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
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Good morning, Che sees a quorum. Uh, we are going to begin. And actually, Senator English, if you are ready to present, um, without objection we'll. Move you to the top, so. Representative Warren can just sit there the rest of the morning. This'll be Senate Bill 148 members.
By Senator English. Good morning,
Senator Jane English
Unverified
10:31
Senator Jane English, District 13, and I'm here to present Senate Bill 148, which is basically
an opportunity for, um, childcare, daycare workers outside of state government to be able to take part in the teacher's retirement system, so, um, it's kind of an incentive, it's a voluntary program, voluntary on the part of the employer and on a
A, um, worker, so it would just give them an opportunity that they hopefully we had to find some ways to incentivize some of our folks to be daycare workers, childcare 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, uh, for Mark if he's in the crowd. You would state your name. And then you're recognized.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
11:30
Mark. Hamish chairman Mark White, Arkansas teacher retirement
system, um, a couple of 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. Different from the our current members or from?
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 there other groups, they're participating in the retirement teacher retirement system that are
Speaker 68
12:19
not actually teachers. We do have other organizations that are not necessarily schools. We have a number of organizations that are, uh, in and around the world of education. So as an example, the, uh, 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 teachers that are part
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
12:53
of a private school system from being able to participate in the program. There's nothing in current law that would allow that, uh, if
Speaker 68
13:02
the legislature wanted to choose the law, they could. That's, but that's not allowed in current
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:07
law. And what would be the difference, uh, whereas schools pay a portion, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, schools pay a portion. Of a teacher that participating in the retirement system. Am I right on that? Yes, there's an employer contribution and
Speaker 68
13:19
an employee contribution and under this bill, it would still be the same way that the the employer would pay their contribution. The employed by their contribution. OK, and then the last question would be, it says
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:35
a licensed childcare facility is DHS going to be the determinator, the, the one that would determine Who the licenger or how you're gonna, how you gonna, cause 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, uh, that lozenger, it's it's currently with the
Speaker 68
13:57
Department of Education now. I used to be with DHS. It moved to the Department of Education, uh, but it be under, under their parameters
and the intent is for these are providers that because they're accepting those state or federal child care funds they're advancing that state purpose of education. OK. OK.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:16
Uh, and one last question. The reason they wouldn't go and get their retirement benefits, say from an Edward Jones or some other, uh, retirement. Program Would be what That's
certainly an option, uh, but I,
Speaker 68
14:32
I. Of course this is not our bill,
but I, 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. OK, all right, thank
you. Thank you, San. Right? Seeing no other question uh. Representative rye. You are recognized. Thank you,
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
15:07
Mr. Chair. Let me ask you 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 teacher retirement
Speaker 68
15:17
at all, will it? No, sir. Uh, 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 in on the same terms and at the same contribution rates, which they would in this bill, the more people the better. Thank you sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, Representative Duke.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
15:38
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies. 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. Um, I understanding correctly that this is
like private. Private industries, private companies, private, it could be just the individual home-based operation that this would extend it to. Yes, uh, so long
Speaker 68
16:04
as they are licensed and accredited by the state and they are accepting
those state or federal early childhood education funding, uh, and so be only those that are accepting that funding and advancing that state purpose, uh, through that funding if I may. So
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
16:21
would this also include, I know lots of different companies are also developing their own childcare. Would they be eligible for this as well? If Don't believe so.
And, but if they're taking any type of state money, would that make them
Speaker 68
16:36
eligible if they're receiving that those early childhood funds from the state
or through the federal government, yes, I think typically those types of riders are not, uh, taking those vouchers and those other uh state funds we know that 100% for sure that they couldn't
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
16:49
also be a part of that, I, I don't want to say categorically that
Speaker 68
16:53
they aren't. I just, from my knowledge, typically they are not accepting those, those state and federal funding. One more, or do you want me to get back in? OK, and I,
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
17:03
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, well, that, that does that as well. There's nothing that keeps them from doing that. Thank you. Senator Hammer, did I see you? You are recognized. Thank you. And,
Speaker 91
17:27
and I have nothing against the bill first
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:30
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, um, Teachers that are not in the public school system, but would be in the private school systems or, or, you know, uh, 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. But I was, and correct me if I'm wrong, um, It seemed like there was something that was
prohibitor as far as the cost to 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, 22 factors. One, as long as
Speaker 68
18:31
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 IRS rules because we 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, uh, they would, uh, potential
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:04
be be potential options there for coverage, but they 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 uh public schools would have to pay the maximum portion. Yes, sir. OK. Miss Chair, would you get Jodie to the table, please?
Speaker 92
19:26
Jody, if you're Jodie's your actuary, right? Am I right this morning. You were, state
Speaker 95
19:39
your name for the record and you're recognized.
Jody Carrero
Unverified
19:41
Jody Carrero, Maxuary for the committee. Or Jody.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:45
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
19:55
the teacher retirement system. Well, the one thing that we, that's not been mentioned yet is that, um, the, the employee contribution that has to be made. Uh, has to be a Uh, a requirement of employment. So if to to be the to be taxed the way that it is. So it's an
all or nothing thing. And here, here's what the, here's what the crunch would be if you started going to private schools or something like that. I mean, you can, you could make the argument that it is a governmental agency, you'd have to stand on 1 ft 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. Every everybody say take
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:55
every employee, for example, school XYZ says we
want to do this. Every employee in that school system would have to participateer requirement.
Jody Carrero
Unverified
21:02
Or that employee contribution cannot be pre-tax. OK. And is that going to be the same thing for this bill then that every
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:10
employee same thing for every employer in teacher retirement. So, it's going
Jody Carrero
Unverified
21:14
to come down to, you got daycare that's got 10.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:22
Yet 10 working in it, but you 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 him, but that's gonna be one of the requirements. Yeah,
Jody Carrero
Unverified
21:42
here, yeah, and that's what makes this a, a little odd, but
it, it works because it would only be a, a worker, as I understand. in 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 participate in ATRS. And those special funds are sourced from where? typically
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:08
come through the Department of Education uh both those
state funds and there's also federal funds that are available through HHS. So last thing, Mr. Chairman, last the, so the schools receiving.
The funding allowed now under the Lawrence Act, is that qualify it to receiving the funds. No, sorry,
it'd be better chance funding better chance funding. Yeah, that'd be the most typical route. OK. All
right. Thank you. Right? Seeing no other questions. Um You've heard a
presentation of the bill we have oh, sorry, I got a couple more questions that
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
22:56
popped up. Uh representative Perry. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, on page 2. Um, line 18. A single
nonprofit fiscal agent will be used for the pass-through. What's up? What's a nonprofit fiscal agent. So in in talking with the
Speaker 68
23:20
advocating 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 the, 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 individuals. employers it's just the one entity that will report to us and then we'll transmit the contributions to us. I understood. Thank you.
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
23:59
Representative Burkes, you were recognized. So just so I can understand properly, are there any other industries uh under ATRS where the teacher's retirement provides membership to private individuals or
Speaker 68
24:12
industries. There are other organizations, so the I mentioned 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 of the ones that are currently participating. And, and I, and I
should also add, there is the option for, and this is the situation the most closely parallels this. There's the option for developmental disability providers that work through. NHS and receive DHS funding they have the option of being members of our system as well. Any
other questions? Now sing none, thank you for your presentation. We have one signed up to speak for the bill, uh,
Angela Duran. You would. State your name and who
you're with for the record, and then you are recognized to begin. Good
Angela Duran
Unverified
25:18
morning. My name is Angela Duran. I'm the executive director of Excel by 8, and I'm here to speak for the bill. All right. Um, excel by 8 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 5 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 childcare for their young children. Over 80 employers have come together to form a coalition to address this challenge. These leaders realized that a key strategy is to help childcare 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 childcare center or their family childcare home cannot. This bill would make it possible for a childcare 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
Acer's leadership on this bill. Thank you for your time. Thank you. You
Speaker 113
27:23
have any questions by the committee? Seeing none. Thank
you so much for your testimony. We have no one else signed up. Is anybody in the audience want to speak for
or against? Singan, Senator English, you are
recognized to close for your bill. Thank you. I'm closed. Right? I've got a motion to pass. I've got a 2nd. Any discussion on
the motion? Representative Duke. Yep, you can rules on how this works in the joints and you'd like to discuss the motion.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
27:58
OK, so I'm you're recognized to discuss the motion. OK, so I think I'm
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
28:06
going, you'll let me know if I'm out of bounds. I'm
just going I I we will we have a separate or we all voting together the House and
Senate, sorry, just making sure. OK, so, um, English, I really appreciate you bringing this bill, and I know you're hard for kids and for childcare providers and, and just trying to do what's best for people. I'm, I'm gonna 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, my college aged kid, teaching, talking 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 we're putting our hands
somewhere in the cookie jar where we shouldn't necessarily be in a in a tent to do well. I don't know that that's necessarily the best, um. 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. 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 childcare
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 open, continue to open the door, um, 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 were born in Northwest Arkansas to try and work with our businesses together as individuals to try and and find solutions for the childcare issue, which I know that's the incentives to have them be in there, um. one, but I'm happy to support in
outside of government kind of ways. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Duke, and, uh,
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 um.
It is 20 members of the committee, 11 votes to pass, just like a House committee, um, the difference between the House and the Senate is
it does take 3 hands to roll call. So Everybody's clear on that. Uh, any other discussion? Seeing none of motion, all
in favor. All opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Right, um,
See. All right Representative Warren. Next up
will be House Bill 1341, Representative Warren is.
Members of House Bill 1341. Representative Warren, you are ready. State your name for the
record and you're recognized. Les Warren, District 84. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
committee members. House Bill 1341 is a bill that deals with workers' compensation payments as they relate to members of the lot fee retirement system. If a member is receiving a worker's 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. 2, 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. Uh, this is not a required action by members, but it is an option members can use to give them the maximum benefits if insured 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 you, Mr. Shear. So, uh,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
34:32
Representative Warren, now what issue are we correcting
with this bill? What, what is, what is going on
to where we needed to justify the process that they can put their, uh, disability or their uh 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
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
35:08
for that time. OK, so, so this actually is a practice there were OK,
all right, thank you. Right, seeing no other questions. Actually, represented Perry. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Warren got it,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
35:28
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 to the, uh, employer. Does that then our taxes and
Speaker 147
35:42
all withheld at that time? Just like, just like regular pay. And I, I might need to get,
uh, David Clark up here just to make sure I don't speak so some benefits like that are
not taxed. Paid to David, if you would state your name for the record so then you'll be recognized to answer.
Speaker 151
36:06
Good morning, uh, David Clark, executive director of Loy. Uh, 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, uh, 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 pay that would have occurred had the individual not been injured and away from the department will be reported to Lay and they will receive a month of service credit for that.
time frame or 2 months, whatever the duration is of the person being out from employment, but the taxability aspect is totally between
the employee and the employer. Sounds great. Thank you. Right? Any other questions by the committee? Seeing none,
thank you for your presentation, uh, we have no one signed up
to speak for or against this bill. Is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against? Seeing none, represent warn you recognized to close. I am closed and I make a motion
to pass. I have a motion in a second. Any discussion
on the motion? See none, all in favor. Any opposed? Motion carries House Bill 1341 is passed, uh. And Warren, do
you wanna Run Senate Bill 153. I do. All right. You are recognized. 13. This is pretty simple bill,
Senate Bill 153 is amending a
very small portion of code 24-12-121. is a section of the code that spells out that cities must pay for in city, uh, 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, uh, we have no one signed
up to speak on the bill. Is anybody in the audience want to speak for or against?
Seeing none, uh, Representative Warren, you're recognized closed. I am closed, and I make a motion to pass. I have a motion.
I've got a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor. And he opposed? Motion carries. passed Senate Bill 153. You're recognized for
Senate Bill 160. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Senate Bill 160 has two separate, uh, provisions. First, it adds 2 members, uh, to the APRs, uh,
Arkansas Public Employee retirement System board, uh, 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, uh, the latter member. uh previously served on this board. Uh, this would take the board, uh, to 15 members, which is still, uh, very manageable. Uh, the second provision of this
bill, uh, is the, uh, Addition of ADFA to become participants in the APRR systems, uh, APR system, they're already in it, but we don't have it actually in the code, uh, to allow them, uh, their government entity. Um They would still have all the requirements every other participant had, had to have 5 years to vest their agency would have to put in so it's basically
just uh making it official that they're able to participate in the APR system there
by the committee? Seeing none, we have no one signed up to speak for or against anyone in the audience want to speak for or against? Seeing none, representative of your recognized
clothes. I am closed. I make a motion do pass. Got a motion? I've got a second. Uh, any discussion on the motion?
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
40:46
Senator Love, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you, sure, I just, well, actually. Never mind. I, I, I
need to ask the question. Come up to the seat with so so
we can ask you a question. I just want to know if there's any other secretaries, uh, that are not part of APRs
because it's, it's just a strange thing for us to To add, I guess the banking commission of the department, the secretary of Department of Shared Services, why are these
Persons who are state employees not already. part of vapors. Well, Senator
Love, thank you for the discussion. Representative Warren, would you like to be recognized
for discussion on I would love to be recognized for discussion on
that. Uh, I think the, uh, one of the big things is, uh, secret, uh, uh, 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, uh, and with what goes on in ARs and so. This is just formally putting
them in there. We have 3 other ex officio
Speaker 160
42:07
Sounds like we, we sounds like we had a breakthrough moment. OK, alright.
Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in
favor. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations, you passed
Senate Bill 160. Mr. Chairman. Could we skip to 1344 and then Do 13 Without objection, we'll go to House Bill
1344. And since this one was put on the agenda late in the day. It 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 defined certain other employees that are allowed participation in the system in the definition portion of their code. Housebuil, excuse me. 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. Uh, this will put the language consistent with the wording of House Bill 1810. But only if it becomes an act. Uh, this ensures that there are no legal wording issues involved in the continued participation of these employees in whatever system they participate, uh. We've had the issue of name change with these two schools combining into one, so right now
the system's recognized two separate entities we're just changing the wording so that there's no interruption, uh, with these participants, uh, in the retirement systems. Inverted presentation of the bill. Are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing none, uh, there's no one signed up to speak for or 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 got a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations, you've passed House Bill 1344. Um, let's
see. Are 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 passed out right now, so. House Bill 1336. 2nd from the bottom on your agenda there. And Mr. Chairman, if it would Be OK.
I would like to ask some individuals to join me at the table.
Uh, absolutely. I'd like to
have a couple of folks from Apers and then
Uh, Joan, Or Anybody from State police
All right, uh, if you would state your names for the record, and then you're recognized to begin.
Uh, actually, state your names for the records and then Representative Warren will take up the
Speaker 175
46:13
amendment. Amy Fetcher, director vapors. Karen Perry, chief fiscal Officer of the Department of Public
Safety. Thank you. Would you like to explain your amendment, Representative
Warren? OK, so, uh, I would ask your, uh, approval of this amendment. We have been
working for weeks, maybe even months on, uh, this bill. And we've been working, uh, I'll, I'll give you some history in a minute, but what this has done is put this in a format, uh, where we can discuss a bill, uh, we've deleted some sections, uh, we have, uh, added, uh, a A section that addresses, uh, a fee that we're charging, uh, an increase in a fee that we're charging for an accident report
that has been the same since, uh, mid 2000s. So, if you will approve this, uh, 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. And he opposed? Motion carries. Representative Warren, you are recognized to present House Bill 1336 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, 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. Uh,
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 one. 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 one Uh was all of the older. Members of state police retirement system.
He too were all of the newer members of state police. The benefits for tier one. were great. The benefits for tier 2. We're 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. We
were reduced. So that we could get a system. That we could stabilize. And Be able to take care of. All state police members. Our participants And hopefully regain some strength to the system, which I believe Apers has done. So, years have passed since we did that. Uh
Tier one, state police. Have 100% funding in the drop program. Tier 2 F 72% funding. And the drop program. So We had looked at multiple things uh with this what we want to do. There is an accident report. For all accidents that state police. Uh, prepares.
Sometimes this report takes hours to prepare. Sometimes it is. 30, 50, 100 pages. Uh, in length. We have been charging $10 or they have been charging $10. For a report. For since 2000. Long time. So, uh.
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 Uh, insurance companies, uh, attorneys, anybody else. The fee is gonna 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 dollars 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 uh one person that I did not invite to the table that I need to invite to the table is our actuary, Jody Carrero. Uh, who has 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. Uh, to
Help improve the. Uh, state police retirement. System, at least for tier 2. Uh, so, Jodie, do you want to add anything to what I've said? Jodie, if you would
Jody Carrero
Unverified
52:39
state your name for the record. My name's Jody Carrero. I'm an actuary for the committee. Um, no, sir, not at this time. I'll, I'll let you continue on and answer questions when it's time.
That that's basically my presentation. Uh, I think it's a, a step in
the right direction. Uh, there's been a significant gap between tier 1 and tier 2.
Speaker 186
53:10
Yes Please add I, I wanna just address the fee going from $10 to $25. It's not about, um, 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. mailouts 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, and
even in that time frame, guys, I mean,
Melling costs have significantly increased, so I mean they're losing money, uh, even with the $10. Right.
At a presentation of the bill, um, uh. 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 your report? Uh, yes, sir. I,
Jody Carrero
Unverified
54:23
I've seen the amendment. I think there was a
tweak to it this morning. So I, I guess I haven't seen the final one, but I, I, I, what, what I saw on my phone, it looks like. is still in line with um what we've, what was talked about yesterday, and I prepared a, 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 at the back on the back page as well as uh. Current. After House Bill 1336 cost impact as number 2 April 1st. Assuming that, Uh, this one says March
Jody Carrero
Unverified
55:14
31st, but. There, there should, there should also be a, uh, one that, OK, thank you. Uh, I, I prepared a second report.
And it should, it should be House Bill 1336 as amended number 2 April 1st. Uh, as amended number one. OK, so. Like the, did we hand out the as amended number 2, the second cost report because yes, I did see it and yes, I amended my report accordingly. OK, I've got it now. I'll, I'll, uh,
Representative Ry while I review this. Yes, sir.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
56:22
Oh, OK, OK, let me ask you this. If you figure up the time frame that actually is spent to generate that report.
Wonder how much time it actually takes to do that. Can, can you say that again, uh, Representative Warren, how, 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, depending upon the uh severity of the accident and number of people involved. There's not a lot of money made
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
56:57
in this. It's probably a cost, so that's not a very big fee at
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
57:05
all, is it? I don't think so. Mm. Thank you, sir. Right, Representative Duke. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Representative 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 that might be there. Thank you. Yeah I, I will, uh, go on and take a stab at that,
um, I think the, the one thing that might be asked is, uh, excuse me. You're increasing a fee. But the individuals. will not be asked to pay a greater fee.
Where anybody involved in that accident. I mean, I know state police, uh, sometimes have just given the report to people involved. They're not looking at making any money off of Anybody involved in an accident. Uh, they take care of those people, uh. What they are trying to do is just get compensated for the work that they are doing, and it is sometimes very involved in
$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. Thank you. um, and I appreciate that and I
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
59:04
do learn something new as far as people that are coming in and getting those reports. I was actually in an
accident this weekend, so I, I see the perspective of the report part of it because that was obviously a conversation that we had. Um, as far as what you're trying to do with the retirement. Is there any Unintended consequences potential out there is Are we doing anything that's going to impact negatively impact anywhere else
and that, that's why we have, uh, our actuary involved. And I mean, we, we looked at several things when we brought this bill.
Uh, to the table initially with state police with AS with our actuary. And we actually, uh, 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 one. So we pulled back because we didn't want. Any Anything greater than what the fees would generate.
So that it was uh a net. Effect The revenue would cover, uh, the benefit increase that we were offering. So it's and if Uh, Mr. Carrero wants to add anything. Um, my understanding is that the fees generated are expected to cover the benefit that we're offering, so it's just a step in the right direction. And
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:00:45
yes, the, the bill was pulled back considerably and, and, uh, so that the fees that'll be generated will In a sense Pay the Additional unfunded that would be generated will be paid off in about 3 years. Now there'll always be a chain. It shifts the normal cost up, the every year cost. So it'll cover that every year cost. By and far, but it would also pay off that added liability over a shorter, shorter period of time.
The only other, you know, possible negative effect is that our state police system has In a sense, the richest benefits of, of any of the retirement systems because it's a different group of people. It's, you know, we know all the reasons, uh, 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, uh, and so in this case, it's gonna make the, the dare drop to be, um, better than the drop that's in any of the other retirement systems. And that, that may cause questions in the future from other folks. And, and, you know, if you pass this, that's, you just have to know that that's part of the case is that folks will ask those questions, and you just have to be ready to know what the answer is. Uh
Jody, reviewing your updated, uh, analysis on here. Could you tell me the cost impact. It's significantly reduced with this amendment to 4.2 million over 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 additional expense that we're the expense. Yeah, if you look on the, on the,
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:02:44
the front page of the report you're referring to.
You notice that there, there is an impact in two areas. One is I just mentioned a moment ago. One is this increase in normal cost, about 0.5% 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 benefits, so to speak. So they've already earned that, so the, the unfunded liability.
goes up, and that's what generated
Speaker 181
1:03:24
the 4.2 million of, uh, additional unfunded
liability and the unfunded liability is over the estimated cost of the life of the retirees that
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:03:33
are receiving benefits. Theoretically, yes, the, the number that is used right now, there's 15 years. So it, it is paid off over 15 years, but as noted further down in the report, the, the amount of the
fee is gonna pay the change in normal cost, and it'll pay off the unfunded in about 3 years in a very short
period of time, so. So that 0.6% is the increased amount of fee. Is that
Speaker 181
1:04:05
What I'm understanding. Well, the, the, the 0.6 million, all those
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:04:11
are a 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, the fee is gonna generate, um, Just under 2 million per year. So the fee is gonna pay it off faster than what the calculation says
Speaker 181
1:04:33
it needs to be, and then it will start attributing to other unfunded portions of state police
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:04:40
system is one of the lower funded as far as far as a funded and it'll help strengthen that. Uh, more quickly. Senator Love, you are recognized.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:04:53
Picking up, picking up where we just left off.
So the, the.6% is, is that, is that an increase? Is that just a one time increase? Or, or the or the employer's contribution or is that, is that one like we do with with
uh does that go up each each year or is that just a
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:05:18
one time increase, yes sir. The, um, OK, the, the 0.6 employer contribution needed that's
points, that's 0.6,600,000. And that is, 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, only on the, uh, chart that's at the back of the report if you wanna, if you wanna go that deep into the weeds. Uh, the chart that's on the, uh, 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. OK, but what I'm asking is that it it that
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:06:27
percentage increase I, I know that it's gonna increase due to the fact that people's salaries are going to raise every year. What I'm, what I'm asking though is it, is that a fixed, is it just fixed it, that percentage rate or is it or is that percentage right? Like with ARs, you know, we used to, we used to, I guess we charge like 5%, then it went up to 5.25%. What I'm, what I'm asking, do, do you understand what
Speaker 206
1:06:53
I'm asking? I, I think you're referring to the employee cost. State police doesn't contribute on the
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:06:59
employee level, just the employer. Oh, really? I didn't know that. OK, well that's something new, so then the employees don't have to contribute just the employer.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:07:16
That's correct. Oh OK. Uh, Representative Rye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for you Amy, what does that feed 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 call an answer on that. What does
that come out of the general fund or where, where would we, we'd
Speaker 206
1:07:42
be looking for that. I think the fee will be paid, um, through the company, through the, um, insurance companies or the attorneys, um, is, is where it'll be paid from. Is that, is that your
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:07:52
question? Yeah, uh, a little bit angry. It's a little confusing to me, um. What would this
We know how much it's gonna 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. OK, the Where the $25 per report's going to come from? Yes sir. Their history shows that it's, uh, insurance companies, uh, chiropractors, uh,
97% comes from people other than the individuals. So, uh, that's the history that we expect to continue. Yes, sir, follow,
Speaker 217
1:08:38
please, um, well, Representative Les, it, it's really
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:08:41
a good 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, that's what we're trying to do. Thank you, sir.
The fee comes from the public, correct? So it's, it's
not a feat to the. The employer, it, it, as far as like
the state police, it's the public pays the fees when they're generating the reports. They, they've been paying it. We're just changing
it from 10 to 25 increasing the amount. All right, Senator Love, you
were recognized. OK, I'm, I'm back, I'm back on the.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:09:24
And the question I was asking. How many, how many, how many employees are in the state police?
Speaker 175
1:09:37
Under this retirement system because we have civilians and commission and on the commission side, um, Probably about 1000. 1000 employees are in
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:09:44
ARs. From state police. On the state police retirement side. OK, 1000. How many And, and who are, who are the people that are in tier one who, who, who qualifies for the tier one system. Mm People hired before.
Jody Carrero
Unverified
1:10:08
So it was, it was a 197. It was a date thing. It was people everyone hired before 7197 are tier one, and, and it's uniformed officers and all, and uniformed officers hired after 7197, or tier 2. And it's not everyone that works for state police, it, it, it is, um. About, about 500 of them that are uniformed officers, part of,
Speaker 206
1:10:39
of ASP is, is in ARS if they're not commissioned officers. They participate in APRS, the others part of um Aspers, the Arkansas State Police retirement system, which is what this
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:10:51
bill would affect. So this bill will affect aspers. It's not affecting a. Yes sir. And and
but they have two different tiers, though. Yes, sir, those
Speaker 206
1:11:03
that were hired before July 1, '97 or in tier
one, and those that were hired after are automatically in tier
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:11:13
2. when did they convert over to ARs. So that When did
Speaker 206
1:11:18
their administration come over to APRs in 90. 97, Colonel,
if you would state your name for the record, I think. You'll be recognized to answer these questions. Yes, sir, I'm Mike
Mike Hager
Unverified
1:11:30
Hager. I'm secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Director of State Police and just need to verify that we're neutral on this bill, um, but
I'm here to answer factual questions. So state police employees are under, uh, two different retired retirement systems are non-commissioned employees are under APERS, um, that's about half we have right now about 500 and I believe 85. commissioned troopers that under aspers within Asper's. Everyone that went to work after. Uh Donny I would say the fall of '96.
Basically, everyone that went to work 97 and beyond are in tier 2 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 6 in tier 1 in tier one, yes sir. So when tier 2 started. Uh, it was started at, 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 it was always under the assumption once the Aspers system. Yeah A solid footing. It was more grounded that we were going to merge the tier 2 employees to make it more reflective of tier one. 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, um, this bill was. Presented to try to start to equal that retirement benefit. For the two different groups if that makes sense. I'm gonna jump in for a
second. So there are 6 active tier 16 active tier but we've got inactive or you still have a lot of
inactive tier one too though, right? We still have
a lot of retirees in tier one, yes
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:13:48
sir. OK, and the, and the benefit that we're trying to,
I guess. Make equivalent is. The just for the drop. It's a drop piece. That's just
Mike Hager
Unverified
1:13:59
one piece of it. Um, the biggest difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is that tier one employees had a 100% of their annuity that went towards drop tier one also had survivor benefits at no, uh,
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. tier 2 Survivor benefits and also this uh retirement benefit towards a drop, but those are the two major differences in the plans. And that's Repres I mean, uh, 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. In income to be able to at least Address the drop. Portion of this so that it was a step in improving tier 2. Somewhat And to my knowledge, we have an improved tier 2, The benefits Uh
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:15:24
Until now. OK, so then let me ask you this. In tier 2. In Apress benefits that you, that the system is now. How do, how, how would those benefits are they reflective of You don't have to There's no tier 2 in Napers. No, I know it's not a tier 2, but there, there are uh there are state police in AR, correct? Is that what you the the civilian
police. OK, so the civilian side of the state police is in
aprons. Yes, sir. You only have tier 1 and tier 2 in our uniform
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:16:04
retirement system, but you're talking about for the uniformed
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:16:07
officers though. The uniformed officers are an aspers. That's correct. OK, gotcha. OK. All right, thank you. Thank
you, Senator. There any other questions about the committee? Seeing none, uh, we have
no one signed up to speak for 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 over to you. Well, we need to at least make a step in the direction of improving tier 2 retirement for state police, uh, we've got, uh, vehicle. That covers the cost to do this and so I make a motion to pass.
We have a motion do pass as amended. Yes, yes. All right. And the second. Any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all in favor. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. House Bill 1336. Uh, next up we have Uh, representative Perry, I think you are.
Senate Bill 157 and there is an amendment on that. Right.
give members a moment to look at this amendment. Senate Bill 157.
Representative Perry, would you like to
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:18:14
explain the amendment? 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 uh Senate Bill 157 is, uh, when we originally drafted it, it had shall in the 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, uh, at the first part
of it under uh section one on page one, number 5, it's changing it to where if life insurance is offered as a survivor's benefit. The benefit to the, uh, 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's how that was a correction on that, 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? I have a second. All on any discussion on the motion on the amendment. Seeing none, all in favor. And he opposed. Amendment is adopted,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:19:29
you are recognized to present the bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, last session,
uh, Senator English had asked, uh, during one of the meetings, why the uh 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 a. Uh, Jody Carrera had a, uh, Uh, impact on what it would be if we did it for, uh, acres. But what we're looking at is the feasibility of if it is available, pro providing a death benefit using other forms besides general revenue or general assets of the system.
Uh, and this would be, uh, one of those options where you have life insurance to do that. The huge part of it is, is in other organizations and corporations do this, uh, as a. A bank owned life insurance or company on life insurance, but, uh, this without actually allow a pension on life insurance. And with the instability of the market and have an unfunded liabilities,
any excess amount could help go into the, 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. Representative,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:21:08
I, I guess I'm trying to. Figure out exactly what what we're we're
doing and I don't wanna assume, so you are, are we
taking life insurance out on, on members. through Apers and. paying as a specific death benefit to the
surviving spouse or children or whoever and if that is an option currently
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:21:34
that's not an option, uh, it's not allowed. But so this would actually
have 22 avenues. One would be to provide a benefit, death benefit to the member. Uh, to their beneficiary. And they can either do that with, you know, general funds, general revenue, kind of 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 and use that as a, as an option. OK, but What you
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:22:08
added cause I, I really uh 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 overages?
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:22:24
If there's any outages overpayments, 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 a 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 is made one of those payments or several
of those payments, they're able to Receive that back from the death benefit portion. OK, got you. Yeah. All right. OK. All right, thank you.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:23:00
Thank you, Senator Love, uh, any other questions by the committee? Seeing none
Um There's no one signed up to speak for or against this. Anybody in the audience want
to speak for or against the bill. Representative Perry, you were recognized to close the building. I'm closed for the bill and
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:23:25
Make a motion to pass. Have
a motion. Uh, and that's a motion as amended motion in a second. Any
discussion on the motion? All in favor. Any opposed? Motion carries Congratulations, you passed. Senate Bill 157. That takes us to Senate bill. 151. Representative Mark Johnson.
Representative John or sorry, Senator Johnson, you are recognized to present. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:24:13
This is probably the 6th or 8th
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 there are people elsewhere in government, uh, that. commit criminal acts. They
commit what under the the law is called a, a public trust crime. Uh, we have had senators who went from the Senate to the federal penitentiary for taking bribes. We had a state treasurer who you know one infamous case, uh, was receiving cash payments in a pie box. And uh what this bill would do, and like I said, it's current iteration. It would prohibit those people from receiving a
pension from the state. Now, Uh, 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 wanna thank, uh, uh, my co-sponsors, uh, representative Andrews, Representative Rye, uh, Senator Tucker helping me work these things out and also the attorney general's office was a great help, uh, Mr. Carrero has done a good job of pointing out, uh, some of the problems with it
over the last 6 years, uh, the biggest one being that it's a established case law that when someone is a member of a retirement system and has contribute contributory member has paid in. That they have a property right in what they have paid in and so the 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 helping me work through that, uh, the. Uh 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 uh their fellow members of their system, uh, with a
pension, but because, uh, again for ex post facto and other considerations, uh, we're limiting this to people who from this point forward. become members and become vested in the retirement systems. Uh 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 this act not be construed to apply retroactively to a vested member or retirement of a retirement system and shall
only apply to a member who whose rights have not yet vested in the system as of the effective date of this act, uh, so we're, we're not gonna go retroactive, we're not gonna go backwards, uh, any vested member who, uh, commits a public trust crime has, uh, is entitled to his or her pension. And uh there's nothing I can do about that. I wish I could, but uh we operate under the laws as they're already established in the case law that's been
established, uh, I will point out a couple of things, uh, in his actuarial study, uh, Mr. Carrero, uh, Points out he says that in his opinion there are tools in place to address the issues in this bill more efficiently. Uh, but I'm grateful that he at least admits that, uh, uh, he's 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 that his point is a policy consideration, uh, now I'm simply saying that uh this is something that the legislature should do, we should send a message, especially to people who have, uh, 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 is not something unrelated to their, their work, uh, in a public
office. Uh, this is, is for the uh. The Nick Wilsons of the world and for the, uh, uh, Martha Schaffner's of the world. And, uh, 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 the committee might have. For the presentation of the bill, um, I, I do have a question for you.
So this would apply to any earned benefit that someone has earned during their time in, in, in the system and If someone were to, uh,
So they're They're, their spouse, their family, or whatever that lived. With them the entire time they were making their living doing stuff, if they happened to, uh, In addition to whatever the
court find as far as retribution penalties, things like that, this would be kind of an additional, um, Disincentive, Mister Chairman that would really be met out on the families of, of the individuals that committed some sort of a crime. Mr. Chairman, I, I can
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:30:10
respond 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, uh, and, and that's in my opinion, life is still a a a series of incentives and disincentives. One in incentive to not commit a crime is not just that you will be punished, but because of the fact that as a breadwinner or other thing in in your life, uh, your family will suffer, and I think that's probably a good thing. I mean, it, it's sad in many, many instances, but, uh, be that as it may when people uh do wrong, they not only are held
accountable, but those that might otherwise depend on them or held accountable,
sadly let me ask you this question. as well, because this, this was raised, uh, I think
I received an email from someone, uh, That has 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, uh, Contributed Earned an entire lifetime, you know, former teachers, uh, 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
1:31:37
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 uh if someone is a uh uh. Works in a Unrelated field to the public trust crime that they, in other words, if you were, uh, uh, you say you worked for uh an agency and you embezzled money from that agency that would be the public trust crime, but if you, uh, Retired and did your job all the years and then you suddenly got a wild hair and decided to be a,
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. We're 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, uh, case law is very clear. Your contributions in that second instance would be refundable with interest.
Senator Boyd. You were recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 264
1:33:01
Chair. OK, uh, I'm just, the one thing that comes up with this,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:33:05
I, I, 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, the road would be the one thing that I just like to hear how you, what you think about that.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:33:28
Senator Boyd, you're the first person that's brought that up to me. I certainly
think that this law fair thing is uh. is scary because it, it takes often cases civil situations and try to turn them into criminal situations, uh, I haven't considered that. I guess we have to worry about that in just about everything we do out here that someone would would try to weaponize that against us, I think it, it, it shows how low
some of our political discourse has gone, but I, I can't answer that, uh, in, in a direct sense. But I, I, I, I feel what you're saying. I get it, but I hope that that fear of such a thing would not stop us from doing the right thing as far as as standing up for, uh, and remember this is not just the people of Arkansas. This is the, the members of these retirement systems so everything that, you know, we just talked about the uh 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, but we have to deal with the world the way it is, and we need to 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, we do care about that, that issue. Senator your love, you are
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:35:01
recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair, can I, can I have uh someone
from Aris come up because I. I'll, I have
a question specifically for ARs and then I, I have uh one for you, Senator Johnson, but I just want to get a clarification. I mean, if you
would state your name for the record on
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:35:21
this bill. Amy Fletcher, director of Vapors. So I'm gonna use myself as an example in your in
this bill, so I've worked for plastic County, and when I was working both for Pullessi County and for
and uh as a legislator. My, my two were merged. They weren't, they weren't separate, so. In this scenario, if I'm so happy in the last couple of years, my last few years, commit a. A crime of public trust. How would that impact would I, would I not just lose it, lose it all since. I believe the, uh, the difference in this one is if
Speaker 206
1:36:03
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, uh, is signed
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:36:13
into law or goes into effect. So, so. If I
was not vested. If you're not vested 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?
Speaker 206
1:36:33
How would that work if I was if 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 I'm not an
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:36:57
attorney. OK, all right. Um, Mr. Chair, if I could respond also to Senator Love's question.
Senator, uh, this is one of the instances of why I put the language in that uh Ms. Fetcher was referring to that. This only applies for people going forward, so a new employee comes into a job, is is is not vested, uh, then this would apply to them and they'd be, it would be in the law and made known to them that if you do this, you're risking your pension, but nothing we 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 uh the reasons that the Attorney General pointed out to me that, uh, and again, I, I, I think there's, I have a personal problem with it, but I accept that the legal interpretation, ex post facto is pretty strong constitutional, uh, provision, and it would not be retroactive
in this instance that you just described. Alright, thank you. All right. Any
other questions? OK, seeing no other questions, you're I Is anybody in the audience want to speak for the bill? You want to speak against the bill. OK, Senator, you're
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:38:33
recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh This is something that uh has
always bothered me that that this affects all of us as legislators because there's a certain segment of of the public that thinks we're all crooks. And they've got good evidence to that they can point to those that are. 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, you know, in a position
to do wrong, but someone that comes forward in the future that we'll have this in place and it will be yet another deterrent for them to commit a crime and to humiliate the journalist. Assembly and other elected officials across the state. So with that I'm closed and
I would appreciate a good vote. Right,
Senators closed. Uh motion Seeing none Sorry, the bill's failed.
Thank you committee. Or no action has been taken. Sorry. Um, that, that concludes our business, fortunately, just in enough time for Blake. I think he has to go chair state agencies or or public health,
OK. I gotta make. Oh, wait. Members got a Before everybody gets out of
here, uh, this is our last, uh, retirement committee meeting. I
want to say special thanks to Blake Gillam, Destiny Davis, and our attorney Laura Holshauser. And special thanks this week to Jody Carrero. Who has been working endless hours to get uh fiscal impact studies done, so, uh, thank you guys. I appreciate everybody's help and, uh, making this good retirement year. 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
Senator Jim Dotson Chair
Unverified
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 68
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
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
Mike Hager
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 264
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified