City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (4)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB76
Act 68
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB76 L. Eads TO ESTABLISH AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT; AND TO AUTH…”
|
TO ESTABLISH AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT; AND TO AUTHORIZE AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT HOLDER TO … | L. Eads | Notification that SB76 is now Act 68 |
|
SB20
Act 255
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TRAIN PERMIT HOLDER TO SELL AND SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. SB20 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VACANCY, SUSPENSION,…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VACANCY, SUSPENSION, AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR COUNTY ELECTIVE, COUNTY QUORUM … | D. Wallace | Notification that SB20 is now Act 255 |
|
SB32
Act 158
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB32 J. English TO AUTHORIZE A RETAIL LIQUOR PERMIT HOLDER TO DE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN PERMIT HOLDERS TO DELIVER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIRECTLY TO A CONSUMER. | J. English | Notification that SB32 is now Act 158 |
|
SB59
Act 872
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LDER TO DELIVER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIRECTLY TO A CONSUMER. SB59 B. Ballinger THE ARKANSAS SECOND AMENDMENT LIBERTIES SAFEGU…”
|
TO BE KNOWN AS THE "INTRASTATE FIREARMS PROTECTION ACT"; AND TO PREVENT THE UNITED STATES … | B. Ballinger | Notification that SB59 is now Act 872 |
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'm going to call this meeting of City, County, and Local. Let me just say a few things before we begin. We do need to adopt the rules, and I'm sure most of you are familiar with the rules, because if you've been to another committee meeting, you've already seen these. If you have any questions about them, if you want to read over them real quick, if you have any questions, we'll try to answer them. If not, I would entertain a motion. We have a motion to adopt the rules. We have a second. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passed. Also, we have Senator Flowers is going to be joining us via Zoom
on the back screen. Good morning. Good morning, Senator Flowers. Glad you
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
0:48
could be with us today. Thank you. Now, because of what I've seen in terms of compliance with the mask rule, So
my doctor advises me not to attend meetings where I sense that people are not going to honor that requirement. So I expect that I'll be attending city, county,
and local as well as Senate Judiciary by remote participation.
Okay. Thank you, Senator Flowers. Okay. We understand. Any other
comments by members? I want to welcome the new members. I know we have some old members that were, not old members, but
members that were on this committee two years ago. We've got a few new ones. We welcome you, Senator Johnson, Senator Sullivan, Senator Hammer. It's good to have you on City, County, Local. All right, without further ado, we're going to get started. We've got the four bills we're going to hear this morning that's on the active list, the The third list, and the first one is Senator Eads, Senate Bill 76.
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
2:09
the table, Senator Eads? Recognize yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Lance Eads from Senate District 7, and I'm here to present Senate Bill 76. You're recognized. Thank you, sir. This bill is a bill to establish a retail permit for an excursion train.
An example we have is we have an excursion train in Springdale that's one of our top tourism providers in Northwest Arkansas that travels back and forth between Northwest Arkansas into the River Valley with some rides to the mountains. And they want to be able to offer alcohol for drinks for sale and to serve on those rides back and forth through the mountains. They have events right now where they allow people to utilize their train and they're able to serve and they have to bring their own in. This would allow them to be able to have some control
of how much is being served and then also there's a rule in here if you'll notice on page two of this that does limit those the permit holder is authorized to sell and serve alcoholic beverages only when the excursion train is located in a territory that has authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages so when this particular train goes through Crawford County heading down to Van Buren they would have to stop the sale at that particular time and the language in this bill was vetted by the director of ABC and her staff so if we have any questions for her she's here
and would be happy to answer those as well so this is pretty simple it just gives them an opportunity to add another level of service to the tourism that they provide in that area and hopefully then if there are some trains in other parts of the state that might want to be able to utilize this as well
Speaker 21
3:55
I'd be happy to take any questions all right committee you've heard an explanation of the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
4:04
bill. Is there any questions from any members? I have a question. Senator Flowers, you recognize? Yes. Good morning, Senator Eads.
Good morning. Good morning. Excursion trains, I see the definition. Could that be, Is it a real, like a train on a railroad track or
what? Yes, ma'am. It's an actual passenger train on a railroad
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
4:29
track that's utilized for sightseeing tours and things like that. Okay. And you got one up in
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
4:37
the mountains, you said? Yes, ma'am.
OK, so and then the part where the ABC will create these rules to implement and administer, certainly they would consider laws that provide for liability in the event that a passenger or guest on the train that served liquor would not get drunk. uh dram shop laws and uh then uh also consider the age of the server as well as the age of the
patron who is uh ordering the drink is that correct i'd like to hear from the abc director on those issues sure thing all right do we have the table mr chair yes do we
Yes, if you want to go at the end of the table and recognize yourself.
Speaker 34
5:51
Doralee Chandler, Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control. All
Speaker 36
5:56
right, Ms. Chandler, you recognize. The laws regarding servers, age, service to, and over serving would all be applicable
Speaker 38
6:02
to any of our permitted on-premise locations. So it would be applying to the excursion train. Okay. All right. Is
there any questions? Senator Hamer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
6:18
Chair. Senator Eades, the $200, is that pretty much in line with everybody else?
I don't guess anybody's opposing to the $200 permit
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
6:44
fee. The company that asked for this permit, this was fine with them, and this was in line after conversations with the ABC of other permits.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
6:53
So I think it's fairly similar. A follow-up, Mr. Chair? Yes. Only because I don't know, but the excursion trains, can they be rented out like for private parties? And if so, would this law have any restrictions for what happens if it's rented
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
7:13
out privately? Only if the, this would only apply if the company that owns
the train is actually selling the product that would qualify under their
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
7:22
permit. So if somebody wanted to rent the train for whatever reason, they could do what they wanted to do privately without being held limited by this law.
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
7:33
Well, let me let the director answer that question just to make sure I
Speaker 36
7:44
get that right. the train would be a permitted location so they would not be allowed to bring alcoholic beverages from outside onto the train all alcoholic beverage products would be under the control of the permitted location under the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
7:57
permittee so if they rented out the train and whoever
and i'm thinking like how would apply in a wedding venue if somebody just wanted to rent the train out and they wanted to have alcohol they would have to operate under these guidelines even though
Speaker 36
8:12
it's a private event is that correct they would have to break they would have to obtain their alcohol from the permitted
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
8:19
premise from the excursion train okay very good
thank you thank you mr thank you sister hammer uh
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
8:31
senator sullivan you have a question thank you mr chair she may have just answered the question so have there been problems now with people bringing liquor under
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
8:39
the drink train or alcohol well there were times where they
were would rent those trains out and people i don't know if there was any she didn't mention any specific problems but she said this would keep them from the possibility of having somebody rent the train out and having an accident or being over served because they would be in
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
8:57
the control of how much they they would administer this licensing kind of will prevent people from bringing their own alcohol on the train correct thereby limit those other circumstances that are could occur correct okay all right thank you mr chair thanks senator sullivan any any other
Speaker 62
9:16
questions members senator johnson you're recognized thank you mr chairman uh
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
9:22
senator eads and this might be one for director Chandler would it be safe to say that this is basically the only difference between this location and any permanent building permitted location would be that this one moves that and if it crosses into a dry area it's suddenly out of business until it crosses back into a wet area is that pretty well the way it would line up that's correct and currently the
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
9:51
reason why we needed this this particular piece of legislation is because currently anything that does move is not allowed to sell alcohol in the state of Arkansas so this because this is an actual moving train this would require
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
10:05
a new separate permit for them to be able to but now this is this is under law this is
a common carrier so it's not like a private motor home type situation correct and that could be again like like an airplane it can be rented out as you said THE WHOLE THING, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THOSE RULES LIKE THE RENTER COULD NOT BRING
A KEG ON BOARD. IT'D HAVE TO BE SOMETHING PROVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
10:45
THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, SENATOR JOHNSON. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS? SENATOR EACH, ARE YOU CLOSE FOR YOU? SENATOR, THERE'S NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE. I have one other question, Senator Stubblefield. Aren't you recognized, Senator Flowers? Thank you. Senator Eads, is
this the railroad track, is it used by any other trains other than this excursion train company?
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
11:09
Yes, ma'am. This is a short line. And it is actually owned by Arkansas-Missouri Railroad, and they actually use it for commercial carrying of feed and grain and other transport like that as well. And part of the company is an
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
11:26
excursion train that runs on the same track. Okay, so they have got a schedule where the excursion train runs and it doesn't conflict with commercial trains that are running? That
Speaker 64
11:39
is correct. And they are both owned by the same corporation.
Okay. So it wouldn't be any conflict there? No, there would not. Okay.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
11:50
And I'm sure that ABC director will ensure that the operators of the train, on the train, are
not going to be served alcoholic beverages. Yes, that would be part of the rules. Okay. Thank you. No other questions,
Senator. Thank you, Senator Flowers. All right. We don't have anybody
signed up. That doesn't mean there's to speak for or against the bill,
but that doesn't mean there's someone that may have forgotten to sign up. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill?
Speaker 81
12:25
Senator Eage, are you close? I am close, sir. Are you close with the bill? All
right. What are the wishes of the committee? Senator Johnson moves to pass. Senator Filippo, seconds. All those in favor? Aye. All closed? Your bill carries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee.
Speaker 85
12:53
Senator English. Escape. Sorry, Senator Wallace. I was going in the
Senator Jane English
Unverified
13:11
order that these bills will give it.
Good morning, Senator Jane English, District 34. And this morning I am bringing a bill from the liquor store owners. And during the COVID crisis pandemic, one of the things that was an emergency order
that the governor has part of his package was the ability for liquor stores to deliver liquor to a residence where there is a 21-year-old who is purchasing that. And what we're hoping to do is to pass the bill so that once the pandemic, if ever, is passed, this will still be a good business model for liquor stores. All right, committee. By the way, two years ago, I don't know
how many of you remember, I had a rule change in the Senate to move all alcohol bills to city, county, local, and guns.
We're here. So they're here. You've heard the bill explained. I think Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:17
Chair. Senator English, so like if you've got a grocery store that sells liquor, it doesn't apply to them. So if I order my groceries online, right? No third party.
No, no third party. That's what that applies to. Right. So only
Senator Jane English
Unverified
14:31
a liquor store who has legally responsible and has a person who is, I mean, when you order, you have to give them your driver's license and all that. So I don't think that would be possible with a grocery store. All
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:45
right. Just want to make sure. Thank you. All
right. So Senator English, this would exclude corporate, I mean, big box stores. Right. Walmart. Okay. Any other questions from committee?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
14:55
any members? I have one. Senator Flowers, you're recognized. Yes, thank
you. Senator English, do you envision a record being kept by the retail liquor permit holder in terms of where the delivery was made and at least some kind of record of how they identified who was requesting the liquor be delivered and the age or the
driver's license. Because my concern is liquor being delivered to a residence or a place of business and then shared with people under age. So, you know, how are we going to ensure that that doesn't
happen? Well, I think that when you order,
Senator Jane English
Unverified
16:00
if I were to call up my favorite
liquor store and to order, ask them to deliver wine to my house, they will take my driver's license number and and and all those kinds of things my address and it will be somebody that is of the store who is delivering so they're legally responsible for making sure that a 21 year old is accepting that um that liquor um as far as being able to make sure nobody else drinks it i'm not sure what what you can do about that with anything anybody that buys liquor right well
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
16:36
Well, there are some things that you could do. What I would ask that be done would be for the liquor store permit holder to keep a record. because if something should happen later in the evening or hour or two after delivery of the liquor at that address where it was delivered, at least there would be maybe some look into whether a person who is the reason for the call
to 911 or whatever, the police might be
able to kind of track that back to the liquor store
and at least not to put the liquor store in any kind of bind, but at least be able to track the person who they delivered that liquor to that will be part of it that that that whole process
will be part of it there will be records where but
Senator Jane English
Unverified
17:55
in your bill i don't see that well it's not in the bill but that that is it's kind of like when you go to the beauty parlor right now you have to write your name down and your address and your telephone number so that they can do contact tracing it'll be it's the same type of thing as that Yeah. But liquor stores would be responsible for keeping
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
18:14
those records. Well, it seems to me like I would like some assurance that that is the case from the ABC director, because that's not in the bill.
Now, maybe that's in the rules or something that ABC has developed to date, but I don't know that. And I would like to hear from the director. All right, if you want to go to the other desk.
Go ahead and recognize yourself again for the record.
Speaker 34
18:54
Doralee Chandler, Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control. As part of
Speaker 36
18:57
the rules implementing this bill, if it passes under the requirement of subsection A, where it states that they must be delivered to someone of 21 years of age and older and in a wet county, that provision would allow us to implement, in my interpretation, rules that would mandate records indicating that the person is 21 years of age that they are delivering to as well as requiring an address for that delivery.
The addresses will also have to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
19:31
be maintained for tax purposes. Okay. Well, like the other bill
that Senator Eads just ran, he specifically said rules would be created for the purposes of carrying out the liquor to be sold on the excursion train, but I don't see
anything instructing ABC to create these rules. So if you say that
that language in paragraph A, subsection A, gives you the authority to
do rules, then And, you know, my question is, have you ever had to put
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
20:17
specifically tell you to put forth rules? Yes, Senator, we've had to put
Speaker 36
20:24
forth rules from the 2019 session where the language that was similar to Senator Eade's language was not contained within the bill.
As it stands right now, our rules prohibit a delivery of alcohol from a liquor store. So we will have to amend our rules to allow that or they'll be in violation of our rules every time they
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
20:44
deliver. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Senator Flowers. Mr. Chairman, let me ask you, before you
leave, let me ask you a question. This is a hypothetical question. When the liquor store delivers, they take the order with a driver's license. When they deliver the alcohol to the residents, do they check the driver's license again?
Speaker 36
21:06
They would be required to establish that they're not delivering that product to someone under the age of 21, so
Speaker 38
21:11
they would have to confirm that the actual recipient, otherwise they'd be violating state law. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:17
Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, and you answered the majority of my question. The only thing I
would ask is that when you go write the rules, what happens if the delivery is called for, because this has happened at home on other things, and the delivery driver gets there, oh dad just ran down the street he'll be back in 10 minutes you're going to have that covered in
the rule that whoever physically takes possession has to be there right yes senator okay
Chair
Unverified
21:49
thank you that's all i need no thank you senator rice you're recognized for a
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
21:55
question mr chander what is the penalty uh if you have a delivering person take a false id or
Speaker 36
22:04
what is that penalty So that would be a Class A violation for the permit holder themselves. So it would be a $500 fine for and probation under the alcohol permit.
They also, because they potentially sold to a minor, if that is in fact the case, they sold to a minor, then there is criminal liability for the individual driver that has actually handed that product to a minor. What is
Speaker 108
22:32
the second offense? the second offense it would allows us to double that fine up
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
22:37
to a thousand dollars okay the only thing i would ask is is if this is passes and you are in the rulemaking stage just for clarification
and transparency i would ask that you make it extremely clear and i think liquor stores take but their employees sometimes might not be as serious I would just ask you emphasize to them that the law can be changed make it more severe if this is a problem thank you yes senator thank you senator ross any other members have a
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
23:07
question senator johnson you're recognized thank you mr chair
normally I guess you could cover this in rules but is there some mechanism where The delivery driver could take a picture with their phone of the driver's license of the person who is at the door just to document their age. It's probably a protective thing for them more than an enforcement thing because they've seen it. But is there a mechanism for that? Has that been considered in any way? just to kind of, it would protect both the license holder and the individual on the other end.
Speaker 122
23:55
Is that something that could be done? It would be a recommendation. I don't see where we can necessarily implement that via
Speaker 36
24:03
rule per the language in the bill, but it certainly would be a recommendation. They have to establish that they have provided that product to someone over 21, so it would be my recommendation that they have documentation to establish that and how the liquor stores would
Speaker 38
24:16
like to proceed with that documentation would be left up to their individual business policies. So
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
24:21
it could just be a recommended procedure. It wouldn't have to be enshrined in rules.
It's obviously in the best interest of everybody
Speaker 38
24:29
involved. The rules would require them to maintain proof that they delivered it to someone over the age of 21, how they implement that policy would be individually between the liquor stores
and their electronic abilities. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Chandler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:46
Thank you, Senator Johnson. Any other questions? I have another question, Senator Stubblefield.
You're recognized, Senator Flowers. Thank you.
Madam Director, so do we have this in the law now on an emergency basis?
Is that something that we've allowed since the pandemic, the delivery by retail liquor permit holders? Yes,
Speaker 38
25:09
Senator. The rules under the pandemic is allowing liquor stores to complete deliveries right now. Have
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:16
you come across any problems?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:23
any violations at this point. And
you keep these records that you say would be maintained by the
Speaker 36
25:31
liquor permit holder. Is that right? We would not maintain the records. For the rules, if this bill passes, we would require
Speaker 38
25:40
the liquor store to maintain those records.
Speaker 129
25:43
And an enforcement agent could go in and check those records at any point in time.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:49
So right now, are they keeping these records, the liquor permit holder? They are not
Speaker 38
25:54
necessarily keeping the records right now. We do not have rules specifically mandating they keep these records. We do have in place the standard rules that they must not sell
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
26:08
what you're saying is you're going to create a different set of rules that they maintain the records? As part of the language
Speaker 122
26:18
of this bill, we would set forth those rules. Okay.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
26:23
So, and I guess what I, from what you just said, you wouldn't know if there was a problem with the practice during the pandemic or not. I can testify that we have
Speaker 36
26:42
not received any complaints regarding anyone obtaining alcohol under the age
Speaker 38
26:46
of 21 or any complaints regarding the delivery process as it
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
26:52
stands right now. I wish it was some way that we could have a cross check with police calls to residences or places where this liquor has been delivered. Maybe going forward, if this bill passes out, I'm sure it will, that there be some
kind of cross-reference on the part of your office with police records in the city or place where this liquor is being delivered. There should be some kind of periodic checks. Would
you agree with that? Yes, Senator. And as it stands right now, we
Speaker 36
27:39
have a very good working relationship with local law enforcement and oftentimes if there
Speaker 38
27:45
is an issue that involves alcoholic beverages, whether it's a DWI or some other incident, they are very, they contact us and often work well with the agents and provide the report that then ultimately makes it to the administration's side. Okay, thank you. Thank you,
Senator Stubblefield. Thank you, Senator Flowers. Senator Hamer, you're recognizing for questions. Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
28:07
don't you think that in the world we live in today that people are buying liquor
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
28:11
and taking it to a home that we don't know who's there to receive it or to consume it?
I'm sure they are. Do you think that this bill will also help maybe bring greater accountability that with the record system that perhaps we will see maybe it delivered to what we hope are responsible 21-year-old and up individuals? And then what happens inside the home is out of our control. Correct, Senator. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Hammer. Any
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
28:41
other questions on committee? Senator Clark, you're recognized.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
28:49
Is it possible under the law to have a higher
age? I know, for instance, when you're in a condo, you can have 25 rather
Speaker 140
29:01
than 21. Well, as it currently stands, the
Speaker 38
29:05
criminal statutes, of mandate anyone under 21 being prohibited. Right, I understand what the current
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
29:11
criminal statutes are, but I'm asking, is it possible under the law to establish a different age, such as 25?
Speaker 122
29:24
I would say without changing the law on what is considered a sell to a minor, then it would not be possible for
Speaker 36
29:30
us to arbitrarily set an age at ABC. All
right, thank you. Thanks, Senator Clark. Any other questions from committee? Anyone in the audience
Speaker 142
29:43
that wishes to speak? We have a Mr. Paschal. Mr. Paschal, this passes. Anyone else in
the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill?
What are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to do pass. Who made the motion do pass? I'm on the— Senator Johnson made the motion do pass, Senator Clark. I mean, Senator Flowers, sorry. We need a second. Senator Flippo? We have a second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. All opposed?
Your bill passes, Senator English. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR WALLACE,
Speaker 146
30:50
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WITH FULL DISCLOSURE,
Senator David Wallace
Unverified
30:53
I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALCOHOL, ALTHOUGH
The situation that brought this bill to us nearly caused our county judge and Senator Sullivan and myself to demon run,
Chair
Unverified
31:09
but we've got past that point. Senator Wallace, could you pull that mic just a little closer? Sorry about that. Yes, sir. How's
Senator David Wallace
Unverified
31:20
that? That's better. Good. Association of Counties brought this to me. It's a good bill. So we had a situation in Craighead County, Jonesboro, where we had massive theft.
And when we dug into the law, the current law, there wasn't a mechanism to where you could actually discharge the county clerk. Now, we got lucky, and that individual resigned. But this bill helped clean that up. It gives the local government, county government, more authority to replace individuals that have done things like that
or individuals that have been incapacitated or individuals that have had a problem with perhaps an election result. and it just it it basically just gives the counties more power at the local level are you finished with it yes sir i'm
Chair
Unverified
32:32
i'm open for questions all right any questions from committee
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
32:36
members senator clark you're recognized yes as
a former quorum court member uh myself
central wallace what was what brought about the the need for this change well a part
Senator David Wallace
Unverified
33:02
counties did not have the ability to remove a person for theft Well,
Speaker 155
33:11
that was what drove, that was what, for our part of the country, that became the key issue. Was this theft that was prosecuted or not prosecuted? It is, it is in the process of being prosecuted.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
33:26
Okay, so it's not been adjudicated? No, but it was over a million dollars. okay so uh and uh is this a association of counties bill yes it is sir okay uh
and so we want to be able to remove people who have not been found guilty even though we believe them to be so is that what i'm hearing
Senator David Wallace
Unverified
33:59
i want to let our uh attorneys address that so
They'll give you a clearer picture, sir. Okay. Ms. Ma'am, if
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
34:15
you want to identify yourself for the record, let us know who you're with. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Lindsay Bailey French. I'm with the Association of Arkansas Counties. So as Mr. Wallace mentioned, as Senator Wallace mentioned, sorry, we had a clerk who stole somewhere between around $1.4 million. dollars what this does starting in section three is provide for a method where if criminal charges
are filed in circuit court that the circuit judge may suspend the person from office for a temporary time not remove them from office not declare a vacancy but suspend the official if they find merit to do so do you see a
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
34:59
problem possible problem with this um i
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
35:03
don't really see a problem with it what i do see a problem with is someone that leg audit and others have found evidence has stolen one and a half million dollars and they're allowed
to come back into their office and handle all the bank accounts the next day that's why this
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:25
provision was needed and again I very much understand
that but I'm also I've dealt with this similar issue several times lately politics
being what it is though if we wanted someone out of office even temporarily we file charges even though they might not be true and if we can get
judge, is that what I'm hearing? We
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
35:58
can get somebody suspended from office? If the prosecutor files the charges in the court and the judge finds that there
is merit to the charges that warrant the suspension, then yes.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
36:10
So someone who, going back to the Constitution, someone who has not been found guilty is going
to and has been elected by the people
is going to be suspended from office and that doesn't present any problems? I think
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
36:32
that that could present problems if it was used for political purposes, yes. And you don't think
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
36:37
that in this political world that it could ever be used for political purposes?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
36:43
We hope, Senator Clark, that a judge would have better sense and not allow that to happen.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
36:50
But we would hope that a clerk wouldn't still $1.5 million and then not resign.
Yes, sir. We would hope they wouldn't
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
36:59
do either one of those two things. And I do understand your concerns, but here in this particular situation in Craighead County, had he not resigned and been able to come back into office, he could have removed trails, He could have destroyed evidence. The risk is just too great to allow someone back
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
37:22
in office. But, yes, but our forefathers, the risk, you know, that innocent until proven guilty thing,
when we start messing with that, we also have a great risk. Thank
Speaker 62
37:39
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Clark. I would say, along those same lines, to remove somebody from office
without the right to due process, full right to due process, I have a problem with that myself. Because, you know, that is part of our Constitution, the right to due process.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
38:05
Yes, I would agree with you, Mr. Chair. and I don't think this removes any right to due process. The person has a right to a trial in full due process. Before they are removed? They are, at the filing of the action, they are suspended. Much like a policeman who, there's a police officer involved shooting and that policeman is temporarily suspended from their duties until they can be cleared. It's very similar to that.
And they are suspended with pay?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
38:37
That is not addressed in the bill, but I don't know of any provision that would allow you to withhold their pay
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
38:53
until they are removed from office. I have a question. Senator Flowers has a question.
Okay, I'll go ahead and take you. Senator Flowers,
you recognize. Thank you. Isn't it true that before a prosecutor makes the determination and sometime before at the first appearance that you've got to show
probable cause that a crime has been committed?
Isn't that true? Yes, that's true. Okay. And then there
can be some hearings prior to the trial to rebut the probable cause determination. There can be a probable cause hearing. That's correct. Okay. And that would safeguard all the concerns of Senator Clark and Senator Stubblefield. Is that
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
39:51
correct? I'll not pretend to speak on what safeguards
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
39:57
are concerned. Okay, well, but that would protect situations where a person I mean, it
allows for our due process. That's part of our due process. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank
Speaker 183
40:11
you. Thanks, Senator Flower. Senator Clark, you
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:18
recognized. I think you've got a valid problem I mean obviously and I don't know what all the possible solutions are what do
what is it called when the people want to remove someone from office between elections I believe that recall
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
40:39
is the usual provision for that that's not allowed for in county government That's not allowed for, but this is
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:47
not allowed for either, right? So we're seeking to change the law. If
we did a recall, is that a constitutional amendment or is that law?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
40:59
In my opinion, that would require a
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:02
constitutional change. Okay. So, but that, because what I'm looking at here is the people elected the person and
who is again still innocent under the law no matter how much we believe them to be guilty know them to be guilty uh elected by the people and while we're looking at this one case there are certainly cases where people are charged for political reasons who didn't do anything
and whether we want them out of the way permanently or we want them out of the way temporarily it may just be a temporary thing like we want to get a casino built and we just need somebody out of the way for six months that I can foresee not only I can foresee it because it has happened that I very much appreciate the problem here but I think there are other solutions that can be had that don't tread on the Constitution
and don't tread on the innocent until proven guilty. Because, again, if the people recall them, the people who put them in office, if the people recall them, and that's something very much that a quorum court member or county judge, if there was a recall, could start, right? I mean, any citizen could start a recall if there was such a law.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
42:41
It would depend on how that provision was written up. Right. But
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
42:45
again, since we would be writing it, then those close to it could start the recall.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
42:53
And I would think that pressure. And respectfully, Senator Clark, I think that the recall process would actually be more of a politically motivated one than this, particularly because this has to begin with findings by legislative audit and legislative audit is not considered a political body they're they're conducting non-partisan audits these findings have to be brought about by them it's not just some random joe in the public or
even another county official who could bring these findings to the prosecutor it has to start with a report by leg audit i
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
43:35
appreciate that and i have the greatest respect for leg audit the but i have not found anything in this world that is completely unpolitical uh if enough pressure is is brought to bear okay thank you again thank you mr chair thank you senator clark senator hammer
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:56
not an attorney would you explain to me what the full meaning of the word
presentment is because it's a new word added into the
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
44:06
language i will disclose that i am not a trial lawyer or a prosecutor but just presentment of the facts that is filed in a circuit court
case and that would it's just plain language there it
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:28
it means what it says Yes, and to
the non-lawyer, what platform is that?
And maybe that goes to Senator Flowers' point a while ago that before anything would go public or in the process of things going public, is this written to where it follows normal protocol? And I don't know if this is a good analogy or not, but I would say something like a temporary restraining order where it is due process is in place, but it is being applied to this particular situation.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
45:09
Yes, so I think I understand your question here. In this case, like I said, there would have to be a report by legislative audit finding wrongdoing. Legislative audit would then present that to the local prosecutor, and the local prosecutor has discretion of whether or not to bring charges. At this point, they would bring charges to the circuit court, and as Senator Flowers mentioned, there could be a hearing. There could be evidence presented by both sides before the judge made the decision to suspend the official.
It could be temporary. It could be for the duration of the proceedings, and I think that would depend on the facts of the case and the strength of the evidence. In this case that brought about this bill, the evidence was
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:01
substantial. And I know the case you're talking about.
I guess, let me ask you this then on that. This bill was written to address one specific issue.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
46:13
Is that a fair characterization? I can think of several off the top of my head
that it would have been applicable to since I've
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:26
been here in the last eight years. All right. So we're not writing it to just one situation, but one situation has brought it to bear where that's why this legislation is coming because it's not one situation. It's multiple situations that have occurred. That's correct. But you are only representing it to how it affects the county offices. Is that correct?
because I don't see anything or where do I see anything in here that it addresses maybe other people that have access to money other than those at the county level or can this be carried over to municipalities and to other places as well? This
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
46:58
particular bill applies only to those who hold county office. I'm just wondering
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:03
why we wouldn't if we're going to catch one population why wouldn't we
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
47:08
go for all of them? There may be a similar provision that applies to municipal officials, I would defer to the Municipal League on that. I'm not familiar
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
47:17
with their law. Okay. Unless you want to let
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
47:25
them come and answer that question, Mr. Chair, I'm
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
47:32
done. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hammer. Yes,
Senator Flowers. Okay. I would only point out and ask a witness to agree or disagree. I've served on legislative audit before, and we've had a serious
problem with county officials, either county district courts or in other entities that have been referred by legislative audit because of a requirement that they do so in our statute now to the prosecutor's office for prosecution because of the theft of public funds. And so when you have documentation based on records or no records, I think it is wise for us
to protect the public's money. This can affect a lot of people, people that might be paying fines are paying monies to a county agency or entity, and then they're out on a limb because there's no record that they paid. Would the witness agree with that? Yes, I would, Senator Flowers. And
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
48:50
in this case, it just so happened to be county employees' retirement and their income taxes
Speaker 194
48:57
that was stolen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Thank you, Senator Flowers. Would you agree that the main responsibility of a prosecutor is not to win every case, but to make sure that justice is served in every case? I
Chair
Unverified
49:15
would sure hope so. I would sure hope so, too. Senator Clark, you recognize for a
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
49:23
question? Yes. You know, one of my weaknesses is attention to detail.
And so if you can help me here, I have read several places about suspension, how you'd be suspended, how you'd be replaced if you're suspended. And then I read until the suspension is lifted. But I can't find, and I know I'm missing it, I can't find how the suspension would be lifted. Sure. Give me just
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
49:55
a second to find that in here, if you don't mind.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
50:41
The answer you're looking for, Senator Clark, is found in Section
3, starting down at line 28 on page 3. The circuit
court shall order that the officer be immediately suspended from the office during the pendency of the judicial proceeding. so if they are found in the judicial proceeding to be innocent then the suspension would be lifted at that point
and it again says on page 4 lines 9 through 10 during the pendency of the judicial
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
51:27
proceeding wouldn't it be clear if that was
that this if it said that if they were found not guilty that it would be lifted i
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
51:43
language i think that i'm not again
because my constitutional uh problems with it i'm not going to tell you that i would support it but that would that would certainly make it clear because i think at this point uh it's not clear uh that and i don't you know five attorneys five opinions yes sir not sure that if i was trying to get unsuspended catch-22 well there's nothing there that says you can how you get unsuspended yes senator
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
52:13
um and after hearing your questions today i don't have a problem with making that
decision. I don't have a problem with making a decision that the judge could remove the suspension at some point in his discretion if he found the need to do so. You've asked some good questions that
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
52:32
brought that to my attention today. Again, because this needs a solution, obviously, but it's a very dangerous area. I deal with child welfare and I deal with some other things, and we're always trying to find a way to get around innocent until proven guilty because it's a very uncomfortable thing when we get into areas where we really think somebody's
guilty. But it is such an important part of the fabric of our laws and who we are as a people that if there's another way, we need to find it. But thank you. Thank you for
your efforts. Thank you. Senator Stubblefield, I have a question. All right. You recognize Senator Clark? I mean, Senator Flowers. Sorry
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
53:19
about that one. I'll ask the witness this. Isn't it the normal process that if a person is found not guilty by a judge or jury,
or the charges are dismissed, everything that happened to the defendant in terms of restrictions, those are all restored anyway. I mean, I think this additional language that Senator Clark is talking about is not necessary. It goes without saying that a court order that finds a person not guilty or a case dismissed certainly has a provision written in it
that the person is restored to their rights before the
indictment information has been, was presented. So I think that's just unnecessary. Would you agree? And I think maybe you're, I don't know, that to me is not necessary. I don't know if you agree with that, but you can say whether you do or not. Senator Flowers, I do think it could be
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
54:41
addressed in the court's order of suspension. I think the judge could easily put
in the order of suspension, that if the person is found not guilty, if the charges are dropped, or if there is some other end to the trial that is in favor of the defendant, that the suspension should be automatically lifted. That's correct. Thank you. Senator
Speaker 127
54:58
Sullivan, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
55:16
Is anybody else? Okay. So you mentioned in your early comments that if they're suspended, they would most likely be suspended with pay. Is that correct? I do not
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
55:38
know of any provision that would allow their pay to be withheld without the due process that
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
55:44
has already been discussed. Okay, so if, and you
also mentioned that if we, if they're suspended, they may go back to their office and remove evidence of some sort, correct?
If they're not suspended. If they're not suspended. So, but I mean, the opportunity to remove evidence, if they're being audited by leg audit, they know what's going on. And if they're being observed before a suspension could happen, I mean, that could be months. In our case, it was. So that justification for suspension doesn't seem to hold that much strength to it.
I mean, it seems like if they were going to remove evidence, the fact that we're waiting until they're suspended, they'd have plenty of time to remove
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
56:36
evidence, would you not think? Okay. In this particular
case, I believe the county official was
caught by surprise when he was caught. Well, again. And was not allowed back in the office after that. By what power?
It was the circuit judge. so why do we
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
57:02
need this if they were removed from office without this law and this stopped him from going back
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
57:09
in he was not removed he did
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
57:12
resign well he didn't he didn't resign immediately i mean there was it was pretty quick but there was time when he was arrested to go back in and remove evidence if that's the reason we want
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
57:27
the suspension that isn't necessarily balanced. Technically the county judge with custody over
the courthouse could probably prevent him
from entering physically into the courthouse but you know it doesn't prevent him from still having the authority over his employees ordering his employees to do something as still their boss. There's a county judge and
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
57:50
I know the county judge is here says he seems like they have some degree of oversight for the clerk's office as far as what money's expended writing checks there's no oversight or there's no one checking
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
58:06
on them there's no balance of power there at all there there is a balance of power in the claims process yes count the county judge is required to approve claims that are
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
58:21
paid out of county funds Okay, so again, I'm just not that familiar.
So if the county clerk goes in and writes themselves a check for, you know, $100,000 for, you know, to buy a new car, there's no review process for that check?
There is. Okay. So the fact that we have a check and a balance, that's already in place to make sure there's a balance there and they're not. And I know in this case, some of those processes just failed to occur, and people can get around those. You know, my point is, if we're doing this to suspending them to prevent them from, you know, what is it we're trying to prevent them from doing with a suspension? If they can remove evidence, if they can write checks, anyway, what are we trying to prevent them from?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
59:14
If they were suspended from office, they wouldn't be allowed to do any
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
59:18
of those things. But not until they're suspended from office, though. My point is they're not being suspended that quickly. Well, because
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
59:24
we haven't had this provision in place. Well, you didn't
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
59:27
need it. The judge put them out anyway. Attempted
to. Okay, that's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator Stubblefield, I have a question.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
59:46
Okay. Senator Flowers, you recognize. Okay.
You know, the way I'm reading this bill and with just knowing circumstances, how I don't think this bill is just for
the purpose of preventing a clerk to go back in and change records or do anything like that. It could be that, but it could be that legislative audit found no records, but money was expended.
So all this quibbling over a specific issue of the clerk changing the records, doctoring the books or whatever, that's just one scenario. But the fact is the bill actually allows for some
immediate relief after legislative audit makes its findings. Is that correct, Ms. Director, or your attorney, the witness? Yes, thank you
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:00:49
for the promotion, Senator Flowers.
Speaker 183
1:00:52
Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Thank
Speaker 50
1:01:01
you, Senator Flowers. Senator Hammer? Thank you, Ms. Sherry. On page 3, at
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:01:11
the very bottom of it, we've added immediate suspension. The immediate suspension begins when?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:01:24
If information, presentment, or indictment is filed in a circuit court regarding
a shortage of county funds reported by leg audit. The circuit court shall order the officer
Speaker 50
1:01:37
be immediately suspended. Okay, so the immediate
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:01:41
suspension begins when the information gets in front of a judge, not sooner, not later than. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Okay, so what is this bill doing to add additional expediency or additional information to limit the damage once it has been determined that damage has been done?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:02:10
We're getting into leg audit procedures and stuff that I'm not necessarily familiar with their procedures. I understand that they take steps as soon as they can, but I would be out of my lane to speculate on how they handled that. Judge Day may have more insight as to how that worked in this particular case, but I'm not aware. Okay.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:02:40
And again, like everybody else has echoed, we're all trying to fix the problem. We just want to make sure what we do doesn't create an unintended consequence or another problem. So just for the record, that's my intent for asking. At the bottom of page 3, line 36, y'all have removed until the information or indictment is tried and replaced it with during the pendency of the judicial proceeding. That sounds almost like the same thing just said differently. Or what's the difference?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:03:12
Yes, Senator. I'm sure you've drafted a bill and sent it over to BLR
before and they said this is just, we like this wording better. So that was a change made by
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:03:25
them, made by BLR. And as far as adding weight to some of the concerns or removing some of the weight to some of the concerns expressed in the room today, that because, I don't know, I guess if it information or indictment sure seems different than pendency of judicial proceeding.
And maybe that's just a layman's lack of knowledge versus an attorney's depth
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:03:51
of knowledge. So suspended from office until the information or indictment is tried and
suspended from office during the pendency of the judicial proceeding. I read those two to mean the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:04:04
same thing. Okay, because indicted is tried, that would seem like it would go all the way through the end of the court process to be determined before suspension could occur during the pendency of the judicial proceedings.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:04:20
It's suspended until the information is tried. So the way it would have read before, the suspension would
occur beginning up through and until the information is tried. So that is through the whole judicial proceeding. Okay. Mr. Chair, I don't
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:04:36
know if the chair wants to allow if it, you know, I totally
respect Senator Wallace because leg audit has been dragged into the discussion. I wonder if they're just around the corner, if we could get somebody from a leg audit to come in.
I mean, if the Chair doesn't want to allow that, that's fine. We can work
it out on the House end. Senator, let me recognize Senator Filippo just for a second. Senator
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
1:05:04
Filippo, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Senator Wallace. I think given some of the discussion today, if he would consider pulling this bill down, I think that there is a legitimate problem that needs to be fixed, that needs to be addressed. And I just think that it might be a benefit to try to work with members on some of this language
to address some of their concerns and come back and let's get this done. So if you would be open to pulling
Senator David Wallace
Unverified
1:05:29
this bill down. I agree, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be glad to pull it down and sit down and talk with my fellow senators and come up with something
that works for everybody. All right. I appreciate that,
Senator Wallace. So we'll just put this back on the referred list. to be amended. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Senator Wallace. All right. Next bill is
Senator Ballinger. He's not here, is he? She's taking it? I can take it off. Okay. So we're Senator Ballinger is not here, so with no further, any members have anything you want to say? With no other business, we are adjourned.
Agenda
Call To Order
SB76 L. Eads TO ESTABLISH AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT; AND TO AUTHORIZE AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT HOLDER TO SELL AND SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
SB20 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VACANCY, SUSPENSION, AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR COUNTY ELECTIVE, COUNTY QUORUM COURT DISTRICT, AND TOWNSHIP OFFICERS.
SB32 J. English TO AUTHORIZE A RETAIL LIQUOR PERMIT HOLDER TO DELIVER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIRECTLY TO A CONSUMER.
Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Jan 19, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Gary Stubblefield Chair
Unverified
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 30
Speaker 34
Speaker 36
Speaker 38
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 62
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 81
Speaker 85
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 107
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 116
Speaker 108
Speaker 122
Speaker 129
Speaker 140
Speaker 142
Speaker 146
Senator David Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 155
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Speaker 183
Speaker 194
Speaker 162
Speaker 127
Speaker 50
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified