State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (39)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB353
Act 405
· 4 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
· 4 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB357 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO APPLY MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB357 is now Act 572 |
|
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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
All right. Chair sees a quorum. We're going to call this meeting to order. First up, Senator Hester. Before you go, Senator Hester, does this in any way affect local control, what we're getting ready to do. This
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
0:28
actually gives local control back. Interesting. Well, why are
you running it then? Okay. Little inside joke. So with that, I do believe that we do need a motion to expunge the vote by which SB 353 passed. Got a motion and a
second for Senator Tucker. Motion for Senator Hammer. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? All right. Votes have
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
0:55
been expunged. Now, you're recognized. Members, so I had an amendment on the floor, but the first amendment I brought to you guys on this bill was to also move school board elections into March with a primary vote.
What I did at that time was I removed them from November, and I have since learned that some districts prefer to keep them in November and some in March. So an 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 like to do 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. Seeing no questions. You're getting lucky, Senator Hester. This group always has a question. All right. So do we have anybody to sign up
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:52
to speak for or against this? Senator, you're recognized to close. Thank you, members. This is the bill we've had that makes the primary dates consistent, whether it's a presidential year or non-presidential year. With that, I would appreciate it. I'd close. I'd appreciate a good vote. All
right. Got a motion to do pass. Senator Dodson. Second from Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes.
All right. Next up, Senator Hickey. Senator Hickey, you're going to be running, is it SB 82? No. 395. Can
you run 82? I thought you were here to do the
used car sales tax. I move for immediate consideration. All right, there is a handout with this members and staff
spouting that around. All right, again, that's Senate Bill 395. All right. Senator, if you'll
introduce yourself and you'd be recognized to present your
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:51
bill. All right, Jimmy Higgy, Arkansas Senate. The handout, members, I apologize. I've been scratching on that a little bit, but this morning I had the idea that it might be good if you all had this in front of you. What this is, it involves our statement of financial interest, which I know 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 a thousand dollars, you have to list it. So what this bill does is it leaves that $1,000 on there. But then what it
also does is it goes one step further, and it says that if you have income of $12,500, that you actually have to check that box. What I'm doing is taking off the $12,500, and if you just have income over $1,000 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 $12,500 or $105,000. 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 another word for nosy will be, but really I see no benefit to having that on there other than that people want to go see, you know, either how much cash you have or you don't have or what your holdings are and what they equal so i'm going to be making this stouter we 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 12-5 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 not follow the law or try to be crooked in any way shape or fashion what I'm gonna say to you all is they're
gonna 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 three of the handout I give you under business or holdings. If you look right there it says figure 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 filled this out because again that's as of 1231. If some individual had
some holding or something to that nature during the year 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 trying to clean up that point and just say if you've had a holding at any time during the year that that should be reported. So again, I think that was probably unintentional that they put the end of the year and just didn't think that through back in 1988. Also on page two of the
bill, what I've done is tried to go in and list, you know, what 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 going to try to receive some benefit down here
you know more more than likely what they would do is use some instruments such as a option to be able to leverage those more fully to be to have more of a benefit so I wanted to make sure that I defined that any type of futures or options would also be included in that. On page 2, 29 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 to that nature. Just really don't see a reason that you would have to do that. On line 32, what I've also done is it 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 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, 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 12788-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, anybody can do that nowadays with as much 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 to like that make that back out of the thing so that you know there's a little bit more security with
that part okay one thing here I want to do particular notice to is three on page three line six 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 as 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 that 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, that there is businesses or, you know, partnerships or whatever where you can easily have $10, $20 million.
So, you know, 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 explain that. In section two, it's abundance of caution under lines 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 three of the bill, what I've done is actually listed a class A misdemeanor. If any person was to use any of the information that's on this 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. Are there any
Chair
Unverified
11:47
questions from members of the committee? Senator Dotson, you were recognized for a question.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
11:56
- Thank you, 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 dramatic change when you're talking about the breadth of what you're trying to do here. And so this would be a significant increase in reporting. What I don't know for sure is, like, say, for instance,
anything that you hold throughout the year that has a value of $1,000 or more. So if you would have to list that and list that individually. So does that mean that, like, Senator Payton would have to list every single car he sold that had $1,000 or more throughout the year? It was a 1998 GMC. It was over $1,000. Sold that, bought this on this date, sold it on that date, made $200 on it.
Because right now, he has to list what his business does. In total, if it made $1,000 or more, $1,200, $5,000 or more, not the individual holdings throughout the year
unless you hold them at the end of the year. And so, I mean, that's a
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
13:18
dramatic change. That's, if I may, whenever. Yeah. So, first of all, let me be very specific on the business or holdings. It's actually any holding. The $1,000 would be on the income part, so that part would be any holding.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
13:33
But if you'll look on page. That's only in relation to the income received, like you had to make a profit on it. So, for instance, like 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 an option contract controls 100 shares of stock. I mean, you might buy an option contract for $100 that didn't hit that threshold, but it controlled Apple stock that's trading at $200 a share times 100.
That's significantly more than $1,000 worth of holdings. No, sir, I'm
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
14:09
sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I must have not explained as well. Under your sources of income on page two, and that's why I wanted
this form, that more than $1,000 is going to stay in place there. Over on 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 or holdings, you know, or stocks, bonds, futures, those type of individual type holdings as far as investments go.
If you'll look on the statement of financial interest that I passed out for you on page three, 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 individual that individual investment or holdings that's already in there and this even goes and says
individual stock holdings should be disclosed so what i have done is i have listed 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 stock but really should be stocks bonds and all those
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
15:37
financial type investments right there. So and then I guess Just to listing the, like you said, like the stock ticker or something like that, if it's Apple or something, you're listing that individual.
But if you bought an option, is that like the entire sentence of that option where it says Apple, strike price, dollar foot? Yes, you would just list that. Or would it be the underlying stock? No, it would actually be the symbol that was used for that. So you'd have to keep track of every single thing that might have ticked above $1,000 while you owned it, even if it was a penny more than $1,000. It's
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
16:18
actually going to be, on the holding, it's going to be everything.
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 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 an option or be it a futures contract,
that should be listed. If you held it at the end of the year. That's correct. Now,
that is something, of course, I think that's a flaw in here that would allow members to get
around that because let's just say if you knew, and again, it has to be proven, but if you knew that some individual company was going to benefit greatly from something
and you went in and bought a stock in February or an option and then sold that thing in June,
you would never have to report it and what what unless you made
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
17:35
money on it if you didn't make more than if you made more than a thousand dollars
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
17:40
you have to report it as income no sir what you'd have to report it back
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
17:46
on page on a different here it's not it's just if 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 $1,000 off that holding or transaction, then you would report it if it was
above $1,000 or above $12,500. So if you did well. That's under Section 3. Under your proposal, you'd have to report that you held it during that year, even if you got
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
18:17
a loss on it. There's nothing. I think we're
convoluting it. You're correct under Section 3. You would have to list the income if you had income 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,
Speaker 56
18:37
you're supposed to list it. I'll let somebody else ask
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
18:44
questions. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear on that, but
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:49
I think. Senator Hammer, I'll let you 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. I guess that's what I'm calling page three. Yeah, page three. And maybe this is not anything to deal with yours,
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 do they want the physical location of
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
19:19
business because both are different? Do you address that in there? That's where, as far as like the individual security, be it as Senator Dotson 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 itself, it addresses that in here
that you would just have to list that ticker symbol and you will not
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:48
have to list that address any longer. Okay. But 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. Okay. Second thing is the stock issue, and I'll give you a real-life example. 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 J.P. Morgan or whoever it is as holding, which clarify that, would you?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
20:26
You're talking about under the current law? Well, no, as proposed under here. Yeah, as long as it's fully managed, 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's an exception. You should be listing them now. So if, so
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:57
under the proposed change, if we have Edward Jones managing our account, all we got to do is list Edward Jones. Under the, if this goes through. Yes, you would
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
21:09
not, yes, 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, you know, I don't want you to buy that, then that, you would still have to list those. Right.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:27
What you're trying to address is insider stock trading. Yes, sir. You got it. Okay. Yep. Just put it out there. That's what you're trying to fix. Yes, sir. 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 form or 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, they'll use it against you. 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, whoever's charged with oversight of this, whether that's Graham over there in 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 think that would be a bad
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
22:17
idea at all. I've also had some members, you know, and I said, well, you run your own bill to do that.
They actually would rather have it in a form too so that they can actually input it. So, you know, they would like to be able to do this electronically and to do it that way also. So 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 way that we could shine it up and correct it somewhat. Yes, sir. Okay. Make sure everybody's fully complying with it
the way that it was intended. Sure. Thanks.
All right. Senator Payton, you recognize your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on page two of the
bill, starting on line 20, 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 won't worry people about whether or not they should list it or not.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:30
Yeah. I mean, I think there's a difference, you know, with investment or
holding as far as from a financial instrument like that. I was just trying to pick those
up because, again, the current one actually even, it only says investment or holding itself. So what I was trying to do was
to narrow those down to the financial instruments is what I was trying to do. I know what you're saying without limitation. I'm just wondering
if we can't go ahead and have an exhaustive list
because the only thing we're excluding are the things specifically mentioned in 2A and B. So without limitation means everything else. I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
24:15
think that 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
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
24:33
was based, but this is based upon the act.
So this form was developed based upon the act.
Well, 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 and that has a fair market value of over $12,500 as of the last day of the previous calendar year. It's kind of to understand what you're doing there with eliminating the last day of the calendar year, prevent a sell-off, but I don't know. I think we should have
a specific list instead of leaving it up to the without limitation there.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
25:13
It's hard for me to start doing that because what we're going to get into, especially if you start with covered calls, you're going to start talking about straddles, you're going to start talking about spreads. I mean, there's going to be just, there could literally be hundreds of them. Would Bitcoin be part of the list
or not? I would say so, yes, sir. Okay, would 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
25:46
And again, I'm going to say yes, sir, but I'm also going to say that that's currently an investment. Yeah,
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
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
26:01
not. It's just like the Bitcoin that you brought up. If I didn't say without limitation and somebody was
somehow trading in that and it wasn't out there,
I don't know how to fully encompass everything. I know exactly what you're saying.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
26:16
I'd argue it's not a currency and they own stock in Bitcoin. But anyway, I'd be
much more comfortable either have an exhaustive list or just don't say does not include it. I mean, you know, just respectfully,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
26:32
I do not know how to do an exhaustive list.
The number that that could possibly be could be pages, you know, under what would be considered a financial investment. Because like I say, even if you just took, because the futures
contracts, at that point, we'd have to do commodities, oil, corn, soy, I mean, just all types.
So when you have without limitation, you have all of that that can be dreamed up, and then this becomes
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
27:06
a book instead of a form you fill out. Again, I'm going to say that it's already that way. Or let me rephrase,
it should be that way if we're going to fully comply. Yeah, I mean, I already have to copy page two or three 10 times
Chair
Unverified
27:20
in order to attach all of them. Yes, sir, that's what I'm doing also. Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
27:28
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm personally good with that limitation language because of the reasons you
discussed, Senator Hickey, but also because we just don't know 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 in two 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 the without limitation language and think it's the best way to do it. My concern is more about, 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 $1,000 threshold and a $12,500 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. as you rightly pointed out, that 12,500 number probably should be updated based on how much time has passed. 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. Sure. And I thought
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
29:00
this through, and I understand a lot of what I'm doing here today, though, is trying to be proactive
that the public won't misconstrue that we're trying to hide something. So here's my thing. Like I say, and I didn't, I don't know what the thousand 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, 375 if you use the 12-5 number. Of course, the thousand would probably be right under 3,000 now. The problem, if I
changed that, the problem that if I changed it 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. Yeah, I think that's true. Yes. So that was my, 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 misconstrued on
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:59
the members. Yeah, I think that's fair. So I guess the question then is why not
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
30:05
just leave the 12-5 in? Just because it's, there's something to, you know, if you, if a member were to have
40 investments that are over 12-5, you know, if you're listing 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 things of that nature, you know, because if somebody's listing 40, 50, 60 individual stocks they have and they're checking
a box, it's 12 or 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 and 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 as straight up as I can kind of say
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:05
that. So on that point on your language at the top of page three of the bill. Yes sir.
Is that that subdivision D there on lines three to five? Does
that include banks where you just have like a checking or savings account? Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. And it could be because that's never made sense to me. I agree. Where we have investments, yeah, I understand that. But where you have a checking account, whether it's at Bank of America or wherever. Okay. And also, I think the stock ticker 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. Sure, it takes hours. Yeah, I think that's a good change. If we were, I personally, I think I would prefer to leave the thresholds. If we took the thresholds out, then it addresses my last question. The one perk of having it be the last, I totally understand and agree with your concern about selling off stocks on December 30th.
But the one point of clarity that that provided was that we had a day of the year to determine what the value was, and that's what we were reported on. But if you take the value out, then it's no longer relevant. It's just if you owned one cent worth of that investment at any point in the year, then it would
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
32:40
of abundance of caution, I'll be honest, I hadn't even, all my personal stuff, 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 sold it,
I go ahead and list it and I make a footnote down there that would say
that I've held this investment during the year because I just wanted to over-report. Okay. I think we've obviously
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
33:04
approached this in a very thoughtful way, and I think there's some good changes. I personally prefer to keep the thresholds in. that's just that's just my position on that answer i understand
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
33:14
all right senator clark you're recognized for a question
secretary i appreciate your work on this uh my 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 okay
well see now i know that okay 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 but but beyond that i don't have a clue uh the and let me is there anything Anywhere on this form where I list cash that I have? Money in bank accounts? That would still, I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
34:18
mean, right now, what you're doing, you're supposed to list it under disinvestment or holding, yes, sir?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
34:26
So that you're supposed to be. But it's an aggregate number that
it's over. A thousand or 12.5. 12.5, okay. Well, a thousand
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
34:41
also. so is that if that's 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 a thousand of
course you're checking the thousand box if you have uh 12 5 in there or 13 thousand dollars you're
checking that box you're still going to list it you're just not going to you're just not going to check the box of how much you have in there
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:11
and if you have cash buried in the backyard is it
separate from the bank account I can't answer that one well 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 may be in
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
35:30
the drawer, but... I don't know if that's a holding. I don't know.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:34
Well, if that's not a holding, then how is a gold bar or silver a holding? That's
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
35:41
our issue with this because, again, on the way it's currently due, that
holding is there now. So if that holding is something you would be doing now, then that would be something that you
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:55
would need to continue to do. So, but in all of this, if it's not clear, then when you're investigated, you're guilty.
That's why the whole thing, the whole form itself, because, you know, I don't have any Bitcoin. I don't have a bunch of money buried in the backyard, but I might
have gold bars or some just in case the economy collapses that I can and the dollar is no good that I can buy something. So what if instead of investing in gold bars, I buy bunches of ammunition?
Would you list that now? I don't know. I'm telling you, you and I are two entirely different people. And I come here as a country boy, you know, without a whole lot. And I just, I want to be sure that I'm doing what I'm supposed to do. But how about like a hobby? You know, if it says over $12,500, that's clear, okay? But if you've got a hobby that somebody that might be producing $1,000 and might not,
You know, now that becomes confusion. And again, I understand what you're trying to do. I'd rather it said 30 than nothing. 12, 5, 30, I'd take either one of those. See, I wouldn't, just
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
37:39
to be honest with you, 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 trying to report less on the dollar amount.
Although this was 1988, and those inflation-adjusted numbers may jump up to that, they would automatically construe that. Another deal is it would also, from the security standpoint that I was talking about, But then if somebody had 33,000 in 30 accounts, it's going to be or more, because it says or 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
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
38:25
more apt to focus in on you. Okay. I'm trying to be careful how I'm saying that. And
again, I understand what you're trying to do, support what you're trying to do, but And I'm telling you, I'm one of those that just, nothing else here scares
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
38:45
me except that I fill out one of these forms wrong because I'm ignorant. Well, 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'll be honest with you, 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 in 1988, and I'm just trying to clean it
up the best that I can. Thank you, Senator. Yes, sir.
Senator Payton, then Senator Hamlin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So back to the bill on page two, line nine. The current law says the name and address of every business in which the public servant has an investment or holding.
Over $1,000. It specifically says business. It's not just talking about assets or bank accounts where you have a checking account or a savings account. So that's where the list, without limitation, 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 they're being mined and royalties paid. So under 4A, which affects everything below it there where you've got the list of things, it's specifically talking about a business, an investment or holding in a business. So, I don't see why we can't have an exhaustive list, but I definitely would like to challenge the idea that that has to do with assets, whether it be physical gold or checking accounts or bank accounts or livestock or even real estate, unless it's held in
a business that I have invested in.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
40:53
Am I reading that wrong? No, sir, and I'm not changing that. Again,
if you see, they mark through the holding of over $1,000, 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 that
that's in the current. I agree. Yeah. That's why I came with the question about the list at the beginning, because it would seem that we're including things in the list that would not be a business holding or investment.
and the list 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?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
41:46
I was just trying to list what I thought was a investment, a financial investment
holding. Yes, sir. Because if you look at the form, again, it does say individual stock holdings.
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 of those and also the income off of each and
every one of those. if you're receiving dividend income or some of them are you're getting distributions from or
whatever. I was just troubled by yours and Senator Clark's conversation there.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
42:34
Have we seemed to be getting off? I think you should be troubled by the current one, just to be honest with
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
42:42
you. And like Senator Clark, I have been.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
42:44
Yeah, well, I think, and that was my attempt right here, and that's just, 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 there may be the practice, again, on the fully managed retirement thing. We may have taken that, well, everybody's kind of talked, they 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. Thank you. Yes, sir. All right, Senator Hammer, you're
Chair
Unverified
43:16
recognized for a question, sir. At some point, I'd like to get Graham to the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:21
table, please. Yeah, Graham, do you want to? You thought you
Speaker 146
43:23
were going to get out of here without getting caught up here, huh?
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:33
And while he's coming, Senator Hickey, my question is going to be on page three for you,
Speaker 147
43:37
and then I'm going to direct it to Graham. Do you want to wait and let him introduce himself? Yeah, let me just get Graham
Speaker 150
43:52
up here and just let him introduce himself and then
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
43:54
let you proceed. Graham Sloan, Director of the Arc Society at the Excavation. Senator Haber, go ahead. Thank you. A couple quick ones. I want you to clarify something back on Senator Clark's questions. It comes at the end of the year
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:04
and I'm supposed to fill 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
Speaker 152
44:23
the end of the year? Senator, not only do 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. And on mine, I do list any bank that I've got more than $1,000 in.
I don't give the exact amount, but if I had a savings account at a particular bank, it was worth more than $1,000 or even a checking account more than $1,000, I would list that on mine. I think if you go back to Senator Hickey's correct, this was created by Initiated Act I 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.
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 cause you to want to 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 I think you, you know, I do list it on mine, but my, you know, I mean, I'm a when in doubt disclosed
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
45:43
person. So on the, where on the current form, as it's currently listed?
Speaker 152
45:49
The business or holding. It's a business in which you have a holding of more
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
45:54
than a thousand. So my personal checking account is considered a business? It's a holding in a
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:04
business. Okay, then the second question. Go down to on page 3, line 24 through 27. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of information in a statement of financial interest if he or she purposely uses the information contained wherein a
statement of financial interest under the sub chapter
to commit a criminal against. What's
Speaker 152
46:31
your interpretation of what that means? Well, it's new language, and the commission would be the one whose interpretation counted more than mine. But I would think if you somehow gleaned information and committed some kind of fraud, or if you looked at
Speaker 153
46:53
it and thought, boy, I could kidnap their dog
and they'd have plenty of money to
Speaker 152
47:01
pay a ransom, it would be if somebody took that information on an SFI and used it to commit a crime against you, that they'd be
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
47:13
liable for that. Would that include doing something because I don't think anybody in this table, anybody in this room is doing anything wrong.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:22
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 why, the question-- - Let me weigh
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
47:34
in if that's okay, Senator Hamer.
That right there would be if Jimmy Hickey, I hate to even
say this, looked at Senator Hamer's statement of financial interest And I seen that you had that over $1,000 in your checking account at 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, if somebody kidnaps a son or daughter or granddaughter or whatever, of course, that would already be covered under our criminal code. So the reason I did that was just to add a little bit more teeth that if somebody was to get in there and use some fraud against you that way. So that is for the person that would be using that against you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:32
or would be trying to get something from you. Well, 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 count they're going 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 I want to use that information to manipulate you or to 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 say yes. Senator Tucker
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
49:13
might be more wise on that part than me. Sorry to put you on that spot, but you're our local attorney. Would you
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:23
repeat the question, 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 doing that right down to the personal amount of money that we have in our personal checking account, if that's going to 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
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
49:56
other circumstances other than an extreme case like kidnapping or something like that? I don't have a problem
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
50:04
with adding their criminal provision in this bill,
but I think any conduct where you're taking someone's information and you hack a bank or whatever, I mean, whatever example you want to come up with is already going to be covered under their criminal code. So this is almost, you know, we debated a couple sessions ago about, I'm drawing a blank on it, But, you know, where crimes are targeted against particular people, forms of people, hate crimes.
This is almost like a hate crimes provision for politicians. But I know that's, I'm joking mostly. But that's, but I think, because the argument against the hate crimes law was all this stuff is already against the law. And I think 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 already be illegal. Well, then to that point, the severity of
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:06
which it could rise to 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 and be done. Graham, you're often put in a position where you're asked or in your investigation, if this law goes through and this change has happened, which I don't necessarily disagree with the changes, I'm just trying to be thorough in 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 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 a power that you're going to hold within your own?
Speaker 162
52:08
As a staff member of the Ethics Commission,
Speaker 152
52:12
I get asked my opinion about things. I give informal advice, staff's informal advice in binding on the commission, I think it would, but a citizen can request an advisory opinion, which is binding written advice, 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 going to get in trouble if I do that? And then if the commission just issues a statement of general applicability, then that, historically, I think that needs to be a rule that, you know, that as far as just, I mean, we have rulemaking authority. If we were making a set of rules to implement and administer a particular section of the code and it needed to be fleshed out a little bit, you know, there's an undefined term, you know, we by rule, if necessary,
would define that term, but if it's just, hey, here's how this, everybody out there, here's how this is going to work, that's not an advisory opinion, but if it's, you know, the advisory opinion is 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're they've got you know their commission's bound by that and couldn't later
Speaker 153
53:47
say that you know that you shouldn't have done that if
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
53:51
they said it was okay okay well and I mean I call you quite frequently I'm sure
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
53:58
you get a lot calls from everybody 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
Speaker 150
54:13
before it gets to that level but well We do
Speaker 152
54:18
have a set of instructions that goes along with the statement of financial interest.
It sets forth the commission's interpretation of here's what this means. So you would update that with this if this
Speaker 149
54:31
goes through then? Right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hammer. Senator Payton,
Senator Dotson, and Senator Clark. Senator 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 a checking or savings account in a federally insured state chartered bank
is somehow a business interest in that bank, I mean, that is like extremely broad. And that's like saying because my best friend has rent houses that I have a financial interest in being a landlord. I mean, I may know the bank president and I may like the ladies at the bank, but that doesn't mean I have a financial interest in the bank because I have a checking or savings account there.
What part of the law are you using to arrive at that conclusion? Sir, it would
Speaker 153
55:34
be a holding in that business. Okay, a
holding with no opportunity to gain profit from it. I only have what I put in. Well, if it was
Speaker 166
55:46
a savings account, if it was a certificate of deposit. Which is
the same interest 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.
Speaker 153
56:01
Right. I guess if you've got money in that bank, just, you know, if it does well, you know, your money's doing well, but then, you know, more particularly if it's not doing well, then you're not. So if I've got cattle in my pasture,
I've got financial interest in the local cattle auction? No, I wouldn't
Speaker 153
56:24
say that. In the cattle market? No, to me the examples that you were asking, as far as if you had gold,
Speaker 152
56:33
that's not an investment in the business. It's a chunk of metal that I'm sitting here holding. Well, what if I put
it in the safety deposit bank at the bank, safety
deposit box? Now I've got an interest in that bank, whether it burns or not. Yeah, I would.
Speaker 150
56:50
Whether 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. 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 conclusion is right. Right. That having deposits in a bank is a financial interest in that business, a holding. A holding in that business. Okay, 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 does that mean I also have to list the fact that that business has deposits in a bank?
Speaker 163
57:37
No, I think sources of income and holdings of a business, the law says you don't have to list those. Okay, so here's
my example then. If I wholly own 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
Speaker 153
58:06
my personal account? I can see that that argument could be made or that's a reasonable conclusion.
I didn't write the initiated act. And I don't think
the initiated act intended for us to list our cash assets either, but I appreciate your
opinion. Thanks. All right. Senator Dotson, Senator
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
58:28
Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple things back to that page three, section three, where you're talking about crimes committed against
or the use of information against a person. - That's my part. - That's yours? - Yes, sir. - 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 mean, I don't know either, but that's the language here, with that.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
59:18
- Commiss the offense of unlawful use. I mean, I don't know that that's an unlawful use. I mean, I look at unlawful use as coercive, like say, if somebody hacked in there and stole
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
59:34
your money, that was my, that's the intent of that. And then back to page
two, toward 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 subdivision D3A
of the section of more than 12.5. Yes, sir. Then under B2, it says, however, this 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 derives income. So you're striking through
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:00:16
all of that language. But that's as it relates to the 12-5, because you're going to
have done it under either the 1,000 or the holding itself.
That was relating to that you had to do it for the 12-5. It's going
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:00:34
1,000. What I'm saying, though, 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 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, 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 this. That was my intent. And that was trying because it
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:01:24
was back to my original. So it would be seven, excuse me, I didn't mean to talk over you.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:01:31
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 in that business but
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:01:57
it's a thousand now so if it's if it was just 700 again I was trying to be you know well but
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:02:05
I'm saying the the gross income is what you have to report now so it's like your business you derived an income of $1,000 or $12,500 or more based off your business collectively as a whole, you know, for lack of a better word, sorry, Senator Payton, the car business, happen to be the one I'm staring at. A good example for all of life. But, yeah, car business is a good example. But that is a collective business that someone owns.
individually, this would make them have to list every single car, I think, on this, the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:02:45
way it's written. Well, I don't think it's as written. 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 $1,000. 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. $750 or
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:03:05
$500. Because now it's $1,000. I'm not changing that part.
If you had a holding of under $1,000, you don't have to list that. That was correct. And I tried to be specific whenever I was going to do that. If
you have a penny on up, any holding, whether you made money off of it or you didn't make any money off of it, which is why I'm saying it's a hold. Now, 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 it's 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, 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 we're
Speaker 152
1:03:58
mixing two different sections the section three of the form is for sources of income and uh
Speaker 153
1:04:03
and i don't think that if you you know if you own the car that's not that's not a source of income uh and and
Speaker 152
1:04:13
then you know my car titled in my name
in an investment or holding in a business. And so anything that, you know, my house doesn't go on there, my car doesn't go on there. 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. And then, but, you know, that it might be a business or a holding, you know, Sloan Motors, Inc., would be on there as a holding of, you know, under current law, more than $1,000 under Senator Hickey's version.
It wouldn't matter as long as, you know, if it was a business or holding there, $1,000 wouldn't matter about it going on there. But that language that you were referring to that's being stricken is talking about sources of income, not businesses or holdings.
Speaker 150
1:05:07
All right. Thank you. All right. Senator Clark, then Senator
Hammer. Senator Clark. Mr. Sloan, if I
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:05:23
have stock in a bank, that's something we want to know, right?
And if I have stock in Walmart, that's something we want to know. Correct. So
the purpose of this law is to know that if I have Walmart stock and I'm voting for all of Walmart's bills. Is
Speaker 152
1:05:47
that the... I think that it would serve to alert the public to a conflict of interest and you have to remember that this form isn't filled out solely by 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
or her, then the public wouldn't, you know, hey, this guy's got, you know, a million dollars in Walmart
Speaker 165
1:06:10
stock They would know the amount, but
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:06:13
they would just know he owns stock in Walmart. So what
is the interest of cash in a checking account, which you have to have to do business? I mean, it's part of currency. How about cash in PayPal?
I don't keep anything in PayPal but I have to have PayPal to do business online
but there could be $400 or $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 it's simply a way to
make business more efficient. I have no investment in the bank. You may not even like the bank. In fact, when I look and see how much I got in the checking account and it's too much,
I'm thinking I'm a really stupid businessman because the government's printing money and that money's becoming worth less
Speaker 150
1:07:20
while I'm looking at it. So really all I can
Speaker 153
1:07:29
explain or offer is that the current interpretation of the SFI statute 218701 would require somebody to list a bank.
Certainly if they own stock in it worth more than $1,000, they put it on there. And then if you had more than $1,000, if you've got a certificate deposit down there, I've got checking accounts in three banks. If it's more than $1,000, then I put it on there. What if I have that same cash at home? Then
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:08:01
does it go in the form somewhere? No, it's not. It's not a holding
Speaker 152
1:08:05
in a business. Okay. It's just a holding in
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:08:10
my house. Okay. What if I collect motorcycles and I have 10 motorcycles?
Speaker 153
1:08:14
Has that got to go down somewhere? Not unless and until it was held by a business. If they're all titled in
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:08:23
your name, no. If they're all titled in my name? That's helpful, believe it or not. This is very confusing. that I've got to list money in the bank if it's in
the checking account, but I'm assuming if it's in the safety deposit,
no. I would agree. You can see how that's confusing to a country boy.
The people that are working in finance every day probably don't
Speaker 195
1:08:52
have a problem with it. Right. Like I said, I'm a
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:08:56
when in doubt, disclosed person. Okay, 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 going to be there forever. Sure. 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, etc.,
you didn't report PayPal, 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
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:09:45
so I understand, the intent behind listing the money in your personal checking account on the form, and you're taking a position that that rises to the level of being a holding correct
Speaker 166
1:09:56
yes there's it's in writing that that you would need to list
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:09:59
that okay yeah somebody sent it but 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 it, either one of y'all. As far as the new language, I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:10:25
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 year that you couldn't bypass the reporting of it because 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 so
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:59
to disclose a little further on that particular part.
Okay, 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 30 or December 31st, is that correct? Yes. That's right. So it's at that point in time. What keeps anybody, you're going to look at it as of December 31st, not July 22nd or anything like that. You're going to be looking at, it is to be reported as of what is the last day of the calendar year
proceeding, correct? That's what it says. And where is the definition of holding in the language? You know,
Speaker 153
1:11:49
I would have to look at the statute. I know it's not in front of me, but source of income, income is defined, it's broadly defined, and then I don't know if there is a .
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:06
Do you think it would be beneficial to have 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 a holder, 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, it's a good
Speaker 150
1:12:30
idea to put one in there. I'll leave that up, Senator
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:35
Hickey, whether you want to put in this one
or we ought to have that discussion to clear that up. Thank
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:12:49
you. All right. - Senator Clark. - And I'm not sure if Senator Hickey's bill changes this at all, but I
listed a hobby this last time as a business. As a business, it's lost money,
but because that I think at some point it could be a business, and at some point, as a state senator, if they're going to come after anybody, it'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 $1,000 in, and I didn't, I actually got minus dollars.
Can that be used against you that you said you made over $1,000 and then come back? Well, you said you made over $1,000. Well, no, 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 Graham and Senator Hickey and Senator Clark and Senator Hammer and Senator Flippo and everybody else in this room looks at this bill and 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, may I close?
Chair
Unverified
1:14:44
You are recognizing closer to your bill. I appreciate you, Chairman Flippo. Okay, members, this is getting
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:14:53
a lot of my point across. The thing is, is this initiated act was put on by the people. 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 ourself 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 been dealt his hand with this initiated act in 1988, and they tried to maneuver through the thing as good as they can. All my bill is doing is trying to correct some of what I would consider the, and I'm going to call them agrecious or arbitrary, the numbers are arbitrary, 1,000, 12, 5.
And with this, you know, in 1988, I don't know that most people could go in and even pull up the statement of financial interest. 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 off the amounts as far as from the income side, other than the $1,000, and then to 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 use 10 pages and mark whether he has $1,000 or $1,200, $5,000 on an entirety of of investments that he that he may have or somebody else may have don't mean to use you senator payton so 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
wish 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 i that's the reason it's late in the session i've had this idea now for about two 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
uh i'm not going to bring it back either way you're a
good man sir thank you sir thank you sir all right senator
Hickey's closed for his bill. I have a motion. Senator Payton, we have a motion.
Got a motion due passed by Senator Sullivan. Second by Senator Hammer. Discussion on the motion.
Senator Payton. Thank you. And thank you, Senator Hickey, for bringing this and your work on it. And I totally agree with the thousand twelve five 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 so I'm going to have to vote
against it, but I appreciate you bringing it. Thank you, Senator Payton. All right, members, any more discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed?
No. Sorry, Senator, didn't hear five votes. All right, next up, Representative Meeks, been patiently waiting out there.
Yeah, Senator Bryant, you're running this, so you come up on. All right, if
y'all introduce yourself, I think. Let's see here. You are running House Bill 1548? 1548. All right, Mr. Chairman. All
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:19:16
right. Introduce yourselves, you'll be recognized, proceed. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, this is my first trip down to the Senate for this session. Representative Stephen 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, we do have our chief privacy officer, our data officer, and our newly appointed director of DIS with us. What 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, 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 was 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, how we could make business cases for the efficient use of that data. So that has actually been completed. So now we are looking to move to the second phase of that, is implementing using that data for the benefit of the citizens and also for the agencies.
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 kind of the policy arm, we're going to switch from that to allowing each 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 and each of the agencies who is that data steward to work with them to implement this data sharing across state government. That's basically what the bill does in a nutshell. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Members, you've heard an
explanation. Are there any questions from the committee? All right.
Seeing no questions, don't have anybody set up to speak for or against this bill.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:22:19
Representative, do you recognize a close? With that, we are closed and would to ask, unless the Senator has enough, and appreciate a
good vote. All right. Got a motion by Senator Sullivan, second by Senator Tucker. No discussion on the motion. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes. All right. Can I get Senator Hill real fast? I told him. Yeah. Your second shot at this, you know, you got to. It's the price you pay for chewing up an hour at the last meeting,
Senator Bryant. 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 can not sink this
Speaker 210
1:23:06
one. All right, Senator 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. All right. You are welcome not to proceed with your bill, Senator Hill. This is the Rickey Hill Senate District 11.
This bill is just pretty simple. It's two ESG bills that we passed two years ago. It basically is just adding the words agriculture producers to it. And that's it. And
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:23:31
I will take any questions you only have.
All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions for the committee? Senator
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:23:38
Dotson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the only question I have is on page one,
line five. Page one, line what? Page one, line five, and then six 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 cannot speak for
Speaker 66
1:24:00
him. Thank you. I have a motion to the proper time. All right. Thank you, Senator. All right. Any other questions from the
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:24:12
committee? Senator Tucker? Senator Tucker, it has not changed since
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:24:15
last two years ago. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding
now 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? Yes, sir. Okay. Well, 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, Senator, 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 have a better idea of what some of those unintended consequences may be. We should not have any more issues with that.
Speaker 212
1:25:06
All right. Thank you. It's hard to know what he would
Speaker 216
1:25:13
be, Senator Tucker, because, you know, they're unintended, so. All right, any other questions from the committee?
All right, seeing none, don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this bill. Senator, you recognize a close for your bill? I'm closed, and I appreciate it, I do pass.
Senator's closed for the bill, see a motion. I got a motion by Senator Dodson, second by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? All right, seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, congratulations, your bill passes. With
another objection by Senator Tucker. thank you let me get uh senator bryant and then i do now
all right senator bryant recognize yourself or introduce yourself and then we recognize receiving your bill and you were
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:26:10
running uh senate bill 357 yes mr chair joshua bryant Senate District 32. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Presented this bill this past Tuesday, two days ago. The intent of the bill is to allow our veterans that work for the state 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 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 you need to 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.
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, we give incentives for teachers that have been here for a while. So I think broadly the question is, is this a good policy? And how much is the cost to the state and when is enough is enough? And those are very fair questions. I think the benefit 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 three 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 time 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 three years. So with that, I'm happy to answer any more details of the question. I'm on Senate Bill 357. Members, you've heard an explanation.
Any questions from members of the committee? All right. Seeing none. Don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:28:35
this bill. Senator Bryant, you'd be recognized to close. I am
closed for my bill. I'd appreciate a motion and a good vote. All right. Senator's closed. No see a motion. Got a motion by Senator Dotson. Second by Senator Payton. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator.
Your bill passes. All right. Senator King, then Senator Hammer.
Senator King, you're running Senate Bill 410. It's a Brian King
bill, should be sailing through. All right, if you'll introduce yourself, you'll be
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:29:21
recognized to proceed with your bill. - State Senator Brian King,
District 28. - All right, Senator, you're recognized, proceed. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
What Senate Bill 410 is about is a post-disclosure 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, is we've seen the public in an amendment put a constitutional amendment in that we have, well, in statutorily before, I think, I don't know if any of you guys were here, we put a one-year ban on lobbying.
And then in a 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 retitle their self. You also have these situations where you'll see some more things coming out, like these consulting contracts.
You know, you'll find, you're going to find out that over $600 million in consulting contracts have been hired, signed with consultings like Deloitte, McKinsey, 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 themselves lobbyists, but they're calling themselves consultants or account managers or whatever, this would say, you know, I know Senator Clark's in the flooring business, you know, Senator Payton's in the automotive industry. If you're not doing anything, like if 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 whack-a-mole where you could ban lobbying for two years. Well, now you're a consultant. Well, what are you now? An account manager, errand boy, whatever you want to call yourself. And you literally have no reporting at all. You're 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 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 brother as I did my four years out, you don't have to report anything. So like I said, I keep saying this, this thing that we pass a two-year ban on lobbying out there,
clearly the voters told us, okay, no lobbying. 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 don't know what else to do other than the post-reporting. All right, members, you've heard an
Chair
Unverified
1:32:57
explanation of the bill or any questions from the committee. All right, Senator Sullivan, you were recognized for a question.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:33:04
So all they're going to do is disclose that they work for a lobbying firm then? Is that right? Is that what the bill says? Well,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:33:12
I mean, you'll see that they'll have to do filing.
Okay. They're going to disclose and file. Yeah. We're going to set up, you know, the commission will promulgate rules to implement this section of how they're going to do that,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:33:27
how you would report post-report. Okay. And again, I didn't read the bill fully. So 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
1:33:40
Well, I mean, if I go back to farming, I'm obviously not working for a lobbyist, or if Senator Payton goes back to...
But if you work for a Medicaid entity at one time, correct? 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 somebody can look into it. then the commission will develop the rules to deal with that. Okay. And it's pretty clear,
like I said, if, you know, like I said. So we're going to 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.
Thank you, Senator. Senator, you worked 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 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 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 no. We
all know the situations we're talking about and not the situations we're talking about. So I've pretty clearly
Chair
Unverified
1:35:15
outlined that. - All right, Senator Hammer and then Senator Dotson. - Thank you. I don't see
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:35:22
anything punitive in here. What you're looking for is just transparency
that if somebody leaves that and goes to work as described in here, you just want it to be disclosed. Is that correct? - Well, and that's
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:35:33
what we do sometimes. I mean, would I like to have some punitive damages and maybe the commission will meet. This is a starting process. I mean, 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 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 leave and go directly right into lobbying, okay? 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. Okay. 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 left, 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 receiving or contracted with Deloitte. I'm not accusing or anything knowing 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, 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. And I would look at amending this bill. In fact, I may pull it down and amend it and put a sunset clause that after two years it sunsets. And that way you would just see what's out there. I wouldn't, real quick, I wouldn't do two
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:37:19
years. If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do four years to align with what you've got in the bill. Yeah, four years, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're asking for four years. So, okay, thank you.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:37:28
But if, like I said, I mean, this whole thing is, it's crazy that you're not a lobbyist anymore, you're an account manager, or you're a consultant. I mean, my gosh, if it walks like a duck, quats like a
Chair
Unverified
1:37:42
duck, then it's a duck, okay? Senator
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:37:50
Dotson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, so this is pretty all-inclusive of, So if
I'm looking at the definition of former state employee on page two, line three 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'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 them more, They will now have to disclose for the next four years of their life everything that they do if they happen to get a job working in the private sector and that business sells to the state at all. Is that how I'm reading this? No, it's if
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:39:01
you go to work for the DMV and you work 22 years for the DMV and then all of a sudden you go to work for Walmart, 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 lob money or 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 state employee did not even come close to being in that decision making process. So if you look at Andy Allison, for example, Andy Allison left here. He went to work for McKinsey, another consulting company. Look what's happening. McKinsey's getting hired. Okay. These lobbying firms, people leave there, come into government.
Now, all of a sudden, McKinsey gets contracts. As I mentioned Deloitte earlier, they were getting zero under Governor Hutchison. All of a sudden, now Deloitte has got over a half a billion dollars. So if Deloitte, and I have no way of knowing in this thing, did they hire anybody? You know, did, for example, Governor Hutchison, I'm not picking on him, but I'm just using that's one of the most clerics 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 think in state law even, I cannot make a bill. If we wanted to make the grand poobah of agriculture, and then all of a sudden I did everything to a new position and paid a bunch of money, I cannot fill that position because I
Speaker 241
1:40:36
think we have laws right now that I cannot make law and then turn around and fill that position. Okay, Senator. The DMV person is not going to be. Maybe that
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:40:47
example was a bad one. What if someone is working for, they're a 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 employment and that pass has a contract with the state, now they are required to disclose to the ethics department, even if they're not in a position of authority, they're not making any extra money. I mean, they were making $12 an hour over here, and they moved over here because it was $15 an hour or $20.
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 four years of their employment with them. Social workers
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:41:44
are not involved in the decision-making that made the contract agreements with the PASS system. under this it doesn't matter though what's that under this definition you've got here it says
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:41:53
former state employee who works for a state agency so it's all encompassing i can look and
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:41:58
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 four-year sunset on this to try and see that way if it doesn't happen but i mean i can look at uh 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 social worker is not going to be deciding a $16 million contract or things like that. I mean, Andy Allison, for example, whether he went to work for McKinsey later on, another one of these consulting companies. So what we don't want to do is have the situation that we're giving 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, if you had two honest people out here, you wouldn't even really need any laws at all. The right things get done. But also laws are, in effect, 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
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:43:21
to be scrutinized. So, but we're talking about disclosure on private citizens at that point because they 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? I do not know. I
Speaker 241
1:43:38
mean, we have disclosure agreements, but, you know, like I said,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:43:43
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 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 Dotson. Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. I
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:44:25
want to clarify one thing because you've twice now invoked the name of a constituent of mine, Andy Allison. You are not,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:44:33
in your comments, insinuating that he has done anything illegal or anything above the law. I want to bring that out because I want that clarified. No,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:44:43
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. Okay, we've given almost $700 billion in the last two years to the legislature of these consultant contracts. I just wrote an op-ed, I'll be happy to send it to it, 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. Okay. I just want to get that point. Yeah, but no, Mr. Allison, I did not have a bad relationship when he was here. I'm just using that as an example. John Selig, for example, now has a company out there. But I'm just saying the case of what we were deciding today, where billions of dollars in directions can go. Let's say Blue Cross Blue Shield, for example. Say we had the energy bill that deals.
Let's say energy or the electric cooperatives. All of a sudden, we vote on a bill that's closed. And then, yeah, if you go to work for those entities in those things as a lineman, if you go to work for energy as a lineman, Well, no, 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?
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:46:23
Yeah, I think we're all aware of the problem you're seeing. Yeah. 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 fleshed
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:46:35
out. sure that's what i'm doing specifics okay 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 okay so 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 lobbyist 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 we are in there
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:47:17
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
Speaker 25
1:47:28
from the committee uh you want to close for
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:47:32
your bill i'm just going to mend it and try and run it back and have a good discussion i appreciate anybody's got any ideas after this let me know but the the senator dodd's an example the dmv worker is is not even close to
what well and i'll give you another example since you brought that up but like selling a good or commodity to an individual or a business that had been awarded a contract i mean i sell cars to anybody pulls up on the lot my sales people are not going to know yeah who's been awarded a contract or who hasn't
and whether or not we can sell them
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:48:03
a car you know yeah and in that situation you would not know when you're selling general things out what it would be is if they came to you and all sudden you gave up a special provision of allowing used car dealers to make provision with the state and you leave the state and all of a sudden 187 cars go through your business well then yeah but if you're going into that news that's not what it's
Speaker 235
1:48:24
okay so put it knowingly in there exactly uh there we go we got the lawyer on here so you are pulling it down for now yeah yeah i'll amend it so okay
thank you what's up next Senator Hamer, 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.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:49:10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kim Hammer, State Center, District 16.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:49:16
Lindsay French, Association of Arkansas Counties. All I recognize is
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:49:21
to present Senate Bill 414. For expediency purposes, can I let Lindsay discuss it? I think
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:49:29
we'll get to the point quicker. However you want to do it, it's good with me. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a bill by the County Clerks Association. Currently, they are required to notify county election commissioners by registered mail within 30 days.
And there's really no reason for that. So they're first, we're just changing that to notify the commissioners in writing. Section 2, they are also required to use registered mail to notify county party committees that their 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 cost savings and some old language 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 Hamer, you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:32
brought in an election-related bill. It's a good bill, and I look forward to voting for it. Would you put that in
Speaker 66
1:50:40
writing? I appreciate that very much. I wanted to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:42
get that on the record for you, sir.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:50:44
Thank you. I think that's the explanation, unless there are other questions.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:50:50
Senator Clark, I am now suspect of the bill. Thank you.
Any other questions for Senator Hamer? Senator Hamer, you recognize closed for your bill. Closed for the bill. Make a motion. Do pass. I have a motion and a second. Do pass. Any discussion? All
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:51:09
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Your bill passes.
There's nothing else? Praise the Lord. - We are adjourned.
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
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 56
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 104
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 146
Speaker 147
Speaker 150
Speaker 152
Speaker 153
Speaker 162
Speaker 149
Speaker 166
Speaker 163
Speaker 55
Speaker 165
Speaker 195
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 210
Speaker 66
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Speaker 212
Speaker 216
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 241
Speaker 25
Speaker 235
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified