Education Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (2)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1104
Act 85
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1104 Evans TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING S…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING SPECIAL SCHOOL ELECTIONS. | Evans | Notification that HB1104 is now Act 85 |
|
HB1101
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “are recognized to present House Bill 1101. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just”
|
TO AMEND THE AMOUNT OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED TO PETITION A SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS … | Evans | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
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
I'll call this meeting to order. And we have a big agenda today. You know, really truthfully, I think this is probably a little bit above average. I know we've had a couple of meetings in the past that we didn't have any legislation until probably the second or third meeting. And had to actually not have a meeting. So we are having a meeting. Okay, I'm just going to kind of go over something that Mark Lowry, Representative Lowry, and I talked about last night. is the consent agenda and the process of doing it.
You okay with me talking about this, Mark? Okay, good. Mark sent me a message and objected to the agenda. And so I asked him what his reasoning was. And he said, mostly the sponsor. No, I'm just kidding. There's Fred Love calling.
I don't know if I should talk to him or not, but he'll be all right. But anyway, he is on the
committee, but I think he's still under quarantine, isn't he?
Okay, well. Well, he doesn't need to call me. Anyway, I'll take care
of that in just a minute. Let's talk about this. So Mark objected to it. So I asked him what his objection was, and so we just ended up talking back and forth. And we worked that out, that he really didn't think it was objectionable, but there is some things, but he could always run legislation to counteract if he didn't think it was right. So what I would appreciate from anyone on the committee, and I know last week was a weird week,
this week was a weird week, we had so many days off, the agenda, we try to post that agenda. So as soon as you see that agenda, if you would look every, try to look at it every day, If you see something objectable on the consent agenda, please let me know quickly so we can get it back and put it back, and then we'll move it back to the regular agenda to be heard as any bill, which all bills will be heard, but as any bill with the opportunity to bring counter witnesses and witnesses in to hear those things.
Everybody okay with that? Okay, thank you. What else did I have? We have no meetings after this week. B committees will be meeting on Thursday, so we will not have a meeting on Thursday. So that will give everybody time that has legislation to probably get it filed, get it the, what do you call it, the attachment? Physical impact. I'm brain dead this morning. Physical impact to it and get it ready to go on the agenda for next Tuesday or Thursday.
So we should have a pretty good agenda. I can tell you some of the bills I've already looked at are probably going to be on the regular agenda, not straight to consent. I don't know. I told Mark, I said I may not put anything on
consent agenda again. So that way it all gets to be heard. So, but anyway, anyone have anything this morning they'd like to say or got a
question or anything? Charlene, punch that button and represent the fight, should
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
3:10
I say? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, I'm confused about the consent agenda.
I thought the consent agenda just meant ones that we didn't expect to have any controversy. Is that
what you're saying? That is correct, but we do not have controversy at this time. Okay. Yeah. We could talk about this, but the sponsor has been willing to say that we can discuss this bill this morning, and I'm willing to let you discuss the bill. If it is controversial in the middle of this bill, we will pull it out and move it back down. But right now, they are still on the consent agenda.
So just to be presented, talked about, and voted up or down.
Speaker 16
3:51
Thank you. Representative Lowry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is for my benefit as well as a chairman of another committee. My understanding on a consent agenda is if one member objects and basically says, not that I'm objecting, but says that I really believe that this could have some controversy, then that item is moved to the main agenda.
However, since we don't have a main agenda today, we can take up these bills, we can discuss them. The only limitation is that because they've been on the consent agenda, there are no outside groups. That is correct. Does that also include the Department of Education? Because I assume these are department bills. I would think, you know,
I couldn't say that you couldn't bring them
up to ask them a question about this bill
because we do have one representative from them. But that basically means that with the consent agenda, you don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against them in the public. So the public means lobbyists or regular public. I don't know if that means department. I haven't got that clarification yet. So anyway, we'll
see. Okay. We're going to be in a learning process for about a week or so, and
Speaker 16
5:14
maybe longer. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you very much for taking. I know we communicated by text last night, but I wish I had.
I mean, I think your admonition is correct that maybe as soon as we're finished on a Thursday, we should check the agenda. that's when you would be updating? I think on Friday
it will update. It'll update on Wednesdays and Fridays, is that correct? Or maybe even afternoons of the mornings that we have meetings with people. As they file bills, they get read across the desk. They get referred to us. Of course, as soon as they're read across the desk, they go for the fiscal impact unless
it's higher ed, and higher ed would come directly to this committee. So anyway, that's kind of how.
Speaker 27
5:56
Not that I will ever have a bill on consent agenda, but. but if a member wanted to
Speaker 16
6:03
place a bill on a consent agenda, is that something that you do on your own or by request of the sponsor? Do what now? No, they do not automatically.
I look and put them on there. You can ask to be put on there. When you text me and say you're ready to run your bill or you want it on the agenda, because actually it goes to Michelle,
It will sit on the referred list. It's referred to our committee. It sits there. I get the notification, which she has some for me this morning, of the bills that are ready to be put on the agenda. So when those bills come to me, I'll look at them. If you text me and say I have a bill, which I've had another representative text me and say I have bills and I'd like to be put on a consent agenda, Well, I will look at it if I think it has opposition or if you guys call me in the meantime and say I have opposition to this bill, then we'll put it on the regular agenda.
If you see one show up on the consent agenda and you have opposition to it, please call me quickly. We'll move it back down, put it on the regular agenda so it can be open for discussion from everybody. So that's kind of the way the process will work. So we should be starting to run quite a few
Speaker 29
7:22
bills. Representative Beck. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
7:24
So just a little bit more clarification. So if something to get on the consent agenda, it requires that the author of the bill ask to be put on the consent agenda,
or can you do that yourself? No, you have to ask to be put on the consent agenda, and it should be that you are pretty positive that it is non-controversial, not like Brian
just guessing at it. But I'm just kidding, Brian. We pretty well thought his were non-controversial. But,
you know, like I told somebody, I said every education bill can be controversial to someone. So not that Mark is just always going to pick on you, Brian.
But anyway, I'll tell you, I know Stephen Meek has a bill for civics that will come to this committee. I've already had somebody say that's controversial, and so not in this committee, but anyway. So anyway, we'll figure it out. We'll make it work out. Anyone else have questions or anything?
If not, we're going to get started. Could you call Representative Love and see if he wants to chime in? He tried calling me, and I don't know if he wants – I don't see if he left me a message or not.
he did not leave me a message he may want to uh speaker phone in on our meetings since he's quarantined we allow him to do that but we'd have to have somebody put him on a speaker phone we'll we'll give it just a second brian if you want to go ahead and move to the other table we'll get started
Speaker 16
9:01
as soon as we get ready yes sir i i have a question you just uh You just said that, for instance, on Representative Meek's bill,
that someone from outside the committee had expressed it would be controversial. Would it not take someone as a member of this committee to object? Yes, but I'm sure they'll be contacting someone. That's
what I was kind of warning him. Yeah, well, no,
Right. That's what I'm saying. If somebody outside has that, then they will. Oh, he just had a question probably. He wants to get in, he just don't know how. Yeah, I don't
know how to do it through this. She may know, I'm not sure.
But we could definitely put him right here on speaker, and if he wants to speak at some time, he could just speak up. But definitely let him listen in. Well, if he's
watching it online, he's listening in. So, okay. Representative Evans, you
are recognized to present House Bill 1101. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
10:12
as a little bit of a precursor to, because we have like 11 new members to the committee,
and for anyone who has not been in what I'm going to call the school business, if you've not been a teacher or a coach or served on a board of education, Um, Arkansas code 613-619 mandates by statute what school boards are required to do, uh, in regards to their meetings and transparency. Uh, they must get, number one, they must have a monthly meeting while school is in session. So every month that school is in session, your local school boards are required by law to meet.
Secondly, they must provide 10 days notice of the date and time and location of that meeting. And thirdly, if that meeting is going to have anything to do whatsoever with personnel, then that meeting cannot be held prior to 5 p.m. So there's a lot of due diligence that goes into a board establishing a time and place and date of their meeting, making sure it's transparent, providing that notification to the stakeholders of the community. What House Bill 1101 does is if you go back and look, the code was actually established and updated most recently in 2012.
And since that time, we have had great growth in a lot of our districts across the state at the time. And if you if you look back in the code, this particular section dated way back prior to even to that was that in order for someone in the public to call a special meeting outside of that monthly meeting, then they had to go and they had to get 50 signatures on a petition, take that to the administrative office, and request to have a special called
meeting that would occur in between, somewhere in between that monthly meeting, most especially in between that 10-day window of notification of the regular board meeting. Well, for our smaller school districts across the state uh you know 50 signatures very well could represent an overall trend uh an overall cast of the general population of that school district the various different stakeholder groups when you look at our larger school districts uh that that's a very minute
number and so uh this is this bill was brought to me by the school board association to kind of take care of some issues that they've had various school districts across the state and i'll share a couple of those, uh, just for, just for the purpose of anonymity, I'll leave the district's name out of it. Um, but so for instance, one school district, uh, had an employee who, um, uh, became disgruntled at work, um, had a fallen out with superintendent, uh, left or was fired, however it ended up,
but due to this statute being limited to 50, and this is a fairly large school district in our state he went out put 50 names on a sheet of paper and every other week for an extended period of time would go to central office say here's my 50 names and I want to call a special school board meeting next week I want to complain about I don't like the football coach I want to complain because I don't like the quality of food in the cafeteria I want to complain because I don't like the fact
that kids are having to sit side-by-side on a bus. And so at another situation where in a large school district in our state, several thousand voting members in that district, one POA, a gated community in this district, did not like the fact potentially that their students were going to be bused with minority students. And so a 50-name petition came out of a gated POA, and they went and called a special board meeting, brought these board members in to potentially complain about the fact that they did not want something just as frivolous as that.
And so if we continue to allow this petition process to just be 50, then you take large communities, especially those communities that have high minority populations, then you're not allowing for those zoned board members to be able to have equal representation because continually someone could go in there and drop 50 names on the desk. And so what the association is asking is 50 for the petition or 2% of the qualified electors in that school district that would be calculated each July 1.
And so if you take a district, if they had 10,000 voters in that district, then you're talking about a petition of 200 instead of 50. With that,
Speaker 15
15:03
I would appreciate a good vote on that and would be glad to answer any questions. Representative Lowry,
Chair
Unverified
15:09
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the outset, you pointed out that one of the reasons for this need has been that when this number of 50 was originally established,
it was when school districts, much smaller, lower thresholds. So this is an adjustment to time, to changes over time. Is there any consideration, especially since we're going to be looking at the greater of, the 2%, 50% or 2%, whichever is the greater, of allowing
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
15:46
online petitions to adjust to new trends, technologies?
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
15:53
I would certainly not be opposed to that. I think we're all looking at an era where technology tends to be the greater choice. So we can either bring – we have a representative from the association actually in the holding room. We'd be glad to bring them to the table, and you can ask that question. And if they don't – if we need to specify that it has to – that it could be online, I would not be opposed to making that change.
Chair
Unverified
16:25
Okay. Follow up, Mr. Chair. And I know you want to protect the anonymity of the district situations that you mentioned, but the one of the faculty member who'd been dismissed and kept using this process, what would be, just give me a range so that we're not identifying the school district. what would be the number of qualified electors in that particular district and what the 2% threshold would have been?
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
16:56
So I believe that district has 13,000 in it. So you're looking at, what, 260? So 260. And one of the things, Representative, that I looked at on this as I contemplated this bill was if these are, and forgive me if I use this term backwards, If these are frivolous issues, then the change in this protects the districts from that.
Every time somebody gets mad about something, they don't run up there with it. But if these are non-frivolous issues, if these are big issues in the district, then most likely that word is going to have spread throughout the district already. And so the ability to go out and have, you know, in this particular case, 260 names on a petition to call a special meeting outside of that normal monthly meeting where that item could be placed on the agenda. I don't see that as being, you know, too paramount to achieve. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
17:57
I just have a procedural question of the chair.
Speaker 16
18:03
Mainly I'm asking this because, you know, it's been two years since we've had committee meetings, so I may not remember our process, but will there be an opportunity for us to just have an open discussion among members rather than just asking questions i mean i have some there there
is at the after the vote after the motion is made there's open discussion okay now and and i'm gonna i'm just gonna say there is at any time on a consent agenda if you still want to
pull this back and put it back on the regular agenda for other things you can make that
right now, while we're discussing this, if it gets into the weeds and somebody wants to object to this, even during
the time of discussion before we vote on it, we can pull this back. So I'm not trying to promote that. I'm just saying that that can't happen. I am on the phone with Representative Love texting back and forth, and he has some concerns about this bill. He has not told me he wants to object to it yet. So, Fred, if you're listening and you want to object, I need to know that pretty quickly, and we will pull this back and put it back on the regular agenda.
And I'm getting ready to get to you. I have Ms. Godfrey first.
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
19:17
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Evans. We had talked about this a little bit yesterday, but I did want to follow up a little bit on just the concern for frivolity. I understand that that's the intent of the bill and agree with you. I think we do need to consider the misuse of this statute. But I understand, too, that regardless of how frivolous it is, it would impact any concern, especially in large communities.
I represent a large school district, and this threshold would go from 50 signatures to well over 600 and growing all of the time. And to your point about, you know, in a large community, it would probably be widely known and kind of a larger issue and therefore able to get those large number of required signatures. I'm not sure if that's true. Just sometimes issues are specific to an individual school, a community, a neighborhood, and may only be known by a smaller number than is required by this 2% threshold.
And so my question is, why 2%? Why was that the number landed on, especially for large districts like mine, where we're going just very significantly and substantially from 50 to over 600. Why 2%? Why was that seen as the chosen threshold? With the permission of the chair, I'll be asked the
Speaker 57
20:40
representative from the School Board Association to come in and answer that question
they provided. I'm going to hold you up there. I have an objection to
this bill, so we're going to pull that back
and we'll put it on regular agenda. It will be heard next week. And I hate to do that to you, but that's the way the rule states. And I think we have enough discussion that really warrants that already. So if everybody's okay with that, there's no vote needed for that. We're just going to pull that one back. So we'll stop discussing it now. We'll be ready to discuss it. It'll go back on the regular agenda for next Tuesday. Representative Brown, do you have anything other than to that discussion on it? Well,
Speaker 59
21:24
I believe Representative Godfrey's question more or less addressed my question, which was, how did you determine the 2%?
Yes, okay. So, all right, so be prepared for next week. We'll bring that
back, Representative Evans, and that's the way this stuff's going to work. So, if you want to,
we'll move to HB 1104. Yes, sir.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
21:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members, thank you for the questions. Make sure that on that previous bill that we get that right. So House Bill 1104 brought to me by the Department of Ed. It really is, quite simply, just some cleanup language. So if you're looking at the bill, the purpose of this is to take out line number three on line 30.
The Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education approves the date of the election. So when you go and you look at the actual statute in which this was put together, the statute provides no authority whatsoever or a basis for the commissioner to deny a request of a date for a special election. So it's been in there, but yet the commissioner really didn't have the authority and there was no basis for them to make that decision. Therefore, his approval is not necessary. And just to confirm, as I spoke with Secretary Key on this, I said, so over the last
number of years that you've been in this position how many times have you denied a date that a school requested for a special election and he said we've never denied one at all he said just based upon the fact that there was no basis for a denial nor did he have authority within the statute to make that call so just to clean up on this to to take that out of the language Representative Lowry
Speaker 16
23:14
Thank you Mr. Chair This section that's being
struck how is that not the authority I mean how does that
Chair
Unverified
23:22
not give the authority for the commissioner to either approve or disapprove I would if permission of
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
23:29
the chair I would yield that question to counsel for the department Ms. Salas Ford Do you have that answer? If you have that
answer, you're welcome to come to the table and tell us.
Speaker 69
23:53
Thank you. Courtney Solis-Ford, Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Education. Representative Lowry, so it's our interpretation that even though you might infer authority, that there's just no basis. The one time I will say that Secretary Key had a conversation with the Election Commission and with the school district about trying to deny it, that was the questions that were posed by both entities, in particular the school district. What authority did he have? What basis did he have for denying it?
And so as that has just become a rubber stamp process, an additional paperwork process on behalf of school districts, we asked Representative Evans to consider removing it. Well, follow
Speaker 16
24:37
up. Thank you. So just by the testimony you just gave, it really kind of tells us that there are situations or at least
Chair
Unverified
24:48
was one situation where the commissioner felt like denial was appropriate, correct? It wasn't so
Speaker 71
24:55
much that he felt denial was appropriate,
but when asking the election commission, do
Speaker 69
25:00
you feel this is inappropriate, that they would be the more appropriate authority to make that determination. So again, it was just that consideration. And I believe it was because of the proximity of the date of the special election to the regular election, not saying that he would have denied it, just that he didn't feel that he had the authority if that's what he would have decided. Okay. Well, let me, and I know this may
Chair
Unverified
25:28
be beyond the scope of what you would want to respond to but just looking at the necessity of having an additional layer of oversight say a school district wanted to plan a special millage election one that would raise the tax rate they wanted to do it in the middle of summer vacation would that not be a situation where maybe the the director the commissioner would want to sound in on whether that is appropriate or not?
Speaker 69
26:00
Without speaking too much on the Commissioner or Secretary's personal opinion, I don't think he feels he would have any basis to do that.
Okay. All right, thank you. Representative Lowry, I talked with the Commissioner this morning about both of these bills
a little bit, and he was very adamant that he had faith in our people in our commissions, election commissions that this was what they know their areas and how these things should work a lot
better than than uh and he said every time it's just a layer for them to come up to him they're just cutting out that extra layer because they're going to have to go through those commissioners
anyway so that's kind of what he felt any other questions okay representative evans you're back up Seeing no other
Speaker 57
26:51
questions, and as a member of the committee, I would move for a motion to do pass. Do you have a second?
I've got a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? I have a second. Okay. Is there any discussion? Open discussion. You can ask
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
27:15
a question, yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, do we need a second for a do pass motion in this committee?
In the House, we do. We do? Okay. Yeah, in the House. In the Senate, you don't have to have a senator. I thought it was the other way around. Yeah. House rules, second on all motions. Is that correct? That's correct, right? Second on all motions in the House.
Yes. Yes, that's just... Except to adjourn. Except to adjourn, and I'm... Yes, you're correct. All right, so we have
a motion to second, and we're open for discussion. Representative Lowry, you're open. This
Speaker 16
27:47
is a discussion between the members. Right, okay. Well, as I mentioned to Chairman Cozart last
Chair
Unverified
27:53
night when I first objected to this being a consent item, I did concede that really this issue of the oversight of the commissioner is that probably is a technical fix.
But it does bring up conversation about maybe, and just because it brings up conversation about it, the need to tighten this up
Speaker 16
28:19
so that millage elections are not done in the dark of night so that people do have adequate notice and
Chair
Unverified
28:29
all of that, that's a totally separate issue to discuss. But in the meantime, until we have that, you know, I'm very comfortable with having that
extra layer of oversight that the commissioner would have. I don't know that the election commission would, you know, they would sound in on issues related to it being too, one election being too close to the other or their ability to be able to hold an election. They would not be looking at the issue of accountability and fairness to the voters like the commissioner possibly would. And I think, I mean, all due respect to legal counsel, I think that if it's
in statute here that it says the commissioner shall approve or shall review, that that's all the legal justification that's needed. And I understand that there are other entities that would want to sound in on that, but I think the commissioner is one that we trust, in trust, with the authority to be able to look at the issues of accountability, whereas election commissions really would not be something that would be on their list of items.
Speaker 72
29:46
So for that reason, I would be very concerned about
this bill. I'm just going to say I agree in a way, but I think that your election commission are always aware of the special needs for the areas that they represent and deal with. I mean, you got it. Okay, just to make sure. But they would not be the ones trying to sneak an election in.
It would be your, and I don't mean anything to superintendents, but it's going to be your superintendents that are going to try to sneak those in and try to have those in the most time that most people are going to vote the least on it to do that. So I think the election commissioners would probably be wary of that and watch for that. But I can't say for every one, as we know, we have certain issues in certain different counties that do
things differently. Every election commissioner is different. So let me see who I have first up.
Speaker 86
30:48
I have Representative Murdoch here next. Thank you, Chair. Just a matter of procedural question. does the consent agenda, does it require a unanimous vote to pass the motion or just a majority? I don't
have it. I think it's just a regular motion. I'm looking at a question someone asked me, so give me just a second.
Speaker 16
31:24
Mr. Chairman, could I give a qualification? I mean, maybe give some kind of clarification. You mean? I'm sorry. To you on this question that was just asked? That question? Uh-huh. Who do you want? No, I think I can maybe give clarification. Oh, you want to give a clarification. You go ahead. Okay. My understanding on a consent agenda is that at the point that it is still considered to
be on a consent agenda, if one member objects, and it kind of in reverse answers your question, it would take a unanimous vote. If one member objects to us voting on this, then we wouldn't be able to vote on it. Okay. Well, I did get an
answer to Charlene. You're right, Charlene. we do not have to have a second in the house, but I think we've always done it. But, uh, yeah, so anyway, we'll go back from that. Uh, let me ask buddy.
I have, he's texted me something. Um, so it has to, I'm going to ask him if it has to be. Hey, um, let me just call him. That's probably just faster. You guys don't mind. Would you entertain a motion to just recess
Speaker 16
32:44
for five minutes while you get your answer? If you'll give
Speaker 72
32:46
me just about half a minute. Oh, okay. We'll recess for half a minute then. I'll get a drink.
If I'm reading my sheet right up here that they give us a little cheat sheet,
non-controversial, no-negative-vote motion. It takes unanimous votes to pass that. So I'm still waiting on Buddy. I'm going to make sure before we go any further. If I can get that, I don't want to go out of here wrong and vote on something and be wrong. So if you guys, I don't think you have anywhere to be for a little while, so if you don't mind, we'll just hang in here for a second. Yes, sir?
You're welcome. We're open for discussion. All right. Well,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
35:50
so if someone votes against it right now, one person votes against it, then it fails. Does that mean it doesn't go on the other agenda? It goes back to regular agenda. Okay.
So that just puts it on regular agenda.
It goes back to regular agenda. It always does. Yeah. Yes, ma'am. So
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
36:10
really in here, there'll probably be nothing that's on a consent agenda. That's what I've already said last night.
As we can see today, that something you think is non-controversial can be very controversial quick. So I can't get a hold of Buddy.
I don't know who else would know that question for sure. I know some of y'all are chairs also, but y'all probably haven't reached that point yet either to see. So, Charlene, have you done that yet? No, but I'm thinking the consent agenda is
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
36:41
not going to be very helpful to us. Oh, I know it's not. Because look at today.
It's slowed everything down today. It's just like a regular agenda. That's why Representative Lauer and I talked about this last night, and I said probably we won't
have very many items on consent agenda. I don't think any committee will really. You know, there's something. If you had a one-word change in a department bill that may be just one word to make something
clarified, that might be it. Maybe. I think where it's going
Speaker 86
37:13
to be helpful is in committees like you just shared where you have some code revisions. Sure. Where you have a whole lot of those.
Yeah, we have some of those in education, too. Right. So I think it's going to
be, but for most of the policy making and changing, it's not going to be. Basically, this is a code revision, but it takes something out of that code. Yeah, yeah. So
I think it'll be helpful in a few places. It will, it will. And
that's what they were looking at is try to speed up the process. So we will see. I'm going to try calling Buddy one more
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
37:46
time. Yes, sir. Yeah. Yeah, and technically, I don't know that I have any big problem with this other than this one section.
You know, this is dealing with people voting for taxes. I think that we should move it to the regular agenda to give people, and there may be no one show up to talk about this, but that gives people the ability to show up and talk about this beforehand. And the other thing, you know, I suspect other people, I have received emails that there's a lot of concerns about this session and will the public be able to speak out and stuff. And I think this kind of addresses that issue also.
Representative Evans, would you like to pull this back and put it on the regular agenda? I believe that's the only agenda
we have in here. That way you do. Okay. Let me just tell you the reasoning for that because if we vote on it, it fails once. You only
have one more time to do it. So this way it would just go back to regular agenda. Sounds like a wonderful idea to me, sir. All right. We're going to pull this bill
and go to regular agenda. So this was a learning process, and I'm glad we've had this little committee meeting and we've learned about consent agendas that
they will not probably work. So thank you for being here today.
Watch your calendars. Watch the bills. I doubt if there will be anything on a consent agenda for you to pull down, but be aware of what's coming up and be prepared if you have somebody that you want to call in to testify or you want to make some suggestions about the bills please be prepared so thank you for your comments Mark I love you I thank you for keeping us straight Reggie all of you that have gave us input on these things today thank you for your input and that's what it takes to make a committee work speak up
talk be a part of it and we'll make better schools and we'll educate our kids better with this so thank y'all if there's no I take a motion to adjourn have motion to adjourn we are adjourned
Agenda
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1104 Evans TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING SPECIAL SCHOOL ELECTIONS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — EDUCATION COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Jan 19, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Bruce Cozart Chair
Unverified
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Speaker 16
Speaker 27
Speaker 29
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 41
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Speaker 15
Chair
Unverified
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
Speaker 57
Speaker 59
Speaker 69
Speaker 71
Speaker 72
Speaker 86
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified