Public Retirement & Social Security Programs-Joint
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB148
Act 587
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…rren can just sit there the rest of the morning. This'll be Senate Bill 148 members.”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE CREATING AN INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKERS ACT OF 2025. | J. English | Notification that SB148 is now Act 587 |
|
HB1336
Act 672
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1336 Warren TO AMEND THE SURVIVORS' BENEFIT OPTIONS UNDER THE ST…”
|
TO AMEND THE SURVIVORS' BENEFIT OPTIONS UNDER THE STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; AND TO AMEND … | Warren | Notification that HB1336 is now Act 672 |
|
HB1341
Act 522
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1341 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BENEFITS UNDER THE ARKAN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BENEFITS UNDER THE ARKANSAS LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; … | Warren | Notification that HB1341 is now Act 522 |
|
HB1344
Act 598
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/31/25 @ 4:14 PM) Added HB1336 & HB1344 to the Regular Agenda Joint Committee on Public Retirement…”
|
CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM; AND TO CORRECT THE NAME OF THE … | Warren | Notification that HB1344 is now Act 598 |
|
SB151
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB151 M. Johnson TO AMEND LAW CONCERNING RETIREMENT BENEFITS; AND…”
|
TO AMEND LAW CONCERNING RETIREMENT BENEFITS; AND TO PROHIBIT COLLECTION OF BENEFITS BY MEMBERS, RETIRANTS, … | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB153
Act 588
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB153 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF TITLE 24 OF THE ARKANSAS CODE; AND … | J. Dotson | Notification that SB153 is now Act 588 |
|
SB157
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB157 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BENEFITS UNDER THE AR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BENEFITS UNDER THE STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS. | J. Dotson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB160
Act 589
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB160 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. | J. Dotson | Notification that SB160 is now Act 589 |
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 7, 2026
Speaker 1
9:34
sees a quorum we are going to begin And actually, Senator English, if you are ready to
present, without objection, we'll move you to the top so Representative Warren can just sit there the rest of the morning.
This will be Senate Bill 148, members, by Senator English. Good morning,
Senator Jane English
Unverified
10:26
Senator Jane English, District 13, and I'm here to present Senate Bill 148, which
is basically an opportunity for child care, day care workers outside of state government to be able to take part in the teacher's retirement system. So it's kind of an incentive. It's a voluntary program, voluntary on the part of the employer and on a worker.
So it would just give them an opportunity that they hopefully had to find some ways to incentivize some of our folks to be daycare workers, child care workers, and hopefully this will be something that would be useful to them. Thank you. Members,
you've heard a presentation of the bill. Are there any questions? Senator Hammer,
you are recognized. This is going to be for Mark if he's in the crowd. If you would, state your name.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
11:25
and then you're recognized mark thank you
mr chairman mark white arkansas teacher retirement system um a couple questions mark number one as far as other entities or organizations that could join the teacher retirement system what would make this one different from any others that might want
to join without it having an impact on the system
Speaker 65
11:53
different from the our current members or from
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
11:57
i'm not sure if i quite understand the question well this this is kind of outside the scope of who normally would be allowed in the retirement system right is this the first time or are there other groups that are participating in the retirement
Speaker 68
12:14
teacher retirement system that are not actually teachers we do have other organizations that are not necessarily schools we have a number of organizations that are in and around the world of education so just as an example the arkansas activities association is one of our members and so historically we have had groups that are either
in directly in public education or directly connected to public education and we currently have members who are in early childhood if they're employed by a school district this would allow for those who are employed by other providers to also be members of ours. Would there be anything that would prohibit
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
12:48
teachers that are part of a private school system from being able to participate in the program? There's nothing in current law that
Speaker 68
12:55
would allow that. If the legislature wanted to choose the law, they could. But that's not allowed in current law.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:02
And what would be the difference, whereas schools pay a portion, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, schools pay a portion of a teacher that is participating in the retirement system I
Speaker 68
13:14
right on that yes there's an employer contribution and an employee contribution and under this bill it would still be the same way that the the employer would pay
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:25
their contribution the employed by their contribution okay and then the
last question would be it says a licensed childcare facility is DHS going to be the determinator the the one that would determine who the
licensure or how you gonna how you gonna because there are some childcare facilities out there that operate under religious exemption that are not necessarily licensed so what's the criteria to make sure who gets in and who doesn't
Speaker 68
13:52
that licensure it's currently with the Department of Education now it used to be with DHS it moved to the Department of Education yeah but it'd be under under their parameters and the intent is for these are providers that because they are accepting those state or federal child care funds they're advancing that state purpose of education
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:10
okay okay and one last question the reason they wouldn't go and get their retirement benefits say from edward jones or some other retirement program would be
what that's certainly an option but
Speaker 68
14:27
i of course this is not our bill but i think my understanding is because these teachers are have the same types of education and maybe going back and forth in between private providers and
district providers this provides an opportunity for them to make those changes but still earn credit within the system okay all
right thank you thank you january all right seeing no other representative rye you are recognized thank you mr
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
15:01
chair let me ask this mark which i know we're probably in great shape with that situation but this will not have a negative impact on on the
Speaker 68
15:12
teacher retirement at all will it no sir we talked to our actuaries about this uh in general uh earlier this year and what they've told us is as long as folks are coming on the same terms and at the same contribution rates, which they would in this bill, the more people, the better. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative
Speaker 78
15:30
Frye. Representative Duke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
15:34
I've been running around to different rooms. I couldn't find the right one today, so I'm sorry if I am asking a question that you've already addressed.
Am I understanding correctly that this is like private industries, private companies, private
it could be just the individual home based operation that this would extend it to yes so long as they are licensed and
Speaker 68
15:59
accredited by the state and they are accepting those state or federal early childhood education funding and so be only those that are accepting that funding and advancing that state purpose through that funding follow-up if I may so would this also include I
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
16:18
I know lots of different companies are also developing their own child care. Would they be eligible for this
as well? I don't believe so. But if they're taking any type of state
Speaker 68
16:31
money, would that make them eligible? If they're receiving those early childhood funds from the state or through the federal government, yes. But I think typically those types of providers are not taking those vouchers and those other state funds. We know that
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
16:44
100% for sure, that they couldn't also be a part of that.
Speaker 68
16:48
I don't want to say categorically that they aren't. I just, from my knowledge, typically they are not accepting those state and federal funding. One more, or
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
16:58
do you want me to get back in? Go ahead. Okay, and I believe I'm just following up on what the senator just asked. There's nothing that precludes these individuals to go and do their own retirement on their own, like many, many individuals do throughout. I'm one of them that does that as well. there's nothing that keeps them from doing that correct thank you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:25
you're recognized thank you and and i have nothing against the bill first of all and that's not the reason i'm asking the question so much as it is just trying to and mark correct me if i'm wrong did we not have a conversation where i asked if we could allow teachers that are not in the public school system but would be in the private school systems or or you know other school systems
to be able to participate in this program yes sir and that and that is an option if the legislature revises the law to allow that okay but i was and correct me
if i'm wrong um it seemed like there was something that was a prohibitor as far as the cost of the system was the reason i chose not to go forward with that so is there is there no fiscal impact to this or we could open this up to
where even teachers in a private christian school could participate in the program if we chose to do so as legislators as as long as they
Speaker 68
18:26
two factors one as long as they are coming on the same terms and same contribution rates for us financially it's
at worst it's a wash uh typically it's going to be a financial positive for us so as i said earlier the more people the better for us as a system uh the other issue is you know under iris rules because we are a public plan we can't take just anybody but for these individuals who are working in education or advancing a state purpose which is the could be the case here could also be the case for those k-12 private schools
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:59
uh they would uh potentially be op be potential options there for coverage but there if they did there would be no fiscal
impact it would just be a matter that
the school would have to pay the matching portion like the public schools would have to pay the matching portion yes sir okay mr. chair would you get Jody to the table please Jody if you're
Speaker 92
19:21
Jody's your actuary right oh well right this morning you were state your name
Speaker 95
19:34
for the record and you're recognized Jody
Jody Carrero
Unverified
19:36
jody carrero maxuary for the committee or jody
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:40
no fiscal impact if we wanted to open this up and
let teachers from other uh that are in private schools be able to join into
Jody Carrero
Unverified
19:50
the teacher retirement system well the one thing that we that's not been mentioned yet is that um the the employee IE contribution that has to be made has to be a requirement of employment to be taxed the way that it is. So it's an all-or-nothing thing, and here's what the crunch would be if you started going to private schools or something like that.
I mean, you could make the argument that it is a governmental agency. You'd have to stand on one foot to do it, but you can make that argument. But where you'd be is that they would want to pick and choose, and you can't pick and choose. If the employer participates in teacher retirement, everybody's got to contribute, and that's where you'd hit the rub on that. Everybody, say, take for— Every employee, yeah. For example,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:50
school XYZ says we want to do this.
Every employee in that school system would have to participate. Right.
Jody Carrero
Unverified
20:57
It's an employer requirement or that employee contribution cannot be pre-tax. Okay. And is that going to be the same
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:05
thing for this bill then? That will be the same thing for
Jody Carrero
Unverified
21:09
every employer in teacher retirement. So it's going
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:12
to come down to you've got daycare that's got 10 working in it, but you've got a private Christian school that's got 150 working in it, we could pass a law that would say the private school, you can participate in it too,
but all 150 of those are going to have to participate, daycare, center, XYZ, all 10 of you. And this is permissive language that allows them,
Jody Carrero
Unverified
21:37
but that's going to be one of the requirements. Yeah, and
that's what makes this a little odd, but it works because it would only be a worker, as I understand the bill. it would only be a worker that was employed using those state and federal funds so only these special workers but it would be a requirement of those special workers if the employer chooses to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:00
participate in atrs and those special funds are
sourced from where typically come through the department of education by both those state funds and there's also federal funds that are
available through HHS so for last thing mr. chairman less the so for schools receiving the funding allowed now under the learns Act is that qualify it to receiving the funds no sorry
be better chance funding better chance funding yeah that'd be the most typical route
okay all right thank you all right seeing no other
questions you've heard a presentation of the bill we have open sorry I got a couple more questions that popped
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
22:51
up representative Perry thank you mr. thank you mr. chairman on page 2 on line 18 a single
non-profit fiscal agent will be used for the pass-through what's a what's a non-profit fiscal agent so in talking with
Speaker 68
23:15
for this idea and wanting it the one concern we did raise was just the administrative burden of dealing with you know dozens potentially hundreds of new employers around the state and so one thing that we asked for and they did agree to was to route all of these through a single organization so that from our standpoint
and administering it, we're dealing with one entity to do that. But it's still through all those individual employers. It's just the one entity that will report to us and that will transmit the contributions to us.
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
23:56
Understood. Thank you. Representative Burks, you are recognized. So just so I can understand properly, are there any other industries uh under atrs where the teachers retirement provides membership to private individuals or
Speaker 68
24:07
industries there are other organizations so the my mission arkansas
activities association uh there's also the association of educational administrators the school boards association uh the arkansas school band and orchestra association economics arkansas and i think that's all the ones that are currently participating and i should and i should also add there is the option for and this is the situation that most closely parallels this there is the option for developmental disability providers that work through dhs and receive dhs funding they have the option of being members of our system as well okay thank you
any other questions now seeing none thank you for your presentation we have one to signed up to speak for the bill uh angela duran if you would state your name and who you're
with for the record and then you are recognized to begin good morning
Angela Duran
Unverified
25:13
my name is angela duran i'm the executive director of excel by eight and i'm
here to speak for the bill all right excel by eight is a network of hundreds of individuals and organizations focused on increasing arkansas children's health and education outcomes we work with families and communities around the state to ensure that all children have a strong start to reach their full potential for the past five years we have been meeting with business leaders from around the state to address an important challenge that is impacting their bottom lines.
Many employers are having a difficult time hiring and retaining employees because the employees cannot find affordable child care for their young children. Over 80 employers have come together to form a coalition to address this challenge. These leaders realize that a key strategy is to help child care providers, many of whom are small businesses themselves, offer competitive wages and benefits to their own employees.
Currently, an early childhood educator who works in a school district can participate in the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, but one who works in a child care center or or family child care home cannot. This bill would make it possible for a child care provider to opt into the system and offer retirement benefits to their employees. No party, not the child care provider, nor their employee, nor the state will be required
to participate. But this is one small step that we can take to make it easier for these early childhood educators to take advantage of the teacher retirement system vehicle through their employers we appreciate senator english and representative acres
leadership on this bill thank you for your time thank you have
Speaker 113
27:18
any questions by the committee i'm seeing none thank you
so much for your testimony we have no one else signed up does anybody in the audience want to speak for or
seeing none senator English you are recognized to close for your bill thank you I'm closed all right I've got a motion do pass I've got a second any discussion on the motion representative
Duke yep you can pulls on how this works in the joint so if you'd like to discuss
Senator Jane English
Unverified
27:53
the motion okay so you're recognized to discuss the motion okay
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
28:01
so I think I'm going tell you'll let me
know if I'm out of balance I'm just going it I might do we will we have a separate are we all voting together it's the house and
Senate's joint committee so we all okay just sorry just making sure okay so um Senator English I really appreciate you bringing this bill and I know your heart for kids and for child care providers and and just trying to do what's best for people I'm I'm going to be a no on this bill and the reason why i am is i i first of all i think i don't think government is tasked to get involved and solve every problem that is out there and and i think
oftentimes when we do we do more harm than we do good and in this instance although there may be a need and i understand that i've got young young adults that i'm raising and i'm teaching them um Even my college-age kid, talking to them about retirement, talking to them about investments and how they need to do these things and why it is so important to do it when you're young. And those are conversations that I think we need to be doing a better job of having with our young people and in schools. But I'm afraid when we get involved here, I think we're putting our hand somewhere in the cookie jar where we shouldn't necessarily be in an intent to do well.
I don't know that that's necessarily the best job for government to be doing on this. And so that's a big part of the reason why I am going to be a no on this, is I just don't think it's our responsibility to be doing this. And even in our efforts to do it, I don't know that we will actually do the best outcome for everybody. I do think that industries are really doing a good job of looking on how to solve this problem. I know in our area, we've got a group that's working together to try and figure out the child care problems and how to help that. And I think they're going to come up with great solutions on their own if we give them the opportunity to do that and the encouragement to do that.
And I think that's really more our role than going ahead and opening this up. And just because other groups are already in it, I didn't know that. Probably makes me question a little bit why that door was ever opened for them. I'm not sure that that is a really good reason why we go ahead and continue to open the door. But I am totally on board with trying to help find solutions in the private industry sector, even along the lines of some of the things that we're exploring in northwest Arkansas, all to try and work with our businesses together as individuals to try and find solutions for the
child care issue, which I know that's incentives to have them be in that, to be providers. Retirement is a big part of one. So I appreciate the bill. I appreciate the intent of the bill. But for those reasons, I'm
not going to be able to support this one. But I'm happy to support in
outside of government kind of ways. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Representative Duke. And just for clarity for the committee since I'm not sure if this is one of the first bills we've had discussion like this on it is 20 members of the committee 11 votes to
pass just like a house committee the difference between the house and the Senate is that does take
three hands to roll call so everybody's clear on that any other discussion seeing none have a motion all in
favor all opposed the eyes have it congratulations you've passed your bill right see
Alright, Representative Warren. Next up will be House
Bill 1341. Representative Warren is, I'm not sure if it's an amendment on this bill. Thank you.
one representative Warren you are ready state your name for
the record and you are recognized Les Warren district 84 thank
you mr. chairman committee members house bill 1341 is bill that deals with workers compensation payments as they relate to members of the lot fee retirement system if a member is receiving a workers compensation payment for some injury or disability they may direct or give those checks directly to their employer to be used to pay that
member. This does a couple of things with respect to the system. Number one, it allows the member to get credit for time and pay while disabled. Number two, it does not change the pay for the member but allows the credit to be contained within the system and no time missed for calculating number of years to retire or the final average compensation to be negatively impacted if that time is part of the best pay years this is not a required action by members but it is an
option members can use to give them the maximum benefits if injured or disabled both Lotfi and the Municipal League helped in drafting this bill and they're both supportive of it be glad
to answer any questions members you've heard a presentation of the bill senator love you were recognized for a question thank
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
34:24
you mr. chair so uh representative warren now what issue are we correcting with this bill what
what is what is going on to where we needed to we're just
codifying the process that they can put their disability or their disability workers comp payment into the system and get credit for it it's there's nothing in the statute right now saying that that can be done it is being done and credit given we're just codifying that it can be done and credit
given for that time okay so so this
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
35:03
actually is a practice there were it is practice okay
all right thank you All right. Seeing no other questions. Actually, Representative Perry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
35:23
Representative Warren, I've got to, so I'm looking at this, so they're able to remit a benefit like work comp benefit to the city for pay. Once they remit it to the employer, does that then,
Speaker 147
35:37
are taxes at all withheld at that time?
Just like regular pay? I might need to get
David Clark up here just to make sure I don't want to speak. Some benefits like that are
not taxed, paid to claim. David, if you would state your name for the record, then you'll be recognized to answer.
Speaker 151
35:58
Good morning. David Clark, Executive Director of LOPPE. As far as the taxability on the workers' comp benefits, that would be outside the retirement system. That would be between the employer and the employee.
what representative Warren's bill will do is ensure that if an employee elects to hand over that workers comp check to their employer the total reported pays that would have occurred had the individual not been injured and away from the department will be reported to lobby and they will receive a month of service credit for that timeframe or two months whatever the duration is of the person that being out from employment but the taxability aspect is totally
between the employee and the employer it sounds great thank you all right any
other questions by the committee I'm seeing none thank you for your
presentation we have no one signed up to speak for or against this bill does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against seeing none represent Warren you're recognized to close I am
closed and I make a motion do pass I have a motion and a
second any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor aye any opposed motion carries house bill 1341 is passed
representative Warren you want to run Senate bill 153 I do all right you are recognized to
173 this is pretty simple bill Senate bill 153 is amending a very small portion of code 24-12-121 it is the section of the code that spells out that cities must pay for in city any city retirement plans from its general fund account we want to simply strike those five words from its general fund
account the city will still be responsible for paying any of their employees retirement benefits due it just will not have to come out of the general fund account it can come from any source the city has available so still paying their retirement funds but the way it's set up it's just very restrictive that it has to come out of one account so this is allowing the city to choose any account that they'd like to have that retirement pay come out of you've heard a presentation of the
bill are there any questions seeing none we
We have no one signed up to speak on the bill. Does anybody in the audience
want to speak for or against? Seeing none. Representative Warren, you are recognized and closed. I am closed, and I make a
motion. Do pass. We have a motion. We've got a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion
carries. Passed Senate Bill 153. You're recognized for Senate Bill 160. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill 160 has two separate provisions. First, it adds two members to the APERS Arkansas Public
Employee Retirement System Board who are very much tied to the actions of the system. The first would be the Secretary of the Department of Shared Administrative Services. The second one would be the State Banking Commissioner. And if I'm not mistaken, in meetings that I've attended, the latter member previously served on this board this would take the board to 15 members which is still very manageable the second provision of this bill is the
addition of ADFA to become participants in the APERS systems APERS system they're already in it but we don't have it actually in the code to allow them they're a government entity they would still have all the requirements every other participant had have to have five years to best their agency would have to put in so it's basically just making it official that they're able to
participate in the APERS system for the presentation of the bill are there any questions by the committee seeing none we have no one signed up to speak for or against. Anyone in the audience
want to speak? Four or against? Seeing none. Representative, you're recognized. Close. I am closed. I make a motion. Do pass. Got a motion. I've got a second. Any discussion
on the motion? Senator Love, you're recognized for discussion.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
40:44
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, well, actually, never mind. I need to ask a
question. Come up that seat with Celeste so that we can
ask you a question. I just wanted to know if there's any other secretaries that are not part of
APERS, because it's just a strange thing for us to add, I guess, the Banking Commission and the Secretary of the Department of Shared Services. Why are these persons who are state employees
not already part of APERS? Well,
Senator Love, thank you for the discussion. Representative Warren, would you like
to be recognized for discussion on that? I would love to
be recognized for discussion on that. I think one of the big things is secretary of -- let me make sure I get this right -- secretary of the Department of Shared Administrative Services has come about in recent years. They're very involved with that and with what goes on in APERS.
And so this is just formally putting them in
there. We have three other ex-officio members. Oh, I'm
Speaker 166
41:58
sorry. Never mind. Never mind. Okay. Sounds
Speaker 160
42:02
like we have a right-through moment. I'm thinking two different things. Okay. All
right. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor?
Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. You've passed Senate Bill 160. Mr. Chairman.
Could we skip to 1344 and then do 1336 last? Without objection, we'll go to House
Bill 1344. And since this one was put on the agenda late in the day, without objection, we'll hear it.
Thank you. You're recognized for House Bill 1344. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1344 affects the provisions of the Arkansas Public Employee Retirement System
and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Both of these systems define certain other employees that are allowed participation in the system in the definition portion of their code. House Bill 1344 amends both of their definitions so that references to Arkansas School for the Blind and Arkansas School for the Deaf are changed to be Arkansas School for the Deaf and Blind.
This will put the language consistent with the wording of House Bill 1810, but only if it becomes an act. This ensures that there are no legal wording issues involved in the continued participation of these employees in whatever system they participate. we've had the issue of name change with these two schools combining into one so right now the systems recognize two separate entities we're just changing
the wording so that there's no interruption with these participants in the retirement systems for the presentation of the bill are there any questions
by the committee seeing none there's no one signed up to speak for
against the bill is anybody from the audience want to speak for against the bill seeing none representative Warren you're recognized to close for the
bill I am closed and I make a motion do pass I have a motion I've got a second any
discussion on the motion all in favor any opposed motion carries congratulations you passed house bill 1344 um let's see are
you i'm ready are you ready i guess we'll go out of order one more time this is i believe
your final bill correct all right so house bill 1336 members this one was also put on late in the day yesterday so uh to hear this
without objection and there is an amendment on it that'll be just passed out right now so house bill 1336 second from the bottom on your agenda there and
mr chairman if it would be okay i would like to ask some individuals to join me at the table absolutely
i'd like to have a couple of folks from apris and then joan
or does anybody from state police want to join Did I say the wrong one?
Speaker 173
45:44
Yeah, I'm Karen Perry. Karen, I'm out. Sorry, John. All right. If
you would, state your names for the record, and then you're recognized to begin. Actually, state
your names for the record, and then Representative Warren will take up the amendment.
Speaker 175
46:08
Amy Fetcher, Director of Vapors. Karen Perry, Chief Fiscal Officer of
the Department of Public Safety. Thank you.
Would you like to explain your amendment, Representative Warren? Okay, so I
would ask your approval of this amendment. We have been working for weeks, maybe even months, on this bill. And we've been working, I'll give you some history in a minute, but what this has done is put this in a format where we can discuss a bill.
We've deleted some sections. We have added a section that addresses a fee that we're charging, an increase in a fee that we're charging for an accident report that has been the same since mid-2000s. So if you
will approve this amendment, then I can discuss the whole bill with you. Got a motion on the amendment
got a second on the amendment any discussion on the amendment
Seeing none all in favor aye any opposed motion carries Representative Warren you are recognized to present House bill 1336 as
amended Thank You mr. Chairman Committee what I need to do
is give you a little history so back in the
mid to late 90s, the state police department managed their own retirement system.
There were some issues, and the legislature intervened, and APERS took over
the management of the State Police Retirement System. At that time, we formed
what was called a Tier 1 and a Tier 2 State Police Retirement System. And you two can feel free to jump in if I get off base here.
At that time, Tier 1 was all of the older members of state police retirement system. Tier 2 were all of the newer members of state police. The benefits for Tier 1 were great. The benefits for Tier 2 were not so good.
And the reason that that was the case is because the retirement system for state police was not in a good position financially. So the
benefits for Tier 2 were reduced so that we could get a system that we could stabilize and be able to take care of all state police members or participants and hopefully regain some strength to the system, which I believe APERS has done.
So years have passed since we did that. Tier 1, state police have 100% funding in the DROP program. Tier 2 have 72% funding in the DROP program. So we had looked at multiple things with this. What we want to do, there is an accident report for all accidents that state police prepares.
Sometimes this report takes hours to prepare. Sometimes it is 30, 50, 100 pages in length. We have been charging $10, or they have been charging $10 for a report for since 2005? A long time. So, what we came up with was we would like to increase the charge for that report to $25.
Now then, the amendment that I had you approve, anybody that's in that accident will still be able to get the report for $10. But anybody else, insurance companies, attorneys, anybody else, the fee is going to go up to $25. And in all honesty, the cost of that report has gone up over 20 years.
So I don't think it is out of line at all to increase the cost of that report. That additional cost of the $25, $10 goes to operational costs still, but $15 will be used to fund taking the State Police Tier 2 drop program from 72% funding to 100% funding, and it would be covered.
And the one person that I did not invite to the table that I need to invite to the table is our actuary, Jody Carrero, who has done an incredible amount of work on this. so um but we have been in multiple meetings i think this is a step in the right direction to help improve the state police retirement system at least for tier two
so jody do you want to add anything to what i've said
Jody Carrero
Unverified
52:34
jody if you would state your name for the record my name is Jody Carrero I'm the actuary for the committee no sir not at this time I'll let you continue on answer questions when it's time
that that's basically my presentation I think it's a step in the right direction
there's been a significant gap between tier 1 and tier 2 yes please add I want
Speaker 186
53:05
to just address the fee going from $10 to $25. It's not about the ink and the paper and the increased cost for the agency. What this is is we have insurance companies, lawyers, chiropractors that they send runners to every troop headquarters on a daily basis. They sit at the kiosk. They write the report numbers down. They pay for these reports. 97% of our fees come from these individuals and these are the mail outs that you get from in the mail whenever you have an accident
so we're just passing the cost on to those companies all
right and even in that time frame guys i mean mailing costs have significantly increased so i mean they're losing money uh even with the ten dollars
all right got a presentation of the bill um i do have a question for
jody um the actuarial report that you put um together was on the bill before it was amended
have you seen this amendment and how does that change
Jody Carrero
Unverified
54:18
your report uh yes sir i've seen the amendment i think there was a tweak to it this morning so i guess i haven't seen the final one but i i what what i saw on my phone it looks like it's still in line with um what we've what was talked about yesterday and i prepared a an additional cost study was that handed out already
blake with the amendment yeah that's yeah we have uh
in your green sheet there's a cost impact fee
income offset on the back page as well as uh current after house bill 1336 cost impact Yeah, it says as amended number two, April
Jody Carrero
Unverified
55:09
1st, assuming. This one says March 31st. Okay. There should also be one that. Okay, thank you. I prepared a second report, and it should be House Bill 1336 as amended number two, April 1st.
This one's as amended number one. Okay, so, Blake, did we hand out the as amended number two, the second cost report? Because, yes, I did see it, and, yes, I amended my report accordingly. Okay,
I've got it now. I'll recognize Representative Rye while I review this. Yes, sir.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
56:01
Okay, let me ask you all this, if you figure up the time frame that actually is spent to generate that report, I wonder how much time it actually takes to do that.
can can you say that again that report representative Warren how much time does it take for a person to generate that report for from an employee that that's going to vary from
accident to accident yes depending upon the severity of the accident and number of people involved there's not a lot of money made in this it's probably a
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
56:52
cost so that's not a very big fee at all is it I don't think so mm-hmm thank you sir all right representative Duke thank you mr. chair
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
57:08
and thank you represent Warren for bringing this bill I do have a quick question and it's pretty general question because as you know this is a new committee for me can you can any of you all speak to what the negatives would be of implementing this or what negative impacts it could have unintended consequences that you all as you work through this bill might have possibly seen and that's because a lot of this is I'm learning so it'd be helpful just
to you know find out what I question I may not be asking that I should be asking as
far as concerns there might be
there thank you I will go on and take a stab at that I think
the the one thing that might be asked is excuse me you're You're increasing a fee, but the individuals will not be asked to pay a greater fee. Anybody involved in that accident, I mean, I know state police sometimes have just given the report to people involved.
They're not looking at making any money off of anybody involved in an accident. They take care of those people. What they are trying to do is just get compensated for the work that they are doing, and it is sometimes very involved, and $25 does not even begin to cover that. So we added that provision in the amendment that anybody involved in the accident would still be able to get the report for $10, but anybody else would not, would be the $25.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
58:54
thank you and I appreciate that and I do learn something new as far as people that are coming in and getting those reports I was actually an accident this weekend so I see the perspective of the report part of it because that was obviously a conversation that we had as far as what you're trying to do with their retirement is there any unintended consequences potential out there is are Are we doing anything that's going to negatively impact anywhere else?
Fair question, and that's why we have our actuary involved. And, I mean, we looked at several things when we brought this bill to the table initially with state police, with APERS, with our actuary, and we actually pulled back quite a bit because initially there was a much greater cost with wanting to do things that got Tier 2 in line with Tier 1.
So we pulled back because we didn't want anything greater than what the fees would generate so that it was a net effect. the revenue would cover the benefit increase that we were offering. So if Mr. Carrero wants to add anything, my understanding is that the fees generated are expected to cover the benefit that we're offering.
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:00:37
the right direction. And I will add a little bit. Yes, the bill was pulled back considerably so that the fees that will be generated will, in a sense, pay the additional unfunded that would be generated will be paid off in about three years. And there will always be a change. It shifts the normal cost up, the every-year cost. So it will cover that every-year cost by and far,
but it would also pay off that added liability over a shorter period of time. The only other possible negative effect is that our state police system has, in a sense, the richest benefits of any of the retirement systems because it's a different group of people. We know all the reasons, but that does at times cause folks to ask questions and it sometimes causes folks to want to come back and say,
why don't I have this or why don't I have that? And so in this case, it's going to make their drop to be better than the drop that's in any of the other retirement systems. And that may cause questions in the future from other folks. And, you know, if you pass this, you just have to know that that's part of the case that folks will ask those questions and you just have to be ready to know what
the answer is Jody reviewing your updated analysis on here could you tell me the cost impact it's significantly reduced with this amendment to 4.2 million yes or the right-hand side what what exactly is that impact is that
a cost like is that additional revenue that we're receiving or is that no additional expense that
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:02:38
we're that's the additional expense yeah if you look on the on the the front page of the report you're referring to you notice that there there is an impact in two areas one as I just mentioned a moment ago one is this increase in normal cost about a half a percent of pay that the every year cost of the plan will increase and then there is the change in the unfunded and that is folks have already earned the benefit and now we are increasing the benefit so to speak so they've
already earned that so the the unfunded liability goes up and that's what
Speaker 181
1:03:19
generated the 4.2 million of additional
unfunded liability and the unfunded liability is over the estimated cost of the life of
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:03:28
the retirees that are receiving benefits? Theoretically, yes. The number that is used right now is 15 years, so it is paid off over 15 years. But as noted further down in the report,
the amount of the fee is going to pay the change in normal cost, and it will pay off the unfunded in about three years
in a very short period of time. So that 0.6% is the increased amount
Speaker 181
1:04:00
of fee. Is that what I'm understanding? Well, the 0.6
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:04:06
million, all those are in million, the 0.6 million is the additional employer contribution needed to pay that off over the 15 years.
So the fee will pay it off faster than that because the fee is going to generate just under $2 million per year. So the fee is going to pay it off faster than what the
Speaker 181
1:04:28
calculation says it needs to be. And then it will start attributing to other unfunded portions of
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:04:35
unwise? Correct, yes. State police system is one of the lower funded as far as a funded percent, and it will help strengthen that more quickly.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:04:46
Senator Love, you're recognized. Picking up where we just
left off, so the .6%, Is that an increase, is that just a one-time increase of the employer's contribution, or is that one like
we do with, does that go up each year, or
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:05:13
is that just a one-time increase? Yes, sir. Okay, the .6 employer contribution needed, that's .6 million, $600,000.
And that is calculated as a level percent of pay, which means that it will increase every year. So it's calculated to increase every year. And, in fact, on the chart that's at the back of the report, if you want to go that deep into the weeds, The chart that's attached to this report, right in the middle, is a column that's called Total Employer Contribution Increase, 1.34%, and then it starts at $592,541, about $600,000, and you see that that number would increase every year.
Now, right beside that, you see the projected fee increase and that that is considerably more so that this will be paid off more quickly than what the calculation is. Okay, but what I'm asking
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:06:19
is that percentage increase, I know that it's going to increase due to the fact that people's salary is going to raise every year. What I'm asking, though, is that a fixed, is it just fixed at that percentage rate, or is it, or is that percentage rate, like with APERS, you know, we used to, I guess, recharge like 5%, then it went up to 5.25%.
What I'm asking, do you understand what I'm asking? I think
Speaker 206
1:06:48
you're referring to the employee cost. Okay. State police doesn't contribute on the employee level, just the employer. Oh, really? I didn't know that. Okay. Well, that's
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:07:01
something new. So the employees don't have to contribute, but just the employer? That's correct. Oh, okay. Representative Rye.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:07:14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This fee, I mean, where does that fee
come from? I mean, as far as the extra money that actually has to be paid out in this for that to go upward for our state troopers, I guess that would be. Can you give me kind of an answer on that? Would
that come out of the general fund, or where would we be
Speaker 206
1:07:37
looking for that? I think the fee will be paid through the company, through the insurance companies or the attorneys is where it will be paid from.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:07:46
Is that your question? Yeah. A little bit, Amy. It's a little confusing to
me. what would this we know how much it's going to cost the system but actually I'm trying to figure out where it would actually come from as far as the money that actually has
to come in to pay that okay the where the $25 per report is going to come from yes their history shows that it's insurance companies
Chiropractors, 97% comes from people other than the individuals. So that's the history that we expect to continue. Yes, sir. A follow-up, please. Go ahead. Well, Representative
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:08:36
thing because this fee was out of line. It was too low, and it's still probably too low. But at the same time, this can occur, which is a good thing. And basically all we have to do is change the amount of money for the fee.
That's what we're trying to do. Thank you, sir. The fee comes from the public,
correct? So it's not a fee to the employer as far as
like the state police. The public pays the fees when they're generating the reports. They've been paying it.
We're just changing it from $10 to $25. Just increasing the
amount. All right. Senator Love, you were recognized. Okay,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:09:19
I'm back on the kind of the question I was asking.
How many employees are in the state police? Under
Speaker 175
1:09:32
this retirement system, because we have civilians and commission, and on the commission side, probably about 1,000. 1,000 employees are in
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:09:39
APERS from the state police? On the state police retirement side. Okay, 1,000. How many, and who are the people that are in Tier 1?
Who qualifies for the Tier
Speaker 222
1:10:00
1 system? People hired before 7-197. It was
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:10:05
a date thing. It was everyone hired before 7-197, our Tier 1, and it's uniformed officers. and uniformed officers hired after 7-197 are Tier 2. And it's not everyone that works for state police. It is about 500 of them that are uniformed officers.
Speaker 206
1:10:31
Part of ASP is in APERS if they're not commissioned officers. They participate in APERS. The other is part of ASPERS, the Arkansas State Police Retirement System. which is what this bill would affect
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:10:46
so this bill would affect asperis it's not affecting april yes sir and and
but they have two different tiers though yes sir
Speaker 206
1:10:58
those that were hired before
july 1 97 are in tier one and those that were hired after are automatically in tier two when
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:11:08
did they convert over to apris so that when did their
Speaker 206
1:11:13
administration come over to apris yeah in 90 97
colonel if you would state your name for the record i think you'll be recognized to answer these questions
Mike Hager
Unverified
1:11:25
yes sir i'm mike hager i'm secretary department of public safety and director of state police and just need to verify that we're neutral on this bill but i'm here to
answer factual questions so state police employees are under two different retired retirement systems our non-commissioned employees are under april's that's about half we have right now about 500 and i believe 85 commission troopers that are under aspers within aspers everyone that went to work after uh 90 i would say the fall of 96 basically everyone that went to work 97 and
beyond are in tier two of aspers everyone that went to work before that are in tier one i'm a tier one employee i'm one of only i believe uh i'm going to say we have i think we have six in tier one in tier one yes sir so when tier two started uh it was started we had to offer our new employees a retirement system that began 28
years ago that can has been kind of kicked down the road so um it was always under the assumption once the ASPRS system got a solid footing and was more grounded that we were going to merge the Tier 2 employees to make it more reflective of Tier 1. In other words, their benefits would equal. So right now we have troopers doing the exact same job with two entirely different benefits. So the problem is 28 years later it still hasn't been addressed.
So that's the reason that this bill was presented to try to start to equal that retirement benefit for the two different groups, if that makes sense. I'm going to jump in for a
second. So there are six active Tier 1. I believe there are six active Tier 1. But they're inactive or you still have
a lot of inactive Tier 1 too, though, right? We still have a lot of retirees in Tier 1, yes, sir.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:13:42
Okay, and the benefit that we're trying to, I
guess, make equivalent is just for the drop? It's a drop piece? That's
Mike Hager
Unverified
1:13:54
just one piece of it. The biggest difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is that Tier 1 employees had 100% of their annuity that went towards drop. Tier 1 also had survivor benefits at no penalty to the member.
Tier 2 does not have survivor benefits, and only 72% of their annuity went towards the drop instead of 100%. So ultimately, to get those things on even par, we would need to do the Tier 2 survivor benefits and also this retirement benefit towards the drop. But those are the two major differences in the plans. And that's
represent I mean a senator that's
where we started looking at everything and The cost was was up there. So we decided to Use the increase in accident report income to be able to at least address the drop Portion of this so that it was a step in improving tier two somewhat and to my knowledge we haven't improved tier two uh the benefits
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:15:16
until now okay so then let me ask you this in tier two in april's benefits that you that the system is now How would those benefits, are they reflective of? There's no Tier 2 in APERS. No, I know there's not a Tier 2 in APERS, but there are state police in APERS, correct? There's civilians.
Speaker 209
1:15:46
The civilians. Oh, the civilians, yes. That work at state police.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:15:50
Oh, okay. So the civilian side of state police is in
APERS. Yes, sir. You only have Tier 1 and Tier 2 in Arkansas State
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:15:59
Police Retirement System. But you're talking about for
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:16:02
the uniformed officers, though? The uniformed officers are in Asperis. That's correct. Okay, gotcha. Okay, all right,
thank you. Thank you, Senator. Are there any other questions by the committee? Seeing
none, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or
against? Seeing none. Representative, you are recognized to close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. thank you
committee. This is a step that I believe is long overdue. We need to at least make a step in the direction of improving tier two retirement for state police. We've got a vehicle that covers the cost to do this and so i make a motion do pass we have a motion do pass as amended
yes yes all right and a second any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor aye any opposed motion carries congratulations House Bill 1336. Next up we have Representative Perry. I think you are Senate
an amendment on that, right?
I'll give members a moment to look at this amendment. Senate Bill 157. Representative Perry, would you like to explain the amendment?
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:18:09
Yes, sir, I would, Mr. Chairman. Actually, state your name for the record
for this bill. Mark Perry, Representative, District 66. Thank you. The amendment to Senate Bill 157 is, when we originally drafted it, it had shall in the wording for each system. This changes it to where it's changed to May, so it's not mandatory to do. And then at the first part of it, under Section 1, on page 1, number 5,
it's changing it to where if life insurance is offered as a survivor's benefit, the benefit to the members of the state retirement system, the life insurance payment shall be a set amount paid to the member's beneficiary, less any overpayments, with the remaining balance to be used to lessen the system's unfunded liabilities. So that was a correction on that part of it. All right. You've heard
a presentation of the amendment. I need a motion to adopt. Do I have a second?
Yes. I have a second. Any discussion on the motion on the amendment? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Any
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:19:24
opposed? Amendment is adopted. You are recognized to present the bill as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So last session, Senator English asked during one of the meetings why the public employee system doesn't offer a death benefit like the teacher system does. So we looked into this and looked at options, and we've done – Jody Carrera had an impact on what it would be if we did it for APERS.
But what we're looking at is the feasibility of if it is available by providing a death benefit using other forms besides general revenue or general assets of the system. And this would be one of those options where you have life insurance to do that. The huge part of it is, and other organizations and corporations do this as a bank-owned life insurance or a company-owned life insurance, but this would actually allow a pension-owned life insurance.
And with the instability of the market and having unfunded liabilities, any excess amount could help go into the pool, which would help reduce the unfunded liabilities for the remaining members. So with that, I'll take questions. All right,
you've heard a presentation of the bill. Are there
any questions by the committee? Senator Love, you're recognized.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:21:02
So, Representative Peer, I guess I'm trying to
figure out exactly what we're doing, and I don't want to assume. So are we taking life insurance out on members through APERS and paying a specific death benefit to
the surviving spouse or children or whoever? if that is
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:21:29
an option currently that's not an option uh it's not allowed
but so this would
actually have two two avenues one would be to provide a benefit death benefit to the member to their beneficiary and they can either do that with you know general funds general revenue kind like teacher does teacher retirement or if it is optional and if it is feasible to have an actual life insurance product do that then they would this would allow them to option and use that as
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:22:03
a as an option okay but what you added because i really specifically read the the the your amendment
i read what it was in
the bill and then your amendment so what do you mean by
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:22:23
overages if there's any overages overpayments overpayments yeah so uh sometimes when a member passes away it's several months before the system's notified and during that course of time there's they're still receiving a check or deposit and then what happens the system has to claw back that overpayment so in this particular case if you have a
benefit and the system has made one of those payments or several of those payments they're able to receive that back from the death benefit portion okay gotcha yeah all right
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:22:55
okay all right thank you thank you senator love any other
questions by the committee seeing none there's no one signed up to speak for
against this anybody in the audience want to speak for against the bill represented Perry you're recognized to
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:23:17
close for the bill. I'm closed for the bill and make a motion to
pass. I have a motion and that's a motion as amended. I'm sorry. I
have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. You passed Senate Bill 157. That takes us to Senate Bill 151, Representative Mark Johnson.
Representative Johnson or sorry Senator Johnson you are recognized to present. Thank you Mr.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:24:08
Chairman this is probably the sixth or
eighth version of this bill that I've worked on basically what it does it addresses a problem we seem to have had in Arkansas where we have people who mostly the high profile ones are elected officials sometimes they're people elsewhere in government that commit criminal acts.
They commit what under the law is called a public trust crime. We have had senators who went from the Senate to the federal penitentiary for taking bribes. We had a state treasurer who, in one infamous case, was receiving cash payments in a pie box. And what this bill would do, like I said, its current iteration, it would prohibit those people from receiving a pension from the state.
Now, it's taken a long time to get to this point. You'd think that'd be a simple thing, but there's several issues involved. And I want to thank my co-sponsors, Representative Andrews, Representative Rye, Senator Tucker, for helping me work these things out. And also the Attorney General's office was a great help. Mr. Carreiro has done a good job of pointing out some of the problems with it over the last six years, the biggest one being that it's established case law that when someone is a member of a retirement system
and a contributory member has paid in that they have a property right in what they have paid in. And so the bill specifically reflects that they are entitled, even if they're convicted felon and all-around bad person, they're entitled to receive their property back with interest, and the bill takes note of that. What it does is, and then we ran into some other issues, and again, I thank Mr. Carrero and the Attorney General's office for helping me work through that.
There's an ex post facto consideration in this. And while I felt like if someone continues to be in a particular position and violates the public trust, they should not be compensated by their fellow members of their system with a pension. But because, again, for ex post facto and other considerations, we're limiting this to people who from this point forward are become members
and become vested in the retirement systems on the at the end and there's a do not codify a thing of the legislative intent it says it is the intent of the General Assembly if this act not be construed to apply retroactively to a vested member or retirement of a retirement system it shall only apply to a member who whose rights have not yet vested in the system as of the effective date of this act so we're we're not going to go retroactive we're not going to go backwards any vested member who
commits a public trust crime has is entitled to his or her pension and there's nothing I can do about that I wish I could but we operate under the laws as they're already established in the case law that's been established I will point out a couple of things in his actuarial study Mr. Carrero points out he says that in his opinion there are tools in place to address the issues
in this bill more efficiently but I'm grateful that he at least admits that he is not an attorney and it's not a legal opinion but and that the Arkansas Constitutional contract clause as interpreted by landers v stone in 2016 would allow forfeiture as described in this bill to occur and he said his point is a policy consideration now i'm simply saying that this is something that the legislature should do we should send a message especially to people who
have taken a public trust work for the public and then commit a crime in the line of duty that's the public trust crime this isn't something not something unrelated to their their work in a public office this is is for the the Nick Wilson's of the world and for the Martha Schaffner's of the world and those that have committed these crimes in in their office something related to their public trust so with
that I'd be able to take any questions committee
might have for the presentation of the
bill I do have a question for you so this would apply to any earned benefit that someone has earned during their time and in in the system yes sir and if someone were
to so their their their spouse their family or whatever that lived with them the entire time they were making their living doing stuff,
if they happened to, in addition to whatever the court find as far as retribution, penalties, things like that, this would be kind of an additional disincentive or penalty that would really be met out on the families. of of the individuals that committed some sort of a crime mr chairman i can respond
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:30:05
by saying that we probably have thousands of people in the department of correction right now
whose families are suffering because they committed a crime and and that's in my opinion life is still a series of incentives and disincentives one incentive to not commit a is not just that you will be punished but because of the fact that as a breadwinner or other thing in your life your family will suffer and I think that's probably a good thing I mean it's sad in many many instances but be that as it may when people do wrong they not only are held accountable
but those that might otherwise depend on them are held accountable
sadly let me ask you this question as well because this this was raised I think I
received an email from someone that asked this question I didn't know the answer for sure but say for instance we in the legislature we have a lot of retirees that have already contributed earned an entire lifetime you know former teachers various ones that have left their professions and retired before they come and get elected
to legislative office or or something along those lines if they did something at that point in time
would they also lose the retirement benefits that they had already earned and
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:31:32
were receiving benefits from i i think mr chairman that is an open question but
the way the bill i i crafted the bill was it would apply specifically to the job you were in earlier i i used the example in a previous iteration of the bill that if someone is a works in a unrelated field to the public trust
crime that they in other words if you were you say you work for an agency and you embezzled money from that agency that would be the public trust crime but if you retired and did your job all years and then you suddenly got a wild hair and decided to be a bank robber or something then certainly that would be you know a crime and you would pay the the penalty for it but it would not affect your pension it has to do something in the line of duty and i would think the line of duty
meaning in if you were good for all those years in that other system then it would only apply to the situation in your current and also mr. chairman again case law is very clear your contributions in that second instance would be refundable with interest
senator Boyd and you're recognized thank you
Speaker 264
1:32:56
mr. thank you mr. chair okay I'm just the
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:33:00
one thing that comes up with this I hear where you're
going the one kind of pause I have in the current environment today is we have all this lawfare going on? I mean, do you think this is just one more thing that could target somebody in one party versus another down the road would be the one thing
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:33:23
that I'd just like to hear what you think about that? Senator Boyd, you're the
first person that's brought that up to me. I certainly think that this lawfare thing is scary because it takes, often cases, civil
situations and try to turn them into criminal situations. I haven't considered that. I guess we have to worry about that in just about everything we do out here, that someone would try to weaponize that against us. I think it shows how low some of our political discourse has gone, but I can't answer that in a direct sense. But I feel what you're saying. I get it. But I hope that fear of such a thing would not stop us from doing the right thing as far as standing up for.
And remember, this is not just the people of Arkansas. This is the members of these retirement systems. So everything that we just talked about, or your committee just talked about the situation with the state police having to have two tiers because it wasn't actually sound enough to continue under the previous system. Now it is. I'm grateful that we do that properly, but we have to deal with the world the way it is, and we need to let people know if you're elected to public office, you can't be a crook.
If you do, there are consequences, and I think this is a signal we send to the public that we do care about that issue. Senator Love, you're
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:34:56
recognized. Thank you, and Mr. Chair, can I have someone from APERS
come up Because I have a question specifically for
APERS, and then I have one for you, Senator Johnson, but I just want to get a clarification. Amy, if you would, state your name for the record
on this bill. Amy Thatcher, Director of APERS.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:35:16
So I'm going to use myself as an example in this
bill. So I've worked for Placid County, and when I was working both for Placid County and as a legislator, my my two were merged they weren't they weren't separate so in this scenario if i so happen in the last couple of years my last few years commit uh a crime of public trust how would that uh
impact would i would i not just lose it lose it all since
Speaker 206
1:35:54
i believe the uh the difference in this this one is if you're vested or not vested so you have vested already so it would not affect you as if you're vested as of the date this bill is signed
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:36:08
into law or goes into effect so so if i
was not vested if you're not vested and i had my years from the state or from the county or wherever and because they run concurrent once you join the legislature so then how would that work for
how would that work if i wasn't if
Speaker 206
1:36:30
i wasn't if you're not vested then um you wouldn't get a benefit but your employee contributions would be what could be um diverted so you wouldn't receive your employee contributions back they would go to pay off your debt to the state is the way i read it and
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:36:52
i'm not an attorney okay all right um mr chairman if i could respond also to Senator Love's question.
Senator, this is one of the instances of why I put the language in that Ms. Fetcher was referring to, that this only applies for people going forward. So a new employee comes into a job, is not vested, then this would apply to them. It would be in the law and made known to them that if you do this, you're risking your pension. But nothing, we've made clear language in the law, in the bill, that someone that's not, that is vested, we're not retroactively applying any of this to them.
That's both for case law reasons and for the reasons that the Attorney General pointed out to me that, and again, I think there's, I have a personal problem with it, but I accept the legal interpretation. Ex post facto is a pretty strong constitutional provision, and it would not be retroactive in the instance that you just described. All right. Thank you. All right. Any other questions?
Okay. Seeing no other questions, does anybody in the
audience want to speak for the bill? Anyone want to speak against the bill? Okay. Senator, you're recognized to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:38:28
close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is something that has always bothered me, and this affects all of us as legislators, because there's a certain segment of the public that thinks we're all crooks,
and they've got good evidence to that. They can point to those that are or have been sitting in federal penitentiary for corruption crimes, crimes of violating the public trust. By passing Senate Bill 151, we're simply sending a signal going forward, not to anyone that's already in a position to do wrong, but someone that comes forward in the future that will have this in place and it will be yet another deterrent for them to commit a crime
and to humiliate the General Assembly and other elected officials across the state. So
with that, I'm closed, and I would
appreciate a good vote. All right. Senator's closed.
Do I have a motion? Seeing none. Sorry, the bill has failed. Thank you, committee. Or no action has been taken, sorry. That concludes our business, fortunately, just in enough time for Blake.
I think he has to go chair state
agencies or public health. Oh, wait, members, we've got to recognize my co-chair. Before
everybody gets out of here, this is our last retirement committee meeting. I want to say special thanks to Blake Gillum, Destiny Davis, and our attorney, Laura Holzhauser. And special thanks this week to Jody Carrero, who has been working endless hours to get fiscal impact studies done.
So thank you, guys. Appreciate everybody's help in making this a good retirement year. Thank you. Thank you all. We are adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1341 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BENEFITS UNDER THE ARKANSAS LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "PAY" UNDER THE ARKANSAS LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
SB148 J. English TO ESTABLISH THE CREATING AN INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKERS ACT OF 2025.
SB153 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF TITLE 24 OF THE ARKANSAS CODE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO VARIOUS CITY OFFICIALS.
SB160 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
SB157 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BENEFITS UNDER THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS.
SB151 M. Johnson TO AMEND LAW CONCERNING RETIREMENT BENEFITS; AND TO PROHIBIT COLLECTION OF BENEFITS BY MEMBERS, RETIRANTS, OR BENEFICIARIES OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN OFFENSES.
HB1336 Warren TO AMEND THE SURVIVORS' BENEFIT OPTIONS UNDER THE STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE TIER TWO DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN UNDER THE STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
HB1344 Warren CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM; AND TO CORRECT THE NAME OF THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND AND THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF UNDER TITLE 24 OF THE ARKANSAS CODE.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — PUBLIC RETIREMENT & SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAMS-JOINT, Apr 1, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 8
Speaker 5
Speaker 18
Speaker 6
Speaker 29
Speaker 32
Speaker 7
Speaker 3
Speaker 38
Senator Jim Dotson Chair
Unverified
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 68
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 78
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
Speaker 91
Speaker 92
Speaker 95
Jody Carrero
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 67
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
Angela Duran
Unverified
Speaker 113
Representative Les Warren Chair
Unverified
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 147
Speaker 151
Speaker 166
Speaker 160
Speaker 173
Speaker 175
Speaker 186
Speaker 202
Speaker 181
Speaker 206
Speaker 217
Speaker 222
Mike Hager
Unverified
Speaker 209
Speaker 241
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 264
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified