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
48:48
question and a comment really uh if everybody remembers last session that transformation bill that was that big and nobody read this is a byproduct of that and uh so i i think we're going to have a lot of these bills that were product of the transformation so i think that's more where this is this is headed than than just a member or or the agency doing it it was a product of transformation
thank you representative jean we appreciate that representative payton you're recognized thank you
Speaker 92
49:22
mr chair i just have a question for mr gehring i'm kind of ignorant and i don't know how everything ties together so uh i've been waiting on fiscal impact statement for over a month and a half would this in any way affect
Representative John Payton
Unverified
49:41
your ability to produce a fiscal impact statement Assessment coordination does have a role in creating fiscal impact statements that affect their division,
but certainly there is an ordinary process that we go through for preparing the revenue impacts for bills, but this particular bill has no relation to that process. Okay, well, maybe we need to
talk later. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you, Representative. I've seen
no further questions from committee members. We have signed up to speak for
the bill. Mr. Garrett, is there anything you could add that you're signed up to speak for the bill, but you're already at the table and you've been answering questions?
Do you have anything to add other than what you've
Representative John Payton
Unverified
50:24
already said? Just in addition to, I would like to add to Representative Payton. Would you pull your mic down, sir? Certainly. I would like to add two representative questions. Representative Payton's question, just to ask that I'd be
Speaker 167
50:34
happy to speak with him following the meeting on the status of anything that we've got working on. Okay, y'all do
that then outside the committee, so I think that was
the understanding, so I appreciate it. Do you have any further comments to make to this committee since you're signed up to speak for the bill? No, Mr. Chair, thank you.
Okay, I also have signed up to speak for the bill is Sandra Callier. Are you here? Yes, ma'am, if you would. If y'all would make room for her, Jim, somewhere down there at the end
of the table. Ms. Coyle, you're signed up to speak
Speaker 172
51:11
for the bill. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chair. And actually, I just wanted to give everyone an opportunity to see me and let me introduce myself. I am Sandra Collier. I am the new director of the Assessment Coordination Division.
And, yes, with the realignment and being in the DF&A family, we are completely good with this bill. And thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions if anyone had any one. Okay, any
questions from committee members? Seeing none,
Representative Dotson, you recognize to? Mr. Chair, I'm closed
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
51:52
and just make motion to do pass.
Okay, Representative Dotson has closed. We have a motion to do pass. Representative Warlow, you're recognized for a motion at the proper time. Thank you,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
52:04
Mr. Chair. I think in light of Representative Payton's issues, maybe we should table this until they can address those issues because it took them a whole 30 seconds to get this one to the table, and it's because it's their bill. And if they're not taking care of our members on getting paperwork they need to run
their bills, then I think we ought to hold their bills until they can get that stuff done.
So I'd make a motion to table this. substitute motion i'm sorry do what substitute motion to
table representative warlaw has made a substitute motion to table this that's non-debatable
Speaker 177
53:00
Committee members, like I said, it's non-debatable.
It's a substitute motion. Y'all heard the motion from Representative Woodlau. What's the all in
favor of that? Say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The ayes
have it. The motion to table this legislation has passed. Representative Dodson, I guess bring it back to us
when you kind of get more information involved in it. So we appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Guerin, for your testimony too. All right, Representative Dodson, you've got another bill. You're recognized to present House Bill
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
53:59
1216. Yes, sir. Hold on. 1216. Did you have something? Mr. Chair, I have Marty
Garrity from the Bureau of Legislative Research and Mr. Miller to come and help present 1216 and 1217, if it pleases the Chair.
This bill has nothing to do
with DFA. All right. Well, Mr. Garrity and Mr. Miller, y'all are recognized, if you would. Representative Dodson, do you want to make the opening
statement for your bill, or do you want them to go
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
54:34
ahead and... Yeah, I'll just open this.
This bill and the next one, but this bill, to begin with, a couple years ago, we passed the Code of Arkansas rules. BLR has been charged with developing and creating that
over a multi-year time frame. And so, you know, as with anything that's new, you learn a lot of stuff going through the process and developing it. And these are some of the changes that we feel like would be needed or necessary in order to really make that Code of Arkansas rules the gold standard in the United States. But I'll turn over, just let Ms. Garrity go through the bill for you so you know what all the sections are on this particular one. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 131
55:23
You're recognized. Marty Garrity with the
Speaker 132
55:28
Bureau of Legislative Research. As Representative Dotson indicated, two years ago, the General Assembly tasked the Bureau with creating the Arkansas Code of Rules. This is a significant project, and as we began the process soon after the session ended, we're looking at over 1,000 rules that we need to codify, which equals between 40,000 to 50,000 pages of agency rules that are going to be codified and standardized and placed on a
website for the public and the agencies to be able to use. We have been working with the executive branch, and we've got a working group to make sure that this process runs smoothly. But as Representative Dotson indicated, as we've begun, we've realized that there are some items that we just need to make sure that are in the law as we proceed. Section one is respectful language, and this is already currently in the code for our code revision commission and for laws. These are
terms that might be in the code or, in this case, might be in the rules that are not deemed acceptable terms. And so this gives the Bureau the authority to make those changes and use respectful terms instead. On these, we would obviously consult with the agencies before we would make the changes. Section 2 concerns exemptions to what is defined as a rule under the Administrative Procedures Act. Again, as we've been going through agency rules and reviewing
them, we've realized that there are some items that are being promulgated by agencies that are not things that are defined as rules, and therefore they're creating, if we were to codify them as a rule, they're going to create a document that is cumbersome and not accurate and changes on a whim. Some of those items are formatting rules for the creation of handbooks, pamphlets, or similar publications. So in this case, the adding of a cover title or a page, a table of context, or an index to these items would not be considered a rule.
Technical corrections, and I'm going to go over that in Section 3, and then forms unless the language is derived from the rule of law and the citation of the existing law or rule is included in the form. Section 3 would provide the Bureau the authority to make technical corrections to certain items. So what we've noticed is that agencies will put in their agency website or the name of someone to contact, and they'll promulgate that through
the rulemaking process. Well, if that person leaves, in order to change that person's name, the contact person at the agency, they actually have to re-promulgate the rule. Again, these aren't things that I think were intended to be covered under the APA, but are. So that would give the Bureau the ability to consult with an agency to make those changes. There is an appeal process. If the Bureau doesn't agree with an agency, it would go to Legislative Council for
final decision making. And just like we do with the Arkansas Code, it was never our intent to change the substance or meaning of a rule. And then Section 4 extends the completion date for the codification to January 1, 2024. That extends our process by year. Just like everything else with COVID, things were delayed, and we found ourselves not where we want to be at this point in time. It is, again, our intent to complete this project by January 1, 2024, but in the event
we are unable to, this Section 4 gives the Legislative Council the authority to extend that date rather than having to come back to the General Assembly. With that, I am happy to take any questions okay you've heard uh committee
members you've heard mr gary's uh comments are there any questions representative meeks you're recognized for
a question thank you mr chairman i'm i'm good with the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
59:49
intent of what you're trying to do and things like you know indexes and titles and stuff and i'm i'm okay with that the one thing that kind of caught my attention was
you talked about changing terms that were maybe not socially acceptable terms into things that We're less so. And the question becomes, who makes those decisions? Because as you know, what is questionable nowadays, those standards change over time. And I'm wondering if on some of these more substantive technical corrections, if it would be better for us to require a review of legislative counsel for those changes to be made.
that you kind of understand where I'm going with the question. Like I said, indexes and things like that, I don't care about. But if it's a more substantive technical correction, having legislative counsel review those, I think, could be
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:00:52
beneficial. I think if you look on page one and two of the bill, what she was referring to there is simply adding administrative rules under the section that Arkansas Code Revision already has the authority to make those technical corrections within the code.
So this would, since we're doing a code of rules, which is the regulatory code, just adding that so that the Bureau, when they're going through making those code revision type changes, they can make the rule type changes in a non-substantive way. You can see the list of the references on page two at the top there where it goes through.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:01:35
Okay, so they're changing things that are already within law.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:01:40
They're authorized to change. Okay. Yeah, you've got the law, which is the code, and then you've got the rules, which is the regulatory environment. This just gives the Bureau the same authority to make the rules match what the code
is going to do. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Any
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:02:03
further questions? Representative Blademan, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my question may have been answered there, but I ran a bill the last session for DHS removing these terms from some codes, a lot of codes.
So does this just go further? Does it change that bill that we passed last session? How does it affect that? It was a long bill. It was put forward by DHS, and it replaced all these terms with a more appropriate term. So what I'm wondering is, how does
this affect or override any of that? Matthew Miller with the
Speaker 192
1:02:43
Bureau of Legislative Research. There's kind of two tracks to this, Representative Ladyman.
If your bill was specific changing terms, then those would be done immediately. the process that's set out in the statute and representative Dotson's bill and is amended here to apply to rules there's kind of a rolling process we review the Arkansas code because we replace volumes and you know just basically update things from time to time and this bill authorizes us when we're doing those rolling reviews and doing replacement volumes if we run across one of these identified terms we can replace those on our own authority in the book
is not a substantive change just updating the reference so am i
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:03:23
correct in thinking that this just extends what that bill did to rules i believe so your bill would have
Speaker 192
1:03:29
been more immediate you know if it changed those and changed those in the law we're going to go ahead and make those now sometimes these can stay in the law for a while until we replace the
volume and come across it all right thank you okay thank you representative representative you got to be
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:03:49
recognized for a question thank you mr chair i i don't mean to sound smart alecky but i know the sign of the
times but how are we going to remember all these things we're going to have a code or a key or you know like we list uh different agencies how we how would you do that
Speaker 131
1:04:17
i mean really Representative Deffenbaugh, in terms of our staff, we will put together a
Speaker 132
1:04:23
manual for our staff to have these guidelines.
So as they're reviewing the rules, they will look at these items to make sure that they conform to what the legislature approves. We're also working with agencies moving forward. So as they begin to promulgate rules, they're going to begin to promulgate rules under the new standards and guidelines that are being created. So as Matthew said, it's almost a two-step process. We've got to work on the rules that are already in place, and then we also need to start working with the agencies as they're promulgating new rules to make sure that they conform to the new standards.
Okay. Good luck. any further questions from committee members seeing none i don't see anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill i have a motion from representative gonzalez if you recognize that motion i've seen how i
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:05:31
voted against the last two bills i don't want to vote against our bureau i'll make
a motion to do pass. Okay, we've got a motion of do pass. Is there any discussion from the committee members on the motion of do pass? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The bill passed. Congratulations, Representative Dodson. Your 12-16 is passed. are you ready to
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:06:01
present 12 you ready to present 12 17. there is an amendment on 1217
while staff's passing that out hold on a minute staff is passing out an amendment they're passing out the amendment right now in a paper
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:06:17
copy for everybody I believe everybody's got a copy of the amendment.
Representative Dodgson, you're recognized to present the amendment. Thank
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:06:57
you, Mr. Chair. The amendment is very simply replaces Section 4 and eliminates the emergency clause. So the reason the amendment is kind of long is that it deletes all of Section 4, which is basically the last couple of pages of the bill. Starting on page 11, halfway down, Section 4 is deleted through the rest of the bill, and then the amendment is the new section of the
bill. So the new section four, and it eliminates, uh, basically all it's doing is changing some dates that needed to be updated rather than trying to just strike out a date and change the number. We just eliminated section four and created a brand new section four for the bill. And, uh, due to the, those date changes, there's no longer a need for the emergency clause. So it's, it's striking the emergency clause from the title as well as from the end of the bill, and that's what the amendment
does. Representative Dodson, I've got a question.
This seems like a pretty lengthy amendment that all we're doing is eliminating some dates. I mean, this is a two-page amendment, so are you completely changing all the language, and if so, it seems like it's doing more than just the dates. Exactly what is it doing to change
uh with this amendment well it is
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:08:20
changing the dates um but it's it's completely replacing section four of the bill rather than having everybody have to try to go through line by line and say on on line number whatever this date has changed and and trying to correlate that
we just deleted all of section four so it's easy for the committee
to to look at the new section four of the bill
if this is adopted. Okay, one more question, then
I'll go to committee members. So are you telling me that this is, I'm looking at the amendment and it's underlined, so
that indicates this is all new language, is
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:08:57
that correct? Well, in section four of the bill, if you're looking at the bill
itself, I know we're not dealing with it yet, but on page 11, section four is all underlined as well. So we're simply deleting from section four through the
rest of the bill on page 11 and replacing it with this new amendment okay um all right
thank you representative for the answer all right representative board laws you have recognized for a question thank you
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:09:25
mr chair and we are on the amendment right no yes we
are on the amendment he's presented he has presented the amendment that's what we're discussing now thank you sir if
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:09:35
you look at uh page two of the amendment section c it talks about the governor to determine a rule review group can you explain to me what a rule review group is and i'm sure this bill's
setting that up but at the current moment all rules in the executive branch under governor hutchson go to him for signature before they come to alc or before they move forward however you want to word that does this eliminate his ability to do that or does this so kind of explain to me what that section c
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:10:08
means well section c in this amendment
um i i'd love to explain the entire bill and this is part of it um because it it probably makes more sense as it goes along
because this is the the last part of it but uh basically if you'll recall several years ago we set up a rule review process where rules expired over the course of time and we determined that the governor would set up six different groups of all remaining rules after we repealed a bunch of them. And that process was set up by Act 781 of 2017. That process, when we went
through it, we eliminated all of the excess rules, repealed a bunch of them. About 25% of all state rules were repealed at that time. And then the governor set up six different groups. At that time, the six different groups that he set up are currently in operation. We've already reviewed group number one of those six and uh we'll be moving toward group number two in the coming years
so um basically what section c that you're referring to here says that this act does not require the governor to determine rule review groups again so they're already set up and established we this is a non-codified section we don't want to require them to set up a whole new set a group of rules after this is passed. This is basically to say, okay, they're already established. They're already set up. We've already done rule number group number one.
We're not going to recreate that process. We're going to move forward with group number two. And then these are the dates that lay out when group two will come up, when group three will come up that have already been established.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:12:10
Does that make sense? Yes, sir. And I'd make a motion to adopt amendment
at a proper time Mr. Chair. Okay motion recognized. Any other question from committee members? Representative Gene you have
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
1:12:28
a question. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Dobson so make me make this clear section four and our bill will be deleted. Correct. This will
be added. You said something about the emergency clause that's in section five. We're
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:12:42
not messing with section five are we well the
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
1:12:44
amendment deletes section five so we're deleting section four and
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:12:47
five correct so there will no longer be an emergency bill uh uh clause on the bill once this amendment is adopted okay thank you
okay any further questions committee members seeing none representative makes i think you also you have a separate motion same motion at representative
ward law head okay committee members we've got a motion for a due pass is there any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor of the amendment say aye all opposed say no the amendment has passed representative dodging you're recognized to present your bill with the amendment Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of jumped
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:13:32
into a little bit of the meat of the bill talking about
the amendment, but this, as you recall, we did a
lot of this a few years ago. We're not trying to recreate that process. What we're trying to do here is simply clean up some of the codified language that was from that process years ago that had some dates in there from 2017 and that sort of thing. And really in section two of the bill is that process is largely being moved into
section one. So the new underlying language that you see in section one, if you go to section two of the bill, which is on, starts on page five, you'll notice that all of that is crossed out for the next several pages. So most of this is being moved from section two to section one of the bill. The six groups that we were talking about are not new groups. They're going to stay
the same groups as as was before um and this creates a little bit more streamlined process gives a little bit more direction to legislative council on how we're going to be reviewing these and the primary thing that it does is it changes the length of time for review from four years to two years for each group so that uh when we originally set up this process we thought it it might take a lot longer to do a review of a group. And so we set it over a four-year time
period. As we've experienced now, it didn't take near as long as what we thought to go through and have for the legislature to review it. So now this will set up a situation where each group will come up, one group will come up every two years. So it's one full term of a House member. So the same set of people who begins the process will carry that entire group through and won't go over two different terms of a house member secondarily so that's that's basically what section one
section two in a nutshell do section three of the bill if you look at this so this sets up a a little bit more of an expedited process for those things that as as uh as garrity was mentioning in the arkansas code of rules if you look at page 10 uh there at the top there as they're developed in arkansas code of rules or the code of arkansas rules i guess is technically the way it's defined and they come across things that are not
technically rules, they have ability to go in there and have an expedited rule review and removal process, I guess, is the best way to define it. And if you have questions on that section a little bit more, I've got the Bureau here to try to answer those questions. And then In section four, which is basically the amendment that you have in front of you, it sets up
the timeline. And rather than having the second group start this year, it will start two years from now. So it basically sets up the date for group number two, group number three, group number four and so on to uh to come up for review over the course of the next decade and sets that uh that cycling review process for all the rules i know that's uh probably a lot to we talked a lot
about rules there but uh try to answer any questions and in particular if there's any questions on section three i've got the bureau here that can explain that in a lot more
depth and detail. Okay, you've heard Representative Dotson's testimony on his bill. Is there any questions? Seeing none, Representative Dotson, are you ready to close? I'm closed for the
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:17:52
bill and make a motion do pass. We
have a motion do pass as amended. Is that correct, Representative Dotson? Correct,
sir. Okay, we have a motion do pass as amended. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Congratulations, your bill has passed, Representative Dodger. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Committee, that concludes today's meeting. I appreciate you, and I'll see you in a few weeks, and thank you so much. We're adjourned.
Agenda
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1056 L. Fite TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC PUBLIC MEETINGS DURING A DECLARED STATE EMERGENCY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1053 - 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.
HB1216 - HB1216 Dotson TO REVISE CERTAIN ARKANSAS LAWS APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE OF ARKANSAS RULES
HB1217 - HB1217 Dotson CONCERNING THE EXTENSION AND REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. amendment adopted -
HB1217 - HB1217 Dotson CONCERNING THE EXTENSION AND REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. passed as amended
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Jan 21, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Dwight Tosh Chair
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 22
Speaker 36
Representative Spencer Hawks
Unverified
Speaker 46
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
Paul Calvert
Unverified
Speaker 59
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 68
Speaker 18
Speaker 71
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 84
Speaker 96
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 105
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 114
Speaker 126
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 132
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
Speaker 136
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 164
Representative John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 161
Speaker 167
Speaker 172
Speaker 177
Speaker 131
Speaker 192
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified