State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (34)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB241
Act 885
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…RMATION ACT OF 1967. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle 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 |
|
SB439
Act 737
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB439 Irvin TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMEN…”
|
TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING; AND … | Irvin | Notification that SB439 is now Act 737 |
|
SB454
Act 430
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 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 |
|
HB1505
Act 398
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROPERTY INTEREST TRUST FUND; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1505 Wing TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC EMPLOYER TO OFFER AND PROVIDE COVE…”
|
TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC EMPLOYER TO OFFER AND PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR LICENSED COUNSELING FOR A … | Wing | Notification that HB1505 is now Act 398 |
|
SB339
Act 404
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB339 A. Clark CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHILD MALTREATMEN…”
|
CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHILD MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATIONS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. | A. Clark | Notification that SB339 is now Act 404 |
|
SB376
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…COMMITTEE. RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle 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: “…ION OF ARKANSAS LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1988. 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 |
|
SB434
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB434 J. Dotson TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB443
Act 949
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1914. 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: “…LICENSURE OF HOME INSPECTORS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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. |
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S; AND TO ALLOW A CURE PERIOD FOR INSUFFICIENT SUBMISSIONS. HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDUR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1524 is now Act 939 |
|
SB141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEA…”
|
TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB212
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PERSONNEL RECORDS. SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB247
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB248
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB395
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NT FOR FORMER STATE EMPLOYEES AND FORMER ELECTED OFFICIALS. SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINAN…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS … | Hickey | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB398
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD. SB398 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETIT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO ALLOW A CURE … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB4
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…INITIATED MEASURES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB410
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. SB410 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMP…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF EMPLOYMENT … | B. King | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB44
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION. SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB453
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS. SB453 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR11
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONS…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT … | J. Payton | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR12
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR13
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS. SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE F…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, … | J. Dotson | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR14
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR15
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…UE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC D…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR17
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREA…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR18
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O CREATE THE Page 2 of 3 ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. SJR22 G. Ledi…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR2
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MERGENCY. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR22
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIGHTS. SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR24
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO VOTERS. | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR3
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE SENATE, AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR9
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES. SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee John Payton, District 22. And auditor Milligan is going to join me at the table in case you have any questions about this. It's a pretty simple bill. Thank you,
thank you, sir. All right, we got a handout here as well. Let's get that
Speaker 7
0:27
out. Uh, auditor state Dennis Milligan, Mr. Chairman, welcome to
Speaker 8
0:30
state agencies, Mr. A. I'm sorry, I said welcome to state agencies. Oh, thank you, thank you. Yeah. I hope you'll be
Speaker 12
0:37
gentle with a pleasant experience, yes, but
we, we hope so too. So we've already had a couple of bills that dealt with the unclaimed
property, so we're a little familiar with that. This bill's pretty simple, but what we've seen in the other bills is how difficult it can be to try to Deal with unclaimed property, and if you do anything that puts it in in the state's hands. That's a, that's a taking, but there is interest earned. Uh, investment money earned on,
on these holdings, and we need to um mechanism to be able to peel that off. It is not somebody else's money, the state is managing that account and managing, looking for the people, and this would just help offset some of our expenses in uh in operations and the management of that. If you have any questions, auditor Milligan can speak to that, but Senate Bill 454 is basically a mechanism to be able to peel off. That those earnings that
will help pay for the management and the operations of the
Speaker 4
1:44
unclaimed property. All right, nurse, you've heard an explanation of the bill or any questions from the committee. Alright, see I don't
see anybody trying to speak for or against this. Senator Peyton, you're recognized to close. I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote and I'll move due
or got a motion to be passed by Senator Peyton, seconded by Senator Sullivan, in discussion on the motion, saying none, all in favor say aye. I opposed.
Speaker 8
2:12
And seeing no howdios. Get while the getting is good.
Thank you. All right, Senator Scott. And you were running Senate Bill 241. Come on up. Of course,
Speaker 22
2:43
Is there an amendment? Scott, you have an amendment for this bill is there on this.
I think it did. All right. Go on, hit your buttons on your microphones, introduce yourselves, and then Senator, you'll be recognized to proceed. OK. Good morning, Senator
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:01
Scott, District 12. I think, OK. Um, and thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Hi, good morning. Jennifer Elkins, and I'm with the Office
Speaker 28
3:14
of Personnel Management. Great. Welcome. Thank you,
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:16
Mr. Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 241. This bill seeks to amend the uniform attendance policy to ensure
that public employees are afforded necessary bereavement leave in the event of a death of a family member or a child, and this is not just a random bill, just full disclosure. The reason I'm running this bill is when I was younger, my older brother died in a house fire, and I saw the impact even though my father
was't a state employee or my Mother, I saw the impact that that had on my father and my family, and so I thought that this would be something good to try to tackle this session, so to me the justifications of the bill is losing a loved one, especially a child, is an unimaginable hardship and no employee should have to choose between grieving or keeping their job. Many private employers already have bereavement leave policies. Our state, I think, could be leading an example as well supporting our employees during the
hardest. Time improves job satisfaction and productivity upon their return and um I've been working on this bill for maybe 3 or 4 weeks with the governor's office just trying to get um the right amount of days that we thought was appropriate for this representative Representative Pilkington and I, you know, we reached for this guy and he threw a number out there that he originally wanted. I didn't think that that would get approved and it didn't, so we came to an agreement with the governor's office on one week.
for clarity. OK, so without clear bereavement leave policies, public employees may be faced, maybe forced to take unpaid leave or use personal days, which might add financial strain during an already difficult time, and this was something that the governor's office brought up is that people don't really they weren't using the time in the way that they thought they should be using when they did have experienced the loss of a child, so they wanted to provide clarity on what lead could be used. And so, um,
Employees who return to work too soon, um, often after a significant loss such as a child may struggle with focus and productivity and so allowing dedicated time for bereavement enables employees to return in a better mental health and emotional state benefiting both the entire workplace as far as an impact financially. This bill does not create excessive costs. It's simply establishes. A structured approach to bereavement leave in the state
of Arkansas, and many agencies are already accommodate informal bereavement leave, and this bill just standardizes the practices to ensure fairness. This bill clarifies who is an immediate family member. That was the last amendment we did like last week why I couldn't present it and and it ensures that employees do not have to rely on the discretionary decisions of supervisors during a time of crisis, and so with that, Um, happy to try to answer any questions or All right, members, you've heard
an explanation of the bill or any questions from the committee, Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question. So
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
6:30
tell me again about what the cost impact is to this. Yeah, I hear you right when you said it was minimal. Uh-huh. So what does that mean? Did y'all have a financial
Speaker 37
6:42
uh so I'll enter that for you, uh, really, there's no
Speaker 28
6:45
way to gauge what the impact will be because right now we have no way of tracking when someone takes off
time for bereavement. The way this amendment is set up, it would run through the catastrophic leave program, which is donated leave, so it's leave that someone's already earned but has been donated to the catastrophic Lea Bank. OK, so when
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
7:07
you say it's minimal, you really don't know that's correct. Well,
Speaker 28
7:11
It would be, however frequently someone is um taking the you don't have data, so if you don't have
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
7:16
data, how do you predict it's minimal. I don't, I don't know what you
Speaker 28
7:24
consider minimal um when someone takes leave, uh, from the catastrophic leave bank, they, they submit an application, they have to go through a review process, it gets approved. That leave that they are awarded is leave that's already been donated to the catastrophic Lea Bank. It's not an additional amount of leave that's um from
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
7:43
another source, and many companies have that catastrophic where people donate time to that. So the impact of the state would be
is a state paying for that or does that come
Speaker 36
8:02
with the donated days. So when under the amendment
Speaker 28
8:05
as it's um written the bereavement leave would be paid leave and so whenever they're awarded. Paid by their department, whoever employs them, their agency, whenever they are awarded leave under the catastrophic leave program. It's paid at whatever their hourly rate is. So if they get 100 hours, it's 100 hours times they um hourly rate and that would be the cost.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
8:28
Does that, does that So if I donate someone donates a day. Of my sick leave that is paid. Then I'm donating that day, so I'm actually losing that benefit and they're cashing it in over here, but there's no, there's no additional cost to the state for that happening, OK, yeah, I had uh So And I'm looking at page 3 line
21, and employee on catastrophic leave for maternity purposes or for the death of immediate family member is not required to exhaust sick or annual leave, so we added that immediate family member. So this is And lieu of uh using your sick leave. So if I have 10 sick days. And I have the death of an immediate family member and I accessed this. My, I, when I returned from that.
Several month leave, I think in some cases, I still retain my Uh, sick leave. Under this
Speaker 28
9:41
provision, yes, sir, and then there is a separate uh sentence, I believe, on page 4 that says um after those 40 hours of bereavement leave have expired, you can still request to use your, uh, accrued sick leave. If you need additional time. Um For arrangements for other purposes. All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question.
Speaker 63
10:10
Nope, hang on. Thank you. Senator Solomon ended
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
10:19
up kind of addressing my question, which is that, you know, once leave is donated to the catastrophic leave Bank, and then you use that, there's, there's a cost to the catastrophic leave bank, but there's not an actual fiscal impact to the state because those Hours or funds or however you want to term it are already available for use. Is that right? That's correct. So that that was the main thing
I wanted to ask. And the second thing is, I know the original version of the bill had different leave times for the death of an immediate family member or and then a different one for the death of a child, right? But the final version is it's all the same. It's 40 hours. There's one standard for both, correct, as the amendment is written, yes, OK. All right.
Chair
Unverified
10:58
Thank you. All right, thank you, Senator Tucker. Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question. the
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the catastrophic leave bank that you described. Some
leave the employees earn, they can cash in or it expires if they don't use it. Where does the hours in the catastrophic leave bank, where do
they come from? Are they coming from? From uh Leave that would have expired either leave like
Speaker 28
11:36
if somebody leaves state government in let's say, um, they're not eligible to
be paid out for certain types of leave they can donate that to the catastrophically bank. There is also now in statute that the General Assembly passed a few years ago that says at the end of a calendar year, um, if you exceed the carryover limits, then that leave is automatically donated to the catastrophic leave bank to help keep it replenished. So I mean, in my mind, I
think that creates a situation where it really is costing us something because When that leave was created, it
was created not to be carried over, but then by donating it to this bank, it is carried over and so. I, I would argue that that that is costing us something. That's not necessarily a bad thing, um. in private Employment, you know. Employers usually have sympathy on, on uh employees that have immediate family, but that brings me to my second question. The definition of immediate family here seems very broad.
And I would like to know if that's been pulled from other sections of code or if it's uh mirrors other sections of the
code or contradicts that, but I mean, it's, it's very broad. Yes, sir. So that definition for
Speaker 28
12:58
immediate family member is the same definition that's in 214206 under our sick leave. that defines immediate family members. So what is that section allow? That's your sick leave when you can use sick leave and it's you can use your accrued
sick leave, you know, for your own illness or for the death of
Speaker 77
13:19
an immediate family member. OK. Thank you. Thank you, center.
Are there any questions from the members of the committee? All right, see you 9. Don't see anybody I speak for against this bill. Senator Scott, you're a close for your bill. I'm calling. All right, Senator's closed. I see a motion. Our motion to do pass Senator Dawson, seconded by Senator Tucker. Any discussion on the motion. All right, so not all in favor say aye. Po
congratulations, your bill passes. Thank you. All right. Next up, we're going to do Senator Irvin, Senator Irving, you're going to be running Senate Bill 439. All right, come on up. Introduce yourself,
you'll be recognized proceed with your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
14:17
Senator Missy Irvin, District 24, um, numbers, this is a Senate bill, um, 4:39 and it is a long bill, um, but I will, uh, for Tom's sake, I'll go ahead and defer and
let them explain the bill for the Department of Labor and Licensing. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
Speaker 88
14:35
Steve Gunthorpe, Department of Labor and Licensing, um, essentially what this bill is. is a cleanup bill from transformation, um, when they moved the old Department of
Labor to labor and licensing. They changed the title of the old director of labor to division director but left the powers and duties this would clean that up and revert those to the Secretary or his or her designee, uh, with the secretary being the ultimate authority, those duties should rely with the with the Secretary. There's one. in the statute, I believe it's Section 29 where it allows the director currently to enter into
an agreement with the federal government. This does not stem from any current issues we are having. This is proactive. We're trying to be proactive to clean up any issues that could arise. It also cleans up conflicting language as far as the hiring process with the division of labor director. There's conflicting language along with some of a few of our boards where there's conflicting language too as far as the hiring process for them. And that's essentially what this
bill covers. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill
or any questions from the committee Senator Payton, you recognize her question. So It seems a lot of places here where you have Added the language, his or her designee. So Just tell me why that's necessary, I mean. Obviously, the director is appointed by the governor, I
Speaker 88
16:17
assume. Currently, the, well, there's conflicting language on that.
The old statute says that the director is appointed by the governor. Transformation language states that the directors hired by the secretary. That is language that we're trying to clean up in this in this bill as well. But when the
director is appointed or hired and and assumes the duties of the director, why are we giving them the authority to To basically delegate all of those, I mean, one of these has to do with rulemaking. And I mean, I was just cursing through there. I tried to get to 29 that you.
That you were stating did something different, but I don't see. I just see a
Speaker 88
16:58
lot of delegating the authority of the director to a designee. Well, and that's In this case, I mean, the secretary will have the authority to designate that authority, which it will go to the director more than likely. We're just trying to clean it up to where there is no conflict, future conflict, to where a potential director could By statute.
make an agreement. That would not have the secretary's backing and according to current statute that director would be allowed to do that without the Secretary's approval. Well and and base while you were talking I just noticed sometimes
it says director, sometimes it says secretary, but Either way, it seems like the new part is the delegation to a third party. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Are there any other questions from the committee, Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
17:53
I'm looking for her, so we got language that says who appoints them. Do we have language that allows The appointing body the authority to unappoint and viral. I'm I'm
Speaker 99
18:07
not following it. I'm I'm not following the language so we
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
18:11
did we were designated in this bill the authority. To appoint someone to a position.
Speaker 99
18:17
Am I correct in that? It's clarifying because currently they're as far as the division of labor director, there's
language that says that the governor appoints, and then there's also language that says that the secretary hires and you're cleaning it up to say what that the hires the division of power who has the authority to fire. Secretary, is that in here? I believe, yes. Can you point me to the page line number. I mean, I've seen this
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
18:47
in multiple circumstances we talk about who has the authority to appoint them, um, but then we don't include who has the
authority to fire them, and that just causes some confusion in the court. I completely understand, Senator, and that's exactly what we're trying to
Speaker 88
19:04
do with this bill is to clean up. Yeah, well, I just
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
19:08
had a bill killed because it wasn't clear enough
and they weren't, there's no end to how, how deep we can dig that hole. Yes sir. Uh,
Sarah Moore
Unverified
19:16
Lacey Kirchner Department of Labor and Licensing Council. Um, Senator, the answer to your question is actually on page 73 and 74 of the last remaining
sections of the bill talk specifically about
Speaker 103
19:30
the secretary's authority to hire and fire all of the employees under the Department of Labor and
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
19:38
Licensing. So I'm looking on page 7, what
Speaker 106
19:41
line are you on 73. 73. The very last section
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
19:45
of the bill. I've got line 36. So, what section is it in? It's
Speaker 103
19:52
section 137. It's the very, it's page 73,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
19:58
lines 34, 35, 36. And then on page 741. Can you just
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
20:03
read that to me? I don't I can't find it here. It
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
20:06
says the Secretary of the Department, so this is Section 137 of the bill, which is on page 73 of the bill starting on lines 26. Um, the secretary of the Department of Labor and Licensing Authority, notwithstanding any other provision of law concerning a board commission section or division under the Department of Labor and Licensing, the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Licensing shall have
the authority to hire and fire. OK. Executive director of a board commission section or division of the Department of Labor and Licensing and an agent employee I've got it in front of me now. Thank you. Yes, sir.
Speaker 54
20:44
Thank you, Senator. All right, any other questions to the committee? Alright, Senator Peyton, you're gonna ask
for a question. OK, so I guess. My question is, I mean, the Senate has review and approval for whoever's appointed the secretary.
But we would have no review or approval over the Secretary's designee, would we? Do
Sarah Moore
Unverified
21:09
you want me to go? The designee would be one of his employees. That's the whole point is that authority that should have already actually existed specifically to the Secretary of the Department of Labor when transformation happened, it dictated that to a specific director under the secretary. So this is just simply to make ensure that all
of those duties are specifically to the Secretary ultimately, and if he chooses to then say that a director could be the enforcing say, for instance, our wage and hour loss that that director could go out and investigate a wage an hour complaint. It's just to clarify.
It says that person could serve or designate an individual to serve on behalf of the Secretary on any board commission, section, or division. So I mean,
if the general assembly decides we want this. The Secretary of Labor and Licensing or whatever
to serve on a certain board. We're not, we're not getting what we thought we were getting. I
Sarah Moore
Unverified
22:14
can say that most of the time for ones that specifically say the Secretary, it says already says or his or her designate, like for instance we have and spot on the barber board that is for the secretary or his or her designate, like for
Speaker 106
22:26
instance we have and spot on the barber board that
is for the secretary or so through all of these
sections, most of them did not already
Speaker 106
22:35
have that. No, this specifically was addressing the director of
Speaker 120
22:38
the division of labor, which is the an employee of the Department of Labor. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
22:44
Thank you, Senator. Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:49
way I view it is that when we confirm the Secretary of the department, then we're not only confirming them to do certain jobs. We're also confirming their discretion in determining when they actually need to delegate something rather than do it all
on their own. I mean, that's the way I view it is that, is that fair, you think? Yes sir. Thank you. Thank you, Senator
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
23:12
in this bill we specifically need to make sure it's the secretary and not the director, so that's the cleanup part. Are there any questions from
the committee? All right, see you now. I don't see anybody to speak for against this bill. Senator, you're going to close your bill. Thank
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
23:27
you. I'm close. I appreciate a good vote. Thank you for the
question. Do I see a motion, a motion to pass Senator Sullivan, 2 Senator
Tucker. Any discussion on the motion, not seen any, all in favor say aye, opposed. Congratulations, Senator your bill passes. Thank you. Thank you, members of the committee. Senator Hammer, you want to run a 445. OK, OK. Yeah, Tucker, I want you to go ahead and you're taking House Bill 1505 members.
Speaker 128
24:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, this is a bill. That just continues the program we
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
24:17
created 2 years ago. This is for mental health treatment for our first responders who experience a traumatic event. It's something that we need to be doing for our first responders. It was, I think this is an overused term down here, but it was a pilot program two years ago, not in the sense that it, it was a fully implemented program. It was a pilot program in the sense that it had a sunset date, and it has expired, but the program worked as we hoped that it would, and we need
to continue it, so this is just We tested it. It worked. This is making it permanent. Our first responders obviously are in support of this. They're they're the ones who are in need of these services. They work most closely with the municipally and providing these services, the municipal League is also in support of the bill. Association of Counties is neutral. There's no known opposition. I mean that's, that's really it. I'm happy to answer any questions about the program, but, but again, the bottom line is we need to be providing
mental health treatment for our first responders who experienced
traumatic event. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any
questions from the committee? Alright, any questions? Don't see anybody sign up to speak for or against this. Senator Tucker, you're recognized to close your
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:30
bill. Thank you. I'm closed for Bill. I appreciate a good vote and I
move to pass. All right, got a motion to pass Senator Tucker, see
a second. seconded by Senator Hammer, any discussion on the motion. All
right, all in favor say aye opposed. Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes. And Like, Senator Dawson, you got a couple of you run. You do 4:33 and 434. I take him out of work, go ahead.
Speaker 140
26:17
it. 434. Senate Bill 434. It All right,
Senator, you're recognized proceed with Senate Bill 434. Members Senate Bill 434, uh,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
26:40
Does one very simple thing. It requires that a majority of
votes cast in an election for a constitutional initiated constitutional amendment be cast by a majority of all registered eligible voters. Voting or All registered eligible votes. Sorry. When approved by a majority of all registered voters eligible to vote upon the constitutional amendment. And that's the That's the entirety of the bill. I answer any questions members, you've heard the explanation of the bill or any questions from
the committee? Senator Tucker, you're organized for a question. Yeah
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
27:27
So I just want to make sure I understand what you're doing here. Um, I'm just gonna make up some numbers for the purpose of. Uh, a hypothetical. So we have 1 million registered voters in Arkansas. And only 500,000 of them vote in a given election. Right now,
If 250,000 and one of those people vote in favor of a constitutional amendment, it would pass under current law. And is what your bill doing saying that 500,000 in
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
28:02
one, it would take 500,0001 in that scenario if if there's exactly 1 million, it would take a majority of registered eligible voters,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
28:08
not just the ones who vote, but the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
28:11
but the majority of majority of registered the entire electorate, so I think it's a serious thing when we're amending our constitution, that it has. Has buy-in from
A majority of those eligible to vote on an amendment, so if we're going to amend it, the initiated constitutional amendment process, uh. has to have buy-in from a majority of of the electorate. Are you Are you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
28:37
aware of any other instance in the United States whether a constitutional amendment and office where candidates are running. Where this requirement is in place.
Well, the requirement is in this very body.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
28:56
When we pass a bill, it takes a majority of 35 senators, majority of the committee takes 5 out of 8 in here or 18 out of 35 on the Senate floor, 51 out of 100, whether or not there's You know, 17 voting, that doesn't pass it. or if there's 24 voting, it still takes 18 to pass something on this on the floor. Yes, that's not really my question. Certainly there's a difference between 35 people who
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:28
run for who run for office to vote on legislation and a population of over 3 million people. Uh, it, it's, it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Are
you, so I'm going to ask my question again. Are you aware of? Not just in Arkansas, but any state in the country that studied all the states to see
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
29:45
if there's If there's that sort of requirement elsewhere. This is the proposal that drafted for us to consider. Right, but it's certainly not the case for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:56
any other elected office in Arkansas, like the
governor, Governor doesn't need to be elected by a majority of the entire electorate just by a majority of the people, right? It's not even a
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
30:07
majority actually, right? It's just the office holders though. They're only in term
for a certain finite period of time. The Constitution is, I mean, I contemplated doing this on, on, you know, This initiated acts referendum, all of it, but I thought the Constitution was something that was serious enough that it, it should be weighed on if we're
changing our constitution by a majority
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
30:33
of the electorate. Would this not conflict with Article
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
30:37
5, Section 1 of the State Constitution? No. Why not? Not in my opinion and not in the opinion of the Attorney General who drafted an opinion last November, pin number 2024. 024. That stated that under Article 5, Section 1, which was amended by Amendment 7, as you're probably familiar with, because
you like to quote it in here to everyone, um. That See if I If you read the plain language of the Constitution. It says. And I thought I had underlined it on here. Maybe I didn't. I'm going to go off the top of
my head, but under the plain language of the Constitution, it says that the General Assembly by 2/3 majority of both chambers may amend. Any section of the Constitution voted on by the people. And so that is what I'm basing this bill off of. There are 2. Processes for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:51
amending the state constitution. One is for the legislature to refer our constitutional amendments that the people vote on. And the other is for.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
32:04
Ballot measures brought by the people themselves, correct? If you actually read the. Article 5, Section 1, which you referenced, which I am referencing in this particular bill, it says I should have printed off that section of the Constitution. I'm sure you can pull it up faster than I can. Find it in here. But Talks about the definition of
measure and the plain language of the Constitution says the General Assembly. Uh May amend a measure or repeal a measure, uh, if voted on. By both, uh. Here it is. See it here. A year or nay roll call vote of 2/3 of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly. Right, that's not my question.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
33:06
My question is about there's two ways for a constitutional limit to get on the ballot. One is if it's referred by the legislature. And the other is if it's
brought by petition of the people. Does this apply to both Types
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
33:22
of amendments legislatively referred I get what your question is. No, it can only apply to those things that have been voted on by the people so we can only amend Amendment 7, which gave the initiative process. We cannot amend with.
With the process this bill format we cannot amend the Constitution to increase this requirement because the 3 that we Refer out to the voters were part of the original Constitution, so they weren't voted on, so I can't, I would have contemplated that, but I could not in this bill. OK, so that will require an actual ballot referral. All right, so now
I understand what you're saying, but so there's there's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
34:09
two points for the moment. The first one is that for legislatively referred amendments in order for those to be adopted at the polls, it would only take a majority of those voting. And for constitutional amendments put on the ballot through the people's initiative process, it would take a majority, not of those voting, but of the entire electorate if this bill were to pass, right. So the reason why The answer to my previous question about whether this conflicts with Article 5 Section 1.
It is not that it doesn't conflict, it's just your opinion based on the AG's opinion that the General Assembly can amend constitutional amendments that were brought by the people. Correct. OK, so, It does the bill does conflict with Article 5, Section 1 as currently written, but your, your position is that we can amend Article 5 Section 1, that's what this
Speaker 166
35:04
would be doing. OK. Alright, so the last point is as a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:08
practical as a practical matter, this is not going to
make it impossible for the for the people to amend the Constitution through the initiative process because many times in Arkansas less than a majority of the entire electorate even participating in an election, so It's Logistically impossible even if 100% of the
people vote for it in that circumstance. It still won't pass. And if this it's not
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
35:33
logistically impossible. It like it's, it's, it's, it's a broad-based agreement. Well, no, it's a matter of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:39
arithmetic, basic arithmetic, that if you
have a million eligible voters and only 499,999 participate. Or if only 500,000 participate, then even if it gets 100% support from every voter, it won't pass. So It
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
35:56
just needs to have something that has broad-based support something similar to,
uh, and I'm looking it up in the last 224 general election. 1,828,129 registered voters were eligible. So how many voted.
And Out of those 129,102 voted for issue one. So Voted for or voted on voted for actually there was 1.1. For 100,000. 119,000 voted against, so Out of those that were voting, There was more than enough to vote for it. It
would have passed, so that was with or without this. That was in the 24
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
36:44
election cycle, that's a presidential cycle. Do you have the numbers for 2022? I don't have. I didn't pull those up. Generally, historically speaking, turnout in non-presidential years is lower than
in presidential years, correct? Uh correct. So if less than half of the entire electorate participates in an election, then even if a a citizen initiated constitutional amendment gets 100% of the vote. It will not pass if this bill
were to become law. Well, if it doesn't have broad-based support, well, that's not my question is not about broad-based support. It's not,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
37:24
I'm using numbers. The answer to your question is yes, I've answered
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:26
it a few times. I know you keep saying broad-based support, and that's not what I'm talking about. I know that's a talking point and that's fine. But the point is, That There are scenarios where even if 100% of the people in a non-presidential year vote for something, it won't pass if less than a majority of the electorate participates in the election.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
37:47
Again, I've answered your question. It needs to have broad-based support in order to pass I've asked 5 times.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:53
I haven't got an answer. I can tell I'm not going to get an answer, so I'll defer, Mr. Chair. All right. In our questions from the committee, Senator Payton.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Dodson. I mean, I love your example of what happens here in the legislature if people don't show up to a meeting, you can't have enough votes to pass it, and Senator Tucker pointed out that
You know, we all raised our hand and and got elected to this position. You're not talking about every eligible voter, you're talking about every registered. eligible voter. So I mean they've raised their hand. They got registered to vote, right? So I, I understand the broad-based support because Obviously some things Draw all of our members into a meeting and draw all of us in
attention and some things don't. But when you don't have enough votes to get it out of committee or you don't have enough votes to pass it on the floor. Does the world stop turning or does does the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
39:05
law stay the same? The last stays the same and the Constitution would
Speaker 72
39:11
remain uh The same. I mean, it's something that the voters
to change the constitution. Only those who are concerned enough to be
registered. We're only asking a simple majority of the registered voters. OK, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Payton. All right. Any
Speaker 190
39:29
other questions from the committee? All right, so no further
Speaker 32
39:34
questions, do you have somebody, some folks sign up to speak against this. Um, we'll start with this Kristen Stewart. Is Christine here?
If you give us your, yeah, hit that button right there and just give us your name and who you're
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
40:10
with or if you're on your own accord and be recognized pursuit of your remarks. OK, great. My name is Kristen
Stewart and I'm just here on behalf of myself. As a citizen, I was, um, a volunteer on several of the initiate initiatives last summer, um, So I, I'm here to be in strong opposition of this bill. I did a lot of the training for
volunteers and one thing that I loved telling them was that one of the first things in our state constitution gives the people the power to amend it. Um, our founders made it clear that citizens should be able to shape their own government through the ballot initiative process. Um, this is an unreasonably high threshold, um. It's already so hard to get
The 90,000 704 signatures required statewide, in addition, there is the 50 county rule, which in the Constitution it says at least 15 counties, you will have a percentage of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election. So it's already incredibly hard to get the signatures and get a ballot initiative. On the actual ballots. Um, this
would make it just, it would make it impossible, like Senator Tucker was saying, it would be it would be impossible, um. Arkansas already has some of the lowest voter participation in the country. I know in the 2020 election, Arkansas ranked dead last, 51. Out of the country. Um, And I know you were asking about how many, um, Voted in the 2022 election.
And the Secretary of State said 9906,597 ballots, so that was 50.39%. Um, which was below what the then Secretary of State John Thurston's prediction was of 51%. Um I know that Arkansas has had a long history of direct democracy and allowing citizens to engage in this process, um, this bill
would essentially eliminate the ability of citizens to get anything on the ballot. Um, it's registered voters. Someone could move away. They could move to a different state, but they might still be on the voter rolls. So even though they're not a citizen of the state and they're not able to vote in this election, they would still be counted as a no. So I don't understand
this hasn't been done anywhere else in the country. So why are we just trying to make it harder and harder and harder. For citizens to have a voice. This is essentially disenfranchising active voters. Someone might have a reason why they are not able to go vote. I would love it if everybody voted. That would make me so happy if we had 100% participation in this process,
but we don't. And instead, this body just repeatedly is trying to make it harder for people to vote, harder for our citizens to register. To vote. And so I'm here today just asking, please vote no, don't make it harder for us who want to have a say in our state government to do so. Thank you for your comments, members, any questions for Stewart, Senator Sullivan.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
44:18
You said Arkansas is one of the lowest in voter turnout. Who's responsible for that? Um, The voters, but it's not if they choose not to show up. So when you say that Arkansas is the lowest. That's because our citizens choose not to show up. Would that be true? OK, and but
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
44:40
that, but But making it to where if someone doesn't go vote, and it could be for a myriad of reasons, they could have moved,
they could have a sick family member. They themselves could be in the hospital, but you are effectively making their voter registration a no vote address that, but you made the
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
44:58
comment and it sounded like it was tied to this bill that Arkansas has a low voter turnout, therefore, we don't need to do this, but the fact is, and this is not a question, you don't have to answer. The fact is people choose not to vote. The question would be,
The founders, you also made a statement about the founders and direct democracy. The founders were clearly opposed to direct democracy. The founders were clearly for representative democracy. So the fact that
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
45:35
the Arkansas constitution. I was referring to the Arkansas. I was referring
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
45:40
to the Arkansas constitution because federal Constitution. Says and the founder said that they opposed direct democracy in favor of Representative
democracy. It doesn't mean that they made a path for direct democracy, as do we here in the state. The fact that we're making it harder is in your opinion, making it more difficult. This likely does make it more difficult, but again, your opening statement was the founders, something to the effect that the supported direct democracy. I think that's not true. Yeah, I was referring
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
46:17
to the state constitution. I was talking about when I trained volunteers
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
46:23
for initiatives which has supremacy. The federal Constitution, the state constitution. I
Speaker 190
46:31
thought you guys were all about state rights. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Any more questions?
Senator Payton. Thank you Mr. Chair. So, I was talking about how we operate as a legislative body. If, if I sit here and don't vote. Yes or no. It's essentially a no if if I'm
on the Senate floor and I don't vote, then it's a no because it takes so many votes to pass it. I mean, is it possible that people are
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
47:04
staying home and not voting just because they're not for I can't speak to what why someone does or does not vote, there could be so many reasons, but you guys ran for office, signed up for a job, to vote and it would be different if this was prescribed. b ed to everything, all
elections you brought up the petition process. This bill does not change that threshold. So it doesn't increase the number of to get a constitutional, question. It doesn't change the number of signatures you need to get it on the ballot. It just says that it needs to draw enough interest. To get a simple majority, not of the population. A simple majority of those that are registered to vote. So how is that making it harder? It's
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
47:56
making it harder because it's only prescribed to this one vote, this one thing that people are voting on. It's not gonna change. You don't have to get 50% + 1% of all registered voters to hold your office. Like that, the, it's just you saying you'd be for it if it applied to
everything. It would be. I would, I would
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
48:18
still not love it. I don't think that's right, but I'm saying I think it's very
hypocritical to only prescribe this. For constitutional amendments, but no other elected office. Well, when
you're talking about elected office, there wasn't a decision made, the office would be empty. When we're talking about constitutional amendment, if there's no decision made, then it stays the same. It doesn't change. It doesn't
leave you a void of a governing document, but I appreciate your position.
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
48:52
Thank you, it would make it nearly impossible because every person who was registered to
vote and didn't for whatever reason, it would be a no vote. All
right. Any other questions? All right, see you then. Thank you,
Speaker 218
49:08
Ms. Stewart. All right, next up we've got um Gailcho, Gail. Speaking against
Gail Choate
Unverified
49:34
Good morning. My name is Doctor Gail Choate, and I am an educator and an advocate for civic engagement. I'm An educator who is dedicated to empowering voters and to strengthening civic engagement. I stand before you today in opposition to Senate Bill 434, a measure that fundamentally undermines democratic participation in Arkansas. Right now, when Arkansans vote on a constitutional amendment.
The majority of those who choose to vote decide its fate. Just as we do in every other election. But SP 434 changes the rules. Requiring a majority of all registered voters to approve an amendment. Not just those who participate. This is not democracy. This is an obstruction
of the people's ability to shape their own constitution. Let's be clear about what this means. If you stay home,
Or you forget to vote on an amendment. Or life gets in the way. Your non-vote is counted as a no vote. That's not how our democracy is supposed to work. This bill discourages participation by making voters feel that their engagement doesn't matter. Young people excited to take part in our democracy. Senate Bill 434 tells them that their votes might not be enough. That their voices may be drowned
out by nonparticipation. That's the opposite of empowerment, and it's not the way that we build an active and civically engaged society. Second, SP 434 disproportionately harms marginalized communities. Black, Latino, rural, disabled, and low income voters already face barriers to casting their ballots. Arkansas does have a low voter
turnout history. And this bill exploits that fact. Instead of ensuring the will of the people is heard SP 434 rigs the process to make constitutional amendments nearly impossible when put forth by the people. Finally, this bill is a radical departure from tradition. Arkansas has always relied upon a majority rule among voters who show up. If lawmakers are concerned about making thoughtful amendments, there are better solutions.
Such as requiring amendments to pass in multiple elections or being fair or putting money and effort and initiative behind increasing civic education. Increasing voter turnout and removing the barriers that stand in the way of people being able to fully participate in our representative form of democracy. If you believe in democracy, you can't support Senate Bill 434.
This bill tells Arkansans that they're participation doesn't matter, that their voices can be erased by those who choose to stay home. We should be making voting easier. We should be making civic education a priority, not making these things harder and therefore stifling further the will of the people. I urge you to reject this bill. Defend the power of the people and protect our democratic traditions. Thank you. Thank
you, Dr. Cho. Members, are there any questions for Dr. Cho? All right, see you then. Thank you for being here. Thank
Speaker 236
53:27
you. And then next up we've got Ms. Carol Egan. Ms. Eagan.
Carol Egan
Unverified
54:01
Hello again. Hi, my name is Carol Egan. I'm here as an Arkansan, Arkansas citizen, and it's funny because when you know I talked to some of the other people who have been Speaking against these bills against direct democracy. I keep saying, you know, we can't get angry. We can't get upset because it's already people already know how they're going to vote and us getting angry just serves no purpose, and all
we're trying to do is shine a light. For the people of Arkansas as to what's going on. And we just need to keep our cool, but boy oh boy, Senator Dodson, I'm having a hard time with this one. I really am. There is no question in anybody's mind in this committee that the purpose of this legislation is to eradicate The right of people bringing a petition.
To this voters of this state successfully. Now we already have all these barriers. I mean, if you look at the history, it's almost impossible to get any kind of reasonable bill on the ballot these days once we get it through the Attorney General's office and the Secretary of State's office. I'm just look at some examples, um, and so I, I have to ask myself what this body is so afraid of. Up from the Arkansas citizens
because that if I was going to name this bill, I would call it protection of the Constitution from the citizens of the state because that is effectively what you're doing, you identify the one bill. The one bill. In the last since 2013 because I did the numbers that would have passed. One, all of your constitutional amendments, of course they are not held subject to this
draconian requirement, um, all of them would have failed. None of them got 50%. None of the ones that the citizens put forward, we would not have medical marijuana today. We would not have free breakfast for public school children today because medical marijuana would not have passed. Uh, it just is so Hard for me to understand. Why you Why this organization, why this
body, the people who elected you and trusted you. With a responsibility to protect Their constitutional rights and yet bill after bill in this session has done nothing but chip away at them. And compounded on that, and I'm sorry, I am a little ranting today. Do you guys have been busily suppressing voting, right? You've made it more and more difficult to register to vote, you know, the in needing wet ink signatures. You've made it more and more
difficult to actually vote with your voter ID, which, by the way, that would not have passed either with this new 50% requirement of registered voters. And, and now, now you're just going to eliminate the right of people to Petition The other voters, so I, I don't even know if I want to take your questions. I can't trust myself, but please, please. restore
the people's right to their constitutional right to amend the Constitution and with that I close, right. Any questions, members? All right,
Speaker 202
57:46
see you then. Thank you, Ms. He preview. Thank you.
All right. I think that's all we have to speak against. I thought
Speaker 242
57:57
speak against this please. I'm, I've got you signed up on 376 come up here and speak against us.
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
58:29
Wow, I, I just don't get it either. I am as conservative as anyone on sitting around this table. I am as Republican as anyone sitting around this table. I outright anyone who is sitting at this table. What is going on here. I get the fact that we're a constitutional republic. That's
what I call it a constitutional republic. I also get the fact that in around 1914, we gave the people the right to bring laws, and you do have to ask yourself, what's going on with with this attack on our initiative process, we have been known as regnant populist will flush that. down the toilet because that's where we're headed. And we're going to talk about
the foyer, this foyer, uh 376 in a minute. But this is emotional to me, you know, I line up against these folks on the left, on virtue. I fight on tooth and nail. I hate their policies, you know, I was this, this abortion amendment that that they brought, uh, the Learns Act, um, which has problems, but, but I know one thing, my grandkids deserve better from
this body because one day, one day,
one day. Guess what? We're gonna be sitting out here. Republicans are going to be sitting out here begging for their rights, begging my grandkids are. We're gonna see something on abortion, which I'm as anti-abortion as they come. My wife is a saint in that regard. We support family counsel. But to and and maybe it's for
you. Maybe it's you guys got all bent out of shape that the people would, would, would go for a process, a process that is meaningful, that we want to put our right to know in our Constitution. And maybe that's what got you bent out of shape. Maybe that's when these bills sprung. I don't know, but these are anti-people. This will, it's, it's no, it's
It's not a matter of, I forget the the term that you broad
based support. This is a matter of making it impossible. And then we've got all the roadblocks
on the other petition process, and I wouldn't come in here to speak on this this morning, but this is, this is just really, really concerning that we would cut our nose off to spite our face, Republicans, because one day, We're going to need this and we're going to
need to fight against abortion. We're going to
need it for the smut and the stuff in our libraries, and we're going to want to bring that constitutional amendment. My grandkids, and we're giving that up today. If this bill passes, it's a slap in the face of every Arkansan. Period. Not just the left or the right, but the people, and it's about freedom. Thank you, Mr. McCutcheon. Members, there any questions for Mr.
McCutcheon? All right, see you. Thank you for being here, sir.
Speaker 32
1:02:07
All right, Senator Dawson, you're close here Bill. Thank
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:02:16
you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just to touch on a couple of things that were mentioned, uh, one, this particular bill does not. Touch the initiative process, so as far as collecting signatures, uh, I think we've we've discussed that at length in this committee on many other bills, but this one is simply at the
ballot, uh, the threshold. Um The Constitution should be difficult to amend. It is something that is, is we shouldn't just be willy-nilly amending it all the time, most of the proposals that I've seen in recent time have actually should have been hacks. They shouldn't have been constitutional amendments, but it was so easy to just gather a few 1000 more signatures, might as well put it in the
Constitution. That's why our Constitution has businesses. Written into it because someone can buy access to our Constitution by collecting enough signatures, putting a really popular sounding name on the ballot title and getting it passed and then we have industries that are written into our Constitution that should have probably been gone through the legislative process been been laws or the initiative process, which is not being changed as far as the thresholds
do initiated acts, and they should have been acts instead of constitutional amendments. Um, we've done a lot to try to clean up our our voter rolls, so we get rid of uh people who shouldn't be on there as far as uh folks that are not actually living in state or maybe they've passed away or they shouldn't be no votes for that, so if you don't vote, you're not for something. We've we've established that it still takes the same threshold in the legislature of a majority of the
electorate of that body to pass something should be the same for the Constitution. And we hear a lot about the will of the people, um, the will of the people is not the will of the people. If the majority of the people do not support an initiated constitutional amendment by voting for it, so. I think this is a good bill, and I, I'm closed to appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass. All right Got a motion to be passed by Senator Dodson. Do I see a second? Seconded by Senator Payton,
discussion on the motion. Senator Tucker, you're going to ask for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04:44
discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, the question for this group is why are we so afraid of the
people of Arkansas. I've seen some bills that Restrict the people's ability to pass their own laws, but this one is by far the most egregious, uh. I pulled up the number from 2022. There were 4 ballot measures that cycle. Senator Dodson mentioned there's about 1.8 million registered
voters in Arkansas. First ballot measure had 858,000 voters. Combined for and against. The second issue had 865,000 total voters. Third issue had 874,000 total voters. Fourth issue had 898,000 total voters. So if 100% of the people who participated in those elections voted for those issues. I would say 100% is pretty broad-based support. If 100% of those people voted for it, it would still fail if
this bill were to become law. Interestingly, the second issue that people voted on in 2022 was whether to raise the threshold on citizen initiated ballot measures. To 60% And when the people had an opportunity to speak on that, they voted against it. 59% That tells us where the people stand on this. The fact that we would have different thresholds forces and initiated constitutional amendments and legislative legislatively
referred constitutional amendments is really the height of hypocrisy. Uh, this bill is should be offensive
to every citizen of Arkansas, and I really hope it doesn't pass out of this committee. All right, thank you, Sarah
Chair
Unverified
1:06:27
Tucker. Senator Sullivan, guys for discussion. You know, Heard
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:06:33
one of the presenters talk about democracy, democracy, democracy, and how we need more education. I would agree because
we're not a democracy, and I think the bill is trying to reach that point. I've talked to the sponsor and you know, I think this goes a little bit too far for my comfort level, but I do agree that the Amending our Constitution should be a hard to do. I think it's hard now. Again, I appreciate what you're trying to do in my book it goes a little bit too far. Thank you.
Speaker 260
1:07:09
Thank you, Senator. There was any more discussion? All right,
see none. I've got a motion to passed by Senator Dodson, seconded by Senator Payton. All in favor, say
aye opposed? Sorry, Senator Bill fails. All right, you want to take up um SB 43,
you missed your chance, Senator. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you get while the getting is good, man. Senate
Speaker 262
1:07:38
Bill 433. That's Hang on, did you say oh, is Senator Brian, hang on, is he here? I was texting.
Unknown speaker
1:07:56
Then we tell him to be here shortly. Yeah, come on down. what are we doing?
Senate Bill 433 members. Y'all. Introduce yourselves and who you're with for the record.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:08:34
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Jim Dodson, District 34. I'm Tim Barton, president
Chair
Unverified
1:08:41
of WallBuilders. I'm David Barton, founder of Paul Builders. All right,
Senator you recognize proceed with 433. Thank
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:08:49
you, Mr. Chairman. I Just gonna quickly open and then turn it over to my uh colleagues
here to give you some details, but this, if you recall in previous sessions, we have adopted the national motto display Act. What this does is add the 10 commandments display to that section of the code, and I'll turn it over to to them to explain in further detail. One of the things that has been a
Speaker 268
1:09:19
more recent update back in 2022, there was the coach Kennedy decision. He was the football coach from Birmington, Washington who was fired for
taking a knee on the 50 yard line, not even saying anything out loud, but because it was viewed as an expression of religion and his posturing. He was fired from the school. It took 8 years for him to get to the US Supreme Court. Once he got to the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that he had been wrongfully terminated, and the reason that lower courts had upheld his initial termination was Based on a 1971 law, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and in the 2022 decision, the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision was overturned. Was that for us?
OK, sorry, the limited Kurzman decision was overturned, and the reason that was significant is that Leman v. Kurtzman decision is what introduced a religious litmus test that anything that was done in public had to pass essentially this test to be viewed as constitutional, and under this litmus test more than 7000 times it was cited to strike down any religious expression or activity among the things that struck down was in 1980 the Stone v. Graham 10 Commandment case. The US Supreme Court, where they said 10 Commandments could not be displayed because it didn't
pass a religious test, and the coach Kennedy decision in 2022 when the US Supreme Court overturned women, they went back the standing test currently from 2019. It was a case the American Humanists versus American Legion, and it was known as the Bladensburg Cross decision. It was a World War I memorial Cross, and there was an atheist who was offended by the cross and sued to have the cross removed because it was on federal property. Originally there was a group of moms at the end of World War I that had raise money to erect this cross to honor their sons who had died in World War I. It was private
funds on private land, but the government bought that land and when it this atheist saw the crossing was offended. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and the argument was because it was on government land, and it was certainly an expression of their religious faith. It was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in that decision ruled. There was a long standing history and tradition, there should
Speaker 269
1:11:21
be a presumption of constitutionality. Well, the current standard now that Lemon's been overturned, is a long standing history and tradition brings a presumption of constitutionality. This is
Speaker 268
1:11:33
why in Louisiana just last year, they passed the 10 Commandments law that was challenged in a couple of their parishes, I believe it's 4 parishes it's been challenged in. It's already been enacted and all of the other states it's been challenged at the Fifth Circuit where they will rule on that very soon, but it's ruling on what the Supreme Court has already determined the longstanding history and tradition and the overturning of women, and the reason we bring that up is because restoring the 10 Commandments is something foundational again back to the history and tradition of our nation, the foundational part of
American history. It's foundational for the Western law, western hemisphere, common law in America was built on this structure and certainly we're going to have some of that history. One of the arguments that people might have against it is, but, but it's clearly religious is sometimes the argument, and they might argue there's a separation. church and state, I would point out this is the very first Bible printed in English in America. It was done at the end of the American Revolution. It was known as the Aiken Bible, and Robert Aiken was a printer of Congress at that time it was illegal under the King of Great Britain to print any Bibles in
English in America, but because of the American Revolution, we were able to print Bibles, and in the front of this Bible, it actually has a congressional endorsement encouraging every American to read, study, and know the Bible. What's also significant is when he made this appeal before Congress. Print this Bible, he told Congress that we needed more Bibles in schools, and this Bible could be quote a neat edition of the holy scriptures for the use of schools, Congress approved and endorsed this Bible that was then done for schools and so this idea that the founding fathers, because of
their view of separation of church and state, wouldn't want the Bible or even 10 Commandments to be in schools is inconsistent with the history of our nation as we certainly can show, but I'll turn over for some of the history
Speaker 271
1:13:19
conversation. Just to point to the tradition aspect of it. The first textbook ever published in the United States was in 1690. It was called the New England primer for the next 240 years it was considered the primary first grade textbook in America. This happens to be the 1777 New
England premier. This first grade textbook has 43 questions on the 10 Commandments, so that was common to our classes as education continues to move forward. We get into things like the McGuffry Readers classic readers. The second, actually the 3rd best selling book in America, and it had 3 lessons on the 10 Commandments and extensive for 2nd graders. You get to things like Noah Webster, who gave us the dictionary. He was a great educator, founding father fought in the revolution as a legislator and judge. This is Webster's and it has the 10
Commandments in it for students, so that was very much a part of history and tradition. The other thing I'd point to is even where we are today, the exclusion of any kind of religious presence becomes so hostile that We take our 8th grade classes often to Washington DC for civic strips on CDC. That can be problematic if we hold to what the court said, because if you walk into the Supreme Court itself, in the court I have counted more than 50 copies of the 10 Commandments displayed depictions and copies in the
Supreme Court. One over the justice's head, one outside the building as you walk in, one on the door that they face, and more than 50 on the lattice bronze latticework that that separates the Supreme Court bar from the justices. If they walk right next door and go to the Library of Congress, Mos is holding the 10 Commandments when you walk in, really big statue. If you go across the street to the Capitol as you walk outside the House chambers, 10 Commandments posted right outside the door as you go down the street to the National Archives, you see the Declaration of the Constitution. There's a depiction of the 10 Commandments on the floor in
front of it, so all over Washington DC, this is, this has been a common tradition and the other thing I'd point out that's kind of fun just for Arkansas is the copy the 10 Commandments you have outside now. is a special copy in the sense that when you look at it, it's, it's that rose colored marble, but it has two little plaques up over the top, and those two plaques that was the set of 10 commandments they started putting up after the movie The 10 Commandments was done in 1956. Cecil Ber Mill. They put 100 of those 180 of those up,
the one we have in Texas was actually installed by Charlton Heston. The actors went around to put these up at most state capitals. I would suspect that you guys earlier in your history had one from The 10 Commandments maybe because they went to all the capitals, they went to the major cities, Memphis, Nashville, etc. and they also put 10,000 copies up in the classrooms after the 10 Commandments movie, and there was no lawsuit anywhere on that, so the time has changed. We're back to where the religion and the aspects of of history and tradition give the presumption
of constitutionality, and this is something that it's hard to be more historical and traditional than having displays of the 10 Commandments up. It's in public buildings across the country. and to say that kids can't see that makes no sense. Alright, Senator Lawton, you want to add anything? No, we're open for questions. All right. Remember, you've heard
an explanation of the bill, questions from the committee, Senator Tucker, you're going for a question.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:16:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What organization did you gentlemen say you're with? Wall builders,
Speaker 274
1:16:41
I'm sorry, wall builders, and what is that? We're a historic organization from down on the metroplex and we focus on trying to re-educate people with historic documents. We
Speaker 269
1:16:50
have what's considered the largest private collection of original documents from early American history. We have tens of thousands of original documents. We actually have documents from every single signer of the Declaration, every signer of the Constitution, documents from every single president, and so we try to use those documents to help reteach. to try to overcome some of the more revisionistic nature of a lot of what's happened in modern education.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:17:12
Uh, what is the metroplex? At the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. Thank you. You mentioned that Louisiana passed a 10
Speaker 274
1:17:24
Commandments law. What did that law do? Now the 10 commandments bill they passed in Louisiana was to put the 10 Commandments up in classrooms all throughout the states. There
Speaker 268
1:17:32
was a lawsuit from, I believe it was 4 parishes that challenged, and so if I may add, it was
Speaker 271
1:17:37
5 parishes. There were 72 parishes in Louisiana, actually 64 parishes,
72 school districts, and 5 districts they have been temporarily enjoined from displaying the 10 Commandments. The others have not. And so those 5 are being appealed to the 5th Circuit and the 5th. circus expected to rule with the court on history and tradition. The lower court judge cited the Lemon case as the basis of not showing those 10 commandments in the five parishes, and since the court has vacated Lemon. It's expected that will prevail, but right now the other actually it'd be the other 67 parishes, the 10 Commandments are going up
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:13
all across Louisiana. Would it be prudent to wait to pass this
Speaker 271
1:18:21
law to see how the Fifth Circuit rules in that case. Uh, if the court's meaning is clear on what it said since actually it said at first and and and and forgive me, I do a lot of legal work considered a legal expert and been involved in 13 cases in the US Supreme Court. Congratulations starting in I'm sorry. Thank you, sir. Starting with 2019, then twice in 2022, the
court has three decisions where they made it very clear limit is a real problem, and it's out the door. So based on what the Supreme Court has said 3 times. in the in the last 6 years, I don't think it's, it's much of a reason to wait for all the circuit courts to work it all the way back up the Supreme Court again, where they're going to say we told you 3 times over the last 6 years. So that's where Louisiana's gone. That's where the Attorney General's Louisiana's gone, and there are other other states now that are also moving forward at 10 Commandment measures and their attorney general's taking the
same position. The court's been really clear on the limit test is out, and that's been the only basis for saying the 10 Commandments could not be. So it's kind of headed in
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:23
that direction. Well, there's also the McCurry County versus ACLU case from 2005, correct? That's right.
So that was that was an important day in First Amendment law in the last quarter century because Stephen Breyer was the only justice in the majority on both that and Van Norden versus Perry on the same day, and one of the one of the opinions they allowed a 10 Commandments monument in Texas to stay up and on the same day they ordered that a 10 Commandments monument
in Kentucky be taken down. And the rationale that Stephen Breyer is he was there were For said both should stay up, 4 justices said both should come down. Stephen Breyer flipped, and he said the reason is because in Texas it had been up for such a long time, longstanding history and tradition which you gentlemen recited a number of times in your presentation. They've been out
for so long and it was among a number of other secular monuments that requiring Texas to remove it would be injecting religion into the Texas State Capitol. By the same token, his reasoning was that in Kentucky
because it was brand new. It had not been. There was not a long standing history and tradition of that monument being up in Kentucky and so putting it up as a new monument would be injecting religion into the Kentucky. So I'm wondering about how that rationale applies to the law passed in Louisiana and this proposed law creating something new, would that not be injecting
Speaker 278
1:20:39
religion into our government buildings and classrooms, probably not, and I would point
Speaker 271
1:20:44
to a more recent decision where Justice Breyer wrote the 9.
decision in Shettle versus City of Boston, and in that particular decision, Yeah.
Speaker 271
1:21:01
Was that me? OK. In that particular decision, Boston had refused to fly Christian flag on one of its three flagpoles outside City Hall, and it was argued that, you know, that's injecting religion and that certainly was not a long-standing historical tradition, and at that point, Justice Breyer, in writing for
the unanimous court said that we issued the limit decision back when this Court took a more freewheeling approach to constitutional interpretation, and so he clearly backed off even the position. held in McCurry County and so he he became part of that 9 to 0 decision that said Boston, you need to fly Christian flag outside City Hall when you're asked to do so. It's an expression of free speech, and there were, I think, 217 different flags that were flown in in the city at that point and they refused to do anything religious, and that's where
Breyer specifically called out the lemon as being a freewheeling part of the court, and he took the other side in that position, so it's very different from what he did in McCreary, and that's the most recent one that we have from him what's the name of that decision that it was shirtlift versus City of Boston. What versus Sir S H U R T L E F F, shirt lift versus City
Speaker 269
1:22:15
of Boston. That was 2022. But that that decision also we didn't bring a very large supply of what we can from early education. The very first
education law passed in America was 1647 from the Pilgrims, and it required that public schools be initiated once there were 50 people in the In the community, but in it it actually was known as the old Deliter Satan law because it said it's the one chief project of that old Deluder state to keep men from the knowledge of scriptures and it was very religious-based and they started schools and again this is in their law to make sure students would be able to read so they would know what the Bible says. Then you have the very first textbook that was printed in English. This was used in public schools through the early 1900s
and again, Arkansas used McGuffe readers. Arkansas would have used Noah Webster's history books. We can, we can track even through our Arkansas public education through the mid and late 20th century where 10 Commandments was part of curriculum and so the idea of 10 Commandments going back in any kind of public setting now if you can show the 10 Commandments were actively used in public schools throughout America and including in Arkansas up through the 1970s and 1980s from the inception of first public schools in Arkansas, then certainly you can make a very valid argument. There's a longstanding history
and tradition of those being on display in the state and utilized
Speaker 268
1:23:28
in education and so even the idea of restoring those It is, is not far fetched from a history and tradition standpoint on top of the fact if you're talking about even from a legal standpoint that the basis of so much of American law was built on this notion of the 10 Commandments. All of law in the western hemisphere arguably, but certainly common law, certainly American law was built
Speaker 269
1:23:49
in the 10 Commandments. So even from a historic document the same way
we'd say that the declaration, the Constitution, they're part of our history and tradition in the nation, the 10 Commandments is part of that same history and tradition, and it was taught as such up through the mid to late 20th century even in Arkansas, it really was the 1980 Stone v. Graham case that led to the 10 Commandments being removed from public schools all over the nation, and the argument was the only argument they had was that did not pass the lemon test and part of even when the Supreme Court ruled in the Coach Kennedy decision, they identified things like from the Van Orden decision where the court has been split
on this because the limit tests that you probably know it was a three pronged test, but they said the nature of it was so subjective that it was very hard. There wasn't clarity from this, and they said we need to overturn it. And on top of the fact they pointed out in the Kennedy decision that it's been used far more to muzzle and silence people from being able to express any kind of religious belief, then it has to protect in the way they thought it would, which is part of why they gave multiple reasons the Kennedy's decision and why it was being overturned, but from the history and tradition standpoint, we actually can go through dozens
of textbooks, including some from Arkansas where the 10 Commandments were utilized as part of that history and tradition. What's the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:25:02
most recent example in Arkansas of the use of the 10 Commandments in a public school. I heard you say 1930s. Is that the
Speaker 269
1:25:08
most recent? No, sir, the New England primer is what I was saying was used in public education up through the 1930s, I think in Nebraska was the last state this was part of their first grade. curriculum. I would have to go back and look at the specific textbook in Arkansas, but we could point out when Dwight Eisenhower desegregates things in Little Rock 10 Commandments
are being taught in classrooms in we can document that and I, I have not tracked to see what year
Speaker 268
1:25:34
those that curriculum, those textbooks were not used anymore, but certainly up through that point they were still being utilized. The one
Speaker 271
1:25:40
other one that I would enter that might be interesting is back in 1789, George Washington. signed the Northwest Ordinance has said religion, morality, and knowledge be necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and means of education shall forever be encouraged. It was under that
provision that the next several states were brought in, including you guys in Arkansas have that provision in your state constitution. It was Northwest Ordinance, and so there were 32 states brought in that included that provision in their constitution that religion, morality, and knowledge be necessary to good government happiness of mankind, schools and means of education shall be encouraged. So even at that constitutional point signed by Washington, which is in your state constitution, education or religion are linked in that as being part of good knowledge and happiness of mankind. I'm talking about, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:26:29
One more, one more question. Wrap it up. You know, when, so when Jesus Christ was asked what the most important law was, he said it's to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself and all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments. Why
Speaker 274
1:26:46
don't we use that language instead of the 10 commandments. What's the rationale for that? Well, specifically it's because what is constitutionally upheld is history and tradition and
Speaker 269
1:26:52
the history and tradition certainly favors obviously when you go back to even Bible being taught in schools, certainly that's something and actually that's not what Jesus taught us what he
asked. He said, Right, what is the sum or What is the greatest commandment? And the answer was, and he said, you've answered rightly, but the bottom line was we certainly could talk about that as well, but the history and tradition, the 10 Commandments have been part of our law, part of our education, from the inception of our nation and even the inception of Arkansas under the religion, morality, and Knowledge aspect with the 10 Commandments was always viewed as the moral code. When we are looking today and obviously there's a lot of challenges with kids in education when it comes to a moral component and moral aspect, and part of the reason
is because we're at place where we say, well, kids have to figure out for themselves what's right and wrong, and it's really an inconsistent and inaccurate statement because we don't live in a subjective moral culture. The idea that you can be arrested and go to jail for killing somebody. Well, the 10 commandments they don't kill. So, so the notion that you can be arrested for violating the 10 Commandments, and yet we're saying we can't display to students the moral code by which our very laws were written. In fact, when you testify in court, you have to take an oath that you will tell the truth. Well,
that oath actually comes from the 10 Commandments that you don't bear false witness. That's actually what that is from. So the very laws that we still operate on in America, even in our states in Arkansas, we operate on the laws of the 10 Commandments, and so this is going back to the history and tradition and why this test would be, we believe not only correct for Arkansas but something that will be upheld to the US Supreme Court. One of the interesting things I think goes
Speaker 271
1:28:24
with this to answer part of the question is that we did a search of the use of 10 Commandments in
and state courts, and I think it was 500 cases, but it was hundreds, hundreds of cases, and it was interesting that the court cited the 10 Commandments as the basis of laws against cattle rustling and defamation and white collar crime and all sorts of things that maybe are peripheral and yet the courts took it back to because the 10 Commandments says this, this is why we have laws against that. So it was cited in hundreds of cases and it being the basis of legal jurisprudence for so long that too. establishes in history
tradition, by the way, we had a number of decisions from the Arkansas court as well using the 10 Commandments and of course in recent years that's kind of gone out the door with a lemon test, but history and tradition, it was part of the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:29:20
legal jurisprudence as well. And uh Senator Tucker, if, if you would like to propose that bill. I think I'd support it. But that's not what this bill is about.
But as far as the the the idea. That I think that sounds like a great idea. Senator Payton
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Obviously y'all are very knowledgeable about the history of what was being taught. In schools in America. I think very few would disagree, if any. That we've seen a trend downwards in our success in educating the youth for the last 2040, 60 years. Do you think that there's a correlation between the two?
Speaker 274
1:30:05
I think statistically we can show there is. We can, we obviously can use just the basic eye exam, have,
Speaker 269
1:30:11
have we done a better job since removing the 10 Commandments since 1980? Are we a more moral nation? Are we a more lawful nation, or do we see more crime? Do we see more issues with even a subjective nature of right and wrong, it's because we've moved an objective moral standard that used to be visible in front of students. In fact, even the idea from the declaration that there's a God who gave us rights and government exists to protect those rights. Part of that was on the fact we knew from the 10
Commandments that there was a God. It was that moral code that that influenced the ideas of the founding fathers that led to giving us the documents we have that made us the most successful nation in the world, and right now I don't think anybody would look around the nation and think, no, we're more moral now than we've ever been. Absolutely not. And so I think just from the eye test certainly that that's that's not a reality, but I think crime stats also backed it up when part of the statue actually back up to 1962 and 19 63 when in 1962 the case Engel
Speaker 274
1:31:09
versus Vital when we're short on time. OK, I
totally agree. I have a motion at the proper time. All
Speaker 22
1:31:16
right. In your questions from the committee? All right, not seen any. We do have somebody a couple people
Speaker 218
1:31:21
sign up to speak against, uh, We'll go to Doctor Doctor Cho.
Gail Choate
Unverified
1:31:45
Good morning again. Thank you. My name is Dr. Gail Choate,
and I have a couple of just position statements I want to just make about myself. First of all, I am certainly a student of history and of tradition. I am the proud descendant of John Choate, who arrived here in the United States in 1643. Our family home is right now standing in the Smithsonian Institute as a testament to value of history in this
country, and I am a firm believer that history matters and it should be taught in our schools. But I also am here today to talk about this bill as an educator. First, as a PhD, I would like to just point to the previous testimony and just make a clarification that correlation and causation are not the same. To say that he, there is a
direct link between the posting of the 10 Commandments and crime may be correlated, but causation is a different matter, so I just urge you to consider that with caution. But my major point today is that I want to talk about this idea and this law, this bill that is before you today that would have the 10 commandments posted in every classroom. As an educator and on the surface this might seem to be a way to encourage morality,
discipline, and respect. But when we think about how children actually learn. This approach raises some serious concerns. Research tells us that when children are introduced to high level concepts too early. They often disengage. Misunderstand and lose interest altogether. If we truly want to teach children values that shape them into responsible, thoughtful individuals. We need
to meet them where they are, not force them to memorize abstract rules that they don't yet have the tools to understand. Studies show that kids, especially in early elementary school, learned best when lessons are concrete, relatable, and connected to their daily lives. Asking a second grader to process something like thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Without explaining what cot means or why human emotions like
jealousy exist, is like handing them a book in a language that they do not speak. Without explanation, young children will either ignore it or worse, Memorize the words without understanding them. That's surface learning, where kids repeat things back but don't truly grasp the meaning. It's the difference between saying be kind and knowing how to act with kindness when faced with a difficult choice. Another issue is simply how children respond to rules.
If we present morality as just a list of commands on a wall, rather than something they engage with through discussion and practice, they may see these lessons as something to be memorized for a test instead of values that truly matter. This is what researchers call the overjustification effect. When learning becomes about following the rule instead of understanding the why behind it. So if we want young students to learn honesty, respect, and
kindness. We should teach them in a way that connects to their world. Imagine instead of posting the traditional commandments, we gave students a version written at their level. I heard testimony last week about how important it is that the things that we present to our Kansans is readable, understandable, and in fact there was a bill passed out of another committee that required constitutional amendments to be written at an 8th grade level,
saying that they could not be understood without. Yet this version of the 10 Commandments that is in this bill would be at a college level. of understanding and therefore not appropriate in the classroom. I suggest instead we put a version in classroom that is truly age appropriate that children will understand, and that can be reinforced through classroom participation. What I would suggest is this
number one, love and respect. What is bigger than you. Be thankful for the world around you. Number 2 Keep promises and tell the truth. Your word matters. Number 3. Use your words to help. Not hurt. Be kind when you speak. Number 4, take time to rest and be grateful. Slow down, enjoy, share with others.
Number 5, listen to and respect your parents and teachers. They're here to help. Number 6, be gentle and keep your hands to yourself. Number 7, be a good friend and teammate. Number 8, take only what belongs to you. Be honest and share when you can. Number 9, always tell the truth. Even when it's hard. Honesty builds trust.
And number 10, Be happy with what you have. Don't worry about what others have. Focus on what's yours. This isn't about erasing the 10 Commandments. It's about teaching values and ways that children can absorb, question, and apply to their lives. A sign on the wall doesn't shape character, conversations, stories, and real life lessons do. If we truly care about teaching morality, we need more than a list. We need lessons
that make sense to young minds, engage their hearts, and help them to grow into thoughtful and ethical people. Thank you. Right. Thank you, Doctor Cho. Next up we've got no questions then.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:38:15
I don't see any questions, Senator Clark. Just 10, would the uh declaration of Independence, the preamble and the Constitution be appropriate to be on the walls of classrooms. You could put it on the walls, but I say it would apply in the
Gail Choate
Unverified
1:38:30
same way. It's not going to be understood. Thank you. Alright. In
Speaker 297
1:38:33
your questions, right, thank you. All right, um, Miss Egan,
Speaker 238
1:39:06
Hi Carol again, citizen of Arkansas, here to speak again, um, so
Carol Egan
Unverified
1:39:11
I have, I'm gonna, I loved what Gaille did, but I'm going to take a totally different tact. First, I am shocked that Senator Sullivan didn't ask if we've appropriated money for this bill
Speaker 262
1:39:26
because If we pass it, just keep, keep, keep this.
Carol Egan
Unverified
1:39:30
What if this, if we pass this bill,
we know where it's going, right? It's going to be challenged by the ACLU. It's going to end up in court. The citizens of Arkansas's tax dollars are going to be needed to defend this legislation. Whereas if we waited and if these gentlemen are correct that it will go through this the Louisiana challenge will go through the Supreme Court with flying colors, then you could pass it hopefully the way Gayle suggested you revise it, but you could still pass it, and we would avoid the
Speaker 302
1:40:09
Inevitable legal costs, and I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. Um, that's, that's my only comment. Any questions for Ms. Egan? All right, see you then.
Thank you very much. All right, Senator Dodson, you're close for your bill.
Speaker 306
1:40:25
I thought I was. Hang on, you might No. I didn't, I meant. Yeah, I'll love Mr. McCutchen to come up. So come on.
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
1:40:50
Hello again. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Kristen Stewart, and I am a mother of
two children in the Little Rock School District, and I am here to oppose SB 430433. Um, I do believe it is a violation of the separation of church and state, and that public schools serve children of all religious backgrounds, and those who are not religious, and I don't think it's the role of the government to impose specific
religious doctrine in public classrooms, um, another thing to Dr. Choate's point, um, about how it's not on grading grade level. Um, it also has the the word adultery in it, um, are we expecting teachers to explain the meaning of adultery to elementary age children. Um, we're not allowed to have um comprehensive comprehensive sex education in our public schools, um, so how can we justify
religious messaging about morality while failing to teach basic medically accurate health decisions. Um, we already have, um, religious choice through the learns vouchers, um, every child in Arkansas is now able to apply for those vouchers, um, to attend private school, including religious schools, if that's what parents want. I believe that public schools should remain neutral and serve all
students regardless of faith. So I urge you
Speaker 201
1:42:27
all to vote no. All right, any questions for Ms.
Stewart? All right, see you, thank you for being here. All right, Senator Dodson and I are closed.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:42:41
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, we've Been at this for a little bit and so I would just say that this is a good bill. It has a I don't think I can add a whole
lot to what we've talked about. The one thing I would point out is that the New England premier that they brought as a display that was used for over 100 years in our public schools did start off at the first grade and so those 43 questions on the 10 commandments were We, you know, all grade levels had had access to that, so I don't think it's inappropriate for things to be displayed that all grade levels can have access
to, and with that I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. I make a motion to
pass. All right, I got a motion to passed by Senator Dodson, seconded by Senator Peyton. Any discussion on the motion? Say none. All
in favor, say aye. opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes. Alright, Senator Bryant. And we're going to take Sarah
Clarke, Senator Bright, you're doing Senate Bill 443. Yeah, we get to it before.
Oh, yeah. You introduce yourselves and senator, you'll be recognized proceed with your
Speaker 312
1:44:15
bill. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. I'm Diana Piosky. I'm the director of the state board of appraisers, abstractors, and home inspectors.
Sarah Moore
Unverified
1:44:21
Lacey Kirchner, counsel for the Department of Labor and Licensing. All right,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:44:24
Senator, proceed, members of the committee, I had engaged the Department of Labor and Licenses on some issues with home
inspectors. We have drafted another bill to address some of the things I had concerns with while we were there. They asked if I would be interested in going through the an agency bill to clean up some language that was a result of a bill we passed 2 years ago that merged these boards, so I'm going to turn it over to the department and just request they go through each section briefly to describe. their activities and answer any questions. Thank you members. I'll
Speaker 103
1:44:57
be brief. Um, just And I'll hit the hot points, but
I will happily answer any questions. One of the main changes
Sarah Moore
Unverified
1:45:04
that you'll see on the very first page is that we are deleting the requirement for only uh that abstractors have to be can only work in one county, and that we have to have an abstractor for each county. Um, currently we do not have enough abstractors in the state to match all of our counties. So we want to eliminate that burden, and if we do have an abstract or who wants to do an abstract in a different county, they'll be able to do that.
Um, so that's a clean up there. There's also some clean up regarding abstractors when it comes to their seals, those are not necessary, nor do we require them to be turned into the board anymore. I'm moving on to appraisers to the hot points on that that you'll notice is that we have removed the definition of valuation and evaluation simply because these definitions are outdated and do not match with a current practice. We would like to potentially put
these into rules when we get a clarification from the federal government since appraisers are regulated under the feds. We've also cleared up some language regarding their disciplinary hearings currently the uh the discussions during a disciplinary hearing for an appraiser gets to go, the board gets to go into an executive session to do that, and they are the only board that gets to do that. This would eliminate that and allow for the board to be open to the public during the entire disciplinary process.
That also kind of goes along with one of our home inspector changes, which is eliminating the FOIA, the FOIA protection. Well, I don't want to say protection. There's a, there's an exemption, there's a FOIA exemption, and it's in Section 19 for home inspectors and this current exemption allow doesn't allow for the complaint to be able to be foyed by individuals. We're not able. to share that complaint with anyone outside of the board. And
so we want to eliminate that and allow for transparency and complaints to be allowed to be seen by anyone who asks, even Senator Bryant had asked for a copy and we couldn't provide it to him. And then the third major, the last major thing I would like to point out that we are trying to do at the request of the board is to combine their appropriation funds into one fund. Currently there's still separated into 3 different funds balances, and so we just want to put that all. together under one fund since they are one board. And I'm happy that you ask any
Chair
Unverified
1:47:35
questions. Remember you've heard an explanation of the bill, Senator Payton. You're recognized for a
question. Thank you. So the top of page 6, section 14. There's just not enough language here for me to put that together as to what we're affecting. We're adding a subsection, but we don't have any of the information as to what that applies to in Section 14. Top of page 6, can you elaborate on that?
Sarah Moore
Unverified
1:47:59
Yes I can. I apologize for not having more information. This is just to ensure that we
can, if a criminal record is happened after the fact after an individual's been licensed that list of criminal offenses that's in 173102 that was passed in 2019 that those criminal offenses could be held to the individual after they've been licensed as well, not just before. So this goes into a list of what you can use to.
local license. Yes, sir. OK, thank you. All right. Any other questions from the committee? Alright, see none.
Don't have anybody to sign up to speak for against this. Senator Bri, you
recognize close for your bill. I will. I appreciate a good. All right, Senator Bris closed. Do I see a motion? Motion by Senator Payton, second by Senator Tucker. Any discussion on the motion? See none. All in favor say aye. opposed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. All right, Hammer, Hammer,
Speaker 263
1:48:58
you got a quick one. What's what he runs? 445
Senate Bill 445 members. And it does have an amendment. And there is an amendment. Right. All that stuff hand that out and we'll take a motion to adopt a motion to adopt a motion to adopt by Sarah Hammer. see you in a second, by Senator Sullivan, all in favor, say aye. post member's been adopted. Senator Hammer, you are recognized to proceed with Senate Bill 44.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:49:39
4:45, as amended. Thank you, Kim Hammer, state senator, District 16. There is a real problem with municipalities being able to hire electrical inspectors because as it's currently written, requires somebody with an electrical license. This creates the parameters for which a electrical inspector could be hired on without necessarily having to have that electrical license, and it spells out. In the bill all the requirements
that would be necessary, these, this, this is actually going to help our cities be able to get electrical inspectors that will be able to go out there and keep the workflow going and it's very competitive market, so they ability to hire like a licensed electrician to do just inspections is increasingly hard, not to mention the cost to the city, but also slowing down the process of Those inspections getting done to my knowledge, there's no
objection to this, and so that's the nuts and bolts of
Speaker 241
1:50:45
the bill. All right, members, you've heard the explanation of
the bill. Any questions from the committee? All right, so no questions. you have. Don't see anybody signed up. Hammer, you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:50:57
recognize the close your bill. good bill that'll help get things done quicker without compromising quality or uh You know, jeopardizing the welfare of the public that will make a motion to pass a motion to pass as amended. Senator
Hammer, see you in a second, seconded by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? All right, see none. All in favor say aye, post. Congratulations, Senator Clark, you're going to
Speaker 218
1:51:22
be doing Senate Bill 376, and at least we got to do a motion to expunge the vote by which it passed. Mr. Chair, I'd
Speaker 297
1:51:32
like to do 339. OK, you need 339. OK. So we'll start with 3:39 then.
And there's an amendment with this, you said?
Chair
Unverified
1:51:56
OK, current house, OK. OK All right,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:52:00
Senator, introduce yourself and recognize proceeds. Allan Clark, State Senate District 7, the amendment on 339 was simply making Representative Ben Bentley, the house sponsor. Alright.
a motion to adopt or motion Senator Tucker a motion to adopt or motion Senator Tuckered by Sarah Clarke in discussion, not all in favor,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:52:26
say a post, right, and it's been adopted. Thank you. SB 376 has an amendment. All right. First
of all, we're gonna do a motion to expunge. The vote by which SB 376 passed so motion from Senator Payton, seconded by Senator Tucker on favor say aye. right, has been expunged. Senator Clark, you're recognized
to proceed with Senate Bill 376. And we do have an amendment so I'll let
Speaker 329
1:52:57
staff pass that out real quickly. Thank
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:53:05
you is um. Oh. The uh SB 376. The amendment, uh, Is there in uh the new section 2.
Which begins at the bottom of the page. More than 2 members. All that is all there, so really the the. Change is. To if two members of a governing body discuss a matter upon which action may be taken by the governing body outside of a public meeting of the governing body, the two members of the governing body are prohibited from disclosing the opinion or position of another member on the matter with other members of the governing body. Um, I had been asked to tighten this language up. We had
Uh, lots of discussion, uh, still, uh, no agreement from those who oppose. Uh, but I thought it made the The bill better, so we brought it back to them and. All right. We need a motion to adopt. OK, OK
Got a motion by Senator Tucker, seconded by Senator Hammer. Any discussion, see none. All in favor say aye, opposed. All right, then it's been adopted. Clark, you're recognizable with Bill 376 as amended.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:54:34
376 says what it says, uh, last week when we passed it, with the addition of this amendment that it takes more than 2 members of the governing body to have a meeting. All right, never you for an explanation of the
bill. Any questions from the committee? Question Senator Tucker, we're going to ask a question. Thank you for sure. Uh, so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:54:57
rather than wait for the end, I'm just gonna express. My view, to give you an opportunity to respond now. And
so that is, I do think the amendment makes the bill better. I don't, I don't think the amendment goes far enough. The concern is that I think the concern of the Daisy Stein, the daisy chain is still present with this amendment, and you know if we, I believe that decisions of governing bodies need to be made in public where the public can view it and that's why we prohibited polling while polling is against the law, and I, I believe the bill even as amended will still allow for polling by a member of the
governing body. If you take the language in the amendment, it says person A and person B can have a conversation about official business, then person A can then go talk to members CDE F and G. They just can't tell CDE F and G, what be thought, but person A can still find out how BCD E F and G can all vote how they're all planning to vote in separate conversations. So I think, you know, I think the bill, the
amendment does help, but it does not help nearly enough. The main concern is still there, which is that one person can go around, figure out how everyone's going to vote before the public meeting and the decision is made outside the public view, and I'm, you know, I'm opposed to that. And So, you know, I had sent you some language and I'm just going to read it here and again, I'm just saying all this to give you an opportunity to respond, but the language that I sent to you said, if two members of a governing body communicate concerning any matter on which official action will foreseeably be taken by the governing body
outside of a public meeting, then neither member may communicate with another member of the same governing body on the same matter outside of a public meeting, so that language would allow you and I, for example, to have a conversation about something. But then we couldn't go around and poll everyone else
outside of the public meeting. So I think that language is tighter, so anyway that's my my position, my suggestion, and you
know, curious for your thoughts. The I like the bill
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:57:05
before it was amended. Uh, I think the
amendment goes further to ensure that we're not going around the spirit of Foya. I also as a longtime businessman employer, uh, and very much against micromanaging and I think that that's one that I think we're going beyond transparency to trying to micromanage. Uh, people that we've elected, I certainly don't want that in this position, uh, and Because we can always hire and
we can always fire, uh, and so like I said, this amendment, as you know, this bill was already passed out. I liked it the way it was. Other people liked it the way it was, uh, and, uh, you wanted to go further. Others didn't want to go as far. Many didn't want an amendment at all. This is my attempt to make everybody unhappy. Alright. Thanks, Senator. Any other questions
from the committee? Alright, see none. We do have some folks signed to speak
against this. We'll start with Mr. Robert Steinbach. Robert, we hit that button right there on that microphone too. There
you go. Thank you, sir. All right, introduce yourself and tell us who you're with for the record, and we recognize
Speaker 334
1:58:40
proceed with your remarks. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Robert Steinbach, a law professor, columnist, since
those entities can have positions on issues before this body. I clarify that my views are my individual views. I'm here to discuss Senator Clark's bill, as you know, we sat here a few days ago or so discussing that bill, and Senator Clark aptly asked me if I would agree compromise to
Speaker 335
1:59:08
the bill if we put in language that would protect against serial meetings.
And let me say up front, and I think it's important to say this, that it's probably about a year ago that I had visited with Senator Clark, who I consider a friend, and I believe he does me
Speaker 334
1:59:32
as well, and I suggested to him that he might be the senator or the elected representative from either house in the general legisl the General Assembly today was proposed the most pro-transparency.
pro FOIA bills. And he politely and I think somewhat humbly suggested to me that he was probably #2 on that list, so he's a man who's committed, I believe, to transparency, and I spoke with you all last time and I said merely, look, it's a judgment call. Do
Speaker 335
2:00:03
you want 2 people to be able to meet, you know, I, I come up here to testify, to offer some technical insights as the author, I should have mentioned earlier of the treatise on the Freedom of Information Act, but when it
comes to judgment call, you're all intelligent adults elected officials, and so I can offer my view, but after that there's not much to be said. So, what we had talked about last time was whether we could allow two people to meet from a governing body but not result in the whole body effectively meeting outside of public display. Now, one could envision a system of government where governing bodies don't meet in
public. That's certainly possible to have that. But if you want to stick to the idea that you have governing bodies meeting in public, then the general business of that body should take place at that meeting. Where on the margin you draw that line is, I think, as I said a moment ago, a judgment call, and I have been conversing with Senator Clark about the amendment that he put into place, and indeed I told him I
Speaker 334
2:01:20
thought it was a step forward, but I fear, and indeed why I oppose the bill still is because it allows rather, as Senator Tucker pointed out, still serial meetings
Speaker 335
2:01:33
Amendment says you can't discuss what The two people can't discuss the conclusion that they came to in that meeting with anybody else, but if the topic is, say I may have used this example last
time. Let's build a pool in the community. So A and B talk about building a pool in the community and then A and B go out and talk to everybody else on the committee about building a pool. They just don't. Tell them that they spoke to each other or any of the other members, and so they developed this consensus on building that pool, which is understandable, but then that obviates the purpose of having that public meeting and so that's why I
Speaker 334
2:02:21
think this language doesn't go far enough for me to indeed it's why this language doesn't go far enough for me to support, so I think there is a possibility. Um, uh, of simple language. It
Speaker 335
2:02:35
simply says if A and B meet and they discuss the pool in my hackneyed now example that they're done talking about the pool with anybody else on the governing body until they get to the public meeting. So we give them a little bite at the apple
but not a complete bite at the Apple in terms of discussing that matter, and I think that From a legislative standpoint, that incremental approach, meaning if you want to broaden that later, I think you could have that discussion indeed, whether I think it or not, you can have that discussion, but I think it makes sense if you're going to expand outside of the public's eye meetings that you do that incrementally, um, and, and
Speaker 334
2:03:23
This proposal as it as it reads now simply goes a bit too far in, well, to be fair, it goes too far because it effectively allows the full discussion of that issue amongst all the members of the governing body. Um, so that's all
Speaker 335
2:03:41
I have, um, in terms of my thank you. Any questions
from the committee, Senator Clark, for a question. Professor Steinbach. Thank you for your opinion and
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:03:55
uh your willingness to, to work uh with me, even though we didn't come to. Something that we agreed on. The, have you compromise is One of the most important things in politics is if you're actually going to achieve anything. Absolutely. Have you ever And so I'm And you may have so have you ever seen a compromise worked out. In public and one meeting where
somebody's never talked about something before. Say it one more time,
Speaker 277
2:04:30
please. I'm sorry. Have you ever seen a compromise
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:04:32
worked out? In public where where people have never talked about an issue before. In other words, if you have a governing body and nobody's ever talked about
Speaker 335
2:04:40
an issue. Have they, have they worked it out in the media. I think the answer is yes, but I do think there's a challenge, but I think the answer to that is yes, but you understand the purpose of my question. Yes, in that, to
Speaker 334
2:04:54
be clear and and this was the point that I
had made both earlier today and at the last meeting that we had, which is It's a judgment
Speaker 335
2:05:04
call if you want to allow two people to meet. Um, because there is a benefit and you know,
Speaker 334
2:05:11
some folks on my side, my side, I use that rather broadly, you know, think of, think of my side like a rose. You have the nice petals and you have the little thorns one might call them pricks, and so the um
Speaker 335
2:05:30
the, the difficulty is how do you balance communicating with the public. Uh, in a public meeting with The efficiency of having these
Speaker 334
2:05:39
conversations behind the scenes. That's a judgment call. I really believe that. And so I don't have much to say on that, but I think if we're going to move at this juncture at least to having two people meet.
Speaker 335
2:05:52
The, the more conservative, I would dare say, move is to do it incrementally by having language
that ensures the two doesn't effectively swallow the whole group, but I take your point entirely that and and that's why I mean in my compliment to you, you have been an
Speaker 341
2:06:11
effective legislature, legislature for transparency. So. Do
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:06:16
you think SB 227 would be, uh, if it was at the court level, say it again. I'm sorry SB 227 as it exists now would exist
under the rules at the court level
Speaker 343
2:06:37
as they exist. I'm not sure. I, I apologize. OK, all the meetings that took place 100s.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:06:44
etc. and many of them illegal and that have been admittedly illegal if they were at the court level rather than at this level. Do you think it would have been possible to have crafted something
Speaker 344
2:06:56
like SB 227. I got this body have been able
Speaker 335
2:07:00
to craft 227 if that took place
under the rules that govern a quorum court.
Speaker 334
2:07:06
Thank you, sir. I apologize. Sometimes I can be dense. Usually people who are subject of my column say that that is. Uh, um, now, I do not. Thank you, thank you. Senator Hammer, you have
Speaker 287
2:07:17
a question? Yes sir. You're recognized. Thank you. Good
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:07:21
afternoon. Do, do me a favor and remind me of something. The FOIA. committee commission, refresh my memory of how it got established. The task force that I'm on, is that what you're
Speaker 345
2:07:34
talking about, well, yeah, the task force, the task force
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:07:39
was created by this body, right? It was created by this body, correct? Yes, yes, sir. OK. Do members of that committee ever talk about legislation that is going to come up. Individually with each other before it's heard in committee before because we're not a governing body, but you do talk about it before you get in to
Speaker 335
2:07:58
make the final decision, anything but a governing body is not bound by the Open Meetings Act. It only applies to
Chair
Unverified
2:08:04
governing bodies. OK, all right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Hammer. Senator Tucker,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:08:12
I ask for a question. There's a foyer task
Speaker 335
2:08:14
force pass any laws or ordinances? Well, that's the point that I was raising. We're not a governing body,
Speaker 334
2:08:21
so there are hundreds of organizations with some sort of governmental affiliation that are not governing bodies that are not subject to the open Meetings Act. They are subject
Speaker 335
2:08:30
incidentally to the open records portion of the Freedom of
Information Act, and I, I suspect that the task force is, I would hope they are, but I don't. I don't know
Speaker 345
2:08:41
how the law was written. I don't recall how the law was written about the task force on
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:08:46
that one point, the distinction being The FOIA task force may receive government funding which makes its record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, but it's not
subject to the open meetings requirement because it's not passing any laws that affect people's lives and freedoms,
Speaker 334
2:09:01
yeah, or other things too. It's not only passing laws
Speaker 335
2:09:08
for example, the, the faculty meetings at my law school. I write about in my book is a governing body because we pass rules, so I mean it's a similar. notion just to be clear, it's not only legislative, but we pass something that controls that governing body or yeah, that governing body and then everything below it, but the task force doesn't control anything. In fact, we often sometimes don't have members
Speaker 334
2:09:38
even come before us for our input, and that's unfortunate, although I think everybody here who's worked on FOIA bills has come
Speaker 347
2:09:45
before the task force, and I, and I do appreciate. that. Alright, Senator Payton, then Senator
Speaker 4
2:09:52
Clark. So if the measurement is whether
or not they can pass rules or legislation or policy. Anything less than a quorum of any of these bodies cannot pass.
Speaker 334
2:10:10
Legislation or policy. Is that not correct? Yes, that's not how you define whether the entity is a governing body, but yes, anything less than a
quorum is insuffic Masons and Robert's rule of the
order determine whether or not you can. Uh Established policy or pass legislation is whether or not you have a quorum. Yes,
Speaker 335
2:10:32
well, you're absolutely correct, Senator Payton, but I think we're just slightly talking about two different things. What's the definition of a governing body, if you fall into
that definition meaning does the body have is the body empowered to Loosely enact policy then it's subject to the open meetings provision of the Arkansas FOIA, then thereafter you need a quorum
Speaker 334
2:10:56
to actually make that happen. Thank you. Sir Clark. The FOIA task force
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:11:05
does work to impact legislation. Absolutely. So and sometimes those working to impact legislation can be every bit as important and
sometimes more important than even those voting on it. I'd
Speaker 336
2:11:16
love to believe that and sometimes I do. So
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:11:19
then you think the task force would be willing to abide by these same rules if we bring that bill. The short answer
Speaker 335
2:11:30
to that question is yes, because I think everybody on the task force will follow the law. I suspect your question is a little more subtle, which is, do we think, would we think it's a good idea. I'd be fine with it. I can't speak for the others. Thank you.
Speaker 241
2:11:45
Members, we still have 4 more folks. I don't speak against this bill. Let's not go was spending all our questions on Mr. Steinbach, as much as
Speaker 131
2:11:51
I enjoy it, uh, yeah, Senator Tucker. Just to follow up on Senator Payton. So let's say a governing
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:11:56
body has 9 members. 5 is a quorum. 2 does not equal 5, correct? Yes, 2 + 2 + 2 equals 6 though does it not? Last time I checked, yeah, and that
would be a quorum even if it's done in piecemeal fashion. Right, look, I mean, if, if the
Speaker 334
2:12:15
debate that's going on here, somewhat implicitly is if you have a smaller group meet, should we really consider that sort of the activity of a
Speaker 335
2:12:25
governing body, and I think that underlies Senator Clark's amendment, right, or the whole bill. I don't know which parts of the amendment any longer, right? That is, And what I referred to a judgment call earlier, which is, I think it's a fair judgment to say I do think two people can
meet or the more restrictive judgment and said, no,
Speaker 334
2:12:51
I don't want two people to meet, but I think if you move towards having
Speaker 335
2:12:56
two members which clearly are not a quorum as Senator Peyton Napoley points out, of anybody meeting that you want to ensure that the two doesn't become a senator Tucker says. Effectively, uh, the whole, the whole body,
Speaker 334
2:13:12
and that's my difference respectful and
Speaker 348
2:13:20
friendly difference with my friend Senator Clark. Yeah Your questions. Alright, see you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 263
2:13:28
Alright, next up we've got Mr. Jimmy Cavin speaking for. Just checking, Jimmy. If you introduce yourself and
Speaker 360
2:13:52
you'd be recognized to receive your remarks. Jimmy Kim, I'm with Arkansas First News, proudly part of Arkansas first news but I'm here representing myself as a citizen. Just real quick, just so I can go on record. If you wanted to put the for your task force completely under for you, I'm on board. Uh, I want to take a little different tack than talking about The
Speaker 361
2:14:12
amendment in Daisy Chains. I want to go back to first of all, at the last committee meeting.
Senator Clark sat in this chair, and he told the committee the amendment will be an amendment that Senator Tucker and I agree on. That's a
Speaker 360
2:14:33
quote. Senator Tucker has not agreed to that amendment. So I wanted to point that
Speaker 361
2:14:38
out. Also, indirectly, I'm actually gonna let Senator Clark tell you why his bill and amendment are bad. And while long I along with overwhelming majority of the people around the state who have talked to feel the same way. On
March 7th, 2023, Senator Clark filed SB 382 did fine meetings under 25, 19 and 106 open meetings. In that language, he drafted or submitted. Meeting means the governing body of two or more members of a governing body of a public entity for which a quorum is required to make a decision, discuss public business or deliberate toward a decision in any manner. It went on to say 2 or more
members of the governing body of a public entity shall neither discuss Deliberate. Nor decide public business of a governing body of a public entity in circumvention of the spirit or express requirements. Of this chapter during any chance interaction and formal assemblage or electronic communication. He ran that bill in this committee.
On March 14th, 2023. Now, in that committee
Speaker 360
2:16:01
meeting, which I was here. There was a lot of testimony. I testified. There was a lot of testimony against the bill. And Senator Clark referenced. Some of
Speaker 361
2:16:12
those when he closed. And he talked about how they talked about governing bodies, actions that they had witnessed. In summing them up and stating, and, and I quote this what
Senator Clark said. Obviously, the decisions had already been made. Now, he kept on his closing uh comments and I'm going to quote him. As a former corn Court member. People ought to have enough sense to act like they are having a discussion because that's irritating people. They want their government to act. The way government ought to act, and so I'm here today
representing the people that want it to be open. Let me read that again. I'm here today representing the people that want that open. He goes on to say, I've been on a corn court member and I understand the practicalities. Mr. Kamas to ask you to speak to this I'm speaking to. This is directly to this amendment and in his bill and his amendment. So bear with me. This is my reason that I'm against this bill. This is my viewpoint, stating my reasoning.
I've been a Corum Court member and I understand the practicalities of not being able to visit with one other person, but there was a reason, a reason why these laws needed to be enacted in the first place because there was way too much of this. Everybody deciding and then coming and voting, as we've heard today is still going on. And so you have this bill before you, and I'd appreciate a good vote.
Now I agreed with Senator Clark's statement at that meeting, and I agree with it today. People like Joey McCutcheon, Ashley Wimberley, and others went all over this state in 23 and 2024, uh, conducting, uh, town halls, Zoom meetings, conferences, email groups, social media groups, and people told us what they want, what they wanted, and it's not what's in 376. Not at all what's in 376.
Now, I don't know what caused Senator Clark to leave the people on this issue. I, I don't know. All I can tell you is I want Joey won't, Ashley won't. Senator Tucker won't. And now the people are hoping the rest of you in this committee. Won't leave them either. Now being very sincere when I asked Senator Clark this, I, in fact, you know, I'm hoping. Senator Clark, that you will come back to those very people that you talked about on March
14th, those very people that you said you represented. I hope you come back to them today. And while sitting in this very chair that you sat in last time. When you said these comments committee, what I'm praying and hoping you can do is you'll pull and close your bill and go back to representing those people that you said you represented. And with that, I'll be
Speaker 359
2:19:25
glad to take any questions. All right, any
Speaker 263
2:19:28
questions for Mr. Kavin. I've seen none. Thank you. Alright, next up, Mr. Joey McCutchen speaking against.
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
2:19:59
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate you having me today. Um, just introduce yourself real quickly and then you proceed. I'm Joey McCutcheon. I'm here on behalf of myself and some of the folks I've represented um over the years and in for your meeting violation cases, um, I would like to start Uh, and I'm not going to spend much time on this, but I've been, I've sat in this chair
with with two senators and have have attempted to pass what I call a transparency integrity open meetings bill, and I'm thankful for those people. Um I
sit here in March of 2021 with Senator Sullivan on Senate Bill 208 of 2021, uh, which defined
a meeting as a gathering of two or more members of the governing body to discuss matters including telephone and
electronically and quite frankly, that was a strict open meetings bill, and it's one that I've had to come off of when I supported Senator Tucker's bill. That was a compromise and then in 23, I, I sit in this chair and Mr. Kavin talked about that. I sit here with Senator Clark and we discussed that that same in essence, that same bill that 2
or more cannot discuss our public business outside of the committee, and as I've said, um, I appreciate um Senator Clark, I was on the phone this morning with a person who benefited from the the transparency legislation that Senator Clark went to bat for, so I appreciate that and I appreciate Senator Sullivan. I want to put some meat on the bones for you because I think we can talk in terms of the swimming pool, but, but I really
want to give you some specifics of why I have great concerns like Professor Steinbach, like Senator Tucker and like others in Actually, it was October 27th of 2021. I filed a lawsuit against the Craighead County, Jonesboro Public library. Um, on behalf of a, a lady by the name of Amanda Eskew, who was previously on the sensitive content committee.
Um, and we've, we've heard Senator Sullivan go to bat on these issues, but this was a this was a 4 year violation, and we proved it that there was a, in essence a secret meeting in which notice was not given to the public regarding the sensitive content committee and That was just a simple they could have sent notice, the 2 hour notice, and they did not. But Senate bill, make no
mistake, Senate bill as written and as amended right now. Senate Bill 376 does the same thing as Senator Tucker said, um, sensitive committee content Committee member A meets with uh B and then A goes and meets with C, D, and F. And before you know it, you have a a a a a meeting on on smut on what's allowed in our libraries, nudity,
atrocious sexual conduct being done without the public notice, and that, that is my concern here. Um, I support what Senator, Senator Tucker's version of what he said in that being that um if A and B made, then neither member may communicate with another member. of the same governing body on the same matter outside the meeting. It's got to be that way, or else, or else we're defeating what we do and, and I can tell you it's going to result in another, it's going to
result in lawsuit after lawsuit, if, if I'm around to bring them because I'm committed to open meetings and then let's fast forward to July of last year when I got a went to bat for the mountain home against the mountain Home school. Um, who were having secret meetings, a text message meetings, probably serial meetings, and they were deciding whether they were going to increase the
millage on the citizens of Mountain Home, and they had obviously been having these secret meetings on other issues for a long time. Melissa Klinger was my client and she had the courage to stand up against the system, lost her job because of it, but the court found that there were indeed these secret meetings. Again, back to 376, it will allow these secret text message meetings. A talks to B, A then talks to CDF or goes to the mayor and the mayor
does the the bidding for them and so these are real cases on real, real important issues. Uh, so that
those are some of the reasons. Look, I compromised on Senate Bill 227. If 376 language would have been in there.
You wouldn't have had me on board. And in fact, I am really, really, I struggle with my decision, uh, daily because it's as you've said and you told
me very directly, Senator Tucker, that it was not the perfect bill, but it does, I think what Senate Bill 27227 does is it it helps both sides. It helps the JPs. It helps the school boards. It helps. The, the city councilors with this bright
line test and, and I fought for transparency and and graciously, uh, Senator Tucker listened and he and he defined some terms. OK,
I really have a problem with what's background
and what's nondecisional, and He created a definition of what basically that that you can't deliberate, and he put it in that bill, and I said, OK, I appreciate the good faith, um, and it's gonna help the people and it's going to help because believe me, you know, the Wade case and these other 3 or 4 Supreme Court cases, appellate court cases that I've taken up on just the open meetings, the law is confused and people don't
know school boards don't know. And what, what 227 does and not unfortunately 376 is it creates this bright line test that really, really uh will help the public and it'll, it'll stop lawsuits and and we won't have the Supreme Court on a case by case, piecemeal after piecemeal, deciding what a meeting is. Since 2012 or so, I've been in this body because the Supreme Court said it's the
legislature's job to define what Meeting is and I think we've got something on with 227 that does that, but it also has other important things in it as well. So, I look at, and I'm going to
close here in just a second, but I look at, I look at Three times, you know, uh, I'm, I'm 100% transparency, and that's why I basically had to beg Senator Sullivan and Senator Clark to support that bill that got turned down by this body
almost instantly this 2 or more cannot discuss our public business. But that's where I, I'm with transparency, but then you got two other terms. You got fairness and you've got clarity. And I don't think that 376 does anything on fairness, um. Because these people are going to get sued. They're not going to have a bright line definition. I don't think it creates clarity and it certainly doesn't help with with transparency because we're going to have these daisy chains.
Daisy Chain after Daisy Chain after daisy chain. So, um, I would ask that that uh this body please turn down this
bill as amended. It just doesn't go far enough, um, Robert Steinbach, who, who I admire is
a transparency advocate has said here and and told you that, um, I fought a few battles, Mr. Kavin has has talked to you about going across the state.
Um We need to do something for the people of Arkansas, and I think Senator Tucker's 227 uh does
that and, and this bill is amended. Just, just 376 just won't do that. Um, I guess I'm not a compromiser, but I guess we have compromised and Both sides have have compromised and we've got a product that
that many of the Senate have supported, uh, and, and passed out and hopefully the House will do the same and we'll do something good for the citizens of
Arkansas. I think Miss McCutcheon, Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:29:37
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I, I need Further clarification on this daisy chain idea. Is there anything in
current law That prevents a private citizen.
From independently polling a body. Privately, individually and separately. Is there anything that
Speaker 374
2:29:58
prevents an individual citizen from doing that, you know, I can, I can do that. I can ask and then how you, how are you voting and how you feel
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:30:07
about this? Well, we're talking daisy chain and we don't like the daisy chain is what my, my takeaway is, but as a private citizen, someone could pull the body. Whether it's 1 or 2, they can
pull that body independently. Get the answers from the group and then share that information publicly. I've talked in the words of the Persian post out and said, I've talked to all 10 board members. Here's how, here's what they told me. Is there anything that prevents that Daisy Chain? Yeah, so let's, let's, let's talk
Speaker 379
2:30:40
about that. Let's talk about that specifically, and I'm going to tell you very specifically.
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
2:30:47
I'm going to tell you very specifically, but I'm going to answer your question. Because as we sit here today, I
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:30:54
want to talk about Amanda SQ Amanda I've asked a very I'm trying to, is there anything that prevents that I'm not talking about Amanda SQ or anybody else. I just want to know they
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
2:31:10
made a big noisy. Um, the, the, uh, um, the issue here is the governing body meeting secretly and Amanda Eske, Mr. Chair, I withdraw the question Amanda,
ask you, I mean, this is, this is really, I mean, come on,
you ask a question, I'm trying to answer it, and you won't let me answer it, but let's just say, Amanda S you can ask the sensitive content subcommittee, how they're going to vote, but what we don't want happening is, is governing body members having that conversation about, about nudity about sexual activity, about books in the library. We don't want them
making that decision without Joey and Senator Sullivan seeing how the sausage is being made, and that's what 376 allows, and I'll submit that you cannot be consistent and vote for 376 out of this committee and support. Senator Clark Tucker's 227. That is not, that is not transparency integrity. Thank you, Mr. Gutchen. Members are questions, so yes, they can ask that question. All right, see
you know for questions. Thank you, Mr. Crutchen. Next up we've got Scott Loftus.
Scott Loftus
Unverified
2:33:05
Morning. Good morning. Thank you all very much. My name is Scott Loftus. I am the owner and publisher of the Carroll County News in Berryville and Eureka Springs Times Echo in Eureka Springs. Um I'll keep this kind of, kind of short and sweet, um. I think we all want clarity in the foyer, and I think it's admirable that we're trying to get some clarity there. I, I don't support this bill as it's currently presented. I feel
like it does create a loophole that would allow uh members of the governing body to have the daisy change where A talks to B and then B talks to C, and I think There's no doubt in my mind that that is ripe to be taken advantage of, uh, you know, I covered the city of Eureka Springs. They've got 8 or 9 pending lawsuits against the city government. The mayor of Eureka Springs openly tells people, hey, don't send me an email, they can for you that.
Call me. Um, and I think that the language is it's currently presented, Just allows too much opportunity to be circumvented, um, I would support the language put forth by Senator Tucker. I think that would be much better. And what I would ask you to do is let's pull this bill down. Let's make it better and let's close that loophole before we pass it. All right. Thank you, sir. Any
Speaker 190
2:34:36
questions from members of the committee? All right, say no. Thank you, Mr. All right. Next up we've got Mr. At Bullington,
Speaker 17
2:34:43
Mr. Bollington, come on up. I'm sorry. No Yeah, I'm We're going to hear Mr. Linton. Come on up, sir.
Ed Bollington
Unverified
2:35:10
Uh Thank you. Thanks. Good morning. My name is Ed Bollington. I'm here as a private citizen. And also I think for my family and neighbors on open government, um, I've been involved with that for a while for a long time, even going back in 1985 when there was an interim study committee and John Robert Starr from the Maine editor with the Democrat was on it dealing with personnel policy, and I think that agreement is still in effect today.
And I actually have seen Resolution is done in public, Senator Clark, back on the agreements at level 4 actually work it out or maybe with the medical board dealing with the licensee, working it out, discussing it, get it done on. At that level without prior discussions. So I, I don't support this bill. I think it's an in around around the public meetings, it kind of is clandestine or maybe you could call it, it's been called a serum meeting. I would call it maybe an assembly
line meeting where you have 2 meetings and then 2 meetings, 22 meetings until you get push it down the line to where you get a a consensus in the way you know it's a consensus when you get in a meeting, it's wired. There's a motion made seconded and it's done. No discussion and I don't think that's good. Public business to do it that way. I've seen In my neighborhood, we have an improvement district and they have a thing called a project for.
And they take it around, the commissioners take it around and get it signed. In between meetings and majority votes for it or signs it, then they enter into a contract. They spend money without a meeting. I just don't think that's the way it should be done. It's a one on one meeting or I've seen that do and also at school meetings where they Me for the meeting in the office for a meal and I discussed the meeting, genders and then go in and work on it. Same with the medical board. I've seen them do
that, have a hearing and wasn't going the way some people want it, so they caught a break and go back in the back room and talk about it and then come back all of a sudden this resolved. I think that Senator Clark's bill is a solution, and I, I mean, sorry, Senator Tucker's bill is a solution in Senator Clark's bill is Anti-open government, which I strongly support. I'll say something else that's been alluded to.
This bill, Senator Tucker's has brought a lot of diverse people together and uh I've known Joe quite a while and I like him a lot. I I think I learned today there's a lot of stuff I don't agree with him on, but I like them on this FOI bill, so I would encourage you to not vote for it, and this may be a little rude, but I would suggest you just go I do not pass on this bill just to get it done and go back to Senator Clarksville. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Members,
any questions? All right. for being here. All right, Senator Clark, you close to your bill.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:38:30
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. I appreciate your great patience on this bill and many others. The and taking uh The input of the public, uh, those that oppose this bill, I understand, uh. Hm Their thoughts The, uh, however, this bill is correct, uh, 2 people are not a meeting and we put some more
safeguards in here. Uh, I will. Uh When people do the right thing, I will support them. People do the wrong thing. I'll be on Joey's side and I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. Alright.
park was closed. What's the will of the committee. No, Sullivan, Senator Sullivan's got a motion to pass as amended, seconded by Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion, say
none. All in favor say aye. Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, members, so you no further business coming for this committee, we are
Speaker 390
2:39:53
adjourned. It's coming back, right? I know you gotta hear me OK hell no. We
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Sen. Scott Flippo
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.
SB339 A. Clark CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHILD MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATIONS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
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.
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.
SB434 J. Dotson TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION AS AUTHORIZED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1.
SB439 Irvin TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1914.
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.
SB445 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS.
HB1505 Wing TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC EMPLOYER TO OFFER AND PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR LICENSED COUNSELING FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS EXPERIENCED A TRAUMATIC EVENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Mar 18, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Speaker 7
Speaker 8
Speaker 12
Speaker 4
Speaker 22
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 28
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 36
Speaker 63
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 77
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 99
Sarah Moore
Unverified
Speaker 103
Speaker 106
Speaker 54
Speaker 120
Speaker 128
Speaker 140
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 166
Speaker 72
Speaker 190
Speaker 32
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 218
Gail Choate
Unverified
Speaker 236
Carol Egan
Unverified
Speaker 202
Speaker 215
Speaker 242
Speaker 246
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
Speaker 260
Speaker 262
Speaker 268
Speaker 269
Speaker 271
Speaker 274
Speaker 278
Speaker 279
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 297
Speaker 238
Speaker 302
Speaker 306
Speaker 201
Speaker 312
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 263
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 241
Speaker 329
Speaker 334
Speaker 335
Speaker 277
Speaker 341
Speaker 343
Speaker 344
Speaker 287
Speaker 345
Speaker 347
Speaker 336
Speaker 131
Speaker 348
Speaker 360
Speaker 361
Speaker 359
Speaker 374
Speaker 379
Scott Loftus
Unverified
Speaker 17
Ed Bollington
Unverified
Speaker 390