State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (54)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1958
Act 848
· 7 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1958 S. Meeks TO REQUIRE PUBLIC ENTITIES TO CREATE A POLICY CONC…”
|
TO REQUIRE PUBLIC ENTITIES TO CREATE A POLICY CONCERNING THE AUTHORIZED USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1958 is now Act 848 |
|
HB1365
Act 938
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. COMMISSION. HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATI…”
|
TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, … | K. Brown | Notification that HB1365 is now Act 938 |
|
HB1896
Act 716
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…carefully. All right, representative, you will recognize 18 House Bill 1896. Thank you very much. I'll be as brief as”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK FEE ELIMINATING ACT OF 2025; TO ABOLISH THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF … | B. McKenzie | Notification that HB1896 is now Act 716 |
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDUR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1524 is now Act 939 |
|
HB1683
Act 924
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENT…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1683 is now Act 924 |
|
HB1706
Act 829
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. | McCollum | Notification that HB1706 is now Act 829 |
|
HB1714
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1714 Rose TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER.”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER. | Rose | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1739
Act 814
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1739 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS AC…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1739 is now Act 814 |
|
HB1800
Act 998
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1800 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY A REPRESENTATIVE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1800 is now Act 998 |
|
HB1837
Act 999
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AT WAS MANUFACTURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART USING FORCED LABOR. HB1837 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS REFERRED TO VOTERS; AND TO BAN FOREIGN … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1837 is now Act 999 |
|
HB1846
Act 946
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. HB1870 Win…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1846 is now Act 946 |
|
HB1870
Act 840
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1870 Wing CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE…”
|
CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE A VOTER … | Wing | Notification that HB1870 is now Act 840 |
|
HB1873
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. HB1873 B. McKenzie CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO S…”
|
CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF … | B. McKenzie | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1879
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1879 Lundstrum TO REQUIRE ALL CITY COUNCILS AND COUNTY QUORUM CO…”
|
TO REQUIRE ALL CITY COUNCILS AND COUNTY QUORUM COURTS TO POST VIDEO RECORDINGS OF PUBLIC … | Lundstrum | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1886
Act 823
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE LIMITATION ON SERVICE UNDER THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION. HB1886 Pearce TO DESIGNATE THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL…”
|
TO DESIGNATE THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL CANINE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. | Pearce | Notification that HB1886 is now Act 823 |
|
HB1891
Act 715
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1891 Ray TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE…”
|
TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE … | Ray | Notification that HB1891 is now Act 715 |
|
HB1898
Act 837
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NETWORK OF ARKANSAS TO THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS. HB1898 Painter TO CREATE THE REGULATORY DIVISION AND THE REGULATOR…”
|
TO CREATE THE REGULATORY DIVISION AND THE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE … | Painter | Notification that HB1898 is now Act 837 |
|
HB1925
Act 846
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ILS OR COUNTY QUORUM COURTS TO BE RECORDED IN VIDEO FORMAT. HB1925 Beaty Jr. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLO…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE ABSENTEE BALLOT VOTER … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1925 is now Act 846 |
|
HB1929
Act 797
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…A WITNESS FOR THE SIGNATURE OF AN ABSENTEE VOTER STATEMENT. HB1929 McAlindon TO CREATE THE RECOGNIZING JUDEA AND SAMARIA ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECOGNIZING JUDEA AND SAMARIA ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT STATE AGENCIES FROM USING … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1929 is now Act 797 |
|
HB1934
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO BE DESIGNATED AS AGENTS. HB1934 McAlindon TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACT; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT … | McAlindon | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1018
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | Ray | Approved by the Governor |
|
SB141
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEA…”
|
TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB212
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB247
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. Page 3 of 4 SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB248
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB395
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINAN…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS … | Hickey | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB398
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB398 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETIT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO ALLOW A CURE … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB4
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB434
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB434 J. Dotson TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB44
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB453
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB453 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB476
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SB476 J. Scott TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STAT…”
|
TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB493
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB493 J. Bryant TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-R…”
|
TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-RELATED BOARDS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB517
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB517 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY BOARD OF … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB538
Act 782
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O DESIGNATE A RESTROOM FOR CAMPAIGN WORKERS AND VOLUNTEERS. SB538 Gilmore TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. SB569 M. Joh…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. | Gilmore | Notification that SB538 is now Act 782 |
|
SB569
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TEERS. SB538 Gilmore TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. SB569 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE … | M. Johnson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB579
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1. SB579 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT A PUBLIC EMPLOYER … | M. McKee | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB608
Act 991
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB608 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. | M. Johnson | Notification that SB608 is now Act 991 |
|
SB617
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB617 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CAPITOL ZONING D…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CAPITOL ZONING DISTRICT; AND TO AMEND THE ZONING AUTHORITY … | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR11
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONS…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT … | J. Payton | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR12
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR13
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS. SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE F…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, … | J. Dotson | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR14
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR15
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…UE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC D…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR17
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREA…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR18
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR2
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…e 2 of 4 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR22
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR24
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO VOTERS. | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR3
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR6
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR9
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES. SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1243
Act 994
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GENDA (Revised 4/07/2025 @ 8:53 PM) Added Bills and Removed HB1243 Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT … | Underwood | Notification that HB1243 is now Act 994 |
|
SB614
Act 992
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB614 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB614 is now Act 992 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
First up, Senator English, you got a quick non-controversial bill? When you say quick,
Gordon Wilburn
Unverified
0:11
how quick is it? Because Senator Dotson has
Senator Jane English
Unverified
0:21
a lot of questions. Nope. All right, if you'll introduce yourself. Good morning, Senator Jane English, District 13, and I am here with House Bill 1365, which basically removes racial and gender quotas and qualifications of membership for some boards.
Speaker 9
0:35
Okay, that's basically all it does, huh? Yes, it's
Senator Jane English
Unverified
0:38
been through here before, and the sponsor took out a section that would have to have had 67 votes. Okay. All right, members, you've
Speaker 10
0:44
heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions for
Speaker 11
0:48
the committee? All right, seeing no questions, don't have anybody sign up
to speak for or against the bill. Senator, you're recognized. Close your bill. I'm closed for
Senator Jane English
Unverified
0:59
the bill. Which bill is it? 1365.
Speaker 14
1:05
It's already come through here before. There was just an amendment. We'll give
Speaker 16
1:13
Senator King a few minutes. Oh, okay. Would you please say that in the microphone,
Speaker 18
1:19
sir? We need to get that on the record. Okay,
so we've got a motion from Senator Dodson. Do I see a second from Senator King? Indeed, I do. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes.
Brett McKenzie. You going to bring up Senator Dismayne with you?
Speaker 26
1:51
of a help, but bring him up anyway. It's not really. Brett McKenzie, Rogers, Arkansas State
Representative. All right. Jonathan Dismayne, Strosby, Arkansas. And what's the bill number? Thank you very much. I'll be as brief as
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:06
I can. I think this is a great, it's a good government bill, it's a streamlining bill. It's called the Junk Free Eliminating Act of 2025. What this bill essentially does is takes the Internet Network Administrator, Internet Network Act of 1995, which creates a public-private board, and dissolves that board and moves those responsibilities.
to the transformation and shared services so that any and all of our state agencies, commissions, boards that have information technology services requests of this INA board now go through a standard procurement. So why it's called in the junk fee elimination act currently the way it operates is ostensibly anytime a agency board or commission goes to the INA for services It's a sole source contract for the most part.
It goes through this board to basically approve what the network administrator believes to be the best service to offer. It obfuscates legislative oversight, and it does not encourage competition for the benefit of taxpayers. It's a very complicated subject matter, but it's a really simple bill, so I'd be happy to take any questions. All right,
Chair
Unverified
3:15
members, you've heard an explanation. Senator Payton,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Representative,
can you name three things that happened
in 1896? uh 1995 oh 1896 that's the number of your bill uh 1896 no sir
Speaker 35
3:34
he's got jokes not good ones but they're still
Speaker 37
3:38
jokes yeah all right any other questions from the committee senator king so
Speaker 39
3:44
this was just created statutorily and is not doing anything now um they meet quarterly um so the way it works and
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
3:51
this is just a hypothetical let's say the tourism parks heritage tourism go to the board and say hey we'd like to build out a new splash page for a website or we have a widget that needs to collect information they take that information to the network administrator the network
administrator then we'll say we can do that service they put the fees schedule or the contract in front of the board the board will ostensibly rubber stamp it and then it'll get done what this bill will do is that same agency will have the same request it will only go to shared services they will then work with the Office of State Procurement to make sure that they take, they impanel an RFP and then go through state procurement to ensure that the best contract in terms of saving money and technical expertise wins. And when was this information, whatever it's called? 1995 is when it was established.
It's been amended twice. I believe it was in '97 and 2011. It's a prescriptive public-private board, so it's got seats for, I believe, the Library Association, the Bar Association. Back then, the internet was kind of a fad that no one really understood, and this was the government's attempt at throwing something at it to try to solve for. All right,
Speaker 42
4:56
members. Yeah. Well, even first, you must vote. No doubt if you
Gordon Wilburn
Unverified
5:04
were here, it would have stuck past you.
All right, are there any more questions to the members of the committee? All right, so no further questions. Is there anybody to sign up to speak
for against this, Carly? All right, I don't have anybody to sign up to speak for against this. Representative, you're going to ask to close. I'm close for the
bill. I appreciate it. I'm sorry. Senator Desmay, did you have anything that you wanted
Speaker 49
5:23
to add? I'm sorry. No, he did an incredible job. I'm closed for the bill. I appreciate a good vote. This is a good
government bill. Thank you. Does this in any way affect the prison? Are there any appropriation in here for this prison? Only
Speaker 51
5:34
if they need a splash page, I think. Okay, yeah, that's a good place for it.
All right, members. See a motion from Senator King. Got a motion to pass from Senator King. Second from Senator Dawson. Any
discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes. Representative Meeks, quick and non-controversial, all right, we're
Speaker 56
6:05
going to find out, before you get going, all right, I'm
going to introduce our pages, Emma Jones, Hot Springs Junior
Academy. The page was Senator Clark. And then Kaden Rasool. Where are you, Kaden?
Y'all stand up. We're happy to have y'all here. All right. Young man right next to
Kaden, what's your name? A little bit louder. Mr.
Gray, but I didn't have you on here. I'm sorry. Welcome. We're happy to have y'all here. Carly, next
Speaker 61
6:36
time you get these names on the list right. God damn it.
Speaker 62
6:39
Golly. I'm tired of cutting you all this latitude. Well, in her defense,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
6:47
the House kept her here until almost 1030 last night.
Speaker 18
6:50
Well, that's no defense. No defense, probably. She has 11, Representative Meeks.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
7:01
All right. Introduce yourself. All right. Representative Meeks, District 42. Mr. Chairman, I've got two bills to present to the committee. Both of them have amendments adding Senate sponsors. I don't know if there's a certain order in which you'd want to take them or not. The one, I think they both. Which number are you going to start with? Why don't we start with House Bill 1958.
I think that one should be pretty quick and straightforward. All right. To create policy concerning artificial intelligence. All right. Everybody's favorite topic. There's an
Speaker 9
7:28
amendment here. So this is going to be adding. Yeah, 1958. What is the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
7:36
other? The other one is 1846. All right, so we're going to
be starting with House Bill 1958. There is an amendment to add Senator English as
a co-sponsor. We'll entertain a motion to adopt.
We've got a motion to adopt by Senator Dodson, a second by Senator King. All in favor say
aye. Aye. Opposed. The amendment's been adopted. You are recognized to present House Bill 1958 as amended.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
8:01
All right, thank you, committee. So last session, we passed a bill that requires state agencies to develop
a technology use policy. So the idea there is, you know, is a state employee authorized to use Facebook on their lunch hour on state equipment, all that? And, of course, over the last two years, artificial intelligence has become the latest fad.
And so what this bill does is it would require state agencies to expand upon that to include artificial intelligence. Some of the concerns related to this, if a state employee were to take proprietary or citizen data and run it through an AI to try to help them with their jobs, then that information then potentially becomes the property of that AI engine, which has consequences. But on the same token, artificial intelligence holds a lot of promises for government efficiencies.
So the first thing it does, again, is just to make sure state agencies put the appropriate guardrails in place for the use of AI. And then the second thing, and probably long term, the most important thing, is that it requires that a human is always responsible for making a final decision. So we're not going to go to a place where, you know, the computer said we have to do X, Y, Z, so we have to do X, Y, Z. So it just puts that safeguard in place to make sure a human is always making the final decision on anything an AI comes up with.
And that's what the bill does. Happy to
Speaker 76
9:32
do any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation. Senator Dawson,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
9:37
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So obviously AI is something that's relatively new and is emerging and changing probably faster than most of us can keep up with it. And this is really the first session that we've been able to run some legislation through
an AI tool and get synopsis of bills and things like that. This would not prohibit that from happening, but this would prohibit that AI tool from automatically voting for us. Correct. We would still have to be the one either pushing the button in the house or making the decision, because I have found that I don't agree with the synopsis of the AI when I run some of the legislation
through many of the bills, it misses many things that I-- - They hallucinate sometimes, yeah. - Yeah, it has a different interpretation than what I would do. So is this a foot in the door or an opening, create in any way where it might make some automated decisions or this prohibits it entirely for AI making automated decisions? No, it would allow
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
10:56
for the automated decisions where it makes sense, but it would make sure that a human always makes a final.
And kind of where I'm kind of envisioning this more, let's say someone is going to DHS and they're trying to apply for benefits or something through the state. I don't want a situation to be created where a citizen of the state has said, no, you can't get this benefit because the computer said you can't. It may be that, yes, the computer is correct. It did the evaluation and they don't qualify or whatever. But at the same time, I want to make sure that that Arkansan is not denied services
when a computer or an AI in this case hallucinates and it doesn't make the right call. I want to make sure there's always a human who can evaluate what the AI has come up with or what the decision tool has come up with to make sure it was the right decision and we're
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
11:55
not at the mercy of a computer. So in all instances, on the front end of it, the human would be evaluating the AI's automated generated protocol, saying approve, decline, whatever it is,
and they would review it immediately before and be responsible. The human would be responsible for the decision, whatever the final determination is, and then there would be potential for appeals and things like that of the human's decision, not the AI-generated decision. Correct. All
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
12:23
right. Yeah, and that's kind of the way I'm envisioning this. Thank
you. All right. Senator Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So are
we currently blocking this from being used,
or is this to try to control the use of it? I'm just trying to get my head around whether we need this to permit it because we have something else that's blocking it or what so i don't know that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
12:50
we need this to permit ai from being used is that is that the concern we'll make sure i'm understanding i'm just trying to figure
out where the current landscape is and where this takes us because you know sure i don't
know that uh i would call it artificial intelligence it's artificial
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
13:09
something thinking, I guess. Right. It's an artificial algorithm. It's not
always intelligent. Right. So kind of the best, just through anecdotal, the answer is all over the place. When I was at an AI conference this past summer, the OpenAI had mentioned that there are thousands of requests coming through their system from government email addresses, and who knows if they're all authorized or not. And so part of what we're trying to do here, part of what
I'm hoping to do here with this is to make sure that we are, besides just putting these guardrails in place, that we're training our employees on when and, you know, how to use these tools to make sure we're not creating more problems for ourselves. So who are we sitting in that authority? The directors of the agencies. It
has to be a top-down, don't use it unless you use it, unless we have guidelines. Correct.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
14:11
And that's kind of the same thing with the technology use.
That's the current technology use policy. This is just adding AI into that. Make sure they put this into that policy, if that makes sense, hopefully. Okay, thanks. But, yes, it would come from the top-down. And hopefully, again, our Office of State Technology, they would work with them to help them establish those rules. Thank you. Senator King? Yeah, I
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
14:36
mean, it just gets into, I don't know if you're here for the last
thing. I mean, it's just, after being here a while, we just create these things statutorily that obviously agency directors
and people managing things correctly can make the right decisions without having to do something statutorily. I just don't know about this artificial, I mean, like I always say, we don't know what we don't know, and you're trying to capture something out here. But your part about like AI making decisions
instead of a human, is that in
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
15:12
danger now with state agency? As far as, I would say yes, but as far as trying to point to specific circumstances at this point, I can't.
My concern is to make sure that this is clear going forward. AI is only going to proliferate, it's going to become more common. and there's fear that we're going to get to a place where, and we've already seen it, you know, you can't have this service because the computer said you couldn't, right? And I don't think any of us want that future. And so, like I said, I've attended a lot of AI conferences across the country, and this is one of the reoccurring themes was to make sure it's clear that computer
programs are not going to be the ones making the final decisions. I hope that's not the case in the state that a human is always making the final decision, but I want to make sure that it's in statute so it's clear that, especially as we go forward, that that in Arkansas, that that is the, you know, that's the standard that we're going to go by.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
16:14
Well, I mean, computers making decisions. I've seen a lot of state people make some. Joe Perfieri shut down the Calico Rock expansion. That's going to cost us 50 million more. It would be one if a computer would shut that down, we'd be better off.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
16:27
Right. Humans don't always make the right decisions. You're correct, but I trust... That's right, but I trust them more than a computer. All right. Any other questions to the committee?
All right, say no further questions. Carly, do anybody sign to speak for or against
this? All right, don't see anybody. Representative, you were recognized or closed for your bill? I'm
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
16:53
closed for the bill and would appreciate a good consideration. All right, members.
What's the will of the committee? Motion due passed. Got a motion due passed from Senator Payton, second as
amended, second from Senator Dotson. All in favor, say any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all in favor, say
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
17:15
aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Representative, your bill passes. All right, thank you, colleagues. All right, so the second bill,
this one I think hopefully will be a little more fun. It's to create the Arkansas 2036 Commission. What's the bill number? It is House Bill. Let me pull it up here. 18-46. I do have an amendment to add Senator Irvin as the--
All right. I got an amendment to add Senator Irvin as co-sponsor. We'll take a motion to adopt. Senator Dotson got a motion to Senator Dotson. Second for Senator King.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
17:46
All in favor say aye. Opposed. All right. Name has been adopted. You're recognized present. We're
Speaker 121
17:51
going to get a computer in here to make decisions that would be better for you. I
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
17:58
would welcome that computer Senator King. We would all be better off. 1846. 1846. So, colleagues,
as the senior member of the House, of course, I'm term limited. My
time's coming to an end. And so, before I left, I wanted to leave one last gift, if you will, to the state. And so, this is kind of what I came up with. What this bill is, is to create the Arkansas 2036 Commission. So, 2036, that's going to be the 200th anniversary of our state's birth. And as I, and what this commission will do is the purpose would be to plan for that 200th birthday. You know, it'll have all the normal stuff. But the main reason why I want to propose this is, you know, as I travel around the country and look back a hundred years ago, we were building
things like the, you know, the Arch in St. Louis, the Golden Gate Bridge, the statue, the Empire State Building, Mount Rushmore. And for our 100th birthday, we built this beautiful capital. And the question is, is what are we going to leave in our generation for our second 100th birthday that'll still be here for our 300th birthday? I've, you know, recently read articles about, hey, come to Arkansas, and all the comments related about
coming to our state or negative about there's nothing to do in Arkansas why come to Arkansas and so my hope is is with this commission is to you know send this challenge out to all the schools across the state to the east labs to architecture firms and have them try to come up and envision some great thing and I have no clue what that thing is where it would be located at this is a blank slate to come up with some great thing that we as a state could build to celebrate our 200th birthday that'll still be here for our 300th birthday, and that would be an
economic driver for our state. You know, you've got to go to Arkansas to see this XYZ, whatever this is. Now, this committee may look at it and decide it's not the time
to do it, you know, that's what they're going to look at, but just as an example that we came up with in the House, a lot of states have a state museum. If you go to Tennessee, Alaska, Illinois, where the people of that state and visitors can learn about the history and the heritage of the state.
I don't know if any of you have been down to the state archives. We've got a lot of beautiful artifacts down there. We never get to see those. If I were to ask you, you know, you could
go to the National Archives and see the U.S. Constitution. And have any of you ever seen the Arkansas Constitution? I mean, the original. Most of us, the answer is no, right? So that's what this is. Like I said, it's to put together a group.
It is non-paid. They're serving at their pleasure. It's going to be housed in the Heritage Department. The director, I've talked to him. They're excited about getting to go, you know, getting started on this. And so, like I said, this is just to cast a vision forward for our state to see if we want to leave a heritage for the next generation, if it's appropriate. And with that, I'll try to answer
any questions. All right. Any questions from members of the committee?
All right. See, no questions. Do we have anybody sign us? Don't have anybody sign us? Don't have anybody sign us
Chair
Unverified
21:31
to speak for or against. Representative, your
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
21:33
regards close. All right. Thank you, colleagues. Again, this is, like
I said, I'm hoping this is a future, this is a vision we can cast for the future to enable something great to come to our state, if
Speaker 133
21:44
appropriate. And with that, I just ask for your support. All right.
Speaker 134
21:48
Representative is closed. What's the will of the committee?
Speaker 136
21:57
Sorry, Representative. Do not see a motion or a second. All right.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
22:01
Well, couldn't get across the finish line on this one. I appreciate it. All right, thank you, sir.
All right, Representative Lundstrom. Been waiting so patiently. Unlike Senator Gilmore back there
fidgeting. All right, Representative, what's the bill number you're running?
1879. All right, you are recognized to present. If you'll introduce yourself, and you'll be recognized to present House Bill
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
22:36
1879. Thank you, colleagues. First of all, State Representative Robin Lundstrom, District 18, presenting House Bill 1879. What this bill does is it asks that cities and counties put their meetings on Facebook, Instagram, something that does not cost, a recording just like we do for the House and the Senate. And it breeds transparency and trust in our citizenry
if they can see the process and understand the process. They have a year to comply. There is no cost. Just use your cell phone, put it up, and guess what? We are now on record. That is all this is saying. And if they can't get on Facebook, ask their nine-year-old grandchild, they'll set it up for them. So this is meant to open up transparency. And also, we have fewer newspapers now. We have fewer ways for citizens to engage unless they're physically in the room, we get someone else's interpretation of what happened
in a meeting. This gives them what really happened in a meeting. And with that, I'll open
Chair
Unverified
23:41
it up to any questions. All right, members. Senator
Payton, you're recognized for a question. All right. So do we have anything preventing them from doing this? I mean, they are elected officials just like we are. We chose to record
and put our stuff online as a legislature without being forced to do it so
what's the reasoning that we have to we have to put it in code instead of them making the decision
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
24:04
that's a good point but here's the deal it hasn't been done and there's a
tendency to say no we're afraid of doing this we don't want to do this it's it's something we have to mess with we don't want to do this this we work for the citizens they need to see what's going on but the citizens
decide whether they're happy with our work or not that is true sir so if the citizens want it recorded, it seems that they would have
influence enough through elections to punish them for not recording it by unelecting them. That's a good point. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Any other questions from the committee? Senator Sullivan, you have a
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
24:48
question. Senator King. So, I mean, I'm a big proponent of video, but when you start getting out, I mean, Blue Eye, Arkansas, has 30 or less people. I mean, the idea of a cell phone and recording and going through that, I mean, it sounds good, but yet the practicality of it.
I mean, to refamp and get the system out there for things would take. To do it in a way that needed to be done would take a significant amount.
I mean, I get the video. I get that we have live stream. I go to events that are recorded now, can be up with individuals. But, I mean, to really do this in this regard, it needs to have some standard of doing it right, much like our system costs a lot of money down here. I mean, I just see this as so many small towns, Hinesville. I mean, I have so many in my district that this would just be putting another burden on them, and unless you're going to do a bunch of substantial.
And, hey, listen, I think that we need to take a lot of these small cities and look at making them not cities anymore. I think there needs to be a real discussion about that, which would cause some trouble. But, I mean, the idea of putting a cell phone video out for some city council in that is just, it's just not realistic. Well, I
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
26:02
would disagree, but I understand some of the smaller towns. I'm from a small town,
so I get that question. How small is your small town? Mine's 1,500, so it's a little bit bigger than Blue Eye.
Speaker 158
26:13
But that's the reason. 1,500 small towns. Okay,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
26:17
go ahead. That's the reason we wanted to give them a year to get under this and to get a chance to acclimate. Also, think about if they don't have the cell phone, there's local high schools, there are churches, there are people that can help in the community. This needs to, we need transparency, and I think this will help. But I understand it's going to be difficult for some of those smaller
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
26:40
towns. 1,500 is not a small town compared to 30 or less people.
I would agree. I can name Tynesville, several of them. I mean, it is in the economics of it. In a lot of these places, we're not even getting people to show up. I mean, I don't know
what else to say. I agree with the transparency. In these little small towns, there's not, unless there's something happening, I don't know, there's not anything critical going on that's going to be a statewide
impact. But, I mean, once again, to do things, to do it right, and then you get into a web of, and like I said, 1,500 is not a small town.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
27:16
I guess when you've grown up there, it
just feels small, but I understand. All right. Any other questions from the committee?
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
27:28
Senator Dotson, recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Lundstrom, so the two options, as I'm reading the bill, is a post it on a website and then, or to a social media account. So if, I mean, we're kind of tying the hands of city councils and quorum courts
to, if they don't have a website, to a social media,
a third party, something they're not. It
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
27:56
can be. Some already have websites. Some only have Facebook. It's whatever is the easiest path for that. It's an or. Right.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
28:03
Well, it may not be an or, though, if social media companies decide not to move forward
in the future. And I'm not I'm talking about maybe the next 6 or 24 or 12 months. But before we can actually get back into session and amend the law, they could be out of compliance unless they invest a bunch of money into a website
in order to, you know, businesses, social media businesses, change their parameters in terms of conditions and all that all of the time. So just posting it to a third-party site like that may be not an option is all I'm suggesting. And so in that situation, website is the only other option that
they would have. So they would have to invest in a website and the ability
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
28:51
to post on that. Not necessarily. There's YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat.
There's a lot of different options for them to do it at zero cost. If they wanted to invest in a website, I'm not going to even go there. This is whatever is the path of least resistance for them to post their meetings on
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
29:10
public. All I'm saying is that it is
a, there's a bunch of options today. Granted, I agree, YouTube, Facebook, all the different ones. But if a company or companies or the tech industry as a whole decides, hey, we're going to start charging for this or we're going to start doing something,
they become very quickly, they can quickly, more quickly than what we can respond and change the law. So it could become a not option as far as your secondary option there. And then there's not anything in here that allows them to have like a third option, if you will, if they don't have a website and they can't do the social
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
29:53
media. No, I went with the least expensive. Let's not have any cost to it, and that was the option.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
30:00
I'm open to whatever. I mean, I think if those things, what would potentially make me a little bit more comfortable, because I agree, cameras are fairly cheap. You can go and buy, you know, one for your house that has continuous video recording or is motion activated or whatever right now, ring doorbells and all those sorts of stuff. So the availability of the technology is probably not the issue. It's more the issue of having those options, particularly for those smaller communities,
If one of these two options become, or if both of these options become not available and too expensive. I realize that, and
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
30:40
that's something that needs to be addressed in rules. But also during ALC, if something were to happen in Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, all decided they were going to charge, I think that's something we can handle.
Chair
Unverified
30:51
All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right. Senator King, we're
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
30:56
going to ask for a question. Okay. Gave the example of like where it doesn't do it. But I understand there are
situations I see of some county corn courts or some cities that could possibly do something.
But there's a situation of a saying, there's the doing it and there's doing it right, okay? And, you know, in those situations, just like Carroll County, for example, my brother's on the corn court. You know, they're operating a building that's 60-something years old. I mean, if they have to do it right, and once you do it, do it right, they have to spend a tremendous amount of money. if they're building a new courthouse then yeah I mean you have to I mean the Facebook video once you start that process we do that and then people can't listen to audio or it doesn't come through or you know there's another
minor technique of like I said doing it or doing it right and when you step up to the do it right level I mean maybe there needs to be some type of classification of cities that you start out moving towards I mean I get that and understand that. But yet, on the other hand, like I said, Carol, you record on a Facebook video, how many times? Well, I heard this, but I didn't hear everything. And then you get into that. And if Carroll County had to spend $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 to update their system now,
and then they build a new courthouse, well, then they've done that. So the stipulations that we put out there is just getting away from a lot of local control and decisions. But if you want to look at it's too late in the process of maybe a certain level or something like that, that's at least entertaining. But I mean, like I said, I just don't see putting the counties out here in the cities to spend a bunch of money when we don't know every county and every city situations. And if those citizens don't like it, they can hire and fire those people based on that decision. Is that a question or?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
32:46
By all means. I don't know why you wouldn't want to get on that. My apologies for coming in late. I tend to agree with what Senator King just said. I just want to note, it says, except as provided under subdivision
D6, and then it's D5, so just for what that's worth. Thank you. If it does pass, we would need to, I think, amend that verbally or whatever. Thank you. All right.
Thank you, Senator. Any other questions from the committee? All right. Seeing no more questions. Don't have anybody sign up to speak for or
Chair
Unverified
33:14
against this. Representative, you're recognized closer to your bill.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
33:17
Colleagues, I think the time has come. I do agree with Senator King. Maybe for the smaller cities, we do need to have some type of escape clause if you have 30 people. I chaired Senate State Audit last session, and it was an eye-opening experience as to the amount of fraud and some of the problems that we have in our cities, and people just don't know. This comes down to transparency. Whether this bill happens now or happens later, that's up to the body, and I trust the will of the body, but we need to have our people engaged,
and they need to see their government at work. They also need to see that they have public servants. They have statesmen in their city councils and in their quorum courts. They have people that are working hard for them. This isn't just a gotcha, it's also a thank you, and support your local government so that you know what's going on, but you can't be there at 5:30 or whenever, but you can see your past meetings. How many times have we been in meetings and we've gone back and watched the video so that we can learn what happened and that state agencies committee, city county local. We go back and we look at that video because it's important to see what's going on
in our government. And with that, I would appreciate a good
Speaker 182
34:23
vote. - All right, members. Representative Lundstrom is closed for her bill with the full of
the committee. Got a motion due pass, or discussion on the motion. Senator Dawson, or just discussion, go ahead. - No, Mr.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
34:36
Chairman, I was just gonna ask Representative Lundstrom if she wanted to possibly pull the bill down to try to make those tweaks to it that were discussed. I mean, we still might be able to... I think we're a little bit late in the process
Speaker 185
34:46
for... For a Senate to make it to a House bill?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
34:51
We still have a week. Colleagues, let me do this. I will pull it down. I think there are a couple of considerations that do need to be made that would make the bill better. And if the good Lord and the voters bless me with another term, I'll bring it back. Great.
Speaker 188
35:09
Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time. All right. The esteemed Senator Dave Wallace. from leech leechful get on up here dave
senator wallace what bill are you going to
Speaker 192
35:32
be running sir Sir? What bill will you be running? Wallace District
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
35:38
19. This bill, we have a lot of bills that are pretty serious and we have some fun bills. This is going to be a fun bill. What's the bill again? I'm sorry,
1886? 1886. And we do have a amendment here to add Senator Irvin as a co-sponsor. Yes, sir.
I've got a motion to adopt by Senator Tucker. I'll second that. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Amendment's been adopted. All right. Senator, you are
Speaker 65
36:14
recognized to proceed. Thank you, sir. Sir, this is a bill to designate the Labrador Retriever as the official canine for the state of
Arkansas. Wait a minute. Are you telling me that the Labrador Retriever is not already the official canine for
the state of Arkansas? Not yet, sir. Continue, please.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
36:33
Shocked. Lots of good points for our lab.
It's been a courthouse dog for years, a working dog. 14 states have an official dog already. None have the lab. In spite of its popularity, none have chosen the lab yet. The Arkansas is home to multiple top breeding kennels for labs. They're friendly, intelligent, versatile, and
Speaker 199
37:06
they come in three different colors, so
you can't beat that. Are you talking about the sponsor? Did we adopt
Speaker 201
37:12
the amendment yet? We have adopted the amendment. Did I miss it? Yeah, yeah. Sorry. I thought you were talking
Speaker 202
37:20
about your co-sponsor. Senator Sullivan coming off the top
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
37:24
rope with a good joke. Continue, Senator Wallace. The most important part of this is a couple of sessions ago, we adopted the mallard as our state duck. I see how this fits. If you've got a duck for the state bird, you need somebody to go get that bird.
We have a growing movement in Arkansas, and it's called Leave No Duck Behind. So we've got a lab that will go get the ducks. And with that, I'll stand by for your
Speaker 65
37:57
questions. Well, I'm not going to go get the ducks, so yeah, it would make
complete sense. Have you talked to my stepbrother, Ross Bell, about this bill? I'm sorry? Have you talked to my stepbrother,
Speaker 192
38:08
Ross Bell, about this bill? As you know, he is very, very interested into the Labrador retriever. And he is a good source to talk to.
Okay, okay. We'll fill him in later. I just
can't believe this hasn't already been done already. Senator Wallace, thank you for bringing this forth. We've got a motion by Senator Sullivan, a
second by—wait a minute. Nobody's going to sign up to speak against this, obviously. Nope. We've got a motion by Senator Sullivan, second by Senator Dotson. Any discussion on the motion? None? No discussion? All right. All in favor, say aye.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
38:46
Aye. Opposed? Members, thank you, and Olab, O'Roy appreciates it.
Senate Bill 18, or House Bill 1886, passed as amended. How have we not
Speaker 195
38:59
had a Labrador as a state dog? Golly. Meanwhile, Gilmore and David Ray
Chair
Unverified
39:07
are growing government over here. We don't even have a state dog.
Representative Ray, do you want to come join? Senator Gilmore, I know he doesn't
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:25
like to present by himself. Okay. Happy, happy, joy, joy. Right? Yeah. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Senator Gilmore, District 1. I would like to really quick take the, let's see here, 1891, because I think that will be very quick, and we can clear your agenda. House Bill 1891. I remember the last time you didn't show up to run a
bill. It was supposed to be very, very quick. We spent eight hours on it.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:47
No, no, no, never. I would never do that to the esteemed committee. 881? 1891. 1891.
Chair
Unverified
39:53
This is a companion bill for the bill we just passed off the floor. I'll just move it out of
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:59
here to clean up your agenda. All right, 1891. I'm doing it for y'all. I'm
just helpful like that. So really quick on this, this is the judicial title ballot bill, or ballot title bill. I said it backwards. We passed this.
This was a cleanup on some language that was missed, but we already passed this bill. This is a companion bill just for sake of time and toward the end of session. You know, oftentimes there are companion bills.
Chair
Unverified
40:27
That's what this does. Happy to take any questions. Senator, we just asked this question for everybody that comes before this committee. Does this have anything to do with the prison? It has nothing to do with the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
40:35
prison. Any appropriations? Thank goodness it has nothing to do with the prison, Senator. You're on the record saying this as absolutely. I'm on the record. I will testify. Thank you. All right.
Your word is good enough, you may. Senator Dotson, you have a question? we already we already passed it it's okay Sullivan
Chair
Unverified
40:51
all right I want a question get in here
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
40:56
so is this actually for any specific people I'm sorry to be is this for any specific people to be able to use as a title and a
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
41:05
future no sir this is for anybody any
judicial candidate as is stated and there's nobody in mind or anybody that's pushed to do this no sir okay so it's very broad to that okay okay all
right any questions all right then carly anybody says don't have my senate speak for against this senator you're recognizing closure i'm close
appreciate a good vote all right got a motion due passed by senator sullivan second by senator dotson any
discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor say aye i opposed congratulations Senator, your
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
41:42
book passes. Thank you. If we could move to House Bill 1934. You sure you want to press your luck? You know, I will
Chair
Unverified
41:50
as long as the committee's willing. All
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
41:53
right. House Bill 1934. 1934. I have Representative McClendon here. It's a very simple bill, but it's one that I know
she's put some time into, and so. Representative McClendon, come on
up. Wait a minute. House Bill 1934. It's in there. Did you
Speaker 236
42:14
find it, sir? Here. Take my. Thank you. If
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
42:27
you all introduce yourselves. Thank you. Senator Gilmore, District 1.
Representative Mindy McElhinney, District 10. All right, y'all are recognized to present House Bill 1934. - Thank you, members. I
think this is something we can all get behind. We've watched what's happening on the federal level with a effort to try to clean up what's going on in Washington with DOGE, and I think this is a step in that direction here in Arkansas. I think we all know that there's a lot of things that we spend money and time and effort on, and this will create a committee and a working group
to address a lot of those things that we are spending money on, maybe we haven't taken a look at in a long time. And I hope that this will create a framework for us to do that. And I will defer to my house sponsor that spent a lot of time and I appreciate her efforts and willingness to try to address a lot of the waste fraud in state government.
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
43:24
So with that, Ms. McClendon, please. - Thank you, Senator. So again, this is a working group. It's
designed to sunset on January 1st of 2027. There is a possible extension to January 1st of 2029 if the governor deems it necessary.
All members that serve on this will serve without compensation, and any legislators that serve will serve without per diem because this is, after all, a doge bill. And we're trying to build on what's already been done with Arkansas Ford. We're extending it to regulations, also having the ability for people to call in and give tips of how they think, you know, if they're seeing duplicate and triplicate things that they're doing as they go about trying to get businesses set up or those things, we're taking those in and trying to find those efficiencies and cut waste and spending in government. - All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill.
Chair
Unverified
44:07
Any questions from the committee? Senator Sullivan, you were recognized
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
44:17
for a question. - Aren't we already supposed to be doing this? Isn't that what budget is for? And aren't we supposed to be trying to eliminate committees and eliminate these things and looking, and when budget comes up, JPR and other, I mean, I've had several bills out there eliminating boards and commissions, and what does this do that we shouldn't already be doing?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
44:40
- Well, no, I think it's a great question. That's why this is temporary. And I think this is, you're welcome. And like you, I think we have far too many boards and commissions that exist already. And I hope that maybe this will be a mechanism for that to come to light. Again, it's temporary. And I think at the end of the day, we want to shine a light. And this gives emphasis to what I think we all want to do. And I know members of this committee in particular are very key on trying to eliminate excess spending or things that, frankly, we just need to be more efficient in.
And I think this is a way to give
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
45:17
it the emphasis that's due. I couldn't agree more. And I just think we already have everything in place we need. It's not a factor, in my opinion, of needing more committees. It's a factor of us doing our job. And
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
45:32
we can do that right now. And I think we can through committees that we have. One thing about this that I think is important is it involves private sector into those conversations. And, you know, I think, candidly, we can all say that private sector seems to function at a leaner and more efficient level.
And I think there's a way to incorporate some of those ideas and policies into what we do at the state level. And I've got a bill later in committee here that I'll present that also helps, I think, clarify some of the things that we need to do better.
Senator Sullivan, you've filed bills to eliminate boards and commissions. You must have snuck past me because I really don't
Chair
Unverified
46:12
remember any of those. Please, can I co-sponsor? You would do us all a favor. Senator King.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
46:19
So, I mean, I was down here whenever our Medicaid spending, federal and state, was under $4 billion. I mean, I haven't been doing it, but y'all are approving ones. Eleven,
it's increased 350%. If there's waste, fraud, and abuse, it's in Medicaid a lot. Okay, it comes down to our individual decisions. If you increase spending, RSA is the most important bill that we vote on, and it gets the least amount of attention.
because it sets our spending target. But y'all just keep voting for more spending. You don't cut waste, fraud, and abuse. If you look at our surrounding states, this goes back to 2015 study, we spend more per capita than our surrounding states, which means we're the most wasteful spending. If you look at the decision based on the prison, people hate bringing it up. The Joe Perfieri decision not to expand the 525 beds at Calico Rock to build it in this mega prison is going to cost us at least $50 million more.
To build the same 525 beds, 100% staffing there, it was a no-brainer. I don't know that those are the decisions. You look at this consulting scam that's going on where these consultants come in here and get these contracts and leave. I will send you the op-eds where they have been not just wrong, grossly wrong in their estimates, and they turn around and leave and take millions and millions of dollars. I mean, that's the waste, fraud, and abuse out here, and then all of a sudden we need
to keep another thing to get the shiny object off of that. We are spending far more money than we ever should to take care of our citizens. This comes down to voting for RSA, making decisions like Calico Rock instead of building that cost us money, and these consultant scams that come in here. These consultants have promised us, if we had saved half of what they promised we were going to save, which you don't save money by spending more, our state budget probably wouldn't be $500 if we just went off the promises.
So why do you keep voting and want this whenever we keep voting for these consultant scams and these decisions like Perfuria at Calico
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
48:35
Rock? Well, Senator King, thank you for raising the points as it relates to DHS. language met this morning. I passed special language to do a comprehensive review, not using consultants, by the way, using the committee process that we have in place to do a comprehensive view of DHS. This bill is another option, another avenue to, again, look at what we can do to
streamline government, make it better. So I think there's a lot of stuff that we can do. This is one mechanism. And
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
49:05
there are no consultants being hired by us. Well, the best way to not spend more money is to vote to not spend more money. That's just
it. I don't know. This is like, I mean, our state budget is so much, we have so much waste, fraud, and abuse going out here. I mean, we have thousands of people that were on Arkansas Medicaid still today that are dead and things. It's not a hard decision.
It's getting the right people that do the right things. But I'm sure we're going to keep rubber stamping this prison thing when we could build the 525 beds and save taxpayers 50 million. Does this have anything
Speaker 236
49:40
to do with the prison? No. Okay, so it's
Gordon Wilburn
Unverified
49:46
just, I think you may have lost Senator King. Any other questions from the committee? Senator Tucker, or I'd like to say Senator Clark.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
49:58
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So will this committee, will its work be done in a responsible or like in a knee-jerk type way? - I hope it'll be done in
Speaker 34
50:07
a very responsible way. - All right, just checking,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
50:09
because I've seen some knee-jerk stuff come out of D.C. in the last month or so, so. - This is Arkansas. - All right, just double-checking. - Can't speak
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
50:19
for D.C., but this is Arkansas. Doesn't mean that a broken clock can be twice, or right twice, and that, you know, there's some things that happen in D.C. that they get right, some they don't.
I think we should try this approach in Arkansas.
- All right, I appreciate it. - All right, thank you, Senator Tucker. Any other questions to the committee? All right, see none. Apparently, anybody sign up to speak for or against? Don't see anybody. Senator, Representative, you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
50:42
recognize to close your bill? Again, I think everything's been said. Everybody said it. I'm ready to close. All right. Senator is closed for his
bill. What's the bill of the committee? We've got a motion due passed by Senator Dotson. I see a second. Second.
All in favor? Any discussion on the motion? See none. All in favor? I'm going to second it. Second. Yeah, you know. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. No.
Speaker 211
51:18
Sorry, your bill fails for that. No problem. I'll take some chances with 538.
Speaker 215
51:24
I told you, if you press that luck, Senator Gilmore. Senate Bill 538?
Yes. Okay. All right, Senator, if you'll
recognize yourself, or who you're with, your district, and you'll be recognized to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
51:51
proceed with Senate Bill 538. Thank you. Senator Gilmore, District 1, here to present Senate Bill 538.
Proceed, Senator Gilmore. Thank you. Members, this is a cleanup and clarification on procurement law. I think the biggest thing that this bill does, it makes some technical corrections, clarifies some existing law. But I think the main thing it does is makes the request of the department to promulgate rules as it relates to procurement and bring them before the ALC. If you recall back some months ago, Senator Hickey in particular, Senator Irvin,
that's one of their co-sponsors on this bill, had some questions and issues relating to some contracts and how they're procured. And this bill seeks to address maybe some things that need to be clarified in that process. More importantly, I think what we found out was there was some training that needed to be done And so one of the things that this does is it mandates procurement office of state procurement to do training within department procurement offices to make sure they understand process.
And that was one of the things that we realized that maybe there were some folks that didn't understand process. And so it asks them to also report monthly to ALC as to the efforts being made to educate and train those department level individuals. So
with that, I'm happy to take any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation
Chair
Unverified
53:36
of the bill. Questions from the committee? Senator King, you're recognized for a
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
53:41
question. Well, we get into back to consultants and
all these contracts and promising to save money.
I mean, and I can go into, I wrote op-eds about it, about where these consultants and these procurement contracts, all these promises get made to save money and all we do is spend more. There's no clawbacks in this. I mean, they need to be held accountable. I mean, these consultants, we've paid them. Washington, D.C., London, England, San Francisco. You know, I mean, we've done these procurement laws and things are worse now than
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
54:18
ever. Well, if that's a question, I'll seek to address it.
I think what this is trying to do is actually just clarify what needs to be done within the agency and make sure that the agency folks know how to follow the law. And so there's going to be training associated with doing that. And there's some topographical clarifications and corrections in this, but that's what this seeks to
Speaker 255
54:41
do, Senator. So are you a supporter, and I mean, Senator Tucker and I disagree on this, of DEI and all this? Am I a supporter of DEI? Yeah. Is that related to this bill?
Yeah, what is the... Well, I'll get to it. Quickly, Senator King. Well, he can answer it if he's a supporter of DEI. He says he's not, or you're not. Well, I haven't answered the question because I'm trying to figure out how
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
55:07
it relates to this bill. Well, the thing is...
Speaker 72
55:09
I've voted for SB3. Yeah, Senator, we don't have to answer that. That's
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
55:13
not even relevant to the bill. Thank you. so the question is why are we not in this bill addressing these consultants that are big dei proponents but then we do all these things i
Speaker 255
55:20
mean we give senator you're welcome to run a bill to do it this is a bill that seeks to do clarification and rule promulgation and make sure
that our state agencies are doing proper training we've done these procurement
Chair
Unverified
55:31
laws and then nothing changes and we get bad decisions thank
you senator all right any other questions for the committee All
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
55:46
right, see no further questions. Senator Dotson, question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Gilmore, I understand there's several different areas of this bill, and we've gone through and studied procurement several years ago. We made many modifications and changes in 2019, I believe,
and then that sort of gelled for a few years. Then we've gone back and looked at some of the things that are, this is addressing some of the holes, some of the things that we found from that big revamp of procurement half a dozen years ago that now we're catching up on some things. This doesn't have anything to do with DEI or with whether or not there's a consultant that makes a few recommendations.
I know there's been modifications that the consultant didn't recommend because I've talked to you about the bill. I know you've made some amendments at my request to make some changes to it. Procurement is very complex,
and I remember having studied this multiple times and every time having to wrap your brain around a lot of technical details. And so for our procurement folks, it's very, the law in general related to procurement is very complex, and they make,
they're human, they make mistakes quite frequently, but this helps to address not only some of the actual pitfalls in the procurement law, but also helps with some of that human training to
make sure that they are getting it right more often than what they are right now.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
57:22
No, and I think as I've already stated, to your point, Thank you for sort of clarifying or adding to that.
Again, this is making sure they understand the process because we've had some agencies basically indicate that they don't know the process. And so that's what this bill is seeking to do. Thank you for your work
on this. Thank you, Senator Autzen. Any other questions from the committee? All right, seeing no further questions, don't have anybody to sign up to speak for or against this. Senator, you were recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Senators and committee. I'm not going to belabor the point. I appreciate a good vote. I am closed. All right, members, what's the will of the committee? Got a motion to do pass from Senator Dodson. Second,
Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes. And I do, I mean, I could be wrong here, but I do feel like I see a government class here from
Legacy Academy out of Southwest Arkansas. Am I correct here? Y'all learning anything about your state government
today? Anything good about your state government today? Let me be a little bit more specific. All right,
somebody come up here and tell me what you've learned about your state government today. Don't make me call somebody randomly out. Somebody's coming up here.
Tick-tock, or you're not going to get out a get-out-of-school free card for
this one. Oh, thou giveth and thou taketh away those bonus points. Come on up. Senator King has a few questions for
you, so. Introduce yourself. You push the button right there.
Speaker 279
59:07
All right. I'm Jude Gallagher from Legacy Academy in Locksburg, Arkansas. Chad, you send your
Speaker 11
59:13
own son up here. Oh, my gosh. Okay, Jude. Legacy Academy,
Southwest Arkansas. an embarrassing story about your father and then what you've learned about your state government today. But we can start with an embarrassing story
about your father. Tell you all about the time he got arrested.
Speaker 188
59:33
I would love to hear about that time he got arrested. Not actually.
Speaker 136
59:39
We don't have everything at once. We'll just start with the government. Chat,
Speaker 281
59:43
I knew it. So what have you learned today?
Speaker 282
59:48
We were down in committee room, the judicial committee and we were learning about just how they um go over bills and how
Speaker 279
59:54
they're introduced in the committee then move up to the house and to the senate okay very interesting senator king have any questions for mr gallagher here
does your dad make you do farm labor yes sir
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:00:05
he does does he adequately provide you compensation to do so yes sir he does okay you let me know if he doesn't
It's called housing. Yeah. I was like, that's because I said so compensation? Well, there
are some child labor laws that your dad would be familiar with. I don't know if he applies to you. Senator Dotson, you were recognized for a question.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:00:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So have you got to go down to the second floor to the Treasury yet and hold any money? I
Speaker 279
1:00:36
have before, but we haven't today. I think that was next.
Speaker 236
1:00:39
Okay. Were you tempted to take any of that money with you? Yes. All his answer.
Speaker 136
1:00:45
I like Jude. All right, Jude, get out of here. You're excused. Appreciate you coming up. Welcome, guys. We're happy to
Speaker 287
1:00:58
have you. Jude, classmates, that was the highlight of the morning. It is all
Gordon Wilburn
Unverified
1:01:12
uphill from here. Senator Gilmore. Okay. Senator Tucker. Is it non-controversial?
Why would I even ask that? Senate Bill 614 does have amendment. I
will let Carly pass that out, give members a few seconds to look it over. Senate bill 614 G do you want
to come up here and help present this one that would be great
All right, I will take a motion to adopt
the amendment. So moved. All right, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, amendment's been adopted. Senator Tucker,
Chair
Unverified
1:02:24
you are recognized to proceed with Senate Bill 614 as amended. So this is
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:29
a bill, I presented it last week. Again, functionally, it's an amendment to Senate Bill 227 because the bond community is concerned about bond rates going up. if a decision by a governing body to approve a bond issue
is invalidated by a court because of a FOIA violation more than 30 days after they made the decision. The committee had some good points, and so I've created an amendment, I think, to address those points. The way that the bill is set up, and this portion is not changing, is that if a circuit court finds that and when it comes to a bond issue that a governing body made a decision in violation of section 106 of the FOIA subchapter of the public meeting section,
then within 30 days the circuit court can invalidate that action. After 30 days there are two options. One is that either the governing body can cure the violation or two there has to be some penalty. The amendment comes in on the penalty side and the members unfortunately neither them are here at the moment. But Senator, the penalty in the original bill was that the public entity managed by the governing body would pay a fine of $10,000. And Senator Clark acted like, or he indicated, that's not a severe enough penalty because a $10,000 fine on a $1
million bond issue is not significant, which is a fair point. And then Senator Payton made the point that it's the taxpayers that ended up paying the penalty and not the people who actually committed the violation, which is also a fair point. So that's what the amendment addresses. It replaces the $10,000 penalty to be paid by the public entity, and it deletes that and replaces it with a $1,000 penalty to be paid individually, not to be paid by public funds from each member of the governing body who committed the FOIA violation. So I think
that is, again, there are two options that the governing body can do if a court founds that a bond issue was taken in violation of the public meeting section, one is to cure, one is for the individual members to pay this penalty. So it's set up to incentivize the cure. If they cure, then there's no penalty. If for whatever reason they refuse to cure, then the members of the gathering body who don't cure will be subject to a $1,000 personal liability penalty. So that's what the amendment does and what the bill does. This bill is very important for the bond community.
We do want municipalities and school boards to be able to issue bonds in Arkansas and this will help them continue to be able to do that good work. So I'm happy to take any questions. - All right, members,
our next one is to the bill. Senator Dotson, then Senator Sullivan. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. So
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:05:25
the... Basically, if the court has to make this finding
within 30 days? They don't have to make the finding within 30 days. Okay, so let's say, for instance, someone challenged something and it was six
months or two years later after the fact. Right. Could they still make that finding on that and or other issues and then whoever they found guilty might be subject to a penalty and then maybe they were doing it just wrong in the way they operated and they didn't know,
but they did it 10, 15, 20 times the wrong way, now they would have stacked penalties one after another on them for having done this improperly over the last two, three,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:06:15
four, five years? So let me take those one at a time. The first item is a court does not have to make the finding within 30 days. Many times you don't find out about a public meeting's violation until more than 30 days has elapsed since the violation.
All this is saying is that if the court finds it within 30 days, then you can invalidate. If the court makes the finding more than 30 days after the violation took place, then one of two things has to happen, and those two things are either a cure or the penalty. As to the second part of the question, I didn't say this today, but I'm going to repeat one thing I said last week. The ability of a court to invalidate a decision by a governing body based on a public meeting FOIA violation has been the law in Arkansas for 39 years.
This has affected the bond community so little that they didn't even know that this was the law, which is why 227 is doing the work that we hoped it would do by bringing clarity to the public about what the public meeting FOIA law is in Arkansas. So in other words, this has never happened once in Arkansas history on a bond issue, a public meeting violation. I don't expect it to happen. Again, the fact that it conceivably could happen is what affects the bond community because that's
what's going to affect their rates with their lenders and so forth. And there are folks from the bond community who are here and prepare to testify and they can answer your question. But the fact now that they know it might happen is what's relevant to them because it affects their rates through their lenders. If this is not
accounted for in the legislation, then rates will go up and that affects the public
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:08:01
and investors. I think I understood that in the original version of the bill and I liked it. I like your amendment far
less than I did before. I think we need to
fix that on the first page here, but... Fix what on the
first page? Well, the concept of your bill, I think it needs to pass in order to make that clarity for the bond market. Yeah. But I don't support the bill with
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:32
this amendment on it. So I'll tell you this. You know, as you know, I've worked with the Municipal League and the Association of Counties extensively throughout the course of the session on 227, right? and then I've continued to be in dialogue with them
on this fix for the bond community. I took the shot last week without this penalty in there. It failed. Based on the comments I heard from the committee, I prepared this amendment. I visited explicitly with the Municipal League and the Association of Counties about the amendment. It's not, I don't wanna speak for them, I'm sure. I don't know if Lindsey's here, she can come speak to it. I don't know if John Wilkerson is here or someone else in the Municipal League, But 614 helps the municipalities in Arkansas.
So on balance, they recognize that 614 is going to help them conduct business. And they think the likelihood of anyone ever getting a civil penalty is almost zero, if not zero, because of two things. Number one, because of the rarity with which this happens, because it's never happened. And then secondarily, because if someone is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, we think there's a 99.9% chance that they'll just cure rather than pay the civil penalty, so.
Thank you. And Lindsay's here, so if you want her to come up and speak to it. Come on up, Ms.
Gordon Wilburn
Unverified
1:10:12
Lindsay. John? Oh, there's John. Great. Y'all introduce yourself, who you're with, and you be recognized for receiving remarks. Lindsay French,
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:10:17
Association of Arkansas Counties. John Wilkerson, General Counsel of the Municipal League.
And just to echo what Senator Tucker has already said, I think for someone to actually pay that fine, they have to really intentionally mess up a lot. And not only do they have to intentionally mess up multiple times, but they have to be willing to say, no, I'm not going to go into an open meeting and admit that I messed up. I'd rather pay a civil penalty myself. So I think I'm comfortable with saying if someone ever gets to that point, then it's really their own intentional actions that got them there.
Speaker 312
1:10:55
If I may, I will add, these penalties that are in this 614 are in addition to the other criminal penalties that are in the FOIA or other civil penalties that are in the FOIA. This is just designed to assure that bonds, like Senator Tucker mentioned, the bond rate doesn't go up, which of course would affect public tax dollars. So we're trying to navigate that narrow niche of government and allow for the FOIA to work the way it works. And to Senator Tucker's point, this has been very educational for the cities and counties, passing 227. And now this has,
to your point from last week, has done what it was supposed to do, which is to make sure everybody knows the clear parameters of the FOIA. So for that, I'm appreciative. And I think at the
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:11:41
end of the day, this bill helps safeguard taxpayer dollars, protect the rates of the market. No one wants to see those rates go up and unnecessary tax dollars have to be spent when it could be avoided. Yep. Thank you,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:11:57
Mr. Chair. So I guess I must have missed it. At the end of page two,
line 2, there's an or there. So what you're saying, and just verifying what I'm reading here, they have the option of, one, providing notice of the violation in compliance with the section, disclosing the violation at the public meeting, and authorizing the action in question at the public
meeting in compliance with the section, or choosing to pay the civil penalty. So the court's not going to impose
this $1,000 way after the fact if the body will come in, do those first things, if they're found in violation of it.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:12:45
That's right. I missed that. Sorry, I wasn't clear
on that. But yeah, it's one of two things. And this is set up in a way that the governing body will always choose to do the first option. Thank you. I'm good with
Chair
Unverified
1:13:00
it now. - All right, thank you. Any other
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:13:08
questions from the committee? Senator King, you recognized. - Could this $1,000 go to Blue Eye to help them get a major advancement in helping them video their meetings?
Speaker 118
1:13:16
- I'll work with Representative Lundstrom on that. - Okay. Any other questions from the committee? All right, no excuse,
Speaker 202
1:13:25
thank you. All right. We do have a few people signed up to speak. for the bill, Mr. Michael McBride? Michael in here? Gordon? Come on up, let you all come together.
Gordon Wilburn
Unverified
1:14:01
All right, if you all introduce yourselves and who
Speaker 327
1:14:23
you're with for the record, you've recognized perceived remarks. Sure. My name is Gordon Wilburn. I'm with the law firm of Cutac Rock here in Little Rock, and I serve as bond counsel to Arkansas governmental entities.
My name is Michael McBride. I'm
Speaker 328
1:14:36
with Stephen Zink. I'm a senior vice president with
Speaker 327
1:14:41
our public finance department. Okay, please proceed. I would say one important aspect of this bill is it kind of aligns with our existing practice on bond issues, on closing bond issues. After a city or county authorizes a bond issue typically by ordinance, We already wait that 30 days in order to close to clear the referendum period that exists
under the Arkansas Constitution for taxpayers to bring a petition to overturn an ordinance, which rarely, rarely happens, but we do, out of caution, wait that 30 days. So this would kind of hit that same time period where after that 30 days, we would be comfortable issuing our approving opinion that the bonds have been validly issued and approved, you know, without having to worry about six months, two years from now, somebody bringing an action
to invalidate the authorizing ordinance. And to sort of piggyback off of that,
Speaker 328
1:15:41
and I think Senator Tucker touched on this, really what we're concerned with is uncertainty and that turning into risk. Risk is obviously something investors are trying to avoid. So that's really our concern. so the uncertainty without some definitive answer
Speaker 330
1:15:55
with SB 614. - If I may, Mr. Chair, I should have explained
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:16:00
this, but I didn't, I'm so glad that you did. I didn't pick that 30-day number out of thin air.
That's a number that currently exists that the bond community works with because they understand that there can be a referendum on a municipal decision within 30 days. So that's the basis for the 30-day timeline and the bill, it already is a part of the existing bond market. - All right, any questions?
Chair
Unverified
1:16:25
Okay, Senator Payton. - Thank you, Mr. Chair, sorry I showed up late. We did talk about this
bill a little bit the other day. So I understand the need to be able to reach a point
where you have that security. I'm concerned that the 30 days is not long enough to curate whether or not a citizen has a valid complaint. And those citizens that may have valid complaint about the process. It may take more than 30 days for them to seek the legal advice and understand. So is there any way that we can make this 60 or 90 or 45? I mean, I understand it's something that you pulled that is currently, but I mean, can y'all? So let me, there's two
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:17:14
pieces, I think two pieces to the answer. I'm going to let him explain the 30-day part because he can do that better than I can. But what I can say is that the point of curing a, or the point of identifying, the whole point of the public meeting provision is to know what decisions governing bodies are making and why they're making them. It's not necessarily to even change the outcome. It's to know what your elected officials are doing and why they're doing it. And even if a violation is discovered more than 30 days after the violation occurred,
this bill will still allow for a cure where the governing body has to come in public and not only say what the decision is and why they made it, they also have to acknowledge the violation that took place. So the cure does satisfy, even if it's more than 30 days after, the cure does satisfy the purpose of the public meeting provision of the FOIA. So I think I still think the underlying purpose is satisfied even with a violation by the cure So that's that's
that piece of the answer and then I got to turn up before you turn on
I'll let him actually I think you got it fixed for me. Thanks. Okay It's a good place to stop Senator Tucker All right, any other questions for the committee? All right, see none you gentlemen are excused. Thank you. Yes, sir Jason
Carter Jason, if you'll introduce yourself and tell us who you're with.
Speaker 341
1:18:55
Less is more, looking pretty favorable right now. I'm Jason Carter, representing the Arkansas Municipal Power Association. Just wanted to add that the FOIA task force endorsed this bill. It's very narrowly tailored to address a specific issue, and I'd appreciate your support. All right. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Any
Speaker 343
1:19:10
questions? All right. Seeing none. Thank you. All right. Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:16
Thank you, members. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote, and I
move to pass. Got a motion to do pass from Senator Tucker. Second by Senator Sullivan. As amended, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:26
Congratulations. Your bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Gilmore asked me to run House Bill 1524. I defer to the chairs. Senator Gilmore
Speaker 285
1:19:34
has a lot of asks, doesn't he? A lot of asks, that Senator Gilmore. Yeah, you sure you want to take a senator to go more, Bill? It's
Speaker 345
1:19:46
1524. It's the one that's getting ready to die, so what's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:48
that number again? 1524. 1524. Indeed. But there's some folks from Parks and Tourism
who want to come up and visit with the committee about it.
Speaker 53
1:19:57
I'd like to invite them up at this time. We're going to do a little bit of collegial courtesy. Senator D is not on the committee. I'm sure
Speaker 202
1:20:07
he's got a committee he's got to get to. That's fine. That's fine. Yeah. You
did? Okay, well, I'll come back. HB 1739. Do not waste our time, Senator. Please come on up, ladies.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:20:28
Thank you, Mr. Chair. State Senator Tyler Deese, District 35. And we will have two guests, and I'll let them identify themselves as well. Great. This is HB 1739.
Speaker 352
1:20:37
HB 1739, Senator King. HB 1739. If you'll give us your
name and who you're with for the record. Jamie Jones
Speaker 356
1:20:53
on behalf of the Arkansas Bar Association. Great. Welcome, Ms. Jamie. Thank you.
Ma'am, if you'll introduce yourself and tell us
Speaker 358
1:21:06
who you're with for the record. Hi there. I'm Jessie Birchfield. I'm a emeritus professor from the Bowen School of Law. I'm here with the Bar Association and also on behalf of the Mid-America Law Libraries Association, which is a chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries. That is a
mouthful. Welcome. We are happy to have you. All right, Senator Dees, you are recognized to proceed with House Bill 1739.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:21:33
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Ms. Jamie, would
Speaker 357
1:21:36
you give a great presentation today? I will do my best. So HB 1739 is the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act. Increasingly, state governments are publishing laws, statutes, and agency rules online. The online availability of legal materials has greatly facilitated public access and transparency. However, of course, inherent vulnerability of online information has given a rise to a need to ensure the integrity
of online versions. So UELMA provides a consistent outcomes-based approach to the authentication and preservation of electronic legal material. The goal of the program, as outlined in the bill, are to enable end users to verify the trustworthiness of the legal material they are using, and to provide a framework for Arkansas to preserve the legal material for permanent access. The requirements are essentially authentication, preservation, and accessibility.
This is needed because it provides widespread access to essential information and encourages citizen participation, but the bill addresses the critical need to effectively provide and and manage electronic government information in a manner that guarantees trustworthiness and continued access. We're here to answer any questions, but we would ask for your support and a favorable due pass. - All right, members, here for an explanation of the bill. Any
Speaker 362
1:23:01
questions from the committee? - Senator Payton,
Senator Dawson. - So I think you used an acronym or something,
you said something like UALMA or whatever, what is that, what
Speaker 365
1:23:13
are you talking about? - Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act, so this is a-- Do
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:23:24
you just use an acronym for this act? Yes. Okay, thank you. All
right. Senator Dawson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page four, line 33 of the bill, it talks about how this act modifies limits and supersedes the electronic signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, which is 15 U.S.C. 7001.
How do we supersede a federal law? That's going
Speaker 357
1:23:51
to be a question for somebody else. I haven't really considered that. But certainly I think it will probably narrowly tailored to address a very specific need and be different from the issue in the federal law, and that will be a question of
Speaker 367
1:24:06
preemption that would go to somebody else. All right. If we don't have an
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:24:18
answer to that, I don't know how we move forward with it necessarily
because I don't know how we can pass a state law that supersedes the federal law in this regard and
not have it struck down. I think marijuana is still always in the federal law. Yeah, I
Speaker 76
1:24:34
guess there's always exceptions. I think they changed the Constitution on that one.
Speaker 357
1:24:51
out, huh, Senator D's? It has been passed, I will say, by 25 other states and enacted without issue.
So, tell them the feds to go jump in a lake. Senator Dotson, I mean, you know.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:25:04
In the spirit of federalism, 25 other states have said, we're going to do what we
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:25:17
want to do. If you disagree. Senator Sullivan. I don't know that I agree with that last statement of 25 other states we've been wrong and they've been wrong a number of times but when it says this ad supersedes electronic signatures so are there not a number of electronic
signatures that are going out of Arkansas internationally and nationally and locally and so what is it worth superseding I don't know
Speaker 365
1:25:43
the answer to that question. I can certainly look at the issue and
Speaker 357
1:25:48
get it to the senator and get your response on that. Well, no
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:25:52
offense, but if you're asking us to pass legislation and you're going to have to go back and look, I have a hard time supporting the legislation without knowing what this supersedes
Speaker 357
1:26:04
on federal law. My guess is it deals with the signature portion that in this case deals with hashtags so this is more of an authentication from an electronic perspective because it has you has the state if the state designates the official reporter to be the electronic version then you have to go through a system to make sure that that electronic system is validated and so what you're talking about then is an electronic signature that's based on technology
rather than a physical electronic signature so I don't mean any disrespect
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:26:38
but when you said I'm going to have to go back and check and then you told me what it meant. That doesn't give me a
lot of confidence that we're spot on. So, thank you. Mr. Chair, I think it would be wise if we pulled this down
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:26:52
and take a look at that segment specifically. I think that would be a great idea. We will be
meeting today upon adjournment to hear constitutional amendments, so if you can get all that hammered out right there, I might just pull out. Are there any other comments
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:27:05
from the committee on this bill at this time? Okay. All right. We'll pull it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. All right. Senator Payton, why don't you take
the chair? I've got to run a bill for Senator Kroll. We've got somebody from ABC here. Mr. Chair, what bill are you running?
Speaker 382
1:27:38
House Bill 1898, if you would introduce
yourself for the record, and you'll be recognized. Senator Scott Flippo, District
23. Christy Bjornsson, I'm the Director of ABC Administration and Arkansas
Speaker 383
1:27:53
Tobacco Control. David Potter, I'm the Enforcement Director for Arkansas Regulatory Division.
Speaker 385
1:27:59
Okay, proceed. I will let these fine people give
Speaker 383
1:28:08
Good morning. Thank you guys for having us here today. This bill has really just kind of helped solve an identity crisis that ABC has kind of dealt with. We have enforcement agents that, if you think of it as common sense, sometimes alcohol and tobacco are sold in the same areas. We have historically had separate agents for marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol. This would just kind of unite our enforcement agent team, provides them an identity, and allows us to work on anything that has to do with alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or the promotion of gambling.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:28:40
That's exactly correct. And just to add to that a little bit, what this does is it combines the Alcoholic Beverage Control Enforcement Division and the Arkansas Tobacco Enforcement Agents officially into one. We've been together since about 2020, and we've been sharing duties, and it's worked really well through government transformation. We've been able to do more compliance checks, more inspections, prevent youth access better. We've seen our compliance rates drop, and so we've seen some success there. But quite honestly, there's only so much we can do with internal structure.
We're needing to combine these two law enforcement agencies. These are both existing law enforcement agencies, and so we're not adding any authorities to them. We're just simply combining them so that when our alcohol agents go out, they can also be doing tobacco inspections as well. It makes us more efficient in what we do, and so I'm happy to take any questions. Okay, any questions?
Senator King, you're recognized for a question. Does this add any more positions or take away any positions? Thank you for the question, sir.
No, sir, it does not add any more positions at all. It does not affect our general revenue. It does not affect our appropriations because these agencies are working together now. It just unites
Speaker 394
1:29:53
them. So if you're talking efficiency, does it
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:29:56
eliminate any positions, and why not? No, sir. We've been together for about five years, so it does not. And so we've got medical marijuana enforcement as well. So currently I have the divisions broken down into five separate pieces. And so we're tackling all that regulatory has with that. So we've got a pretty full plate as it is, and we're able to do more now because we've been combined.
Speaker 383
1:30:17
And if I could just echo a little bit, in following session there's lots of talk about hemp. And so, we were a little hesitant to get rid of any positions until we knew what more might fall on the regulatory enforcement's plate, as far as that goes. But this really is
Speaker 398
1:30:33
efficiency working so that each agent can go in, one agent can do an inspection at a facility
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:30:40
instead of multiple. Well, and I've been around here a while, unfortunately, for some people to, you know, at least
learn some things. But so, and a lot of times in agencies, you know, they have positions in field and big jobs, political appointees that really are waste, total waste.
And then you have situations where the flip side of that, the legislature keeps putting more laws and requirements and adding to it, but not adding positions. So I've seen that too. I mean, are we adding, you mentioned hemp, and all these bills, tetracycline, you know, cartoons or whatever Letting's bill was, I don't know. We're adding all these things. Is that adding under the umbrella restrictions, too? Is the legislature adding more to this that's having to be watched, too?
There's a potential, as the session ends, that we could have more responsibilities to do, and I appreciate that question and your insight into that. You're correct. And so we do have a full plate right now with what we regulate. If we are to get additional responsibilities on that, it would be a conversation that we would have to have with our cabinet secretary and governor's office. Well, and
that's unfair to agency people, too. I mean, we all like to beat up on government people, but a lot of times it's the dang legislators that keep putting more responsibility, and it's hard for you to say no or yes and say we've already got a full plate in this.
So it all depends on the situation. So at the end of this session, are you going to have more duties and responsibilities or
less duties and responsibilities? Go ahead. It's hard
Speaker 396
1:32:11
to say right now. We do think that our enforcement has been doing a really good job. We
Speaker 383
1:32:16
have very robust enforcement, and I don't know that we, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know that the agency, as we went through transformation or picked up medical marijuana, that we ever did a large expansion of our agents. We are not requesting a large expansion here.
If we did have hemp, we would have discussed in our fiscal impact statement additional agents or equipment that we may need. But we are working at right around capacity at this point. We have very robust enforcement, and we're right about the positions that we need at this point, which is why we're not cutting or adding.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:32:48
Well, and society's doing it. I mean, I've been here 18 years. It's like these new drugs and new avenues and new things keep coming up, I mean, that we're having to deal with that I certainly would have never thought of years ago. But so in the administrative cost, when we come on, and I apologize, trying to catch up.
The administrative cost that you're operating up, does that come from
marijuana, casinos, and that, in the amendment, and all that? So currently we have six areas
of how we receive funding and appropriation. One of those is a GR, which is a general agency's fund. The rest of them are... Can you move up just a little bit? Yes, sir. Sorry, I apologize. We've got six areas that we receive revenue from. One of those is a GR. The others are special revenues. We've received federal funding to run an FDA tobacco program. We receive funding through medical marijuana to operate our medical marijuana sections.
We receive funding from the health department under an MOA to conduct youth compliance checks. We also receive funding from our permit revenue, and those are items, those are what we use to fund our agencies. And we have an alcohol funding through our labeling fund. And so we had the Doge thing,
which, I mean, somebody said I was Doge for Doge was cool because I've been Doge for these. But I will tell you this, there has to be a real discussion of, like, you know, GR, do you
Speaker 298
1:34:07
get federal funding in any of these things that you mentioned? We do on the FDA tobacco side, and that
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:34:13
is particular to tobacco inspections and youth compliance checks through our federal tobacco functions.
Speaker 16
1:34:19
Yeah, and we have to, you know, at some point in time, without doing a bunch of stuff,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:34:24
we have to have a real conversation about, because the increase in casinos, increase in marijuana, And then sometimes we have decreases in other areas that might, these increased thing of who is the responsibility to pay for it? Well, I'm like, it should be whatever entity is creating the problem or has to be regulated. We have to singularly go after them to try to fund it, to regulate it, instead of draining JR. So how much GR is used in this whole part that you're mentioning?
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:34:54
That's a good question. I don't know the number off
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:34:56
the top of my head. I would have to look and see what our appropriations are. Our appropriations have not increased in that area for years. I do know that.
Well, there's other appropriations that have increased a lot that I mentioned that somehow get all the money, but there's other appropriations
that need increased. And it's about trying to be smart government of, like I said, the tire issue is another example of what has to be regulated and has to be done. And so anyway, I'd be curious to know, marijuana, gambling, all those things,
You know, how much is GR related because the citizens, it's not gambling and not using medical marijuana, which is legal. You know, do they need to be paying for the enforcement mechanism in their GR part? So it's just trying to sort out the dominoes and trying, I think we should try to link everything up. And then that makes efficient government in the end. So anyway, but I'd
appreciate to know the GR part, but you're not adding positions. No, sir. But you're not taking away positions, but it seems to be the needle is moving.
Speaker 298
1:35:56
You're having more responsibility. Yes, sir, that is correct. And I can get you those answers and email those over to you, sir. If you have reasonable explanations,
Senator Filippo, it's like. That's why I brought these two to the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:36:13
table. Thank you, Senator King. Senator Dotson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm looking through here, and it seems to me on page two, You're creating two positions, two new positions, regulatory administrator.
And that's in page two, the first section there. And then if you move down to the bottom section, an enforcement director. So two different positions would be created. And then further on, this is overall creating the regulatory enforcement agency or what is it called, regulatory division. And so all the personnel assigned to it, if you look at page three,
shall be considered full-time law enforcement officers. Are they all considered full-time law enforcement officers already right now? Yes, sir. I'll
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:37:07
take the first part of your question. Those two positions, they already exist in appropriation and have so for many years, so they're not new. So this outlines their responsibilities, so to speak. So who are those people? So currently the administrator's position is vacant. The enforcement director position, that's the position that I'm in.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:37:29
Okay. So we're just moving you over. So when it says the director,
you're the enforcement director, and you serve at the pleasure of the secretary. You already do. Yes, sir. You assign personnel to each of these things. You already do. it's the administrator that we would be adding that position is currently vacant. It's
Speaker 409
1:37:51
not going to be added. Our regulatory administrator left in December, and with sessions starting back up, that position has not yet been filled.
But I'm the administration director. Director Potter is the enforcement director. We both were supervised by the regulatory administrator until he left the office, but we're still appointed directly by the secretary. So it's not an addition of any positions. Secretary, it hasn't hired you a new boss
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:38:16
yet. That's correct. And that position is still there. Correct. We're just setting up the framework. Just giving it a name and creating a
Speaker 409
1:38:23
division that all would go under that administrator instead of all these tiny little divisions we currently have, just kind of naming them regulatory.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:38:31
It's not adding to it. So you're functionally operating as if this were the law right now. That's correct. You're just codifying it so that it's clearer for the future. Yes,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:38:40
sir. That's exactly right. It gives us some structure moving forward to Senator King's point if we were to receive more things. And to answer the second piece of your question about the law enforcement, both of these agencies are law enforcement now. And so we're not adding any authorities to them at all. We actually use the same language that appears in statute in this bill so that it was as seamless as possible.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:39:02
So you're law enforcement? I am. Certified. And are you as well? I am not.
Speaker 383
1:39:06
I am a lawyer. We handle the licensing on
Speaker 409
1:39:08
the front end, and then we handle any violations. So once you get a permit from us to sell alcohol, marijuana, or tobacco, you've got to follow the rules. That's when enforcement is the boots on the ground looking to make sure they do. And then after that, if they receive a violation, it runs back through
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:39:25
the administration side where I have attorneys. And the administrator is not necessarily law enforcement? No, sir, it's not in law enforcement. Okay.
So whenever that administrator gets hired for this, they're over the agency, but you're over the law enforcement side.
Yes, sir, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. - Yes, sir.
- Thank you, Senator Dotson, any other questions? Is there anybody to speak for or against this? Senator Flipo, you want to close? - I'm closed, make a motion do pass. - I have a motion from Senator Flipo do pass and a second from Senator
Dotson. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes.
Speaker 339
1:40:08
All right. Representative McElindon, do you have a bill that you're going to
run? What do you all got?
Speaker 417
1:40:38
House Bill 1929. All right. 1929. Did
Speaker 150
1:40:49
you pass that one in insurance and comments? Senator Dawson,
Speaker 285
1:40:57
get on up there. I didn't see you're the
sponsor. Come on. All right. Y'all introduce yourselves, and
you'll be recognized and proceed with House Bill 1929. State Senator Jim Dodson, District 34.
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:41:10
Representative Mindy McElhinney, House District 10.
Speaker 39
1:41:14
I will let her present. Okay, House Bill 1929
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:41:19
is the Recognizing Judea and Samaria Act. The legislation is not only a matter of historical accuracy, but it's also a reflection of Arkansas' enduring relationship with Israel. It's a partnership that is built on shared values, mutual respect, and economic cooperation. Arkansas has had a long-standing connection with Israel that transcends politics.
Since 1948, Arkansas has been a friend to Israel, recognizing its importance as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. This relationship has been strengthened through trade agreements, cultural exchanges, and partnerships and innovation. The connection between Arkansas and regions of Judea and Samaria is deeply rooted in our shared cultural heritage. Cities across Arkansas bear the name inspired by the biblical locations in Judea and Samaria, like Bethel, Hebron, and Shiloh. These highlight how the regions resonate with Arkansans on a spiritual and historical level. By recognizing these areas by their historical names
rather than by the politically charged term like West Bank, we honor this shared heritage and affirm the importance of these regions to millions of people worldwide. Arkansas has demonstrated a commitment to supporting Israel through legislation, like Act 710, which prohibits state agencies from contracting with companies that boycott Israel. This act reflects Arkansas's stance against economic discrimination targeting one of our closest allies. House Bill 1929 continues this tradition by ensuring that official state materials use language that respect historical truths rather than perpetuating politically motivated terminology.
And with that, I take any questions. All
right, members, any questions from the committee? All right, don't see any questions. Senator
Speaker 266
1:43:02
Dostoevsky? Sorry. Okay, so no questions from the committee. We do have somebody assigned to speak against this. Dr. Stephanie Gray. Dr.
Speaker 421
1:43:29
If you'll give us your name and hear your words
Stephanie Gray
Unverified
1:43:35
for the record, then you'll be recognized. Proceed. Yes, my name is Stephanie Gray. I live here in Little Rock.
Senator Clark Tucker is my senator. My name is Stephanie Gray, and I'm here to strongly urge you to vote no on HB 1929. I'm here as a constituent, as a Jew, and also a scholar of Jewish studies and Middle Eastern studies. This bill seeks to prohibit the use of the term the West Bank and replace it with Judea and Samaria.
This is not a neutral or historical correction. A lot of the language that's been presented with this bill is that the West Bank is being used as a political term. Instead, I believe that Judea and Samaria inserts Arkansas into a longstanding internationally disputed issue and aligns Arkansas with a religious and nationalist ideology that erases Palestinians and also undermines decades of U.S. foreign policy, as Senator Dotson mentioned earlier. Currently, the United States government, the State Department, does not use the term Judea in Samaria.
So why are we, as a state, implementing changes that are not happening on a federal level? And also, since Camp David in the 1970s, it has been U.S. foreign policy to support Palestinian self-determination through a two-state or one-state solution. The use of this term and the adoption of this term creates a more hostile environment to be able to find lasting peace in the region. The term West Bank refers to the land that is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territory.
Furthermore, this bill, if we're adopting the term Judea and Samaria,
legitimizes the illegal Israeli settlements and violations of international law, including Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. No international body, including the United Nations, uses the terminology Judea and Samaria. I would also like to point out it's not even designated in the Israeli government to use this term. The state of Israel does not use this term in its official documents. I'm especially concerned behind the theological and political motivations of this bill, especially the Christian Zionist language used in this bill that ignores the lived realities of both, I would argue, Palestinians and Jews.
As a Jew, I find it profoundly harmful to see my tradition being used by Christian lawmakers to justify occupation and displacement. Also, just as a scholar of religion, I must also point out that this actually isn't founded in historical geography. Historically, Judea and Samaria includes part of what are also today Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Is this bill prepared to extend Arkansas's recognition to those territories as well? Throughout the last 2,000 years, more than 30 groups, kingdoms, empires
have controlled the land that is now what is called the West Bank. Why don't we call it the Ottomans or Assyrian or Babylonian or Roman. And I would also like to point out that Judea and Samaria isn't even Hebrew. It's a Greek translation of the names in Hebrew. To put in context, I think what's helpful is also thinking in terms of what's happening currently in Ukraine. If Arkansas was officially adopting Russian terminology for Crimea, calling it reunified Russian territory instead of occupied Ukraine, I think that that would definitely be a direct contradiction to
U.S. foreign policy, and just providing more clarity on matters of international justice. Again, I encourage you, both from a moral perspective, but also a historical political perspective, to vote no on this bill, and I'm happy to answer questions anybody has. All right, members, any questions? All right, seeing none,
Speaker 343
1:46:59
thank you for being here. All right, Representative Senator Dawson, you
all recognize, come up close for your bill. Thank you. Well, I
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:47:13
would like to respond by saying that the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee has started using the term Judea and Samaria,
and that our own Senator Cotton, along with Congresswoman Tinney, has actually put forward similar legislation, and that's what this was modeled off of. So there is a stance to that. In the same way that President Obama changed Mount McKinley back to Denali to go back to the original language, this is similar to what I'm proposing here. And I think that House B-1929 represents an opportunity for Arkansas to lead with integrity, honoring the history while building a bright future alongside Israel. And with that, I'm closed.
Speaker 76
1:47:51
We're closed and make a motion do pass. All right. Got a motion do pass by Senator
Dodson, second by Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Your bill passes. Thank you, committee. Thank you, chairman. Where did Senator McKee run to? The last bill of the morning hour. We've got a motion to delay to
the 96th General Assembly. Do I see a second? I don't know if I'll need a secretary of state.
Speaker 188
1:48:24
Surely not. Surely. Come on. Ready for me? All right. Introduce yourself. What's the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:48:34
bill number again? 1870. 1870. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Matt McKee, State Senate District 6. 1870. Go ahead.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:49:00
Members, this is a good bill brought to us by the Secretary of State's office. We want to make sure that our voter rolls have only people that are legally allowed to vote on those rolls. This bill merely hopefully gives the Secretary of State's office access to lists that federal courts use to decide on who can be a juror and who can't. Obviously, they get their juror lists from our voter rolls,
so if they reject a juror because they don't live they say they live or they're not no longer alive. It would be really nice if they would share that information with us so that we could remove those people from the voter rolls. I'd be happy to take any questions. Members, you've heard an explanation. Any questions
from the committee? Senator King, do you recognize? Have we
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:49:53
found anybody yet that is not a citizen that served on a jury in Arkansas? I do not have an
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:49:59
answer to that question. I hope not. I would
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:50:04
say the way lawyers are and trying to find things, we wouldn't know that, but I don't
have a problem with this bill, but just like I've never heard of one thing yet. All
right. Senator Payton. So the thing is the federal courts are using our voter database to select jurors. That's my understanding. But sometimes they reject jurors because the juror is not where or who they say they are. That's my understanding. So this is basically saying that the federal courts have to
give us that information that they've discovered that somebody was ineligible. So this doesn't require them to share those
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:50:48
lists with us. It just hopefully
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:50:50
will create some cooperation between the two agencies that those lists can be shared. Okay. So it really doesn't have anything to do
with whether they're being selected for the jury. It's when they're rejected for the jury. Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Speaker 100
1:51:08
Any other questions from the committee? All right, seeing none. I got another question. Senator King, you're recognized
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:51:13
for a question. So we've been, like a selection commissioner a long time ago, and you're getting this kind of flip-flop of federal things and state and we start, we don't like the federal government whenever somebody else is making decisions, but I mean, if the federal government changes what they do up there, then it may be that we change back to the state system. I mean, are we just gonna keep flipping back and forth on
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:51:36
this? - I think that's a good question. And I think it's good because it's obviously valid in a lot of
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:51:41
other areas. Really what this is about is just about
the sharing of information. - Thank you, Senator King. All right, members, any other questions for the committee? All right, see no further questions, Carly. Anybody sign to speak for or against? Don't have anybody. Senator, you're recognized or closed. Closed for my bill. Appreciate a good vote. Got a motion due passed from Senator Payton. Second from Senator Sullivan. Seeing no discussion on the motion, all
Speaker 121
1:52:06
in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes. Thank you, committee. All right, members. Seeing no further evidence to come before
this committee, we are adjourned. And we will be meeting 15 minutes upon adjournment to hear constitutional amendments.
Hopefully not. Why would we hear anything? If Senator Dees has the bill amended, yes, I will take that.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Scott Flippo House Joint Resolution
REGULAR AGENDA
SB453 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
SB476 J. Scott TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUALS APPLYING FOR LIFE INSURANCE WHO ARE ORGAN DONORS.
HB1714 Rose TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER.
SB517 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO DESIGNATE A RESTROOM FOR CAMPAIGN WORKERS AND VOLUNTEERS.
SB538 Gilmore TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW.
SB569 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1.
SB579 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT A PUBLIC EMPLOYER FROM DEDUCTING LABOR ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP DUES FROM THE COMPENSATION OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE.
HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING.
HB1873 B. McKenzie CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE YEARS OF SERVICE REMAINING BEFORE REACHING THE LIMITATION ON SERVICE UNDER THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION.
HB1886 Pearce TO DESIGNATE THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL CANINE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
SB608 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
HB1739 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT.
Sen. Payton taking the Chair
SB614 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SB617 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CAPITOL ZONING DISTRICT; AND TO AMEND THE ZONING AUTHORITY OF THE CAPITOL ZONING DISTRICT COMMISSION.
HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, AND COMMISSIONS.
HB1800 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF A NON-UNITED STATES ENTITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990.
HB1891 Ray TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WHO IS AN APPOINTEE IN THAT POSITION TO USE THE TITLE OF THAT POSITION AS A PREFIX WHEN FILING AS A CANDIDATE.
HB1896 B. McKenzie TO CREATE THE JUNK FEE ELIMINATING ACT OF 2025; TO ABOLISH THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF ARKANSAS; AND TO TRANSFER ANY REMAINING DUTIES OF THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF ARKANSAS TO THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
HB1898 Painter TO CREATE THE REGULATORY DIVISION AND THE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION; AND TO ALLOW PERSONNEL OF THE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO BE DESIGNATED AS AGENTS.
HB1934 McAlindon TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACT; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP.
HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.
HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE THAT WAS MANUFACTURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART USING FORCED LABOR.
HB1837 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS REFERRED TO VOTERS; AND TO BAN FOREIGN FUNDING FOR BALLOT MEASURES; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION.
HB1870 Wing CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE A VOTER REGISTRATION LIST TO FEDERAL COURTS.
HB1879 Lundstrum TO REQUIRE ALL CITY COUNCILS AND COUNTY QUORUM COURTS TO POST VIDEO RECORDINGS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS; AND TO REQUIRE ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS OF CITY COUNCILS OR COUNTY QUORUM COURTS TO BE RECORDED IN VIDEO FORMAT.
HB1925 Beaty Jr. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE ABSENTEE BALLOT VOTER STATEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A WITNESS FOR THE SIGNATURE OF AN ABSENTEE VOTER STATEMENT.
HB1929 McAlindon TO CREATE THE RECOGNIZING JUDEA AND SAMARIA ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT STATE AGENCIES FROM USING THE TERM "WEST BANK" IN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MATERIALS.
HB1958 S. Meeks TO REQUIRE PUBLIC ENTITIES TO CREATE A POLICY CONCERNING THE AUTHORIZED USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE SENATE, AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND CASINO GAMING SHALL BE USED FOR CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES.
SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN STATE COURT TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS.
SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, OR DISTRICT JUDGE TO DECLARE HIS OR HER PARTY AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE.
SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES.
SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS.
SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION.
SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO VOTERS.
DEFERRED BILLS
SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION.
SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS.
SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT.
SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COUNTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PERSONNEL RECORDS.
SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB398 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO ALLOW A CURE PERIOD FOR INSUFFICIENT SUBMISSIONS.
SB434 J. Dotson TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION AS AUTHORIZED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB493 J. Bryant TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-RELATED BOARDS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1988.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Apr 8, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Gordon Wilburn
Unverified
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 10
Speaker 11
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 16
Speaker 18
Speaker 23
Speaker 26
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 35
Speaker 37
Speaker 39
Speaker 42
Speaker 49
Speaker 51
Speaker 56
Speaker 61
Speaker 62
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 76
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 133
Speaker 134
Speaker 136
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 158
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 182
Speaker 185
Speaker 188
Speaker 192
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 199
Speaker 201
Speaker 202
Speaker 195
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 236
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 211
Speaker 215
Speaker 255
Speaker 72
Speaker 279
Speaker 281
Speaker 282
Speaker 287
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Speaker 312
Speaker 118
Speaker 327
Speaker 328
Speaker 330
Speaker 341
Speaker 343
Speaker 285
Speaker 345
Speaker 53
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Speaker 352
Speaker 356
Speaker 358
Speaker 357
Speaker 362
Speaker 365
Speaker 367
Speaker 382
Speaker 383
Speaker 385
Speaker 386
Speaker 394
Speaker 398
Speaker 396
Speaker 298
Speaker 409
Speaker 339
Speaker 417
Speaker 150
Speaker 266
Speaker 342
Speaker 421
Stephanie Gray
Unverified
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 100