Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (22)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1661
Act 371
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1661 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING STATE DISTRICT COURTS; T…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING STATE DISTRICT COURTS; TO ELIMINATE THE OBLIGATION OF CITIES AND … | Dalby | Notification that HB1661 is now Act 371 |
|
HB1644
Act 370
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT. HB1644 Dalby CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE APPOIN…”
|
CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE APPOINTED AS A SPECIAL JUDGE; TO CLARIFY THAT … | Dalby | Notification that HB1644 is now Act 370 |
|
SB321
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…provided in addition to the testimony given just to recap, Senate Bill 321 has some”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1552
Act 420
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. HB1552 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN INCHOATE OFFENS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN INCHOATE OFFENSES RELATED TO FENTANYL; AND TO ESTABLISH THE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1552 is now Act 420 |
|
HB1563
Act 356
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S FILED A CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THE DECEDENT. HB1563 Gazaway TO ADD A FELONY OFFENSE THAT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINI…”
|
TO ADD A FELONY OFFENSE THAT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF RESTRICTED RELEASE FELONY WITH … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1563 is now Act 356 |
|
HB1579
Act 357
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CEDURES FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2025. HB1579 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEX OFFENDER REASSESSME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEX OFFENDER REASSESSMENT; AND TO PROHIBIT AN INCARCERATED PERSON FROM … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1579 is now Act 357 |
|
HB1593
Act 358
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ATION, OR CONSPIRACY FOR CERTAIN FENTANYL RELATED OFFENSES. HB1593 Wooldridge CONCERNING THE REPORTS MADE TO THE GOVERNOR AND…”
|
CONCERNING THE REPORTS MADE TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY THE BOARD OF … | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1593 is now Act 358 |
|
HB1603
Act 365
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1603 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN CIRCUIT COURT. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1603 is now Act 365 |
|
HB1628
Act 367
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. HB1628 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AN EXTENDED POST-CONVIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AN EXTENDED POST-CONVICTION NO CONTACT ORDER; AND TO ADD SEXUAL … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1628 is now Act 367 |
|
SB145
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Y JAIL- STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-HOME SENTENCING PARTNERSHIPS. SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB342
Act 749
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. | A. Clark | Notification that SB342 is now Act 749 |
|
SB364
Act 750
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD. SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS. | Hester | Notification that SB364 is now Act 750 |
|
SB404
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OMMUNITY CORRECTION; AND TO COMBINE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. SB404 J. Boyd TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANC…”
|
TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATE OF AN … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1624
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TALLMENT PAYMENTS BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN CIRCUIT COURT. HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. | Gazaway | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1641
Act 600
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RT MAY ISSUE AN EXTENDED POST- CONVICTION NO CONTACT ORDER. HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE … | Clowney | Notification that HB1641 is now Act 600 |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB277
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Rice Sen. Matt McKee REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB5
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…STRICT COURT CLERKS. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB1…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
That'll be great. Call this meeting to order, uh, Representative Dalby. Which bill, Madam Chair? Uh, Mr. Chair, I have 2. I have
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
0:40
House Bill 1644 and House Bill 1661, so I'll take up whichever one you want 1st. 1644. We work. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carol Doby, District 100, Texarkana I have with me Kristen Clark from uh AOC sitting here with me so that she can answer any questions that y'all may get into that I may not know, but uh, House Bill 1644. It's really a simple bill. It is um
Allowing retired judges to immediately be able to be appointed a special judges on cases in which there's a conflict, uh, as all of you are well aware of in this committee, Amendment 80 is now in full force and effect, and this bill's clarifying section 13 of Amendment 80. All it's saying is a retired judge may serve as a special judge immediately upon leaving office. With that, I'll be happy to take any questions. So if we don't pass
this, that can't happen right now. There's
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:47
a lag time like a year. It takes a year and they
have to sit out a year. doesn't everyone need a year
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:54
off, Madam Chair. Well, probably, but then again you've got some eager beavers that are ready to keep, keep working for the state. OK. Any questions from
the committee? Harry Nunn, anyone, no one to testify for or against Representative Dalby, you recognize the close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
2:15
committee, I'm close to my bill and I would ask
for a motion to pass. a motion from Senator McKee, second from Senator Ross. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the
motion signified by saying aye, all pose motion carried. Congratulations Represent W, you have passed your bill. Thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
2:33
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Now with the chair's permission, if we may turn to House Bill 1661. Yes ma'am, you'll recognize. Thank you, Carol Darby, District 100, Texarkana. Members of this committee, as you're well aware,
um, for the last 2 years, the joint Senate and House committees on the judiciary, um, had a task force in which we looked into uh the district courts because due to Amendment 80 now all district all judges are now district court judges. We shrunk that down beginning 25 years ago, there were probably 170 or more various judges in these top courts where they were city judges, municipal judges, all of that
now. Now we have 70 district judges, and that's a result of Amendment 80 that was passed by the voters 25 years ago. This particular bill is a result of that two-year study that I think most people on this committee, we have a few new faces, but most people on this committee were involved in that. And just for those who may be new to this committee, we heard from all of the stakeholders we heard from uh AOC,
we heard from the municipal league. We heard from the county association. We heard from the district judges. We had audit involved who did a special reports for us. We heard about security issues and financial issues and all of those things that involve The district judges and At the very outset of this bill, I want you to know that all those stakeholders came to the table and worked on this bill, and everybody is in agreement, which I thought was a pretty
monumental task to get everybody on the same page and we were able to do that. As you will recall, there was a task force report that we filed the first part of October, had like 4 to 5 recommendations, and this bill is a reflection of those recommendations. So very Quickly, I want to tell you what's in this bill because it's fairly lengthy and there may be another bill or two that gets filed that's in companion to this, but There's a couple of things that I think that you'd particularly
be interested in. Under the current law, your cities and counties are still having to pay a portion of the district judge's salaries. Now the district judge's salaries are paid out of the state constitutional officers fund. And there was a leftover portion of the law that was still requiring them to pick up the cost. Well, that, that, that cost could run 30 $35,000 a judge that maybe your cities and counties are picking up. So now,
This, this bill states that all the district, and we're just talking about just the judge's salaries, district court judges' salaries will now all be paid out of the state constitutional officers fund. So it's gonna take the burden off of your counties and cities, which I think is really significant because they are state employees, so let's not tag our counties and cities with that, so that, that's the first point. The second point, we colloquially within our committees during this task
force, we would call it a 50/50 and don't get it mixed up with the raffle that's been talking about what we were talking about courts. I don't want y'all to get into that with me. Um, we're talking about the portion that the courts would be required to send to the state and remember we heard testimony, we had an audit report that talked about the unequalization. There are some courts that sends close to 50% of court costs and fees to the
state and keep 50%, but back in 1996, that was set. Well, for an example, up in Northwest Arkansas in 1996, Farmington was not a very large City Since 1996, we all know what's happened in Northwest Arkansas. There's been an explosion of population in 1996. Farmington by statute was required to send 90% of their court costs and fees to the state. Not fair at this point in time,
obviously. So what we have done in this bill is we are now saying all district courts Well now send 50%. Of their court costs and fees to the state and retain 50%. That sometimes you hear people talk about retained shares, that's what we're talking about. In our committees, we kept just calling on 50/50 courts, but that's what we're doing. Obviously, there's going to be some winners, there's going to be some losers, but remember they're not going to have to pay the district judge's salaries anymore, so it will equal out.
It, it may take a year or two, but it will equal out. That's the second thing. The 3rd thing is the installment fee that we have lots of discussion. You'll recall somebody can't afford to pay their fines, fees, and that, then the court was allowed to put an installment fee on it. It was $10 a month. That, that I know Chairman Clark and I and Chairman Stubberfield prior Chairman Stubberfield. We've had lots of discussions talking about how, you know, that just increases that
b ur den on people who cannot afford that $10 fee. So if you had a $1000 fine that you were having to pay, but you couldn't, maybe you couldn't pay but. 15 or $20 a month, then we're tacking a $10 fee on, so it just would tack on. So what we have done to try to do that and remember that is funding. Um, courtroom automation. Uh, and part of that money goes into the AOJ fund which funds all these other things that the legislature over the years have
thought were important. So what we've done, and I think it's significant, we could not take it away because that's a $14 million hit. We could not take that away because we didn't have the $14 million to to cover that loss of revenue. Taking that $10 fee down to $7.50 and the most that anyone defendant could be Required to pay is $90 so it can't just go on and on and on for years and years and years, $90 is gonna be the most they
can pay, and we've put a sunset on there. I know represented, I mean, excuse me, Chairman Clark and I've talked about sunset clause on that and we have, we sunsetted it to 2031, so that we can find out how this is working and remember the Supreme Court is developing their own case management. systems, which at some point in time all courts will be on it and that'll take hopefully take away that need for that. Those are the big highlights in this
with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions or Ms. Clark can
Speaker 33
9:40
answer questions for me. Senator Johnson, do you reckon? Could you, could you send the summarized version of that presentation Chairman Clark
whenever. I will. I will. Thank you for that, Senator Johnson. I was
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
9:55
going to ask myself. I'm here, I'm, I'm here for my
co-chairman. So we, we put the districts.
We put the paying for the judges' salaries from the state in the
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
10:18
same bill with the Uh Installment fees. Yes, because it's all in the same um statutory scheme of where it all was to begin with, so that's, that's what we're doing. And
look, I'll be the first to admit in a perfect world, You know, we wouldn't be funding our courts off the backs of
people who can't pay in a perfect world. Well, we don't have that perfect world yet, and we don't have that money yet and That was our hope. I think that was all of our hope that we could get to 0 previous Chief Justice Kemp, you know, he was, that was his hope too, we just couldn't get there at this time, but we're making it, we're making an attempt maybe next legislative session we can get there, but this is the best that we could come up with at this
point in time, we've got everybody, all the stakeholders have bought in to this and, and that's where we are.
Chair
Unverified
11:16
Other questions from Central East. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this, uh,
you, I think you had mentioned before Representative Dalby, but um no known opposition. Everyone's feeling good. I'm even looking across at your chamber. I don't know if I've seen very many 100 to 0 votes, and I'm seeing a 100
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
11:38
to 0 on this bill. That's right, and quite frankly, I think in my 9 years, the legislature, that
was my 1st 100 to 0 vote and this
with people gone and no, no, everybody's there. It's really hard to do, but Just to put at ease, there's no known opposition. AOC feels
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
11:55
good about this direction as well. OK, thank you and they've all been at the table over
the last two years and in fact, Senator D's um this really started about 4 years ago, uh, the municipal League reached out wanting to
see what we could do because we knew that Amendment 81st of this year was coming into full force and effect. So we've really been working on it for years. Like I said, all of them. are all on board. Thank you. Thanks for your work on this too.
You bet. Thank you. Other questions? Hearing none, uh, there's no one here to speak against the bill if there is stand up. Uh, Representative Dalby, you are recognized and close for your
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
12:41
bill. I am closed to the bill. I do want to publicly thank the members on this committee that worked over the last 2 years on this because it was sometimes a long days and lots of statistics. This committee, the Senate committee really worked hard. My House committee really worked hard and, and I appreciate all the work from all the other stakeholders in this because I think we've, is it a perfect bill? No, but it's a great start and I'm real proud of
it. So I'm closed and would appreciate a motion to pass and a good vote.
Motion from Senator Johnson, 2nd from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none. all
for the motion signified by saying allposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Dalby. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Yeah. Senator
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
13:25
Tucker, you are recognized for a point of personal privilege.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:48
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to recognize our pages
in the back of the room. Is there
one next to you, Stanley? I can't see him. Y'all stand. Everybody stand up. OK, we're going to start on the far left, Ms. Stella
Speaker 59
14:08
Burbank. Who's who's next to you, Stella? Mary Addison Daniel, come on out,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:13
Mary Addison OK, Mary Addison Daniel, Stella Burbank, y'all, y'all wave when I say your name. Staley Katherine Johnson.
Jimena Harris, Kennedy Peak. Add Anne Rogers. Mary Frances Tucker, Cortland Doster and Cleo Merrick and Amelia Lisaway. Thank you all so much for being here. Would you, I think I.
I. The Centro is your bill a short bill? You've heard it before
Speaker 69
14:58
coming back more information. I think it'll be short. OK, we're just, you know,
we give preference to short bills first, so I will keep it as
short as. Don't lie to us. Central Bright, you're recognized to present what bill? 321 321. That's one didn't pass out
Speaker 35
15:19
of here the other day. I think he's been blaming you,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:24
man. There and Mr. Chair, there is some information I've asked to pass out to the committee. Senator
Bro, would you? Identify yourself for the record and who you have done there presenting with you.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:56
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32 here with introduce yourself.
Speaker 80
16:04
Um, Brenda De Shields, the Bacon County Circuit clerk and representing the Circuit
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:09
Clerks Association. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. I presented this last week and there was a limited amount of members in the chairs and information that needed to be provided in addition to the testimony given just to recap, Senate Bill 321 has some
language, language that is stricken. The reason that it's stricken is because there was already a bill signed by the governor that removed that language, so I just didn't want to pass this bill and overlap that one and have it reinstituted into the into the. but the, the last line of the bill to add the administrative office of the courts for county juror reimbursement as a priority is the mission of Senate Bill 321. The handout that you have, that's the Treasury Department
to pull all the statutes that fund the AOJ. And then all the distributions that leave the AOJ fund, and so if you give just a little bit of uh review that all of our filing fees are collected off the the the courts, of the function of the courts, and so it would be my opinion that our first duty is to the courts. And so if you look at a state court that pulls a jury pool that pulls our citizens in to do their civic duty.
The county reimburses them because they, everybody needs to get paid, and then they submit for reimbursement to the state. And so let's say they they submit 4 $100,000 in the state eventually pays $20,000 of it. That's the, that's the end of it. So as a member of the Quorum Court for 4 years as our clerks associize our circuit clerk came and asked for funding. It was never given, they never asked for jury duty pay because
it's funded by the state, so whenever the state could not pay, it is not eventually reimbursed to the full rates. The county is stuck on the hook to to to basically pay for the jury duty. So that's what this bill does is make sure
that the priority is the jury pay. So with that, I'll hand it over to Mrs. Shields. Thank you.
Speaker 80
18:22
And when we presented last week I was asked about the prosecutors association. I did reach out. They are in favor of the bill, not approved.
Um, so I did want to clarify because I know that question was asked last week. I did also talk with the administrative office of the courts, and they're neutral. They're not opposing it. So those questions were asked, and I just want to make sure I put that out there this morning, um. But I think, um, Senator Bryant has stated that the county's paying the difference of the shortfalls were already being paid out of the administration of justice fund. We're just asking simply to be moved up in priority for our jurors, and I just wanted to say, I sat by a
circuit judge that tells jurors when they come in of how this is a civic duty. They're sacrificing, leaving their children with babysitters, leaving their jobs. It is not required for an employer to pay them. It's required for an employer to allow them to come to jury duty, but they do not have to compensate them. So some are even come with coming without pay. So the quicker we can get them paid, the better it is for their finances. So that's why the county reimburses directly right away. However, the circuit judge set
there and says. The military is the highest honor you sacrifice you can do for our country. The second is being a juror and sacrificing for the judiciary and coming and hearing were one of like 2 to 3 countries that even allow this process, so we're hearing how this is such a civic duty, so we're just asking that we could get paid back for what the county is is doing. I mean, and it is a civic duty. It's a sacrifice. It's an honor, and we're just asking that the administration of justice pay
the jurors out of that fund. Already being paid move up in priority. Thank
Speaker 90
20:11
you. Questions from the committee. Center. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Senator Bryant, so I think I'm following the logic and I, I, I'm in favor of the logic, but will you help tie in the state steps in to pay, what bucket does that come out of um on the state funding, just for my clarity.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:35
on our side that comes out of the administration
of justice fund, so there's already, there's already a dedicated bucket for it. We're just asking for an increased amount out of that fund.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:46
To cover the district court. It's just a priority amount, so they want to fund all these activities
on the 2nd page of the handout. And if they, if they want to find options A, B, and C at a certain rate to have enough money to fund E through J, which is not necessarily a requirement of the fund. It's just something
they've adopted as a policy to pay. We are asking them to move this up in priority and pay that first before they go on to pay the subsequent activities. That makes sense. Thank you. Senator Tucker, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think y'all said
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
21:20
last week and forgive me if you said it again today, what's the dollar amount we're talking about here in the last couple of years? It's about a quarter of a million dollars. It varies between counties, but
I would say yes. OK. Did you think about just Doing an appropriation for 250 or $300,000
from the state to cover the shortfall. that you can, I'm just, the reason I ask is because I'm for The county's being reimbursed for the jurors. I support that Whether I support it at the cost of all these other organizations is kind of another question, but if there were a standalone appropriation, I would be very supportive, but I just have questions about doing it if it's
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
22:07
going to be at a cost to these other organizations, so. I would, I did not consider that because that's a, the fun is already there. It's already, it's already. Provided for by the the fees and the costs that the court places on the people that use it and so the priority of that fund should be to the functionality of the courts. And so whenever we deviate from that to fund for other purposes, uh, as they've, as we've written in the code over the years, it deviates from
the original intent of the collection of the fines and fees for the court. And so I would, I would just argue that the money is there, we just have to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:49
reprioritize it. OK, I think they're all, you know, court related, but, but I understand your point. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Other
questions from committee. such a bright following up on Senator Tucker's question. And to the circuit clerk. The
Currently, y'all are telling us that there All the jury pay is not being funded, refunded, funded back to the counties. That is correct, Mr. Chair.
OK, so, so there's a shortage in the fund. And so if
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
23:25
we're not paying the Jury Pay now and we're going to be sure we do that, we're gonna make that a priority and I don't have a problem with that. We're not then going to have the money to pay these other things. Is that correct? Yeah, I'd say that
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:41
the funding is in the fund, but since this is not a priority, it is reallocated amongst all line items and it leaves a shortfall. So therefore your county citizens pick up the tab for the function of that state court. And so somebody's paying for it, it's whether it's a burden of the state for its own court. courts or the county citizens through their collection of tax dollars and everything else that's appropriated through your quorum court to reimburse these
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
24:08
jurors. Senator Stubblevill, yeah, I just want to briefly summarize.
I mean, this, this is just prioritizing the funds. That's all it is, correct? Yes, yeah, OK, thank
you. Other questions from the committee. See none. We have no one
else, no one else signed up to. testify for or against. Brian you were recognized to clothes
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:36
for your bill. I'm closed committee. I appreciate the conversation. I would ask for a motion and a good vote. Thank you.
Motion from DuP pass from Senator Gilmore, 2 from Senator Stubblefield, all for the any discussion? See none all for the motion signified by saying aye all opposed. Motion
carried. Congratulations, center right, you have passed your bill. Central Boyd.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
25:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Justin Boyd from Fort Smith. I've got a gentleman with me from DFA, uh, who will introduce himself. Keith Linder, Department
Speaker 114
25:28
of Finance and Administration. So, Mr. Chair,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
25:31
with your permission, I'll, I'll begin. You OK, Senate Bill 404, what
this bill Senate Bill 404, right? Yes, yes sir. You,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
25:48
you recognize. OK, so Senate Bill 404 requires the personal representative of decedents estate to provide actual notice to the Department of Financial Administration if a certificate of indebtedness. Also known as a state tax lien was filed against the decedent. So this is already the law, but what this really does is it makes it clear that this expectation exists and it provides the place and the
Speaker 90
26:18
address to which that notice is sent. You ready for
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
26:32
questions? I'm ready. Questions from committee. Scofield, Senator, are you telling me that none of this information about the deceased currently provided.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
26:42
But D and A. So this requires the decedents, uh
Represent representative of the decedents of a state to notify DFA if they've, you know, that the, the seat in has passed away. If there's a state tax lien on the decedent. So don't do that. The law really says to do that, but it's not crystal clear. This makes it crystal clear in my humble opinion of what the expectation is and provides the specific address where that notice is to be sent. It's similar to what
We do with DHS. This just adds DFA in there. But the expectation is
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
27:25
already that we do this. It just, did. I just didn't know exactly what the purpose of this bill was since we already do this
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
27:33
because there's confusion out there and this clears it
Speaker 125
27:37
up. OK. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none, no one
Chair
Unverified
27:46
signed up to testify for or against Senator Boyd, you're recognized close for your bill. I would
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
27:51
appreciate somebody give me a due pass in a second. You gotta do pass from Center Gilmore, 2 from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by
saying aye, all post. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Boyd, you have
passed your bill. Star. Yes. members, I'd like to make a motion for Senator Bryant's
bills 277355 and 356. He's asked for them to not fall to the deferred list. I believe they would if they don't get read today. He's got a testimony, witnesses coming in for next Wednesday. So if they can just stay on the regular agenda for next
next Wednesday. I don't know if you need a motion officially or not. He made one
suck it in more second of it, uh, any discussion? All for the motion signify by saying aye. all post. Motion carried
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
28:58
Central Bronx bill stay on the agenda for another week, but only a
Speaker 69
29:09
week. You may not, you may not have done him a favor.
Uh, anyone, uh OK. Anyone here that's not on the committee to run a bill. No, Senator Gilmore, since I've just got one little bill. Since I've just got one little bill, I'm going to run it first. It said y'all wouldn't hear it
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
29:31
the other night, so You were, you were hungry. Center D, if you'll take the chair. teaching
And everyone has a copy of it. All right, Mr. Chair, please identify yourself for the record, and when you're
ready, you are recognized to present. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Alan Clark's state Senate District 7, Senate Bill 342. The Senator Johnson, did you want to make your motion before I present the bill? The, uh, like to make a motion,
Speaker 33
30:51
chairman. Yeah, yeah, you recognize Senator Johnson, motion to to do a verbal amendment.
Speaker 143
31:01
For a co-sponsor of the Houses or sponsor of the bill. OK, so,
um, Senator Johnson, I believe we already adopted an amendment to add Representative Gonzalez as the sponsor already on the bill. It should be in your packet right there. We can
get somebody to help you look at your packet if you need help, but it should be right there.
Speaker 148
31:23
It's not in here. Thank you, thanks for keeping
Speaker 129
31:33
us honest. All right, Senator Clark, you are pre present your bill as amended with I told you I
always take care of these things. But thank you for your help. OK, Senate Bill 342 is really a simple bill that doesn't do much. Let me tell
you again, I told you the other night, but let me tell you what the bill does not do. Uh, page 1 line 35.
A person knowing that a dog has killed or is about to catch, injure or killed a domestic. Cad animal has a right to kill the dog without liability to the owner of the dog. The bill does not do this because that's already in the law. But a lot, a lot of people are misreading. They don't know that only the underlying parts is what changes, uh. They're in Section 1. It's just a technical corrections, the meat of the bill. Uh, really the only thing in the bill.
is The very end, page 2 lines 18 and 19 award the plane of treble the debs or loss in subdivision C1B of this section. What this does, we've got lots more people living out in the country now that are not good neighbors, uh, because I can remember my grandpa and my dad telling me that that good neighbors know how to take care of their dogs. Uh, and if you're
in anybody's dog, being a dog. Can go after other people's livestock. If people think you're a good neighbor and they know it's your dog, they'll let you know. One time. Uh, that your dog is a problem and if you're a good neighbor, you'll take care of that problem. You'll make sure that your dog no longer Uh, once you know it is is harassing or trying to hurt other people's livestock. Uh, if you don't do that, that dog will
disappear. The didn't have to be in the law it was already what happened, but what's happening is we have people with multiple dogs who are not good neighbors who are allowing their dogs to kill livestock time after time, just because you had a goat, sheep, cow kill does not mean that you know the first. Um, Who killed it, but you're certainly going to be investigating, but, and especially a lot of this of course is rural areas
with not a lot of population, not a lot of money for law enforcement. And They don't have animal control. There's very, so they come out, there's very little that can be done. Folks have to take care of the dog on their own, which is already in the law, but this says for their trouble in many states have had this for decades for their trouble instead of just being able to collect the price of the cow. They can collect the price of the cow 3 times, again, assuming that they can go to civil court and actually
show that somebody's dog is guilty. I'll be happy
Chair
Unverified
34:39
to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've got
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
34:45
a few questions. Senator Gilmore, he recognized. Thank you. Mr. Acting Chair, Vice Chair, um, Senator Tucker, excuse me, Senator Allan Clark.
That's a first anyway, um, so when it says without limitation. And it also says other livestock.
This is everything. It's anything that would be considered livestock, OK, because you know we can't mention ever brand of chicken and uh and I was giving an attempt to get you to name a mini pig and you know we could get a list from Noah's Ark and start,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
35:24
but OK. And, and then on page 2, the last section there, 18 and 19, uh, why triple? I think it says treble, but one triple. We're
really following what other states have done, and it's just,
it's, it's both punitive and it's also recognizing the The harassment and the cost, you know, time you go to court, have somebody served, etc. if you can determine who it is. You've put a lot of time and trouble in that you shouldn't have to because your neighbor's dog shouldn't be out. killing your livestock. Normally if somebody's going to go to the trouble, go to court. They weren't able to get anything else done with their neighbors, uh, because really,
Uh, you know, Central McKee was my neighbor, we both live out in the country opposite sides of the county. Senator Key was my neighbor and his dog came and killed my goat. I would inform him that his dog had killed my goat. And I wouldn't have to tell him that he that he needs to pay me what the goat's worth, which is all I would, I would, I would probably have to go to court to get him to pay me 3 times, but, but outside of court, I'm sure he would pay for my goat and then he would then do whatever he needed to do with his dog,
ah, because out in the country we generally don't have lease laws and we don't want lease laws and we'll let our, we'll let our dogs run free, but our dogs have to be good citizens. Once there, you know. no longer a good citizen. They can't run free and so this this is a result of people Doing this continually. And it's a, it's punitive and it's also for the owner of the livestock, they got better things to do than go to court. They've got cows to feed.
Follow up center Gilmore. All right, Senator Tucker, you recognized?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:20
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to ask about the treble damages too, and given your answer, I would, I would follow up by saying, wouldn't it be better to let the let the person recover their attorneys' fees than just triple the value of the damage because The value of the damage, there's no direct relationship there with how much trouble it was to go to court, but if you can recover your attorneys' fees, there's a direct relationship with how much trouble it was for
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
37:45
you to go to court. Attorney's not going to be involved most of the time, uh. Senator Tucker, it's
Speaker 164
37:52
mostly going to be small claims court. Fair enough.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:56
Then the other question is, I recognize that what I'm about to direct you to is current law, and it's not about the dogs. It's OK, on page 2, line 4. The the circuit court or district court having jurisdiction.
And then there is new language about the circuit court or district court having jurisdiction. laws 13 and 14. I really think we're talking about venue. Not jurisdiction. And, and, and then you and jurisdiction are established in Arkansas code sections, not by the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, which is what's set out on page 2 line 5. So I just Unless I'm missing something. I don't, I don't think that's
the right language. I think it should, I think it should say venue instead of jurisdiction. And instead of as permitted by the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, there should
be a code site in there to where venues established. Senator Tucker, you probably being an attorney, all right, you know, an attorney wrote this for
me, and I assume as a citizen that the attorney that wrote it got it right, but I will. Uh, definitely, uh, found that you
are knowledgeable in these matters, so if the language needs to be changed and uh we want to get it right. OK,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:27
I, I just think we should take a look at that and you know, you can do, you can do what you want on whether you're running the bill today or not, but if it keeps moving, I just think we should take a look, take a look
at that, make sure we get, we get that right, and you'll be glad to help me with that, sir. We've got other things more important
Speaker 168
39:45
to work on, but Nothing more important than working with my, my, my respected colleague. Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:51
Senator Tucker. Senator Reich, recognized. Thank you, Senator Clark. I, I I appreciate you, Bill. I'm for your bill. Let me give you a little real life. A deal and see if somebody, you or somebody on the committee has we had a deal a number of years ago, uh. The grandkids. They're their parents who had Showed animals when they were kids, uh, I think it's because
my granddaughter was getting to the age she's aging out anyway, they had some high dollar hogs. Show hogs that I breed.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
40:33
had a neighbor that had moved in to take over a Chicken farm. Uh, who did not Bring the dogs with him, the people that left left the dogs. He just started feeding them. And they were of a breed that
tends to be more aggressive. We had not had any trouble. And they, uh, I stepped outside the house one morning and heard the commotion a quarter mile away, uh, took off down there and these dogs were not hungry. These dogs just kill. Uh, too expensive hogs. Where you don't have somebody that you can prove ownership. And I, I take it what you're saying in this you have to go to court.
Anyway, and you don't have a collar with a name on the dog. Uh, it's not in your bill, but I don't know what you could do anything other than if you could prove. Whose dogs they
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
41:40
are. Have you got any? Response to that, again, you've pointed out another reason for the treble damages because you can lose many animals without being able to prove what dog did it. uh, and so when you can prove that helps recover for all the
ones you didn't, you didn't recover. And again, those of us out in the country and there's lots of us in Arkansas who who raise livestock. That's not something we, you know, coyotes, we might have to worry about, panthers, we might have to worry about. But we shouldn't have to be worrying about neighbors' dogs, and it won't be the time, it's usually cattle are
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
42:15
pretty high and should be cost to everything else, but it's normally a lot of cow, somebody loses its calf because dogs can bring them down and, and those of us who live
out in the country know that we don't give that one opportunity and I don't give neighbors another opportunity. You're not going to change a dog that does that. I do appreciate the fact that you're putting in there about the Other livestock and I mentioned my seatmate here that when he's asking what are the livestock was I mentioned rabbit right offhand, so there, there are other things the kids show and thing too, so I appreciate
you, Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
42:58
Rice. Senator Stubblefeld, did you have a question? Yes. Did you have a question before I do as a farmer and a cattle farmer, Senator Clark. This is a whole lot more complicated. than what it is on this
paper, because I have dealt with this for 40, 50 years. Uh, I had One time where there was 2030
dogs had 250 cows cornered in a field and they were trying to run them through the fence and take them down and so I shot one of the dogs because the cows, when I went down the field, they were coming towards me trying to get some relief. And, uh, of course, the neighbor said, you know, you, you're going to pay for the dog. And I said, no, I'm not. It was Jason Marques. And people in the country, they have a different set of, uh, you know, they don't always, so I
called, I called an attorney because this guy threatened to kill one of my cows. And he said, uh, why don't you put a piece bond on him? Well, I didn't know what a peace bond was and what he told me was that if anything happened to one of those cows, he would be the first individual they would go to. Because of the threat that he had made, but a lot of people in the country when when a when a pack of dogs gets together, if
they've done it once, they're gonna do it again and again and again. They don't just do it once and leave. I mean, I've seen it for 40 years. On a pack gets together and they start chasing cattle and killing cattle. They will keep doing it. So I don't know how this bill is gonna I changed some of that because You know, you've got farmers that handle things different
ways without going through. You know, all this, but I mean I the intent of the bill, I totally agree with. But I think it's just a lot more
complicated than what What's on this piece
of paper. It is Cent Stofield, and this just simply allows uh you've made the point again why treble damages it like you said, it's not usually a one-off,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
45:27
uh, one-off is usually with a good neighbor.
And who who had never had a problem with their dog, and you
can handle that with each other. This is people who are where this ends up as people who are continually doing this, and you can't be home 24 hours a day, you know, people become very frustrated about how they can even farm if they if they come home and they their animals are killed or hurt and injured because of dog attacks. So this just recognizes that all the trouble.
That that if you can't identify them and you have to go to court, that you can
receive 3 times what that animal was worth. Well, I can, I can give you
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
46:14
the definition of a good neighbor. And the good neighbors is one that comes to you and says, if my dogs are chasing your cows, you shoot
it. That's under and I tell that neighbor if my dog is chasing your cows, you shoot it. It's understood
with absolutely, that's, that's the law in the country. Thank you, Senator. Any other
questions for Senator Clark. See none. We don't have anybody signed up for or against, not seeing anybody in the room for or against Senator Mr. Chairman, you're free to close on your bill. Thank
you. Before we go to closing, uh, can I ask a question? Senator Tucker, are, are you fine with this passing out of here the way it is and Because I'll either send it back here or change it in the house if it needs to be changed, that
I'm closed and I make a motion to pass. I see a motion there. I see a second from Senator McKee. All in favor of the motion do pass. Please signal by saying I in
Speaker 180
47:21
a pose like sign. Congratulations, your bill is passed. Thank you, as a, as amended. Yes. You're.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
47:51
We haven't, we haven't killed any yet today. Yeah. What you doing? Senator Hester, wherever you like, we usually go to the end, but
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
48:21
What's a bill number Senator Hefner? SB 364. And would you identify yourself for the record? So State Senator Bart Hester, District 33. It's a Senate Bill 364. And, and what this does, and remember, I, I haven't spoke to any
of you about it, so if there's a lot of questions, I'll be happy to get those answered and come back another time, but I think it's a fairly simple bill and Here's the deal. In Arkansas law, you know, we, we've got a lot happening all over and if you're, I'm just gonna use an example. If you're a, um,
If you're a contractor from Missouri. And you come down into Benton County and, and your licensed contractor in Missouri, you come to Arkansas and For whatever reason you didn't get an Arkansas license to be working in Arkansas. If, uh, If you, if the people do not pay you, you have no recourse to be able to get paid because you were operating without a license. So what this, what this bill says is, hey, look,
If, if you would likely have gotten a license, you still have to go get your license, and we can charge you some massive penalty for operating without a license, but you still can get paid for your work. Um, and, and so like I said, it's just the front of one page, but that's what it all, all boils down to that like, if somebody comes down and does a $500,000 job and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be penalized or they shouldn't be a fine, and there shouldn't be a consequence, but the consequence, uh, really, in my opinion, should to find and now I've met with
the contractor's board on this, um, several times. They're, they're not for it, they're not against it. They understand how really the how significant the penalties currently are in Arkansas to operate without a license. And again, I'm not condoning someone to do it, but should it happen intentionally, unintentionally, it gives the contractor's board the ability to have significant penalties, just not But, you know, the ultimate consequence of they have no legal remedy if they don't get paid at all.
You're ready for questions, Senator Hestrom, Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
50:30
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I see what you're doing. I just want to ask a couple of clarifying questions. So online 25. Any contract entered into in violation of this chapter. I just assume without looking at that means this is for construction contracts. That's what that's referring to. That's correct. OK. And then is there I also assume on online 28, you
use the word contractor. Is that, is that defined somewhere? And that subchapter of that section of code to your knowledge,
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
51:03
you know, I do not know the answer to that, but I would assume because it's used several times in, in, in the code
there, even up above Senator Tucker. I don't know the code, but I do know that this is the code is
all about. Contractors building contractors and licenses. OK. All right, and then I guess the last question is why, why you're
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
51:27
striking equity on line 24. I don't I don't have a great answer for that. I've worked on this with several people that actually worked on the contractors where we've been back and forth several times, but, but really I just walked by and I saw you guys weren't full in here for the first time. I thought I would sit down and get, get all my questions, get all my questions out there at once rather than, uh, those are
all my questions, Senator, Senator Hester on
line 24th Century Tucker just asked, is that not and Senator Tucker, you can weigh in on this. Is that not where BLR is uh thought this language wasn't necessary needed to go, not something that's asked for in the bill. That makes
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
52:18
sense to me. Yeah, I mean, the whole intent here was to to
really remove those two sentences on 25, 26,
and 7 that says no action may be brought either at law or in equity for uh quantum uh myriad by the contractor in violation of this chapter, and to give them some recourse. That's also
reflecting in line 24 what's in 25, 26, and 27, isn't it, Senator. It's leaving out a lot because it's taking the equity out in 25, 26, and 27 Central McKee.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
53:01
Sherman's my understanding is This Part of the statute basically prohibits any contractor that's in violation. Of getting their license. from having any standing at all in order to sue somebody who hasn't paid him. That's correct. So we're eliminating that part of the code. Giving them standing if they go through this other procedure and process of getting their license
and abiding and paying the fines. They can still have standing to recover their losses. That's correct. Senator
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
53:46
Central, all I wanted to say about equity, wouldn't equity be what is considered the work that's already been done. OK, so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
53:55
Tucker. So there's, there's two kinds of remedies in a civil claim. One
is A legal remedy that refers to damages only. That's money. And then an equitable remedy, for example, is an injunction or some other form of remedy. Quantum merit, which is what Senator Hester is
establishing in his claim is an equitable claim. It's that's, that's an equitable remedy. So My concern after having read, read
through it is Um, I heard that.
except as provided in subdivision D2 of
this section. No action may be brought at law by striking or inequity, then I think you are enabling contractors to bring claims in equitable claims, even if they are. Not in compliance with this subchapter. Um So I'm not and I'm not sure that's your intent, so anyway. Just, I'm not sure that should be struck, but you know, I might
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
55:06
be missing something, but I'm not sure that should be true. So I would ask the body this or I would make this statement if if if I'm successful to get this out of committee today, I will hold until Senator, I will not run on the floor until Senator Tucker, just for logistical purposes until Senator Tucker's had those questions asked, um, on, on that of equity or anything else.
Because I think in general, we would agree to this premise. I think in general we would. The details always matter. I support you, yeah.
Other questions from the committee. A centuries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just scanning through the code section that it's referenced and I am seeing um contractor described and outlined in definition on the front end, so it, I think it's very reasonable to assume the wording of contractor is described before on the on the front end. Senator Hester, I
appreciate you bringing this bill. This is needed a solution for a long time, and I'm
glad somebody's finally presenting it. Any other questions from
Speaker 203
56:20
the committee? Senator Johnson, I think that's what it allows. is for the contractor to be to go to law to get his, get his money. I think that's what its through that provision of equity. That's yeah. Yeah
Other questions from the committee. Senator Gilmore OK. Uh no
one signed up to speak for or against Senator He history you recognize close for your bill. Thank
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
56:54
you, members again. I think this is something we generally agree needs to be addressed. I will get a few of these questions answered before I run on the floor to
you if I, um, with that, I'm closed and Discussion Motion. I'm sorry.
A motion from Central Gilmore, 2 from Senator Johnson. The uh any discussion? A Central history what you didn't mention, you mentioned somebody coming from Missouri who come from another state doesn't have
a lot, but this happens a lot to small young contractors who don't even know they have to have a license until they run into a problem, and then they get skinned so this is a solution that's
been needed for a long time and the contractor board recognizes. That they didn't know and a lot
of times they don't even find them, but uh just require that they get their license, but they had no way to change the law. That they can collect, so
Any other discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified with saying aye, all
opposed. Congratulationsen Hester, you have passed your bill. Anyone not on the committee here to present a bill, Senator Gilmore.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
58:30
All right, members, House Bill 1552. Like gas away. I think my name was supposed to be on the bill,
Speaker 135
58:46
but at last, it didn't make it. We're not going to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
58:49
worry about that. Um. All right, well, let's uh
motion spin the, well, first of all, Senator Gilmore District 1. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion to suspend the rule to amend 1552 to add co-sponsor, which is me.
Uh, a co-sponsor Ben Gilmore got a motion to suspend the rules, do I have a second 2nd. Any discussion all for the motion 65 by saying aye, all opposed when carried and so can we do that in one motion or do we have to have a second motion? But emotions spin the rules to add some, OK, just one motion, so we're done. OK, Senator Gilmore. for That's correct. Motion for
motion to adopt the amendment. Motion to adopt the verbal amendment.
Second, any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying ah all post motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore and Senator Johnson your bill is
amended to make you Senate sponsor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're recognized to present
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
59:59
your bill as amended. All right, 1552 as amended, uh,
just is concerning in coA defenses related to fentanyl. I am going to defer to the very knowledgeable gentleman sitting just by
my side. here, um. Prosecutor Xu, so with that I'll let him introduce himself
Daniel Shu
Unverified
1:00:19
and he may begin. My name is Daniel Shu. I'm the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County, the 12th Judicial District, the legislative chairman for the Arkansas prosecuting and Attorneys Association and the president of the Arkansas prosecuting Attorneys Association. Ma sure you recognize.
Thank you, sir. Um, after the passage of the Protect I can't hear you, Mr. Xu. Is your mic on? After the passage of the Protect Arkansas Act and the Fentanyl enforcement and Accountability Act law enforcement came to me with a case that basically was a solicitation case. We had a known drug dealer who was contacting our informant actually did it twice, wanting to get to 100 fentanyl pills.
Which is probably about 10 times the amount necessary for a trafficking case. But never did consummate that. Um, crime did it twice. Ultimately they came to me and this is a solicitation case. I think you all kind of dealt with solicitation the other day. And uh I got to looking at the law and it is in both of those
bills, those crimes are unclassified felonies. Um, because they are in essence. Super, for lack of a better term, they're super wise. They're more than a why felony. A Y felony is 10 to 40 or life and the penalty for aggravated death by delivery is 20 to 60 year life, and if it's a minor victim, it's life, uh, predatory marketing of fentanyl to minors is life in a million dollars fine.
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:02:11
And trafficking of fentanyl is again an unclassified felony and it's 25 to 6 year life and
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:02:19
a million dollar fine. I And, and members just for your recollection,
because I know I'm assuming you remember the Fentanyl Enforcement Act, um, that was the, the big fentanyl bill that we passed last session, I think passed out of the committee unanimously and off the floor without a dissent, um, if I remember correctly. So this is, this is the bill that
Daniel Shu
Unverified
1:02:41
we're referring to. And so in looking at the law, I mean, generally the inchoate crimes, those are crimes that are rudimentary. They never come to fruition. It's like, um, I, someone solicits me to kill somebody, and of course I'm not going to do that, but they had the intent to hire me to kill somebody. That's a solicitation case, a conspiracy case is a case where two people agree to commit a crime, but they never, the crime doesn't get committed, and then
the last thing is you have an attempt. You go out and you, you purchase a weapon and you purchase the bullets and you wait and wait and wait for the person to come out of their house and you're standing there with a gun. The police are called and they catch you. What were you doing? Well, I was going to kill this guy. That's an attempted murder. So those are the inchoate crimes. And inchoate crimes are one notch below because of the seriousness is a decision by the legislature that an attempted murder is a 10 to 4 of your
life, but if it's just an attempted murder, it's one below that. Well, the problem is with these being unclassified felonies and unclassified felony, an attempt to commit them as a class A misdemeanor. So you can see, you've gone from You know, 20 to 60 or life all the way down to one year in jail. So clearly I think that you
probably want this to be a why, which is 10 to 40 your life, one notch below the super Y that you created with these new crimes, and that's, that's all this bill does is on the attempts, the solicitations or the conspiracies, it makes it one notch below if that makes sense. Questions from committee, Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04:38
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I was reading as you were speaking,
these code sections and so I think we're on the same page. I'm just confirming, um, all three of these crimes, obviously fentanyl's in the section titled for Predatory Marketing and fentanyl to minors and trafficking of fentanyl, but aggravated death by delivery is also a fentanyl-c specific crime. That's correct. And all three of them are unclassified felonies with 20 to 60, so the attempt on all three would be class Y, which is 10 to 40. That's correct. OK, thank you. Other questions from committee? Center Stubenville,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:05:20
then a class uh class D felony.
Daniel Shu
Unverified
1:05:24
That's the least serious of all the films. Generally, yes, except under our law. If you attempt a class D felony, it'd be an a misdemeanor. Same thing as unclassified felony, and the reason for that probably is there are not very many unclassified felonies. They're they're few and far between, off the top of my head, I can't even other than, other than these very serious, uh, I can't think of another unclassified felony,
but there are some out there that carry maybe up to 3 years, and they're left over from probably the 1947 stat. shoots that just, you know, kind of like, you know, so what is the Class D, uh, find, what is it? It's up to 60 to 6 years and the $10,000 fine or the possible punishments. For a D felony. OK. All right. Thanks. Other questions from committee?
Saying none, anyone signed up to speak against. No, no one signed up to speak against her for. Senator Gilmore, you were recognized
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:06:32
to close for your bill. Thank you, members. I'm closed and ask for a good vote.
Make a motion to pass motion do pass as amended by Senator Gilmore, second by Senator McKee. Any discussion? Harry
Nunn all the motion to signify by saying I all opposed motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore, you have passed your bill. Thank you. Before you proceed, point of personal
privilege. Uh, the Republican women are visiting the capital of the day and a good friend of mine and Uh, served together in the Republican Party since way back, uh. Uh, would y'all recognize Susan Charles?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:07:24
What are we running next Center Gilmore? Uh, let's do 1628. I'm gonna ask uh Miss Camuris with the prosecutor
coordinator's office to come to the table and again, Senator Gilmore, District 1, and I'll let her introduce herself at the appropriate time when she's
recognized, Mr. Chair. 628. OK. House Bill 1628. You'll identify yourself for the record. Mr. Chairman
Speaker 227
1:07:46
and members of the committee, I'm Laurie Campuris. I'm the deputy prosecutor coordinator.
House Bill 1628 is a prosecuting attorneys Association bill. Uh, what this bill does is make an amendment to something called an extended no contact order, which was originally that law was passed in 2013 originally, um, and it was designed to give some protections to victims of particularly violent crimes, uh, post-conviction. So after somebody has been convicted, generally you have a no contact order prior to conviction, but
this gives a no contact order post-conviction to certain list of crimes which are listed there that are pretty serious and violent in nature. What this bill attempts to do is add a new crime to that list, which is sexual assault in the second degree. Um, As one of the ones that victims would be eligible for. Now you don't see it in the bill because the whole statute's not there, but it's quite a lengthy process. There's steps that you have to go through to get these extended no contact orders, um,
and all that set out in the original statute. And
I'll be happy to answer any questions. What is Sexual assault
Speaker 227
1:09:12
in the second degree. Um, there's several ways that a person can commit sexual assault in the second degree, um, It's engaging in sexual contact with another person by forcible compulsion. Or if you engage in sexual contact with a person who's
incapable of consent because they're, uh, physically helpless or mentally incapacitated. Um, it also applies to um Engaging in sexual contact with a minor if the actor has some sort of position of trust or authority over the person. And uh it also, if someone is being 18 years of age or older engages in somebody who's under the age of 14. OK.
Question, other questions from the committee seeing none, do we have anyone, no one to testify for against Senator
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:10:10
Gilmore. Would you like to close your bill? Thank you, members. I am
close.reciate a good vote. Make a motion to pass. Motion to pass. 2nd from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying a all post motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore, you have passed
your bill. Thank you, members, um. Let's go 1603 if we may. House
Bill 1603. Give us a second to find it. Doctor
Gilmore, you are recognized to present House
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:10:46
Bill 1603. Thank you, uh, Senator Gilmore, District one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members, um, pretty simple bill, as I understand. I haven't spent a lot of time working on this, um, representative Gassway asked me to, to be his Senate sponsor, and I agreed, as I understand, it's just, um, basically making
sure the priority of payment um as you can see there in section B is restitution first and then court costs. And then I think that's Pretty much what this does is making sure that restitution will be paid first and then other fees after that. Happy to take questions. If I can answer them, and I Reserve the right to get back to you. OK, uh, Senator
Tucker, you recognize for a question. This probably wouldn't be for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:11:37
you, Senator. I don't know, maybe for, for Laurie or someone else, but I just thought we had done this already, but I guess we had we had court costs
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:11:45
first and then restitution. That's correct. And I think, and I think in Section 8, well, I'll, I'll let. Miss Convers come the time. Mr.
Speaker 227
1:12:03
Chairman, members of the committee, again, I'm Laurie Camuris, um,
Senator Tucker, I know that through the years, there's been a back and forth on the priority of those payments. Um, I think at one time there was discussion about that. I'm not sure exactly the answer to your question, but it has gone from court costs and fines back to restitution, and I think this bill would clarify that the priority should be given to restitution so that it goes back to the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:12:31
victims. Otherwise it doesn't this bill has no effect on any fees imposed on anyone. It's just the priority of where the who goes to. That's correct,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:12:41
Senator. Thank you. And then in that in that section 54208, um, sort of spells some of that out. Other questions from
the committee? See none. Anyone here testify for or against? No one here testify for or against Center Gilmore. Would you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:12:57
like to close for your bill? Thank you, members. I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote. Make a motion to
pass. Motion to pass, 2nd from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Harry Nunn, all for the motion signified by saying aye, I all opposed.
Motion carried. Congratulations Center Gilmore, you have passed your bill. Mr. Gilmore, we're going to interrupt you, uh, just a moment, center Flippo, a former friend of mine, has come in the room, uh, we can all state that at a particular
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:13:22
time, Mr. Chair, and we're Going to let him present his
bill so he can get back to his committee. Do you want to just run this while you're here? What? Mr. Sheriff, if
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
1:13:35
it's OK with you, I'd ask Wade Hoch, chief of staff for Department of Corrections. Join me up here.
Speaker 77
1:13:45
Yeah, this bill number is 1593. 1593.
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
1:13:48
Yeah, and members 1593 is just a very simple do nothing bill brought to me by my good friend Benny Magnus. All it does is just recertify the constitutionality of Amendment 33, and with that I'd be happy to take the, uh, no, all this bill does is this
Speaker 242
1:14:03
going to take 3 reports that are currently, you know, you know, the Department and Division of Corrections are making to
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
1:14:10
the governor's office and the legislature rolls those into one, doesn't change anything that goes into the report.
Speaker 244
1:14:19
Central rice. Did you identify yourself? Senator Scott Flippo, good friend of Benny
Magnus. OK. Not everybody's in on the inside jokes, but for those that are, it's funny. Uh, Senator Flippo, did,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:14:41
did you have a committee you were supposed to be chairing, or y'all finished? I'm in public health. I've got
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
1:14:50
state agencies, constitutional amendments we're hearing this afternoon on adjournment,
Speaker 241
1:14:53
Senator Gilmore, I look forward to seeing you
Speaker 248
1:14:56
in there, sir. You won't, but thank you. You want to
Speaker 33
1:15:02
come cheer it for me anyway? So I see uh I see you, you're letting Benny do it once a year instead of twice a year.
Speaker 249
1:15:13
Is that right? Is that right? Wade Hodges, chief of staff, Department of Corrections, the the board of Corrections report
was actually once every 2 years, and now it's going to
be an annual report. Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone no one to testify for against the bill. Senator Flippo, would you
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
1:15:37
like to close for close for my bills. I appreciate your indulgence and I appreciate
Speaker 69
1:15:44
a good vote. Thank you. I have a motion
because I have to take your motions. Motion to pass from Senator Johnson, 2nd from Senator Gilmore. He's had a change of heart, just very quickly. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the
motion signified with saying aye, all opposed motion carried. Congratulations, Sen Flippo. You have passed Bennie Magnus's bill.
If I may continue such a Gilmore people will identify yourself again for the record and tell us which bill you're presenting.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:16:43
All right. Sure. Uh, Senator Gilmore, District one, I may have some assistance from the uh good friend of Bennie Magnus, uh, Senator
Fooow. Which like which bill? Uh, 1563. House Bill 1563. Senator Gilmore, you
are recognized to run House Bill 1563. All right, thank you, Mr.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:17:07
Chair. This is a very simple bill. It just adds knowingly exposing
another to fentanyl in the first degree to the list of restricted release felonies in that great bill that you remember Protect Arkansas Act that the Board of Corrections deeply loved and endured. They, they were big fans of it as I remember, um, this is adding it to that list of restricted release felonies. Again, if you remember the Fentanyl Enforcement Act. the bill that we passed related to fentanyl, this was a part of that act, and
we're just making sure that it's clarifying where this falls into the restricted release felonies. Mr. Tucker, you're right to ask for
Speaker 255
1:17:43
a question. It's adding it to the 85 list. Thank you. And I defer to my colleague Senator Flippo if he has any comments or questions. Binnie Magnus is
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:17:49
good with this bill. What more could be said from the committee. Central Flippo, we're going to have to ask you to leave the room.
Don't have to ask me twice. We were running that bill so you could get
back to committee. Oh really. Oh. No other questions. Gilmore, you are recognized to close for your
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:18:28
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Appreciate a good vote. As for a Du or make the do pass.
And a motion in a second. Any discussion, all for the motion signified by saying aye, I'll.
All opposed motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore, you have passed yet another bill. Any other legislators here to present bills outside the committee any other legislators on the committee. Here to present bills. The Y'all are discussing running a bill.
I, I can probably. If you think
Speaker 111
1:19:37
you can run it 1579. I do not pass. Thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:19:43
you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Senator Gilmore, District one,
I'll run this bill for Senator Wallace, pretty easy, simple bill. House Bill 1579. House Bill 1579. You're reckon.
Thank you. Pretty easy, Bill. I'm happy to bring this first to the table if there's any questions, but basically it just it just states what is, what is there, um, they're not eligible for a reassessment until they're released from incarceration. These are, we're talking about sex offenders lowering their risk level and their risk assessment.
Chair
Unverified
1:20:19
Senator Tucker, you're recognized with the question. Educate me on the assessment process. Ms. Camurra,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:20:32
please come. Yeah. Curious what the assessment process is, and if
Speaker 227
1:20:37
we need to Go ahead, members of the committee, um, Laurie Cafu, I'm now gonna take off my prosecuting attorneys Association hat and put on my hat as a member of the Sex Offender Assessment Committee.
Um, I do serve on that committee and have for 20 years or so, so the process is there's people at the department used to be Department of Corrections. I think they've moved to community corrections. There's a lengthy process of assessments. Sex offenders can ask for a assessment uh by sending a letter to the committee and putting forth reasons why they think they need to be reassessed. My understanding of this bill, and I think it comes from the department, um, is that they would only be able to ask for that reassessment if they were
getting out of prison. There's not it frees up resources to do the assessments for people who are
Speaker 269
1:21:24
going to be out in the community. So my
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:21:29
my question admittedly is maybe not directly on the bill but related to it is our assessment process sufficient in your view, in your experience or or should I, I believe we
Speaker 271
1:21:38
have a very good assessment process. All right, that's very thorough. OK, thank you. And if, if I may
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:21:46
just to circle back on what she said, one of
the things that you're seeing is potentially a backlog of trying to complete these as people are being released and so if you have people asking for reassessment before they pending release date then they could, you know, just compound the situation.
Speaker 227
1:22:05
One other thing I might add, there has been some changeover in staff recently and so there isn't an additional reason for some backup, so anything we can do to kind of free that up as we, as the committee or the program.
Uh, gets new staff on board, I think would be helpful. Is there any reason that we wouldn't want to do this? None that I
Speaker 271
1:22:33
can think of. I'm asking the expert here. I can't think of a reason as long as there's still
Speaker 227
1:22:39
going to be incarcerated, and I think they would have an opportunity to ask for a reassessment, um, prior to their leaving
the Department of Corrections. OK. Other questions from the committee? Saying none, no one here to testify for or against
Senator Gilmore, you are recognized to Close for your Central Wallace's bill.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:23:00
Thank you members. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. I make a motion to pass. Motion
to pass 2nd from Senator Johnson. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by
saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore, you have passed Cen Wallace's bill. Anything else that y'all want to run?
The committee see any reason to
Speaker 246
1:23:34
meet on Monday? So we wait and see. OK. We
anticipate that we won't meet again until 10 a.m. 10 a.m. Wednesday, but if we have some other bills that come in that are very
important, we will reserve the right to
change that until after session on Monday. Everyone good with that? 10 a.m. Wednesday for sure, possibly after session Monday if if we get a lot of bills in. We are adjourned. Sure Don't make us meet on Monday.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES.
SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS.
SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND.
HB1552 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN INCHOATE OFFENSES RELATED TO FENTANYL; AND TO ESTABLISH THE CLASSIFICATION FOR A CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, SOLICITATION, OR CONSPIRACY FOR CERTAIN FENTANYL RELATED OFFENSES.
HB1593 Wooldridge CONCERNING THE REPORTS MADE TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY THE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, DIVISION OF CORRECTION, AND DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION; AND TO COMBINE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
SB404 J. Boyd TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATE OF AN ESTATE IF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION HAS FILED A CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THE DECEDENT.
HB1563 Gazaway TO ADD A FELONY OFFENSE THAT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF RESTRICTED RELEASE FELONY WITH RESPECT TO RELEASE ELIGIBILITY AND PROCEDURES FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2025.
HB1579 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEX OFFENDER REASSESSMENT; AND TO PROHIBIT AN INCARCERATED PERSON FROM BEING ELIGIBLE FOR RISK LEVEL REASSESSMENT.
HB1603 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN CIRCUIT COURT.
HB1628 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AN EXTENDED POST-CONVICTION NO CONTACT ORDER; AND TO ADD SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE TO THE OFFENSES FOR WHICH A COURT MAY ISSUE AN EXTENDED POST-CONVICTION NO CONTACT ORDER.
HB1644 Dalby CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE APPOINTED AS A SPECIAL JUDGE; TO CLARIFY THAT A RETIRED JUDGE MAY SERVE AS A SPECIAL JUDGE IMMEDIATELY UPON RETIREMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1661 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING STATE DISTRICT COURTS; TO ELIMINATE THE OBLIGATION OF CITIES AND COUNTIES TO PAY THE SALARIES OF STATE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; AND TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING DISTRICT COURT CLERKS.
SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS.
ADJOURN
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 12, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 33
Chair
Unverified
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 69
Speaker 35
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 80
Speaker 90
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 125
Speaker 143
Speaker 148
Speaker 129
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 164
Speaker 168
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 180
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 203
Speaker 135
Daniel Shu
Unverified
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 227
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 242
Speaker 244
Speaker 241
Speaker 248
Speaker 249
Speaker 255
Speaker 111
Speaker 269
Speaker 271
Speaker 246