State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (82)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1632
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME…”
|
TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED … | Wardlaw | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1037
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES. HB1037 A. Collins AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT…”
|
AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1041
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19. HB1041 R. Scott TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1069
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK. HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; A…”
|
TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1187
Act 858
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1187 Vaught TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS. | Vaught | Notification that HB1187 is now Act 858 |
|
HB1470
Act 582
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1470 Beaty Jr. TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORM…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1470 is now Act 582 |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…aty, Jr. CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IATED ACT 1 OF 1990. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF … | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1631
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S, ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY. HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICE…”
|
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1683
Act 924
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENT…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1683 is now Act 924 |
|
HB1706
Act 829
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. | McCollum | Notification that HB1706 is now Act 829 |
|
HB1720
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGE…”
|
TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1739
Act 814
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1739 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS AC…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1739 is now Act 814 |
|
HB1753
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…POSE TERM LIMITS OF MEMBERS FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1773
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…END PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5. HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1797
Act 944
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION Richardson COMMUNICATIONS. HB1797 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1797 is now Act 944 |
|
HB1800
Act 998
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROGRAMS. RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1800 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY A REPRESENTATIVE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1800 is now Act 998 |
|
HB1837
Act 999
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1837 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS REFERRED TO VOTERS; AND TO BAN FOREIGN … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1837 is now Act 999 |
|
HB1842
Act 953
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1842 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL DETE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL DETENTION FACILITIES REVIEW COORDINATOR; AND TO … | Tosh | Notification that HB1842 is now Act 953 |
|
HB1843
Act 954
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NDARDS AND TRAINING WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. HB1843 Tosh CONCERNING RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS KEPT BY THE STATE C…”
|
CONCERNING RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS KEPT BY THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY. | Tosh | Notification that HB1843 is now Act 954 |
|
HB1846
Act 946
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1846 is now Act 946 |
|
HB1849
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1849 Gramlich TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL,…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON … | Gramlich | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1867
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE. HB1867 B. McKenzie TO ESTABLISH THE NO GOVERNMENT TRESPASSING ACT;…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE NO GOVERNMENT TRESPASSING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT GAME WARDEN TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE … | B. McKenzie | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1870
Act 840
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CT; AND TO PROHIBIT GAME WARDEN TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE LAND. HB1870 Wing CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE…”
|
CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE A VOTER … | Wing | Notification that HB1870 is now Act 840 |
|
HB1873
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1873 B. McKenzie CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO S…”
|
CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF … | B. McKenzie | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1878
Act 978
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE LIMITATION ON SERVICE UNDER THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION. HB1878 McGruder TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDI…”
|
TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDING IN POPULATION CENTERS; AND TO REQUIRE A … | McGruder | Notification that HB1878 is now Act 978 |
|
HB1883
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T EARLY VOTING IN A CITY IN CERTAIN Page 2 of 6 INSTANCES. HB1883 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1884
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA. HB1884 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING O…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1886
Act 823
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS. HB1886 Pearce TO DESIGNATE THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL…”
|
TO DESIGNATE THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL CANINE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. | Pearce | Notification that HB1886 is now Act 823 |
|
HJR1001
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…e 3 of 6 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle HJR1001 A. Collins A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZEN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AND TO REPEAL THE BOARD OF … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1002
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICTING COMMISSION AND TO REPEAL THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT. HJR1002 J. Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY … | J. Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1003
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1003 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT.”
|
THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1004
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS. HJR1004 Ladyman APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTIC…”
|
APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR … | Ladyman | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1005
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1005 Long AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE TH…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1006
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. HJR1006 B. McKenzie AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE … | B. McKenzie | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HJR1007
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR LOBBYING PURPOSES. HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS. | Cavenaugh | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1008
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS. HJR1008 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1009
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KN…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1010
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1010 Unger A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-T…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, THE SENATE MAY REMOVE MEMBERS … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1011
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S AND COMMISSIONS FOR CAUSE ONLY, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING. HJR1011 S. Meeks A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDER…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF BILLS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION BILLS DURING A FISCAL … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1012
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1012 R. Scott Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REAPPRAISAL AND REASSESSMENT OF … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1013
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1013 Pilkington A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTA…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1014
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1015
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. HJR1015 Lundstrum A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE TO DECLARE HIS OR … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1016
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1017
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION. HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED ST…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1018
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | Ray | Approved by the Governor |
|
HJR1019
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE STATE. HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. HJR1019 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOV…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB12
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB12 B. King TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING … | B. King | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB241
Act 885
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY A…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO … | J. Scott | Notification that SB241 is now Act 885 |
|
SB343
Act 734
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB343 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC PROPERTY; … | Irvin | Notification that SB343 is now Act 734 |
|
SB351
Act 592
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB351 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT … | J. Dismang | Notification that SB351 is now Act 592 |
|
SB357
Act 572
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB357 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO APPLY MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB357 is now Act 572 |
|
SB370
Act 462
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB370 Irvin TO TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS WINE PRODUCERS COUNCIL FROM…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS WINE PRODUCERS COUNCIL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO THE DEPARTMENT … | Irvin | Notification that SB370 is now Act 462 |
|
SB376
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROPERTY INTEREST TRUST FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB433
Act 573
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD. SB433 J. Dotson REGARDING THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO AND T…”
|
REGARDING THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. | J. Dotson | Notification that SB433 is now Act 573 |
|
SB443
Act 949
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. SB443 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE STATE BOARD OF APPRAIS…”
|
TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE STATE BOARD OF APPRAISERS, ABSTRACTERS, AND HOME INSPECTORS; TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB443 is now Act 949 |
|
SB445
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. SB445 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELEC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS. | K. Hammer | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB454
Act 430
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LICENSURE OF HOME INSPECTORS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB454 Hill TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FUNDS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FUNDS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPOSIT … | Hill | Notification that SB454 is now Act 430 |
|
HB1024
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION, AMENDMENT 100. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1028
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCEN…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1035
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING. HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1036
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1038
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51. HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1039
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING. HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1040
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1042
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING. HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO R…”
|
TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1043
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION. HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDID…”
|
TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1058
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF I…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1059
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND…”
|
TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1078
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1162
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS. HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1281
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MU…”
|
TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1415
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. Page 5 of 6 HB1415 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE ST…”
|
TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1459
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE. HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GE…”
|
CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1461
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1494
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…INQUIRY BY THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE FOR ARSON. HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES … | Hawk | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1667
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Bentley | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1740
Act 585
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1740 K. Moore TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM TH…”
|
TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. | K. Moore | Notification that HB1740 is now Act 585 |
|
HB1769
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…BLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND T…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1836
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/31/2025 @ 8:15 AM) Removed HB1836 House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO REQUIRE ALL PUBLIC ENTITIES TO POST VIDEO RECORDINGS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS; AND TO REQUIRE … | Lundstrum | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
SB184
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANS…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE … | D. Sullivan | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
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
to look over that. And uh once you've had a chance to review it. If you'd make your rankings and turn those back into staff. And then I think we probably have a member or two that's not with us, but we'll uh get that to them. I think they're all here. And we'll uh do would like to tabulate those today and we'll have those results before the end of the day, the top 5. Representative Ray, you're recognized, uh,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
0:41
point of information, you're recognized so I just wanna make sure I'm not doing this the opposite of how I intend to do it is a one, the highest ranking or is a 5 the highest ranking.
That's a great question, and I should have announced that so rank them in order of preference with one being your number one preference. Down to 5. Be your 5th preference and we'll assign those points, the points as will be assigned, will be your number one priority will be given 5 points, your second priority 4 points.
3rd priority 3 points. 4th priority 2 points. 5th priority 1 point and then we're gonna tabulate those scores and we'll announce those before we adjourn today is the intention Representative Collins. So just to understand how is it gonna work?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:29
Does the one get 5 points, but 1 gets 5 points, correct? And so down, OK.
All right, just checking on our members, has anyone, uh, talked with Representative Crawford. She was here earlier
today. Has anyone seen her? Talk with her, Mr.
Speaker 14
2:11
Chairman, she came over. She's gonna be here. She just had a do a meeting right before this, but she did say she was coming. OK,
thank you. Excellent. And what about Representative Barry? Any information on Representative Stanbury? I'll take that as a no.
OK. Representative Rose is in another committee. We need to try to get a ballot to him. I'm told Representative Rose
has a ballot in his seat. He did talk with me and tell me he's going to be presenting a bill in another committee.
Unknown speaker
3:10
We're gonna get you a ballot, Representative Crawford.
Have anybody else that's still working? Only a 12. They
All right, we got somebody that didn't sign theirs just like the student didn't put
Chair
Unverified
8:08
their name on their paper that they turned it in.
All right, looks like we have everybody's ballots in except for Representative Barry and Representative Rose. Rose will complete right we still got one more.
All right, looks like we have the balls of everyone who's here. We're
going to wait to collect Representative Rose's ballot. If Representative Barry doesn't show up and fill out a ballot, then he'll have just missed his opportunity to. Vote in this round of voting, so we're going to tabulate these today, announce the top 5, so. No. OK. He
did. All right, sounds like Representative Barry was here earlier, but maybe he had to leave early and so. you in Yeah.
If he shows up, he can vote, and
if he doesn't, then on a tight. Just have to do it next time. All right. So we're gonna move into the regular agenda. First item that we have, uh, first bill this afternoon is House Bill 1632 Representative Wardlaw. You're recognized.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
11:13
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. First off, I just want to let you know that I'm running this bill for Representative Hawks, so just want everybody to understand
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
11:22
what this bill originated from. No, uh, committee, this been an issue for a couple of years now or or about as long as my career has been here is we come down here and
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
11:32
we give free hunting fishing license, lifetime license to different people for different reasons and as we heard early in the session, When we
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
11:39
do this, we don't really write out the mechanism for the payback. They all say they want
to do a payback, but they don't write it out. So all this bill does is says, hey, you can, you can give those away for whatever reason
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
11:52
you want to give them away, but at the end of the fiscal year, this bill sets up a mechanism for state general revenue or for state, um, it's not general revenue. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. It states set aside funds to be used to um To pay back for those license fees because Arkansas Gam of fish cannot take state general revenue. With that, I'd be happy to take any questions.
Alright. Representative Ray, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
12:20
Chairman. Um, Represented Wardlaw when we heard a bill on this topic earlier in the session. I think someone from Game and Fish said that it was against the state constitution for them to offer a license for free. Is that? It's against
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
12:35
the federal code for matching dollars for Pittman and Robertson for them to do it for free. So that's the reason
you need this mechanism to pay for that licenger so that you can give it away for whatever reason you're giving it away. So tax tax dollars still pay for
Chair
Unverified
12:54
the licenser itself. Oh, OK. All right. So if
Representative David Ray
Unverified
12:58
we were to later pass a law that gave license uh quote unquote free licenses to some population group. We would lose our federal match funds, OK, but this would require us to backfill that money sir. OK, all right, thank you. Representative Collins, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:14
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if this is a department
giving away a free license. Does that other department have to buy the license from Game and Fish first, or how, how does, you know, if we have a statutory
this requires an accounting throughout the year
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
13:33
of all license giveaway by whatever statute that forced them to give them away and then state set aside funds were reimbursed at the end of the
Chair
Unverified
13:41
year for those, for those licengers that were
given away. And are we saying that any Um Anytime discounted if
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:50
the price is discounted. I'm sorry, we're saying
that any time a license is given away or we assuming that that individual would have otherwise bought a license from game
and fish and that's what lost revenue is and and each license has a value placed on it
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
14:08
um whether if it's a lifetime license, I think it's $1000 for an adult, um, accommodation
license $42.50. Those values would be returned through. state set aside funds. OK. And
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
14:19
do we have any idea how much this will be based on what's in how many license you guys pass in the future. I'm on my way
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
14:28
home, so I can't tell you, but how many of y'all pass to give away is what it will cost at the end of the year out to set aside funds. OK. Thank you. Representative Beck, you're
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
14:40
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and you may have already answered this question, but so
if if an agency wants to give something away, uh, then it's basically just going to the set aside funds to pay for what that agency wanted. Something is a key word
there in your sentence. This is only hunting and fishing license. for hunting and fishing. I'm sorry. So,
so. So who's the keepers of that? It it was just so
it seems like 11 agency is saying, OK, I want to give this away for whatever reason he can decide to give anything away without a bill
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
15:17
coming through the legislature that says we're giving this away for this purpose. The bill that was here earlier in the session was for uh human and sex trafficking, uh, that's the only example I know of this session. I know we've done it for military. We've done some discounted ones for military in the past, but any of those going forward will be fully reimbursed through this mechanism. Passes. Alright, and that
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
15:39
would like come before this committee before that person realizing that way. All right, thank you. This bill gives nothing away or
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
15:48
moves anything unless somebody else passes a bill that does it. This is just a
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
15:56
mechanism to pay the bill. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think you answered my question. Does this go back and cover anything that's currently in law. I don't think so. Constitution doesn't allow us to do retroactivity, so if it, the only way I guess it would cover it is if it's a reoccurring license every year that's given away or something to that. Thank you, sir. Representative Hawk, you're
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
16:18
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hey, the, um, the reserve fund, is that from the investments that
the state takes in. Is that what that fund is? No, it's typically any gangs and interests throughout the year. OK, because I believe because we just ran a bill for the water that that money's coming out of the reserve funds, so I also take 50 million off the top for highways every year
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
16:42
too. So there's different ones of those funds are allocated to different places, but most of them are
only allocate allocatable if they're present because those funds aren't guaranteed to be there every
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
16:53
year. Do you know, does the governor take money out of
this to put in a catastrophic. catastrophic fund every year. I have no clue. I think they do. OK,
thank you. Alright, I seem to recall when we had the bill earlier in the session, Representative Unger, I
think had about the uh human trafficking. Reporting that would result in a free or a lifetime, uh, hunting and fishing license. There was some question about how we
determine the value of a lifetime license because we don't know what a person's life span is gonna be or how many people would actually apply for them. It's how does that factor into this bill? It, it does
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
17:31
not. The values already set by the department, but that value is set by a formula set forth from the federal government by matching funds, so I, I can't go through that formula. I just. heard it told to me last week, matter of fact, it's pretty complicated, but that's how they get to that value and it's pretty equivalent whether you go
to Oklahoma or Kansas or Arkansas, the value is
pretty much the same everywhere. All right, very good. Any other questions by the committee, Representative
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
18:01
Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How
much do you know how much the budget is for game and fish annually? I do not. OK. I'm just wondering, I believe they have quite a bit of money themselves that this bill is really
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
18:18
not about their budget. It's about
the ability for them to get their
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
18:24
match. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Um Why then, if it's really not about the money, are you bringing this bill up so that it has a place to pay back gaming fish for The Um hunting license, fishing license
that are given. If it's not about the money.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
18:52
I didn't say it's not about the money. I said it's not about their budget. It's about the ability for them to gain the Pitmans and Robertson funds through the match and the federal government says we can't give anything away to grab the match and all license fees that we charge
in the state of Arkansas are matched through the Pittman
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
19:12
Robertson Act. So we would only follow up. So we would only be actually half since the federal government does half, we would
only be game and fish would only be out half. Is that
correct? No, it's not correct. They're at the full amount because they don't have the amount to match that. OK. But you can't give us any. You say the formula is too hard for us to understand as ma'am, I didn't say
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
19:39
that. I said it's too hard for me to recuperate and hear
how they figure the value of a lifetime license, but this is not only about lifetime licenser, it's about all liceners sold are given away by the legislature.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
19:53
Right, but you don't know how much money we're talking about.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
19:56
I don't, we haven't voted any of these bills out this session, so at this point the impact would be 0. If we come back and vote, Representative Unger's bill out, how many of our people we give those licengers to, that would be the impact, but I can't sit here and give you an impact because I don't know what it is. OK, is this
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
20:12
coming from the game and fish? No, it's mine. OK, thank you. Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank you, sir. Well, would we
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
20:23
be able to, uh, I assume that would trigger a fiscal impact. So if we were to pass a bill like Representative Unger's in the future, we would be subject to the same rules would apply Section C that we could ask for a physical impact to that bill. This just creates the funding mechanism, correct? That is 100% correct. Thank you, sir. You would
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
20:41
now have a mechanism to pull that physical impact, where today you have none. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
20:48
you, Mr. Chair, and all of his question, I mean, I mean, I, I like the
bill, but I feel like with the way that If slate one. It's your bill. It's not my bill. Uh, now the future legislators, you know, we, we love giving stuff away, right? Well, I mean, we've already seen one this session where
we were gonna give sex traffickers uh, uh, you know, people that turn somebody in. My, my one thing on this would be, I wish we could could require a fiscal impact, right? I mean, if we could amend it somehow because of the fact that we'll, we'll get to a point where we're, we're just, you get a free license, you get a free
license, and those aren't just one-time licenses. Those are reoccurring for that individual more and more and more, and then that, that allotment of money is eventually gone because we've given away so many licenses. My only request would be, is there, would you be open to
making it required to get that fiscal impact done. So you wouldn't do that
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
21:41
here, you would do that through the rules, house rules or joint rules, um, but I, I would support that if you wanted to do that. Thank you. Representative Collins are recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
21:55
OK, um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So really, if you think about it, not everybody who gets one of these free licenses would otherwise buy a license. Some percentage would, and so what's gonna end up happening is if you say that the lost revenue is the value of all those licenses. Game and fish is gonna end up ahead because not everybody would have gotten a license otherwise, so what we're considering lost revenue is actually more than what they would really lose as revenue, and that's so.
I mean, I guess it's good for game and fish, but they're going to end up getting more from the state, uh, than they otherwise
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
22:37
would have lost in revenue, you see what I'm saying? I, I don't disagree with your statement, but there's also no way to determine that on the fact that a legislators passing a bill to give people that turn in human traffickers. A lifetime license. I, I don't know that how many of those people would actually use the resource and not use the resource, but he's still giving away the licenger which would
entail not allowing game of fish to match those licengers to the federal government for those dollars, so. I mean, why pick a lifetime license for those people I can't answer
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
23:15
that. OK. Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Help me understand. If we gave a lifetime license, is it like a one time charge for the lifetime of that person. Uh, if we gave
So there's no way that we could be giving a license away that would be renewed year
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
23:41
after year after year on the lifetime, that's true. But I think what we do on military is we give a discount on their yearly
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
23:49
license fees, so that is a year after year renewal. So it, it, we're not supposed to commit funds beyond a general, our general assembly, right? So aren't we, by doing that we'd be committing funds to
future general assemblies. No, sir. Bill just says
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
24:04
if you, if you're gonna give away a license, you have to reimburse them through set aside funds at the end of every fiscal year. Then
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
24:12
where are the funds coming from there for the renewable license that if the funds aren't there, they're not
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
24:17
there the same way we're not going to give the highway department that $50 million we give them out of set aside if they're not there. Now, what I'm saying
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
24:26
is I'm talking about the commitment of you're committing funds. So you just say that the future, the
future general somebody just wouldn't appropriate that money. That's right. Alright, so then what
would happen with the Is there The license would just go away. I guess so. No. Representative Beatty,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
24:52
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Wardlaw, do you have any numbers, uh, that could provide us
with information on, on the dollar amount maybe a discounted or free license
they've been awarded in the past like in, in one single year a dollar amount or anything along those lines it's been a long time since then he's been
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
25:10
awarded, so I don't. This was more in response to Representative Unger being at the end of the table and not having a mechanism to pay back. This is the mechanism to be able to pay back. This just protects the
agency, protects the agency for their match dollars. Thank you. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, we have no one
signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Ward Law, you're recognized to close for your bill. I am closed and I make a motion to pass. Representative Wardlaw is closed for his bill. He's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The nose habit. I'm sorry Representative Wardlaw. Bills. All right, next we have House
Bill 1706 Representative McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
26:27
Thank you, committee. Alright, nothing better than uh Monday afternoon committee hearing. I have House bill 1706 in front of us today and Why am I running it?
What does it do? We want to prohibit ranked choice voting in the state of Arkansas. I don't know how familiar y'all are with the concept, but there's a few states that currently have this type of voting implemented, um. I think it's important just because of the non-democratic nature. Of ranked choice voting, but I'd say the American tradition of one person, one vote gets violated. If this is ever used, so that's
the biggest reason to me I'll maybe spare you from uh RNC resolutions coming out, you know, against this and maybe that doesn't matter to uh to some of you in terms of, you know, who might be in support of this or not, but um. I've thought of a few scenarios of how this could be applied. Um, all of them make me really uneasy if, if there was ever any type of movement or about initiative to try to get this um implemented so Bill's pretty
Pretty short, so. All right, Representative McCollum has explained the bill. Are there any questions about the committee, Representative Clowney,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
27:50
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative McCola, is there anywhere in McCollum, sorry, is there anywhere in Arkansas that currently utilizes ranked choice voting? Not that I know of. I
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
28:00
asked the Secretary of State that same question. I was a little surprised by the um
I'd say maybe how long it took to get an answer back. I'm not aware of any the response I received from Secretary of State's office and their. Some of their legal team was they do welcome clarity. I talked to the Secretary of State personally. He said he's in support of it. Um, they welcome clarity, uh, and I think most of that conversation and I don't, I don't want to speak for them, but for me of why I would also think clarity is needed, um, is, you know, if, if there was a municipality that wanted to
Pass an ordinance or or do anything of the nature we could quickly point to something that bring clarity on the issue.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
28:48
OK, thank you. And then can you also just talk me through what happens if there were to be a push to put ranked choice voting on the ballot. I mean, this law would not prevent that sort of vote from taking
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
29:00
place. Is that right? No, it couldn't prevent any type of vote from taking place, I guess the two ways that um You know, a law to support uh ranked choice voting two ways
that that could happen is one of us, you know, uh, could, could run that bill. Let's say someone wanted to go and create clarity with the 40/20 rule, um, that municipalities currently have in elections and to relook at that and within that also decide to make some type of rank choice voting, I guess my, my response is, you know, having this recently passed with showed quickly the signal of the legislature that's passed, and then I guess to your to your
other example of how it could change from the ballot initiative process, um. I guess my view is if I think it is a good idea to prohibit it and make that clear. I would be OK with the law stating that, and you're right, it wouldn't stop, um, you know, maybe some of these deep pockets that have tried to get this passed in other states and um Maybe they would like to get that passed in Arkansas too. I don't really have an issue with trying to get in front of that. Thank you.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
30:13
Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative, didn't we do a bill regarding um right towards voting in the 2023 session. I am not certain. I was thinking that maybe addressed only state level in this bill you're addressing uh the political subdivisions also, is that correct? That is correct. OK, thank you, sir. Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
30:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, you know, our committee just used ranked choice voting to decide our constitutional. I don't know if you uh had any comment on, on the value or problematic nature is just mostly
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
30:58
respect for the chair's ability to run a good
committee and decipher. We are governed much differently, let's say that, but yeah, I. I'm not on the committee, can't speculate. Sure. Well,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
31:08
I mean, and there is really a question there, and I
think the question comes down to, you know, if a,
if a jurisdiction finds value in that way of doing things as, you know, jurisdictions of, you know, predominantly Democratic and Republican have found over the years, um, here we're saying they can't do that and so I, I mean, I'm not really sure how you can
answer the question, but why, why would we take away that choice from local jurisdictions here in our state. Why is it, why is it more
important to preempt their decision then to allow them to make that decision. I think we're sitting here to
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
31:48
make tough decisions and if we are convicted on this particular issue, and we believe, you know, also that is somewhat undemocratic or against the tradition of that one person, one vote, then I think it's OK to in your role as a House member and what you ran on to. Act like that. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee. We have no one
sign to speak for or against the bill, Representative McCollum, you're recognized to close for your bill. I just appreciate y'all's time and I would appreciate any support on this. All right, Representative McCollum has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I see a motion. Representative Beatty. Motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations, Representative McCollum, you passed your bill.
Mm All right, next bill we have on the agenda. His House Bill 1069 Representative Meeks. Did you want to run that today? that's the time. All right. I see Representative Vaught here. I know Representative Vo looks like has House Bill 1187.
Speaker 154
33:24
Representative, you're recognized. May I invite my
guest up too, sir. I believe, uh, Representative, you also have some handouts for the committee. All our staff is gonna is gonna pass out those handouts. We'll give them a moment to do that, give everyone a moment to review those. And then Representative, you'll be recognized to present.
All right, everyone should have a copy of the. Handouts. I Representative Vaugh,
you're recognized District 87. Roger Smith from
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
35:21
state of Virginia. American Association for
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
35:26
Marriage and Family Therapy and just to save some time, I'm gonna go ahead
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
35:32
and let him speak and then we'll ask uh answer questions if that's OK with everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
35:43
Chairman Gazaway, Vice Chairman Beck, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about House Bill 1187 legislation sponsored by Representative Vaut that would allow more licensed mental health therapists to practice in Arkansas. I'm, I'm here on behalf of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, which represents 81,000 licensed marriage and family therapists throughout the United States. Family therapists also known as MFTs or mental health professionals trained in psychotherapy and family systems. And license to treat mental and
emotional disorders in Arkansas MFTs have been licensed since 1997 by the board of examiners and counseling, as you know, Arkansas has a dire mental health professional shortage 2024 state of Mental Health in America report ranked Arkansas 401 in the country regarding access to care, the impacts of access to care issues are even greater for those in historically underserved populations including rural communities. The issue of licensure portability is a viable and vital solution to media. The various needs of Arkansas residents. It is important to
remove unnecessary barriers, uh, restricting access to critically needed skill needed and skilled marriage and family therapists. House Bill 187 helps address the behavioral health workforce shortage in Arkansas by removing unnecessary barriers to licensure by endorsement, which would encourage more experienced MFTs to work across state lines either in person or through telehealth. This bill utilizes a model of licensure portability that allows for flexibility to address unique challenges in environments. in each state. Under this bill, out of state licensed MFTs would
receive a full and unrestricted Arkansas license if they hold a valid, unrestricted license in another state, complete an application and pay the required state fees. Many other states have either already adopted portability laws or that are almost identical to this bill or currently considered them during the 20202024 legislative sessions, bills to remove these barriers to licensure by endorsement or signed into law in 7th. States, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland,
Tennessee and Virginia. This year, Bills nearly identical to this legislation are being considered in 10 states including Texas to remove barriers to licensure for out of state therapists, licensed by endorsement currently exists in Arkansas. However, the current statute, uh, continues to prevent some qualified providers from obtaining license by endorsement. It is possible to pursue licensed portability across the country because MFT stand licenser standards are extremely similar across. 50 states, all states licensed family therapists, all states have at least LMFTs have at least a master's degree in
marriage and family therapy related field which is required in all states. All states required in order to be licensed individual must undergo multiple years of supervision, resulting in roughly 3000 hours of clinical supervised experience at its equivalent. All states require in order to be licensed an individual must pass the same national marriage and family therapy licensing exam or comparable state administer exam. under this bill, MFTs will still need to meet rigorous requirements to practice in Arkansas if they're coming from another state. The applicant will need to have a license in
good standing from another state means there cannot be any disciplinary acts related to competency standards of care, ethics violations. Applicants will need to meet the state's continued education requirements. The Arkansas Licensure Board will retain the sole authority and responsibility for discipline related to clinical practice in Arkansas since the practitioner will hold an Arkansas license recipients of licensure by endorsement will be required to complete continuing education requirements set by the board. Applicants will pay the full Arkansas licensure fee, not a discounted fee. In conclusion,
the proposed legislation will increase access to quality mental health professionals in Arkansas protecting the high quality of care for residents provided by marriage and family therapists. Thank you for your time and consideration this important piece of legislation. And we're ready for questions.
Chair
Unverified
39:41
All right. Representative Carr, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate you guys bringing this to us because we do need more mental health helping here in the state.
I was curious to know the scope of this pill seems to be restricted to the family and marriage counselors. Um, what was the reason why the scope also include licensed professional counselors or LPCs. Thank
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
40:04
you, thank you, Representative for the question. It's a bill for a couple of reasons for one thing, the licensed professional counselors already have their own portability even though they're on the same board of examiners and counselors, not unusual to have more than license one licensed professionals on a board. They
already have a separate model known as a counseling compact that accomplishes the same goal, and so this bill is just exclusive to the licensed, marriage and family profession. Got you. Thank you very much. Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
40:40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, all right, so at the risk of asking an overly obvious question. This is basically just license your reciprocity, correct? Yes, yes, essentially as
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
40:52
endorsement, reciprocity, very similar, except it's not a reciprocity technically is like a an agreement with another state, uh, so this is not an agreement with another state, but it's just, it's, it's a similar process
Representative David Ray
Unverified
41:05
almost identical. OK, all right. Well, that sounds like a great idea, um, I guess the only thing I would add is that looking at this handout. Thank you It looks to me like we require 3000 hours. Client contact hours Mississippi
requires only 500. I mean, we need the right size some of these requirements in our law because I can't imagine that. Um, one of these professionals in Mississippi is, uh, you know, I can't imagine that they're 16 as effective as one in Arkansas, um, these requirements vary wildly from state to state, and those people have to shut their doors
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
41:45
so they can't be actually, um making money during that time. They have to shut their doors for those hours, which is
just absurd to me, but we did try to run it last session of Representative Kavanaugh and I am It
got beat real bad, but I can find that little bill and refile it if, if you think it's a
Representative David Ray
Unverified
42:06
great idea. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion
at the proper time. OK, well, I have, I guess what is another obvious question. What exactly is a marriage and family therapist. And how does that differ from a licensed professional counselor, for instance.
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
42:26
Thank you, Speaker, for your question. Uh, licensed marriage and family therapists are similar in some ways to the other mental health professions, licensed professional counselors, also licensed clinical social workers, and they have some similarity in a master's degree, uh, and having to take a clinical exam and supervised experience, they all differ in terms of their professional orientation. The main difference is license, marriage and family therapists view thanks from a systemic perspective that not all mental health problems are so-called between the ears, but be a result of relationships
between people and stress long relationships also family therapists, the only professions, professionals that are required in order to graduate to have experience in seeing two or more people in the room. In other words, family therapy, couples therapy, so anyone's required to do that, which is a more difficult skill generally considered than just individual therapy. All right, thank you for that. Representative Clowney. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
43:25
My question is also kind of a follow-up on Representative
Ray's, um, I know that right now the requirements for other states seem to be, you know, sufficient to allow for this kind of reciprocity, but once this bill passes, we're sort of then bound to whatever those other states end up doing, even if it means eliminating all their requirements altogether, right, for just theoretically. So I guess my question is, why
did we go this route instead of a compact. Because this
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
43:52
way they have to have an Arkansas license, a compact does not have to have an Arkansas license, but this way
they have to obtain that license. So this is, this actually is. To me, a better way to do it than even a compact because we can protect our citizens much easier if they have a license versus if they don't, or state. OK, so,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
44:15
and I'm sorry, I'm just working through this as we're talking. So getting a license. The Arkansas loses some control over the requirements if we engage in this kind of reciprocity, but they retained control when it comes to the oversight, sort of on the back
end, is that the argument? I guess I'm I'm concerned about losing that control on the front end. So can you just speak to that
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
44:40
concern? Thank you, Representative, for your question. Um, and that the they would be able to like represent a vault set obtain a license that would actually regulated, unlike a compact and generally, again, there are several compacts out there and they can vary a little bit in how they're structured, usually obtain a privilege to practice, so it's not technically a license like Representative Vaut
said and also when you are licensed, you're under the licensure board, so you would be required coming into the state and getting licensed or obtaining a license to To follow the same exact um requirements under law that an MFT who's born and raised and lived in Arkansas all their life would have to follow. They would also have to know the law, so even if they're doing telehealth from, let's say, Oklahoma into the state of Arkansas, for instance, they would still need to know the laws and rules and ethics within Arkansas, and I
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
45:34
can I add to that? So I think if you'll just move up a couple of lines on the It online. Uh 26, it says the standards and qualifications required for the practice of the counseling and this candidate's
licensing state are at least equal to those required. So I think that's gonna protect us also, ma'am. Thank you. Representative Meeks,
you're recognized. Thank you. I just kind of following along the, the, the, the line of questioning.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
46:01
So, uh, uh, therapists, you know, they're
from another state, they moved to Arkansas, uh, based upon the passage here, they're gonna get their Arkansas license. When that candidate then renews. I don't know what the renewal period is on these, but when they renew, say it's a year later, would they then have to come into full compliance with our law at that point, or would they still be um given that license just because they've come over from the other state, that that would be my first question. And then my second one, I think you've already
answered this. Um, they would still be subject to any disciplinary actions and so forth. As any other Arkansas licensee would. Question mark. Again, I don't think we're lowering our standards at all. Number one, I don't
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
46:52
think that we are. I think if we were doing a compact, we'd be lowering lowering it more than what we are by making them have an Arkansas license, right, right, and, and I'm, I'm not saying
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
47:06
lower the standard, but, but let's say they come from a state that has
a lower standard, I think Representative Ray said we have 3000 hours, but let's say they, they came from another state that says you only have to have 500 hours, they come to Arkansas, they get a license under the 500 hours from say Mississippi, but our renewal requires 3000. So are they You're gonna have to get to that 3000. Before their next renewal, if that makes sense. They would be licensed and they
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
47:36
would come. OK, so I believe when they renew, they would have to comply with Arkansas law because they would then be living in our state. OK,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
47:54
so if the requirements of the state that they're coming from is less than ours in, in this example that by
the time of their renewal, they would have to come up to our standard.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
48:09
So the lowest number of hours that I've seen is 2000 hours from a different state. I think ours, which again we ran a bill because we thought it was too stringent last time people lose their livelihood trying to get to that 3000 hours, um. Right, right, so what I'm saying is if they, if they,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
48:28
if they have the 2000 hours, right, and they come to Arkansas. They, they get the license under this a year later they go to renew. Will they have to get that 1000 hour difference in order to
renew. Um, I'm, I'm making sure there's not an unintended
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
48:43
consequence here. I don't think they have to go get another 1000 hours. They will have already practiced in the state of Arkansas. So I don't think they're gonna have to go back and get 1000 hours. They're just renewing a license that was already
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
48:57
granted to them. OK, and then just to verify, they would still be subject to
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
49:01
disciplinary actions and all that under the right thank you. And actually it says if they have a complaint, an allegation or investigation, then they also could not be licensed.
OK, I want to follow up on some of my questions about what exactly
is a marriage and family therapist. What you know what type of topics do they typically deal with and so I'll, I'll give you an example. You know, currently in the marriage and family arena we're dealing with. Issues that quite frankly, we've really never dealt with before. Or at least, uh, certainly not to these levels, things like gender transitioning of children.
Uh, gender identity and gender theory. And I'm just imagining under your reciprocity agreement. You have people from California. Who are licensed, um, marriage, family therapists who are now going to be able to meet the requirements and conduct telehealth therapy for children in Arkansas. And uh things of that nature and so I
just like to uh get your opinion on that. We've had several other bills run through.
Different committees on these issues trying to stop these things, uh, or trying to uh or addressing these in certain ways and so I'd just like to hear, are these the type of issues that marriage and family therapists, uh, typically address and. Uh, what, what do you have to say in that regard?
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
50:37
Thank you very much, Speaker, for your question. Um, on those topics that you mention itself, um, mental health providers
could address those, but it would probably relatively few. Also, any topic or item um or a therapeutic approach that is not legal in a state can't be done. The licensee, even if they came from another state, and even if they were doing telehealth into the state and this is, this is current. There are people currently who are out of state, even from some of the states you mentioned who are licensed in the state of Arkansas, they could not do so
legally, so anyone who came into the state of Arkansas even if another state. Allow a certain practice, whatever it is, practice X, and they came into the state of Arkansas, they could not practice that with Arkansas residents if it's illegal in the state of Arkansas, and if anyone violated the law, then they would be subject to discipline by the board of examiners and counselors. That would also be the same with the other uh licensure boards in the state of Arkansas, as the Medical Board, psychology board, social work board or any other board.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
51:48
Again, they have to have an Arkansas license. They can't just have a California license, they would have to have an Arkansas license to practice here. So You know, typically
how these things or how these things work in some instances. is you have one person that has an Arkansas license and then they have all of these people that work under them or under their license. So is that, does this bill permit that? Uh, thank you, Speaker, uh, for
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
52:19
this question. Uh, no, if it's, if they're actually practicing, uh, and you have people under them, they're either would have to be in a license, a full license, or if their associates, they would have to be licensed as an associate under the board of examiners and counseling associates license associate marriage and family therapist's designation also, uh, maybe, if you don't mind, back to your last question a little bit. They currently is a portability. for family therapists in Arkansas as there is with the
other professions that allow originally allowed 3 years of practice to get licensed this House Bill 1187 would streamline that process also under the automatic licensure law passed by the 22 years ago, there is one year of experience to get license if you're Arkansas resident, so it's theoretically possible you could have people. Coming in today on that, but again, still they'd have to follow Arkansas law. All right, thank you very much,
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
53:20
Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you, Representative for bringing this bill.
I, I think it's a great, great bill, um, if Representative Ray hadn't already, already had a motion in the queue, I would have one for you, um, just to clarify, I think on some of the comments that Representative Meeks and others were making, so this works in essence like a compact and once you allow them to become licensed in Arkansas, the renewal through continued education and all those things become the Arkansas requirements. There's no
opportunity that they would have to go back and feel. Pre-graduate or pre-loener requirements, isn't that correct? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir. All right, any other questions by the committee?
Seeing no further questions by the committee, we do have some individuals signed up to speak for the bill. I don't believe there's anyone to speak against it. First we have Dr. Kelly Roberts. To speak for the bill.
Doctor Roberts, once you take your seat if
you would, uh, state your name and any organization you may be here representing and then you'll be
Speaker 200
54:33
recognized to present your remarks. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon, everyone. I'm Kelly Roberts and I'm a
Speaker 201
54:38
5th generation Oklahoman. I teach at Oklahoma Christian University, and I also practice at a federally qualified healthcare in rural Oklahoma and southeast area. Southeast area that borders the closest to Fort Smith, where many of us go for groceries on a daily and weekly basis.
Is that what you needed? That's fine. Go ahead, you're recognized. OK,
Speaker 200
55:02
thank you. um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, Mr. Vice Chairman, and all of the honorable members here.
Speaker 201
55:07
I just am so grateful that you're here. Thank you for your hard work today in the session, I sat through it, um, and I'm just grateful for your very important questions because as a therapist, I'm over there answering them in my head, um, but my primary reason today to be here is to let you know 3 reasons why I'm so passionate.
about this particular legislation, um, I'm a PhD uh uh professor. I started a training program in Oklama Christian University several years ago. Um, my team uh is serves almost like an incubator for our students, and so once they graduate, they take their national boards, then they go out and they get their license. A lot of times they don't go straight back home. And, and we do have Arkansas students and so what we know is that there's a 50% to 70% chance that my students who
graduate from us if they're in Arkansas, they'll go back to Arkansas. But a lot of times they'll wait till they get licensed because they're spouse is also in graduate school or there's a supervisor or a a good job that they had right out of college and so uh we also know that newly licensed professionals are just living on the edge financially and so any delays for them coming back home are just really really, really tough. And so when they make the transition over the border to wherever they
go, if it was Texas or Arkansas. Right now I have 30 undergrads and 3 grads right now I'm mentoring from Arkansas and I know all of those 3 want to come back. And so I
Speaker 204
56:44
just, I really would love that streamlined process for them to be able to to get back
Speaker 200
56:50
as quickly as possible. The second point I wanted to share with you is that Uh, rural healthcare, which is
Speaker 201
56:56
true of so much of Arkansas. It's certainly true of where I live in Oklahoma, um, we have many
people who are just also barely hanging on and um I, I have patients that I see on Mondays and Tuesdays who drive to Fort Smith, they want to have a tele-mental health er um uh a session in their car on their phones on lunch hour and so they go out and and they. Can't and so they keep asking why can't we do tele mental health when we're just like, well, there's a lot of processes, um, it takes kind of a long time to get that license, um, and so we'll just have to wait till you're back on the
border, uh, across the border. This, this over border phenomenon, you guys are all familiar with it. If you represent border areas, um, we may step into other states, but my, my patients are frequently right over the border and Mina or in Fort Smith or other. areas and we just can't serve them. In fact, they couldn't call for a crisis with their regular therapists or their family physician, you know, because of these reasons, I work, you know, through the physicians. Finally, ironically,
um, Friday at 4:45 this last Friday, I had a suicidal patient, uh, they had never been to, uh, medical care. Their primary care called me because I was the person that was on call. Um, I, I worked with them through a whole suicide protocol and set up an appointment for Monday. I forgot I was coming to Arkansas. And so I couldn't see them even though it was a telehealth appointment because they live very, very rally because I was gonna be here talking to you all. And so these, these pieces of going back and forth, I mean, I'm just
a little bit from the house, you know, here, I guess like 3 hours, but it's just um it's just a really big deal for us to have a little more fluidity. I'm so excited about getting an. license along with my Oklahoma license, and I guess most importantly I'm just excited that we're finally at this point. I've been a, a, a marriage and family therapist for 25 years, watched so many laws finally get in place and we're ready for this and we've been waiting on it for quite a
while now, so we just urge you to support
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
59:21
this bill. things. All right, any questions about the committee, Representative Crawford,
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your work. Uh, it's very important. And um I'm excited that we're going to try to fill the gap. For areas of therapy needed. I guess my question is in
Oklahoma, it's not listed on our information, uh, what educational requirements, how many client
Speaker 201
59:49
contact hours, so you have to have an Oklahoma. We're one of the ones that have 2000 yeah, and I will say, uh, just an addendum to these people who were having questions with um our some hours in laws, it may be close to 2000, but it's also um. If someone says 3000, they may be talking about just work in
the field and not direct client contact and so sometimes you'll see laws from different states that say ours but if you're really down in the rules, then there's the client contact hours and then there's the working in the field and across the different professions, this can get a little murky if you're not clear about it. So, yeah, follow up. Um, I just wanna throw
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:00:34
this out and see what you think. Like I said, I'm for it. I think it's good we need it.
But do you think that people from Arkansas rather than now going through these 3000 hours in Arkansas would then go to Mississippi or Oklahoma to where they could get their degree, get their LPCs quicker and then be able to. Uh, practice in Arkansas. Do you think you can I think we probably all have answers and they
Speaker 201
1:01:12
may all be 3 different answers. I'm gonna speak from
the university perspective because I've had higher education jobs in Texas. Um, I've worked on higher education councils and I've seen programs across the country. I also sit as a board member at AAMFT and so I talked to program directors all the time. The majority, the sweet spot, I would say roughly 70 to 80% of every program everywhere is local. And so what you're gonna see are people, they just can't afford to go other places, to pay out of state tuition, those kinds of
things, and so I, I doubt that there's gonna be border skipping in order to get under the wire on a different law.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:01:57
I, that's my gut. OK, I wouldn't blame them if they did, um. I had an employee working for me who had to do this 3000 hours and it was terrible. So, uh, Representative Bot I would be with you to run that real quick before we close out. To change that in Arkansas. Thank you.
All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee. Thank you, Doctor Roberts, for your testimony. Next we have signed up to speak for the bill. Becky Whetstone. Doctor Becky Whetstone, I should say. Looks like PhD. Do what now? If you would state
your name in the organization you're here representing and you're recognized present your remarks.
Speaker 214
1:02:50
I'm Becky Whetstone. I'm an Arkansas native. I'm a marriage and family therapist. I got my training in Texas. I graduated with my PhD in 2006. I'm representing myself, but I'm speaking for every marriage and family therapist that is licensed anywhere. We all have to work so hard to get that license. I promise you
if someone has a license in marriage and family therapy. They are qualified to see clients. We see individuals, couples, and families. We're the only we're specialists. We're the only profession and our field in the mental health field that is qualified to see every member of a family and every combination. I'm sorry, I'm emotional about this.
I was practicing for 6 years and my son was serving in Afghanistan, and he got killed. And I wanted to come home to Arkansas to be near my family. I felt like I needed my family when that happened. So I was a single mom, my daughter and I wanted to move to Arkansas. And I started the application process for my license. And I wanna say it took about 18
months and cost me over $10,000 to be able to come to this state to
Speaker 219
1:04:32
do what I was already doing in a full and
Speaker 217
1:04:39
bustling practice in San Antonio, Texas. The process was. Not only expensive, it was stressful. It was demeaning. It was overkill. And I
Speaker 214
1:04:51
was really angry about it, um. And so
I finally, I had to wait in San Antonio to for 18 months before I could come and literally the minute I got my license approved in Arkansas, I came up here. Um, but I just wanna say that, you know, you are quibbling over 2000 hours, 3000 hours. I'm telling you that if someone has completed the marriage and family therapy program and is licensed in any state. They are, they have seen hundreds and thousands of couples and individuals already.
If they've been in private practice, they're saying hundreds of thousands of clients a year. And so, I would ask that you not quibble over the hours and understand that we, we take our work very seriously, um, we are very qualified to see whatever issue that any family or individual would bring to us, um, and, um, And I just, you know, think that I, I would have loved to have
Considering the fact that I was already very successful in San Antonio and the fact that I literally had to wait so long to come up here and do the job I was already doing. It made absolutely no sense. So I just ask you um to please. In this madness for all the people that are gonna come behind me and not make them go through the process that I had to go through and so many other people in Arkansas have had to go through. And I thank you for your time.
All right, uh, any questions by the committee? I have one, so how often do you guys testify in court, you know, so many people that go to Marriage and family therapy, uh, sometimes it's wonderful and they resolve their issues and they live happily ever after and other times they don't, and so, um, How often would you say you guys end up testifying in court and custody cases and things like that.
Speaker 214
1:07:10
Well, we're not forensic psychologist, um, we don't do testing. I mean, I mean, if you took a special interest in that and had special courses in that, then you could do that, but most of us are not forensic and the other thing is I think Arkansas law says that if I'm going to testify in court. I, I personally have never done it and I've seen thousands and thousands of clients and my specialty is marriage crisis and the divorce decision. So I'm working with couples in
crisis every single day and have never testified in court, but you have to have the permission of both spouses to be able to testify in a trial, a divorce trial, and I have ever, never known. Of uh any of two spouses that would sign off on a therapist, um. You know, testifying in a court and um and you know, and they really often don't want to pull
us in because it can be dicey for them, so, you know, it's just so rare
and I've never done it. Yeah, well, I'm, I'm an attorney and I've seen it several times
now, not necessarily a marriage and family therapist, but a therapist of children, the court often wants to hear from the therapist of the child if the child is seeing a therapist. Um, and the parties will. Consent to that there's always the privilege issue that typically typically gets raised,
um, but it's been my experience that many times in custody cases it actually it's becoming more and more prevalent that uh therapists are testifying. Um, so anyway, I just wondered that, um, I'm actually quite shocked that you've never testified, but uh, understanding the privilege, I think that's probably a good thing, but, uh, that's just not been my experience necessarily, so, uh, Doctor Smith, did you have any remarks on that? Thank you, Speaker,
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:09:11
for your question. One of my duties in the association I work for, we
have a legal and ethics hotline that answers calls from members. We actually, there are some who do so, but there are many therapists who can go like uh Doctor Whetstone here their entire career without having to go to court, and there are others just because of the nature of the cases they're handling, um, maybe, uh, you know, children who've been abused or something like that who who go to court more regularly, and there are some who are forensic, but there's a subset who do, but many all their lives who will never end up going to court.
All right, thank you very much. Any other questions by the committee? All right, thank you, Doctor Whetstone. Appreciate your remarks, and that appears all
that we have signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Vott, you're
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:10:03
recognized to close for your bill. I won't go along, um. Mr. Chair, I do think that this bill will reduce some barriers that we have in the state of Arkansas, and I believe that the passage of this bill will be a great step in expanding, uh, mental health care access and uh
support a stronger uh mental health workforce that we
need right now in the state of Arkansas. And with that, I would appreciate a
good vote. Representative Ray. Yeah, motion to pass. Representative Ray has made a motion to passes
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:10:31
during discussion on the motion Representative Wooldridge, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and um like I had mentioned earlier, I think this is a good bill. I
am a licensed therapist. I think that it doesn't do anything to expedite the process of licener. It just allows us to put to work people that live in the state that are licensed in another state, stuff
to graduate from a credential program, you still have to pass an entry level board. All we're talking about is allowing someone to come into a state. So if they're There's an upper, upper level licenger if we require 3000 hours for me to be an LCSW in Arkansas, but it's 1500 in Missouri. This would allow me to come to Arkansas and work. So I think that uh there are provisions in the bill that make this safe. They can't have any allegations, can't be under investigation, can't have any other issues in the state that they're currently practicing in. So if you're practicing successfully in a neighboring
state or any other state, I don't know why we wouldn't allow you to come to Arkansas and practice. So I'll be voting yes and I hope that
you do as well. All right, any other discussion on the motion? Seeing no further discussion on the motion, we do have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The odds have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Alright, next, I see Representative Matt Brown, House Bill 1739.
I believe Representative Brown has an amendment. Is that right? So the brown mother passing out the amendment. Do you want to, uh, break in. State your name, your district, and, uh, you'll be recognized.
Speaker 230
1:12:07
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown District 55. And, uh, Mrs. Cherry, you indicated, I do have an amendment, uh, it should be passed out right now. This is to purpose the amendment is to exempt the AOC and the court system from the coverage of this
act, um, they already do it, so it's kind of redundant, so it takes them out of the coverage of the act. All right, Representative Brown has explained the amendment. Representative Meeks.
Representative Meeks has made a motion to adopt the amendments. Is there any discussion on his motion, seeing none. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The amendment's been adopted. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:13:03
Brown, to recognize to present the bill as amended. Thank you, Chair. Thank you committee,
Speaker 230
1:13:07
uh, colleagues, this is the 5th bill of the Arkansas bar package for this session, um, kind of a same song, 5th verse. This is another one of the uniform laws promulgated by the Uniform Laws Commission for adoption in the states, uh, right now 21 states have adopted this act, DC, the US Virgin Islands.
and it's currently pending in 3 legislatures including Arkansas. Uh, this bill simply clarifies that if a state agency decides to publish, let's say, a rule and electronic format, um, that they shall designate that electronic format as essentially the official legal copy of the rule. It also gives an agency that uses electronic and paper, the flexibility of if they want to say, well, from going forward, the electronic company will be the electronic copy will be the legal copy going forward that can do that. Um, if they do choose to make an electronic copy of the official legal copy,
the, the bill requires 3 things. The first thing requires is that the copy has to be authenticated. Um, I'm not a computer expert, but the UCL or ULC actually called out Arkansas on their commitments that we're a state that already does this for the use of digital signatures when it comes to court decisions. That's how we authenticate them. Second thing that the agency is required to do is to make sure the electronic copy is preserved in such a manner that can be retrieved in the event of data loss. In other words, they got to have backups. And the third thing it requires is that your electronic copy has to be reasonably accessible by the public. Obviously, I think the
easiest way this is done was by. Making it available online or if it's something that's not available online, it can be done, you know, a computer terminal in the library versus having the paper copies in the library. Um, with that,
I'd be glad to answer any questions. All right, Representative Brown's explained the bill with any questions by the committee. Seeing no questions from this, oh no. OK, I started to say, seeing no questions from this inquisitive committee is rather unusual, but
apparently there are none and we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Brown, you're
Chair
Unverified
1:15:01
recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is, uh, we will be the 22nd
state to adopt this law and appreciate a good vote. All right, Representative Brown has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I see a motion Representative Beatty. It's a motion to pass. Is there
any discussion on the motion? I think I was about to strike
that. It's a It is a motion due pass as amended. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion, seeing
no discussion on the motion, all those in favor
say aye. All those opposed, guys have it, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you,
chair. Thank you. Next I see Representative Kendra Moore. Here House Bill 1740.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:16:03
Representative More, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Kendra Moore, District 23, uh, Mr. Chair, with your permission, may I have Secretary
Chair
Unverified
1:16:22
Ward join me at the table. West 4 from the Arkansas Department of Agriculture. Representative Moore,
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:16:27
you're recognized. So House Bill 1740 is a Department of Agriculture bill that protects our agricultural
producers. There are currently 2 requirements from the USDA to move cattle between states. A certificate of veterinarian inspection known as a CVI and an electronic identification tag, known as an EID. Both of these hold personal identifiable information in those records which are held by the Department of Agriculture and they must be released. if requested because currently they do not fall under FOIA
exemption in 2024, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service enhanced a 2013 ruling that requires all cattle, bison, 18 months of age or older, any dairy cattle, rodeo, and exhibition cattle to have this official form of identification for this interstate movement and they're required to have these electronic identification tags. eggs, and what this is meant to help do is with traceability of disease outbreaks. Though not currently mandated
for intrastate movement, the department encourages producers to go ahead and use these EID tags to improve disease traceability within the state. The department processes more than 125,000 of these EID tags annually and they're logged in a database that contains over 650,000 records. Many producers are hesitant to obtain these EID tags because this information is Accessible to anyone who requests it. Protection is
necessary to help personal information from being obtained by any one associated with these EID tags. The other, the CIDs, there's these certificates of veterinary inspection is this official document that's issued by a licensed veterinarian, and it certifies the health status of that animal. And again, these are for mostly intrastate movements like trade or. sale. It indicates that the animal, which includes livestock
and poultry has been examined and found free from contagious diseases or conditions that might pose a risk for other animals or humans. The CIVs contain personal details about animal owners such as their name, address, and phone numbers, which could lead to privacy intrusions if shared with third parties. The department process and processes and logs. over 35,000 of these CVIs annually, which is required by
the federal government for interstate movement. The purpose of this bill is to protect our agricultural producers as they are now more vulnerable through these requirements of the EID and CVI tags to groups that may just not like animals for purposes other than companions. This bill is intended to protect producers from future requests. And also allows them to be more proactive on animal disease
traceability without the fear of their information being unnecessarily released. With that, I'll take any questions. Representative Brown, or
sorry, Moore has presented her bill. Yeah, Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:19:55
Chair. Um, has the uh FOIA task force had a chance to look at this bill, and
do they have a position on it? They did. I presented
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:20:05
it to them a couple of weeks ago and they
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:20:10
really didn't have a position. Thank you. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's shocking the task force didn't
have anything to say about a FOIA bill. Um, but what I will say is that, so you mentioned like disease and stuff, you know, this is used to, and this may be for Secretary Ward, um, Yeah, like I, I think about like the game and fish when we had disease outbreaks, you know, with deer and things of that nature. We could identify what
parts of the state that those were going on in, right? Are you still gonna be able to track this information and release that to the public, just not have the personal information in that. Is that, is that what we're saying here? Yes sir,
Speaker 248
1:20:53
no, you're, you're absolutely right. This, this, uh, enhances our ability to do disease traceability. It helps the producers to be able to have accurate information themselves, but it and it protects them should a disease happen where we have to move forward and quarantine an area and release that information. We can do that in a way that protects their information. So we're we're
Speaker 250
1:21:10
essentially still making the producers get this tag or this certificate, it's all we're saying though is
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:21:15
that the information for you as the producer is not gonna be liable, but all the effort, all the other information would be able to be, correct? OK, just wanna make sure. Thank you. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:21:32
Mr. Chair. Can you just help me understand. Help me understand the nefarious actor that we're trying to prevent here. What do they do with the information that is
Speaker 248
1:21:41
harmful to Arkansans rather than helpful. Yes, ma'am, and we've, we've seen um. Smaller scale incidents in Arkansas, but in other states we've seen it more prolific where uh Or maybe areas that are more animal rights activated more uh more likely to be against animal agriculture, meat production, meat consumption, uh, we, we've seen them literally go after and request every document they can have. They show up on their farms. They they video, they,
they try to take things out of context to to put animal agriculture in a bad lot, so we, we've seen a few cases in Arkansas that are that are relatively minor so far, but the, the intent is to protect escalation of those incidents, so we, we. have seen a few groups that have foyed information and I think, I think in one occasion we released a couple 1000 documents that we that we weren't able to redact personal information from, but, but they were, they were searching for information. They were looking for places to go. They were looking for who was involved in animal agriculture and that's, that's exactly what we're trying to help protect.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:22:44
OK, I understand that. Is there, is there still a way, and you may have said this
in your presentation, Representative Moore, I apologize if I missed it, but is there still a way for members of the public to get access to information, at least in the aggregate, about The health
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:22:59
of animals in Arkansas. Yes, that's correct. So, yeah, to your point, we still want to keep the context around the disease traceability. It's the personal information for the bad actors that we're trying to prevent. Thank you.
OK, so I have a question as I read the bill. A certificate of veterinary inspection. is currently considered a public record that's subject to FOIA. I mean, I'm a little bit surprised about that. So can someone tell me why that's, I guess currently subject to FOIA and has been for a long time. Uh,
Speaker 248
1:23:40
you're you're exactly right, yes, sir. There, there are other provisions in, uh, in the agricultural code sections that that protect personal
information, but this one, this one does not, and that's why we're trying
to get it fixed, you know, but my question is, why has a certificate of veterinary inspection always been considered a public record. I couldn't answer that question. I'm not sure. Does the public have some interest in reviewing these certificates of veterinary inspection. I, I, I
Speaker 248
1:24:09
would say no, other than the the purposes of what we've discussed here, just the, the overall why why it's considered public record, I'm not sure, um.
I'm not sure. I can't answer that question. OK, I would agree with the second part, which is
personal information obtained from or associated with any animal electronic identification tag that makes sense to me why that you would want to keep that private. I just wonder what the reasoning is for why we've made a certificate of veterinary inspection of public record up until now. I don't know. All right, that's fine. Representative Ray, you're
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:24:42
recognized. Well, I was just gonna hazard a guess at your question, which is, I think, I
think a lot of this information is generally Subject to disclosure unless there's a specific exemption for it, um, and I don't think there's a specific exemption for people's personally identifiable information generally. Yeah, I guess this being information that is and to
follow up on Representative Ray's point, I guess this being information that's in the custody of the Department of Agriculture, that's essentially what makes it public.
Uh, whether or not it should be subject to disclosure or not. Apparently something that no one's cared enough about, at least until now to bring a bill about it. That sound fair enough? Yes, I, I
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:25:35
believe so. I think just with the new federal guidelines on these interstate movements. It's just put the Highlight on it more than in times past, for sure. OK.
All right, any other questions about the committee? Well, I'm gonna ask one more. So, so if we're talking about, you know, certificates of veterinary inspection that are being held by the Department of Agriculture. I don't even, I don't know what all that includes. I mean, it's obviously an area where I don't have a lot of knowledge, but you know, does this include, uh, all the types of hormones and antibiotics and other, uh, uh, drugs that may have been administered to
animals, does it include, um, you know, as you. mentioned the uh illnesses that uh animals may have contracted at some point. I mean, At some point I could see why the public would care about this information, would want to know, uh, the, the health and veterinary record of animals, and maybe that's why it has been a public record up until now. I'm just speculating at this point, so if anyone would like to address that.
Speaker 248
1:27:00
Well, I've, I've, um, that's a that's a fair question, and I do have a copy of a couple of different copies of certificates of veterinary inspection here if anyone would like to to see that just to kind of get a visual of what that looks like, but it carries uh several different aspects of information on the different species, animal identification, the uh the class status, the herd status, what sort of herd they were with, so it, it doesn't necessarily go into specifics of any sort of medication that they might have been on recently, but it it is a certificate from a veterinarian. you know,
basically laying out the health of that animal before it moves, uh, interstate as represented more uh spoke about, so it's, it's really if there was a problem with that animal, that that certificate of veterinary inspection, it is a veterinarian putting their name on on saying this is what the health of that animal is. OK, so if a
cow has mad cow disease, we're not public's not gonna be able to find out. If if it had that
Chair
Unverified
1:27:58
we were not, we would not allow movement of that arrow.
Speaker 150
1:28:02
Going to have to trust you on that one since we don't have 4 you anymore. All right. Very good,
um. Any other questions by the committee? Saying none, represented more, I don't believe we have anyone senator to speak for or against the bill. Representative Moore, you recognized to close the bill. Thank
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:28:21
you, Mr. Chairman, and I am closed for my bill and appreciate a good vote. Representative
Moore has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See emotion do pass
Representative Collins, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed.
As Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you committee. We have a couple other bills we're gonna go to next, but I do want to announce quickly. That we do have the results of the rankings of the constitutional amendments. Coming in first place, we have HJR 1018, Representative Ray.
Second place, HJR 1014 Representative Beatty. HJR 1017, Representative Ray, 4th place, HJR 10:16 Representative Ray. 5th place, HJR 1009, Representative Carolyn Brown. Those are the top 5 and we'll take those 5 up again for hearing on Wednesday. All right. Moving along, I see, uh,
Representative Chad Pierce here. I believe he has a
bill. Representative Pierce, uh, this is House Bill 1886, I
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:29:46
believe. Thank you. Uh, I'll try to be real fast on this. All this is doing. 1886 is just to designate that the Labrador Retriever as the official canine of the state of Arkansas and some of my justification to that is, is its popularity and it's not a state
dog at this time of any other state, to my knowledge that I have researched, uh, it's friendly, it's intelligent, it's versatile, it's affectionate, it's gentle, it's outgoing, it's high spirited, eager to please, uh, the sizes come in medium to large, uh, the versatility. They run, they swim, they work, they are friendly to everyone. Uh, the American Kennel Club is classified the dog of all reasons. So, uh, and obviously it's a hunting dog with its way
of feeding and the swimming ability, and Arkansas is home of a large population of duck hunting, as we all know, and with that we've also got a state duck, so, um. But to, to move on and to be to speed this up. Uh, due to their intelligence, eagerness, eagerness to please and willingness to work hard. They're highly valuable service dogs in a variety of fields such as search and rescue, bomb, drug detection, and personal therapy.
I think uh Mr. Chair, you have done something similar to this in courtrooms as far as therapy. Is that correct? I'm not supposed to ask you a question.
Speaker 150
1:31:22
I, I apologize, but I thought I remembered that. That's right
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:31:26
about the courthouse dogs, right? That's right. OK, so many, many mental health organizations recommend labs for psychiatric service dogs due to their trainability, gentle loving nature and willingness to be a
friend to the patient. There are many studies available
on positive use of labs and, and treating both physical and mental disorders. And with that, I'll take questions. Representative Pierce has presented the
bill. Are there any questions about the committee? Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Representative Pierce, are there
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:31:55
any other states that do a dog? I, I, I mean, we just did
a bird this, this session. Is there another state that does a dog? Uh, I didn't look if
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:32:06
any other state done a canine or not. I did look to see that this canine
was not uh designated to any other state.
Speaker 148
1:32:14
Got you. OK, well, cool. Hopefully we don't have the debate like we did the bird.
All right, any other questions by the committee? So I will say, I mean to Representative Hawke's point, we've had a, now we have a state. Duck, I believe, or state bird, um. Now we're going to have a state dog. I mean, what's next? We're just going to have a state
everything, I guess before we're done. Yeah But I
love dogs, so all right, any other questions about the committee? Representative Rose, you're
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:32:54
recognized. Thank you. Representative Pierce, um, I love dogs as much as the next guy, I think. I'm just curious. Was there like any kind of
like competing breed. Or is it just did, is this like a group that decided this? Did you decide this
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:33:14
because uh the canine on the duck, no, there's no group or anything pushing me to do this. I just thought it fit. I really did because it was so versatile in all areas and so oil. OK. Um Did you have Did you
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:33:27
have others in consideration or is this just the only dog I had others in
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:33:32
consideration. I actually, let me restate what I said. I had, I had someone to come to me and
ask me if I would do this. So
I mean, I and I thought it, and after I researched it, I thought, you know, that's,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:33:52
that's a good suggestion, um, do you mind me asking what the other dogs think. No, I'm just other things, other dogs that you were that were
Speaker 150
1:34:01
in consideration for this so this is one of the better questions of the year, by the way. This is a good one. Go ahead. Thank you. I
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:34:09
did not, I did not, although I like, like
you said, I like all breeds of,
of canines, but no, I did not research any of the others and uh, there was no reason that I picked this one other than the others. rather than because I just thought it
fit. I didn't research the other canine. OK, I got you. Alright, thank you. Representative Meeks, you're recognized English chair just to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:34:32
make sure we're not, we're we're avoiding any conflicts of interest here. Do you happen to own a Labrador retriever? I do not at this time. I
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:34:39
had, I've had many and I've had one for a long time, uh, a long fades that was, you know, that I thought a
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:34:46
lot about, but no, at this time I do not, and, and, uh,
I, I did go to Wikipedia and according to them, there are 14 other states that currently have dogs, including Tennessee and Texas. None of them are Labrador retreat. Although they were Ohio and Maine had proposals in 2015 to make them the state dogs. So if we're gonna grab that
as our state dog, I guess we probably should do it before those other states do, wouldn't you agree? I
agree we be the first, yes. All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, we have no one son to speak for or against the bill, Representative Pierce are recognized a close for Representative Pierce is closed for the bill. Representative Beatty makes a motion to
pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, as Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you. All right, I see Representative
Ladyman's here. We've also got Representative McKenzie. We're gonna get to quickly, uh, Representative Ladyman. Thank you,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:36:03
Mr. Chairman. State Representative Jack Ladyman District 32. Well, before I start, I want to thank Representative Pierce, uh, now we have a state dog that can go with the state duck after it's shot, so I appreciate that.
Uh, members, uh, HJR 1004 is the Article 5 term limits for Congress resolution. Um, since I presented this, uh, resolution earlier in the session to you all. Uh, I amended the resolution and removed all the references to the state so that this resolution is identical to what's been passed in the other states. Since I was here earlier in the session, uh, 3 other states have approved this resolution. This brings the total to 11 states.
That have approved the resolution, and those have been approved lately. So, uh, the momentum is building here. Uh The states around us, uh, all states around us except Mississippi and Texas have approved this. There is a bill in Texas right now, uh, working through their legislature. Just to remind you of a couple of things that I mentioned to you before, um, there was a study done nationally and in Arkansas
and 80% of the responders to both of those studies, uh, 80% of the people. want term limits for Congress. Uh, our founding fathers, I believe, wanted a country of part-time legislators. National and state executives have term limits. We have term limits. So, uh, you know, I believe this is what the people want. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. All right, Representative
Ladyman has explained the bear with any questions by the committee. Seeing no questions by the committee, do we have anyone signing to speak for or against the bill, seeing no one sign to speak for against the bill, Representative Lady and you recognized a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:38:10
close for your bill. Well, again, I, I think the time has come that we need to pass a resolution like this and join the states around us with
that, I'm closed. Representative Ladyman has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee, Representative Long, see a motion to pass by Representative Long. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:38:26
Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, it's kind
of been long and drawn out with um. Things changing, I think with the Article 5 with the convention of states. Everything has kind of got mixed together. Uh, when all this first began, which was my first session in 2019.
Uh, it was for the convention to call a convention of states. And I want to bring you back to that and ask you, is this HJR 1004 something that would call for a convention of states to open up the the United States Constitution. Uh, it
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:39:20
is this resolution would call for a convention of uh
states uh to recommend uh term limits to the public to amend the Constitution. There have been I might get the number wrong on hold of this. I think 40, um resolutions to call a convention of state and states in the past. None of those have ever happened. There's parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair I'm sorry, I'm
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:39:50
was curious where we were going with this in particular um with it as
an HJR, um, when we were to vote on this here in a moment, what,
what happens next with this? So, yeah, a couple of things, um, this is a joint resolution, uh, that is not a constitutional amendment like uh as I recall, And so we would pass this like a regular bill would go to the Senate. It goes to the House floor and then would go to the Senate just as a regular bill process would. Uh, it is not a proposed constitutional amendment. That's
why it wasn't included in the list that we've previously heard. Representative Collins. Uh,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:40:35
point of parliamentary inquiry. All right, you're recognized. Uh, are we not discussing on the motion right now we are and
so to be, yeah, to be clear, it's a great point. We're in discussion if you have discussion on the motion, you're welcome to at this time make that discussion, but we're not going to engage in a question answer at this point. So Representative Meeks.
This discussion on the motion uh based upon what Representative hang on one second before before you go too far, representative, uh, Crawford, where you me No, no, no, I want, no, I don't want to make, I want you to be cut off if you have more discussion that you would like to have, uh It Representative Mason. OK. Representative makes you
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:41:17
you and and I, and I may, may be
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:41:24
able to uh address your concern uh when, when these were first brought, there were some concerns that these would, you'd
have a convention of states, but that then that would then be a full blown, uh, uh, we're gonna, um, you know, do away with the Constitution and, you know, be a, uh, you know, like back like it was back in 1776, and we're going to redo the whole, um, this is not that. This doesn't allow that. This is called under this uh Article 5 convention, the uh topic to be discussed is only term limits for Congress, and that's the only thing that can
be discussed. So if this were to pass that Article 5 convention is different from a convention of states, and I think that that's an important distinction. Convention of states could rewrite the entire constitution if it got enough votes. That's not what we're talking about here. What this is is this is a convention, uh, Article 5 Convention. Only allows for discussions on article, you know, Article 5, and that's it, nothing else. If they were to try to do a, you know, balanced budget amendment or anything else, it would not
be allowed under this convention only term limits to Congress, and remember it's got to get the approval of 3 quarters of the state. Any anything so that they come up with, and there's 99 legislative bodies, and if I remember my math right, only 13 or 14 of the 99 legislative bodies in the country have got to say no. And it's done with, so it's an extremely, extremely high bar on purpose to be able to pass anything, you know, even if this takes place. Generally what's happened in the past, we get close,
Congress takes care of it themselves because they want to control their term limits and not us. And so I think by doing this, it encourages Congress to deal with it, uh, long before the states would ever get it, and that's what's happened historically. So I, I support the bill. All right, Representative Crawford, did
you have any additional discussion? OK. All right. Any other discussion on the motion?
Seeing no further discussion on the motion. We do have a motion to pass all
those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The eyes have it. Congratulations, Representative Ladyman, you've passed your resolution. Thank
you. All right, um, we have 3 other members, I believe, in the room who have bills that to be actually
for, uh, that I see to be heard tonight. Representative Wing has been waiting here a long time, very patiently, so Representative Wang.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:44:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carlton Wayne State Representative District 70. And I have a couple of guests here
with your permission. Of course and uh Representative Wing, my understanding
is there's an amendment. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Staff is passing out that amendment.
one Alright, Representative Wang, you're recognized to present
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:44:58
the amendment amendment does two things. One is it adds a Senate sponsor, and then number 2, clarifies some intent when the bill was originally drafted at um placed a shell on the federal courts, which we can't shall, and so
what this does is it places the show was on
the form of what the form should look like and the information that we were requesting. So that just clarified the intent and adds the Senate
sponsor and I'd appreciate a good vote. All right, Representative Wings, explained the amendment. As there are there any questions on the amendment seeing none? Is there a motion, see a motion to adopt the amendment Representative makes any discussion on that motion seeing down all those in the papers
say aye. All those opposed the amendment has been adopted Representative Wayne, you're recognized to present your bill as amended. All right, thank you very much,
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:45:44
Mr. Chair and thank you committee. The House Bill 1870. What it does is it allows us to be
able to share data to entities to be able to share data to help each other out and what we're looking for in the case of the state of Arkansas is to be able to have some of the data that our federal courts would have with regards to eligibility of our voters for voter rolls and so. Um This provides that the Secretary of State would provide the voter rolls to the federal courts and then in return they would be
able to provide to the Secretary of State, anybody who was disqualified from a jury pool for things that would also be of consequence to us in terms of a voter roll such as not being a citizen of convicted felon. They've deceased or have moved away and are no longer a citizen of the jurisdiction in which the registered to vote. What would help us then is that we can provide. data and information to our county clerks, and that can make sure that our voter rolls are well maintained.
It's my voice coming and going on this microphone? OK, good.
All right, Representative Wing has explained the bill. You, I know you have a couple of witnesses here. Did they want to make a presentation
or do you want to wait until there are questions. If there's any questions, they're here to answer. All right, Representative Collins, you're recognized for
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:47:09
a question. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So my, my question, my first question I guess is uh. You know, the reason a federal court would disqualify a
potential juror for residency if they weren't a resident of the state or county for at least a year. But that's not a requirement for voting in Arkansas. So are we gonna end up disqualifying people for voting if they haven't been a resident for a full year. And how, if not, how are we going to distinguish between people who were disqualified because they weren't a resident for long enough versus weren't a resident at all. I'll answer first, but I'll let the experts jump in. But
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:47:47
what this would do is just provide a list from
which we would be able to use that data, so we're not doing anything that would break any current voter
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:48:00
registration law. Well, um, it does say that in D1 that after uh verifying that the person disqualified or potentially disqualified is a registered voter. They shall forward the information to the clerk, and then indeed too the clerk shall follow the procedures to remove the voter, so it looks to me
like if they're on the list of being disqualified as a prospective juror, which would make sense if they were non-citizen or convicted of a felony or deceased. But in the case of a non-resident, I think it seems to me that it's obligatory that if they're on that list, they will
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:48:40
be removed. This would just follow existing law. That's why we put in there under existing constitutional law, Amendment 51 and
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:48:47
11. Well, I understand that, but I guess then the follow up would
be, how will you be able to tell the difference when the court
when the federal court jury coordinator sends you the list of people who are disqualified on the basis of jury service qualifications. How will you know
if they were disqualified because they were not a resident of the state at all, or because they've been a resident for 9 months.
Speaker 312
1:49:11
Or will you know? Uh, Josh Bridges, assistant director of elections for the Secretary of State. I think I can speak to that a little bit, um, we,
Speaker 313
1:49:18
while we are the go-between for several different uh sets of data, uh, where the forwarding service to the county
clerks who are the official registrars of the voters. We are not going to inadvertently send bad data to the clerks, so this is something that we're prepared to work with the federal courts to see, you know, what category do these voters fall in? Is this a category that would uh be. disqualifying factor as a registered voter, and if so, we will pass that data down to the counties, so we're not going to just inadvertently send that data down to the counties. I would feel a lot better if I was in
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:49:53
this bill and it said that it was only someone that
was a disqualified on the basis of our voter registration law as opposed to the jury law, which is different. rules, so thank you. Representative in it, you're recognized. Representative Bennett. You're on. Oh, I ye, right.
So I, I guess I have a question. How do they currently get their information for their voter rolls or for their for
Speaker 313
1:50:39
their jury pools, I suppose. Representative Gassway, when you say they are you referring to the federal court, yes, sir. So we, uh, send them data uh on I believe it's an annual basis that request comes, excuse me, that request comes via email, uh, typically to me, and I will, uh, turn that data back to them within a couple of days.
Speaker 312
1:51:02
So they're already getting this data from you? They're receiving the current list of registered voters for the state. At that time,
at the time of the request. OK, and so what specifically does this bill seek to do that changes
Speaker 312
1:51:20
that process. from my understanding of the bill,
Speaker 313
1:51:22
uh, the federal courts will simply turn back, uh, any data that they see as potentially disqualifying for a juror based on the criteria that
is set down in this bill
Speaker 315
1:51:35
on, uh, I believe it's lines 34 through 36 on page one. And lines 1 and 2 on page 2. OK, you heard
Representative Collins, uh, had some objection or some point of clarification. Is there any objection to making that change, and if so,
what would your objection be? I'll jump on this
Speaker 325
1:51:58
one. Hannah Banks, managing attorney, Secretary of State, um, the
issue there is the, as I understand it, the federal courts right now don't ask how long someone has not been a citizen, they just ask, are you a sister or not? Um. requiring them to do extra work on their end, rather than taking that on ourselves, um, makes it much less likely that they are going to be willing to share this information with us and really doesn't seem right when we we'll do the due diligence on our end, um, to make sure that the
Speaker 326
1:52:30
data is good, um, so it's really just to make it easier in the federal courts.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:52:38
Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, uh, you know, it was not about being a citizen, so the citizen part is is no issue. It's about the nonresident of the state or nonresident of the county, and the reason that that matters is that in
Arkansas, if you're a resident of the state or county, you're, you're fine, you're good to develop, but if you are a juror for to be a juror, you have to be for a year, a resident of the state
or county and so the citizen thing is. It's not an issue. It's the
residency that is the issue, and I do understand why you put it here this way, because, yeah, of course, if you ask the federal courts to say, was it because they weren't a resident at all or were they not resident long enough, they don't want
to do all that work. So I mean, I guess my question to you would be, would you be willing to just exclude those D&E, the resident, the non-resident of the state, non-resident
of the county, you could still have the basis if they were disqualified for being a non-citizen convicted. of a felony or deceased to strike all you're doing is
striking voters from the rolls, so it would be better than nothing, which is what you have now. But I think if you don't do that, you're just gonna get unusable data. You're going to get data that You know, if you do use it, you'll be striking people you shouldn't strike because they will be valid residents, but they wouldn't have been valid residents for long enough and uh you know, short of asking the court to tell you exactly why they're striking someone because of residency. It won't be usable data, and I think it'll just cause confusion for these clerks
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:54:14
who are being asked to strike voters that are on that list. Let me jump in and tell me, Representative Collins,
if this is when I read line 23 of page 2, it says after verifying, so the data is returned back and after verifying that the person is disqualified or potentially disqualified, um, that's, there's a verification process that will come back in receipt from the federal courts, and that's what our people then will look at.
To use as a basis for further determination and once that takes place, then it would be sent to the clerks. So there's still a verification step
that goes through that. So the verification is
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:54:55
a different type of verification than the one that you would really need. What this says is that you're verifying that they are a registered voter. You're saying that someone who's been disqualified is verified to be a registered voter. That's all fine, but what I think would help your bill if you wanted to do it is to verify that the reason that they're being disqualified as a prospective
juror would also disqualify them as a registered voter. That would be a different way to get at the same issue. I do think you'd end up having to throw out all the information you get on residency of the state or county, but that verification as opposed to verifying that they're a registered voter, the verification that the bases for disqualification are line up basically you're disqualified as a perspective juror, and that also would disqualify you as a registered voter. That verification would be. useful. And would and would save the, I
mean really saved the clerks from having to effectively remove voters that they shouldn't be. Go ahead. I
Speaker 313
1:55:56
don't wanna speak on whether or not uh Representative Wang will amend this bill or not, but I will speak to what I had already previously said, I just want to reiterate that we're not going to uh send down bad data to the county clerks, uh, to remove people that shouldn't be removed or set clerks up for any kind of failure or lawsuit. So I just want to reiterate on the,
on the fact of the data. I, I personally am very cautious with any kind of data or information we send to our counties, uh, to ensure that it is. Good 100% verifiable data and I appreciate that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:56:30
the data in this would be good data for what it's saying. It just wouldn't say something
that this bill says it says that makes any sense, you know, like, it's not about the quality of the data. It's about There being two different Inconsistent standards for
disqualifying someone for being a juror versus a voter, but thank you.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:56:57
All right, Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, part of your
verification process, y'all send a letter to the The um Registered voter and ask them, you know, are you, you know, I guess really eligible, you know, I mean, you don't, you don't just delete them from the voter rolls, you, you didn't
make any inquiry with them to help them to know that they need to submit maybe some more information to you what's
Speaker 313
1:57:27
that process? Uh, under this legislation, I believe it would be simply us forwarding that data to the county clerk's office, um, and leaving it to their discretion, um, so, you know, that's something that we can talk about internally to see if we want to send a letter to those voters first, um, but the way that this bill's lined out, I don't believe that would be the case for this.
And we already send different uh batches of data down to the county clerk's office from Department of Health, uh, you know, Department of Motor Vehicles and um you know, crime information center, uh, and again just kind of
Speaker 322
1:57:59
reiterate what we said earlier, we're kind of affording service for that data. All right, any other questions by
the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, it appears we have no one signing to
speak for or against the bill. Representative Wang, you're recognized a close for the bill.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:58:23
Uh Mr. Chair, can I ask you a question? Yes. When, when would the state agencies committee meet next. We're going to meet again Wednesday morning. I want to make sure that we do that the intent of this bill is followed, uh, I followed well. So I want to make sure if um um I I'm willing to bring this back on Wednesday.
Uh, to be able to make sure and I want to make sure Representative Collins, what the, the issue that you're bringing up is something that we can address because obviously what the intent of this bill is, is for us to provide some data and to receive some data from a separate list having two entities that are monitoring things that that have value to both, but for us, obviously with this intent is we're trying to make sure that our voter rolls are protected, safe and secure. And so if there is something
that is unintended, uh, with, with that that um just in the way that it's wording, if that's, if this is a quick fix, I'd be happy to bring it back on
Wednesday and we can do that. Representative Wing, I'll, I'll leave that to you, uh, certainly you're welcome to move forward with the bill today. I know, uh, You know, have no doubt about your word and your I think everyone here is acting in good faith and, and, and wanting to do the right thing. So if you
want to bring it back, if you want to amend it later. I'll, I'll just leave that completely to your, uh, your decision. I would say, and
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:00:02
I'll just kind of look for uh some some eyeballs here from the committee. Um, one thing that there's two options here, especially with where we are with the timing of the session. I could bring it back on Wednesday and we could, we could see whatever needs to be fixed. Or we could hopefully pass it out and then if there is a need to make a change, we can make that change, um, on the Senate side.
Let's try to come back to town. Alright, how about let's, let's just do this and make it nice and clean and simple. Let me bring this back on Wednesday. OK, and you'll have something nice and clean, and we'll rock and roll from that point
forward. All right. Representative Wing is going to, um, pull the bill down and bring it back Wednesday
morning. It's been amended. The amendment's been adopted by the committee. Will it come back amended? The amendment will stay in
committee. OK. All right. The amendment will stay here, so when we pass it, I suppose
Speaker 17
2:01:04
it'll be passed as amended still. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Thank you committee. Thank
Speaker 338
2:01:19
you, Representative. Uh, Representative Childress. It's been here for quite some time. Let
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:01:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul Childers, State Representative District 83, and with your permission I'd like to have Jason Brady, chief deputy for the state auditor's office to join me
Chair
Unverified
2:01:48
at the table. Yes, he may. This is Senate Bill 454, correct? Yes, sir.
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:01:53
Senate Bill 454. Recognized. What this bill is doing, it's cleaning up the accounting for the interest that is earned on unclaimed property to the through the state auditor's office, uh, in Act 325
that was passed in 2019, allowed the state auditor's office to invest the funds from the unclaimed property and abandoned mineral proceeds and all we're doing is currently it's all the interest and the principle all is in one account and we're just trying to create a separate fund, and it's gonna be called the unclaimed. Property enters Trust Fund, and it's just gonna establish clear counting on both ends. Um, they're already keeping up with it, but this is just bill just gonna simply give them the ability to keep the interest in one account and the principal in
a second account. It doesn't affect general revenue at all. Um, it's already passed the Senate 34 to 0. Um So, and I think most of you got a green handout. I can see them down the table just a couple of the, you know, currently uh summary of it, the interest and principle is co-mingled currently and what we're trying to do is just clean it up for the interest portion up to keep it separate. And this bill will just uh remove intermingling of the interests of principle for the
unclaimed property and abandoned minerals proceeds Trust Fund. All right,
Representative Childers has explained the bill. I know you have a witness down there with you. Did you want to make any statements or did you
Speaker 343
2:03:23
just want to take questions here to answer questions. Any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by the Representative Barry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:03:39
To help me understand something. Do you get royalty checks from gas companies in your office. Royalty checks. That is a question that
Speaker 346
2:03:46
deals with our mineral rights. I believe we do, sir, but if I could get Josh Woods first thing tomorrow morning, sir, to contact you and answer that question. Yes, sir, we would be happy to address that question for you. Well, May I ask It doesn't really make sense if
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:04:11
I'm understanding it correctly, that your office would get royalty checks. Of of mineral rights. And not be able to find the owners, and I'm, uh, it's where they could send it directly to uh the owner. But uh Maybe I'm not understanding exactly. So this If your office gets mineral.
Uh, checks from mineral rights. It looks like you could find that person or the nearest person, uh, to where the gas company could send it to them and you wouldn't even have a problem then teasing this. Mr. Chairman, we have another witness from the auditor's office that
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:04:59
is an expert in this, and he could maybe answer that question if he can join us, absolutely. Stir up you would, state
your name for the record, any, uh, I think you're here from the treasurer's office, but if you would state that for the record,
Chair
Unverified
2:05:15
you'll be recognized. Yes, sir, um, this is Thomas Burchill. I'm the outreach manager for
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:05:19
Ailligan's office in the treasure hunt, and I'm also, um, sort of a basic claim agent. So when it comes to mental rights or any unclaimed property from mayorship claims to personal claims, uh, it It's determined on how we can find the people is what the information is given to us. So for instance, if a business doesn't give us all the information that we have, especially for claims that are really old, like 2030 years old. We have to work with what we have, so.
We do everything we possibly can to return monies to them, but it could be something like, you know, I'm just using an example, um. Flywheel energy is a company that deals with a lot of mineral rights. There's claims that is missing information and so if we don't have that tax information, sometimes we're not able to Get all the information and make sure that we're securing these monies to the rightful owner, but we do everything we can in our ability to do that. Did that
help answer some of those questions.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:06:21
I think, I think so, uh, it, it's just kind of amazes me that That a company would send your office. Mineral money uh check with from the mineral rights and uh I don't know, I, I, there's something missing there, I guess if you're OK, I can answer a
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:06:44
little bit to that, so.
I know, uh, our Senate Bill 14, which is now Act 114, that y'all passed um 100%, um, though that bill was going to allow us to send over 360,000 properties, properties talking about like individual claims, $50 and this is just one owner properties, however, there are a lot of mineral rights that go to individual people and so we're able to do that. It's sometimes bigger claims. Bigger claims or a situation
where, uh, like I said, we're just missing the information. We can only do so much. If you're the business you send us. Incomplete information you, you've, you've done your obligation by turning those unclaimed property money over to us, but if you say, well, we're missing this, then you're you're, you're being, you're doing your obligations to the law, but then we're sort of left with what we've got and so then we're going above and beyond as much as we possibly can, but of course we're talking about $400
million that we have right now in unclaimed property, but like that Senate bill that passed. We're gonna be able to potentially return $83 million. Thanks to y'all passing that. Well, I, I know
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:08:06
you're, you're doing what you can and you do a good job with what you have to work with sometimes, but that uh I don't know, that just amazes me that there's that much money returned to Because there's not
A good name or address. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All
right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further
questions about the committee, we have no one to speak for or against the bill, Representative Childers are recognized a close for your bill. Mr. Chairman, I close for the bill,
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:08:46
and I appreciate a good vote. Representative Childers close to the bill. What are the wishes
of the committee? I see a motion to pass Representative Hawk, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the
motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Is Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you. Where is Representative McKenzie. Let's see.
Alright, just send him
a text, um. Maybe he'll respond. I see, uh, Representative McAlinden here. Senator McAlinden. You hear for House Bill 1683? OK. 1837.
Here it is. No, I got it. All right, very good. Representative McAlin, you are recognized present House Bill
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:10:19
1837. Thank you, Representative McAlinden, House District 10. So I bring you today, um, House Bill 1837, and
what this does is it actually starts it increases transparency, um, and what's happening with our ballot measures. What we have right now is we're not allowed to donate as a foreign individual to campaigns, but there is a loophole that allows you to donate to ballot measures, and
this coincides with a With an executive order that was just passed by President Trump where he has kind of closed that loophole, just to be clear, I did file this before his executive order, um, but it does the same thing where it says we're not going to allow foreign nationals to come in and influence our ballot measures, and I think that's a fair thing to say. I think what we want is voters. We want to protect the integrity of our elections. We want to ensure that the voices that are shaping policy or decisions of American citizens and not of any foreign national.
And that's what this bill does and it He says that um if you have a donation of over $10,000 that you need to certify that it does not come from a foreign source and if you're the person making a donation that you need to certify that you are not from a foreign source, um, and that I'm trying to think if there's something else to tell you and it does grant the attorney General the authority to bring civil action if there are violations, um. And I think that's it. So really the people that are impacted by this are Arkansas voters, um,
they get ensured confidence that the ballot measures are reflecting local interests and not international interests. We have political committees and organizations uh that will have financial disclosures that they will have to make, and we have um The Attorney General does have the authority, like I said, to investigate and to enforce violations. The other thing that I've heard people say is that it could stop people from wanting to donate to um BQCs or LQCs and one of the things that we did with this bill was we set that
threshold at $10,000 to be sure that we were not stopping Grandma and Grandpa from donating $10 because they had to prove that they were an American citizen, uh, which we thought would be a little bit onerous. So we set this at a high number that we felt like it was gonna be reasonable that someone who was donating that much would probably need
to go ahead and make that disclosure. And so with that, I'll take some questions. Alright, it looks like we do have some
questions about the committee, Representative Meeks. OK. I had this question answered
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:12:41
Representative Collins, you're recognized. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair and um we'll
just do it this way, um, so a couple of questions. Mostly it's regarding the receipt of the money, so one of the things I believe in section 3, if I understand it right, it says that, uh, an individual, even an an American who is not foreign national, can't give more than $10,000 if they have received more than
$10,000 in the previous four years from any of the prohibited foreign sources, um, so. I guess, you know, my first question is kind of about the nature of this. So if somebody represents clients and they represent some American clients and some
foreign clients, and they get over $10,000 in the last 4 years
from uh the foreign clients in total, whether they're Canadian or whatever it
is, are they gonna be unable to give in excess of $10,000 to
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:13:47
the ballot question committee. I believe that is correct. I can clarify
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:13:51
that answer for you, but I believe that is correct, and that's how it looked, and then I guess I also would assume that
if you make an investment and a lot of people maybe are invested in, I don't know, any number of uh companies just through the US stock market, you invest in Deutsche Bank or something or some Canadian company, whatever, uh, if you get dividends in
excess of $10,000 I guess that would also mean you couldn't give over $10,000. Because that is coming, doesn't say how it comes, it just says that it comes from the porn that's a fair question. I don't
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:14:21
believe that that is the intent of the bill, um, I can clarify, I don't know if y'all have any clarification on that. Oh, ethics for Graham. Do you have
Speaker 361
2:14:35
any thought on that? I was looking. So um Go ahead, Representative Collins. His question was about if we
have an investments in um hang on one second, Representative Mclin before we
have kind of off record conversations, uh, let's just have, uh, Mr. Sloan come to the table. you to identify
Speaker 363
2:15:02
yourself. For the record, If you're familiar with
this bill. Graham Sloan, director of the Ars representative McAlinden. But you had, I guess you wanted, uh, Mr. Sloane to try to answer
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:15:11
Representative Collins's question, and I can restate it
if that would be helpful. Um, so I'm wondering
if, you know, we're talking about. Somebody is not able to give $10,000 to 1 of these ballot question committees if they have received $10,000 or more in the past 4 years from any one of the prohibited sources. It doesn't say how it's been received, and so I guess I would assume that it is receiving money if you receive it as compensation for work you do for a foreign client
or if you receive it as dividends on stock that you own in a foreign company. Am I? Right, wrong. Unknown. I
Speaker 363
2:15:53
think that's a fair question. The, um, it, you know, it just says received and then um Yeah, I don't know if that, I mean it would, to me it would include obviously start with the contribution, you know, if you, if you received, they contributed money to you, uh, but, but as far as just if you had Um, had dividends or something.
I, I don't. I don't see the answer there.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:16:20
OK, because I mean it's not a gift, I guess I understand why they're, why this language is in here. This language is probably in here because they don't want someone to be a funnel or something a straw man set up, um, which makes sense if you're getting a gift of all this money and then maybe you could turn around and do it, but only $10,000 over 4 years, I think would prevent people from who have international business, you know, represent people or again investment, um, I guess
more basically, uh, for a different question, what are the, are there any limitations right now on contributions, so I, I was surprised you could even give $10,000 to a ballot question committee. Are there any limitations
Speaker 367
2:17:01
at all on what someone can give? No, the law is pretty clear
Speaker 363
2:17:06
on that. The, the United States Supreme Court, it was a systems again. Strength control versus Berkeley that they had tried to uh place limits that was
contributions to about measure committees, but um the you can limit contributions to candidates because there's a uh excessive contribution might lead to a perception of undue influence or or potentially corruption but when if if there's not a candidate on the other side of the recipient was a uh ballot question committee or if it was a, if it's a expenditure being made independent of a candidate. Uh, that you can't limit the amount of those contributions.
It's, it's, uh, doesn't pass constitutional
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:17:54
monster. OK, understood. The last question then I'll, I'll get out, um, is there
anything similar to the limitation on receiving foreign money and then uh giving it to someone else for a candidate, so I,
I know we can't accept uh foreign contributions, but can we not accept
money from anyone who's gotten more than $10,000 in the last 4 years. From a foreign contributor themselves.
Speaker 363
2:18:23
No, the restriction on receiving contributions is if it's an individual, they have to be citizen of the United States and then if it's a corporation, it has to be organized in existing either under federal law or uh one of the 50 states, but the, uh, there's no Disqualifying, uh, criteria, you know, if if they'd received the money, it's just, you know, it, but one thing I would say is if you're if you're
receiving contributions to make contributions, uh, you're gonna trigger PA registration and reporting, and I, I don't think a PAC can take money from non-citizens or from foreign corporations and so the, you know, in the campaign finance world, it's, uh, you know, there shouldn't be foreign money. Right,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:19:12
no, and I completely agree with that. So I guess my question then for Representative McAlinden, I know this is sort of, you know, 3 point B
or whatever, but what's the why have a, a more stringent
threshold um for ballot question committee contributions when it comes to someone receiving foreign money and then making contribution than
we do for candidates. I guess what's, why is this more worthy of scrutiny than that. Well, I think there are already limits
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:19:43
of what can be done as um Mr. S. said there's already limits of what can be done with foreign nationals donating to PACs or to candidates. What we see happening with ballot measures and we see this happening all over the country, is that you have someone donating excessive amounts of money to an organization who then funnels it
back to another organization or 2 or 3, and they'll put up millions and millions of dollars into ballot measures across the country and while if you live in Maine you can donate all you want into Arkansas. I don't think someone living in Germany or in France or Sweden, as the case is currently should be donating $100 million into our country and affecting our ballot measures. And so that's more, that's the issue, and they tend to do this not directly but kind of as in a shell game and so that's what this bill is trying to prevent.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:20:29
And this would really prevent anyone who gets significant amounts of money from contributing to these because they're probably going to
get more than $10,000 from a foreign source just because of the nature of being that much
money, OK, I got you. Alright, just to follow up on that, that was my point and question was the Swiss billionaire. I think we're all familiar with who has given. An outrageous sum of money in the United States elections, of course, we know that contributions are, have been
equated to speech, but for For, uh, actor doesn't have free speech, uh, the same way that of course the US citizen would, so that's not the concern, um, but when it does say directly or indirectly to Representative Collins' point if They give to an entity that is authorized to receive those donations and then that entity gives to a ballot question committee and the funds have been commingled. How exactly does that work under your bill?
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:21:33
Well, that I don't know. I think that if they've given, if they received that money, the bill does not say with any intent. It just says that they've received this money, um, in excess of $10,000 and so,
and they're giving them to a ballot measure, I believe is
how that's worded directly. Well, so it does talk about. I think like Willfully and Willfully
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:21:57
accept funds in excess of $10,000. From a prohibited source. That's true. You're right, correct. But
it does prohibit directly or indirectly. So would that require some
knowledge on the receiving entity's part. It, well,
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:22:12
it says not knowingly or willfully accepted funds directly or indirectly. Right. And then Representative Collins
asked the question about um you know, maybe if you had a, a US citizen who had a foreign bank account, Deutsche Bank, I think he mentioned that the funds came from there, that's not considered a foreign source under your bill, is that right? I don't think we have
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:22:35
clarification on that to Representative Collin's point. I don't think we know, those are all foreign sources. Um,
it's not a prohibited source, but it is a it is a foreign national. Even if you're an American citizen with a foreign bank account. That's how I read it, yes, and the money can't
just because the money comes from the foreign bank account. That's how I'm reading this,
yeah. OK. Interesting. All right, any other questions by the committee? All right, seeing no further
questions by the committee, do we have anyone sign up to speak for or against the bill. We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative McAlin and you recognized to close
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:23:14
for your bill. Yeah, so I'd actually like to, if you don't mind, I'd like to clarify that point since we have a couple of questions on exactly
what that means to be invested, um, if you're getting money from a foreign bank because I have a company there, and so if you don't mind, I'd like to pull that and um put this back on the calendar for Wednesday so I have a good answer for that before we move on.
All right, I have no objection to that, seeing no objection. Bill's been pulled down. We'll
bring it back Wednesday. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. Representative McKenzie. House Bill 1867. Britt McKenzie,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:23:46
uh, Rogers, Arkansas, a state representative District 7. I was hoping to follow the dog bill and not the Hansburg we spill, but here we are, um, I'm here today to present, uh, my little bill that don't do much, um, I, I don't know if anyone's had a chance to read it. It's all two sentences long, um, but what the bill ostensibly does, not sensibly,
what it does is it requires the Secretary of State 30 days upon certification of our election results to notify members of the General Assembly how much time is left in the term limits. I've worked with the Secretary of State's office on this bill and on this language as diminutive as it is, um, but in reality, and I don't know if others have seen this or or or been worried about it, um, to be a qualified elector has nothing to do with term limits. We have term limits that are imposed through statute, but to be a qualified elector or to be a qualified candidate to stand for election has nothing to do with
term limits, so for instance, um Representative Long decides that he wants to run his 6 terms, but he wants to come back for more, um. As a, as a qualified candidate um expiring on his term limits has nothing to do with his ability to file paperwork with the Secretary of State or the Republican Party of Arkansas and and stand for election. Oftentimes that has to be resolved in district or circuit court between two candidates and as a result, it's another therefore, the courts will often kick out these cases as a
political issue or the court not making a decision or determination on a political issue, um, so what this does. Doesn't solve all of that, but what it does do is creates a chain of custody of a state entity, a constitutional officer who is responsible for the elections for the administration and results of our elections to send a document that is publicly accessible with how much time we have remaining. So in the event that again it gets to a a place where there are 2 candidates vying for primary nomination from whatever political party
that there is a document that states how much time that previous candidate has left on their clock. Also, this is another just this came to me this no one, you know, some term limit group didn't come say, hey, Britt, run this. This is, we've had 3 ostensible term changes in the last 20 years. We have people that have switched chambers. We've had people that have qualified for the cool off but aren't back here yet. This would just help us for any person that stands for election that wins that election to be certified. Coming up in 206, how much time they have technically left on
their clock. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Simple little bill, don't do much. Not a black lab or a Swiss billionaire, so happy to take questions. All right,
any questions about the committee? All right. I, I will say, uh, Representative McKenzie. I mean, it seems rather innocuous to me. I mean, you're just saying that the Secretary of State has to notify the candidate how much time they have left in terms of their term limits, is that right? How long they have left to serve, I
suppose the only thing, only way I could see this being used to some extent. As if someone had, for instance, they set out their 4 years and they got 12 more, then it's like, you know, if you like this guy, he's got 12 more years, or if you like this guy, he's got 8 more years. is that Maybe it could be
used for some political purposes like that given any thought to that? I mean, yes, it
Speaker 379
2:27:05
could, but it. It could be used for political speech, but more importantly, it's, it's to be, it's the
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:27:14
buffer for us for the the laws that we've created, the statutes we've created that are actually the constitutional amendments that we referred to citizens that they have passed that we are committed to the term limits we hold ourselves to. Currently there's there are no term limit police that walk these halls and will, you know, we'll Billy club us if we're here too long, so um I think it's just a nice check. It it places the responsibility on the constitutional Office who has that constitutional charge already, so it could be. in political speech, but the same could be true with anybody that can look at ballotpedia and see how many terms representative chairman Gazaway
has served, and do we need any more so 6 and 1 half
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:27:52
dozen of the other. All right. Representative Meeks, you recognized. Thank you again, no, no problems with this in theory, uh, Secretary of State's
Office if they expressed any concern they get with
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:28:01
it send it to them. They're fine with it, um, in terms of capacity, it's well within the election division's capabilities. President McKenzie, I
would hope that most of us know how much time we have left. Time is a fleeting thing.
Nevertheless, maybe they do need to tell us. All right, any other questions about the committee? Seeing
no further questions by the committee, we have no one signed to speak for against the bill. Representative McKenzie, you recognize the close for your
bill. I'm closed. I want to end your night. McKenzie's clothes
for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee. A motion to pass Representative Collins is in discussion on the motion. Seeing all those in favor say aye. All those opposed it, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you committee. We have a couple of other members here, Representative. Hang on one second.
Um Representative Eaton, you've been sitting here a while, I think. That. So you are recognized, sir. What bill are you bringing to us today Senate Bill 370. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, committee members, I have
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
2:29:11
also some guests that would have been enjoying the meeting so far they'd like to join me.
If you would each state your name for the record, identify any organization you're here
Speaker 129
2:29:28
representing, and you'll be recognized. Jake Winley, director of Legislative
Affairs, Department of Commerce. Marty Ry, director of legislative Affairs, parts areas of tourism, Representative Eaton, you're recognized. James Eaton District
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
2:29:38
26. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee members. Bill 370 is pretty simple. It's made it through Senate. It, it's the uh it transfers the Arkansas wine Producers Council. From the Department of Commerce
to the tourism division of the Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism. It has the support of both departments and the governor's office. Uh, this transfer will align with the council's goal of wine promotion with a state agency whose role and function is to promote the national, the natural state to travelers. That's really about all the bill does. We haven't had opposition anywhere so far, but with that said, we will entertain any questions. All right, any questions about the committee?
Speaker 383
2:30:25
What exactly is the wine producers Council. Thank you. The wine producers council is a body of 6 individuals who are charged with promoting, developing the wine industry in the state of Arkansas and then promoting wine tourism, but the only funds appropriated to it are from the tourism Development Trust Fund, and that is to develop a wine tourism facility in Franklin County, Arkansas since basically the only functional on the ground role
that the wine producers council has is related to tourism, at least in our view. made more sense for that to be home with the tourism division of Parks, Heritage and tourism. All right. Aware
of any objection or opposition to this bill? We
are aware of no opposition or Objection. All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing
none We have no one senator to speak for or against the bill,
Representative Eaton, you're recognized close the bill. Thanks for your time and we would appreciate a good vote. Thank you. What are the wishes of the committee? I see a motion due pass. Representative Meeks starting discussion on the motion. Seeing none of those in the
paper, say I all those opposed, as Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Representative Tosh.
This is it. Representative Tosh started this off beginning this session with our first bill and now he's got our last two bills for the night, I believe. Thank you,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:32:13
Mr. Chair. Good back. Good to be back before state agencies and uh first bill I'm going to present is the House Bill 1842. What this bill does, as a matter of fact, it was probably a couple 3 sessions ago, I ran a bill to uh kind of clean up the criminal detention inspection
teams around the state and over those is a um Obviously they have a director over there a review coordinator out of the criminal detention facilities and at that time I put the uh put them under the Department of Public Safety. They still are under the Department of Public Safety, but the Arkansas State Police brought me this bill or the Department of Public Safety did, and they would like to move them under the commission on law enforcement Standards and training, uh, and then let the
director of the Celeste, uh, he he can file the report of current concerning the inspections to the director of public safety. So all we're doing is just changing the organizational structure, uh for this committee and uh for the criminal detention facilities, uh, review coordinator and just putting him, making him responsible to commission on law enforcement training and then them responsible to the secretary of Department of Public Safety, and that's what this bill does. And with that,
I'd take any questions. All right, any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Tasha recognized to
close for your bill. Committee, I'm closed with the bill and I'd appreciate a good vote. Representatives, close the bill. See a
motion. Du pass Representative Crawford is any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, yeah I
have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:34:03
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank committee and uh I
have a House Bill 1843. If with your permission, Mr. Chair, I'd also like to present while I'm here at the end of the table. Yes, sir, you're recognized. OK. Committee members, what this bill does, this is also came from the Department of Public Safety, uh, it deals with the crime lab. Currently, uh, currently when someone, uh, an individual, uh, where there's been a death is sent to the crime lab, and there's a toxicology report that
is, uh, taken, uh, then that information is privy. are currently under state law, that information is available to the uh to a defendant, to the public defender or an attorney of record, uh, of that defended. It's also uh privy to the prosecuting attorney to Attorney general, and of course to the law enforcement agency that's conducting the investigation. The only thing we're wanting to do is in the uh in the number in the individuals that can receive
this toxicology report from the crime lab, we would like to add the drug director or the drug czar as some refer to him because uh this information is valuable due to, due to the fact of the potential drug overdose, uh, uh, that's occurring around the state, the drug, the drug director needs to track the drug usage in real time to aid and identifying what drugs are more often used in different parts of the state. So that way they can track it, we can keep up with it and hopefully um in those areas.
Of the state be able to identify what type of drugs are being used and maybe help uh to educate those in that part of the state and be a little bit more proactive. And with that, I would take any questions. Representative Tos has
explained his bill. Are there any questions by the committee, seeing none, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Represent Tasha recognize close for
your bill. Mr. Chairman, I'm closed with the bill committee. I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Tosh close for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See a motion do pass. Representative Meeks, is
there any discussion on the motion, seeing none all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, I have it. Congratulations, Pastor Bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank committee. It's good to, good to be back in state agencies. Always good to see you. Alright, thank you. All right, uh, Representative Beatty. You know, Can you come up and.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:36:53
OK, I'm happy to do that. That stuff get through.
Yeah I know. Representative Beatty here recognized Representative Howard Beatty District 95, uh, to present House Bill 1470, uh 1470 is uh an act to repeal the law concerning the review of information technology plans, um, basically, that's what it does. It repeals the requirement. Um
vision of Information Systems already tasked with reviewing department IT plans, ensuring that these projects are included in those plans. So repealing this section increases the efficiency by eliminating any extra and unnecessary steps in the process reviewing departmental um IT projects, um, DFA had no objections to this bill and uh no known opposition. With that open to questions.
All right, are there any questions about the committee? Oh What bill number did
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:38:04
you say this was? House Bill 14,700. It's about as basic as it gets, I think. No, I'll strike out.
OK, and why should we delete this language again, just the, the like 3 sentence
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:38:50
version. Because right now the division of Information Systems already tasked with reviewing the departmental IT plans and insuring these projects are covered under those plans. There was a bill, I think, filed by Richardson, Representative Richardson that covered this and included those points and that's why I've been waiting to run this bill until after his bill was, um.
Passed. OK. Any questions by the committee? Seeing
no questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Beatty, you're recognized to closer
to the bill. I'm closed. I offer a motion do pass. Representative Beatty has made a motion
to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? I would like to note that Representative Meeks has given this bill his official thumbs up. So with that, uh, Is there any other discussion on
the motion, seeing none, all those in favor say
aye. All those opposed. Yeah, it, congratulations, you passed your bill, Representative Beatty. Thank you. Got another
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:40:00
one? Go ahead. Members, um, house uh Representative Howard Beatty District 95, House Bill 1797. Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Mark Conine with ADFA to come to the table, please.
Chair
Unverified
2:40:21
You would state your name in any organization you're here representing and you'll be recognized. Mark Cone, I'm president, Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Thank you very much, Representative
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:40:32
Beatty, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, I'd, I'd want to start off by saying probably when you, when you look at uh House Bill 1797, uh, if, if you follow some social media, you see that uh this we're gonna try to inform the ignorant maybe a little bit, not the committee, but those that, that made some comments online about this bill.
I'm gonna try to address some of those concerns that were posted online, uh, and basically just kind of go through some of those as the public oversight of, of ADFA under House Bill 1797. Uh, one, the governor would still appoint the board of directors and the same public notice is required by RS Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies, uh, ADA does business with would continue to apply any issuance or financing that would be performed by ADFA would continue to require approvals of the governor's office and the legislature.
This bill does not alter ADPA's role as the state issuer of bonded indebtedness, any loan or bond issues repayable with public funds would continue to undergo rigorous public review, including statewide elections for general obligation bonds. The same process has been followed in this state since 1985 without issue. 1797 does not change these processes in any way. ADA does not lend taxpayer dollars. The loan programs are funded either by federal allocations
designated for this purpose or by ADA generated funds which are authorized by state law to support initiatives such as single family homeownership, student loans, low income housing and economic development. The bill does not modify any of these funding mechanisms. ADA operates independently of taxpayer funding. They don't receive general or special revenue of the state funding in any, any way, nor does state law require anyone to pay a fee to
add for our conducting business with ADFA. Fees are paid to ADFA are the result of voluntary business decisions reflecting the value that they provide. And like traditional state agencies, ADA functions similarly to a private sector financial institution, maintaining a bottom line and operating with financial self-sufficient. for the benefit of the state. ADFA is not a regulatory body and does not impose restrictions on businesses or individuals. They do not issue license. They don't enforce regulations to
require approvals for activities as building low income housing, or issuing student loans. Their role is to provide financial solutions to govern, not to govern industries, making it a distinct from other state agencies. Given the unique structure of AA and financial dependent independence, the procurement budgetary restrictions designed for taxpayer funded agencies can be counterproductive to the agency instead of enhancing transparency in such constraints may hinder the ability to
deliver competitive products and services efficiently. A maintains robust financial oversight under 1797, uh, their financials are presented in public meetings before a governor appointed board, they undergo rigorous external audits by private sector accounting firms. They're subject to regular reviews by the state bank department. Additionally, they employ full-time internal auditor and have active audit
committee that ensures continuous financial accountability. They're not required to employ a full-time internal audit. They do that because they believe in accountability, transparency, and accuracy. 1797 does not alter the commitment to financial transparency and integrity. It actually strengthens it. Since the establishment of APA in 1985, they've had the authority to buy and sell property on behalf of itself and the state to carry out its public mission of increasing economic prosperity in the
state. House Bill 1797 does not modify this authority. Given the nature of the lending activities ADA has occasionally named in lawsuits typically related to property foreclosures. When this occurs, they consult the Attorney General's office determine their ability to represent uh ADFA. However, due to the specialized nature of real estate law, banking, and foreclosing, foreclosure, the AG's office is often unable to provide representation. Exempting a this requirement would streamline legal processes while
maintaining the necessary oversight. The AG's office could represent ADFA at no cost, then they would readily take advantage of that option. In conclusion, 42 of the 49 states are structured in the manner that House Bill 1797 would allow ADFA to be structured. Other like-minded states that Arkansas competes with for business and jobs allow their housing finance agency. Um, to operate in the manner that HB 1797 would allow ADFA to operate a public entity with
public oversight for the benefit of the state. 1797 does not alter ADA's core functions. Financial independence, our commitment to transparency. Instead it provides necessary flexibility to ensure we can continue offering valuable financial services, um, without the bureaucratic constraints that that constrained ADFA from maximizing the benefits to the state, Arkansas businesses, Arkansans. House Bill 1797 will allow AFA
to do more for Arkansas and the state's economy. With that, we'll Entertain any
questions. All right, Representative Enne, you're recognized for
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
2:46:19
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, it's been a long day, so if you've already addressed this, please forgive me. Um, with the, with a operating independently and being exempt from certain state administrative procedures and procurement laws, how would the legislature maintain appropriate oversight to ensure
that the authorities' actions remain transparent and accountable to the public. Great
Speaker 402
2:46:47
question. Um, the main issue is there we set mortgage rates every day and just like a bank does and so we are in violation every day of the APA and several of the things we do, whether it's lending rates or whether it's terms, restructures, um, refinances on properties, um, you know, where it, it's It's almost impossible to comply
with it. Um, we do the best we can. We send things over like we're supposed to. Um, another issue is, um, a lot of the laws that we follow federal laws, um, there's not a lot of state, you know, we don't, we kind of deal on the private market with state funds and then our own funds and so I think the main thing is we have to publish those on our website. We have to provide those uh out in the public forum and then most of the programs that we administer We have to take public input
because we're using um federal funds or IRS tax credits. So it's, it's, it's kind of built into the nature of what we do. All right,
Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, and, and you, and you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:48:01
may have already elaborated on this, but I guess my, my biggest question mark is a couple of years ago, we did the uh restructuring of the government and uh we had,
you know, all sorts of different agencies everywhere, um, and we tried to get it down to 15 cabinet levels, and my concern is, is are we setting a precedent getting back to the problem we had to begin with by starting to peel out different agencies from. that structure that, you know, we work so hard to create, um, so I guess that's my, my first question. I think you've already addressed the, the need for that, but still, still a lingering concern that I have
and as part of that, it says that in the bill, it says that you'll have the authority to establish a salary and a grade structure of your own. And so the concern there is that State employees will have one, you know, set of grades and then employees at your agencies could have a completely different set of grades that could create an unfair, uh, you know, advantage, say to your employees, so
I, I'm assuming that's not the intent here by any means. However, um, that still, so will the general assembly personnel committee still have oversight on those grade levels to make sure they stay in line with what other state agencies are are doing and I try to and and reiterate. You know Trying to get my thoughts together. Sorry it's late, um, you know, part of the reason why we put all these together was
the benefit of sharing services, now you're not gonna have that benefit, which there's gonna be a cost to that. So try to, if you would kind of alleviate
Speaker 402
2:49:56
some of those concerns for me. Sure, um, on the last one on the, on the shared services piece, we don't um participate in that, um, maybe on the IT a little bit, but on the accounting and Finance side and some of the HR we do all that internally, um, so, um, we do kick in, um, some to the shared service piece. We
just don't use it, you know, if you, it's a small piece, it's like 60,000, but um, so that's, that's one issue on the grade structure, um, where that comes in is, uh, since we don't, you know, use state tax dollars and we don't, you know, get any special revenue or general revenue or anything, um, we operate off of the, the work that we do. And so you don't have to do business with us, the people that come to us, you know, or in the construction field, maybe their venture capital investors, you know, maybe their banks or,
you know, looking first-time home buyers and so um what we're looking to do there on the grades is we, we need some positions on loan service and we outsource all of our loan servicing, um, to give you an idea, some states, um, our size will have anywhere from 100 people up into uh close to 300. We have about 45 because we have to outsource so much work and the reason is you have to pay incentive pay on that. So, and you might say, well, why don't we just up the grades?
Well, the idea is, is that you might start at the current grades or even lower, but you would have some type of incentive pay because collections are important to us, defaults are important to us, so those grades, that's a piece of a piece of this, you know, um, but it would, yes, be outside of the state pay grades because the, they, they would be set up just so much differently because of the type of work. work that we do do, you know, and again I think it's important, you know, 42 other
states are structured like this, um, we feel like this is the way we were designed kind of from the get-go, but it just kind of got gobbled up over the decades, to be honest, if you read our statute compared to other contiguous states and so we're just trying to move in that direction and the reason is because if we grow, then Arkansans benefit. We do more first time home buyers. If we do more student loan. I'll give you an idea, our average rate on our books, 5.52,
um, the deals, uh, the bond issues that are getting done nationally right now by our competition. It's about 11.1%. So average loan, private loan, 30, 400, you know, we're half, you know, so we can only do what our statute says we can do, so we want to grow and if we grow and we do more than Arkansans benefit, and that's kind of the point of this is to allow us
Speaker 403
2:52:44
some flexibility to benefit Arkansans, OK, one final question. So does that put
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:52:49
you in competition with private businesses then.
Speaker 402
2:52:54
Um, on, um, the student loan side we are on private loans, we are in competition with private businesses. They're out of state, um, we're the entity, you know, in Arkansas that does that, so our competition is
Speaker 403
2:53:05
so far, Sally Mae, Nellnet, you know, Wells Fargo, kind of the, you know, kind of the big boys. OK, so, so we're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:53:13
not directly competing with other Arkansas businesses at this point. No, and,
Speaker 404
2:53:16
and on our first time homebuyer program. I just for kind of clarification, we
Speaker 402
2:53:21
worked through the lender. We are the originator in the
back. So if you want, if you wanna purchase a home, you're going to work through the lender or mortgage company of your choice,
Speaker 403
2:53:33
and we work with them. So we don't compete with the banks. They're our partner. We pay them
Chair
Unverified
2:53:42
a fee for doing it. OK, alright, thank you.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
2:53:46
Excuse me, Representative Ennett, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so Mark, we've worked together, um, there's several projects in my neighborhood in District 80 specifically in Pettaway, um,
how would this in the bill it mentions something about the the housing crisis, how this restructuring this make it
better for that. It's a great question. What we're
Speaker 408
2:54:08
hoping this will do is increase philanthropic support. So,
Speaker 402
2:54:12
uh, there was a project over in uh Little Rock that we did here recently where we were able to create um a kind of a partnership with a philanthropic organization from out of state, but we get a lot of pushback,
um, when we are on the housing side, the cost of construction is so expensive now to uh finance affordable housing is very difficult to make it work even. Low income housing tax credits and so a lot of philanthropic organizations are hesitant to do business with housing finance agencies if they're connected to a state. If they've got kind of a dotted line as like an instrumentality of the state, they're interested. If you're a true state agency like we are now,
they're not interested and they just don't want that political tie, OK? And so that's just the way it is. I don't, you know, I don't, that's, that's the way it is, and they do that on the venture capital side. They do that on the housing side, so to, to answer your question and like the Pettaway projects, what we're hoping is we can get people to play in the partnership philanthrop. Organizations to bring the cost down so we can throw in tax credits and other funding to make the project work like we did over here in East Little Rock.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:55:33
Representative, I'm sorry, Representative Collins you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my questions around the exemption as public records, the application and supporting documentation, um, see if I can direct you to this section where we're doing that, um. I believe that is toward the end. And that's uh maybe section 9, so Why, why are you uh wanting to
exempt the application and supporting documents as public information available for public
inspection. What's that gonna accomplish? OK,
Speaker 402
2:56:12
that is competitive advantage, and that is all that is. So. We get uh applications. It's a competitive process. So we get applications or do March 1st, so they would just due this month, um, and they will give us their structures, their financial statements, their entity information. They give us a lot of, you know, kind of
confidential type information and then we score those based on a scorecard and then we allocate or award tax credits and it's a lucrative type process. These are very expensive projects. you know 20 to 30 $40 million projects and so all we're saying there is we want to keep private the information that they give us for their particular organizations and their application. I'll give you a good example. A lot of times after the application process,
we'll get a FOI and someone will FOI and they'll say give us all the successful applications. Well They are getting information that people have worked, you know, 30 years to put together the way they structure their entities, the way that they, you know, do their equity stack the way they, you know, and so they're getting information for free that other people have spent their careers, you know, building the structure and how to put together a successful application because it's it's it's pretty difficult to put
those together and so we are not protecting us. We, we,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:57:45
we're protecting them. Uh, thank you, and I, I understand it seems like that's a bit different from uh getting independence from the Department of Commerce, uh, and I just, I guess I wonder, is this bill been reviewed by any of the FOIA task force folks, and what did they say about
Speaker 412
2:58:00
it? Um, I'm not aware if it has or or has not. OK. Thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:58:09
Mr. Chair. I want to go back to the Affordable housing stuff. So I'm
a realtor, right? So I'm in this market all the time, um. You know, when we talk about affordable housing or there's a difference between affordable housing and low-income housing, right? because uh affordable housing is, is the 6 houses that I just did the other day for $250,000. That's the average right now in Arkansas. Are we saying this, this group is going
to be then buying up land and selling off this to create low income housing or are we just
Speaker 402
2:58:46
giving tax credits for this. Yeah, good question. Um, so, When I say affordable housing, it is uh the federal funds that we use and the tax credits, they have an area median income limit on them. It's 80% of the area median income for single family, 60% for multi-family. So when I use the term affordable housing, I mean 80% AMI for single
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:59:12
family, 60% for multi-family.s that up. I appreciate that. Representative buddy, and just I, I think I always ask this, why? the need for the emergency calls on the, on
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:59:24
the bill. As far as the emergency clause, we're we're trying to get this moving as as soon as possible. I mean, every day that we, we, we pass up, uh. is a disadvantage to Arkansas citizens, so we need to move this forward with state for investment, economic development and uh to take care of some of the housing issues we have in
Chair
Unverified
2:59:42
the state. Thank you, sir. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:59:55
this might be better for your witness at the table. Um, could you, and I'm sure this may be even a little redundant, and I apologize if it is. Can you, uh, go through just the, the funding on this where the where the funding will be generated and if I understood this is not tax dollars, is that correct?
That's kind of an advantage of, of what this is, but I have, I have some follow-ups too, but I wanted
Speaker 403
3:00:20
to see if I can get a little more specifics on that. Yeah, it's a good question macro level we're a finance company for the benefit of
Speaker 402
3:00:28
the state, uh, funding comes from on the housing side, um, it's how it's a tax credits, low income housing tax credits, and a short form, those tax credits are awarded to a developer. The developer will sell those to an investor, think pension funds, think, you know, banks, you know, mutual fund companies,
that type of thing. They get the equity back and then they build affordable housing, OK? They oftentimes have a gap there, the tax credits won't cover the entire amount. So they'll have a small bank loan, you know, and I say small, but a couple million dollars and then they'll have a gap piece. We have gap funding that's called home partnership program money or National Housing Trust Fund money. That was a federal funds and we administer those on behalf of the state and so we will award those. It's all an underwriting process. We're doing it just
like any bank would that has to cash flow. There's a lot of different mechanisms. We look at it just like a bank does. And so funding comes from tax credits. He comes from federal funds, that's on one side, on the um. On the first time homebuyer program, we can, we can fund mortgages two different ways. One of them is called a TBA program. It's a private market, Hilltop Securities helps us hedge and set rates, and those are pooled mortgages and then
they're sold off in the market. That's one way. Another way is issuing mortgage revenue bonds just last week, not last week, the week before, we issued $75 million in mortgage revenue bonds. The advantage of doing that is they're tax exempt bonds. The, the mortgage markets a taxable market. We have the ability being a kind of a quasi-state entity to issue tax exempt debt. What does that mean? Um, right now, the mortgage rate on our
tax-exempt mortgages 5.5%. And Representative Hall, you know, you mentioned your realtor there, his clients are probably borrowing it, I don't know, 6.5, 6.75, maybe 7. Well right now our rates 5.5% because we're leveraging those tax exempt bonds. So to answer your question, we're using the private markets and federal funds to generate activity to the private market in the state. is what we do. I got you. So. Assuming
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:02:47
Oh, I'm not sure. I shouldn't even assume,
I guess I'm just asking. The, the accounts for this program. What where does that fall under who manages it and then if it turns profit, which sounds like maybe it should Who oversees what happens to that. Where, where does it go? Where, where's the oversight on that? Yeah, it's a good question. So like say on the mortgage side, so if there's a,
Speaker 408
3:03:08
you know, we have to operate at a profit because we're self-funded. And so when we make
Speaker 402
3:03:17
Profit say on the mortgage side when we get ready to issue mortgage backed securities in the future, we can take that profit and put it into that deal as equity, and that helps buy down the rate for the borrower if that makes sense. I'm yeah, so that will be on that side, on the um Like, say the housing side, we use it to do compliance. So here's an interesting thing when someone builds affordable housing project with us. We are tasked for compliance for 30 years.
30 years. And so we have to do inspections, we have to file federal reports. This is all federal reporting to the IRS. So we use that money to do those inspections, by the people. Right, um, on the other side, we have to build reserve funds, so we, we have some large reserve funds because a lot of the federal funds that we use, this is really interesting because it is an anomaly with federal money. If we make a bad loan if we make a loan that, you know, somebody
didn't pay or the project goes bad, we have to recapture that amount out of our general fund to replenish that money. So if we loan $8 million to somebody and in year 14, the project goes bad, we have to pay that back. And it's not a pro rata. So I guess what I'm saying is, is we have to do our underwriting and we have to, you know, it's, it's serious every day, you know, to do the right thing to, you know, make sure we're making good decisions.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:04:49
Um, so moving this out from the Department of Commerce, um, You
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:04:54
guys are going to set salaries. That will be different than what they are currently because it's
not going to be in the department of commerce, just who kind of sets that oversees that it's gonna be outside, I guess the standards that are set for the state. So how is that gonna come to, to be. So currently our
Speaker 402
3:05:13
board is appointed by the governor and is part of our board we have the uh
secretary DFNA so it's, uh, you know, Secretary Hudson, so he's still on the board. The Secretary of Commerce is still on our board. The state treasurer is still on our board and then the rest of the board members are appointed by the governor and so the current board just stays in place and so it would be uh the public oversight from the. and they would, the board would be the compensation committee and so with the Secretary of DFNA and the state treasurer, um, and the secretary of commerce still being on the
board, that would be the oversight over that. OK,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:05:54
um, and thank you, Mr. Cher for giving me a lot
of latitude. I think the last thing I'll ask and you, you've given me a lot of good stuff and
I love the, the no tax dollars here, you know, doing this, but I, I still wanted to ask, uh, in terms of your budget and your, you know, kind of your annual financial reporting audits and those kinds of things. Is there, is that gonna be reported to the board and does it go beyond that? Does it come before the legislature or any other committee or anything
Speaker 408
3:06:19
like that. Yeah, so it would follow the same process
Speaker 402
3:06:22
now as Mr. Correct me if I'm wrong, we're a component unit of the state now and so we get an independent audit by an independent accounting firm and then once we get that audit, they take that and they plug it in the state consolidated financial system and so that does not change.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:06:42
Uh, and last question, is there any way that any outside outside of you guys, but a state entity or department or, or any branch of any kind could have access to
your finances like could anybody snatch your funds? Is there anything that protects that or anything of that nature. Like if you've gotten access
100 million, right or I don't know what the right number would be, but what kind of protections are built in there or not built
Speaker 402
3:07:08
in there for you guys. No, there's some in the original, um, in the the original uh statute. The only uh the only body that could come, you know, use the word snatch,
Speaker 415
3:07:17
snatch funds would be the Arkansas General Assembly. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:07:28
Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, and I actually ties perfectly in
with my question. So you were saying that you guys don't get money from the general revenues at this point, but do, do you, do we ever get money from you if you're generating a profit, has it ever happened in the past that, uh, you know, we have asked you to draw down
that cash fund or move it to somewhere else, not to
Speaker 402
3:07:54
my knowledge. Um, we have used that money to either fund new
projects, uh, fund reserve funds for we. recapture because we have so much recapture exposure or to put into multi-family, I'm sorry, mortgage revenue bonds to, you know, buy down the rates. And similarly we would take away,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:08:11
if I correct me if I'm wrong, but we would take away the legislator legislature's appropriation authority, so your spending authority
that we said would no longer be set by us. That's correct we do is we take these federal
Speaker 402
3:08:23
funds and we send them over here and then you appropriate them and then we,
you know, use them. And is that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:08:31
kind of the main gist of what we're doing here, you guys want to set your own budget, not have us
Speaker 404
3:08:38
set your budget. And we don't look at it like set our budget. We're we're looking at more
Speaker 402
3:08:44
from the bureaucracy standpoint as we've got these federal funds, they have all these rules, we have to follow them. We can't add to them or take away from them and so that's essentially kind of where that's coming from. It, it's more of like a just a procedural
type thing, um, yeah, so, OK, what was the second part of your question? I'm sorry, did I answer it? I
think you got it. OK, OK, thanks. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no
further questions by the committee. We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Beatty, you're recognized to close
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:09:21
for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I, I knew this was gonna be a lengthy and very involved, but it's a very important bill, something for us to consider. There are many benefits, uh,
under house, um, House Bill 1797, um, as far as that operating as an independent entity. One is, you know, just the financial partnerships, one of the things that um that Mr. Conan spoke about was just the attracting of Investments and the independence from the government status to allow the private investors a comfort level to come to the state and participate, uh, enhanced competition, um, you know, again, private sector motivation, um.
You know, along the same lines, we're going to still be um tied in to support the governor's vision for the state, um, to minimize government interference with private business and and foster dynamic dynamic business environment for entrepreneurship in the state. Um, this would allow the, the hiring of qualified staff and personnel allow us to compete with some of the other states on projects that are, are locating across state lines, um, so all in all, uh, this is going to
enhance the agency, um, and, uh, they're intended to streamline the operations, enhance efficiency and promote economic development here in Arkansas. And with that, I'm uh I'm closed and I'd
offer a motion to pass. Representative Beatty is closed for his bill and he's
made a motion to pass for the wishes of the committee are a motion to pass. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed.
The ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. All right, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Yes, sir. So that's Representative Beatty's too. I think we had a couple of other people that asked to run a bill, Representative Long, and then we've got Representative Rose. It's um I'm telling you it's it's getting kind of late. I can tell people are. Yeah, people are starting to, starting to lose some people here.
Representative Long, which bill is it that you'd like to present? 1884. Marking and counting
Speaker 250
3:11:58
of paper ballots. Yes sir, it does have a an amendment. How long has this bill been filed?
When did you file this bill, Representative Long? I don't recall. I'd say a couple
of weeks ago. OK OK. 1884, it looks like there's an amendment. Yes, sir. All right, you're recognized to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:12:40
present the amendment. Thank you, Wayne Long Representative District 39 and um so the
amendment basically we, we call them, um, kind of a typo there at the first part and then uh if I could, I'd like to cover the other sections in them and when
we talk about the bill itself that' the essence of it. Representative Long has explained the amendment. To some degree, are there any questions? Seeing none, uh, what do you make a motion to adopt the amendment? It's made a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion on the motion seeing down all of the papers say aye. All those opposed amendment's been adopted to
recognize and present the bill as amended. Thank you,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:13:20
Mr. Chairman. If I may, uh, could I ask the folks from Secretary of State's office to join me. Thank you, sir. Thank you committee um in 2023, I passed a bill to ensure the paper ballot counties wouldn't be financially penalized for choosing to do hand marked and hand-counted paper ballots, uh,
since that election, uh, that type of election hadn't occurred in a generation. I also incorporated some security measures because current law didn't address anything other than machine voting. Uh, in 20 in March March 6th of 24, Cercy County held the state's first, uh, hand marked Ha County primary election in a generation. Uh, I attended that election and and also spent the night at my own expense, uh, to witness the counting the next day because I wanted to see just how the how
the new law was doing, uh, in real, in real worlds in real world situation. Um When I had written the law in 2023, I had included a provision that stated that once the county had commenced that it had uh could not stop and could not be halted until completion. During the general election in 2024 in Cercy County, I ended up counting until 3 a.m. Uh, I believe fatigue could contribute to potential errors. They did have a, um,
Uh, an audit in which I was very proud of them. They scored 100% on their audit, but um. I decided at that point to probably need to go back and revisit uh the the previous law and so address that concern. I had a new language to this year's bill allowing counties to stop counting if they double sealed the boxes and locked them in in locked up the counting room and posted a law enforcement officer outside the door until the election commissioners could return the next day. Additionally, uh,
provided an option for using UV ink for their seal on each ballot, the. The process was much more cost effective for the counties and the watermark that we had previously required. Uh, also reduced the number of county election commissioners that must be present from 3 to 2 to allow commissioners to take a break without requiring the accounting process to come to a stop. And I'd be happy to try to answer any questions. All right. Any questions by the committee?
Representative Cloudy, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
3:15:56
Mr. Chair. Um, Representative Long, where are the folks who are going
to be doing this work on this bill, county clerks, any of that. Uh, I've
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:16:07
not received any opposition from them, um, the, the, um, election commissioners of the counties that are doing the uh hand counts was thoroughly uh in favor of the bill because he was going to make it basically a little bit easier on him. OK
OK, Representative Long. So And maybe this isn't possible, but In about 2 or 3 sentences,
what does this bill do? Um, it, it basically,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:16:37
like I said a moment ago, it makes it a little easier on the people that are doing the work, um, since the 2023 election, um, Independence County has now, how does it do that? How does it make it easier? OK, well, um, you know, currently the law requires them to count until
they finish. So once they start counting, they'd have to count basically, you know, 24 hours a day until it's, you know, until the count is done, which I, I fear that that could
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:17:09
cause. problems of theirs just because even if you had 33 shifts so this bill lets them continue the counting beyond the 24 hours. Let
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:17:17
them take a break this, this, this bill would allow them to stop after, you know, 8 hours or whatever I chose to guard
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:17:25
and then the next day start again
with fresh eyes one that lets them take
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:17:32
a break, what else does it do? Uh, we, um, uh, go from requiring currently 33, election commission. Must be present at all time to 2, so 1 commissioner could go to the bathroom or go get lunch, that type of thing without stopping and then I heard you make
mention about a watermark or a laser seal or something. What is that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:17:50
the original law required a watermark trying to, you know, stop anything from happening as far as fraud, um, that turned out to be quite
costly, and we found out that if we just did the seal with UV
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:18:03
ink that was much less expensive for the county as far as paying for their.
ballots. OK, very good. So those three things are what the building sir. Alright. Any other questions by the committee,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
3:18:16
Representative Clowney here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, um, is there anything in here that limits how long the delay
can last in counting the ballots. I mean, 2 days, can they go home for the weekend and resume afterwards. Yes, ma'am, but they
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:18:31
could, could go to home for the weekend, uh, in the original bill, I set it up to where they had to have the account finished. 24 hours before the deadline, so, um, and in a um primary election you've got 10 days to get certified. So basically they had 9 days to county, uh, it's 14 days on the general election, so they had 13 days to get them counted. If they don't get them, get the count finished for that 24 hour buffer than the original count that was done by the
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:19:03
tabulators on the night of the election becomes the official results. OK, thank you. Yes, ma'am. So if they don't get it done, Then Then he goes back to the original tabulated account that was done on election night. Would that be be by a machine? Yes sir. So they have that motivation to, you know, to get it done before the before the deadline or all that work was for nothing. But what if they don't use a machine? They're required to use the machine under law. OK. All
right, very good. Any other questions? Representative Bey. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:19:42
Chair. Uh, Representative Long under this bill, while they're counting what information is reported to the public as far as the report the tabulated number to the public or the whole time or, or folks sitting there waiting for this hand count to be completed before any numbers are released. Now the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:19:57
original author that I had written required them to have that done within 24 hours. Uh, they had it done within 3
hours that night. I basically don't take long to to run the, run the ballots through there, the tabulator kicks out the results. They take the, um, um, it's kind of like a me uh They take the, um, um, it's kind of like a me type of thing, plug it in, ship that to the Secretary of State and they published
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:20:22
it, uh, to the public. So this is follow up. This is, this is more or less just allowing them to go back and and verify the the actual
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:20:31
votes to the tabulator. Well, you know, actually the official
count is the hand count. Not the tabulator unless they don't meet the deadline, so we're going to have a um I, uh, certified vote one way or the other, either they will do it by the hand count or it will go back to the uh the tabulated account, which is the way it's always been done for the uh for the last few years with the current equipment that they use. I'm just gonna go back
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:21:01
to my, my first question. So the, the number that's reported to the
public as far as the, the outcome, that is what is produced from the tabulator that's released to the public and then the, the other as far as the hand count is just a verification that that the number
Speaker 421
3:21:20
out of the tabulator is correct. Is that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:21:22
correct? The tabulator count is the um what's the word that we use for it um unofficial total and the uh the hand count is the official toll. Which is, you know,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:21:31
is released to the public as soon as they
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:21:37
hang out is finished. So the official will be to certified um The certified outcome what's certified by Secretary of State. Is that correct? County Election commission certifies it. I
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:21:58
know I just. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
Representative Long I'm reading this bill and so we're gonna, we're gonna stick it in a double locking hard
shell box, and then it's gonna be guarded by one person with the sheriff's department. Well, so first off, Who holds
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:22:17
the key to the double locking box, the, the boxes are actually sealed. Uh, they have like um seals that they use when they're transporting the boxes from the polling places, we're going to use the same seals, uh, if they need to, to, um, shut down for the night and also in the amendment of I've failed to mention a moment ago, uh, we changed that from sheriff's deputy to certified law enforcement in case, uh, you
know, maybe a sheriff's office is shorthanded you could use the police department. And,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:22:42
and, but that one person is gonna be in charge all evening with the, with the box. He's outside the
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:22:48
door. It's it's a locked room. Who has the key to the locked room election
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:22:56
commission. OK, I, I just, to me it just seems like, look, and look, I love our law enforcement. I do. I, but I, we're leaving everything
to where there could be a, well, here's the key, and
you could do this. I, I just, I, I. I just don't know if it's needed plus, would you not agree that there's people, we have constituents right now. I hear them all the time that they're tired
of election week. They want election day. And and that we want results that day. But this would, this would further extend out election day to, to up to the certification up to 10 days, which correct
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:23:35
the current law already does that Representative Hawk, the bill
that we passed in 2023, this doesn't change that. That was already in place. OK, thank you. Yes,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:23:56
sir. Representative Back, you're recognized. Uh So I was trying to look it up, uh, maybe the Secretary of State would be the one to answer
this. How many votes were cast in Cercy County in 2024.
Speaker 311
3:24:13
Uh, Josh Bridges, assistant director, uh, for Secretary of State, um, I can look that up. I know that there are as of this morning, there were 6,251 registered voters. And if you bear with me about 15 seconds I can. Get you the number of ballots cast.
Apologies. I'm not sure who's in charge of the Wi Fi, but it's slow. Uh, that would be 3,899 ballots cast, 62% voter turnout for Cercy
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:25:21
County. And, and we counted the ballots until 3 o'clock in
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:25:25
the morning you know the um
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:25:27
um 7:30 is when the polls closed and 7:30 when they close, and, and I think
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:25:36
they maybe weren't counting right up to that, that, that time that they were adding up and tabulating, you know, the tolls that, that the, um, the vote, uh, uh, the poll workers had had come up with so they finished up about 3 o'clock. So
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:25:52
my my concerns is that the It's not a lot of boats. And in,
in the major election. This could go on for days, right? I mean, you shutting it down and starting it back up and
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:26:07
you know basically with the current law, my real concern was, uh, you know, these people that are doing the, the, the counting, um, you know, if you can imagine if you're not used to, you know, working 3 shift and now you're being asked to to do something as tedious as counting ballots uh, for, you know, days at a time, you could, you know, have, have a problem with errors and of course that's what we don't want in our elections, so it seemed like a good way to do it was to,
to make it where it's a little bit more um user friendly for people to do this because uh as I mentioned earlier, uh, Cercy County has been joined by Independence County now. They've voted 63% to go to paper ballots, and I suspect other counties will do it, uh, maybe more of the smaller type counties. I don't know. It's, it's basically, you know, legal for any county to adopt the. And had marked hand counted type of situation, I would suppose with the bigger county they would have a larger budget and
would be able to hire more people and since, you know, this had never been well had been done in a generation, um, there was a little bit of A question about just how many people do you need and how many man hours will it take, and they have a little bit of an idea
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:27:25
now after going through two elections. All right. I just done rough calculations. That's 5 volts a minute. It
it just that's rough. I could be
off a little bit there. Anyway, I was, I'm just concerned about the, the gap if we, you know, without
some kind of limit on the gaps or something the votes could take
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:27:52
forever. Well, you know, certainly, you know, like you would have bigger groups with the current law, um, they,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:27:58
they can have, you know, up to 9 days on the primary 13 days in the general election, uh, I think the motivation will be that, you know, these counties care about
doing paper ballots, they're going to hire enough. people to to get it done and I don't think they're gonna lollyga around they, I just think they kind of need a break, um, and maybe not, you have to force these people to work all night. With, with the additional people. He paid for by the
Speaker 122
3:28:23
county or by the state, by the by the county. That was, that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:28:31
was part of the, the deal then the first bill that I passed was I wanted the the uh counties that went to paper ballots not to be
penalized, but also not to be subsidized by the other counties that uh don't do paper ballots. All right,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:28:50
thank you. Yes, sir. Representative Hawk. You recognized. Thank you. I, I got my train of thought back. I, I'm exhausted and probably need a 24 hour break, um. Was this your
doing or was this the Secretary of State? The only reason I'm asking because they're with you at the table, like, like, was this, you just having them for election
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:29:11
support, is that well, actually, uh, you know, I got the idea after witnessing, you know, what these folks had went through, uh, in their elections and, you know, like we always do, you, you pass a law, you go back and try to make it better after you've seen it actually in use and so I approached the Secretary of State's office and had them look at the bills and uh and see if they supported it. They're here because they support it. They believe they believe that uh this is uh would be a good addition to our current law which does allow young counties to do this. Would
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:29:42
you not agree to kind of go off what Representative
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:29:45
Beck said. Wouldn't it be a, a better deal to require our counties to say you got to have 10 number of people to sit there and count to to get this done rather than going through the, the hoopla and all the hoops of of because there's gonna be an added cost in buying the double locking hard shell box and the security guard and all this other stuff, there's got to be added cost for that because if you go 10 days and you're, you're paying a security guard. Well, I know last time I got a security guard
for an event. It was almost $100 an hour. So if we're doing this and we're gonna continue this out. Let's just say it takes 8 days, right, to do a count. Well then we're we're gonna pay that security guard $100 an hour and, and keep going. So now there's added cost on the counties by doing this as well, wouldn't you agree? No, sir, I think
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:30:34
the that is an incentive for them to get it wrapped up quickly because you know they don't want the cost to be any higher than the than necessary, in fact, uh, Cersei
County. Surprisingly, their hand counted hand marked election actually cost a little bit less than in the previous years doing the machine vote, but to, to answer your questions for us, um, trying to force them to have so many employees. I think that's better left up to the county, uh, they went till 3 o'clock that night, um, you know, it wasn't the next day, or excuse me, the same day as the polling, uh, excuse me the uh election.
waited today to rest up a little bit, but still went to into the night, um, you know, if they'd gotten to have a break in one night they come back and finished up the next morning. I just, I really think that it, you know, it's kind of a Um prudent thing to do to try to make sure that people that are doing something is as important as counting the votes or as fresh as they can be. Thank you. All right, seeing no further
questions by the committee, we do have someone sign up to speak
against the bill, Lindsey French from the Association of Counties. Ms. Branch. Pe
Speaker 388
3:31:57
identify yourself. You're recognized Thank you, Mr. Chair, um, and
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
3:32:04
I do want to apologize to Representative Long because I think this one over spring break did kind of slip through the cracks, so I, I have not reached out to him about this, so my apologies for that. Um, this is
my first time seeing the amendments, so initially the sheriffs were opposed to this bill, um. We don't have any issues with the, the first part of the bill and the ultraviolet ink, um, our I rub with this bill is at the very end on page 2. Lines 11 through 17, which um.
Currently, and I'm, it is late, I'm tired too, so. Um, trying to get my thoughts together. Paper handmark paper ballots have to be first tabulated before you can begin a hand count. And um, Then once I'd hand count starts, they have to continue the count through completion, so this bill would basically make an exception to the count through completion. To where they could, like he
said, take a break and as um Representative Long stipulated there's no limit on in the bill of how long a break could be, whether it's a couple of hours, whether it's a lunch break, whether it's a week, a weekend, um, the limit would be any time so long as it was before that 10 day certification deadline, um, and if it didn't get certified before the 10 days, then it would be the tabulated vote that became a certified number, um. Our issue here is that that
break creates opportunities for fraud. It inherently leaving a box which under the new amendment is not going to be guarded by a sheriff's deputy, it will be guarded by a certified law enforcement officer unless a member of the county board of Election commissioners is present. So I, I just got this amendment but the way I'm reading that. A box of ballots can be left. At an indeterminate amount of time with either a certified law enforcement officer or one member of the Board of Election
commissioners, and I just think that is ripe with fraud. They're also the ones with the keys, as he said, they're the ones with the seals, um, that they could replace a seal, um, I just think this is something that's not needed, like he said, Cercy County was able to do it before the next morning, um, and I think it just. Invites fraud that doesn't need to be invited. All right, thank you, Miss.
Frencher any questions by the committee? All right, Representative Beck,
you're recognized. No, no, no, Miss French, we got a question.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:34:58
Well, this might be for Representative Long so did you say that the clerks didn't really As for the Did I hear you say the clerks didn't
ask for these changes. They, they were OK with things. No I might have misunderstood you. I'm
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:35:16
sorry. You know, the election commission actually does basically performs the election process, the county election commission. She's the one who came up with
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:35:25
this. Are they basically witnessing what they went through is what prompted me to try to do something to help them because with more counties uh reaching uh or deciding to do paper ballots. I, I thought that, you know, this is not going to change, this is just gonna be um A magnified, you know, you know, through more counties needing uh needing to a different process, you know, and I think a little bit more user friendly process uh the um. As far as the seals go, um, that
you know having watched an election now, um, I am. I was kind of astounded what lengths they go to as far as chain of custody, keeping up with the ballots that are used, the ballots that are left over, um, you know, they, they go through a thorough process as far as uh two different people, uh, doing the sales on the boxes, um. And you know of course like this French mentioned that, you know, this is the first I'd heard that they had any objections to it at
all, so, um, we weren't able to try to address any of their concerns because I didn't know about
them. All right, so to be clear, county clerks are opposed. Is that right? I, I would say that's fair, yes. Association of counties is opposed. Secretary of State's office is supportive. What about the state election commission?
Any idea about the state election commission hadn't. OK. All right. Representative Beatty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:37:02
Do do we have someone from Secretary of State's office that can speak to this if they have an issue or concern with this bill.
Speaker 464
3:37:17
They were just here. Mhm I want to hear the words.
Speaker 313
3:37:20
I support this bill. I think the official stance for the Secretary of State's office on this is neutral, um, I believe that came from up top. I can speak on the UV light seal portion of this, uh, just because I did a little bit of research on that, but the rest
Speaker 451
3:37:33
of the bill, I can't, I wasn't prepared to speak on
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:37:41
this early today. OK, that, that, that addressed my concern. Representative Meeks recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I, I, I know Representative long time is is getting very short for us here, um, but I'm wondering, um, if you might have any interest in pulling the bill down for the night, maybe trying to address these concerns and and come back just from The vibe I'm getting from the committee, you're gonna have trouble getting it passed tonight, as is, um, I, I think
you've got good intentions here that Mike could be worked out, obviously your choice, but uh I'll throw a would you agree in there? I'm,
I'm sorry to have kept y'all so late, but um, you know, I really think this bill would be very, very helpful to the counties and so I'd like to see it passed, so, um, I'll be glad to pull it down, see if I can, you know, work with um um AC and uh come up with something that everybody can be happy with
because I really all I want is, is, um, Um, accurate and secure elections. So that would be
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:38:40
OK, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pull it down saying no objection. That's fine. You can pull the bill down. We'll bring it back Wednesday. Thank you,
sir. I appreciate it. I'm sorry to keep y'all so late. All right. Senator Bryant. Representative Rose, Senator Bryant, you're the most popular man, state agencies right now. No. The
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:39:07
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee um with your permission, I'd like to open the floor up to Senator Bryant for the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:39:14
majority of the presentation of this bill. Senator Bryant. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Senate Bill 443. What I like to do is just preface that I, I started this conversation with the Department of Labor license over an issue with home inspectors. I believe that the last portion of the bill just for a little roadmap. This bill addresses appraised abstractors and home inspectors in 2023 we merged those
committees, so along with a lot of mergers, there's clean up language that needs to happen in subsequent general assemblies and subsequent sessions, so roadmap, this is all in Title 17, Title 11 deals with abstractors title 14 deals with appraisers and Title 50. Who deals with home inspectors. I'm gonna turn it over to the agency because what this turned into is my issues getting addressed with home inspectors along with some general cleanup. So instead of running two separate bills, we combined the bills, so they turn over to the agency to go over the details of the cleanup, and then I will
address issues at the home inspection level.
If you would state your name and who you're here representing
Sarah Moore
Unverified
3:40:14
and you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Thank you, Lacey Kirchner, counsel for the Department of Labor and Licensing. Um, as the senator mentioned, this is mainly a cleanup bill, um, I'll kind of start just a few high points and I'll happily answer questions. The main thing with the abstractors is I'm not sure how much you guys are aware of abstractors, but we don't have very many left in the state, and one of the current requirements is that you can
only have one abstractor for each county. We don't have enough abstractors to currently cover all of the counties, so we want to repeal that language to where An abstractor can be in more than one county at a time. Um, for the appraiser side, the biggest changes that you'll see are the fact that we are removing the requirement for the board to go into deliberate uh executive session for deliberations during an administrative hearing. They are the only board that I know of
that has that ability, but in this instance, it's also only available for the appraiser side and it would not cover if there was a complaint hearing on the abstractors or the home inspectors, and that's also something that the board has wanted as well, as well as combining the funds of all three of these entities and in the 2023 session, the funds were not combined, so you still have 3 separate fund balances, so the board asked that we see about combining that all into one fund
and then there is also some cleanup language regarding, um, home inspector complaints and how those are allowed to be seen by the public as it currently stands, basically the only thing that the public, if they were to send a FOIA request or if any member of the General Assembly asked the board for a question about it. The only thing they'd be able to get is the initial complaint, not any other responsive documents, as it's currently written, no one outside of the board is supposed to look at those documents. And with that, I'm happy to
answer any questions or Senator Bryant, I'll turn it back
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:42:17
over to you. Yeah, the, the home inspection issue was an area issue in my area. Um, one of the, I think, issues. is extending the On page 12, section 27, um. The cause of action extending that from 1 year to 3 years, the national average is 4 to 6 years, so extending that to 3 years, I also believe there's an additional House Bill 1625 that's gonna address some errors
and omissions insurance requirements for home inspectors because currently there is no statutory requirement that they have errors and omissions insurance and that and along with the foyer and the agency being able to contract out third party for complaint inspections to ensure home inspections are going doing what they're supposed to be doing and protecting the consumer, the bill addresses those issues for me as well. So with that, we'll be glad to answer any questions. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:43:13
Chair. Thank you, Senator Bryant. Um, I'm, I'm a realtor, so I, I
deal with inspectors quite a bit, um, I, I do have concerns though about the liability piece. Um, so I guess I'm gonna first start by saying a lot of, I would say 95% of the time whenever I sell a house to somebody, I asked the buyer, I say, do you have a home inspector that you'd like to use? And most time they say no, uh, it is then me that is
recommending 3 inspectors to that person because by
Arkans real estate law, we have to do 3 of, of that given person. When it comes about the liability though, does liability fall back on the realtor because
I then recommended said inspector to that buyer. It does not. That holds with your own with
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:44:02
your own, your own board, this has a separate board that any complaint or liability will fall through the home inspection licensing board and then back to any errors or omissions or insurance in the in the event
that they are civilly liable for their errors and omissions. OK, so
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:44:21
there, that, that separation, all I'm doing is just saying, you know what, here you go, Mr. and Mrs. Beer. This is who I recommend these three, and I
watch my hands clean. You are done. OK. Um. Do you not think though that the like the
liability insurance for the inspectors is gonna go up quite a bit because if we're doing 3 years versus a year right now, um, that if, if Joe
inspector goes to his insurance guy and says, hey, I, I, this new laws in place now it's going to be an astronomical premium for his insurance. Don't you think that would go up a little bit
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:44:57
or a lot, you know, that, that's up to the individual companies and writers and how well that business performs overall, I would say maybe the initial ask might put up, you know, a few dollars to, you know, a few dozen dollars a month, but again that is passed on to the consumer and the longer that gentleman or that lady's in
business as a home inspector, and they renew the potential for those costs to come back down is, is up there, but what does go up is the, the liability that the consumer has when The current requirement uh with NACA or Natche is You know, write in all these liability exemptions into your contract. And so there's a lot of escape clauses for them to have liability on when they in this example, uh, they did not document any type of structural
failures and as I worked with the board in the FOIA blockades of the complaints, and I took it upon myself as an elected representative to, to work with Senator Penzo as a real estate agent and then the home inspection group to go out there and look at the complaint just to see what they're seeing because the the board had no ability to take action because of the way the law was wrote. And what we saw was extreme failures in the home inspection process. I mean, extreme failures. And then when I looked at the documentation, they followed the, the rules of of
Natche, but there was no claim that the gentleman could make because of the limitations had
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:46:26
expired. And, and I, I little latitude, Mr. Chair, I apologize. Um, go ahead and, and I, I completely look, I,
I've been doing this for almost a little over 10 years, right? And you, you find that there are some that are not good at their job, and then you find the ones that are good and I, I think ultimately what I want to do is protect the ones that are doing good because like the guy, the 3 guys that I send
out, um, do well over 2000 inspections a year, right? Um, because they've been. And I, what I, what I'm looking at though is that With the rising cost of premiums, I, I think that we could really start to put some of these guys out of business because it really, I mean, at the end of the day, they're charging 300 bucks to to do an inspection, maybe more depending on the size of the house, but By doing this 3 years out, this could really put a burden on them, wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 474
3:47:15
I would say currently in the law there is no requirement for errors and omissions to be
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:47:22
there. They do have to have insurance, but the limitation is $100,000. So their liability is already exposed. And so at 3 years, if it's still at a minimum of $100,000 that's still the same premium rate. Now if I, if I were in the business, I would want my own errors and omissions policy, which is not required by law, but House Bill 1625 would make that requirement by law. That, that'd be the one that they might need to have more. Insight on and I may have missed it. Is there a minimal on the errors
and and emissions minimum they did not change the minimum of $100,000 so it's gonna stay at 100,000. OK, um, and to me that's, that's not enough like the damage that, yeah, would have been, they've been simply liable, had 3 years have been there, it would have been in excess
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:48:08
of 500,000. So I'm gonna say something real quick too just based on some of this back and forth, one of the things that I wanna key in on is that a lot of this is about protecting Arkansans and the consumers. It's not. about victimizing the inspectors but building in protections for the consumers, and I, I would think if there's anybody who's
gonna be caught up in this, it would be bad actors, not the good actors, not the guys you want to deal with, specifically the ones who are nefarious in nature, and this is protecting Arkansans from those people, not the guys who are doing the job and have been doing it well for decades and I,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:48:42
I appreciate that. I, I, so let me ask you this, so like homes change over time. I mean, you know.
Um, and, and going back to this 3 year liability, for example, in in central Arkansas, it may be the same in Northwest
Arkansas, but Home shift, uh, The homes that were built in the 80s, you know, that things settle a little bit. And let's say Inspector A comes in and, and there's no, no signs of of foundation issues with the home, right? Homeowner moves in the home 6 months in, whatever it might be, it shifts a little bit and you see cracks start coming down the wall, and they call a foundation pro or whoever and they say you've got foundation issues. So is that now fall back on the inspector when he didn't visibly
see the, the, the fault of foundation because it
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:49:32
had not shifted at the time. I'd say currently it's, it's a 1 year, so 6 months, that wouldn't change if this passes, would that, would he be then at fault? Well, it, it'd go back to his documentation in the complaint process because currently there is no provision of the complaint process whenever he calls in the complaint, the board really had no No ability to Pursue that and so what would you come down to is is civil
litigation and small claims, and you justify based on the documentation that the home inspector had on the day of the inspection, which if you obviously very familiar with the reports, the pictures, and the amount of detail that are generated as they should be are, are very large in quantity. And so as long as the, the difference can be justified of it was not there the day I was there and you signed that my contract. Said, you know, I recommend you call a structural engineer, I recommend you call an electrical contractor. I recommend you call
a rover. I, they already typically removed their liability to the best of their ability and just give, you know, firsthand information to the buyer. Got you. I'll give that questions
now. I'll, I'll jump out. All right. So, My understanding is that the builder has a one year liability on the homes that they build, new construction, is that correct? Typically, and so now we're gonna have for the these uh home inspectors who seem to have inserted themselves into all the
real estate transactions now. Which adds additional costs to buyers and sellers. This has been my experience. Um Now we're gonna give them a 3 year
statute of limitations and so what's gonna happen is when the uh homeowner finds out that there's a problem that was not discovered in the home inspection but has shown up. They're not gonna be able to sue their builder, but they are gonna sue the home inspector for what they're probably gonna
allege is missing it and uh do you have
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:51:35
any Thoughts about that? Well, builders, uh, that warranty typically follows new construction. You typically when I'll have a home inspector based on new construction because you have a warrant of liability with the builder, but on an existing home sales, if you choose to get a home inspector because not all buyers do, I think typically that's a realtor, buyer protection, just a piece of mind or comfort level whenever you ask that home inspector to come and he comes with that standard
national home inspection form as all the provisions of which he. is and is not liable for and all the recommendations of which he does or does not recommend. I don't think that process changes at all. What it does change is if there's something egregious, and it's discovered 2 years later because they did not do their due diligence and they go to the Department of Labor and licensing and file a complaint and their third party inspector, which is Bill E Nas, goes out there and says, I concur, you need to file a claim against the
home inspector, whether it's 8 months or 2 years and 8 months. That provides protections to the homes, uh, to the home buyer that was intended to be, which is why he purchased the home inspection. So it gives them 3 years to sue the home inspector. Yes, national average is 5, so we'll give them, we're we're approaching that national average instead of one, we're given in 3 as someone
mentioned earlier, I mean. These home inspections. You know, I'm just, I'm not impressed, but anyway, all
right, what else do we have? Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee. We have anyone sign up to speak for against the bill. No. Representative Rose or Senator. Bryant, either one of you recognized a
close for the bill. I appreciate the committee's late night. I'll leave it to uh Representative
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:53:21
Rose to close. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. We appreciate
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:53:25
a good vote. I believe this is a good bill and it will support our Kansas. Thank you.
Speaker 259
3:53:34
You make them up, make a mo, I make a motion
do pass. Have a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:53:43
motion, Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Colleagues, I, you know, I, I go back to I do think that there will be when there's if this were to be litigated 3 years out that anybody involved in, in that home inspector being given the job will be pulled in and I'm, I'm not an attorney. I don't play one on TV, but what I do know is that anytime that
there's parties involved, they try to pull every single one, anybody that was involved in on that, that litigation. We just saw it with the National Association of Realtors Settlement that just went down and they In thousands of people across the country that weren't even realtors that that got involved in that. And so I'm gonna be a, I'm gonna be a present vote on this because I like the premise of it. I just don't like the, the, the 3-year window on this because I think that it could pull a lot of people in that we did, it's just unintended consequences.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:54:36
All right, Representative Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. You know, I, I understand and, and appreciate,
you know, the intent of the bill, but I also think, you know, I've been contacted by several of my home inspectors, and they have a definite problem. Some of these guys are, are very reputable and it's not gonna stop the bad actors, uh, and to increase that, that liability from a 1 year to a 3 year. I, I just can't support that and for that reason, I'm going to be a very loud no.
All right. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing no further. Representative Rose Ma able to
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:55:16
discuss as a member of the committee. Uh, why
not go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate, uh, Mr. Beatty's passion on this, but it is our belief that
this will absolutely stop and deter bad actors moving forward. Thank you. All right, any other discussion
on the motion saying none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. No. The eyes have it. See you rope. No? OK. All right, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And with that seeing no further business before the committee, we are adjourned.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1800 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY AGENTS OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, JUDICIAL OFFICIALS, ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS, ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS.
HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES.
HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING.
HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK.
HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS.
HB1739 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT.
HB1740 K. Moore TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1187 Vaught TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS.
HJR1004 Ladyman APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS OF MEMBERS FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.
HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5.
HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES.
HB1037 A. Collins AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19.
HB1041 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1797 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY; TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1470 Beaty Jr. TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS.
HB1837 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS REFERRED TO VOTERS; AND TO BAN FOREIGN FUNDING FOR BALLOT MEASURES; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1842 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL DETENTION FACILITIES REVIEW COORDINATOR; AND TO PLACE THE OFFICE WITHIN THE ARKANSAS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS AND TRAINING WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
HB1843 Tosh CONCERNING RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS KEPT BY THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY.
HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION.
HB1849 Gramlich TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE.
HB1867 B. McKenzie TO ESTABLISH THE NO GOVERNMENT TRESPASSING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT GAME WARDEN TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE LAND.
HB1870 Wing CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE A VOTER REGISTRATION LIST TO FEDERAL COURTS.
HB1873 B. McKenzie CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE YEARS OF SERVICE REMAINING BEFORE REACHING THE LIMITATION ON SERVICE UNDER THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION.
HB1878 McGruder TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDING IN POPULATION CENTERS; AND TO REQUIRE A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO CONDUCT EARLY VOTING IN A CITY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
HB1883 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA.
HB1884 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS.
HB1886 Pearce TO DESIGNATE THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL CANINE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE THAT WAS MANUFACTURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART USING FORCED LABOR.
SENATE BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB351 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
SB370 Irvin TO TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS WINE PRODUCERS COUNCIL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB343 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND THE AUTOMOBILE AND PICKUP TRUCK ACQUISITION ACT FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
SB12 B. King TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING REDISTRICTING BY THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT.
SB357 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO APPLY MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT TO A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SERVICE TIME FOR ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL CALCULATION.
SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD.
SB433 J. Dotson REGARDING THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
SB443 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE STATE BOARD OF APPRAISERS, ABSTRACTERS, AND HOME INSPECTORS; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING LICENSURE OF ABSTRACTERS; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING LICENSURE OF HOME INSPECTORS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB454 Hill TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FUNDS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPOSIT AND INVESTMENT OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FUNDS; TO CREATE THE UNCLAIMED PROPERTY INTEREST TRUST FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
SB445 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HJR1001 A. Collins A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AND TO REPEAL THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT.
HJR1002 J. Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
HJR1003 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT.
HJR1005 Long AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS.
HJR1006 B. McKenzie AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR LOBBYING PURPOSES.
HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS.
HJR1008 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY OFFENSES, INCLUDING VICTIMS IN THE ADULT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS.
HJR1010 Unger A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, THE SENATE MAY REMOVE MEMBERS OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR CAUSE ONLY, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING.
HJR1011 S. Meeks A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF BILLS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION BILLS DURING A FISCAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HJR1012 R. Scott Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REAPPRAISAL AND REASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 79, CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY TAXES.
HJR1013 Pilkington A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR.
HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
HJR1015 Lundstrum A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE TO DECLARE HIS OR HER POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING THE SPONSOR OF AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION.
HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME A LAW WHEN APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN THE ELECTION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE.
HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
HJR1019 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Mar 31, 2025 | Agenda | 6 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 14
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 33
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 154
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Speaker 159
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 200
Speaker 201
Speaker 204
Speaker 214
Speaker 219
Speaker 217
Speaker 230
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 248
Speaker 250
Speaker 150
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
Speaker 148
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 287
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Speaker 312
Speaker 313
Speaker 315
Speaker 325
Speaker 326
Speaker 322
Speaker 17
Speaker 338
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
Speaker 343
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
Speaker 346
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Speaker 361
Speaker 363
Speaker 367
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 379
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
Speaker 129
Speaker 383
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Speaker 402
Speaker 403
Speaker 404
Speaker 408
Speaker 412
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 415
Speaker 421
Speaker 311
Speaker 122
Speaker 388
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Speaker 464
Speaker 451
Sarah Moore
Unverified
Speaker 474
Speaker 259