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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
passing those out to you. I would like all, I wanna give everyone a moment to look over that and 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 get that to them. I think they're all here. and we'd like to tabulate those today
and we'll have those results before the end of the day, the top five. Representative Ray,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
0:36
you're recognized. - Point of information. - You're recognized. - So I just want to 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 five 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 five being your fifth preference, and we'll assign those points.
The points as we'll be assigned will be your number one priority will be given five points, your second priority four points, third priority three points, fourth priority two points, fifth priority one point, and then we're going to tabulate those scores and we'll announce those before we adjourn today is the intention. Representative Collins. So just to understand, how is
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:24
it going to work? Does a one get five points? The one gets five points, correct. And so down. Okay. Correct.
All right, just checking on our members, has anyone talked with Representative Crawford? She was here earlier today. Has
anyone seen her or talked with her? Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 14
2:06
she came over, she's going to be here. She just had to do a meeting right before this, but she did say she was
coming. Okay, thank you, excellent. What about Representative Berry? Any information on Representative Stanberry? We'll take that as a no.
Representative Rose is in another committee. We need to try to get a ballot to him. Okay,
I'm told Representative Rose has a ballot at his seat. He did talk with me and tell me he's going to be presenting a bill on another
committee. We're going to get you a ballot, Representative Crawford.
Unknown speaker
3:12
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have anybody else that's still working? I only have 12. Okay.
Thank you.
All right, we got somebody that didn't sign there, this is like the student that didn't put
Chair
Unverified
8:03
their name on their paper, they turned it in and I don't.
All right, looks like we have everybody's ballots in except for Representative Berry and Representative Rose. Rose will complete. All right, we still got one more.
All right, it looks like we have the ballots of everyone who's here. We're
gonna wait to collect Representative Rose's ballot. If Representative Berry 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 gonna tabulate these today, announce the top five, so. Okay,
he did. All right, sounds like Representative Berry was here earlier, but maybe he had to leave early and so. Yeah.
If he shows up, he can vote
and if he doesn't, then just have to do it next time. All right, so we're gonna move into the regular agenda. First item that we have, first bill this afternoon is House Bill 1632, Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
11:02
thank you mr chair and committee first off i just want y'all to know that i'm running this bill for representative hawk so just want everybody to understand where this
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
11:17
bill originated from no uh committee this been an issue for a couple years now or about as long as my career has been here is we come down here and we give free hunting
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
11:27
fishing license lifetime license to different people for different reasons and as we heard early in the session when we do this we don't
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
11:35
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
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
11:47
whatever reason 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 it's not general revenue i'm sorry i shouldn't have said that. It's state set-aside funds to be used to pay back for those license fees because Arkansas Game and Fish cannot take state general revenue. With that, I'd be happy to take any questions.
All right. Representative Ray, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
12:15
Mr. Chairman. Representative 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
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
12:30
against the federal code for matching dollars from Pittman and Robertson for them to do it for free. So that's the reason you need this mechanism to pay for that licensure so that you can give it away for whatever reason you're giving
it away so tax dollars still pay for the licensure itself oh okay all
Chair
Unverified
12:49
right so if we were to later pass a
Representative David Ray
Unverified
12:53
law that gave license uh quote unquote free licenses to some population group we would lose our federal match funds okay but this would require us to backfill though that money yes sir okay all right thank you representative collins you're recognized thank you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:12
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 does, you know, if we have
a statutory... This requires an
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
13:28
accounting throughout the year of all license give away by whatever statute that forced them to give them away. And then state set-aside funds will reimburse
Chair
Unverified
13:36
at the end of the year for those licensures that were given away. And are we saying that any time a license... Discounted
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:45
if the price is discounted, I'm sorry.
Are we saying that any time a license is given away, are we assuming that that individual would have otherwise bought a
license from Game & Fish and that's what lost revenue is? No, sir. Each license has a
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
14:03
value placed on it. Whether it's a lifetime license, I think it's $1,000 for an adult. a combination license, $42.50, those values would be returned through state set-aside funds. Okay. And do we
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
14:14
have any idea how much this will be based on what's in state?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
14:21
Depends on how many licenses you guys pass in the future. I'm on my way home, so I can't tell you. But how many of y'all passed the giveaway is what it will cost at the end
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
14:35
of the year out of set-aside funds. Okay. Thank you. Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you may have already answered this question, but so if an agency wants to give something away, 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 license, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. So
who's the keepers of that? So it seems like one agency is saying, okay, I want to give this away for whatever reason. No
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
15:09
agency can decide to give anything away without a bill 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 human and sex trafficking.
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 if this passes. All right, and that
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
15:34
would come before this committee for that person realizing that way. That's right. All right, thank you. This bill gives nothing away or moves
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
15:41
anything unless somebody else passes a bill that does it. This is just a mechanism to pay the bill. Representative Woodridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
15:52
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. Okay, so 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 effect. That's correct. Thank you, sir. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
16:18
Chair. Hey, the reserve fund, is that from the investments that the state takes in?
Is that what that fund is? No, it's typically any gains in interest throughout the year. Okay. Because I believe, because we just ran a bill for the water that that money's coming out of the reserve fund. We also take $50
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
16:37
million off the top for highways every year, too. So there's different ones that those funds are allocated in different places. But most of them are
only allocatable if they're present. Because those funds aren't guaranteed to be there
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
16:48
every year. Do you know, does the governor take money out
of this to put in a catastrophic fund every year?
I have no clue. I think they do. Okay, thank you. All right, I seem to recall
when we had the bill earlier in the session, Representative Unger, I think, had about the human trafficking reporting that would result in a free or a lifetime 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 lifespan is going to be or how many people would actually apply for them. How does that factor into this bill?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
17:26
It does not. The value is already set by the department. But that value is set by a formula set forth from the federal government by matching funds. So, 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 Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
18:00
How much, do you know how much the budget is for Game and Fish annually? I do not. Okay. I'm just wondering, I believe they have quite a bit of money themselves.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
18:13
This bill is really not about their budget. It's about the ability for them to get their
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
18:19
match funds. Can I finish my question? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. 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 game and fish for the
hunting license, fishing license that are given, if it's not about the money?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
18:47
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 Pittman 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
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
19:07
are matched through the Pittman-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 out the full amount because they don't have the amount to match that. That's right. Okay. But you can't give us any, you say the formula is too hard for us to understand.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
19:34
No, ma'am, I didn't say that. I said it's too hard for
me to recuperate in here how they figure the value of a lifetime license. But this is not only about lifetime licensure. It's about all licensures sold are given away by the legislature.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
19:47
Right. But you don't know how much money we're talking about.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
19:51
I don't. We haven't voted any of these bills out this session. So at this point, the impact would be zero. If we come back and vote Representative Unger's bill out, how many of our people we give those licensors to, that would be the impact. But I can't sit here and give you an impact because I don't
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
20:07
know what it is. Okay. Is this coming from the Game and Fish? No, it's mine. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
20:14
Representative Woodridge, you're recognized. Thank you, sir. Would we be able to, I assume that would trigger a
fiscal impact, so if we were to pass a bill like Representative Ungers in the future, we would be subject to the same rules, would apply Section C that we could ask for a fiscal impact to that bill?
This just creates the funding mechanism, correct? That is 100% correct. Thank you, sir.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
20:36
You would now have a mechanism to pull that fiscal impact, where today
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
20:43
you have none. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then off of his question, I mean, I like the bill, but I feel like with the way that future legislators, what? It's your bill. It's not my bill. No, that future legislators, you know, we love giving stuff away, right?
I mean, we've already seen one this session where we were going to give sex traffickers, you know, people to turn somebody in. My one thing on this would be I wish we could require a fiscal impact, right? I mean, if we could amend it somehow because of the fact that we'll get to a point where we're just giving, 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 allotment of money is eventually gone because we've given away so many licenses. My only request would be, would you
be open to making it required to get that fiscal impact done?
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
21:36
So you wouldn't do that here. You would do that through the rules, House rules, our joint rules. uh but i would support that if you wanted to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
21:47
do that thank you representative collins you're recognized okay 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 going to end up happening is if you say that the lost revenue is the value of all those licenses Game and Fish is going to 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 Game and Fish, I mean, I guess it's good for Game and Fish, but they're going to end up getting more from the state than they otherwise would have lost in revenue. You see
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
22:32
what I'm saying? I don't disagree with your statement, but there's also no way to determine that on the fact that a legislator's passing a bill to give people that turn in human traffickers a lifetime license.
I don't know that how many of those people would actually use the resource or not use the resource, but he's still giving away the licensure, which would entail not allow Game of Fish to match those licensures to the federal government for those dollars. So, I mean, why pick a lifetime license for those people? I can't answer that. Okay.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
23:10
Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, help me to understand.
If we gave a lifetime license, is it like a one-time charge for the lifetime of that person? Yes. All right, if we gave, so there's no way that we could be giving a license
away that would be renewed year after year after year? On the lifetime, that's true. But I
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
23:36
think what we do on military is we give a discount on their yearly license fee, so that is a year after year renewal.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
23:45
We're not supposed to commit funds beyond our General Assembly, right? So aren't we, by doing that, we'd be committing funds to future General Assemblies? No, sir. The bill just says, if you're going to give away a
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
23:59
license, you have to reimburse them through set-aside funds at the end of every fiscal year. Then where are the funds coming
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
24:07
from for the renewable license that- If the funds aren't there, they're not there. The
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
24:12
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.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
24:20
Now, what I'm saying is I'm talking about the commitment of your committing funds. So you just say that the future General Assembly just wouldn't appropriate that money. That's right. All right. So
then what would happen with the license would just go away? I guess so. All right. Representative
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
24:47
Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Wardlaw, do you have any numbers that could provide
us with information on the dollar amount,
maybe a discounted or free license that have been awarded in the past, like in one single year, a dollar amount or anything along those lines? It's been a long time since any has been awarded. That's what I'm thinking. This was
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
25:05
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 ward law 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 noes have it i'm sorry representative ward law bill's failed
all right next we have house bill 1706 representative mccollum Thank you,
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
26:22
Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. All right. Nothing better than a 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. 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 RNC resolutions coming out against this and maybe that doesn't matter to some of you in terms of who might be in support of this or not. But I've thought of a few scenarios of how this could be applied. All of them make me really uneasy if there was ever any type of movement or ballot initiative to try to get this implemented. So the bill's pretty short.
All right. Representative McCollum has explained the bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
27:45
Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative McCollum, is there anywhere in Arkansas that currently utilizes ranked choice voting? Not that I know of. I
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
27:55
asked the Secretary of State that same question. I was a little surprised by the, 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 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. They welcome clarity. And I think most of that conversation, and I don't want to speak for them, but for me, of why I would also think clarity is needed, is if there was a municipality that wanted to pass an ordinance or do anything of the nature, we could quickly point to something that would bring clarity on the issue. Okay, thank you.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
28:43
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
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
28:55
of vote from taking place. Is that right? No, it couldn't prevent any type vote from taking place. I guess the two ways that, you know, a law to support ranked choice voting, two ways that that could happen is one of us, you know, could run that bill. Let's say someone wanted to go and create clarity with the 40-20 rule that municipalities currently have in
elections and wanted to re-look at that and within that also decide to make some type of ranked choice voting. I guess my response is, you know, having this recently passed would show quickly the signal of the legislature that's passed. And then I guess to your other example of how it could change from the ballot initiative process, I guess my view is if I think it is a good idea to prohibit it and make that clear, I would be okay with the law stating that. And you're
right. It wouldn't stop, you know, maybe some of these deep pockets that have tried to get this passed in other states, and 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
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
30:12
that. Thank you. Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, didn't we do a bill regarding ranked choice voting in the 2023 session?
I am not certain. I was thinking it may have addressed only state level, but in this bill, you're addressing the political subdivisions also. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
30:37
Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, our committee just
used ranked choice voting to decide our constitutional amendment. I've heard this much. I don't know if you had any comment on the value or problematic nature, potentially.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
30:52
My comment is just mostly respect for the
chair's ability to run a good committee and decipher. We are governed much differently, I'd say that. But, yeah,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
31:03
I'm not on the committee. Can't speculate. Sure. Well,
I mean, there is really a question there. And I think the
question comes down to, you know, if a jurisdiction finds value in that way of doing things, as jurisdictions predominantly Democratic and Republican have found over the years. Here, we're saying they can't do that.
And so, I mean, I'm not really sure how you can answer the question, but why would we take away that choice from local jurisdictions here
in our state? Why is it more important to preempt their decision than to allow them to make that
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
31:41
decision? I think we're sent here to 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 okay 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 signed up 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 do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye.
Aye. All those opposed. No. The ayes have it.
Congratulations, Representative McCollum, you passed your bill. All right, next
bill we have on the agenda is House Bill 1069, Representative Meeks. Did you want to run that today? No, that's the daily saving time.
Yeah. All right. I see Representative Vaught here. I know Representative Vaught looks like has House Bill 1187. Representative Vaught, you're recognized. May I invite my guest up too,
Speaker 154
33:22
sir? Yes. I believe, Representative Vaught,
you also have some handouts for the committee. Yes, sir. All right, staff is going to pass out those handouts. We'll give them a moment to do that.
Give everyone a moment to review those. And then Representative Vaught, you'll be recognized to present the bill at that time.
All right, everyone should have a copy of the handouts. representative vaught you're
recognized dm vaught district 87
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
35:18
roger smith from sada virginia american association for marriage and family therapy and just to
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
35:27
save some time i'm going to go ahead and let him speak and then we'll ask answer questions if that's okay with everybody thank
Speaker 159
35:35
you mr chair you're recognized Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
35:38
afternoon. Chairman Gassaway, Vice Chairman Beck, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak about House Bill 1187, legislation sponsored by Representative Vaught that would allow more licensed mental health therapists to practice in Arkansas.
I am 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, are mental health professionals trained in psychotherapy and family systems and licensed 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. A 2024 State of Mental Health in America report ranked Arkansas 41st 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 meeting the various needs of Arkansas residents. It is important to remove unnecessary barriers, restricting access to critically needed and skilled marriage and family therapists. House Bill 1187 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 and 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 that are almost identical to this bill or are currently considering them. During the 2024 legislative sessions, bills to remove these barriers to licensure by endorsement were assigned into law in seven 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. Licensure by endorsement currently exists in Arkansas. However, the current statute continues to prevent some qualified providers from attaining the license by endorsement. It is possible to pursue licensure portability across the country because MFTs, licensure standards are extremely similar across 50 states. All states license family therapists. All states have at least, all MFTs 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, an individual must undergo multiple years of supervision, resulting in roughly 8,000 hours of clinical supervised experience or its equivalent. All states required, in order to be licensed, an individual must pass the same national marriage and family therapy licensing exam or a comparable state administer exam. Additionally, 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, or ethics violations.
Applicants will need to meet the state's continuing 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 also 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 while protecting the high quality of care for residents provided by marriage
and family therapists. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important piece of legislation. And
Chair
Unverified
39:36
we're ready for questions. All right. Representative Carr, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. appreciate you guys bringing this to us because we do need more mental health help in here in the state. I was curious to know the scope of this bill seems to be restricted to the family and marriage counselors. What was the reason why the
scope also does include licensed professional counselors or LPCs?
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
39:59
Thank you representative for a good 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 one licensed profession 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.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
40:26
Gotcha. Thank you very much. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, so at the risk of asking an overly obvious question, this is
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
40:45
basically just licensure reciprocity, correct? Yes, yes, essentially it is. Endorsement reciprocity, very similar, except it's not a reciprocity. Technically, it's like an agreement with another state, so this is not an agreement with another state,
but it's a similar process, almost identical.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
41:00
Okay, all right. Well, that sounds like a great idea. I guess the only thing I would add is that looking at this handout, I think it looks to me like we require 3,000 hours
client contact hours. Mississippi requires only 500. I mean, we need to right size some of these requirements in our law because I can't imagine that one of these professionals in Mississippi is, you know,
I can't imagine that they're one-sixth as effective as one in Arkansas. These requirements vary wildly from state to state. And those people have to
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
41:40
shut their doors. So they can't be actually 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, Representative Kavanaugh and I, and it got beat real bad. But I
can find that little bill and refile it if you think it's a great idea. All right. Thank you,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
42:01
Mr. Chairman. Motion at the proper time.
Okay, 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,
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
42:20
for instance? Thank you, Speaker, for your question. Licensed marriage and family therapists are similar in some ways to the other mental health professions. Licensed professional counselors, also licensed clinical social workers. They have some similarity in a master's degree and having to take a clinical exam and supervised experience.
They all differ in terms of their professional orientation. The main difference is licensed marriage and family therapists view things from a systemic perspective that not all mental health problems are so-called between the ears, but it can be a result of relationships between people and stress among relationships. Also, family therapists are the only 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
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
43:20
for that. Representative Clowney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is also kind of a follow-up on Representative Reyes. 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, just theoretically. So I guess my question is, why did we
go this route instead of a compact? - Because
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
43:47
this 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 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 for our state.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
44:10
Okay, so, and I'm sorry, I'm just working through this as we're talking. So getting a license, Arkansas loses some control over the requirements if we engage in this kind of reciprocity, but they retain control when it comes to the oversight sort of on the back end. Is that the argument? But I guess I'm concerned about losing that control on the front end. So can you just speak to
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
44:35
that concern? Thank you, Representative, for your question. On that, they would be able to, like Representative Vaught said, obtain a license.
So it would actually be 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. You usually obtain a privilege to practice, so it's not technically a license like Representative Vaught said. And also when you are licensed, you are under the licensure board. So you would be required coming into the state and getting licensed or obtaining a license to follow the same exact 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
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
45:27
laws and rules and ethics within Arkansas. And can I add to that? So I think if you'll just move up a couple of lines on the, on line 26, it says the standards and qualifications required for the practice of the counseling in this
candidate's licensing state are at least equal to those required. So I think that's going to protect us also, ma'am. Thank you.
Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you. Just kind of following along the line of questioning.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
45:56
So therapists, you know, they're from another state. They move to Arkansas. Based upon the passage here, they're going to 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 given that license just because they've come over from the other state?
That would be my first question. And then my second one, I think you've already answered this, 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
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
46:47
at all. Number one, I don't think that we are. I think if we were doing a compact, we'd be lowering it more than what we are
by making them have an Arkansas license. Right,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
46:59
right. And I'm not saying lowering the standard, but let's say they come from a state that
has a lower standard. I think Representative Ray said we have 3,000 hours, but let's say 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 3,000, so are they going to have to get to that 3,000 before their next renewal, does that make sense?
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
47:29
Okay, so I believe when they renew, they would have to comply with Arkansas law because they would then be living in our state. Okay. So
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
47:49
if the requirements of the state that they're coming from is less than ours, in this example, that by the
time of their renewal, they would have to come up to our standard.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
48:03
So the lowest number of hours that I've seen is 2,000 hours from a different state. I think hours, which, again, we ran a bill because we thought it was too stringent last time, people lose their livelihood trying to get to that 3,000 hours. Right, right. So what I'm saying is if
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
48:23
they have the 2,000 hours, right, and they come into Arkansas, they get the license under this, a year later they go to renew, will they have to get that 1,000-hour difference in order to renew?
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
48:36
I'm making sure there's not an unintended consequence here. No, I don't think they have to go get another 1,000 hours. They will have already practiced in the state of Arkansas. So I don't think they're going to have to go back and get 1,000 hours. They're just renewing a
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
48:52
license that was already granted to them. Okay. And then just to verify, they would still
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
48:56
be subject to disciplinary actions and all that under the vote? Yes, sir. All right, thank you. And actually it says if they have a complaint, an allegation or investigation, then they also could not be licensed.
Okay, I want to follow up on some of my questions about
what exactly is a marriage and family therapist. What type of topics do they typically deal with? And so 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 certainly not to these levels. things like gender transitioning of
children, gender identity and gender theory.
And I'm just imagining under your reciprocity agreement, you have people from California who are licensed marriage family therapists who are now going to be able to meet the requirements and conduct telehealth therapy for children in Arkansas and things of that nature.
And so, I'd just like to get your opinion on that. We've had several other bills run through different committees on these issues trying to stop these things
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 typically address? And what do you have to say in that regard?
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
50:32
Thank you very much, Speaker, for your question. On those topics that you mentioned itself, mental health providers could address those, but it's probably relatively few.
Also, any topic or item or 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 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 allowed 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. if anyone violated the law, then they would be subject to discipline by the Board of Examiners and Counselors, and that would also be the same with the other licensure boards in the state of Arkansas, whether it's the Medical Board, Psychology Board, Social Work Board, or
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
51:42
any other board. 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 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, does
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
52:11
this bill permit that? Thank you, Speaker, for this question. No, if they're actually practicing and you have people under them,
they either would have to be in a license, a full license, or if they're associates, they would have to be licensed as an associate under the Board of Examiners and Counseling. Associates license associate marriage and family therapist as a designation. Also, maybe if you don't mind, back to your last question a little bit, there currently is a portability law for family therapists in Arkansas, as there is with the other professions that allow, Originally it allowed three years of practice to get licensed.
This House Bill 1187 would streamline that process. Also under the automatic licensure law passed by two years ago, there is one year of experience to get licensed if you're an 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 Woodridge,
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
53:15
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Vaught, for bringing this bill.
I think it's a great bill. If Representative Ray hadn't already had a motion in the queue, I would have one for you. 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 fill pre-graduate or pre-licensure requirements. Isn't that correct?
That's 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. Dr. Roberts, why don't you take
your seat if you would state your name and any organization
you may be here representing and then you'll be recognized
Speaker 200
54:28
to present your remarks. Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Kelly Roberts and I'm a fifth
Speaker 201
54:33
generation Oklahoman. I teach at Oklahoma Christian University and I also practice at a federally qualified healthcare in rural Oklahoma and southeast area. 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. Okay.
Speaker 200
54:57
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and all of the honorable members here.
Speaker 201
55:02
I just am so grateful that you're here. Thank you for your hard work today and the session I sat through it. And I'm just grateful for your very important questions, because as a therapist, I'm over there answering them in my head. But my primary reason today to be here is to let you know three reasons why I am so passionate about this particular legislation.
I'm a Ph.D. professor. I started a training program at Oklahoma Christian University several years ago. My team 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 we do have Arkansas students. And so what we know is that there's a 50 to 70 percent 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 until they get licensed because their spouse is also in graduate school or there's a supervisor or a good job that they had right out of college. And so 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 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 three grads right now I'm mentoring from Arkansas. And I know all of those three want to come back. And
Speaker 204
56:39
so I just really would love that streamlined process for them to be able
Speaker 200
56:45
to get back as quickly as possible. The second point I wanted to share with you is that
Speaker 201
56:51
rural health care, which is true of so much of Arkansas, thought, certainly true of where I live in Oklahoma. We have many people who are just also barely hanging on. And I have patients that I see on Mondays and Tuesdays who drive to Fort Smith,
they want to have a tele-mental health session in their car on their phones on lunch hour. And so they go out and they can't. And so they keep asking, why can't we do tele-mental health? And We're just like, well, there's a lot of processes. It takes kind of a long time to get that license, and so we'll just have to wait until you're back on the border, across the border. This over-border phenomenon, you guys are all familiar with it. If you represent border areas, we may step into other states, but my patients are frequently right over the border in MENA 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 therapist or their family physician because of these reasons I work through the physicians. Finally, ironically, Friday at 4.45, this last Friday, I had a suicidal patient. They had never been to medical care. Their primary care called me because I was the person that was on call. I worked with them through our 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 rurally because I was going to be here talking to you all, and so these pieces of going back and forth, I mean, I'm just a little bit from the house, you know, here, I guess like three hours, but it's just a really big deal for us to have a little more fluidity. I'm so excited about getting an Arkansas 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 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
59:16
this bill. Thanks. 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. It's very important. And 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. What educational requirements. How many client contact hours do you
Speaker 201
59:44
have to have in Oklahoma? We're one of the ones that have 2,000. You have 2,000? Yeah, and I will say just an addendum to these people who were having questions with hours. Some hours in laws, it may be close to 2,000, but it's also if someone says
3,000, they may be talking about just work in the field and not direct client contact. And so So sometimes you'll see laws from different states that say hours, but if you read 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. Yeah. Follow-up?
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:00:29
I just want to throw this out and see what you think.
Like I said, I'm for it. I think it's good. We need it. do you think that people from Arkansas, rather than now going through these 3,000 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 practice in Arkansas? Do you think?
Speaker 201
1:01:07
I think we probably all have answers, and they may all be three different answers. I'm going to speak from the university perspective, because I've had higher education jobs in Texas. 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 talk to program directors all the time. The majority, the sweet spot, I would say roughly 70 to 80 percent of every program everywhere is local. And so what you're going to 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 doubt that there's going to be border skipping in order to get under the wire on a different
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:01:52
law. That's my gut. Okay. I wouldn't blame them if they did. I had an employee working for me who had to do this 3,000 hours, and it was terrible. So Representative Vaught-Ida 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 Dr. Roberts for your testimony. Next we have signed up to speak for the bill, Becky Whetstone. Dr. Becky Whetstone, I should say. Looks like PhD. Do what now? Okay.
If you would state your name and the organization you're here representing and you're recognized, present your remarks.
Speaker 214
1:02:45
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 specialists. We're the only profession in 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 six 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 want to say it took about 18 months and cost me over $10,000 to be able to come to this state to do what I was
Speaker 219
1:04:27
already doing in a full and bustling practice in San Antonio, Texas.
Speaker 217
1:04:33
The process was not only expensive, it was stressful, it was demeaning, it was overkill and i was really angry about it um and
Speaker 214
1:04:46
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 want to say that you know you are quibbling over 2 000 hours 3 000
hours, I'm telling you that if someone has completed the marriage and family therapy program and is licensed in any state, they have seen hundreds and thousands of couples and individuals already. If they've been in private practice, they're seeing hundreds and thousands of clients a year. And so I would ask that you not quibble over the hours and understand that we take our work very seriously. We are very qualified to see whatever issue that any family or individual
would bring to us. And I just, you know, think that 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 to please end this madness for all the people that are going to 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. 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, sometimes it's wonderful and they resolve their issues and they live happily ever after and other times they don't.
And so how often would you say you guys end up testifying in court in custody cases and things like that? Well, we're
Speaker 214
1:07:03
not forensic psychologists. We don't do testing. 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 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 never known of any of two spouses that would sign off on a therapist, you know, testifying in a court.
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 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 a child, if the child is seeing a therapist. And the parties will consent to that. There's always the privilege issue that typically gets raised, but it's been my experience that
many times in custody cases it actually is becoming more and more prevalent that therapists are testifying. So anyway, I just wondered, I'm actually quite shocked that you've never testified, but understanding the privilege, I think that's probably a good thing, but that's just not been my experience necessarily. Dr. Smith, did you have any remarks on that? Thank you, Speaker, for your question.
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:09:06
One of my duties in the association I work for is we have a legal and ethics hotline
that answers calls from members. There are some who do so, but there are many therapists who can go like Dr. Whetstone here their entire career without having to go to court, and there are others just because of the nature of the cases that are handling maybe children who have been abused or something like that who go to court more regularly. And there are some who are forensic, but there's a subset who do, but there are 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, Dr. Whetstone. Appreciate your remarks. And that appears all that we have signed up to speak
for or against the bill. Representative Vaught, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:09:58
I won't go long, 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 mental health care access and support a stronger mental health workforce that we need right now in the state of Arkansas.
And with that, I would appreciate a good vote. All right, Representative Ray? Yeah, motion do pass.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:10:26
All right, Representative Ray has made a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Woodridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 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 licensure. It just allows us to put to work people that live in the state that are licensed in another state. You still have 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 there's an upper level licensure, if we require 3,000 hours for me to be an LCSW in Arkansas, but it's 1,500 in Missouri, this would allow me to come to Arkansas and work. So I think that 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 do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your
bill. Thank you. Thank you, Committee. All right, next I see Representative Matt Brown, House Bill 1739, and I believe Representative Brown has an amendment. Is that right?
Senator Brown, while they're passing out the amendment, do you want to state your name, your district, and you'll be recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt
Speaker 230
1:12:02
Brown, District 55. And Mr. Chair, as you indicated, I do have an amendment that should be passed out right now. The purpose of the amendment is to exempt the AOC and the court system from the coverage of this act. 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 has made a motion to adopt the amendment 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
1:12:58
brown to recognize present the bill as amended thank you chair thank you committee
Speaker 230
1:13:02
uh colleagues this is the fifth bill
of the arkansas bar package for this session um kind of uh same song fifth verse this is another one of the uniform laws promulgated by the uniform laws commission for adoption in the states right now 21 states have adopted this act dc the u.s virgin islands and is currently pending in three legislatures including Arkansas. This bill simply clarifies that if a state agency decides to publish, let's say, a rule in electronic format, 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 copy will be the legal copy going forward, they can do that. If they do choose to make an electronic copy, the official legal copy, the bill requires three things. The first thing it requires is that the copy has to be authenticated. I'm not a computer expert, but the UCL or ULC actually called out Arkansas on their amendments 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 that the electronic copy is preserved in such a manner that it can be retrieved in the event of data loss. In other words, they've got to have backups. And then 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 is 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. With that, I'd be glad to answer any
questions. All right, Representative Browns, explain the bill with any questions by the committee.
Seeing no questions from this, oh no. Okay. 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 recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, we would be
Chair
Unverified
1:14:56
the 22nd state to adopt this law, and I 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?
It's up to the motion. I think I strike
that. 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. Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Next, I see Representative Kendra Moore here, House Bill 1740.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:15:40
Representative Moore, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kendra Moore, District 23. Mr. Chair, with your permission, may I have Secretary Ward join me at
Chair
Unverified
1:16:17
the table? You may. West Ward from the Arkansas Department of Agriculture.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:16:20
Representative Moore, you're recognized. So House Bill 1740 is a Department of Agriculture bill that protects our agricultural producers. There are currently two requirements from the USDA to move cattle between states: A Certificate a veterinary 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 animal identification for this interstate movement. And they are required to have these electronic identification tags 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 anyone associated with these EID tags. The other, the CIDs, 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.
These 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 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. And with that, I'll take any
questions. All right, Representative Brown, sorry, Moore has presented her bill.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:19:50
Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Has the FOIA task force had a
chance to look at this bill, and do they have a position on
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:20:00
it? They did. I presented it to them a couple of weeks ago, and they really didn't have a position. Okay.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:20:10
Representative Hawk you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's shocking the task force didn't have anything to say about
a FOIA bill. 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. Like 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 going to be able to track this information and release that to the public, just not have the personal information in that? Is that what
Speaker 248
1:20:48
we're saying here? Yes, sir. No, you're absolutely right. This enhances our ability to do disease traceability.
It helps the producers to be able to have accurate information themselves, 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
Speaker 250
1:21:04
a way that protects their information. So we're essentially still making the producers get this tag or this
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:21:10
certificate. All we're saying, though, is that the information for you as a producer is not going to be FOI-able, but all the other information would be able to be, correct? Okay. Just want to make sure. Thank you.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:21:25
Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you just help me understand And help me understand the nefarious actor that we're trying to prevent here. What do they do with the information that
Speaker 248
1:21:43
is harmful to Arkansans rather than helpful? Yes, ma'am. And we've seen smaller scale incidents in Arkansas, but in other states we've seen it more prolific where maybe areas that are more animal rights activated, more likely to be against animal agriculture,
meat production, meat consumption. We've seen them literally go after and request every document they can have. They show up on their farms, they video. They try to take things out of context to put animal agriculture in a bad lot. So we've seen a few cases in Arkansas that are relatively minor so far, but the intent is to protect escalation of those sort of incidents. So we have seen a few groups that have FOIAed information. And I think in one occasion, we released a couple thousand documents that we weren't able to redact personal information from.
But 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 exactly what we're trying to
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:22:38
help protect. Okay, I understand that. 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
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:22:54
the aggregate, about the health 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. Okay, 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?
Speaker 248
1:23:36
You're exactly right. Yes, sir. There are other provisions in agricultural code sections that protect personal information, but this one does not and that's why we're trying to get it fixed.
No, but my question is why has a certificate of veterinary inspection always been considered a 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
Speaker 248
1:24:04
inspection? I would say no, other than the purposes of what we've discussed here, just the overall
why it's considered a public record, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I can't answer that question. Okay,
certainly 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. Don't know. All right. That's fine. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Well, I
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:24:37
was just going to hazard a guess at your question, which is I think a lot
of this information is generally subject to disclosure unless there's a specific exemption for it. 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, 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. Does that sound fair enough? Yes, I believe
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:25:30
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. All
right, any other questions by the committee?
Well, I'm going to ask one more. 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 Does this include all the types of hormones and antibiotics and other drugs that may have been administered to animals? Does it include, you know, as you mentioned, the illnesses that 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 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. Well, that's
Speaker 248
1:26:54
a fair question, and I do have a couple of different copies of certificates of veterinary inspection here if anyone would like to see that just to kind of get a visual of what that looks like.
But it carries several different aspects of information on the different species, the animal identification, the class status, the herd status, what sort of herd they were with. So it doesn't necessarily go into specifics of any sort of medication that they might have been on recently. But it is a certificate from a veterinarian, you know, basically laying out the health of that animal before it moves interstate as Representative Moore spoke about. So it's really, if there was a problem with that animal, that certificate of veterinary inspection,
it is a veterinarian putting their name on saying, this is what the health of that
animal is. Okay. So if a cow has mad cow disease, the public's not going to be able to
Chair
Unverified
1:27:53
find out. If it had that, we would not allow movement of that
Speaker 150
1:27:58
animal. I'm going to have to trust you on that one since we don't have FOIA anymore. All right,
very good. Any other questions by the committee?
Seeing none, Representative Moore, I don't believe we have anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Moore, you're recognized to close for the
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:28:16
bill. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am closed for my bill and appreciate a good vote.
- All right, Representative Moore has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See a motion do pass. Rep. Collins, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it.
Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. All right, we have a couple other bills we're going to 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, Rep. Ray. Second place, HJR 1014, Representative Beatty. Third place, HJR 1017, Representative Ray. Fourth place, HJR 1016, Representative Ray.
Fifth place, HJR 1009, Representative Carolyn Brown. Those are the top five. And we'll take those five up again for hearing on Wednesday. All right. Moving along, I see Representative Shad Pierce here. I believe he has a bill. Representative Pierce, this is House Bill
1886, I believe. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:29:42
Thank you, committee. 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 its popularity, and it's not a state dog at this time of any other state, to my knowledge, that I have researched. 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,
the sizes come in medium to large, the versatility, they run, they swim, they work, They are friendly to everyone. The American Kennel Club has classified the dog of all reasons. So, and obviously it's a hunting dog with its web feed and its 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. But to move on and to speed this up, due to their intelligence, eagerness, eagerness to please, and willingness to work hard,
they are highly valuable service dogs in a variety of fields such as search and rescue, bomb, drug detection, and personal therapy. I think, 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 questions, am I? I apologize, but I thought I
Speaker 150
1:31:17
remembered that. That's all right. You're talking about the courthouse
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:31:21
dogs, right? You're right. That's right. Okay, 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 in 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,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:31:50
are there any other states that do a dog? I mean,
we just did a bird this session.
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:31:59
Is there another state that does a dog? I didn't look if any other state done a canine or not. I did look
to see that this canine was not designated to any other
Speaker 148
1:32:09
state. Gotcha. Okay. 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 Hawk's point, we've had a, now we have a state duck, I believe, or state bird.
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. But I love dogs, so. All right, any other questions by
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:32:49
the committee? Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you. Representative Pierce, 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 this like a group that decided this?
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:33:05
Did you decide this? I decided this because of 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 loyal. Okay. Did you have others in
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:33:22
consideration or was this just the only dog? No, no, I had others
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:33:27
in consideration. Actually, let me restate what I said. I had someone to come to me
and ask me if I would do this.
So, I mean, and I thought it, and after I researched it, I thought, you know, that's a good suggestion. Do you mind me
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:33:47
asking what the other dogs think? No, just other things, other dogs that were in consideration for this. This is one of the better questions of
Speaker 150
1:33:56
the year. There was no other dogs. So this is one of the better questions of the year, by the way. This is a good one.
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:34:04
Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. I did not,
although I like, like you said, I like all breeds of canines.
But no, I did not research any of the others. And there was no reason that I picked this one other than the others. Other than because, I just thought it fit. I
didn't research the other canine. Okay, I got you. All right, thank you. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:34:27
Chairman. Just to make sure we're avoiding any conflicts of interest here. Do you happen to own a Labrador Retriever? I do not at this
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:34:34
time, I've had many and I've had one for a long time, a long phase that was, that I thought a lot about, but no, at this time I do not.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:34:44
And 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 Retrievers, although they were, Ohio and Maine had proposals in 2015 to make them the state dog. So if we're going to grab that
as our state dog, I guess we probably should do it before those other states do. Wouldn't
Speaker 279
1:35:09
you agree? I agree we'd be the first, yes.
All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, we have no one signed to speak for or against the bill. Representative Pierce, you're recognized to close for your bill. I just asked for a good vote, and I'm closing. Representative Pierce is closed for
the bill. Representative Beatty makes a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. - Aye. - All those opposed,
ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. - Thank you. - All right, I see Representative Ladyman's here. Also got Representative McKenzie,
we're gonna get to quickly. Representative Ladyman. - Thank
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:35:58
you, Mr. Chairman. State Representative Jack Ladyman, District 32. Well, before I start, I wanna thank Representative Pierce. Now we have a state dog that can go with the state duck after it's shot, so appreciate that. Members, HJR 1004 is the Article 5 term limits
for Congress resolution. Since I presented this resolution earlier the session to you all, 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, three 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 the momentum is building here. The states around us, all states around us except Mississippi and Texas have approved this. There is a bill in Texas right now working it through their legislature. Just remind you of a couple things that I mentioned to you before. There was a study done nationally and in Arkansas, and 80% of the responders to both of those studies, 80% of the people
want term limits for Congress. Our founding fathers, I believe, wanted a country of part-time legislators. National and state executives have term limits. We have term limits. So, 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 bill with any questions by the committee.
Seeing no questions by the committee, do we have anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one signed up to speak
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:38:05
for or against the bill, Representative Ladyman, you're recognized to close for your bill. Well, again, 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.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:38:25
I see a motion do pass by Representative Long. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's kind of been long and drawn out with things changing. I think with the Article 5, with the Convention of States, everything has kind of got mixed together.
When all this first began, which was my first session in 2019, 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 United States Constitution?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:39:13
It is. This resolution would call for a convention of states to recommend term limits to the public to amend the Constitution. There have been, and I might get the number wrong, don't hold me to this, I think 40 resolutions to call a convention of states in the past. None of those have ever happened. Parliamentary Inquiry, Mr. Chair. I'm
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:39:45
curious where we were going with this in particular, with it as an HJR.
When we were to vote on this here in a moment, what
happens next with this? So, yeah, a couple of things. This is a joint resolution that is not a constitutional amendment like, 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. It is not a proposed constitutional amendment.
That's why it wasn't included in the list that we've previously heard.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:40:30
Representative Collins. Point of parliamentary inquiry. All right, you're recognized. Are we not discussing on the motion right
now? We are, and so to be clear, that'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 gonna engage in a question and answer at this point, so Representative Meeks.
Just discussion on the motion based upon what representative-- Hang on one second before you go too far. Representative Crawford where you, no, no, no, I don't want to make, I want you to be cut off if you have more discussion
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:41:12
that you would like to have.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:41:19
Let's finish with Representative Meeks. Okay, Representative Meeks, you're right. And I may
be able to address your concern. When these were first brought, there were some concerns that these would—you'd have a convention of states, but that would then be a full-blown, we're going to do away with the Constitution and be like it was back in 1776, and we're going to redo the whole—this is not that.
this doesn't allow that. If this is called under this Article 5 convention, the 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'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, Article 5 convention.
It only allows for discussions on Article 5, and that's it, nothing else. If they were to try to do a 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 three-quarters of the state, anything 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 long before the states would ever get it. And that's what's happened historically. So, I support the bill. All right,
Representative Crawford, did you have any additional discussion?
Okay, all right. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing no further discussion on the motion, we do have a motion due pass.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. The ayes have it. Congratulations. Representative Leitman, you've
passed your resolution. - Thank you, committee. - All right, we have three other members, I believe, in the room.
We have bills, actually four, that I see to be heard tonight. Representative Wing has been waiting here a long time,
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:43:52
very patiently, so Representative Wing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carlton Wing, State Representative, District 70. And I have
a couple of guests here. All right. With your permission. Of
course. And Representative Wing, my understanding is there's an amendment. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. All right. Staff is passing out
that amendment. All right, Representative Wayne, you're recognized to present the amendment. Okay.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:44:53
First, amendment really does two things. One is adds a Senate sponsor, and then number two, clarifies some intent. When the bill was originally drafted, it placed a shall on the federal courts, which we can't shall. And so what this does is it places the shall 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 a Senate sponsor, and I'd appreciate
a good vote. All right, Representative Wings, explain the amendment. Are there any questions on the amendment?
Seeing none, is there a motion? a motion to adopt the amendment representative meeks any discussion on that motion seeing none all those in favor 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
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:45:38
much mr chair and thank you committee the house bill 1870 what it does is it allows us to be able to share
data two 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 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 that data and information to our county clerks and that can make sure that our voter rolls are well maintained
is my voice coming and going on this microphone okay 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
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:47:00
recognized for a question thank you mr. chair so my question my first question I guess, is, you know, the reason a federal court would disqualify a potential juror for residency is 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 going to 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?
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:47:42
I'll answer first, but I'll let the experts jump in. But what this would do is just provide a list from which we would be able to use that data. So we're not
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:47:55
doing anything that would break any current voter registration law. Well, it does say that in D1, that after verifying that the person disqualified or potentially disqualified is a registered voter
they shall forward the information to the clerk and then in d2 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 a 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 that if they're on that list, they will be removed. This would just
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:48:35
follow existing law. That's why we put in there, under existing constitutional law,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:48:38
Amendment 51 and 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 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 nine
Speaker 312
1:49:06
months or will you know? Josh Bridges, Assistant Director of Elections for the Secretary of State.
I think I can speak to that a little
Speaker 313
1:49:13
bit. While we are the go-between for several different sets of data, we're 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 be a 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.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:49:48
I would feel a lot better if that was in this bill and it said that it was only someone that was disqualified on the basis of our voter registration law as opposed to the jury law, which is different, jury rules. So, thank you. - Representative Ennett, you're recognized.
Representative Ennett. - You're on. - Oh, I yield.
- Okay, all right. So, I guess I have a question. How do they currently get their information for their
Speaker 313
1:50:34
voter rolls, or for their jury pools, I suppose? Representative Gasway, when you say they, are you referring to the federal courts? Federal courts, yes. Yes, sir. So we send them data on, I believe it's an annual basis. That request comes via email, typically to me, and I will turn that data back to them within a couple days.
Speaker 312
1:50:56
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. Okay. And so what specifically does this bill seek
Speaker 312
1:51:15
to do that changes that process? From
Speaker 313
1:51:17
my understanding of the bill, the federal courts will simply turn back any data that they see as potentially disqualifying for a juror based on the criteria that is set down in this bill on,
Speaker 315
1:51:29
I believe it's lines 34 through 36 on page one and lines one and two on page two. Okay, you heard Representative
Collins 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 in
Speaker 325
1:51:53
on this one, Hannah Banks, Managing Attorney, Secretary of State. 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 citizen or not. Requiring them to do extra work on their end, rather than taking that on ourselves, 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 will do the due diligence on our end to make sure that the data is good. So it's really just
Speaker 326
1:52:25
to make it easier on the federal courts. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you. You know, it was not about being
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:52:38
a citizen. So the citizen part is no issue. It's about the non-resident of the state or non-resident 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 fine. You're good to vote. But if you are a juror, to be a juror, you have to be, for a year, a
resident of the state or county. And so the citizen thing is 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 going to 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, 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 who are being asked to strike voters that are on that list.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:54:10
Let me jump in. Tell me, Representative Collins, if this is when I read line 23 of
page two, it says after verifying, so the data is returned back and after verifying that the person is disqualified or potentially disqualified, 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
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:54:50
is 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 line up, basically, you're disqualified as a prospective juror, and that also would disqualify you as a registered voter, that verification would be useful and would save the issue. I mean, really save the clerks from having to effectively remove voters that they shouldn't be.
Speaker 313
1:55:49
Go ahead. I don't want to speak on whether or not Representative Wing 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 send down bad data to the county clerks 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 fact of the data. I personally am very cautious with any kind of data or information we send to our counties
to ensure that it is good 100 verifiable data and i appreciate
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:56:25
that 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 voter but thank you
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:56:50
All right, Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Part of your
verification process, do you all send a letter to the registered voter and ask them, you know, are you, I guess, really eligible, you know, I mean, you don't just delete them from the voter rolls, you make any inquiry with them to help them to know that they need to submit maybe some more information to you? What's that process?
Speaker 313
1:57:22
Under this legislation, I believe it would be simply us forwarding that data to the county clerk's office and leaving it to their discretion. So that's something that we can talk about internally to see if we want to send a letter to those voters first. 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 batches of data down to the county clerk's office from Department of Health, you know, Department of Motor Vehicles, and you know, Crime Information
Speaker 322
1:57:54
Center. Again, just kind of 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 signed up
to speak for or against the bill. Representative Wing, you're recognized to close for the bill. Mr. Chair, could I ask you a question?
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:58:24
Yes. When would 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 well. So I want to make sure if I'm willing to bring this back on Wednesday to be able to make sure and I want to make sure, Representative Collins, 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 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 with that, just in the way that it's wording, 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 leave that to you. Certainly, you're welcome to move forward with the bill today. I know, you know, have no doubt about your word and you think everyone here is acting in good faith and wanting to do the right thing. So, if you want to bring it back, if you want to amend it later, I'll just leave that completely to your decision. I would say,
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:59:57
and I'll just kind of look for some eyeballs here from the committee.
One thing that there's two options here, especially with where we are with the timing of the session was 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 on the Senate side All right, let's how about let's let's just do this and make it nice and clean and simple let me bring this back on wednesday okay 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 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 okay all right the amendment will stay here so when we pass it i suppose it'll be passed as as amended still.
Speaker 17
2:00:59
- Sounds good, thank you very much. Thank you, committee. - All right, thank you, Representative Wing.
Speaker 338
2:01:14
Representative Childress has been here for quite some time. Thank you,
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:01:30
Mr. Chair. Paul Childress, 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 at the table. Yes,
Chair
Unverified
2:01:43
he may. This is Senate Bill 454, correct?
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:01:45
Yes, sir. Senate Bill 454. All right. You're recognized. Okay, what this bill is doing, it's cleaning up the accounting for the interest that is earned on unclaimed property through the State Auditor's Office. And 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 principal all is in one account. And we're just trying to create a separate fund and it's going to be called the unclaimed property interest trust fund.
And it's just going to establish clear counting on both ends. They're already keeping up with it, but this bill is just going to 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. It's already passed the Senate 34 to nothing. 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 a summary of it, the interest and principal is commingled 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 remove intermingling of the interest and principal for the unclaimed property and abandoned mineral 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 just want to take questions? Just here
Speaker 343
2:03:18
to answer questions, Mr. Chairman. All right. Any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by Representative Berry. Thank you,
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:03:30
Mr. Chairman. To help me understand something, do you get royalty checks from gas companies in your office? Royalty checks, sir, that is a question that
Speaker 346
2:03:41
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.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:03:56
Well, mask. It doesn't really make sense, if I'm understanding it correctly, that your office would get royalty checks off of mental rights and not be able to find the owners, and it's where they can send it directly to the owner. But maybe I'm not understanding exactly.
But if your office gets mineral checks from mineral rights, it looks like you could find that person or the nearest person to where the gas company could send it to them, and you wouldn't even have a problem then. Mr. Chairman, we have another witness from the auditor's office that is an expert
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:04:54
in this, and he can maybe answer that question if he can join us. All right, absolutely. Sir,
if you would, state your name for the record.
I think you're here from the treasurer's office, but if
Chair
Unverified
2:05:07
you would state that for the record, you'll be recognized. Yes, sir. This is Thomas Birchfield. I'm the Outreach Manager for Audra Milligan's office
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:05:14
in the Treasure Hunt. And I'm also sort of a basic claim agent. So when it comes to mental rights or any unclaimed property from heirship claims to personal claims, 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 20, 30 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, and I'm just using an example, 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
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:06:16
do that. Did that help answer some of those questions? I think so. It just kind of amazes me that a company would send your office money a check from the mineral rights. And I don't know. There's something missing there, I guess. Representative, if you're okay,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:06:41
I can answer a little bit to that. So I know our Senate Bill 14, which is now Act 114, that y'all passed 100%. That bill was going to allow us to send over 360,000 properties, properties talking about like individual claims, $50. Now 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, 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 obligation 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 dollars that we have right now and unclaimed property but
like that Senate bill that passed we're going to be able to potentially return $83 million thanks to y'all passing that. Well,
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:08:01
I know you're doing what you can and you do a good job with what you have to work with sometimes, but that, 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 by the committee, we have no one signed to speak for or against the bill. Representative Childress is recognized to close for
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:08:41
your bill. Mr. Chairman, I close for the bill, and I'd appreciate a good vote.
Representative Childress is closed for the bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Is the motion due passed? Representative
Hawke, is there any 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. Thank you. Where is Representative McKenzie? Let's see.
All right, just send him
a text. Maybe he'll respond. I see Representative McElindon here. Representative McElindon, are you here for House Bill 1683? No. Okay. Okay.
1837. Alright, very good. Representative McElhin, you are recognized to present House Bill 1837. Thank
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:10:14
you, Representative McElhin, House District 10. So I bring you today House Bill
1837. And what this does is it actually starts—it increases transparency in 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 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. 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 as voters, we want to protect the integrity of our elections.
We want to ensure that the voices that are shaping policy are decisions of American citizens and not of any foreign national. And that's what this bill does. And it basically says that if you have a donation of over $10,000, that you need to certify that it does not come from a foreign source. if you're the person making a donation, that you need to certify that you are not from a foreign source. 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. And I think that's
it. So really, the people that are impacted by this are Arkansas voters. They get ensured confidence that the ballot measures are reflecting local interests and not international interests. We have political committees and organizations 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, which we thought would be a little bit onerous. So we set this at a high number that we felt like it was going to 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. All right. It looks
like we do have some questions by the committee, Representative Meeks.
No, I forgot. Okay. He had his
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:12:40
question answered. Representative Collins, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And we'll just do it this way. So a couple of questions. Mostly it's regarding the receipt of the money. So one of the things I believe in section three, if I understand it right, it says that an individual, even an American who is not a 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. 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 four years from the foreign clients in total, whether they're
Canadian or whatever it is, are they going to be unable to give in excess of $10,000 to the
ballot question committee? I believe that is correct. I can clarify that
answer for you, but I believe that is correct. Well, all right. And that's kind of 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 companies just through the U.S. stock market, you invest in Deutsche Bank or something or some Canadian company, whatever. 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.
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:14:15
I think that's a fair question. I don't believe that that is the intent of the bill. I can clarify. I don't know if you all
Speaker 361
2:14:30
have any clarification on that. Oh, Ethics Wars Graham. Do you have any thought on that? So, go ahead, Representative Collins. His question was about if
we have investments in- Hang on one second, Representative McAlendon. Before we have kind
of off-record conversations, let's just have Mr. Sloan come to the table.
If you'd identify yourself for the record.
of Science Association. All right. Representative McAlendon, I guess you wanted Mr. Sloan to- try to answer Representative Collins'
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:15:06
question. And I can restate it if that would be helpful. So I'm wondering if, you know, we're talking about somebody
is not able to give $10,000 to one of these ballot question committees if they have received $10,000 or more in the
past four 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
Speaker 363
2:15:48
I right, wrong, unknown? I think that's a fair question. It just says received and then, yeah, I don't know if that, I mean, to me,
it would include, obviously, start with the contribution, you know, if you received, they contributed money to you, but as far as just if you had dividends or something, I don't see the answer there. Okay, because, I mean, it's not a gift. I guess I understand
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:16:15
why this language is in here. This language is probably in here because they don't want someone to be a funnel or something like a straw man set up. Correct. 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 four years, I think, would prevent people from
who have international business, you know, represent people or again, investment. I guess more basically, for a different question, what are the are there any limitations right now on contributions? So I was surprised you could even give $10,000 to about question committee. Are there any limitations at all
Speaker 367
2:16:56
on what someone can give? No. The law is pretty
Speaker 363
2:17:01
clear on that. The United States Supreme Court, it was Citizens Against Rent Control versus Berkeley that they had tried to place limits.
That was contributions to ballot measure committees, but you can limit contributions to candidates because there's an excessive contribution might lead to perception of undue influence or potentially corruption. But if there's not a candidate on the other side, if the recipient was a ballot question committee or if it's an expenditure being made independent of a candidate that you can't limit the amount of those contributions.
It doesn't pass constitutional muster. Okay, understood. And
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:17:49
last question, then I'll get out. Is there anything similar to
the limitation on receiving foreign money and then giving it to someone else for a candidate? So I
know we can't accept foreign contributions, but can we not accept
money from anyone who's gotten more than $10,000 in the last four years from a foreign contributor themselves?
Speaker 363
2:18:17
No, the restriction on receiving contributions is if it's an individual, they have to be a citizen of the United States. And then if it's a corporation, it has to be organized and existing either under federal law or one of the 50 states. But there's no disqualifying criteria, you know, if they'd received money. It's just, you know, but one thing I would say is if you're receiving contributions
to make contributions, you're going to trigger PAC registration or reporting. And 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, you know, there shouldn't be foreign money.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:19:07
Right. No, and I completely agree with that. So I guess my question then for Representative McElindon, and I know this is sort
of, you know, 3.B or whatever, but what's the, why have a more stringent threshold for ballot question committee contributions
when it comes to someone receiving foreign money and then making contribution than we do
for candidates. I guess, why is this more worthy of scrutiny than that? Well, I think there are already limits of
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:19:38
what can be done. As Mr. Sloan 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 two or three,
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 the issue. And they tend to do this not directly, but kind of in a shell game. And so that's what this bill is trying to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:20:25
prevent. 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 a billionaire. That much money. A billionaire. Okay. I got you. All right, and just to follow up on that, that was my point and question, was the Swiss billionaire, who I think we're all familiar with, who has given an outrageous sum of money in United States elections. Of course, we know that contributions have been equated to speech, but foreign actor doesn't have free speech the same way that, of course, a U.S. citizen would.
So that's not the concern. 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? Well, that I don't
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:21:27
know. I think that if they've given, if they receive that money, the bill does not say with any intent. It just says that they've received this money in excess of $10,000
and they're giving then to a ballot measure,
I believe is how that's worded directly. Well, so it does talk about, I
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:21:52
think, like willfully and. Willfully 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
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:22:07
part? Well, it says not knowingly or willfully accepted funds, directly or indirectly.
Right. And then Representative Collins asked the question about, you know, maybe if you had a U.S. 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
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:22:29
think we have clarification on that, to Representative Collins' point. I don't think we know.
Those are all foreign sources. It's not a prohibited source, but 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 just because the money comes from the foreign bank account? That's how I'm reading this, yeah. Okay, 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 sign up
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:23:09
to speak for or against the bill. Representative McElhinney, you're recognized to close 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 questions on exactly what that means to be invested 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 put this back on the
calendar for Wednesday so I have a good answer for that before we move on. All right, have no objection to that. Seeing no objection, the bill's been pulled down. We'll bring it back Wednesday. Thank
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:23:41
you. All right, thank you very much. representative mckenzie house bill 1867 brit mckenzie uh rogers arkansas a state representative district 7. so open to follow the dog bill and not the hansborg we spill but here we are um i'm here today to present uh my
little bill that don't do much um 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 their term limits. I've worked with the Secretary of State's office on this bill and on this language, as diminutive as it is, but in reality, and I don't know if others have seen this or been worried about it, 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, Representative Long decides that he wants to run his six terms, but he wants to come back for more. As a qualified candidate, expiring on his term limits has nothing to do with his ability to file paperwork with the Secretary of State or with the Republican Party of Arkansas and stand for election. Oftentimes, that has to be resolved in district or circuit court between two candidates. And as a result, and it's
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. So what this does, this doesn't solve all of that, but what it does do is creates a chain of custody of a state entity, a constitutional office 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 place where there are two candidates vying for a 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 three 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 26 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 by the committee? All right. I will say, 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? Correct. How long they have left to serve. I suppose the only thing, only way I could see this being used to some extent is if someone had, for instance,
they sat out their four years and they got 12 more, then it's like, you know, if you elect this guy, he's got 12 more years. Or if you elect this guy, he's got eight more years.
Is that maybe it could be used for some political purposes like that? Give
Speaker 379
2:27:00
any thought to that? I mean, yes, it could, but it could be used for political speech.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:27:06
But more importantly, it's to be, it's the buffer for us for the laws that we've created, the statutes we've created that are actually the constitutional amendments that we refer to citizens
that they have passed, that we are committed to the term limits we hold ourselves to. Currently, there are no term limit police that walk these halls and will billy club us if we're here too long. So I think it's just a nice check. It places the responsibility on the Constitutional Office who has that constitutional charge already. So it could be used in political speech, but the same could be true with anybody that can look at Ballotpedia and see how many terms Representative Chairman Gassaway has served and do we need any more. So six and one half dozen of the other.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:27:45
All right. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you. Again, no problem. with this in theory, Secretary of State's office, if
they express any concern, they good with it?
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:27:56
- Yep, send it to them, they're fine with it. 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 by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, We have no one signed to speak for against the bill. Representative McKenzie, you
recognize closed for your bill. I'm closed. I want to end your night.
Representative McKenzie is closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? A motion do pass. Representative Collins, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, committee. We have a couple of other members here. Representative, hang on one second.
Representative Eaton, you've been sitting here a while, I think, and 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
2:29:06
also some guests that would have been enjoying the meeting so far. They'd like to join me. If you would need to
state your name for the record, identify any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized.
Speaker 129
2:29:23
Jake Winley, Director of Legislative Affairs, Department of Commerce.
Marty Ryle, Director of Legislative Affairs, Parks, Area, Tourism. Representative Eaton, you're recognized. James Eaton, District 26. Thanks,
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
2:29:33
Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Committee members. Bill 370 is pretty simple. It's made it through Senate. 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.
This transfer will align with the Council's goal of wine promotion with a state agency whose role and function is to promote 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 by the committee? What exactly is
the Wine Producers Council? Sure, thank you, Chairman.
Speaker 383
2:30:26
The Wine Producers Council is a body of six individuals who are charged with 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, it made more sense for that to be home due to the Tourism Division of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism.
All right. Are we 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 signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Eaton, you're recognized to close the bill. Thanks for your time, and we would appreciate a good vote. Thank you. All right. What are the wishes of the committee? See a motion due pass. Representative Meeks, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, the eyes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Representative Tosh.
This is it. Representative Tosh started us off beginning this session with our first bill, And now he's got our last two bills for the night, I believe.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:32:07
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to be back before state agencies. And the 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, three sessions ago, I ran a bill to kind of clean up the criminal detention inspection teams around the state. And over those is a—obviously, they have a director over that, a review coordinator out of the criminal retention facilities.
And at that time, I 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 and then let the director of the—Celeste, he can file the report concerning the inspections to the director of public safety.
So all we're doing is just changing the organizational structure for this committee and for the criminal retention facilities review coordinator and just putting him, making him responsible to commission on law enforcement standing 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 Tosh, you're recognized to close for your
bill. Committee, I'm closed with the bill, and I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Tosh, closed with the bill. I see a motion
do pass. Representative Crawford, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. And all those
opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations, you
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:33:58
passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee, and I have House Bill 1843. 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.
Okay. Committee members, what this bill does, this also came from the Department of Public Safety. It deals with the crime lab. Currently, when someone, an individual where there's been a death is sent to the crime lab and there's a toxicology report that is taken, then that information is privy information. currently under state law, that information is available to a defendant, to the public defender or an attorney of record of that defendant.
It's also 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 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 this information is valuable due to due to the fact to the potential drug overdose
that's occurring around the state the drug the drug director needs to track the drug usage in real time to aid in 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 in those areas of the state be able to identify what type of drugs are being used and maybe help 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 Tosh has explained this bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing none, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative
Tosh, you recognize the close for your bill. Mr. Chairman, I'm closed with the bill. Committee, I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Tosh closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See
a motion to do pass. Representative Meeks, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, ayes
have it. Congratulations. Passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. It's good to be back in state agencies. Always good to see you.
All right. Thank you. All right. Representative Beatty. You know, I can, happy to do
Speaker 20
2:36:30
that. This is where we got stuck in the room, you guys.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:36:54
Yeah, I know. Representative Beatty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard Beatty, District 95, to present House Bill 1470. 1470 is an act to repeal the law concerning the review of information technology plans. Basically, that's what it does. It repeals the requirement. Division 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 for viewing departmental IT projects. DFA had no objections to this bill and no known opposition. So with that, open to questions. - All right, are
there any questions by the committee?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:37:56
What bill number did you say this was? House bill 1470. 1470. It's about as basic as it gets, I think. It is. No, I'll strike out.
Okay, and why should we delete this language again, just the three sentence
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:38:45
version? Because right now the Division of Information Systems is already tasked with reviewing the departmental IT plans and ensuring 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 passed. Okay. Any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by the committee, we have no
one signed up to speak for or against the bill. you're recognized to close for the bill. I'm closed. I offer a motion to do pass.
All right. Representative Beatty has made a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion?
I would like to note that Representative Meeks has given this bill as official thumbs up. So with that, is
there any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye.
All those opposed. You guys have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Representative Beatty. Thank you. You
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:39:55
got another one? I do. Go ahead. Members, 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.
Absolutely. If you would state your
Chair
Unverified
2:40:17
name and any organization you're here representing, then you'll be recognized. Mark Conan, President, Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Thank you very much. Representative
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:40:27
Beatty, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, I'd want to start off by saying probably when you look at House Bill 1797, if you follow some social media, you see that we're going to try to inform the ignorant maybe a little bit,
not the committee but those that made some comments online about this bill. I'm going to try to address some of those concerns that were posted online and basically just kind of go through some of those as the public oversight of ADFA under House Bill 1797. 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. ADFA 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 ADFA's role as the state issuer of bonded indebtedness. Any loan or bond issuance 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. ADVA does not lend taxpayer dollars.
The loan programs are funded either by federal allocations designated for this purpose or by ADVA-generated funds, which are authorized by state law to support initiatives such as single-family home ownership, student loans, low-income housing, and economic development. The bill does not modify any of these funding mechanisms. ADFA operates independently of taxpayer funding. They don't receive general or special revenue of the state funding in any way, nor does state law require
anyone to pay a fee to ADFA or conduct 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, ADFA functions similarly to a private sector financial institution, maintaining a bottom line and operating with financial self-sufficiency 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 not enforce regulations or require approvals for activities
as building low-income housing or issuing student loans. Their role is to provide financial solutions not to govern industries, making it distinct from other state agencies. Given the unique structure of ad fund and financial independence, the procurement and 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.
ADFID maintains robust financial oversight under 1797. 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 a full-time internal auditor and have active audit committee that ensures continuous financial accountability. They're not required to employ a full-time internal auditor.
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 ADF 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, ADPA is occasionally named in lawsuits typically related to property foreclosures. When this occurs, they consult the attorney general's office to determine their ability to represent ADPA. However, due to the specialized nature of real estate law, banking, and foreclosure, the AG's office is often unable to provide representation. Exempting ADFA from this requirement would streamline legal processes while maintaining the necessary oversight. If 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 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 ADFA's core functions, financial independence, or commitment to transparency.
Instead, it provides necessary flexibility to ensure we can continue offering valuable financial services without the bureaucratic constraints that constrain ADFA from maximizing the benefits to the state, Arkansas businesses, Arkansans. House Bill 1797 will allow ADFA to do more for Arkansas and the state's economy. With that, we'll entertain any questions.
All right. Representative Ennett, you're recognized for
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
2:46:14
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a long day, so if you've already addressed this, please forgive me. With AFRA operating independently and being exempt from certain state administrative procedures and procurement laws, how would the legislature maintain appropriate oversight to ensure that the authority's actions remain transparent and accountable to the public? Great question.
Speaker 402
2:46:42
The main issue is there, we set mortgage rates every day, 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, refinances on properties, you know, it's almost impossible to comply with it. We do the best we can. We send things over like we're supposed to. Another issue is a lot of the laws that we follow are federal laws.
There's not a lot of state, you know, we kind of deal in 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 out in the public forum. And then most of the programs that we administer, We have to take public input because we're using federal funds or IRS tax credits. So, it's kind of built into the nature of what we do.
All right, Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you may
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:47:56
have already elaborated on this. But I guess my biggest question, Mark, is a couple of years ago, we did the restructuring of the government. And we had, you know, all sorts of different agencies everywhere. 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 worked so hard to create?
So I guess that's my first question. I think you've already addressed the need for that, but it's 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 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.
It could create an unfair, you know, advantage, say, to your employees. So I'm assuming that's not the intent here by any means. However, 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 doing? And I could try to reiterate, you know, trying to get my thoughts together.
Sorry, it's late. You know, part of the reason why we put all these together was the benefit of sharing services. Now you're not going to have that benefit, which there's going to be a cost to that. So try to, if you would, kind of alleviate
Speaker 402
2:49:51
some of those concerns for me. Sure. On the last one, on the shared services piece, we don't participate in that. Maybe on the IT a little bit, but on the accounting and finance side and some of the HR, we do all that internally.
So we do kick in some to the shared services piece. We just don't use it. You know, it's a small piece. It's like 60-some thousand. So that's one issue. On the grade structure, where that comes in is 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, we operate off of the work that we do. And so you don't have to do business with us. The people that come to us, you know, are in the construction field.
Maybe they're venture capital investors. You know, maybe they're banks or, you know, looking first time home buyers. And so what we're looking to do there on the grades is we need some positions on loan servicing. We outsource all of our loan servicing. To give you an idea, some states our size will have anywhere from 100 people up into 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 that you might start at the current grades or even lower, but you would have some type of incentive value because collections are important to us, defaults are important to us. So those grades, that's a piece of this, you know. But it would, yes, be outside of the state pay grades because they would be set up just so much differently because of the type of work that we do do.
And again, I think it's important 42 other states are structured like this. 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. If we do more first-time home buyers, if we do more student loans, I'll give you an idea. Our average rate on our books, 5.52.
The deals, the bond issues that are getting done nationally right now by our competition, it's about 11.1%. So average loan, private loan, 30, 40 grand, we're half. 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, then Arkansans benefit. And that's kind of the point of this is to allow
Speaker 403
2:52:39
us some flexibility to benefit Arkansans. Okay, one final question. So
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:52:44
does that put you into competition with private businesses then?
Speaker 402
2:52:48
On the student loan side, we are on private loans. We are in competition with private businesses. They're out of state. We're the entity in Arkansas that does that.
Speaker 403
2:53:00
So our competition is SoFi, Sallie Mae, Nelnet, Wells Fargo, Kind of the big boys. Okay, so
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:53:08
we're not directly competing with other Arkansas businesses at
Speaker 404
2:53:11
this point. No, and on our first time home buyer program,
Speaker 402
2:53:16
for clarification, we work through the lenders.
We are the originator in the back, so if you want to purchase a home, you're going to work through the lender or mortgage company of your choice
Speaker 403
2:53:28
and we work with them. Okay, sorry. So we don't compete with the banks, they're our partner,
Chair
Unverified
2:53:37
we pay them a fee for doing it. Okay,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
2:53:41
all right, thank you. Excuse me, Representative Ennett, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mark, we've worked together, there are several projects in my neighborhood in District 80, specifically in Pettoway.
How would this, and the bill had mentioned something about the housing crisis. How would this restructuring this make
it better for that? That's a great question.
Speaker 408
2:54:03
What we're hoping this will do is increase
Speaker 402
2:54:07
philanthropic support. So there was a project over in Little Rock that we did here recently where we were able to create a kind of a partnership with a philanthropic organization from out of state, but we get a lot of pushback when we're on the housing side.
The cost of construction is so expensive now. To finance affordable housing is very difficult to make it work, even with 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, okay? And so that's
just the way it is. I don't, you know, I don't, that's the way it is. And they do that on the venture capital side, they do that on the housing side. So to answer your question, and like the pet away projects, what we're hoping is we can get people to play in the partnership, philanthropic 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, I'm sorry, Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:55:32
- Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question's around the exemption as public records, the application and supporting documentation. I'm gonna see if I can direct you to the section where we're doing that. I believe that is toward the end and that's maybe section nine. So why are you wanting to exempt the application and supporting documents as public information available for public inspection.
Speaker 402
2:56:05
What's that going to accomplish? Okay, that is competitive advantage, and that is all that is. So we get applications, it's a competitive process. So we get applications, they're due March 1st, so they were just due this month. 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 30 years to put together. The way they structure their entities, the way that they do their equity stack, the way they, and so they're getting information for free that other people have spent their careers building the structure and how to put together a successful application 'cause it's pretty difficult to put those together. And so we are not protecting us, we're protecting them.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:57:40
- Thank you, and I understand. It seems like that's a bit different from getting independence from the Department of Commerce. And I guess I wonder, has this bill been reviewed by any of the FOIA task force folks? And what did they say about
Speaker 412
2:57:55
it? I'm not aware if it has or has not. Okay. Thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:58:03
Thank you, 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. You know, when we talk about affordable housing, there's a difference between affordable housing and low-income housing, right? because affordable housing is the six houses that I just did the other day for $250,000. That's the average right now in Arkansas. Are we saying this group is going to be then buying up land and selling off this to create low-income housing, or are we just giving tax credits for this?
Speaker 402
2:58:41
Yeah, good question. So when I say affordable housing, it is 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 multifamily. So when I use the term affordable housing, I
Speaker 403
2:59:01
mean 80% AMI for single family, 60% for multifamily. Okay, that clears that up. I
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:59:09
appreciate that. Representative Beatty, and just, I think I always ask this,
why is the need for the emergency clause on the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:59:19
bill? As far as the emergency clause, we're trying to get this moving as soon as possible. I mean, every day that we pass up, it's a disadvantage to Arkansas citizens. So we need to move this forward with state for investment, economic development, and to take care of some of the housing issues we have in the state. Thank you, sir.
Chair
Unverified
2:59:45
Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This might be better for
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:59:50
your witness at the table. Could you, and I'm sure this may be even a little redundant, and I apologize if it is. Can you go through just the funding on this, 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 what this is. But I have some follow-ups, too, but I wanted to see if I could get a little more specifics on that. Yeah, no, that's a good question.
Speaker 403
3:00:16
At the macro level, we're a finance company for the benefit of the state. Funding comes from
Speaker 402
3:00:23
on the housing side. It's tax credits, low income housing tax credits. In a short form, those tax credits are awarded to a developer. The developer will sell those to an investor. Think pension funds, think banks, mutual fund companies, that type of thing. They get the equity back and then they build affordable housing, okay? They oftentimes have a gap there, the tax credits won't cover the entire amount.
So they'll have a small bank loan, 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. Those are 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. It 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, it comes from federal funds, that's on one side.
On the first time home buyer program, 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 mortgage market's a taxable market. We have the ability, being kind of a quasi state entity, to issue tax exempt debt. What does that mean? Right now, the mortgage rate on our tax exempt mortgages is 5.5%. And Representative Hawke, you mentioned your realtor there. His clients are probably borrowing at, I don't know, 6.5, 6.75, maybe 7. Well, right now, our rate's 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. what we do. I
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:02:38
got you. So I'm assuming, oh, I'm not sure. I shouldn't even assume. I
guess I'm just asking. The accounts for this program, where does that fall under? Who manages it? And then if it turns profit, which sounds like maybe it should. Yeah, it does. Who oversees
what happens to that? Where does it go? Where's the oversight on that? Yeah, that's a
Speaker 408
3:03:03
good question. So like, say on the mortgage side, so if there's a, you know, we
Speaker 402
3:03:08
have to operate at a profit because we're self-funded. And so when we make a 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 following. Yeah. So that would be on that side. On the, like,
say the housing side, we use it to do compliance. So here's the interesting thing. When someone builds an 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, pay the people, right? On the other side, we have to build reserve funds. So 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 somebody doesn'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 we have to do our underwriting, and we have to, you know, it's serious every day, you know,
to do the right thing to, you know, make sure we're making good
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:04:43
decisions. So moving this out from the Department of Commerce, you guys are
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:04:49
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. Who kind of sets that, oversees that? It's going to be outside, I guess, the standards that are set for the state. So how is that going to come to be?
Speaker 402
3:05:08
Good question. So currently our board is appointed by the governor and as part of our board, we have the Secretary of DFNA, so that's 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 the public oversight from the board. And the board would be the compensation committee.
And so with the secretary of DFNA and the state treasurer and the secretary of commerce still being on the board, that would be the oversight over that. Okay. And thank
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:05:49
you, Mr. Chair, you've given me a lot of
latitude. I think the last thing I'll ask, and you've given me a lot of good stuff, and
I love the no tax dollars here, you know, doing this. But I still wanted to ask, in terms of your budget and your annual financial reporting audits and those kinds of things, Is that going to be reported to the board and does it go beyond that?
Does it come before the legislature or any other committee or
Speaker 408
3:06:14
anything like that? Yeah, so it would follow the same
Speaker 402
3:06:18
process now as, and Mr. Babcock can 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
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:06:37
so that does not change. And last question, is there any way that any outside of you guys, but a state entity or department 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? I don't know what the right number would be, but what kind of protections are built in
Speaker 402
3:07:03
there or not built in there for you guys? No, there's some in the original statute, the only body that could come, you know, use the word snatch,
Speaker 415
3:07:12
snatch funds would be the Arkansas General Assembly. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:07:19
You're welcome. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you. And that 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 we ever get money from you? If you're generating a profit, has it ever happened in the past that we have asked you to draw down that cash fund
or move it to somewhere else? Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 402
3:07:50
We have used that money to either fund new projects, fund reserve funds for, we call it recapture, because we have so much recapture exposure, to put into multifamily, I'm sorry, mortgage revenue bonds to, you know, buy down the rates. Okay. And similarly, we
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:08:06
would take away, if I, correct me if I'm wrong, but we would take away the legislature's appropriation authority. So
your spending authority that we set would no longer be set by us? That's correct. Currently, what we
Speaker 402
3:08:18
do is we take these federal funds and we send them over here
and then you appropriate them and then we, you know,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:08:26
use them. And is that kind of the main gist of what we're doing here? You guys want to set your
Speaker 404
3:08:33
own budget, not have us set your budget. Yeah, well, and we don't look at it like set our
Speaker 402
3:08:39
budget. We're looking at more 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's more of like just a procedural type thing.
Yeah, so. Okay. What was the second part of your question? I'm sorry, did I answer it? I
think you got it. Okay. Okay. 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
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:09:16
bill. Representative Beatty, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I knew this was going to be a lengthy and very involved, but it's a very
important bill, something for us to consider. There are many benefits under House Bill 1797.
as far as ADFA operating as an independent entity. One is, you know, just the financial partnerships. One of the things that Mr. Conine 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, enhance competition, you know, again, private sector motivation, you know, along the same lines, we're going to still be tied
in to support the governor's vision for the state, to minimize government interference with private business and foster dynamic business environment for entrepreneurship in the state. This would allow the hiring of qualified staff and personnel, allow us to compete with some of the other states on projects that are locating across state lines. So all in all, this is going to enhance the agency, and they're intended to streamline
the operations, enhance efficiency, and promote economic development here in Arkansas. With that, I'm closed, not all for a
motion to do pass. Representative Beatty is closed for his bill and
he's made a motion to do pass. The wishes of the committee are a motion to do pass. Is there any 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've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Yes, sir. So that's Representative Beatty's two. I think we had a couple of other people that asked to run a bill. Representative Long, and then we've got Representative Rose. I'm telling you, it's getting kind of late. I can tell people are starting to lose some people here.
Representative Long, which bill is it that you'd like to present? - 1884. - Marking and
Speaker 250
3:11:53
counting of paper ballots. - Yes, sir, it does have 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. Okay. 1884. Yes, sir. All right, looks like there's an amendment. Yes, sir. All right, you're recognized to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:12:35
present the amendment. Thank you, sir. Wayne Long, State Representative, District 39. And the amendment, basically, we called a kind of a typo there at the first part.
And then if I could, I'd like to cover the other sections in when we talk about the
bill itself. That's pretty much the essence of it. Representative Long has explained the amendment to some degree. Are there any questions? Seeing none, do you make a motion to adopt the amendment? Yes, sir. He's made a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The amendment has been adopted. You're recognized to
present. The bill is amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, could I
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:13:15
ask the folks from the Secretary of State's office to join me today?
Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, committee. In 2023, I passed a bill to ensure that paper ballot counties wouldn't be financially penalized for choosing to do hand-marked and hand-counted paper ballots. Since 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.
In March 6th of 24, Searcy County held the state's first hand-marked, hand-counted primary election in a generation. I attended that election and also spent the night at my own expense to witness the counting the next day because I wanted to see just how the new law was doing in real world situation. When I had written the law in 2023, I had included a provision that stated that once the counting had commenced,
that it could not stop and could not be halted until completion. During the general election in 2024 in Searcy County, they ended up counting until 3 a.m. I believe fatigue could contribute to potential errors. They did have an audit in which I was very proud of them. They scored 100% on their audit, but I decided at that point that we probably need to go back and revisit the previous law. And so to 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 up the counting room and posted a law enforcement officer outside the door until the election commissioners could return the next day.
Additionally, provided an option for using UV ink for their seal on each ballot. the UV process was much more cost-effective for the counties than the watermark that we had previously required. I 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. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions.
All right. Any questions by the committee? Representative Clowney, you're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
3:15:51
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, where are the
folks who are going to be doing this work on this bill?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:16:02
Counties, clerks, any of that? I've not received any opposition from them. The election commissioners of the counties that are or doing the hand counts was thoroughly in favor of the bill
because it was going to make it basically a
little bit easier on them. Okay, Representative Long, so, and maybe this isn't possible,
but in about two or three sentences, what
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:16:32
does this bill do? It basically, like I said a moment ago, it makes it a little easier on the people that are doing the work. Since the 2023 election, Independence County has now— How does it do that?
How does it make it easier? Okay, well, 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 the count is done, which I fear that that could cause
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:17:04
problems with errors just because even if you had three shifts— So this bill lets them continue the counting beyond the 24 hours,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:17:12
lets them take a break? No, this bill would allow them to stop after, you know, eight hours or whatever they chose,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:17:20
post a guard, and then the next day start again with fresh eyes. So one that lets them take a break,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:17:27
what else does it do? We go from requiring currently three election commissioners must be president at all time to two. So one commissioner could go to the bathroom, go get lunch, that type of thing without stopping the county. And then I heard you make
mention about a watermark or a laser seal or something? Yes, sir. What
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:17:45
is that? In the original law, I required a watermark trying to stop anything from happening as far as fraud.
That turned out to be quite costly, and we found out that if we just did the seal with UV ink, that
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:17:58
was much less expensive for the county as far as paying for their ballots. Okay,
very good. So those three things are what the bill is. Yes, sir. All right. Any other questions by the
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
3:18:11
committee? Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, is there anything in here that limits how long
the delay can last in counting the ballots? I mean, two days, can they go home for the weekend and resume afterwards?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:18:24
Yes, ma'am. But they could go home for the weekend. In the original bill, I set it up to where they had to have the count finished 24 hours before the deadline. So in a primary election, you've got 10 days to get it certified, so basically they had 9 days to get it counted. It's 14 days on the general election, so they had 13 days to get them counted. If they don't get the count finished before that 24-hour buffer, then the original count that was done by the tabulators on the night of the election becomes the official results.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:19:01
Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. So if they don't get it done, then? Then it goes back to the original tabulated count that was done on election night. Would that be by a machine? Yes, sir. So they have that motivation to get it done before the deadline or all that work is for nothing. But what if they don't use a machine?
They're required to use a machine under law. Okay. All right. Very good. Any other questions?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:19:32
Representative Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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 are folks sitting there waiting for this hand count to be completed before any
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:19:52
numbers are released? No, the original law that I had written required them to have that done within 24 hours. They had it done within three hours that night. They basically don't take long to run the ballots through there.
The tabulator kicks out the results. They take the, it's kind of like a USB type of thing, plug it in, shipped that to the Secretary of State and they published it
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:20:17
to the public. So this is a follow-up? This is more or less just allowing them to go back and
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:20:26
verify the actual votes to the tabulator? Well, 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 certified vote one way or the other. Either they will do it by the hand count or it will go back to the tabulated count, which is the way it's always been done for the last few years with the current equipment that they use. I'm just going
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:20:56
to go back to my first question. So the number that's reported to the public as far as the outcome,
that is what is produced from the tabulator, that's released to the public.
And then the other, as far as the hand count, it's just a verification that the number
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:21:17
is that correct? The tabulator count is the, what's the word that we use for it, unofficial total. And the hand count is
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:21:26
the official total, which is released to the public as soon as
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:21:32
the hand count is finished. So the official will be the certified outcome, what's certified by Secretary of State.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:21:40
Is that correct? The County Election Commission certifies it. No, I'll just use
it. Representative Hawk. You're right, he does. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, so I'm reading this bill, And so we're going to stick in a double locking hardshell box and then it's going to
be guarded by one person with the sheriff's department. Well, so first off, who holds the key to the double locking box?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:22:11
The boxes are actually sealed. They have like seals that they use when they're transporting the boxes from the polling places. We're going to use those same seals if they need to shut down for the night. And also in the amendment I failed to mention a moment ago, we changed that from sheriff's deputy to certified law enforcement in case maybe a sheriff's office is shorthanded, you could use
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:22:37
the police department. But that one person is going to be in charge all evening with the box.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:22:44
He's outside the door. It's a locked room. Who has the key
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:22:51
to the locked room? The election commission. Okay. Okay. I just, to me, it just seems like, look, and look, I love our law
enforcement. I do. But we're leaving everything to where there could be a, well, here's the key,
and you could do this. 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 that we want results that day. But this would further extend out election day to up to the certification up to 10 days, correct? The
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:23:30
current law already does that, Representative Hawke. The bill that we passed in 2023, this doesn't change that. That was already in place. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:23:48
Representative Beck, you're recognized. So I was trying to look it up, maybe the Secretary of State would be the one to
answer this. How many votes were cast in Searcy County
Speaker 311
3:24:07
in 2024? Total votes. Josh Bridges, Assistant Director for Secretary of State. 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. That would be 3,899 ballots cast, 62% voter turnout for Searcy County. And
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:25:16
we counted ballots until 3 o'clock in the morning?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:25:20
Yes, sir. The 7.30 is
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:25:22
when the polls closed. All 7.30 is when they're closed. Yeah, and I think they maybe
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:25:30
weren't counting right up to that time, but they were adding up and tabulating the totals that the poll workers had come up with. They finished up about 3 o'clock. So my concern is
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:25:47
that it's not a lot of votes, and in
a major election, this could go on for days, right?
I mean, you're shutting it down and starting it back up. Yeah, well, you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:26:04
know, basically with the current law, my real concern was, you know, these people that are doing the counting, Um, you know, if you can imagine if you're not used to, you know, working third shift and now you're being asked to do something as tedious as counting ballots for, you know, days at a time, you could, you know, have a problem with errors and, you know, of course, that's what we don't want in our elections.
So it seemed like a good way to do it was to make it where it was a little bit more, um, user friendly for people to do this because, as I mentioned earlier, Searcy County has been joined by Independence County now. they voted 63% to go to paper ballots and I suspect other counties will do it. Maybe more of the smaller type counties, I don't know. It's basically legal for any county to adopt the hand 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. Since this had never been, well, had been done in a generation. 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
3:27:20
now after going through two elections. All right. Just doing rough calculations, that's five votes a minute.
Just that's rough, I could be off a little bit there.
Yes, sir. Anyway, I'm just concerned about the gap, if we, you know, without some kind of limit
on the gaps or something, these votes could take forever. Well,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:27:47
you know, certainly, you know. But like I say, you would have bigger groups. With the current
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:27:53
law, they can have, you know, up until nine days on primary and 13 days in the general election. I think the motivation will be that, you know, these counties care about doing paper ballots.
They're going to hire enough people to get it done, and I don't think they're going to lollygag around. I just think they kind of need a break and maybe not have to force these people to work all night. Would the additional people
Speaker 122
3:28:18
be paid for by the county or by the state? No,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:28:26
by the county. That was part of the deal. Then the first bill that I passed was I wanted the counties that went to paper ballots not to be penalized but also not to be subsidized by the other counties that don't do paper ballots.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:28:41
All right, thank you. Yes, sir. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you. I got my train of thought back. I'm exhausted and probably need a 24-hour break. Representative Long, 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, was this, were you just having them for election support? Well, actually, you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:29:08
know, I got the idea after witnessing, you know, what these folks had went through in their elections.
And, you know, like we always do, 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, you know, see if they supported it. And they're here because they support it. They believe that this would be a good addition to our current law, which does allow counties to
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:29:34
do this. Would you not agree, to kind of go off what Representative Beck said, wouldn't it be
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:29:40
a better deal to require our counties to say you've got to have X number of people to sit there and count to get this done,
rather than going through the hoopla and all the hoops? Because there's got to 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 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 going to continue this out, let's just say it takes eight days, right, to do a count.
Well, then we're going to pay that security guard $100 an hour and keep going. So now there's added cost on the counties by doing this as well.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:30:29
Wouldn't you agree? Well, no, sir. I think 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 necessary. In fact, Searcy County, surprisingly, their hand-counted, hand-marked election actually cost them a little bit less than in the previous years during the machine vote.
But to answer your question, as far as trying to force them to have so many employees, I think that's better left up to the county if they went until 3:00 that night. It wasn't the next day, or excuse me, the same day as the polling, excuse me, the election. They waited today to rest up a little bit, and it still went until into the night. You know, if they'd gotten to have a break in one night, they'd come back and finished up the next morning. I just, I really think that it, you know, it's kind of a prudent thing to do to try to make sure
that people that are doing something as important as counting the votes are as fresh as they can be. Thank
you. All right, seeing no further questions by the committee, we do have someone
signed up to speak against the bill. Lindsay French from the Association
Speaker 388
3:31:52
of Counties. Miss French, if you would identify yourself, you're
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
3:31:59
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And 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 have not reached out to him about this. So my apologies for that. This is my first time seeing the amendment. So initially the sheriffs were opposed to this bill. We don't have any issues with the first part of the bill and the ultraviolet ink. Our rub with this bill is at the very end on page to lines 11 through 17, which currently, and it is late, I'm tired too, so I'm trying to get my
thoughts together. Handmarked paper ballots have to be first tabulated before you can begin a hand count. And then once that 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 Representative Long stipulated, there's no limit 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. The limit would be any time so long as it was before that 10-day certification deadline. And if it didn't get certified before the 10 days, then it would be the tabulated vote that became the certified number. Our issue here is that that break creates opportunities for fraud. 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 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, that they could replace a seal.
I just think this is something that's not needed. Like he said, Searcy County was able to do it before the next morning. And I think it just invites fraud that doesn't need to
be invited. - All right, thank you, Ms. French. Are there any questions by the committee? All right, Representative Beck, you're recognized. No,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:34:53
no, no, Ms. French, we got a question. Well, this might be for representative law. So, did you say that the clerks didn't really ask for, did
I hear you say the clerks didn't ask for these changes, they were okay with things?
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:35:08
No. I might have misunderstood you, I'm sorry. The election commission actually does basically, performs the election process. The county election commission? The county election commission. She's the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:35:20
one who came up with these. And basically witnessing what they went through is what prompted me to try to do something to help them. Because with more counties reaching or deciding to do paper ballots, I thought that, you know, this is not going to change. This is just going to be magnified, you know, through more counties needing to do a different process.
You know, I think a little bit more user-friendly process. As far as the SEALs go, having watched an election now, I was kind of astounded at what links they go to as far as chain to custody, keeping up with the ballots that are used, the ballots that are left over. You know, they go through a thorough process as far as two different people,
doing the seals on the boxes. And of course, like Ms. French mentioned, you know, this is the first I'd heard that they had any objections to it at all. So I wasn'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 would say that's fair. Yes. Association of Counties is opposed. Yes. The Secretary of State's office is supportive. Yes.
What about the State Election Commission? Any idea about the State Election Commission? Hadn't
Chair
Unverified
3:36:50
heard. Okay. All right. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Do we have someone
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:36:57
from Secretary of State's office that can speak to this if they have an issue or concern with this bill? They were just here.
Speaker 464
3:37:12
Yeah. I want to hear the words, I support this bill.
Speaker 313
3:37:15
I think the official stance for the Secretary of State's office on this is neutral. I believe that came from up top. I can speak on the UV light seal portion of this just because I did a little bit of research on that, but the
Speaker 451
3:37:32
rest of the bill I can't, I wasn't prepared
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:37:36
to speak on necessarily today. Okay. That addressed my concern. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know Representative Longtime is getting very short for us here, but I'm wondering if you might have any interest
of pulling the bill down for the night, maybe trying to address these concerns and come back. Just from the vibe I'm getting from the committee, you're going to have trouble getting it passed tonight as is. I think you've got good intentions here that might could be worked out. Obviously your choice, but I'll throw a would you
agree in there? I'm sorry to kept you all so late, but I really think this bill would be very helpful to the counties and so I'd like to see it pass.
So I'd be glad to pull it down, see if I can work with AAC and come up with something that everybody can be happy with because really all I want is accurate and secure elections. So if that can be okay, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:38:35
pull it down. I'm seeing 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 you all so late. All right. Senator Bright.
Representative Rose. Senator Bright, you're the most popular man in state agencies right now. Thank
Speaker 420
3:38:54
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. With your permission,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:39:03
I'd like to open the floor up to Senator Bryant for the majority of the presentation of this bill. Absolutely. Senator Bryant,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:39:09
you recognize it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee,
Senate Bill 443. What I'd like to do is just preface that I started this conversation with the Department of Labor and License over an issue with home inspectors.
I believe that the last portion of the bill, just for a little roadmap, this bill addresses appraisers, abstractors, and home inspectors. In 2023, we merged those committees. So along with a lot of mergers, there's cleanup language that needs to happen in subsequent general assemblies, subsequent sessions. So roadmap, this is all in Title 17, Title 11 deals with the abstractors, Title 14 deals with appraisers, and Title 52 deals with home inspectors. I'm going to 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 combine the bills, so I'd like to 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
Sarah Moore
Unverified
3:40:09
and who you're here representing and you'll be recognized present your remarks thank you committee lacy kirchner counsel for the department of labor and licensing um as the senator mentioned this is mainly a cleanup bill 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. 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 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. In the 2023 session, the funds were not combined, so you still have three separate fund balances. So the board asks that we see about combining that all into one fund.
And then there is also some cleanup language regarding 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 over to you.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:42:12
Yeah, the home inspection issue was an issue in my area. One of the, I think, issues is extending the, it's on page 12, section 27, the cause of action, extending that from one year to three years. The national average is four to six years, so extending that to three years. I also believe there's an additional House Bill 1625 that's going to 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 FOIA and the agency being able to contract out a third party for complaint inspections to ensure home inspections are 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
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:43:07
answer any questions. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Bryant. I'm a realtor,
so I deal with inspectors quite a bit. I do have concerns, though, about the liability piece.
So, I guess I'm going to first start by saying a lot of, I would say 95% of the time whenever I sell a house to somebody, I ask the buyer, I say, do you have a home inspector that you'd like to use?
And most of the time they say no. It is then me that is recommending three inspectors to that
person because by Arkansas real estate law, we have to do three 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?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:43:55
It does not. It holds with 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 event that they are civilly liable for their errors and omissions. Okay, so that separation, all I'm doing is just saying, you know
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:44:16
what, here you go, Mr. and Mrs. Byer, this is who I recommend, these three, and I'm wiping my hands clear on that. You are done. Okay.
Do you not think, though, that the liability insurance for the inspectors is going to
go up quite a bit? Because if we're doing three years versus a year right now, that if Joe Inspector goes to his insurance guy and says, hey, this new law is 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 or a
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:44:52
lot? You know, that's up to the individual companies and underwriters 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 up there. But what does go up is the liability that the consumer has when the current requirement with NACCHE or NACCHI 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, they did not document any type of structural failures. And as I worked with the board and the FOIA blockades of the complaints, and I took it upon myself as an elected representative 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 were seeing because 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 rules of NACCHI, but there was no claim that the gentleman could make because the limitations had expired. And a
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:46:21
little latitude, Mr. Chair, I apologize. Go ahead. And I completely look, I've been doing this for
almost a little over 10 years, right? And you find that there are some that are not good at their job, and then you find the ones that are good.
And I think ultimately what I want to do is protect the ones that are doing good. Because, like, the three guys that I send out do well over 2,000 inspections a year, right? Because they've been—and what I'm looking at, though, is that with the rising cost of premiums, I think that we could really start to put some of these guys out of business. Because really, I mean, at the end of the day, they're charging $300 to do an inspection, maybe more depending on the size of the house.
But by doing this three years out, this could
Speaker 474
3:47:10
really put a burden on them. Wouldn't you agree? Well, I would say
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:47:15
currently in the law, there is no requirement for errors and omissions to be there. They do have to have insurance, but the limitation is $100,000. So their liability is already exposed. And so with three years, if it's still at a minimum of $100,000, that's still the same premium rate. Now, 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'd be the one that they might need to have more insight on to make sure. And
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:47:45
I may have missed it. Is there a minimum on the airs and emissions minimum? They did not change
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:47:50
the minimum of $100,000. Okay, so it's still going to stay at $100,000. Okay. To me, that's not enough. Like the damage that would have been, they've been civilly liable, had for years had been there, it would have been in excess of $500,000. So I'm going to say something
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:48:03
real quick, too. Just based on some of this back and forth, one of the things that I want to 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 would think if there is anybody who's going to 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
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:48:37
been doing it well for decades. Yeah, and I appreciate that. So let me ask you this. So,
like, homes change over time. I mean, you know, and going back to this three-year liability, for example, in central Arkansas,
it may be the same in northwest Arkansas, but home shift, the homes that were built in the 80s, you know, things settle a little bit. Let's say Inspector A comes in and there's no signs of foundation issues with the home, right? Homeowner moves in the home six months in, whatever it might be, it shifts a little bit. 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 fault of foundation
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:49:25
because it had not shifted at the time? Well, I'd say currently it's a one year, so six months, that wouldn't change. But I'm just saying if this passes, would he be then at fault? Well, it'd go back to his documentation and the complaint process, Because currently there is no provision of the complaint process. Whenever he calls in the complaint, the board really had no ability to pursue that. And so what you come down to is civil litigation and small claims.
And you justify it based on the documentation that the home inspector had of the day of the inspection, which if you're obviously very familiar with the reports, the pictures and the amount of detail that are generated, as they should be, are very large in quantity. And so as long as the difference can be justified of, hey, it was not there the day I was there, and you signed my contract that said, you know, I recommend you call a structural engineer, I recommend you call an electric contractor, I recommend you call a ruver, they already typically remove their liability to the best of their ability
and just give, you know, first-hand information to the buyer. Gotcha. I'll give other questions
now. 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? Yes, typically. And so now we're going to have for these home inspectors who seem to have inserted
themselves into all the real estate transactions now, which adds additional cost to buyers and sellers.
This has been my experience. Now we're going to
give them a three-year statute of limitations. And so what's going to happen is when the homeowner finds out that there's a problem that was not discovered in the home inspection but has shown up, they're not going to be able to sue their builder, but they are going to sue the home inspector for what they're probably going to allege is missing it. And do you have
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:51:30
any thoughts about that? Well, builders, that warranty typically falls new construction.
You typically will not have a home inspector based on new construction because you have a warrant of liability with the builder. But on 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 peace of mind or comfort level. Whenever you ask that home inspector to come and he comes with that standard national home inspection form that has 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 two 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 Enables, goes out there and says, I concur, you need to file a claim against the home inspector, whether it's in eight months or two years and eight months. That provides protections to the home buyer that was intended to be, which is why he purchased the home inspection.
So it gives them three years to sue the home inspector. Yes, national average is five. So we're approaching that national average. Instead of one, we're giving them three. As someone
mentioned earlier, I mean, these home inspections, you know, I'm just not impressed. But anyway, all right, what else do we have? Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, do we have anyone sign up to speak for or against the bill? No. Representative Rose
or Senator Bryant, either one of you recognize to close for the bill?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:53:16
I appreciate the committee's late night. I'll leave it to Representative
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:53:20
Rose to close. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. We appreciate a good
Speaker 259
3:53:27
vote. I believe this is a good bill and it will support our Kansans. Thank you. You
make a motion due pass? Yeah, I make a motion due pass. We have
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:53:38
a motion due pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Huck, you're recognized. Colleagues, I, you know, I go back to, I do think that there will be, when there's, if this were to be litigated three years out, that anybody involved in that home inspector being given the job will be pulled in.
And I'm not an attorney. I don't play one on TV. But what I do know is that any time that there's parties involved, they try to pull every single one, anybody that was involved in on that litigation. We just saw it with the National Association of Realtors settlement that just went down. And they pulled in thousands of people across the country that weren't even realtors that got involved in that. And so I'm going to be a present vote on this because I like the premise of it. I just don't like the three-year window on this because I think it could pull a lot of people in.
It's just unintended consequences. All right,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:54:32
Representative Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I understand and appreciate, you know,
the intent of the bill. But I also think, you know, I've been contacted by several home inspectors and they have a definite problem. Some of these guys are very reputable. and it's not going to stop the bad actors and to increase that that liability from a one year to a
three year 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 discussion representative
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:55:11
rose uh am i able to discuss as a member
of the committee why not go ahead thank you mr chair and i appreciate uh mr baity'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 seeing none all those in favor say aye - Aye. - All those opposed? - No. - The ayes have it. See a row, nope, okay. All right, congratulations, you passed your bill. - Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, committee. - All right, 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
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 John P. Carr
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught
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
Speaker 279
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
Speaker 20
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
Speaker 420
Sarah Moore
Unverified
Speaker 474
Speaker 259