State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (39)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB353
Act 405
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…Jim Dotson RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB353 Hester TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE DATES FOR ELECT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE DATES FOR ELECTIONS; TO AMEND THE DATES OF PRIMARY … | Hester | Notification that SB353 is now Act 405 |
|
SB395
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD. 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. |
|
HB1548
Act 375
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NT FOR FORMER STATE EMPLOYEES AND FORMER ELECTED OFFICIALS. HB1548 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS; AND TO ABOLISH THE DATA … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1548 is now Act 375 |
|
SB357
Act 572
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S; AND TO ALLOW A CURE PERIOD FOR INSUFFICIENT SUBMISSIONS. SB357 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO APPLY MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB357 is now Act 572 |
|
SB409
Act 406
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB409 B. Johnson TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODU…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS BY FINANCIAL SERVICES PROVIDERS; AND TO ESTABLISH THE FARMER … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB409 is now Act 406 |
|
SB414
Act 463
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB414 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE ELECTION LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARKANS…”
|
TO AMEND THE ELECTION LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB414 is now Act 463 |
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…'S TOTAL SERVICE TIME FOR ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL CALCULATION. 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. |
|
SB241
Act 885
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 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 |
|
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. |
|
SB398
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OF ARKANSAS LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1988. 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 chapter
Matched: “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. |
|
SJR1
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…f Only'. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle SJR1 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REQUIR…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF EACH HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR10
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. SJR10 B. King A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CONCERNING EFFICIENCY IN G…”
|
A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CONCERNING EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF THE … | B. King | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR11
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OR THE CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY. 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: “…STITUTION TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS". SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. Page 2 of 3…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR19
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. Page 2 of 3 SJR19 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXE…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXEMPT FOOD AND FOOD INGREDIENTS FROM THE EXCISE … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR2
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS OR ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS. 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. |
|
SJR20
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…XCISE TAX LEVIED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 75. SJR20 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQU…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR21
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION. SJR21 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQU…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIATED ACTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR22
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION. 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. |
|
SJR23
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. SJR23 M. Johnson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PROCE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PROCEEDS GENERATED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 91, MAY BE … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR24
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DMENT 91, MAY BE APPLIED TO MULTILANE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS. 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. |
|
SJR4
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. SJR4 J. Boyd AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVID…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE ANNUAL SCHOOL ELECTION SHALL NOT … | J. Boyd | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR5
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ME AS LAST APPROVED AND NO OTHER MATTERS ARE TO BE DECIDED. SJR5 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. 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. |
|
SJR7
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES. SJR7 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR8
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA. SJR8 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100, CONCERNING CASINO GAMING. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR9
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100, CONCERNING CASINO GAMING. 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
You always have the chance. All right, Cher is the core we're going to call this meeting to order. First up, Center Hester, um, before you go, Senator Hester, does this in any way affect local control what we're getting ready to do this actually gives local control back. Interesting. Well,
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
0:33
why are you running it then? OK, little inside joke. So
with that, I do believe that we do need a motion to expunge the
vote by which SB 353 passed. And a motion and a second Senator Tucker, motion
from Senator Hammer, all in favor say aye. opposed. All right, votes have been expunged now, you're recognized to
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:00
members, uh, so I added amendment on the floor, but, uh, the first Amendment I brought to you guys on this bill was to also move school board elections. In the march with the with the primary vote. What I did at that time was I removed them from November and, and I have since learned that.
Some districts prefer to keep them in November and some in March, so amendment from our clerks asked that I add back in November, so allow our school boards to have an election in March or November, depending on how that local community would, would like to do that and that and so that's the only difference in this bill and the bill that I brought to you last time. All right Any questions from members of the committee? All right, so no questions. You're getting lucky, Senator Hester. This group always has a question.
Alright, so do we have anybody sign up to speak for against this, Senator, you recognize to close. Uh, thank you, members. This is the bill that we've had that moves the makes the primary dates consistent, whether it's a presidential year or non-presidential year, with that, I would appreciate it close, appreciate a good vote. Alright,
got a motion to pass Senator Dodson, second from Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion saying not allavor say aye. Po. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. All right. Next up, Senator Hickey. Senator Hickey, you're going to
Speaker 23
2:23
be running, is it SB 82. A 395. In around 82 I thought
you were here to do the used car sales tax. I,
Speaker 23
2:39
I move for immediate consideration. All right, there is a handout with this members and stuff passing that around. All
right, again, that's Senate Bill 395. Alright, Senator, if you'll introduce yourself and you'd be recognized to present your bill.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:55
All right, Jimmy Hickey, Arkansas Senate, the handout, uh, members, I apologize, I've been scratching on that a little bit, but This morning I had the The idea that it might be good if you all had this in front of you. What this is is uh it involves our statement of financial interests which I know each and one of each and every one of you are familiar with that. Every time I had to fill this out during the year, There's just a few things on there that are bothersome, and there's actually a few things on
there that I know it was unintentional whenever they put on this initiated act that are just not right, and so. What I'll do is I'm going to go through this and attempt to explain, explain what I'm doing and I thought it'd be easy if you had that to follow along, so As you, as you all know, And this is not new language, but on page one, like 27, if you have income of $1000 you have to list it. So what this bill does is it
leaves that $1000 on there. But then what it also does is it, it goes one step further and it says that if you have income of 125 that you actually have to check that box. What I'm doing is taking off the 12.5, and if you just have income over 1000 from any source, of course, that'll stay the same, and then you'll just list it, so it really doesn't matter if it's 125 or 105, it would be listed on the statement of financial interest. I kind of did a little research and looking back just to let y'all know, since this was put
on in 1988, if you base that on the inflation, you know, the 12.5 would actually be 33, 375 and I tried to Google what a uh uh Another word for nosey will be, but really I, I see no benefit to the, to having that on there, other than that people want to go see, you know, either how much uh cash you have or you don't have or what your holdings are and what they equal. So I'm gonna be making this stouter, if you all pass this, we'll be making it stouter in
some spots, and I'll I'll point that out. So again, so what it would do is it would take off on, on the handout that I give you. What it would do is it would just take off the 125 over on the right. So again, each and everything that you have would still be listed. You just would, would leave that part off. So next, And this is a flaw that I have found, and again I'm going to
say this somebody's gonna uh not follow the law or try to be uh crooked in any way, shape, or fashion. What I'm going to say to you all is they're going to figure out a way around it, but I think our job is is to try to dissuade that as much as possible. But if you all look on the On page 3 of the handout I gave you under business or holdings. If you look right there, it says figures should be based on fair market value at the end of the reporting period. The reporting period, of course, is always
1231. Well, that has bothered me every time I've filled this out because again, that's as of 1231. If some individual had some holding or something to that nature uh during the uh during the year, uh, where they've made a lot of money. Be it legal or not legal, it would just be a way to not report that. So what I'm doing right there is I'm, I'm trying to clean up that point and just say if you've had that had a holding at any time during the year that that should be, should
be reported. So again, I think that was probably unintentional that they had put the end of the year and just didn't think that through back in 1988. Also, on page 2 of the bill, what I've done is tried to go in and list. You know what uh an investment or holding would be, and of course I've put without limitation, but what I've done is put stocks, bonds, futures options, oil and gas interest, and any other security held by the public servant or candidate.
Or his or her spouse at any point during the previous calendar year. So again, try to define those a little more closely. You know, if somebody was gonna try to receive some benefit down here, you know, more, more than likely what they would do is use some uh instruments such as uh option. To be able to leverage those, uh, more fully to be to have more of a benefit, so I wanted to make sure that I defined that uh Any type of futures or options would also be included in that.
On page 229 of the bill. What I did do is take out that you would not have to list any investments in a public traded United States government security. Specifically, what I'm talking about there, of course, would be any treasury bonds or T bills, things of that nature, just really don't see a reason that you would have to have to do that. On line 32, what I've also done is they said that you would not have to list any individual stocks or bonds fully managed by
a retirement system or a pension system. I believe what the practice of some of our members may be is they think now that if you're fully managed by a retirement system that you don't have to list those. I don't read within the initiated act where that would be the case that you would actually have to go in and list them if you're going to be fully complying with complying with this initiated act or this statute law that's on the books. So what I'm doing is just clarifying what's probably been
the practice of some of the members right there. Also, uh, we have a thing right now, and I think this is something that's also a big change from 1988 to the current, of course, with the internet. You know, right now you have to go in if you have a stock or something of that nature, you have to actually go in and try to find the address which you all know what that's going to be is 12, 788 something in New York City. So what I'm doing here is I've just put that you could
list the symbol in lieu of that, of course, with the, uh, you know, you can, anybody can do that nowadays with as much as we, as we have in place to go look at that through the internet. You don't have to go to The Wall Street Journal or anything like you probably would have back then. Also, this is more of a
security type thing. I'm saying that you don't have to list the identification of a bank or brokerage company in which an
investment holding is maintained again just trying to make it so that You know, trying to keep fraud and things like that and that back out of the thing so that you know. There's a little bit more security with that part. OK, one thing here I want to do particular notice to is 3 on page 3 line 6. This is definitely something where it would be be more onerous on the, on the member or the person
do it, doing it because I've said that if you have if a person is required to file a report on this section has investments are holding within a trust or business in which the person filing the report owns more than 1% of the stock. So the thing is, is another arbitrary number. We use all the time down here is 10%. Normally we use 10%. I did back that off to 1%. My reasoning for that is, of course, is I don't want the public to think that we're trying to take anything away right here. I think in this day and time,
everybody knows that there's, you know, there. That there is businesses or or, you know, partnerships or whatever, uh, where you can easily have 10 to $20 million so you know a 1% 1% or things to that nature is going to amount to quite a bit of money, so I did back that off to 1%, and I want to be sure that I fully explained that. In section 2, it's abundance of caution under line 17 and 18. I put this section does not
restrict the power of the Arkansas Ethics Commission to conduct an investigation under its jurisdiction. To make sure that nothing construed here would mean that they couldn't go in and look and examine anything that they wanted to. Under section 3 of the bill, what I've done is actually uh listed a Class A misdemeanor if any person was to use any of the information that's on this statement of financial. Statement of financial interest to commit a crime against a candidate or the member, they
could be prosecuted for that, so. I'll attempt to answer any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation.
Chair
Unverified
11:52
Are there any questions from members of the committee? Senator Dodson, you recognized for a question. Thank you,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
12:01
Mr. Chair. I think I might have a few different questions on this, but as I'm trying to unpack this, there's a lot in here. I mean, this is not just a simple change, this is a. A dramatic change when you're talking about Uh
The breadth of what you're trying to do here, um, and so this would. This would be a significant increase in reporting, um, what I don't know for sure is like Say for instance, anything that you hold throughout the year. That has a value of $1000 or more. So if you would have to list that and list that individually. So does that mean that like that I mean Senator Payton would have to list every single car he's
sold that had $1000 or more throughout the year. It was a 1998 GMC. It was over $1000 sold that, bought this on this day, sold it on that date, made 200 bucks on it because right now, he has to list what his business does. In total, if it made $1000 or more, or $125 or more, not the individual holdings throughout the year unless you hold them at the end of the year.
Speaker 39
13:17
And so, I mean, that's a dramatic change.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
13:22
That's that's if I may, whenever so first of all, let me be very specific on the business or holdings it's actually any holding. The 1000 would be on the income part, so let's, so that that part would be any
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
13:36
holding, but if you'll look on pages in relation to the income received like you had to make a profit on it. So for instance, like if you, if you're looking at a stock or bond or whatever. Say you bought an
option contract. What I'm not understanding here for sure is like an option contract controls 100 shares of stock. Uh I mean, you might, you might buy option contract for 100 bucks that didn't hit that threshold, but it controlled Apple stock that's trading at $200 a share times 100, that's that's significantly more than $1000 sir, I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt. I must
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
14:14
have not explained as well. Under your sources of income on page 2. And that's why I wanted this for that more than 1000 is going to
stay in place there. Overall business or holdings. It's actually going to be And it would be for your investments and again I've tried to list those out, those investments are holdings, you know, where stocks, bonds, futures, those, those type of individual type holdings as far as investments go. If you'll look on the statement of financial interests that I passed out for you on page 3. That is the way that it's
currently We're supposed to do that now because if you list it and if it says list the name of business in which you, your spouse, or any other person for the use or benefit of your spouse has an investment or holding. In that individual investment or holdings that's already in there, and it even goes and says individual stockholding should be disclosed. So what I have done is I have listed.
Mm. Some additional investments or holding so that as candidates or members find out that they would know that it Because it says investment or holding, but then it goes and says stop, but really should be stocks, bonds, and all of those financial type investments right there. So
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
15:42
and then I guess he used to just to listing the uh Like you said, the, like the stock ticker or something like that if it's Apple or something, you're, you're listing that
individual, but if you bought an option, is that like the the entire Sentence of that option where it says Apple strike price. No, you would, you would just yeah, she would just you would you would just list that or would it be the underlying stock, it would actually be the symbol that was used for that track of every single thing that might have ticked above 1000 while you owned it, even if it was a penny more than $1000. It's actually going to be on the holding is going to be everything.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
16:28
So, but that's what you're under and that's what I'm saying under the initiated act to follow the act, you're supposed to be doing that now. Because you may not be doing it. I, I don't want to get into each individual member's thing, but that's what I'm saying. It's actually saying that if you have an investment or holding. So right now if you have an investment or holding, be it, be it an option or be it uh
Futures contract that should be listed. If you held it at the end of the year. That's correct. And now that is
something, of course. Uh I think that's a flaw in here that would allow allow members to get around, around that, because if,
let's just say if you knew, uh, And again, it has to be proven, but if you knew that, uh, uh, some individual. Company was going to benefit greatly from something and you went in and bought, you know, a stock in
February or an option. And then sold that thing in June, you would never
have to report it. What, what, unless you made money on it if you
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
17:40
didn't make more than if you made more than $1000 you have to report it as income. No, sir.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
17:45
You'd have to report it back on page on a different here it's not, it's just if
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
17:51
you, if you've held it, well, you didn't held it at the end of the year under the current law. But if you had income that exceeded $1000 off that.
Holding or transaction, then, then you would report it if it was above 1000 or above 125. So if you did well, that's, that's under section 3 proposal, you'd have to report that you held it during that year, even if you got a loss on
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
18:22
it. There's there's nothing, there's, I think we're convoluting it, you're
correct under section 3, you would have to list the income if you had income over over that on Section 3, but in section 4,
That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if you have a holding. If you have a holding yourself, you're supposed to list it. I'll let somebody else
Speaker 56
18:46
ask questions. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
18:49
on that, but I think Yeah, Senator Hammer, I'll let you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:54
go ahead and ask. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One observation and just and these pages aren't numbered, but it's under the business or holdings. Yeah sure that's what I'm
calling on page 3, page 3. And maybe this is not anything to deal with for years, but One of the things I've always been confused about on the address when it asks the name of the corporation, the business holding. Do they want the mailing location or they want the physical location of business because both are different. Do you address that in
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
19:24
there that's where as far as like the individual security, be it as Senator Dodson was saying like the option contract or whatever, you would just list that symbol so that you wouldn't have to do that anymore because
those are so hard to track down. So the bill, the bill itself Uh It addresses It addresses that in here that you would just have to list
that ticker symbol, and you will not have to list that address any longer, OK. But, but
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:53
if I own a business, I won't be required to list the address of the business anymore. You would on the business, I mean, but as far as individual, the investments you would not, OK. Second thing is The stock issue, and I'll give
you a real life example. Um, so if we've got If I've got an investor, That is holding part of my 401k retirement. I'm not required to list out every one of those stocks within the 401k. I'm just required to list. JP Morgan or whoever it is is holy, which clarify that, would you? You're talking about under the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
20:31
current law? Well, no, as proposed under here, under the as long as it's fully managed, you're Under the proposal, under what
I'm trying to do, if it's fully managed and they're totally directing it, you're not going to have to list those. Under the current law, I see nothing in there that, although there may be some members that are operating that way, there's nothing there that says that. That that's an exception. You should be listing them now.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:02
So yes. So under the proposed change, if we have Edward Jones managing
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
21:10
our account. All we got to do is list Edward Jones. Under the you would not, that's correct. As long as it's fully managed, you know, it couldn't be one of these brokers that you had where if you picked up and you said, look, they said, well, I want to, even though it's under my retirement or something of that nature that I don't want you to buy that, then that you would still have to list those what you're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:32
trying to address is insider stock trading. Yes sir, you got it. OK, just put it out there. That's what you're trying to fix. or not that it's broken,
but that's what you want to prevent. The And then the last thing is, you know, one of the things that with this former a lot of the other things that we deal with, it's a matter of interpretation in some people's opinion, and they'll use it for you or they'll use it against you. Um, what would you think about the idea, and I don't know that it would need to be done legislatively, but after all these changes go through, uh, whoever is charged with oversight of this, whether that's Graham over there and his organization or, you know, there's the one we file up in the Senate that there be a
narrative written out that gives thorough explanation so that if there's ever a question, it's in writing what each is intended to do. I don't, I don't think that would be, would be a bad idea
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
22:22
at all. I've also had some members, you know, and I said, well, you run your own will to do that. They actually would rather have it in a, uh In a form
too, so that they can actually input it. So you know, they would like to be able to do this. Uh, electronically and to do it that way also, so yeah, I think, I think these things are
confusing to folks, you know, the way it's written. And again, I think, you know, 1988, I don't think it was intent. I know it
wasn't intentional. It was just put on by the people or whatever and it's just going to be a lot of ways, a lot of ways that we could shine it up and correct it somewhat. Yes, sir. OK, to make sure everybody's fully complying with it the way that it was intended. Sure, thanks. All right, Senator Payton, you recognize for question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on page 2,
Of the bill, the bill starting line 2. I'm wondering why we need to say without limitation, because it looks like an exhaustive list, and then we follow it up with does not include and we specify a couple of things. Why do we need to say without limitation because that Just worry about whether or not they should list it or not. Yeah, I mean,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:35
I think, I think there's a difference, you know, with Investment or holding as far as from a
financial, financial instrument like that. I was just
trying to pick those up because again, the current, the current one actually even it it only says investment or holding itself. So what I was trying
to do was to to narrow those down to the financial instruments is what I was trying to do. I know what you're saying without limitation, I just
wondering if we can't go ahead and have an exhaustive list because when The only thing we're excluding are the things specifically
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
24:16
mentioned in A and B. So without limitation means everything else.
I think that the current, the current way could be construed. Even more so that way. Because again, if you look on the statement of financial interest under Section 4, it literally
says investment or holding. Well, but that is
a form that's not the law. It was, but this is based upon
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
24:38
the the act, so this form was developed based upon the act I would assume the segments of your bill that are
not underlined is current law. So I mean the current law. Says each source described in subdivision D4A of this section that has a fair market value of over $12,500. As of the last day of the previous calendar year, kind of understand what you're doing there with eliminating the last day of the calendar year to prevent the sell-off, uh. But uh I don't know, I just, I think we should have. Specific list instead of leaving it up to the without limitation there.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
25:18
It's just, it's just, it's, it's hard, it's hard for me to to start doing that because what we're going to get into, especially if you start with the You're gonna say you're gonna start covered calls you're gonna start talking about straddles, you're gonna start talking about spreads. I mean, there's going to be just there could literally be so let me ask hundreds of them. With Bitcoin be part of the
list or not? I would say so, yes sir. OK, with a gold bar be part of the list or
not? Because we're trying to treat them both as currency.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
25:51
I and again I'm going to say yes sir, but I'm also going to say that That's that's currently an investment. Yeah, I, I
think when we say without limitation, there's just a lot of things that. could be argued about whether or not they should be on the list or not, and it's just like the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
26:06
Bitcoin that you brought up, you know, if I didn't say without limitation, and then somebody was somehow Trading in that and it wasn't
on there. I don't know how to, I don't know how
to to be to fully encompass everything. I know exactly what it's not a currency
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
26:22
and they own stock in in Bitcoin, but, but anyway, I I'd be much
more comfortable either. Either have an exhaustive list or or just don't say does not include. I mean, you know, just respectfully, I do not
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
26:37
know how to do an exhaustive list, the, the, the number that
that could possibly be could be pages, you know, under what would we consider a financial investment because like I say, even if you just took, uh, Because the futures contracts at
that point I would have to do, we'd have to do commodities, all corn, soy, I mean just all type when Because the futures contracts at that point I would have to do,
we'd have to do commodities, all corn, soy, I mean just all type you have, you have all of that that can be dreamed up. And then this
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
27:11
becomes a book. Instead of a form you fill out again, I'm going to say that it's already that way or it should or let me rephrase should be that way
if we're going to fully comply. Yeah, I mean. I already have to copy page 2 or 3, 10 times in order to attach
Chair
Unverified
27:23
all of them. Yes sir, that's. Alright, that's what I'm doing also. Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
27:35
I'm personally good with it. Without limitation language because Of the reasons you discussed, Senator Hickey, but
also because we just don't know if if this had been designed 10 years ago or Bitcoin wouldn't have existed, you know, and we just, especially with how rapidly technology is advancing right
now, even if we did an exhaustive list that was several
pages, there's going to be some new form of investment to be created that we don't know about right now, 2 years, and, and I think without limitation enables us to have this law without having to amend it every time some new form of investment is invented, so that's why. I'm good with you without limitation language and I think it's the best way to do it, um. My concern is more about, uh, I, I don't want to put words in the mouths of the people who passed the initiated act in 1988, but the way I've always interpreted
the fact that you had a $1000 threshold and a $12,000 2500 dollars threshold is because It affects the extent to which the public might think we have a conflict of interest depending on the level of investment that we have with a particular company, and as you rightly pointed out that 12,500 number probably should be updated based on how much time has passed. Um, but, but having those thresholds provides a greater level of transparency on a potential
conflict of interest for public officials, and if we eliminate those thresholds, then it's less transparency, so that's really My concern about taking those thresholds away, and
my, and I thought this through, and I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
29:05
understand. A lot of what I'm doing here today though is trying to be proactive that the that the public won't misconstrue that we're we're trying to hide something. So here's my thing, like I say, and I didn't, I don't know what the 1000 would be. I could probably calculate that, you know, if you use 1988 as compared to today, I mean, I
did look up, you know, it'd be about 33. 33 375 if you use the 125 number. For 1000 would probably be right under 3000 now. The problem if I changed that, the problem that if I changed it to to
match what the inflation has created. Somebody out in the public is going to, I would think was going to construe that we're being, I think that's yes, so that, that was my, uh, what I was trying to keep from happening, although that would have been, you know, probably the wisest,
you know, thought process, you know, I don't know that it would be construed that way. I was afraid that it could be miscon rested on the members, I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
30:04
think that's fair, so I guess the question then is why not just leave the 12.5 in. Just
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
30:10
because it's uh There's, there's something too, you know, if you, if a, if a member were to have 40 investments that are over 125. You know, if you're if you're listening everything, if you're listing everything that you have and you're just, you know,
Not putting a number on on there, you know, there is a deal as far as security and and things of that nature, you know, because if somebody's listing 40, 50, 60, uh. Individual stocks they have and they're checking a box that's 12
5. You know, I just don't know that that's something that we want out in public, especially people who have children that may be out and about and things to that nature. I just think that there's a A little bit of wisdom and not and not putting that out there.
I think it also, you know, could create an issue where people be more apt to come in and try to create some fraud on that individual member. Yes straight up his I kind of say that. So on that point.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:10
On your language at the top of page 3 of the bill. Is that That subdivision D there on lines 3 to 5.
Does that include banks where you just have like a checking or savings account. OK. And it could be because that's never made sense to me. I agree whether where we have investments, yeah, I understand that, but where you have a checking account, whether it's at Bank of America or wherever. Um, OK. And also, I think the stock ticker is is a is a good change. I mean, I've been trying to fill this form out and here I am Googling Netflix. Principal place of business, which is information nobody cares about, so I,
I think that's a good change, um, if, if we were, I kind of, I personally, I think I would prefer to leave the thresholds. If we took the, if we, if we took the thresholds out, then it addresses my last question. The one perk of having it be the last I, I totally understand and agree with your concern about selling off stocks on December 30th, but the one A point of clarity that that provided was that we had a day of the year to determine what the value was, and that's, that's what we were reported on.
So, but if you take the value out, then it's, it's no longer relevant. It's just if you, if you owned one cent worth of that investment at any point in the year, then it would be listed. um,
Speaker 104
32:42
that is true and out of abundance of caution,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
32:45
I'll be honest, I hadn't even on my personal stuff, I haven't, I haven't been following the end of the calendar year. What I do is actually, if I've held anything during the year and so did I go ahead and list it and make, and I make a footnote down there that would say that I've held this investment during the year because I just, uh, I wanted to
be, uh, I wanted to over overreport. OK, I appreciate, I think you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
33:09
we've obviously approached this in a very thoughtful way, and I think there are some good changes. I personally prefer to keep the thresholds in. That's just, that's just my position on that. I understand. All right, Senator, Senator Clark, you're for
Speaker 108
33:19
a question. Senator Hickey, I appreciate your work on this, uh. My
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
33:34
Biggest fear on this has always been filling it out wrong. It's not anything that I want to hide and don't have a
whole lot to hide. Uh, what's the uh stock ticker for. For Walmart, WMT, I do believe.
OK, well, see, now I know that my wife inherited some Walmart stock or we wouldn't have any, uh, but I had
no idea. What stock ticker is on that. I think I might know IBM. I think it's IBM, uh, but, but beyond that I don't have a clue. Uh.
The And let me, is there anything anywhere on this form that where I list cash that I have. Money in bank accounts. That that would still, I mean, right now, what you're doing, you're supposed to list it
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
34:23
under this investment or holding, yes, sir. So that you're supposed to be but it's it's an aggregate number that it's over.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
34:40
11,000 or 125,000 also. But so is that if that's
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
34:46
going away, it's, it's not going away. If, if you have, if you
have If you have cash at ABC Bank. And you have more than 12, you have more than 1000, of course, you're checking the
1000 box. If you have uh uh. 125 in there or $13,000 you're checking that box. You're still going to list it. You're just not gonna, you're
just not going to check the box of how much you have
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:16
in there. And if you have cash buried in the backyard is
it separate from the bank account. I can't answer that one, but no, it's a
it's a valid. question. I mean, it may not, I said buried in the backyard, it may be under the mattress, it may be. Uh, maybe in the drawer,
Speaker 122
35:35
but uh I don't know if that's a holding. I don't know. Well,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:39
if that's not a holding, then how is a gold bar? Or silver a holding.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
35:46
That's our issue with this because again on the current, the way it's currently deal, it is
that is holding is there now, so if it's, if that holding is something you would be doing now, then that would be something that you would need
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
36:00
to continue to do. So, but in all of this, it was not clear, then when you're investigated, it's you're guilty. That's why the whole thing, the the whole form itself.
Uh, because you know, I don't have any Bitcoin. I don't have a bunch of money buried in the backyard, uh, but I might, might have gold bars or
some silver just in case the economy collapses that I can Uh, and the dollar's no good that I can. Uh, uh, buy something, uh, so. Uh what uh what if instead of investing in gold bars, I buy bunches of ammunition.
There's does that. Would, would you list that now? I don't know. I'm telling you, you and I are two entirely different people and I'm a country boy, you know, with without a whole lot and I just, I want to be sure that um. That I'm doing what I'm supposed to do, but it. Uh, but how about like a hobby, you know, if it says over 125. That's clear. OK, but if you got a hobby that
somebody that's that might be producing $1000 and might not. You know, now that That becomes confusion and again I understand what you're trying to do. I'd rather it said 30. than nothing Uh, 12, 5:30. I take either one of those. Yeah, see, I wouldn't the person just, just to
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
37:44
be honest with you, I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't
for two reasons. I wouldn't do the 30. I wouldn't do the 30, although inflation may have done it because it will be construed by the public at that point that we're we're trying to report less on the dollar amount, although this was 1988, and those inflation adjusted numbers may jump up to that. They're going, they would, they would automatically construe that. Another deal is, is it would also from the security standpoint that I was talking about, then if somebody Had 33,000 in 30 accounts, it's
going to be or more because it says over more you never know if it's 33,000 or 330,000 in each one of those. It's going to make it where somebody that's looking at it, you know, it's going to be more apt to. Focus in on you. OK. Um, trying to be careful how I'm saying that. And
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
38:38
again, I understand what you're trying to do, support what you're trying to do, but I'm telling you
I'm one of those that this nothing else here scares me except that I fill out one of these forms wrong because I'm
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
38:49
ignorant, the Senator Senator Clark, me too, and that's, but the thing is, is it was an initiated act and I was just trying to clean it up somewhat. I be honest with you, I don't, I don't like it either, you know, I think that the whole thing could probably be reworked, but it wasn't put in on a statute. It was put on an initiated act. 1988, and now I'm just trying to Clean it up the best that I, I can. Thank you. Yes
sir. Senator Payton, then Senator Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So back to
the bill on page 2 line 9. The current law says the name and address of every business. In which the public servant Has an investment. Or holding. Over $1000. It specifically says business. That you, it doesn't talk, it's not just talking about assets or bank accounts where you have a checking account or a savings account. So
So that's where the list without limitation. It seems to me to create confusion because like oil and gas interest, I don't know that that would be a business that I have a holding or an investment in. If I have real estate that has oil and gas. reserves and and and they're being mined and and royalties paid. So under 4A, which is Affects everything below it there where you've got the list of things.
It's specifically talking about a business. And invest in investment or holding in a business. So I don't see why we can't. Having an exhaustive list, but I definitely I would like to challenge the idea that that has to do with assets, whether it be Physical gold or or uh checking accounts or bank accounts or livestock. Or or even real estate unless
Speaker 85
40:55
it's held in a business that I have invested in. Am I reading that wrong?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
41:00
No, sir, I'm not changing that. Again, if you see the they they marked through, you
know, they marked through the holding of over 1000, but then they put holding at any point, so the
holding's still there and the investment's still there. I'm not changing any of any of that that's in the current. I agree. That's why, that's
why I came with the question about the list at the beginning because it would seem that we're included in things in the list.
That would not be a business holding or investment. And the list is is without limitation, so it creates confusion to me. When we're talking about business investment, business holding. Why would we say oil
and gas interests. I was just trying to live. I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
41:51
was just trying to list what what I thought was uh investment. Of financial investment holding. Yes, sir.
Because if you look at the form again, it does say individual stockholdings and with my conversations with Mr. Sloan back here, you know,
as far as our personal, if you have individual stock holdings. It's my understanding you're supposed to list each and every one, each and every one of those. And also the income off of each of each and every one of those if, uh, Uh You know, you're receiving
dividend income or Some of them are, uh, You know, you're, you're getting
distributions from them or whatever. I was just
by yours in Santa Clark's conversation there as we seem to be getting off I think you should be troubled by the current,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
42:40
the current one. Just to be honest with you, so, and, and like Senator Clark, I have been when you're filling
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
42:47
out and that was my attempt right here
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
42:49
and that's just uh my attempt was to try to clarify this a little bit better for folks, because like I say, under the current one right here and what may be the practice, I know they're Maybe the practice again on the
uh uh fully, fully managed retirement thing. We may have taken that, well, everybody's kind of talked and said, well, if it's fully managed with retirement, you don't have to list those individual stock holdings. I don't know where that is in the act. So it's Thank you
sir. All right, Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question, sir. At some point I'd like to
Chair
Unverified
43:21
get Graham to the table, please. Yes, grab you one. I thought you were going
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:26
to get out of here without getting caught up here, huh?
And while he's coming, Senator Hickey, my question is going to be on page 3 for you.
Speaker 147
43:43
And then it won't direct it to Graham. Do you want to wait and let him, let me just get right up here and just let him introduce
Speaker 150
43:57
himself and then let you proceed. Graham Sloane, director of the Arkansas
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:59
Senator Hayward, go ahead. Thank you. A couple quick ones. I want to want you to clarify something back on Senator Clark's questions. It comes to the end of the year and I'm supposed to spell out this report.
Under the way this bill is written and your interpretation of what this bill is going to do. Would I have to list what I hold in my personal bank account as far as balance at that time at the end of the year. Senator, Not only do
Speaker 152
44:28
I work for the ethics commission, which enforces this particular statute, but as an agency head, I have to fill one out myself, so I'm doubly familiar with it,
um, and on mine, I do list any bank that I've got more than $1000 and I don't give the exact amount, but uh if I had a savings account at a particular bank, uh, it's worth more than 1000 or even a checking account more than 1000. I would list that on my I think the um if you go back to Senator Hickey's correct. This was created by initiated Act one of 1988, and I think the people, the intent was, hey, if you're
going to conduct our business, we'd like to know about your business, make sure you don't have a potential conflict, um, and, and so I mean I guess if you had, you know, I mean, I don't know what the dollar figure would have to be that would. Um, cause you to want a favor the bank that you've got your money in and not you personally, but just, you know, the person filling out the SFI, but um I think you, you know, I do list it on mine, but my, you know, I mean, I'm a win in doubt and disclosed person.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:46
So on the Where on the current form as it's currently listed. Business
Speaker 152
45:54
are holding. It's a business in which you have a holding of more than 1000.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:59
So my, my personal checking account is considered A business It's a holding in a business. OK.
Then the second question, go down to page 3 line 24 through 27.
A person commits the offense of unlawful use of information in a statement financial interest if he or she purposely uses the information contained wherein a statement of financial interest under this subset
chapter to commit a criminal. Against what's your interpretation
Speaker 152
46:36
of what that means. Well, it's new language and the um The Commission would be the one who's interpretation counted more than mine, but I would think if you, uh, somehow
gleaned information and um committed some kind of fraud or uh if um if you looked at it and thought, boy, you know, I, I
Speaker 153
46:58
could, you know, kidnap their dog and they have plenty of money to pay ransom, you know, that it would be somebody
Speaker 152
47:06
took that and information on an SFI and Used it to commit a crime against you, um, that they'd be liable for that. Would that include Doing something
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:18
because I don't think anybody in this
table, anybody in this room is doing anything wrong, I think part of what we face
when we have this subject to discuss. is The question of interpretation. Of what it means. And that's, that's why my question let me weigh in if that's OK, Senator Hammer that, that
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
47:39
right there would be if if
Jimmy Hickey. I hate to say this looked at Senator Hammers. Statement
of financial interest, and I've seen that you had that.
Over $1000 in your checking account. That Bank ABC and then I went in there somehow and did something online or whatever and took the money, this would create At least from that civil side that offense. Where they could be charged against you. Now somebody kidnaps. a son or daughter or granddaughter or whatever, of course, that's, that would already be covered under our criminal code. So the reason I did that was just to added a
little bit more teeth that if somebody was to get in there and, you know, use some fraud against you that way. So that would, that is totally against that is for the person that would be using that against you. Or would be trying to get something from you. Well,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:39
you're thinking in terms of I think I heard this a while ago, kidnap or take my dog or whatever which they look at my account to pay me to take their dog, but the, the, it's to me it's even greater than that. What if I want to use that
against you in other ways other than maybe physical harm toward you or your family, but I want to, uh, I want to use that information to manipulate you or to, uh, slander you or do something else of that nature. Is that going to be covered under the language. that's in here. I do not know. I would, I would say yes, Senator Tucker might be uh more wise on that
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
49:18
part than me. Sorry to put you on that spot, but you're our local attorney. Would you repeat the question
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:26
please, Senator? Yeah, I mean, it is being presented from the perspective that this is going to be where somebody could look at our assets and maybe do something to blackmail, well not blackmail, but take somebody hostage or do something like that. I'm expanding the thought process that by by doing that, right down to the personal amount of money that we have in our personal checking account. can be treated as a holding. There are other ways to hurt somebody with that information and to what level would it rise
that that person could become criminally charged under what other
circumstances other than an extreme case like kidnapping or something like that, I don't have a problem with adding
Speaker 96
50:09
the criminal provision of this bill, but, but I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
50:12
think any conduct. where you're taking someone's information and you hack a bank or whatever, I mean, whatever you, whatever example you want to come up with is already going to be covered under the criminal code. So this is almost uh
You know, we, we have debate, we debated a couple sessions ago. I'm drawing a blank on it, but you know where crimes are targeted against particular peoples, forms of people, hate crimes. This is almost like a hate crimes provision for politicians. Uh, but, uh, I know this. I'm, I'm joking mostly, but but that's, but I think because the argument against the hate crimes law was all this stuff is already against the law, and and I think that that point is true in this case. Just about anything you could do with this information to hurt someone
because of the information they disclosed on their SFI would be illegal. Well, Then to that point, The severity of which you could rise to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:11
what you said, I think it needs to be higher than a Class A misdemeanor to be a real deterrent for somebody to do that. I don't know if you would consider that or it could be taken up later, but, and then I'll ask this to be done, Graham, you're often put in a position where you're asked or in your investigation, Bas, you know, if this, if this law goes through.
This change has happened, which I don't necessarily disagree with the changes. I'm just trying to be thorough and understanding all of it. You sometimes render an opinion. Or you do render an opinion. And issue letters and all those sorts of things based on Based on the law, do you see value in producing anything that would bring, excuse me, clarity. To what is being interpreted as to how this would apply.
Or is that just the power that
Speaker 162
52:13
you're going to hold within your own. As a Staff
Speaker 152
52:18
member of the ethics commission, I get asked my opinion about things I give informal advice, um, staff's informal advice in binding on the commission. I think it would, but citizen can request an advisory opinion, which is binding written advice, um, and
then the limitation on that is it needs to be. The application of the law to a specific set of facts involving them, you know, hey, can I do this? You know, am I gonna get in trouble if I do that and then if the commission just issues a statement of general applicability. Then that that historically, I think that needs to be a rule that, you know, that as far as just, um, I mean, we have
rulemaking authority if, if, if we were making a set of rules to implement and administer a particular section of the code and there needed to be fleshed out a little bit, uh, you know, there's an undefined term, you know, the that we by rule, uh, if, if necessary, would define that term, uh, but if it, if it's just, hey, here's how this, everybody out there, here's how this is gonna work. That's not an advisory opinion, but it, but if it's, you know,
you know, the advisory opinions more just somebody asks for application of the law to their specific situation and then if the commission issues an opinion and says, you know, that that is permissible then they they're, they've got, you know, the commission's bound by that and couldn't later say that, you know, that you shouldn't have done that if they said. was OK.
Speaker 153
53:52
OK, well, and I mean, I call you quite frequently. I'm sure you get a lot of calls from everybody
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
53:59
else because we all want to walk within the letter of the law so that we don't, you
know, have a letter sent out on us. It's just that sometimes I wonder how much could be avoided if there was something that said this means this before it gets to that level, but Well, we do have a You
Speaker 150
54:18
know, when we have. A set of instructions that goes
Speaker 152
54:23
along with the statement of financial interest, you know, so I mean we've It sets forth the commission's interpretation of here's what this means, uh, so you would update that with this if this goes through then. OK. Thank
Speaker 149
54:38
you. Thank you, Senator Hammer. Senator Payton,
Senator Dodson, and Senator Clark. Sarah Payton, you're up.
Director Sloan. I hope this is on the bill, but it's definitely on the testimony you just gave. So when we say that having Checking or savings account in a federally insured state chartered bank. is somehow A business interest in that bank. I mean, that, that is like.
Extremely broad, and that's like saying because my best friend has rent houses that I have a financial interest in rent in land, being a landlord. I mean, I may know the bank president and I may like the the ladies at the bank. But that doesn't mean I have a financial interest in the bank because I have a Checking her savings account there. How, what, what part of the law are you using to arrive at that conclusion?
Speaker 153
55:39
Sir, it would be a holding in that business.
OK, a holding with no Opportunity to gain profit from it. I only have what I put in. Well, if it
Speaker 166
55:51
was a savings account, if it was a certificate of deposit, which is
the same interest that everybody else is getting paid from that bank. I don't get
special interest. I don't have a vote on the board for sure or a stock vote. Right, the
Speaker 153
56:06
um I guess if you've got money in that bank, just,
you know, the. If, if, you know, if it does well. You know, your, your money's doing well, but then, you know, more particularly if it, if it's not doing well then so if I've got cattle in my pasture, I've
got financial interest in the local cattle auction? No, I wouldn't say cattle market? No,
Speaker 153
56:29
I, you know, to me the examples when That you're asking, you know, as far as if you had gold, that's not an investment in the
Speaker 152
56:40
business. It's a chunk of metal that I'm sitting here holding. I put it in
the safety deposit bank at the at the bank. Safety
deposit box. Now I've got an interest in that bank, whether it burns or not, yeah, I would. Whether
Speaker 150
56:55
it gets robbed, yeah, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I personally wouldn't find that or wouldn't, wouldn't rule that way, but um. I don't read
and I personally wouldn't see how you reach the other conclusion, but let's let me ask you this assuming that
your conclusions right, that having deposits in a bank is a financial interest in that business, a holding, holding in that, OK. Then if I have a business that has deposits in that bank. And I list that I have interest in that business. Let's just say it's closely held corporation or sole proprietorship, and that, does that mean I also have to list the fact that that business
Speaker 163
57:40
has deposits in a bank? No, I think um sources of income and holdings of a business in the law says you don't have to list those, so, so,
so here's my example then. If I wholly owned a business and it has Deposits, savings, checking in the bank. Would I not have just as much interest in the success or failure of that bank as I would if it was my personal account. I can see, I can see that that.
Speaker 153
58:12
You know that argument could be made or that's a reasonable conclusion, uh, I didn't write the initiated act, you know, I don't think the
initiated act intended for us to list our cash assets either, but I appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Alright,
Senator Dodson, Senator Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
58:33
Um. There's a couple things back to uh that page 3, section 3. Where you're talking about. Um
Crimes committed against or. The use of information against a person. That's my part. That's yours, um, so unlawful use of information in a statement of financial interest, would that entail someone using the information within that statement of financial interest to campaign against. A candidate for office.
I don't know if that's an
offense. I, I mean, I, I don't know either, but
But that's the the language here that could use. I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
59:25
that that's an unlawful use. I mean, I look at unlawful uses coercive, like say if somebody hacked in there and stole your money. That was my, that's the intent of that. OK. And then Back to Page 2, Toward
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
59:39
the top of the page there, you've got a lot of Language that is current law
that's being struck out, so Under B1 sources of gross income as described in sub subdivision D3a of this section of more than 125 then under B2 says however the subdivision does not require the disclosure of individual items of income that constitute a portion of the gross income of the business or profession from which the public servant or candidate or his or her spouse
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:00:21
derives income, so you're striking through all of that language. But that's as it relates to the 125 because
you're going to have done it under the either the 1000 or the holding itself that was relating to that you had to do it for the 125. It's going to be
Speaker 55
1:00:37
fully covered under the What I'm saying
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:00:39
is you're striking my point is you're striking through. Disclosure of individual items that are part of the business or profession, so then you come
down and now you're, you're defining under the new Section 4a, where it says investment or holding at any point of the previous year, so The business Or the profession of a candidate, public servant, or their spouse, um. If they happen to have any Interest in that business. The individual items of income that constitute a portion of the
gross income of that business or profession have to be listed under
Speaker 181
1:01:29
this. That was my intent and I was trying because it was our original so it'd be 70 excuse me, I didn't mean to talk over
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:01:38
you. That would require If you, if you had a car dealership to list every car because it's a portion of the business that constitutes a a business interest or holding or income based off of that individual thing. It's not a portion or the gross, it's, it's an individual.
Piece of that business that derived profit, so it'd be just like if you held an individual stock. Within that
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:02:02
business, but it's 1000 now, so if you had, if it was just 700. Again, I was trying to be, you know, but I'm saying the gross
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:02:11
income is what you have to report now, so it's like your business, you derived an income of 1000 or 12,005 or more based off your business collectively as a whole. You know, For lack of a better word, sorry, Senator Payton, the car
business happened to be the one I'm staring at, but yeah, car business is good, but That That is a collective business that that someone owns. Individually you're This would make them have to list every single car. I think on this, the way it's written, I well, I don't think it's
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:02:50
as written. I think, I think what we better do is get Graham's interpretation of how it is now because I'm not changing
anything other than the 1000. If you did have one that was 750, yes, you would have to list it. Personally, I didn't see a whole lot of difference $750 or $500 because now, now it's
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:03:10
1000. I'm not changing that part. If you had a holding of under 1000, you don't have to list that. That was correct, and I was, I tried to be specific whenever I was. On up. Any, any holding whether
you made money off of or you didn't make any money off of it, which is why I'm saying it's,
it's a whole, and I don't think people are going to divest of all their business interests and holdings at the end of the year just so they don't have to report it if if it's a obviously a profitable business. I mean, I don't. Sell everything at the very end of the year. I might sell some stocks or something if I'm getting rid of uh, you know, but you're going to incur a lot of capital gains if you have substantial holdings in that, um, so. I don't know. Yeah, I think to that mixing two different.
Speaker 152
1:04:03
Sections, the section 3 of the form is for sources of income and uh and I don't think that
Speaker 153
1:04:08
if you, you know, if you own the car, that's that's not a a source of income, uh, and, and then, you know, my car title in my
Speaker 152
1:04:18
name and in an investment or holding in a business and so, so anything that that In my house doesn't go on there, my car doesn't go on there. If I had a, if I had a car lot, then I might list, you know, that
would be the car lot would be a source of income. I wouldn't have to list every car that was sold, um, and then, uh, but you know, that it might be a business or a holding, you know, Sloan Motors, Inc. would be on there as a as a holding of, you know, under current law, more than 1000 under Senator Hick. version, it wouldn't matter as long as you know, if it was business or holding there was $1000 wouldn't matter about it going on there, but, um, but the
that language that you're referring to that's being stricken, um, is talking about sources of income, not businesses or holdings. All right
Speaker 150
1:05:12
Thank you. All right, Senator Clark, then Senator Hammer. Senator Clark. Mr. Sloan, if
I have Stop at the bank. That's something
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:05:28
we want to know. Right And if I have stock in Walmart, that's something we want to
know. So the purpose of This law I to know
that if I have Walmart stock and I'm voting for all of Walmart's bills. Is, is that the I think that it would
Speaker 152
1:05:52
serve to alert the public to conflict of interest and you have to remember that this form is filled out solely by, uh, legislators or agency heads, it's, you know, judges fill it out and so I mean if the judge had a Walmart case before him,
uh, so the public, you know, hey, this guy's got, you know, a million dollars in Walmart stock or when they would know the amount they
Speaker 165
1:06:15
would just know he owns stock in Walmart.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:06:18
So, so what is the interest of Cash And a Checking account.
What you have to have to do business. Uh, that's, I mean, it's, it's part of currency, uh, you know, how about cash and PayPal?
Because I don't keep anything in paper, but I have to have PayPal to do business online. But I don't,
you know, there could be 40 to $500 if I had a transaction that big. It's not there over a day or two because I don't want the money sitting in PayPal, but, uh, but it's simply a way to uh to
make business more efficient. I have no investment in the bank. May not even lock the bank. Uh I'm not making, in fact, when I look and see how much I got the
checking account and it's too much. I'm thinking I'm a really stupid businessman because the government's printing money and my, and that money is becoming worth less while I'm
Speaker 150
1:07:25
looking at it, so. Really all I can Explain or offer is that the
Speaker 153
1:07:34
current interpretation. Of uh the SFI statute 218701.
Would require somebody to list a bank if they certainly if they own stock in it worth more than 1000, they put it on there and then if you had uh more than 1000 if you got a certificate of deposit down there, uh, I've got checking accounts in 3 banks, uh, you know, if it's more than 1000, then I put it on there. What if I have that same cash at
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:08:06
home, then does it go on the form somewhere? No, it's not. It's not a
Speaker 152
1:08:10
holding in a business, OK, just a holding in
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:08:15
my house. OK, what if I collect motorcycles and 10 motorcycles. Has that got to go down somewhere?
Speaker 153
1:08:21
Um, not unless and until it was held by a business if they're all tiled in your name, no, if they're all
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:08:28
titled in my name, OK, that's helpful. I, I believe it or not, it's it, this is very confusing that I got a list. Money in the bank if it's in the checking account,
but I'm assuming if it's in safety deposit, no. I would agree.
That you can see how that's confusing to a country boy, you know, the people that are working in finance every day probably don't have a problem
Speaker 195
1:08:57
with it, but Right, um, like I said, I'm a when in doubt
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:09:01
disclosed person. OK, and it also because Mr. Sloan, I think you're about as fair a person as we can ever expect to be there, but you ain't gonna be there forever. Sure, you so like I said, that's why I find this, if it's just saying, here's possible conflicts I have.
But if it's where somebody can come look at, well, you didn't report these motorcycles or uh etc. or you didn't report PayPal. Uh It just, it was, it always ends up being
a game of gotcha and I don't know how you get past that, but I appreciate your help. Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator Hammer, then Senator Payton. Just so I understand
the intent behind listing the money in your
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:09:51
personal checking account on the form and you're taking a position that that rises to the level of being a holding, correct? Yes, there's, it's,
Speaker 166
1:10:01
it's in writing that, that you would need to list that. OK,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:05
yeah. Senate, but the, the, the question is, and Senator Hickey, the intent behind it would be to keep anybody from moving money from one area to another area so they wouldn't have to report it to to just play the skirting
game. Is that, is that part of the philosophy, do you think, or maybe Graham can speak to either one of y'all as
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:10:30
far as far as the new language, uh, I, I mean, you're talking about the checking account, of course, mine was the If you're talking about the end of the calendar year. Mine was just so that if you did any type of trading within the Within the year that you couldn't bypass the reporting of it because I I, I would almost make the 100% assumption that whenever the people put this on here, they may have put the end of the
calendar year back there in 1988, but with the technology we've got today, you can trade in and out of stuff all during the year also, so I was just trying to make that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:04
so to disclose a little further on on that particular part. OK, Graham, quick question on that issue then if your personal checking account is classified as a holding, and you're supposed to report as of January 30th or December 31st. Is that correct? That's right. So it's,
it's at that point in time what keeps anybody Keeps anybody You're, you're going to look at it as of December 30th first, not July 22nd or anything like that, you're gonna be looking at, at it is to be reported as what is the last day of the calendar year preceding, correct? That's what it says. And where is the definition of holding. In the language. You know, the
Speaker 153
1:11:56
I would have to look at the statute. I know it's not in front of me, but, uh, source of income, income is defined, it's broadly defined, and then, um, Uh, I don't know if there is a. Do you think it would be beneficial to have
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:12
a definition of a holding because I'm thinking about Senator Payton's discussion a while ago. I've got my money in a bank, but I have no vested interest in the decisions that those banks made. It's just to hold their placeholder for where my money is. Do you think there ought to
be a definition for holdings in the language or Maybe not in this one, but following up with one. If there's not one. Good idea to
Speaker 150
1:12:35
put one in there. I'll leave that up to you whether you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:40
want to put in this one, or we ought to have that discussion to clear that up. Thank you. All right. Sir Clark. The
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:12:59
And I'm not sure if if Senator Hickey's bill changes this at all. But I listed. A hobby this last time as a
business. Uh, as a business, it's lost money. But because that I think at some point it could be a business and
at some point. Uh, as a state senator, they're going to come after anybody that'll be after me. I have kept records. But I listed it. Just in fear that if I didn't
list it, I'd be in trouble, but because I listed it as something that I got over $1000 in, and I didn't. I actually got minus dollars uh Uh Can You know, can that
be used against Can that be used against you, that you, you know, that you said you, you made over $1000 when and then come back. Well, you said you made over $1000. Well, no, I was just trying to, I was just trying to be sure
that if anybody said, well, this could be an
ethics problem that it's listed. Sir Clark, let me jump in here
guys. This is obvious the support is not here for this bill, and we're going to sit here until midnight of next year. If somebody
make a motion to consider this or Senator Hickey doesn't pull this bill down. The point has been made. There is no perfect way to address this bill. That's going to pacify everybody's concerns. There's no utopian middle ground that that Graham and Senator Hickey and
Senator Clark and Senator Hammer and Senator Flippo and everybody else in this room looks at this bill, says, yes, this makes complete sense. We all understand we're all on the same page. We are going to talk this damn thing to death. So, with that, uh, mayor close. You
Chair
Unverified
1:14:49
recognize it close to your bill. I, I appreciate you uh chairman Flippo. OK, members, uh, this is getting a lot
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:14:58
of my point across, uh, the thing, the thing is, is this initiated act
was put on by the people, uh, it's, it's hard, it's hard to sit here and try to rework this thing totally because we don't want to have the appearance that we're being less transparent on herself or anything to that nature. There's issues with the initiated act, and I think that Senator Clark may have said it. As good as anyone as far as Mr. Sloan. I think he's dealt, he's been dealt this hand with this initiated act in 1988, and
They try to, they tried to maneuver through the thing as good as they can. All my bill is doing. It's trying to correct some of what I would consider the and I'm going to call him a gracious or arbitrary. The numbers are arbitrary 1,000125, and with this, you know, in 1988, uh, I don't know that most people could go in and even pull up the statement of financial interests. Somebody would have had to drive down here and probably get the form itself. Now somebody can get online and
get that thing in a matter of seconds. Things have changed a lot. So that's my reason for just taking all. of The amounts As far as from the income side other than the $1000. And then the list the holdings so that we're not actually putting those amounts out there and as Senator Payton says he has to use 10 pages or whatever that he has to lose use 10 pages and mark whether he has 1000 or 125.
On an entirety of investments that he that he may have or somebody else may have. I don't mean to use you, Senator Payton. So The My whole intent is just to try to take what we've been dealt as this initiated act and to try to fix some certain things within it, so I'm going to just, just ask for a good vote because just to be honest with you all, I don't want to be down here. I do not want to be down here presenting this, and that's the reason it's late in the session. I've had this idea now for about
2 years that it needs to be correct, needs to be corrected somewhat, uh, I don't really care to be, be doing it, but it just, I thought that I was supposed to. try to do a little bit. So you can give me a good vote or not give me a good vote and I'm not going to
bring it back either way. You're a good man, Sarah Hick. We
all know that. Thank you, sir. All right, Senator Hickey's closed for his bill. Of motion.
Senator, we have a motion for her. Got a motion to be passed by Senator Sullivan.
22 by Senator Hammer discussion on the motion. Senator Payton. Thank you and
and thank you, Senator Hickey for bringing this and your work on it, and I, I totally agree with the 1000 12 5 boxes not being necessary. I agree that this is confusing and when we pick up that form when we try to fill it out, there's a lot of doubt and questions in my mind and, and I wish your bill. alleviated those doubts and those questions, but I don't think it does. And so with all the water under the bridge 20
years of precedence and ruling. If we change it and we don't get it clear enough, then all that, all that precedence has to be reset, and at least whatever hearings they've had, whatever rulings they've made has established some precedents that we can look to for clarity. And, and so I'm gonna have to vote against it, but I appreciate you bringing
it. Thank you. Alright, see more discussion, seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed
singer, didn't hear 5 votes. All right, next up, Representative Meeks and patiently waiting out there. Yeah, Senator Bryant, you're running this, so you come up on. All right, if you all introduce yourself, I think, let's see
here. You are running House Bill 154848. All right, introduce yourselves. You'll be recognized to proceed. All right, thank you,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:19:21
Mr. Chairmans, this is my first trip down to the Senate for this session. Representative Steven Meeks, District 42, and with the chair's indulgent here behind me. I've got a couple of student leaders from Greenbrier High School, and they're getting to get a peek of the legislative process this morning. Hopefully this bill will be a little bit less confusing, but if there are
any questions, um we do have our chief privacy officer, our data officer, and our newly appointed director of DIS with us. Um, what this, this bill does in synopsis back in 2015 with the consent of the General Assembly. I had a data and transparency panel established. The purpose of that panel was to break down the silos between state agencies and the data that they have. So for example, I know a lot of times we are interested in
education outcomes, so you know, like the between higher education and the Department of Workforce Services. They weren't allowed to share data, so it prevented us from making informed decisions. Another simple example might be that if I move from one location to another, I go to the DMV and I update my address and even though they've got it, nobody else in state government does, and so what the data and transparency panel was tasked with. those two primary things. First
off was to catalog the data we had in the state because we didn't even know an inventory of what we actually had, and then the second point purpose was to develop a governance for that data about how that data was used and how we could make business cases for the efficient use of that data. Uh, so that has actually been completed, so now we are looking to move to the 2nd phase of that is implementing using that. for the benefit of the citizens
and also for the agencies. Uh, the way we're seeking to accomplish that pretty straightforward, doing away with the data and transparency panel. Its purpose has been completed and what we're going to do is two primary things. First off, allow DIS to be an authorized user of the data that they are receiving, and then secondly, instead of having a data and transparency panel, which was a kind of the policy arm we're going to switch from that to allowing agency to have a data steward because the person making policy
decisions is usually different from the person who's down in the trenches day to day working with the data, so this will allow the Department of information to identify who that person is in each of the agencies who is that data steward to work with them to implement this data sharing across state government and that's basically what the bill does in a nutshell. I'll be happy to. answer any questions members, you've
heard an explanation. Are any questions from the committee?
All right, so you know questions, don't have anybody to speak for or against this bill. Representative, you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:22:25
recognize close with that we are closed and would ask senator has and appreciate a good vote. Alright. Got a motion
by Senator Sullivan. Seconded by Senator Tucker. No discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes. All right. Yeah, let me get, can I get, uh, Senator Hill real fast? I told him, yeah. Your second shot at this, you
know, you got to the price you pay for chewing up an hour at the last
meeting, Senator Bryant. Um, Senator Hill, you're going to be running Senator Johnson's, it's Senate Bill 409, I think. Is that correct? All right,
let's see if we cannot sink this one. All right, Senator
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:23:11
Hill, this is an easy bill, Senator Johnson's bill. It's an ESG bill, so we shouldn't be here near as long. This committee will decide what's easy and what's not.
You, you are welcome I receive your bill, Senator Hill. This is a Ricky Hill Senate District 11. This bill is just pretty simple. It's to our ESG bills that we passed two years ago. It basically is just adding the words agriculture producers to it. And that's it and I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:23:36
will take any questions y'all may have.
All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions from the committee,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:23:43
Senator Dotson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the only question I have is on page
one line 5, page 1 page 15, and then 6
through 12. It looks like the House has done a pretty good job of actually getting co-sponsors on this bill, but you and Senator Johnson have failed to get any other senators on this bill. This is Senator Johnson's bill, so I, I'm speaking for I cannot speak for him. Thank you.
Speaker 66
1:24:05
I have a motion the proper time. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from the committee, Senator Tucker? Tucker, it has not changed since last
Speaker 36
1:24:17
two years ago so I, I just want to make sure
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:24:21
I'm understanding now. Uh Apers or whoever can't
invest in anything that discriminates against energy, fossil fuel, firearms, ammunition, or agricultural producers, that's what you're doing. OK, well, uh, is, uh, my follow up question is, is Senator Sullivan going to be presenting a cleanup bill in here two years from now because of some unanticipated unintended consequences. I cannot speak for Senator
Sullivan either. Well, you, Senator, will you graciously ran a cleanup bill on the ESG bill we passed two years ago because lo and behold there were some unintended consequences to that ESG legislation we ran, so I just was wondering if we, if we have a better idea of what some of those unintended consequences may be. We should not have any more issues with that. All right. Thank you. hard to know what
Speaker 212
1:25:11
he would be, Senator Tucker, cause you know they're unintended, so.
All right. Any other questions from the committee. All right, see no, don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this bill. Senator, you
Speaker 217
1:25:31
recognize a closure bill. I'm closed and I
appreciate I do pass, Senators closed for the bill. I see a motion. motion by Senator Dodson, seconded by Senator Sullivan, any discussion on the motion? All right, say no, all in favor. Say aye. opposed. All right, congratulations,
your bill passes another objection by Senator Tucker. Thank you. Let me get Senator Bryan and then.
down I do now. OK. All right, Senator Bright, recognize yourself or introduce yourself and they'll be recognized proceed with your bill and you were running Senate Bill 357. Joshua Bryant, Senate
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:26:15
District 32. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee, uh, presented this bill. Was it Tuesday, last this past
Tuesday, 2 days ago, um, the So Uh, so the intent of the bill is to allow our veterans that work for the state to not to get any additional leave but to be able to accredit their time previously served to advance their ability to acquire the next phase of our already established leave policy in the state. So a couple of good questions. I think Senator
Sullivan asked, you know, how much do we do for veterans and when is enough? is enough, and that's a very fair question. Obviously everyone will have a different thought on that. I think as he did get some data back from the Department of Military about the various benefits and perks that we provide to our veterans across the state from license plates broadly to other programs maybe within the state government itself, um, Senator Clark asked about, you know, can we do this for other industries, and I think what I
found is the answer is we do do this for some. Other professions, teachers would give incentives for teachers that have been here for a while and So I think broadly, um, The question is, is, is this a good policy and how much is it is the cost to the state and when is enough is enough, and those are very fair questions. I think the benefits to our workforce to acquire this group set and this type of talent.
Overcomes any cost that it may be to the state, I would say at the end if you have an employee that works here for 3 years, they're going to advance and get the next rate, the next ability to acquire a little more hours on every pay period and so what we're doing is just accrediting in previous times served to get them to that acquisition faster. They're not getting any more leave than otherwise already provided if they'd just been here for 3 years. So with that, I'm, I'm happy to answer any more details of the question. I'm 357.
Speaker 207
1:28:28
Members have heard an explanation. Any questions from members of the
committee. Or See none Don't have anybody sign up to speak for against this bill, Senator Bryant, you'd be recognized to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:28:40
close. I'm close for my bill. I'd appreciate a motion and a
good vote. All right, so there's close. Let's see a motion. Got a motion by Senator Dodson, seconded by Senator Payton in the discussion, hearing none, all in favor say aye, opposed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. All right. Senator King and Senator Hammer.
Senator King, you're running Senate Bill 410. That's a Brian King bill should
be sailing through. You. All right, if you'll introduce yourself, you'll be recognized. State Senator Brian
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:29:26
King, District 28. All right, Senator, you're proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members Committee,
what Senate Bill 410 is about is a post-disclosure, uh, uh requirement and where this comes from is, as we know, we decide literally billions of dollars once we come into office. You have agencies that decide. Billions of dollars, DHS, this would make a post-disclosure. So basically what this is, as we've seen, uh, the, the, the public in an amendment put a constitutional amendment in that we have what we in statutorily
before, I think, I don't know if you guys were here, we put a one year ban on lobbying. And then in the constitutional amendment, I think in 2016, it was a two-year ban on lobbying. Well now we have this epidemic proportion of like these legislators or even agency or government employees, they go to work for lobbying firms, but they're not a lobbyist. They're a consultant or account manager or errand boy. They just retitled their self. You also have these situations where uh you'll see some more
things coming out like these consulting contracts, you know, you'll find, you're gonna find out that over $600 million in consulting contracts have been hired signed with, uh, consultings like Deloitte, McKenzie, Marisol, and Alvarez, and then all of a sudden they wind up hiring the people later on. This post agreement would just bring some exposure that if I leave office. That if I go to work for a lobbying firm or I'm going to work for a government agency that all of a sudden I gave
billions of dollars to. Then I should have to report it. These guys or women that are running around here working for lobbying firms and not calling their self lobbyists, but they're calling herself consultants or account managers or whatever this would say, you know, I know Senator Clark's in the flooring business, you know. Senator Peyton's in the, the automotive booster. If you're not doing anything like Senator Payton all of a sudden leaves office, and all of a sudden his auto dealership is selling. You know
400 vehicles to state entities, well, then he would have to report that. If he's going about our normal business and we leave office and leave our normal lives, you don't have to report anything. But we all know what's happening here because you can see it, it's so epidemic and out in front of us now are these people leaving and it's like whaccamo, where you could ban lobbying for 2 years. Well now you're a consultant. Well, what are you now? account manager, errand boy, whatever you want to call yourself, and you literally have no reporting at all. You're a
self-describing yourself after you go to work for a lobbying firm after you decided to handle these clients and give money as we do decide. It is so blatantly obvious. So the only thing I know to do is to have a post requirement, uh, disclosure. Like I said, if you go in your normal business and you go and be retired, or I go back to farming as I do with my brothers. I did my 4 years out. You don't have to report anything. But like I said, I keep saying
this, this, this thing that we passed a two-year ban on lobbying. Out there, clearly the voters told us. OK, no lobby. All of a sudden you go to work for a lobbying firm, and you're not a lobbyist, you're a consultant, account manager, whatever. I,
I don't know what else to do other than the post reporting. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill or any questions from
Chair
Unverified
1:33:02
the committee? All right, Senator Sullivan, you recognized for her question. So all, all they're gonna do is disclose that they work for a
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:33:13
lobbying firm then, is that right? Is that what the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:33:17
bill says? Well, I mean, you'll see that they'll have to do filing, like, uh, they're going to disclose and file. Yeah, we're going to set up, you know, the commission was promulgate rules to implement this section of how they're going to do that, how you would report
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:33:32
post report. OK, and again, I haven't, I didn't read the bill fully. So what's the, how do you distinguish between someone who is working for a lobbying firm and someone who goes back to their farming.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:33:44
Well, I mean, if I go back to to farming, I'm obviously not working for a lobbyist or if Senator Payton goes back to, uh, but if you, you work for a Medicaid entity at one time, correct? How did you do? How do you distinguish that? It's going to be up to the person to distinguish it, and if they're not reporting, then they can be reported and if somebody could look into it. Then the commission will develop the rules to to deal with that, but I mean it's pretty clear,
like I said, if, you know, this, like I said, if we're gonna set
up a commission who will then promulgate rules on the reporting, yeah, the ethics commission, I believe, is the ones that will set up the rules to comply with this,
but if you, you work for a Medicaid entity at one time, right? So I mean if you went back to working for a Medicaid entity that got a lot of money, you know, Medicaid funds or maybe a bill that was passed that that gives that money then, you know, possibly you could. Let's look at somebody on, say, I think Senator Payton was chair of retirement. Are you still
chair of retirement? He was chair of retirement. All of a sudden he leaves and he goes to work for a big hedge fund manager that all of a sudden got You know, Some type of provision that sent money to that hedge fund manager or something, then it's possible that then yes, he should post report, but if he goes back to his business of selling autos then, then no. We all know the situations
we're talking about and not the situations we're talking about. So I'm pretty clearly outlined that.
Chair
Unverified
1:35:19
All right, Senator Hammer and Senator Dodson. Thank you. I don't see anything punitive in here. What you're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:35:27
looking for is just transparency that if somebody leaves that and goes to Work as as described in here, you just want it to be disclosed. Is that correct? Well, and that's, that's what we do sometimes. I mean,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:35:38
would I like to have some punitive damages and maybe the commission will meet. This is the starting process. I mean, I, I thought about putting in some type of penalties that would follow
something about not reporting, but yet, you know, this is just going down a path and and getting it out there and see what's reported. It may not be as big a problem out there as what we, you know, think we see, but I can tell you right now. as I see up here right now that is, you know, when I first came in, you could go, you could leave and go directly right into the lobby, OK? And so we passed provisions not. I mean, like I said, if Deloitte, for example, so under Governor before Governor Hutchison came into office, Deloitte as a consulting
company was getting nothing, OK? Then all of a sudden now in the last 10 years, Deloitte has got over a half a billion dollars in contracts. So if Deloitte then all of a sudden when Governor Hutchison laughed, employed his law firm. Well, then, yes, he should report that. I mean, I think so. If you give somebody half a billion dollars, then in that case, and I'm not saying Governor Hutchison, I have no knowing if his law firm or anybody is, uh, is receiving or contracted with Deloitte. I'm not accusing or
anything, no one like that, but I'm just saying. We decide billions of dollars, there needs to be at least some looking into transparency of this, and I, I, you know, I'm just discussing this. I would even. Entertain the fact. I like putting sunset on clauses because sometimes we make bills and then to repeal them takes a lot more work, you know, but I would look at amending this bill. In fact, I may pull it down and mend it and put a sunset clause that after 2 years at sunsets, and that way you would just see what's out there. I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:37:23
wouldn't do 2 years. If I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna do it 4 years to align with what you've got in the bill because you 4 years, I'm sorry, yeah, you're asking for 4
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:37:33
years. So, OK, thank you. But if, like I said, I, I mean this, this whole thing is. It's crazy that you're not a lobbyist anymore, you're an account manager or you're a, uh, consultant. I mean, my gosh, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a
Chair
Unverified
1:37:47
duck, OK, Senator Dodson, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:37:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, so this, this is pretty all inclusive of if I'm looking at the
definition of former state employee on page 2. Line 3 there where it says means a person who was previously regularly appointed or employed in a position of state service by a state agency for which he or she was compensated on a full-time basis. And state agency means every department, division, office, board commission, and institution of the state, including state supported
institutions of higher education, so if someone's checking you out at the DMV, they would, they're not currently required to fill out an SFI report because they're not in any position of authority, but under this definition, once they terminate their employment for whatever reason, maybe they got a job at McDonald's that was paying him more. They will now have to disclose. For the next 4 years of their life, everything they do.
If they happen to get a job working. You know, in the private sector in that business sells to the state at all. Is that how I'm reading this? No, it's
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:39:06
if you go to work for the DMV and you work 22 years for the DMB and then all of a sudden you go to work for Walmart, uh, then no, you wouldn't have to do that. If you go to work for an entity like a lobbying firm or something that's continuing to a lot of money or that that state that employee at DMV did not vote
like we did or be an agency director of like Medicaid that sent millions or even billions of dollars to entity that that state employee did not even come close. to be in that decision making process. So if you look at Andy Allison, for example. Andy Allison left here, he went to work for McKenzie, another consulting company. Look what's happening. McKinsey's getting hired. OK, these, these lobbying firms, people leave there, come into government, and now all of a sudden McKenzie gets contracts, as I mentioned, Deloitte earlier. They were getting 0 under Governor Hutchison. All of a sudden now Deloitte has got over a half a billion dollars.
So if Deloitte, and I had no way of knowing in this thing, did they hire anybody, uh, you know, did, for example, Governor Hutchinson, I'm not picking on him, but I'm just using, that's one of the most clear examples of a half a billion dollars have now went to consulting company Deloitte and then all of a sudden they're out of office. If I do that, then I should have to disclose something with these government contracts. If I go to work for somebody. I, I, I think in state law even, I cannot make a bill if we wanted to make
The grand pooba of agriculture. And then all of a sudden I did everything to a new position and paid a bunch of money. I cannot feel that position because I think we have laws right
Speaker 241
1:40:41
now that I cannot make a law and then turn around and fill that position. So, OK, Senator, no, the DMV person is not gonna be. Maybe that example was a bad
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:40:52
one. What if someone is working for their social worker at DHS, and they get hired at a
I don't know one of the passes or something, you know, some similar type. Job only they're working in a different entity now because they left state employment, if I'm reading this correctly because they left state unemployment and that past has a contract with the state. Now they are required to disclose to the ethics department even if they They're not in a position of authority. They're not making any extra money. They're just, I mean, they were. Making $12 an hour at over here
and they moved over here because it was $15 an hour or $20. They're now required, they would be required under this as I'm reading it to start disclosing because that entity that they now work for has a contract with the state for the next 4 years of their employment with
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:41:49
with them. That's social workers are not involved in the decision making that made the contract agreements with the, with the past system just like Andy doesn't matter though. What's that? definition
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:41:58
you've got here, it says former state employee who
works for a state agency, so it's all
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:42:03
encompassing. I can look and that's what the discussion is. I mean, I think that like I told Senator Hammer, and I'm glad he corrected, I'm willing to put a 4-year sunset on this to try and see that way if it doesn't happen, but I mean, I can look at trying to clarify language, but, but that example is like not even the realm of anything that this bill is designed to do so I can look at putting language. that, that social worker is not going to be deciding a 16 million. dollar contract or things like that. I mean, Andy Allison, for
example, whether he went to work for McKenzie later on, another one of these consultant companies. So what we don't want to do is have the situation that we're given millions or billions of dollars out here to these entities and all of a sudden you leave with them and you're not lobbying, but you're now employed with them. So there needs to be some responsibility. It's like, you know, we, if you had two honest people out here, you wouldn't even really need any laws at all. The right things get done, but laws are in fact to try and safeguard provide transparency,
but what also laws do is they can, if there was something we can investigate. So obviously, if I, for example, give half a billion dollars to a consultant company. I'm pushing this. All of a sudden I leave there, and all of a sudden I go to work for them later, but I'm not lobbying or anything in the state of Arkansas, then if I file that and you know it, then it ought to be scrutinized. So, but, but
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:43:26
we're talking about disclosure on private citizens at that point because they've left left employment of the
state or left employment of or they're no longer an elected official. Do you know if any other states have done this anywhere and is I do not know. I
Speaker 241
1:43:43
mean, we have a disclosure agreements, but, you know, like I said, the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:43:47
the examples of a social worker DMV worker is not even in the realm of possibility in this because they're not the decision makers. So I'll clarify the language up here, but I just think that we need to make sure if we're deciding all this money and it goes these places and they hire
us, hire us later or a Medicaid director or anybody else, then obviously they should disclose it because then once you disclose it, it brings scrutiny. But private citizens, you're once again a private citizen, but a private citizen that decides billions of dollars' worth of contracts or hundreds of millions, yeah, I think it deserves some scrutiny. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Senator Dodson. Center hammer. You recognize her question. Thank you. I want to clarify one
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:44:30
thing because you've twice now invoked the name of a constituent of mine, In Allison.
You are not in your comments insinuating that he has done anything illegal or anything above the law. I want to bring that out because I want, I want that clarified. No,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:44:48
I'm not, yeah, no, and then Governor Hutchison, I have no way of knowing. I just know that in looking at these, I've been again, you know, scrutinizing these consultant contracts, and I've said it in public, it's been epidemic since I first come in. OK, we've given almost $700 billion in the last two years of the legislature of these consultant contracts. I just wrote an op ed. I'll be happy to
send it to you, how these consultants have got stuff wrong, so that's where a lot of it is, but let's say Ty, I'm a poultry grower, so I mean, if I give them special provisions or government contracts or do something like that, and I go back and be a grower. For them, then even though I'm not involved in that, that's corporate stuff, and I'm a contract grower. I should have to disclose that. OK, I just want to get Mr. Allison, I have no, I, I did not have a bad relationship with
him. He was here. I'm not, I'm just using that as an example. John Seely, for example, now has a company out there, but I'm just saying the case of, of what we were deciding today. Where billions of dollars in directions can go. Let's say Blue Cross Blue Shield, for example. So we had the energy bill that deals. Let's say energy or electric cooperatives, all of a sudden we vote on a bill that's closed or and the go then yeah, if you go to work for those entities. In those things as aligned, if
you go to work for energy as a lineman. Well, now, probably not. I mean, there's probably nothing going on, but if you go to work as an executive for energy after you voted for something like this, then yeah, I think there should be some
disclosure. Thanks, Senator Hammer. Senator Sullivan, you recognize her question. Yeah, I think we're all
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:46:29
aware of the problem you're seeing it's fairly clear to those of us that have been here for a while, those things happen, and this bill though, I think it needs more flushed out
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:46:41
specifics, yeah, and hey, I'm listen, that's why I did this today. I'm not, you know, and like the sunset clause, you know, put it in there and see what happens, yeah. Thank you. Thank you,
Senator Sullivan and Senator King. I agree. I mean, I think we've seen suspicious activity, and we all are concerned about it. I think the general public's concerned about it. The language of the bill doesn't even say lobbyists or consultant, but I think the language of the bill needs to be tightened up because it actually says full time
employee of the state. Well, that would not cover any of the legislators. We're not full-time employees. Oh, that's a good point. So I mean, I mean, I think we need to work with the part time or whatever
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:47:22
we are, yeah, I mean, I just, we all know what I'm trying to talk about and that's why I'm just going to have the discussion initially about this and get some feedback on it, so are there any other questions from the committee? Uh,
Speaker 25
1:47:32
you want to clothes for your bill? I'm just going to mend it and
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:47:37
try and run it back and have a good discussion. I appreciate it anybody's got any ideas after
this, let me know, but the, the senator Dodson example of the DMV worker is, is not even close to what I'll give you another
example since you brought that up, but like selling a good or commodity to an individual. Or business that had been awarded a contract. I mean, I sell cars to anybody who pulls up on the lot. My salespeople are not going to know who's been awarded a contract or who hasn't, and whether or not we can sell them a car, you know, in that situation, you would not know when
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:48:08
you're selling general things out, what it would be is if they came to you and all of a
sudden you gave up a special provision of allowing Use car dealers to make provision with the state and you leave the state and all of a sudden 100, you know, 87 cars go through your business. Well, then, yeah, but if you're going into that news, that's not what it's about. Put it knowingly
Speaker 235
1:48:29
in there, exactly. Uh, there we go. We got the lawyer on here for you are pulling it down for now? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll mend it, so OK, thank you. What's up next?
14. Senator Hammer, are you ready to run Senate Bill 414. Come to the end of the table, identify yourself and you're recognized to present Senate Bill 414. Oh, absolutely. Bring up a witness. Introduce yourself for the record, and you'll be recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:49:15
Chairman Kim Hammer State Senator District 16. Lindsay French Association
Speaker 253
1:49:21
of Arkansas Counties. You all are recognized to present that Bill
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:49:26
414 for expediency purposes, can I let Lindsay discuss? I think we'll get to the point quicker. however
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:49:34
you want to do it, it's good with me. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is a bill by the County Clerks Association, um, Currently, they are required to notify county election commissioners by registered
mail? Uh, within 30 days. And uh There's really no, no reason for that. So they're first, we're just changing that to notify the commissioners in writing. Um, section 2, they are also required to use registered mail to notify county, uh, party. Committees, um, that they're certified list of candidates is due. So we are changing that to certified mail restricted delivery unless the party agrees
to receive it by email, in which case they could do it by email. Really registered mail is only used for stocks and bonds, and it's very expensive, so this is just a, a cost savings and some old language to to be updated to a more current process. Thank you. Any questions from the committee, Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I just want to tell you, Senator Hammer, you brought an election-related bill.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:37
It's a good bill, and I look forward to voting for it. You put that in writing? I appreciate that very much. I
Speaker 96
1:50:47
wanted to get that on the record for you, sir.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:50:49
Thank you. I think, uh, that's the explanation questions. Senator Clark, I am now suspect of
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:50:55
the bill. Thank you. Any other questions for Sandra Hammer. Senator
Hammer, you recognized clothes for your bill. Close for the bill. Make a motion to pass. I have a motion in a second, do pass. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any
Unknown speaker
1:51:21
opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes. Blake Johnson. Oh, I wasn't there's nothing else. Praise the Lord. Uh, we are adjourned. I
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Scott Flippo
SB353 Hester TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE DATES FOR ELECTIONS; TO AMEND THE DATES OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS, SCHOOL ELECTIONS, AND CERTAIN SPECIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE FISCAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1988.
SB357 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO APPLY MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT TO A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SERVICE TIME FOR ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL CALCULATION.
SB414 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE ELECTION LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING NOTICES RELATED TO THE ELECTION PROCESS.
SB409 B. Johnson TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS BY FINANCIAL SERVICES PROVIDERS; AND TO ESTABLISH THE FARMER PROTECTION ACT.
SB410 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR FORMER STATE EMPLOYEES AND FORMER ELECTED OFFICIALS.
HB1548 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS; AND TO ABOLISH THE DATA AND TRANSPARENCY PANEL.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Mar 13, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 23
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 39
Speaker 56
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 108
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 122
Speaker 85
Speaker 147
Speaker 150
Speaker 152
Speaker 153
Speaker 96
Speaker 162
Speaker 149
Speaker 166
Speaker 163
Speaker 181
Speaker 55
Speaker 165
Speaker 195
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 36
Speaker 212
Speaker 217
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 207
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 241
Speaker 25
Speaker 235
Speaker 253
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified