State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (43)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1365
Act 938
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATI…”
|
TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, … | K. Brown | Notification that HB1365 is now Act 938 |
|
HB1410
Act 323
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ESS AND PARTICIPATION IN THE 2030 FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS. HB1410 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS. | Unger | Notification that HB1410 is now Act 323 |
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1597
Act 456
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1597 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE. | Dalby | Notification that HB1597 is now Act 456 |
|
HB1608
Act 319
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS. HB1608 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC R…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND ARCHIVES; AND TO REQUIRE … | Rose | Notification that HB1608 is now Act 319 |
|
SB141
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. 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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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. |
|
SB283
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…mmer Sen. Jim Dotson REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB283 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE … | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB3
Act 116
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…, and this bill is sort of a companion to Senator. Sullivan SB 3, which addressed primarily”
|
TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES. | D. Sullivan | Notification that SB3 is now Act 116 |
|
SB357
Act 572
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. 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 |
|
SB376
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…'S TOTAL SERVICE TIME FOR ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL CALCULATION. SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB395
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINAN…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS … | Hickey | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB398
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
SB403
Act 449
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S; AND TO ALLOW A CURE PERIOD FOR INSUFFICIENT SUBMISSIONS. SB403 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE THE 2030 ARKANSAS COMPLETE COUNT CO…”
|
TO CREATE THE THE 2030 ARKANSAS COMPLETE COUNT COMMITTEE; AND TO PLAN AND CONDUCT STATEWIDE … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB403 is now Act 449 |
|
SB44
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR19
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IGHTS". SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. 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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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. |
|
SB264
Act 483
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…you know his name? Uh, Representative Richard Womack ran uh Senate Bill 264, which removed the uh quotas from that legislation, potenti…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS PRIMARY CARE PAYMENT IMPROVEMENT WORKING GROUP. | Irvin | Notification that SB264 is now Act 483 |
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
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
0:15
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I want to tell all of you this is the first time I presented to a Senate committee, so go AM I feel bad for you
to come to this one. So if you all introduce yourself and for the record, who you're with Representative Carolyn
Speaker 10
0:50
the Pacific Legal Foundation. Great. Welcome. All right,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
0:57
Representative, you're to proceed with your bill. House Bill 1365 is a very simple bill. Uh, to remove race and gender quotas from 22 um sections of code. Uh, I believe that's 21. Areas, but anyhow, there's 22
sections of code that have a race and gender requirement or quota in them and I'd like to start by saying that um uh the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution reads in part, no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal equal protection of the laws. Basically, um, these quotas are unconstitutional, and this bill is sort of a companion to Senator. Sullivan SB 3, which addressed primarily
Educate um employment and contracting. This deals strictly with boards and commissions that have a race or gender quota. Um Additionally, um, something that occurred during the last session, there was a lawsuit filed on behalf of um Mr.
Ah, should if I have his name. Anyhow, there was a lawsuit filed against the
state, um, because of a race or gender quota for the uh social work licensing board, uh, the Attorney general did not chose not to defend that case and in the process while it was still in court or hadn't been decided yet. We ran actually Senator Urban and Representative.
uh Just a moment. Senator Ervin and Do you know his name? Uh, Representative Richard Womack ran uh Senate Bill 264, which removed the uh quotas from that legislation, potentially we can be sued 22 more times, or we can be proactive and just go ahead and remove those quotas, and that's what I'm asking you to do today. Alright.
So members, you've heard an explanation of the bill, and we'll start. So is it 22 boards commissions currently that have a racial or gender quota.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:32
Is that we did a pretty thorough job. I mean, I hope we did a thorough
job of scrubbing through all the boards and commissions to find any that had a race or gender quota, and these 22 were the ones that we identified
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
3:44
Senator Sullivan, you got a question. Uh, just an addition Senate Bill 3. It.
Oh, yeah, it will be the law of July 1, um, when would this take effect? I assume if if the bill passes, there's no emergency clause, so it would take effect. How would it be implemented with those people that are in those board positions be gone now? Would they be gone when their term's up? How's it, how is it implemented? specified that this legislation, but I So
Speaker 31
4:29
We check it again. It'll be a real turn red
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
4:33
when it's there you go. So I would just assume that when there was an opening that they would seek the most qualified person to fill that opening. Now they're currently some Searching online, which we know people do not organizations don't, aren't very good at updating their websites, but searching online, there's some forts and commissions that have vacancies, so this might affect them at that. Now,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
5:00
Or when this becomes law. Uh, is there So just so I understand, so if this law if it becomes law. And they were appointed for that reason. And I would think that would be stated, then they would be in violation of the law the day it becomes effective, but we're going to
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
5:25
leave them in place. Well, they were Put in place when it was legal
when it was. In statue, I don't know. Would you like
Speaker 41
5:38
to address that? Oh, you know what he did? Oh yes, uh, Senator Sullivan, what we've seen and at least from the litigation side is it always seems to be prospective, so the governor going forward would not take race into account, so I don't believe that it would have the retroactive effect of removing people that
Speaker 45
5:55
have already been appointed, but going forward, the governor
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
6:01
would appointment and we're going to make a state law making that illegal. Is there federal law? Now that
Speaker 41
6:14
is illegal also. Well, Senator Sullivan, we believe that under federal law it is illegal to use a racial classification when the government hasn't shown a compelling interest or how they've considered race neutral means to achieve. An interest assuming it exists,
so we believe under the 14th Amendment, this law is unconstitutional. Great, thank you. Thank
Chair
Unverified
6:36
you, Senator. Any questions, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I get to my question,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
6:43
I, I think there's just, I just want to say, I think there's a distinction between saying a woman is required to be
on the board, for example, and saying a woman is prohibited from being on the board, and the only way They would be in violation of the law when the law took effect, as if It said if there was a woman on
the board and they said women aren't allowed to be on the board, which is not what it says. It's just if that if that makes it a difference for you, Senator. Um, and so anyway, I'm sorry I had to step
out when you started presenting the bill. I don't want to ask you to repeat your entire presentation, but is
Speaker 41
7:23
there a, is there a legal, some constitutional basis for this? Uh, Senator Tucker, I haven't had a chance to um make comments yet, but our position is that these types of laws that codify
racial and sex-based quotas violate the 14th Amendment. Um, and because it forces the governor to take into account race or someone's sex, and that those characteristics when the government hasn't met strict scrutiny hasn't shown a compelling interest, hasn't shown direct evidence of discrimination would be unconstitutional, and I'm sorry I missed this too.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
7:56
What organization are you with? I'm
Speaker 9
7:58
with the Pacific Legal Foundation, sir. Sorry about
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
8:04
that. So in section 2 of the bill, they're on page 1. This is This is concerning the state Board of Education. There's
no reference in that language to gender or race. Diversity can mean any
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
8:21
number of things. Wouldn't you agree? Diversity these days is generally considered to refer to race. I would also mention
Speaker 41
8:30
Senator Tucker that the other issue is that there are certain terms
within these different statutes that are not clearly defined. There is an ambiguity involved and so striking also this language helps to ensure that there is no ambiguity when it comes to not taking race as a factor into consideration. So because there's no proper definition, part of these amendments are also to ensure that there's no ambiguity in
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
8:58
that regard, sir. Another form of diversity would be geographic diversity, right?
Speaker 41
9:07
Yes, that, that is in the statute as well, Senator, um. You know, that can be a technical issue that can be addressed with the drafters, but um, you know, we think that it's best to just make it as clear as possible to just make these appointments based on merit and also to open it up to more opportunity for all Arkansans so that there's no limitation whatsoever. OK.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
9:38
Uh, moving to the next section. On page 2. If you, this is, this is addressing the commission on closing the achievement gap in Arkansas. Lines 11 and 12, I just asked about geographic diversity. I noticed that you're leaving in the requirement that 4 of the governor's appointees have to be from each of the four congressional districts. Is that right? Yes, so why
don't we open those up to more Arkansans.
Speaker 41
10:13
again, uh, This is something that was that remained there because our focus has been on again, an opportunity and on limiting racial language, um, but you know, that's something that we can definitely address with with the drafters if you see necessary, but And Representative Brown may have other comments on that as
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
10:35
well. Well, it, uh, that section, commission shall consist of 11
members as follows and 5 being appointed by the governor, um. Uh, one shall be represented business representative of business and industry in Arkansas, a representative Health and Human Services or a public school teacher. That doesn't necessarily exclude any race or gender. Um, for the governor's appointees shall be low income parents concerned about the achievement gap with one representative from each of the four congressional districts so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
11:12
that catches the whole state. Um Yeah, I, I mean, you know, part of the
rationale for this is that we want to open these spots up for everybody, right? So I guess I'm just
Speaker 41
11:29
wondering why we, why we're keeping any criteria. Uh, well, Senator Tucker, there is criteria in terms of qualifications for serving on the board. Obviously when an appointing authority is searching for a candidate. They want someone with requisite experience. This is not to say
that it's inappropriate for the government to determine that there are qualifications that would be helpful in public service. It's the intent and focus of this bill is to just ensure that one's race or one's sex has nothing to do with that consideration or those factors, and I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
11:58
guess one of the important criteria for merit-based qualification is where you live. Again, Senator
Speaker 41
12:04
Tucker, we would be happy to work with the drafters to address that as well. Um, again, our focus was
on racial and sexual classifications that are within the statutes, but um, you know, we be
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
12:18
happy to address that. And you know, we're talking about closing the achievement gap, so it
might be appropriate to have people who represent different parts of the state. To speak to that because different parts of the state
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
12:31
are going to have different Issues people with a different experiences have
Speaker 41
12:36
different perspectives. Right, yes, but the purpose is to ensure that the government doesn't put itself in a position
to presume ahead of time who may have certain experiences or who may have certain perspectives merely because of traits people possess that are outside of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:00
2, we're eliminating. Something that's related to a historically black college.
Speaker 13
13:07
I thought it's historically black. I Yeah
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:11
So, HP, you know, they're commonly known as HBCUs, right,
historically black colleges and universities. It doesn't mean that only black individuals can attend those schools in 2025. We had
testimony earlier in the session from the University of Arkansas Palm Bluff, which is an HBCU that they have, you know, a diverse campus, and so. Why are we striking something that is historically black from from
Speaker 41
13:39
that. Um, it's merely to remove again, Senator. Any type of racial language, so
it definitely doesn't preclude anyone from these types of universities from being considered for these physicians, it's more Ensuring that we do our due diligence
Speaker 9
13:54
to not use race as a factor in any in any way. Any of the commissions that are
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:00
the subject of this bill or boards or whatever, are any of them paid positions? I do not
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
14:08
know that. I assume most of them are volunteer positions. I have heard, you know, people do. I mean they are volunteer
Speaker 41
14:16
positions. I don't know that anybody's paid. Do you happen to know, Senator Tucker, it's my understanding that they aren't compensated posses positions or if they are, it, it's something fairly minimal. That that's my understanding, but I can get back to you with a precise answer on each of these commissions with that. OK. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 93
14:37
Senator. And are questions from members of the committee.
Speaker 103
14:47
Right, see no more questions. Anybody signed up to speak, um. Mr. Steinbach. Come on up. He can. OK Hey Robert Steinbach, law professor, columnist for the Democratic
Speaker 104
15:17
Gazette, appearing in my individual capacity, um. This bill, of course, as the representative pointed out builds on what was SB 3, what is now Act 116 to remove invidious sex-based and race-based discrimination that exists in government function in Arkansas. Um, I am remiss for not recognizing my senator, Senator Clark Tucker. um, and I would
like to address some of the points that he brought up so one question. was why are we not also eliminating geographic diversity and that's a great bill that someone else can write. This bill is about removing invidious discrimination based on sex and based on race, those attributes of people have no bearing on their capability or
their information. There is this false meme that if you are a woman, Or if you are an African American or Hispanic, you name the race that somehow you are benefited with some sort of unique knowledge. There may very well be people in any demographic group, including whites, that have a unique knowledge and if they have that unique knowledge they should specify that knowledge as they seek a position anywhere, including on a board which is
covered by this bill. Um, so, I think this is a rather simple notion that is 14th Amendment as Pacific Legal aptly pointed out prohibits racial discrimination that was confirmed in the recent Supreme Court opinion regarding Harvard and UNC for admissions, but I assure you it will take at least 2 decades for that opinion to filter down throughout all
levels of government. I've read many The opinions by those on the left who say that case only applied to university admissions. Of course, in one respect they're right that those were the litigants, but in a greater respect they're quite wrong because when courts issue opinions they have a precedential effect they are supposed to show everyone how we are to operate under the law. This bill will preclude the state from getting sued in what inevitably in cases they will
inevitably lose. And more importantly than whether the state will be sued, it will right or wrong. having seats on these commissions and boards, etc. is a moral in addition to being illegal, and there is no difference between a sign that says, as they did where I grew up, well before I grew up, now, no Irish need apply or as was common in the South. No blacks. These positions.
Say precisely the same thing just in the opposite language. It's no better. It needs to go. That's all I think of Steinbach, Senator
Chair
Unverified
18:29
Payton, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Mr. Steinbach, at the top of page 2 or near the top. Lines 3 and 4. The existing language, says the commission, shall consist of. 11 members representing the racial and ethnic diversity of votes. Interpreting that before we
change it. I would assume that means that If a certain race or ethnicity held 20% of the population, they would be
limited. To 20%. Representation on this board.
Speaker 104
19:07
Of course that's right. I mean that's, that's sort of the hidden horror of all of these types of invidious sex and race-based preferences. I put in air quotes for the record,
because every time you say you have to meet that, you also say you max out at that, and so it's, it's terrible. We shouldn't be picking people by their pigment,
Speaker 112
19:33
nor by their plumbing. It's a two-edged sword. Thank you, Senator,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:41
Senator Tucker. As we've been having these conversations
about DEI come to see the, the vile evil of geographic DEI and, uh, I think
given your agreement, I'm contemplating running a a joint resolution to eliminate Senate districts in Arkansas because I think More people in Little Rock should have an opportunity to run for the state senate, and I'm hoping for the day that we got 35 state
senators from Little Rocks. We don't have all this geographic DEI, you know, infesting our state government. Well, the
Speaker 104
20:15
good thing, Senator, you being my senator is irrespective of whether your resolution passes. I could run against you right now,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:24
but I want you to have your own seat, professor, so yeah, some
Speaker 41
20:29
of your colleagues don't want that. And, and just one thing, Senator Tucker as well. The term just DEI has so much, there's such a loaded um the meaning to it, uh, again, this is simply about equality. It's not about uh uh attacking anyone's ability to teach history. This is merely to say
when you are a part of this great state and you want to go and serve your government. Your inherent characteristics that have nothing to do with who you are, that you were born with should not be a factor that limits from your ability to serve your um your, your constituents, your community, that's the purpose. This is not a, an anti-DEI bill. All right. Any other questions?
All right, Mr. Steubbach, thanks for you. Thank you all. All right, don't have anybody else sign up, speak for or against this. Representative Brown, you're recognized
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
21:43
closer bill. Excuse me? Excuse me. Uh Um Thank you everybody for your questions and um brown. We've already
Had one court case against us and this Bill is really a very proactive bill. To deal with the issue before we're sued again and these race race and gender quotas are unconstitutional, and we all sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and I'm
just simply asking us to continue to do that, and I'd ask for a good vote. Motion. All right, members.
Representative Brown is closed for her bill,
got a motion to pass from Senator Payton.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:29
Second from Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion. Senator Tucker, you were recognized. I'll be voting no on on this bill and of
the DEA legislation that we've debated. I actually think this is the worst. Senate Bill 3. We're talking about um opportunities for people, and we have a philosophical disagreement about that, and and that's OK, but the Senate Bill 3 is saying some people should have a certain opportunity at a job.
That's a very different thing than saying we need at least one person to be on these boards and commissions in the state. What this is saying is that we need to make sure that everyone has a voice. These are not paid positions. These are positions to make sure that everyone in Arkansas has a voice on the commissions and boards that address state policy. So it's not a quota in terms of being paid for a job. It's making sure
As I said, that people have a voice, and the reason why every Fortune 500 company in America. Has women and racial minorities on their board is not to make themselves feel better. It's because the performance of their companies improves when they have diverse forces, diverse voices on their board. And so with this bill, we are denying segments of the Arkansas population, the ability to have a voice in the decisions that shaped their lives and were
making the performance of these boards and commissions worse for the people of Arkansas in the process. So I'll be voting now. Thank you,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
24:12
Senator. All right, so we do have a Senator Sullivan, you're recognized. Yeah, SB 3 is now Act 116, and one of the reasons that the author of 116 left this issue out. I, I agree it doesn't cover that necessarily, and I think that's the reason
legislation like this was necessary. Thank you. Any more discussion on the motion.
All right, we've got a motion, um, Senator Payton, the second from Senator Sullivan, all in favor say aye. opposed. Congratulations, Representative,
your bill passes. Thank you. All right, Representative Unger. I think
Speaker 139
24:55
you're going to be doing, let's see here, House Bill 1410. All right.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
25:06
Mr. Chair, committee, Representative Steve Unger, District 19.
What House Bill 1410 does is look at a section of the Arkansas code. It's the employees' ethics manual, which is 2-8-304 and then inserts some language in there about no public employee shall provide advance notice of an inspection to be conducted by a governmental body, and I'm, I'm
kind of skip through this so I don't have to read every word because you have it in front of you with the, when the purpose of the disclosure. is to improperly influence the outcome of the inspection. And we're skipping down just a little bit, uh, paragraph 2 line A. B and C To alter or manipulate conditions to evade detection of noncompliance or violations. B, provide an unfair advantage to
the inspected party or otherwise interfere with the integrity or impartiality of the inspection process. This is a problem that we have had this came to me around the tiny town landfill. Basically, ADQ has an employee which in the past has tipped off waste management that they're coming up there for air sampling. And so it has allowed waste management, who owns the echo Vista landfill to shut down
their gas plant shut down their candlesticks and basically sort of changed the air testing before the National Guard had a chance to get up there and change their monitors, and so basically you've got thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money that's been spent on test which end of the day, they're sort of inconclusive because waste management has put its thumb on the scale. Now, when I first Introduce this bill and a lot of people reach out to me, including the media, and the
question was, isn't this already against the law, and my answer is, well, you would think so. And matter of fact, there is within the law of a state employee accepting a gift or a bribe, so kind of after the crime has been committed, there's some statue, but there's nothing prohibiting it. Which surprised me, and I just think that's wrong. And so that's why I bring it here today. All right,
Speaker 144
27:29
members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions from members of the
Chair
Unverified
27:34
committee? Senator Peyton, you were recognized for a question. Thank you. So,
So let's say they need to notify. operator or landowner or whatever that in order to gain access or you know, to have the gate unlocked at a certain day or time or maybe they need somebody there present when they come, and they need to notify them so that. Somebody's there present when they're when they're coming to do it. I mean. Can we have, is it possible that this bill would have some side effects towards that
or have you made provision for that? You
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
28:13
know, thank you, sir, that question's come up and you know one was something almost literally like can Joe the janitor be there with his big key ring? Yes, he can, because if Joe the janitor shows up at the gate on the north end at 8 o'clock in the morning. There's been nothing in there to improperly influence. Nothing has been altered or manipulate conditions to evade detection. Or noncompliance. It basically gets that sort of just the spirit of lying. And if you've ever been a parent or raised
children, you kind of know when it happens when your kids start lying to you over some mischief. And so if there's No evil intent. Uh, nothing,
the law hasn't been broken. OK, so it would
be your testimony that the public employee could notify them that they're coming in order to Facilitate the inspection. Yes,
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
29:16
sir. Now in the case of air testing, the monitors didn't even go in the landfill. They went
outside the perimeter. Well, this bill doesn't say anything about air testing, so I think it would be broader than that.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
29:27
Well, it is broader than that and so after, thank you, sir, after I introduced this, I had other people reach out to me that they have heard about things being manipulated or Let me Say this advanced warning being given to nursing homes, daycare centers and people who store chemicals and pesticides.
Uh, that before the inspectors come, they get a call from their friend, basically says we're showing up Monday X Prize, so you need to, you need to clean up your act, and I, you know, if you care in the military, I know what a sur surprise inspection is supposed to be. That's when you find out the truth. And so, uh I believe the bill has been written with enough wiggle room in the language so that Joe the janitor can show up with his key ring or, or whatever, uh, the business can be done, you know, we're not anti-business.
But I believe the people have an expectation that their state agencies should be able to protecting
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
30:34
their interest. Thank you. Thank you, Center. Senator Clark, Support what you're trying to do, but how does this
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
30:43
affect, uh, real estate appraisals. Sir, could you help me
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
30:47
with that because I'm, I'm not. OK, the assessor's office, I should say assessment.
Assessor's office already thinks they have. Broad latitude to show up on private property. unannounced, which could end up with them being shot, uh, especially when they're going behind locked gates. I have a concern that this Uh At least sends a message to them that they might be able to do that. Hm
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
31:25
I guess an assessment. could be called an inspection. I don't know, you know more about this than I do is, is an
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
31:34
assessment considered an inspection. I don't know. I'm just afraid that it fits in there and uh in the Discussions and bills we've had in uh Uh So County the last few years, there was an idea that they could basically show up anywhere
at any time. I'm not sure why they would need to, uh. Without a Property owner present, but I just have a concern that this Uh Something that if it's possible for them to take advantage of, they might. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Senator Clark.
Speaker 15
32:15
All right, members are there questions from the members of the committee? Alright, so
no further questions. Don't see anybody signed up to speak for or against this. Representative, you recognize a close.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
32:29
Oh I think the uh Just to go back to the most basic level, if I was explaining this to my Sunday school class, a surprise inspection should be a surprise inspection. If you don't have a surprise inspection, then you don't know
Speaker 144
32:44
what the truth is, and so I asked for a good vote. Thank you. All right, and Representative
Unger is closed for his bill. I have a motion, motion to pass from Senator Tucker, second from Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion, say none. All in favor. Say aye. Po.
Congratulations, Representative bill passes um, Senator Tucker, do you have a couple of bills? OK, members House Bill 1524.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
33:33
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members I'm pinch heading for Senator Gilmore on this. He's the Senate sponsor of this bill. This is a parks and tourism agency bill two years ago. They ran legislation to increase the threshold. From 50,000 to $150,000 for for repairs, alterations, and maintenance projects, um, it's funded by tax revenue that the department
receives under the Arkansas Constitution. There were 4 places in code that needed to be changed two years
ago. We had 3 of them. This is this this located the 4th and is making
that change in law. That's really it. There's folks here from the agency to answer any questions if you have any. OK. All
Speaker 15
34:13
right, members, you've heard an explanation. Are there any questions from the committee? Sarah
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
34:26
Dotson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. Just reading, it says this section does not apply to repairs on the last line. Or maintenance project.
That is 150,000 or less. So they have to be over 150,000 in order
Speaker 92
34:50
require bids. So if you look on page, for example, yeah. Thank you. All right.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:54
Thank you, Senator. Senator Hammer, a question. Thank you. I'm just asking OSPs reviewed this and As
far as this deals with the procurement. process, right? I'll have to defer to the agency on that.
Marty, did you throw him to the wolves
Speaker 187
35:30
or what? Did you throw him to the wolves or what? Good afternoon, Jeff King, Deputy director for the Division
Speaker 188
35:35
of State Parks, Senator Hammer, 2 years ago when we met on this legislation. We work with division of Building Authority and other, other areas in in finance and administration in order to pass Act 666, um, we
didn't specifically reach out to him on this what we consider to be kind of a cleanup piece of the legislation, but we do have
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:56
support from the agencies to move forward with this process. Am I interpreting this right that you all are wanting to be able to do, and I may be interpreting it wrong, you're wanting to do projects for 1 50,000 or less that
Speaker 188
36:11
deal with repair alteration. And maintenance. Is that correct? That's correct. So these are all projects that are funded from our special maintenance section of
appropriation which is our what takes care of all the robes, flooring, siding, general repairs and maintenance to our to our park facilities throughout the state, and this just gives us a more latitude to to do more things with those funds and
Speaker 187
36:32
to be able to upkeep our parks in a condition that we think our guests want to see. So
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:37
I want to ask a question, but don't take it personally because I'm not accusing. I'm just What, what's to keep y'all from 150,000 is a pretty good little contract about what's to keep you from directing business or do you still have to go through
Speaker 191
36:51
a normal bid process on things or we're we're still going to take quote bids from
Speaker 188
36:55
contractors for the work, so that'll assure that we have, we want to make sure that we're still competitive and getting the best price for the work that we can do, but we know that this allows us to expedite, not have to do a one example would be not to have to do have an architectural design when we're going to replace carpet in the. That's great. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 165
37:11
you, Center. Members already have questions for the committee, Senator Clark, you recognize her. OK, I'm not sure I'm following.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
37:24
This section is not applied to repair alteration or maintenance project that is $150,000 or less. What doesn't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:32
apply. So if you look at the code section in section 1 of the bill and Section 2 of the bill. Both sections of the bill amend Arkansas Code Section 19-41405, right? So, subsection A. Of that
section of code is right there on lines 24 to 31, and it requires
Advertising online 26 advertising for bids for the contemplated work by the publication of notice of one time each week for not less than 2 weeks. And so it's those requirements in lines 24 through 31. That we are exempting in section 2 of the
bill, which will be subsection G of that code section. So here in
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
38:24
24 to 31, it says for
projects over the amount of $50,000. You shall proceed to advertise for bids. One time each week for not less than one week. Unless the project is under 150,000 correct. So for a contract under $50,000 we don't take bids. We
Speaker 193
38:50
don't take, we don't take formal bids. We don't have to advertise in a
Speaker 188
38:59
formal process. So right now the 666 of
Speaker 204
39:01
2023 allowed us to exempt these specific projects from the definition of a capital improvement. So that's kind of the DBA section of the code. It also exempted these projects from the public works section of code, which was allowed us to do some of these minor projects, these maintenance projects without an engineer or architect to design those. And so this is the last piece that was really about how you bid and open
Speaker 205
39:25
bids for those capital improvement projects that these are not included in
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
39:30
with this piece of legislation, so you would not be required on these projects of repair. What are
the words were used alteration or maintenance repair, alteration or maintenance to take a bid. You may be taking a bit, but the law would require you to take a bid for under $150,000. That's correct. It's a lot of money. You mentioned carpet. Flo into my business. It's a lot of carpet. In fact, I don't remember the last time I sold $150,000 worth
of carpet. So Uh, at one time, it seems like a big
amount to not for the state not to require a bid. Well,
Speaker 204
40:08
what this really lets us do is kind of bundle those like maintenance projects. So if we have if we have a park that has, say 4 buildings and we're going to replace the carpet, we can take bids and be able to bundle those together and hopefully get a bigger, more of an economy of scale and price for those projects. We're still going to take quote bids. We just wouldn't do a formal bid opening for those products. Am I wrong?
And that what the bill does is you don't have to it because it's not, it's not specifically
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:40
required in this section of code. That's correct. Does it required in another section of code is
Speaker 188
40:46
the reason we're changing in here and not elsewhere. I don't think that
Speaker 204
40:49
it is, but what that what we've been, what we've been doing when working with the division of Building Building Authority in terms of our process and in terms of our procurement efforts is that that's that has been our our standard operating procedure that we've been going through because we want to ensure we're
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:04
getting the best price for the work that's being done in our parks. Well, you do, but I don't know who comes after you. Uh, I know. You know, on the local level, you know, the spoil system, uh, and they want, they want, first it was 10,000, 20,000, we may have increased it since then because we like to be able to go to whoever we like. Uh, and this appears to let somebody to go to whoever they like up to $150,000 which is pretty good sized project.
Speaker 188
41:38
Let me, let me, uh, let me give you another example. Um, so we, we had, we used this. There's, there's, um, the legislation that was in place a couple of times, basically 4 times last year when we
Speaker 204
41:51
did, we replaced the decks at Mount Magazine on the lodge on the, on the back of the lodge, and we were only able to do um really 3 of those projects, um, by going through the the full procurement um and full design uh piece of the project. And so
this would really just help us catch up on the backlog of maintenance that we have throughout our park system. We've got about $75 million worth of worth of backlog maintenance stuff. Well were you only able to do 3? Just the time that it took to put together the bids and and be able to meet the $150,000 number. So we could only go to $50,000 essentially without going and hiring an architect to come in design, replace, replacement of deck boards on our deck. Um, at the cabin facilities and so that's what we got to with
Speaker 210
42:40
the $50,000. This would have been able to allow us to get all of that
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
42:44
$50,000 per day. I'm sorry, you're saying $50,000 per day. No, that was for 4 cabins. That was for
4 cabins. So How much per cabin? For the back deck. I love to stay in those cabins, by the way, $12,000,000. OK, and so we're talking about a total of 48,000.
And the and the law we shouldn't be required
Speaker 188
43:16
to ask for a bid. We weren't required to take formal bids. That was the piece of the process
Speaker 204
43:22
that was um really put into the law two years ago and again, we're trying to address a backlog of maintenance projects throughout our parks. We know that there are a priority for our state. We want to make sure that when guests come to Arkansas that they're getting the best experience that they can and by allowing us to bundle and really take care of our properties. This is going to help in that regard.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
43:44
I don't think I'm against you bundling. I'm trying to figure out why if you
bundle. 4 or 10 You Don't put them up for bids. By law so that That were required to get
the best price. Sarah Clarke, I see Director Ryle coming up here, so we'll see if he can, you know, articulate this in such a way.
Marty Ryall
Unverified
44:15
Marty Ro, director of legislative affairs, part shares of tourism. um, just to sum it up is basically what we're trying to
do here is that for projects right now and again this is Act 666. It passed that we changed this in 3 places. There's one that was inadvertently left off, but the idea is that every time something's over $50,000 for repair where there be a roof. We have some large structures that have a roof that you have to go out and you have to get architectural design. You have to go through all the permitting process.
just like you would on a major million dollar construction project and with inflation and increasing in construction costs, we're trying to raise it to 150, which we did in three places, but there's this one place in the bid process that doesn't allow us to enact that and implement this, but the slowdown on all this, we're trying to maintain these structures for guests and tourism and promote our parks and have the best guest experiences that we can that slow the process down to replace a roof where you've got to go get architect. to design the roof and those
kind of things but that's not in this bill that's already done, right? Right, but this requires a bid notice to be sent for projects that aren't required to be bid in other
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
45:27
places of the law. OK, but again, we don't have to send a bid to architect because we've already eliminated that, right?
Speaker 204
45:38
Well, that's But that's the piece of the there's a piece of that code that still requires the bid bonds that you're gonna, that you're gonna have in in in this piece of the code. So advertisement, those bid months,
those formal bidding pieces that you would have in a larger construction project. That's the section of code that wasn't changed before and that is being
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
45:55
updated now. So if you do a project under $150,000 which if it's
$12,000 a deck that could be all the decks. The law would not require that you have a bid. It won't require
Speaker 204
46:09
us to have a formal bid opening and to have a bid bond so so that you secure your bid with a bond. We still will have security bonds for the
projects that are over $50,000 and that's covered in other sections of code as well, so we'll make sure that the projects are done in a way that's making sure we get the final product for the for the dollars that are
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
46:31
being invested. OK, well, $150,000 bid for me is a big bid, not a small bit. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator Doss,
Speaker 165
46:39
you have a question? Then Senator Hammer. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
46:41
Mr. Chair. So, Who are you going to pick for these things?
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
46:51
If this passes, who are we going to pick, which vendor do you pick, if this passes, who's going to get the work if you don't have
Speaker 188
46:58
to bid it out. It'd be we typically bid it with local vendors that are at the park, so that they're in the communities surrounding the park, so
Speaker 187
47:04
it's going to depend on where the park location and what the project
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
47:07
is, so Help me understand something. You're not going to be required to bid it. But you're going to bid
Speaker 188
47:15
it. We're going to, we're going to quote bid it, so there's 3 areas in like the division of building authority to describe different levels of bit. One is a formal
bid, which is what this piece that's that's proposed to be changed is, and so that's where you're going to advertise for two weeks in the paper or statewide record, you're going to open a formal bid at the division of Building Authorities typically they hold those bid openings to the public bid opening. They read of all the bids aloud, um, there's a secured bid bond that's required for those bids and so that's the piece that would change. What we would do is we would bid those out through our individual office, our procurement level. We have in the division of State Parks Department of Parks,
Heritage and Tourism, and so they would put out bids that they would just receive to our office without going through this more of a formal bid opening process,
Speaker 219
48:02
so it's more of a quote bit or small order.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
48:06
process that's also in place. So how is that process lined out
in code. I mean, obviously it's a separate procurement process, or is this just your internal
Speaker 188
48:16
process is lined out in code, but it's lined out at those levels that would formerly be 50,000 and under, but now in
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
48:25
this in this scenario would go up to 150,000. So you would still bid it out, correct. I, I think we kind of almost need to see how that process works for the And if you're going from a formal bid process to an informal bid process with local vendors as long as it's still getting bid out for the public. Uh, that might be a viable process, but the way I'm understanding it, at least according to the way the bill's written.
And we only see parts of the code in this bill. It looks as if you're just doing away with the bid process on anything under 150,000 and so I think that's where Senator Clark and I probably have some of the biggest concern is if you can just pick out whoever you want. Out of a list of vendors. There's not a lot of transparency there. So anyway, thank you.
Chair
Unverified
49:26
Thank you, Senator. Senator Hammer, you recognize, OK,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:30
slow walk me through it. right now for the 50,000 and under. It says and shall proceed to advertise for one bid. Time each week. So as it is right now, the 50,000 and under, you have to bid those out. 50,000 and over. 50,000 and over. All right, so what you're asking to do is move it from 50,000 up to 150. Is that correct? That's correct.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
49:56
OK, so just for repairs alter alteration and maintenance. I just for repairs alteration and
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
50:00
maintenance, right, just for repair alternation. OK, so We're going, we're gonna, we're going to take the same exact principle that you're allowed to do now, and we're just going to put 150,000 on it instead of 50, correct? That's correct. OK. So don't take this wrong, but looking at it from a couple of years down the road or whatever, if somebody wanted to gain the system. If you, if some, if, if you guys
were gonna direct business, if somebody was going to direct business to a local vendor that kind of gets settled in and begins to be the person to go to. Where you do it for 50,000 or 150,000, the bid process is going to be the same, right? So, so if it's 150,000, you're still going to have to do the same thing you have to do as far as soliciting bids that you do now at 50,000. Is that correct or not correct? Yes, that's correct. OK, so, so that that applies to repair,
alterations, and maintenance projects. What So that'd be like, And just give me the comfort level. And yeah, please don't take this wrong, but just give me the comfort level how If we pass this bill, You are kept from steering business to somebody that just decides to set up shop so in the local area because you mentioned locally. Just give me the comfort level of how we're we're gonna know business can't be steered to somebody.
Speaker 188
51:29
Well, I would just say we're going to continue to take, we're going to continue to take quoted bids for at least 3 vendors anytime we do a project and so we're going to take the best price, whether that's obviously we want to do that on a local level if we can support the local businesses that are around our parks, but if somebody's going to drive from Little Rock and say I can do it for less, then
Speaker 187
51:46
we're going to take the lowest bid for the project, which you're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:48
required to do, right? OK, and so nothing in this law is going to change what you're required to do as far as soliciting bids, and you guys are audited, so something starts to smell.
You're gonna, you're gonna get caught through the auditing process.
Marty Ryall
Unverified
52:02
Is that? And, and, and again, the, the, the The what creates a backlog and what's the
backlog we have right now? Approximately 5 is having to go through the architectural design and all those kind of extended uh things for a roof repair and, and you know, we have storm damage at the park. We're gonna get them restored quickly, um, then, uh, this allows us to, I mean, we don't need a new architectural design to replace
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
52:31
a roof, and so, uh, that's the process we would have you come up with 150,000.
Speaker 188
52:38
Why, why did you grab 100? 50,000. That was the number that we again from Act 666 2 years
Speaker 219
52:43
ago. That was the number that we're following that same so now that matches in other areas of code
Speaker 254
52:49
and this this matches that 2 years ago we wanted, uh, when we looked at this, it
Marty Ryall
Unverified
52:54
was a figure that we felt like would, would go a long ways toward alleviating that backlog, but not going too far because we're looking at, again,
alterations and and repairs, and we felt like it would compass and help us
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
53:09
address that backlog. So in Act 666 bad number in that, in that act, uh, you're already allowed to go up to 150,000. All you're doing here is you're just adding, let us do the same thing and repair alterations and and Maintenance, right? Yes, sir. Thank you. Senator
Speaker 260
53:24
Dodson. OK Let's, let's just call it the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
53:29
Act from 2 years ago. How about that?
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
53:37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Act 666 might have been
appropriate, um, so. I heard you say 3 vendors so you'd get bids from 3 local vendors. How do you choose which three to pick from if you're not doing advertising. Or putting it out in a statewide publication for any vendors in the state. I mean, I can imagine somebody ah You know I mean if you're doing something in in Little Rock here. I live in northwest Arkansas,
you might not have a whole lot of vendors that will bid on something that's $10,000 or $15,000 but if you're doing $150,000 worth of business or 140,000, you wouldn't have to bid that out to anyone other than you pick 3 local vendors and somebody from another part of the state. Might have been willing to to come participate in the bid and you got a better price for the state, um, how do you select your three vendors? Um, I think, I think it's going
Speaker 188
54:38
to depend on, on, like I said, where the, where the work is and then obviously a vendor list that that we would maintain and we how do you
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
54:45
get on that vendor list because there's a
Speaker 188
54:47
lot of people want to know that. Well, and I do think that there's a balance here between I understand what you're saying, a balance between transparency and kind of the red tape and the process in government and we want to, we're trying to kind of strike that balance here with this, with this um with this process and so um we do, we do know that there's, we have contracts. s that have worked on projects
and, and so I think that if they have good work and quality work that they would probably be maintained to be called for work, but we also know that we have to have competitive pricing. We have to get our, we want to be able to make our money go the longest way, so I, I can't answer your question in terms of is there a specific list because depending on the project or or what facility we might be working on,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
55:30
I think that's going to vary, um, have you contemplated some sort of a middle ground where you still put out a formal bid, maybe not. architectural design, but, uh,
but make sure it's as widespread as possible so the public has plenty of
Marty Ryall
Unverified
55:44
opportunity to our goal is to have the best price possible and get the work done and we bid out, I mean, there's projects now that are under 50 that local vendors or local people use. And then there's others that have been bit out, so we have a list of vendors that traditionally bid on these projects, whether they're 150 or 200 or 250 and work that has been done in the
past, so at each local area, so we want to find the best price and we're going to notify whoever we can think of to to come and
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
56:18
put in a a quote, but that's what I'm saying if you're, if you're doing a, a Broadcast advertising for putting it on your website and putting it out there in a statewide newspaper publication or something saying here's through the formal process that you have to do now. Then you're going to get a much more robust offering of folks to choose from, where if you're the
ones that are selectively reaching out to whoever you can think of, it's a much more limited pool, and you don't necessarily. Maybe get the that wide breadth of of vendors bidding. So And
I think the bill needs a little bit of work. Thank you. Alright, sir,
Chair
Unverified
57:04
Peyton, yep, Sir Peyton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So
I've got a lot of apprehension about
this bill because I understand red tape and how cumbersome it is. It's inefficient. And jumping through all those hoops for procurement. But Uh, we recently saw a state-funded agency that had a $20,000 cap and how they had abused that. And There was plenty of room for suspicion in there. Trying to avoid the procurement process.
And now we've got an agency with $50,000 currently in place that we're trying to raise to 150. I mean, I don't understand. Why we, we can't operate with the people's money like we do in our private business. And if, if we keep creating landscapes. Where people can take advantage of avoiding the procurement process, and somebody's going to
end up getting burned at some point. And I don't know what you can say to try to make me more comfortable about this bill, but I think Senator Dodson was going down the right road. Can, can you show me what checks and balances. are going to exist. Mr. Chair, can I have a moment? Absolutely. Yeah
Speaker 278
59:32
This bill, we're going to pull, Mr. Chair, we're
Speaker 96
59:34
going to pull this bill down for the day. I don't know why you do that, Senator Stuck.
It seems very evident the votes are there. Thank you, Marty. Welcome to the Senate State agencies. All right, hey,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
59:48
maybe you don't care any more Gilmore bills. If
there's a lesson to be learned, I think that's it, Mr. Chair, you know, members and those in the audience, Senator Tucker told me, he goes, I've got two very simple noncontroversial bills. Senator Tucker. You've got one more that you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:00:04
want. I'm not gonna make any representations, but I hope, I hope it goes quick. I have one more. Yes, sir. Senate
Speaker 285
1:00:10
Bill 403. I'll be, I'll be quick. What kind of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:00:13
money do we have a fiscal impact with this? This is 0 $0. Uh, this is the issue. There's, it just adds Senator Kroll as a co-sponsor, and I'll move to adopt the amendment. I
motion to adopt and the second Senator Clark, all in favor say aye, right. Thank you. In the 2020 census.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:00:34
Arkansas is the number one undercount state for the 2020 census. Over 5% and over the course of this decade, that's going to cost Arkansas over $5 billion federal dollars that would otherwise have come. To people who need services in Arkansas, hungry children and Things of that sort. We're now halfway through the decade, the the next census is going to be coming sooner than we realize. All this bill is asking us to do is to create a committee. There's no money attached to it.
To study how we can do better in the next census to make sure we we are not as severely undercounted with agency. Either secretaries or designees, the private sector, nonprofit sector, state chambers in support of this as a state, the bottom line is for the next census we need to do better in making sure that all of our people are counted. We were 50th out of 50 in terms of that in 2020. We need to do better next time around. This is just forming a committee for people to get together, make
recommendations as to how we can do better in making sure we are fully counted
in the 2030 census. Representative Beatty is
Speaker 287
1:01:48
the House sponsor. That's if members hold
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:01:52
that against you. That's the bill. I'm happy to
Speaker 288
1:01:59
take any questions. Any questions? Sarah Clarke. The
Speaker 224
1:02:03
How many people are on this committee? 30.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:02:12
The committee. It is a big committee. I don't see that of all the people that are here,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:19
I don't see any legislators here. Well, I bet a legislator
could get an appointment if if they really wanted to be on there is that that the speaker does make
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:02:29
two appointments. The prote makes 2 appointments. And I didn't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:33
see any legislators mandated. Well, that's that's, that's the word. We don't want to mandate anybody, um, because there's not gonna be any any pay for this, no mileage or per
diem, so if someone wants to volunteer, if you want
to be on there, Senator Clark, I will go lobby Senator Hester for him to appoint you to be
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:02:49
on there. but we volunteered all these other people. Yes. The point
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:56
is we want people who want to be on this, and so that's why it always says the secretary or their designee each each state agency, I think can afford to have one person, you know, on the committee. And otherwise, the nonprofits
and private sector individuals are all going to be people who volunteer to do it.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:03:14
All right Senator Dodson, you have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I noticed there's several appointments here by the governor. Will those
Speaker 296
1:03:27
require Senate confirmation? Yes, sir. If I have anything to say about
Speaker 297
1:03:32
it, they will. All right. Any other questions from members? All right, so
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:03:39
you know for a question Senator Sullivan. Yeah, I understand the not getting any additional funds.
I'm really concerned about every time we had a committee and every time we had another agency and every time we we keep adding and we never. pull back off of any, so does this This has
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:03:57
an expiration date. This has an expiration date. I'm sorry. This has an expiration date, September 30th, 2030. OK,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:04:08
um. What authority will they have when this ends, and what will that report look like, or do they report or
I'm, I'm just trying to, you know, we're getting ready to move on before we moved on. I wanted to. Have a little more time to look at
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04:24
that if you look on page 5 Have a little more
time to look at that if you look on page 5.5. They're
just going to make recommendations to us and to the government they report to? They'll make it in this in line 5 the subsection J that starts theirs, they'll make recommendations and their findings to the governor and the ALC.
OK. And then the next line, well, the, the last line of the bill on line 16, page 5, that's
the expiration date. We're not creating a permanent entity. This is just to get us up to speed, make sure we do better
for the next census and then when that census arrives, that committee's work is done and they will cease to exist.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:05:14
I appreciate it. I've kind of got a personal commitment not to add on to any committees and
other things, and I this may be a good one. I just haven't studied it enough and I can't
Speaker 306
1:05:25
vote for it at this time. OK. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
All right, members, are there questions from members
of the committee. Alright. So no more questions, don't have anybody sign up speak for or against this. Senator Tucker,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:05:39
you're recognized to close. I'm closed. Appreciate a good
vote. I move to pass. Alright, got a motion to pass by Senator Tucker as a as amended, they got a motion due pass as amended by
Senator Tucker and seconded by Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor, say aye. I opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes. All right, Senator Clark, you
got a few bills? OK, where do you want to
start? OK, members how House Bill 1597. And there's,
Speaker 15
1:06:15
there's an amendment on this. I believe. No.
Speaker 169
1:06:44
Seriously. Mr. Chair, I'm a member of ASA. OK. Alright, if you introduce yourselves and who you're with for
the record, and Senator, you'd be recognized to proceed with your bill. Are your amendments, excuse me,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:07:14
we're gonna need to up the Senator Alan
Speaker 316
1:07:18
Clark District 7. Crystal Man, administrative officer
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:07:21
of the courts. It's OK with you, Mr. Chair and committee. I'm going to
Speaker 317
1:07:28
ask Crystal to Present the amendment So the
Speaker 319
1:07:30
amendment is basically a recodification or we're copying language from one part of the code into another part of the code, and what the bill primarily is about is who can provide the oath of office to elected officials. This is a
bill from judicial counsel and judicial councils original position was to modify 212105 once the bill was filed, there was a request to amend 1442106 with identical language, and so the amendment would be to 14, 42106, which would clarify who can administer the oath of office to municipal
Speaker 321
1:08:04
elected officials. Alright, members, you've heard an explanation of the
Speaker 15
1:08:10
amendment. I got a motion to. Senator Dodson,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:08:20
I guess is the amendment. The new bill, is it deleting?
I, I don't see where the amendment actually deletes
Speaker 317
1:08:27
anything. The mi actually adds a new section. So the new section is section one. That's
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:08:35
the amendment. Well, the current bill already has a Section 1, and the amendment. Seems to be putting that 21 to 105A. It just moves that to
Speaker 328
1:08:45
section 2. So basically the amendment.
Speaker 316
1:08:53
The entire amendment is an entire is the new bill. Well, it's not, it's not been engrossed into the
Speaker 319
1:09:03
bill, but what, but they've added a new section and then just renumbered the original bill only included 21 to 105. And so the amendment puts 1442106 in front of that. So then, The Senate rewrites
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:09:16
all of The bill in section 2, adding some sections. Senator Dodson, I believe you're correct.
So the amendment is now the new bill if adopted. I'm sorry we can just throw away the existing bill as it was passed by the House and adopt the amendment and that that will be the
new bill. OK, thank you. So Sir Payton. So usually when it does that, it says to delete everything beyond the enacting clause. So how are we getting
Speaker 316
1:09:50
around that? I think that language is on the first page of the amendment that I'm looking at delete everything after the enacting clause and substitute the following.
Speaker 319
1:10:00
I'm looking at the And I'm sorry, I'm looking at the draft amendment
that I received from the missing.
Speaker 338
1:10:12
That's the point. Well just to say. Without objection. Can I submit
Speaker 162
1:10:17
what is in the draft to the committee. I will read it
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:10:24
to you and then I'll pass it to staff if that would be OK.
Delete everything after the enacting clause and substitute the following. I think that's the only thing that's different here to the.
Speaker 341
1:10:37
Sure. So we're gonna have to suspend the rules first and then Senator Hamer. I get
Speaker 343
1:10:46
a motion 2nd on the floor if I'm not mistaken, didn't you get my
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:52
motion and didn't you get a second? Well, either way, I'll withdraw the motion just for the record, so it's off.
OK, so we got a suspend the rules, so motionsent from Senator Tucker, 2 from Senator Dodson, all in favor, say aye. post. All right, rules have been suspended. Now, do your verbal. Move to Delete everything after the enacting clause and the Clark or
Speaker 352
1:11:23
Senator Tucker, you turn your microphone on so we can just I'll just let
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:11:30
you make the motions. There we go. I move that we uh add the language from
the draft, delete everything after the enacting clause and
substitute the following, and that comes right after amend House Bill 1597 and right
before Section 1. Alright. So we
got a motion by senator Clark, seconded by Senator Tucker. In a discussion. All in favor say aye. post. All right. Now,
Speaker 350
1:12:02
Sarah Clark, you would recognize the procedure bill as
Speaker 358
1:12:06
amended. Can I talk to. Second Motion to adopt the amended as amended
from Senator Tucker, who do have a second. Oh, Senator Hammer, all in favor opposed.
Speaker 359
1:12:24
Any other crazy parliamentary procedures we want. I got a OK Senator Sullivan's got a question. Senator Sullivan, you
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:12:37
were recognized. Why are we doing this? I mean, you, do we not have enough
Speaker 362
1:12:43
people offering oaths now. I will tell you, it started out as a very small change. What judicial counsel, I
Speaker 363
1:12:51
know, but just we're trying, so I know we're getting a lot bigger. So originally the thought was we had
Speaker 319
1:12:57
some retired judges who had perhaps family members or proteges that they were mentors to that were coming up perhaps they were going to take the bench and so they wanted their family member or mentor.
to be able to swear them into office. And so the original bill just allowed retired judges, retired circuit judges or district judges to swear in certain officials. So this is just to
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:13:20
accommodate some people who have a personal preference on who gets to swear them in. And then, and then once the bill
Speaker 366
1:13:28
was filed, it got a lot bigger. When does that
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:13:31
end? At what point do we say we're not going to add, I mean, I can write a bill letting all of us swear people in
Speaker 369
1:13:41
where does this end in your mind? Well, that would be the policy for the state, the judiciary, and especially AOC
Speaker 22
1:13:47
does not have an opinion on that. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Any other
Chair
Unverified
1:13:56
questions, questions from the committee. All right, Senator Payton.
So does a former Circuit judge or or municipal or district judge, do they hold any authority? And when we call when they're
Speaker 370
1:14:12
former? Yes sir, that's actually where the confusion started. We had a former so currently
Speaker 319
1:14:17
in law, a former circuit judge can provide uh provide or solemnize marriages so they can perform a marriage ceremony. And so we, so some of our retired judges who were doing that were then also asked to swear people in because they thought they had that authority also when we checked, they did not actually have that authority and so that's where the genesis of Bill was so the only authority
they hold when they're considered former is just. to
Speaker 319
1:14:45
marry people, they can marry people. They can also be assigned by the Chief Justice as a judge to preside over legal proceedings, OK. Thank you. All
right. Any questions from the committee. Alright, see you done.
Senator Clark, you. Recognized the closure your bill as amended? does All right, we got a motion to
pass as amended. Sarah Clark, 2nd Senator Tucker. Any discussion on the motion, say none, all in favor say aye opposed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes as amended. Thank you. No Thank
you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee. SB 3763. Thank you. Short little bill didn't do much. We'll see.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:15:52
SB 376. Has a few words line underlined that change on line 26. A public meetings mean the meetings and of and then inserted as more than 2 members of Any bureau commission or agency and then on line 36. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all meetings formal or informal special of more than 2 members.
Of the governing bodies of all
municipalities, counties, townships, and school districts, etc. So it the Hm The simplicity of the bill is it takes more
than 2 people to have a meeting. Alright, Senator Hammer, you have a question? Thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:16:39
you. Coordinate this with what we did this morning when we passed out Senator Tucker's bill. It better define Senator Tucker's bill. OK, right. OK. Thank you, Senator Hammer.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:16:55
Any other questions, Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question. It would be possible under this bill. Let's just to use a small number, say there's a commission or
a city council, let's say city council with 5 members, right? It would be possible for Under this bill for city councilperson 1 to talk to city councilperson 2, and decide how they were going to vote on a on a on an ordinance and then city councilperson 2 could talk to City councilperson 3 and have the same conversation and relay what city council person one was going to do, and the city
councilperson 3 could talk to City councilperson 4 and relay what city councilpersons wanted and 2 were going to do. And then City councilperson number 4 could talk to City. They just have to go one at a time. But effectively, they could subvert the entire process. By just having serial one on one conversations where they're deliberating. Uh, how they're going to vote on an
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:17:49
on an ordinance is that possible. Sure. The, yes, that's possible. The uh we
As you know, every day we don't legislate just what's possible, but what. Uh, what is good government. And there's lots of things we do. It's possible that when we Talked yesterday that one of us offered to bribe the other one, but uh we still were able to talk. Uh, so it's possible, but that is certainly not the spirit of the bill, right. That would have been a crime if one of us offered to bribe
Speaker 387
1:18:23
the other one, right, but so we do have a law on the books for
that, and it would be looks like it's a crime right now
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:34
for two people to talk to each other, but so. Senator Hammer asked You know How does this Java 227? Well, since you mentioned that, you know, in 227, the only penalty is that a court may invalidate an action that happens as a result of this, so there's no criminal penalty and there's no actual individual penalty at all under 227. But Anyway,
when we're drawing up laws, I think we should hope for the best and plan for
the worst, right? And so, um, did you consider putting language into the bill? You could put language into the bill that prohibits serial one on one conversations. Did
you consider that? No. Would you be opposed to
Speaker 387
1:19:19
that? I'm not opposed to that. OK. I just, I think let me back up. Would you support it if if that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:25
was in the bill? Fair question. I, I might, I might, I need to sleep on it,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:19:30
but I'm, I'm open to thinking about it. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Senator Hammer, question. The situation that Senator Tucker referred to a while ago. Would that be classified as polling? Members, the way
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:19:51
he described it, one talks to 2. If you were asking people how they were going to vote.
I think it would probably, but if, if you were intentionally trying to subvert the law. Uh, but that's not, that's not what happens when two court members speak. It's not what happens when two school board members speak. It's not what happens when two city council members speak who can obviously be changed at the next election, uh. But It is
necessary that they speak to get business done. Well, and the reason
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:20:30
I'm asking if that would be considered polling because that would be
considered illegal, and they would be able to be charged if that scenario that Senator 27, that'd be a chargeable offense, but
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:20:41
you wouldn't be prohibited from asking somebody to sponsor your resolution. Say that again. I said in this bill you wouldn't be prohibited from asking somebody to sponsor your resolution. Which was what
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:20:54
would have been that was a question asked this morning. Yeah, right. OK. Thank you.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:21:01
Mr. Chair, just to clarify, Senator, there's no chargeable offense
under 227, and there's no civil penalty on an individual either. The only penalty in 227 is that a court may invalidate an action that a governing
body takes at a prohibited meeting or as a result of a prohibited communication, so there's no, there's no
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:21:21
offense just for what it's worth. Chair a
little latitude. Yeah, please consult with my attorney, um, but it
would be. Either under 227 or under this
law, they would both be, would they not be a crime if 227 was utilized for the purpose of polling just as if this bill was to be utilized for polling, would that
not Is that not a I'm not aware
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:21:55
of a crime. OK, then if it's not a crime, then what would be the
harm so in 227, The ramification for a prohibited communication or a prohibited informal meeting is that a court and then the city
council to to stick with city councils. They take an action as a result of a prohibited communication or informal meeting, then a court can later invalidate that action. That's the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:22:22
that's the effect. Senator Clark under this one though. Are there any ramifications that's covered in any of the other. Either in this bill or in some other uh Some other code language Act, whatever. I can't think of the
right term. Somebody would be able to be under this one if somebody was guilty of polling. They would be able to be charged with something, do
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:22:48
you know? I don't know of anything other than
Speaker 165
1:22:50
o. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator
Speaker 134
1:22:55
Hammer. All right, Senator Sullivan, you have a question? Senator Clark, do you remember
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:23:00
this morning I thought I heard Senator Tucker say he would support your bill. Did I hear that wrong?
Chair
Unverified
1:23:10
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I like your hearing center so. Any
other questions from the committee, Senator Payton, come on. I don't really know who this question is for, but so if uh If Senator Dodson and I decided that we're against the proposal that's coming before
the board or whatever, and we're members and, and we decide to Have the conversation, violate
the spirit of of of one of these bills. And then That action Fails because we conspired. To defeat it Could a court then reverse the failure and put it in an an act? So So we've been looking at it from one way where people conspire to pass an action and the court would be able to reverse it.
So if we're conspiring to defeat an
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:24:17
action, could the court enact it? Uh Yeah So there's two pieces of a response, OK, so a court can't enact something that a city council hasn't enacted. So I think your real question is, let's say you and I have an illegal conversation that we're against something. And then the city council passes the ordinance. The question is, could the court invalidate the
ordinance because of our conversation against it. I think that's the only realistic tricky That would be, but this is why the, the language that I was just mentioning to Senator Hammer in Senate Bill 227 says has May because the court will use it because then you're basically giving two members of veto power over any ordinance that's passed and a court, the court's not going to do that. OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator. Any other questions from the
committee, Mr. Chair, just with your latitude, I want to correct something I said earlier. It There
is a code section in the FOIA subchapter 25, 19104. It says any person who negligently violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a class C misdemeanor. So I wanted
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:25:30
to correct, yeah, I wanted to just mention that. Yeah, so that that is in reference to this bill or 227 or both. Anything having to do with FOIA.
OK, so if this passed and it was Abused, there is a mechanism to punish those who would abuse it to your illustration a while ago if somebody was to Um, offer. information that might lead to a charge, correct?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:26:01
Well, for one thing, I'm not aware of a FOIA prosecution in Arkansas history, OK? There may be one, but prosecutors just don't. Like, for example, you know, we all know that there was a polling case in Fort Smith, right, and
and you made the the reference to a polling charge earlier, but the result of that of that lawsuit was not a criminal charge. It was the Supreme Court of Arkansas saying the Fort Smith City council wrongfully took that action and I'm in. id ating that action. So as a prac this is in the code. That's why I wanted to correct myself as a practical matter, this is not what happens. What happens is the court saying, I'm undoing the action that you took illegally. So, I think to your to your other point though. Uh
I think it would be perfectly legal for members of a city council to have serial conversations one on one under this bill, so there there would be no ramification for that because it would, it would be under legal under the
express terms of the legislation. OK, thank you. Thank you. All right. Any more questions? I want to give you all ample time to decide. All right, so no
more questions. Uh, we do have some people sign up to speak against this bill, Mr. Steinbach, come on up. We'll start with you.
Speaker 103
1:27:32
Thank you, Mr. Chair Robert Steinbach, professor, columnist in this instance relevant author of the treatise on the Arkansas Freedom
Speaker 104
1:27:38
of Information Act, um. Just a few brief words, Senator Clark is a good friend, um, and I appreciate his effort here, uh. I don't need to come here to tell you all where you want to draw the line on how many people can communicate, so um if you want to draw a line that says,
Most things take place in a public meeting, but if two people want to talk, OK, uh, what I, I'm not, that's not my preference, but I don't have anything more to offer you than your own thoughts on that. What I would say about this bill is two things. One is the issue that Senator Tucker raised a moment ago, which is If you're going to allow 2 but not more than 2. Members of a governing body to speak, I think it needs a
language to deal with the serial meetings or as Senator Clark aptly characterized as the daisy chain. I think that can be done succinctly, but I think it needs that. I would also posit that perhaps having just passed 227 that we would let a legislative cycle pass to see how that plays out. That's a broader point you all can consider that, but my, my more narrow point is language regarding the Daisy chain meetings. That's all I have to offer, of course, if you have a question, I'm available.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:29:10
I have a question, Mr. Chair. Shoot. Would you support the bill if we had
Speaker 104
1:29:17
that wording in there that I mean it. If you want me to in the sense that I prefer less than I prefer that two people don't meet together, but I don't have a problem if you all say we want two people to do it, so it's, I don't support the notion of two people, but I will not object to it. And if you want me to say, look, you guys decide on the
number, it works if that's the number you want to pick, and if you have the daisy chain language in there. OK, because
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:29:53
we're We're not wanting. To authorize something that doesn't happen to people get together. That's just a fact. 3 people's a meeting in my opinion, and more than that, but two people get together, it's just also almost impossible if you're both hog pants and not talk
about the hogs, you know, and so it's almost impossible if you're on a government body not to talk about business, uh, and we got to expect it sometime that the people who make an oath. are going to do the best job that they can do, and we all want good government, but, but I appreciate that. I appreciate your testimony, uh, uh, uh, appreciate your hard line on for you, even if we don't agree on everything. So, but I would have your support if we, if we change that. Yes, sir. Because there certainly
is no intention to set that up. Yes sir.
You will have that. Right, Mr. Chair. Can I, what, what word are you wanting to add? What, what is it you're wanting to add?
It's not what I'm wanting to. It's what Senator Tucker suggested, but it's Language that says you cannot intentionally. Have serial conversations to get around the law. That's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:31:04
more than a verbal amendment that's, it'll it'll take some thanks. Take some writing.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:31:16
In discussions or questions or anything say solving. We played a little game a while ago where we added an amendment and I couldn't follow it, but we added an amendment right here right now. Senator Clark wants to add that amendment. Can we do that now?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:31:34
You didn't say Senator Suan, I don't think we can, uh, Senator Tucker will get with me. I think we can come up with language, but I think the language will be a little more complicated as much as I'd like
to do it now. I think the language would be more complicated than we can come up with right
here. But I appreciate the effort. All right, Roger, thank
Speaker 416
1:32:00
you, Robert, thank you, sir. Getting late. All right, now, we still got a um See here. Oh, that's it. OK. Oh, hang on. I. Andrew, OK.
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:32:32
Introduce yourself, and you're proceed. I'm Andrew Bagley. I'm the president of the Arkansas Press Association, also the publisher of the Hell in the world and
the Monroe County Argus. And I also once served on a school board and a quorum court. So I understand this issue from uh multiple angles and, and I would just like to, to, to start off by saying this. I thought this morning we had a very good piece of legislation that brought all the parties to the table together. It was one of those moments where you almost felt like the lightning was about to flash and the thunder
was about to roll because God was moving in our midst. We come back this afternoon and now we have a bill that would essentially undo all the good. that we had this morning. Uh, with the possibility of two people being able to meet together and then two more people being able to meet together and eventually evolve whether you polled or not, been able to figure out how this is going to go and all of the discussion has happened behind closed doors. Uh, and, and I don't want to minimize the importance of that
this bill essentially undoes everything that was done this morning, at least in spirit, and, and I can tell you. In Helena, Arkansas, where the robbers meet in the road and I have to cover these things. If you put a loophole like this and there the How in the west, he and the city council in the Phillips County Corum Court are going to drive a Mack truck through it. And they will find a way to turn local government and the boss hog doing county business at the Boar's Nest.
I mean, that's the way this is gonna go. I've had experience with it on both sides. I can remember being a school board president, constantly having to tell folks, you can't talk about that back here. Um, now, Senator Tucker mentioned sometimes we hope for the best and plan for the worst. We don't pass laws for those that want to act right. If everybody wanted to act right, we would need no laws at all. And so the law we passed this
morning was balanced. It was good for the citizens, the press, and the elected officials. It's set up rules that everybody can understand. We can talk about the football coach. Calling a boneheaded play when it was 3rd in goal and you had no timeouts with 30 seconds on the clock, but we cannot talk about we're going to fire his tail at the next board meeting. That was pretty clear. It's a really easy to understand. You
can have all the discussions you want in the public meeting. Which is where it should happen. And for that reason, the Press association and myself as a publisher, oppose this bill, and if anybody has any questions, I'll be more than
willing to entertain, Senator Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So You implied that evidently it's been going on in Helna and West Helena for years, uh, that they try to hold these
secret meetings or discuss things that they shouldn't in scenarios where they shouldn't. Is that
Speaker 423
1:35:38
what you were implying? And that's why this morning's bill was so so essential. I wasn't and I'm
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:35:44
not implying it, 3 weeks ago at a Kiwanis Club meeting, I had a city councilman come up and I mentioned that it appeared that they'd had a meeting before the meeting, and he said, Yeah,
we got together and talked. So my question is, is a member of the press, have you reported that we've got tons reported it to your community and they continue to elect those officials, then evidently the electorate doesn't mind. The
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:36:06
the electorate is not what we're talking about here.
We're talking about how to make sure that government is run the correct way. A voters make mistakes. Our definition of correct and, and I would say they made a mistake when they sent me out of office. But um The reason we have these laws in place for when the electorate does screw up and, and, and sends people uh that don't always
want to do things in the most honest way. Because again, we don't need any laws if everybody's good.
Well, I would just think that we have a constitutional right to choose
our representation, and if the Press association is doing their job and informing the public of how you're elected representatives are conducting themselves. And the public continues to elect those representatives. And that's a pretty good sign that the public wants them to act that way. And I don't see how
all the laws we can pass down here would Be a substitute for an
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:37:08
informed electorate. Well, An informed electorate is
something that we all want, but if we pass this bill right here, we're going to legalize Helena statewide,
and I don't think anybody wants that. Well, I would say that your argument is it's already legalized
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:37:25
statewide, and this bill the current state law is a confusing set of Supreme Court cases. Uh, it's my understanding that the counties and the municipal league and their trainings, and I know I sat through some with ASBA, uh, caution their folks about discussing school business even with 2.
So this is not the normal state, statewide. But what happened this morning was we, we, we cleared up the roads for
everybody. I mean, to get the Press Association and the Association of Arkansas Counties, as well as Senator Davis and Senator Tucker and all these people from across the spectrum, you had to have a good bill. Today and then here we are back this afternoon and we're gonna undo it if we pass this.
Speaker 436
1:38:06
OK, thanks for your testimony. Thank you, Senator. Senator Sullivan, a question. So
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:38:16
You know, I would disagree with undoing and I'd say we're making the law better, but that's not a question, uh, the, you said that we were going to create an opportunity to be for people. This law would create an opportunity to circumvent the law. Are you saying that there's no opportunity to circumvent the law under what went
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:38:36
through this morning. There's less of an opportunity. It's clear uh with what we did this
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:38:40
morning. Yeah, but there's still an opportunity to
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:38:43
circumvent either way there's always an opportunity to break a
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:38:48
law just like kids can find a way to break rules at school. Thank you. Senator Hamrick, question? Yes, sir, your situation you said a while ago when you approach people and you said you can't be doing that because That breaks the law, so it's your interpretation that what you warned them about was breaking the law. Is that correct? Yes. Did you report that to the authority or did you file any charges or how did you handle that, that
once you became aware of the fact that somebody was breaking the law, how did you handle that? Attorney and I
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:39:19
asked him to make sure that the city council understood what was legal and what was not, and that I told him I said we could file charges, but I don't want to prosecute
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:39:27
anybody. I just want them to do right. What good does it do not to prosecute anybody
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:39:31
if you know they're doing wrong, but then because they're not gonna, they're not gonna prosecute a class C misdemeanor in the first judicial district.
They're just not going to do it. OK. All right, in your questions, right, say no. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, the result everybody else signed up to speak for or
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:39:50
against Senator Clark, who recognized to close. Thank you. Mr.
Chair, thank you, members of the committee. The uh
we get. Senator Tucker to agree to support the bill, uh, Rob already professor Steinbeck has already agreed, uh, I will. I will get with Senator Tucker and with BLR to get an amendment. I'm going to ask you to pass it out today. I'll either bring it back here or
we'll run that amendment in the House, but, uh, but it'll be an amendment that Central Tucker and I agree on and that you have all seen, uh, but I would like to pass it out of committee today as is with with that agreement. So I'm close and make motion
to pass. Got a motion due pass by Senator Clark, second by Senator Sullivan. Discussion on the motion, say
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:40:47
none. I speak real quick I'll work with you, I'll
commit to that, um, because I, I do think we can make this bill better even if ultimately, I don't support it, but maybe if the amendment is right, then I will. I just don't know, but I'm, I'm commit to work with you on it for, for, for certain. I think as written, it does undo a lot of what we did this morning because It enable it as written, it enables serial conversations and I said this this morning when I was presenting the bill. To me it's always less about the number and more about the the substance of the conversation.
If it's business to use your term, Senator Clark, which I think is a good term, then you shouldn't do it even if it's 2, because you can go one on one and go through the entire committee. If it's more prospective, if it's not deliberation, then I think you could have 8 people there and have it be perfectly permissible. So for me it's always been less about the number and more about the substance. So I'm going to vote no on this in committee right now, and I'll commit to working with you and seeing if we can reach an amendment that that improves it,
so that's, that's it. Thank you. Right, thank you. Got a motion
on the floor by Senator DuP Past, by Senator Clark, seconded by Senator Sullivan. All in favor say aye. opposed. Congratulations, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:42:00
members of the committee. Members, we are going to have
to um expunge the vote by which 1597 passed. Apparently you can't mend an amendment. It would have dunk it. Carly,
do you have the emotion that needs to be, so I'm going to make a
motion to expunge. Make sure we get this right, so. Did you have that vote on that. OK,
you're right, members, we're going to expunge the vote by which House Bill 1597 passed as amended,
and they will Motion to expunge Senator Tucker, seconded by Senator Dodson, on favors say I opposed. All
Speaker 170
1:42:46
right, the vote has been expunged now. obviously Yeah. No,
we can leave the amendment adopted but
Speaker 448
1:42:56
OK, I thought it was gonna be OK, so we did that one. Now we're extending by which
Speaker 297
1:43:03
the amendment passed. Now we're going to expunge the vote and that passed by which the amendment passed. OK,
so all members are clear. We're going to expunge the vote by which the amendment passed, so I got a motion by Senator Dodson. Seconded by Senator Hammer. All in favor say aye, opposed.
All right. And I motioned to adopt the new amendment by Senator Tucker.
Speaker 455
1:43:35
Yeah, let's, let's do these eyes and cross these t's here. Yeah
Well, Senator Tucker, we can't, we can't adopt it until it gets passed out now. Now members got to
Chair
Unverified
1:45:17
see what they Second, to adopt the amendment. All right, everybody clear on the amendment? Never know, everybody, everybody good. OK, a motion to adopt.
Senator Hammer, seconded by Senator Tucker in the discussion, saying none, all in favor of adopting the amendment. Say aye, opposed. I should I've got a motion to pass as amended. Second by Sarah Dotson. Any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor say aye. opposed? Alright, bills passed as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 297
1:45:58
Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you,
Speaker 15
1:46:04
staff. Yeah, thank you. All right, Senator Hammer, you got how many
Speaker 170
1:46:11
bills? Nothing's easy. Nothing's easy in this community. Alright. Senator Peyton, you want
Speaker 297
1:46:14
to step in the chair. I got to take a phone call real fast. Yeah. Which building are we on?
1608. Mr. Chairman, uh, going to bring, Senator Hammer, you're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:46:43
recognized to present 1608. Like, can I have my
guests introduce themselves, please. Yes. Kim Hammer State Senator District
16. If y'all would turn the microphones on there and introduce yourself, state who you're with and
Speaker 462
1:46:55
you'll be recognized. Uh, David Ware, director of the State Archives
Speaker 464
1:46:59
and state historian Arkansas Department of Parks Heritage and
Marty Ryall
Unverified
1:47:03
Tourism. Welcome. Marty Ro. Excuse me, Marty Ry, director of legislative affairs, Parks Heitage tourism, and also the director of the Heritage Division.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:47:13
Welcome. All right, Senator Hammer, thank you. I'm going to yield to Mr. Ware. He probably the quickest
Speaker 466
1:47:20
to get to it, and it's pretty simple. Right, the idea behind this is to provide a pathway for the destruction of some records, the handwritten records 50-year-old
were more that have no historical significance in and of themselves and have been already recorded on durable media. This arises from Comments made by county officials when I and my staff have been dealing with them. They have lots of ledgers, ledgers of inconsequential material. However, because of a provision in Title 13 that handwritten records 50 year old or more must be preserved. They cannot dispose of them even if
they have microfilmed them or have scanned them. Um, they ask us to take this, take them off our hands. Our storage capacity is limited. They don't have adequate storage space, go to the basement of any county courthouse, and you will find a variety of mold and mildew down there, and So they've they have wished for some relief and Since we are about the preservation of information rather than
Rather than books of books of of tax receipts and so forth as artifacts. This seems like a way to make sure that potentially important information is preserved while at the same time making giving a pathway to county officials to lessen their Physical records retention. Burden. Even saving a little money possibly.
OK. Thank you, Mr. Rawles, did you want? The I think he
summed it up pretty well. Anybody have any questions
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:49:06
for the witnesses or the bill sponsor? Senator Tucker, so just to be clear, we're creating a pathway to destroy old documents, but your position is they don't have
historical value, but they are old documents. Yes. All right,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:49:28
thank you. Uh, Senator Dodson, you recognize her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Yeah For instance, you're talking about specifically tax receipts, ledgers, things like that that
are there are records that have been copied or preserved the, the information has been preserved in some other way. But not things like, say, uh historical significance, say, a former president was governor and at the time, you know, I mean, it's not 50 years now, but another 10 years there might be some documents from a time when that former president was governor of the state of
Arkansas and those documents would not be part of this list because they might have a historical nature of someone's. documents.
Speaker 466
1:50:17
Sorry, um, the idea is for not, this is not simply a license for them to to to shred the, to shred these materials, but rather consult with us, um, if these materials, handwritten materials, 50 year old or older. have been Have been preserved on a durable medium.
Um, after, and after they are. After after they are submitted to us for determination if there's any other historical significance. If If there, if, if we determine, we at the state archives determined that there's probably no historical. Intrinsic historical significance to the books or the signatures, say if future governor is the one who was signing divorce decrees out in Hempstead County, that sort of thing, um.
Then I'm using that as a as just an example pulled out of thin air, but the thing is there are a lot of procedural materials contained in ledgers and so forth, um, historical significance. Minor at best, and if those are preserved on a durable medium, so the information is not lost. Um We can then tell the counties, yes, you can destroy. The paper originals, but they would have to check with you
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:51:42
first and you would determine whether this has significance historically or it doesn't and then that's the list that that could be if if you say no, then those records would continue to be preserved in in physical form as I guess as long as possible until they deteriorate or until you put it in some sort of a state archive that is preserved more professionally. So
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:52:04
yes, sir. OK, thanks, Senator Dodson. I would draw attention to line 28 on the bill.
It doesn't, it's, it's removed ore and inserted and and so there's a safety valve there as far as determining the historical value that would be determined by the Arkansas State archives, so you know we entrust them to make sure and somebody's got to make the decision somewhere, but you know, capacity is running out at the end of the day, do we trust them to determine that more than I trust myself to determine that, and so I think by changing 4 to And builds in that safety valve.
Is that fair? Yes, sir. Any other
questions from committee members. I guess I have one, so. With this, is there anything excluded? In the way of old documents other than saying that they're historic value. In other words, like, do we exclude land records or titles, you know, deeds, things like that.
Speaker 466
1:53:14
Nothing is theoretically excluded in this. Um, this, this has to do specifically with a with a sorry end of end of the day. This has, this has to do with a physical class of records, um. And Ledgers They're wonderful things. County, county judges have spent a fair amount of money restoring those beautiful leather bindings on these ledgers because they look great in offices and that sort of thing.
The state archives acknowledges the The intrinsic, even the emotional value of some things, but it's the informational value.
So one thing we want to make sure is preserved. So one thing I'm a little familiar with it, so like were you
homestead land and you have a document that was signed by the President of the United States. From Whatever year that might have been, and those are those are bringing good money on the market right now. I'm just wondering.
Speaker 466
1:54:18
If that's the type of records we might be destroying. Well, that's why they have to submit
Marty Ryall
Unverified
1:54:24
them to us and we give, we give them, um, a yay or nay. And again, these are only records that are handwritten and that are over 50 years old and that have also been digitally or photographically or markly filmed in some other way.
So you're saying historical value and I understand that, but that's not necessarily collector value, so. Would, I mean, I don't know who would own that record or how you
would determine who should receive the benefit, but there is a market for that record. And I'm just curious how we would
handle those, not necessarily historical value, but These
Marty Ryall
Unverified
1:54:59
are all government records, so whoever has the record, whether it be a county or whoever it may
be, they would retain those records and be responsible for them unless they were turned over to the state archives. OK. All right, thank
you. Any other questions? Senator Hammer, you want clothes for your bill?
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:55:21
Mr. Chairman, I think, I think we've explained it enough and I'll make a
motion to pass. said her hammer is closed for the bill, made a motion to passed. I'll hear a second. I have a
2nd Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, say I. Any opposed? Guys have it. Congratulations, your bill is passed.
Speaker 480
1:55:40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you, Senator Hammer. Thank you all for sticking around all day. Solidarity.
Speaker 482
1:55:54
Mr. Chairman, can we move on to 283 Senate Bill 283. Let
me pull it up here. I have an amendment 2, please. So Senator Hammer, you're recognized to present the amendment for Senate Bill 283.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:56:11
Thank you. I'd like to have Steve Lux come to the
table. They're gonna be passing out the amendments, so take your time. OK
OK, uh, if you would. Introduce yourself for the record, and then we'll uh recognize you and ask your guest
Speaker 480
1:56:49
to. Introduce yourself for the record. Thank you, Kim Hammer, State
Speaker 438
1:56:54
Senator District 16. Thank you Mr. Chairman Steve Lux,
Hot Springs Village. Thank you. You are both recognized to present the amendment to 283. Thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:57:04
you. Just pretty self-explanatory. I think what they're asking for is that they would retain the
record for um she'll have 2 years to locate the apparent owner of the property inscribed under this subsection. It remains unclaimed after the period described under the subdivision, the property is presumed abandoned and the administration will pay, delivering costs to be paid delivery to unclaimed property to the nonprofit organization. Uh, Mr. Chairman, if I could go ahead and make a motion to adopt the amendment and then discuss the bill in its entirety. So I have
a motion and a second to adopt the amendment. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:57:43
The amendment is adopted. Thank you. 283. Thank you. And I'm gonna let uh Steve speak
to it, Mr. Chairman, out of fairness and transparency, I think there might be somebody who wants to come up and speak about it after we get done, so we'll move on with
Speaker 489
1:58:00
it if you don't mind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment to a bill we brought forth that didn't get through committee. We got some input from other senators about an idea.
That rather than going ahead and waiting 3 years and then or I'm sorry, rather than having a situation where the nonprofits would just try to find the people and if they didn't find it, it'd continue on their books forever, I guess. The idea was to give the nonprofits not 3 years, which is under existing law, but one year to find the people and then at the end of that one year they would be turned over to the auditor's office, and the auditor would have 2 years to find the the
People that are do the money and at the end of 2 years if they were unable to find that person or, or entity that owned owed the money or was owed the money, that it would be considered to be abandoned property and it would be returned to the nonprofit. And an example of this might be if you had a secretary working in a church and she had some kind of marital conflict where she left before she got her last paycheck, and she didn't want anybody to know where she moved to and changed
her name. The church would have a year to find that person would then be turned over to the auditor's office. They'd have 2 years and at the end of that time, if they were unable to find that person, it would go back to the church and be considered abandoned property. And so that would be kind of the game plan. I'd mentioned the last time we met that I'm also involved with a nonprofit that had bought a members club in in Hot Springs Village where we have initiation deposits that
were done 30 years ago by people generally in their 60s. And uh I mentioned a million dollars maybe, but that'd be for all states, and I understand talking to the auditor's office that we only deal with uh people from Arkansas, people that were known to live in other states. We have to deal with unclaimed properties in those states or the laws of unclaimed properties, but initially uh we're gonna go ahead and do the club I'm talking about will be reaching out to trying to find those people. I've already found
6 of them that we're doing in 94. Uh, they'll continue to do that, and if this passes, after a year, any that are not found will go to the auditor's office. They'll have 2 years to find those people, um, and we think a lot of them unfortunately are deceased if they're not able to figure out where that would work as far as wills and all that kind of thing, uh, that then it would be abandoned property and it would come back to the members club that they were originally a member of.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:00:50
taking questions, Mr. Chairman, fully, you got a question. Thank
you. So I appreciate the amendment and I think it's, we'd be well served to let the auditor have 2 years with all their resources to try to Track down whoever may be the rightful owner. I just got a couple of questions about language, so it says, If it's been unclaimed for a year, it doesn't say a year or more. And then we say the administrators shall have 2 years to locate the apparent owner. We don't say 2 years from
what. Date or action. In other words, are we just assuming that it's 2 years from a certain action
Speaker 489
2:01:27
or the unclaimed property law actually has set dates, so if, for example, those people in '94 were from uh and I'm gonna have to refer to the auditor's office, but it's a certain six-month segment, then 3 years after that on November 1st, you got to go ahead and give the auditor all that information. That's already in the law, but it's a 3 year time limit now
this would change it to one. and then that November 1st would be one year after instead of 3 years after. So
if the auditor's office is represented here today, maybe they can speak to whether or not the language is going to be sufficient for them to have clarity and whether or not. There's Right. Anything unforeseen, so I'll Back off the queue. Thank you. You know
Speaker 446
2:02:13
questions Senator Tucker, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:21
Even if the auditor doesn't find the rightful owner of
the of the money after 2 years, that still ain't your money. I'm sorry, Senator, even though I'll put it more formally, even if the auditor can't find the rightful owner of the property after 2 years.
That's still not the property of the nonprofit.
Speaker 489
2:02:41
It's someone else's property. Well, I mean, you can look at it that way. However, you know, if you think about it right now on all unclaimed property that comes in to the state, 99% of
it's coming from nonprofits, obviously, but they try to find the rightful owners. After a period of time they don't usually I guess they're taking in about 40 million a year. They're finding maybe 18 or 20 million and then the state is borrowing $18 million of that money. Each year I understand by statute now, which means that the state is actually considering any that the auditor's office doesn't find is
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:03:22
abandoned property that you can use in general revenue, right? That wasn't my question. Can I interrupt for a second? I want to make sure I understood you right. You didn't
Speaker 489
2:03:34
misspeak something. I think, did you say 99% from nonprofits. He
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:03:37
may have. I didn't 99% from for-profits. I'm sorry, yeah, I thought you said
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:40
nonprofit. I just want to make sure that one less than 1%. That was not my question. I'll I'll give a hypothetical to better illustrate
the question I'm asking. Uh, nonprofit X owes John Doe
$10,000. Right? Nonprofit X can't find John Doe. Right. Nonprofit X gives $10,000 to the auditor. The auditor has 2 years to try to find John Doe. For auditor doesn't find John Doe for 2 years. That $10,000 still belongs to John Doe. Not not to nonprofit X. Uh, that's correct, when
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:04:16
TJ comes up here a minute, which I'm sure he is, and I hope
he does straighten me out if I'm misstating anything.
In, in theory, that is correct. In practice though, what we've been doing is 18 or 19. The state has been borrowing from the unclaimed property fund and putting into general revenue, I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:04:38
think that's a bad practice, and I know you had talked about legislation to fix
Speaker 123
2:04:43
that, which I would have supported, but anyway, like you put that right, but anyway, uh,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:04:48
but the, the, so there are two separate issues going on here. One is, you know, and one
is that this money while sitting in a pot is being borrowed against and moved over here and you could almost regard that as, and I think I said this in the previous presentation. That's an IOU that's 100% the money so I think if I'm correct in that, the question is, you want it to sit in the pot and us keep borrowing it and putting it over here, or would you rather give it what the nonprofits have it ultimately after all avenues have been exhausted and in whose hands would it be better served to
keep doing like we're doing and put over general revenue or for what is less than 1% of the total impact let the nonprofit, once it's been exhausted. That's, and if I'm please correct me if you see it differently because I want to be accurate and thorough in
Speaker 489
2:05:46
my perception. And and Senator, I might add that um I can't speak for every nonprofit, but the ones I'm associated with, I'm sure if they got that money back after 2 years from the auditor's office and then 3 years later that lady
that had to leave her husband that was abusive, showed back up at the church. The church would, I'm sure, pay them what they
Chair
Unverified
2:06:07
owed. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Any other questions from the committee?
Speaker 377
2:06:14
All right, so you know for questions, um. And bring up Mr. uh TJ Fowler. TJ, come on up. Chairman, if you don't mind. We're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:06:23
all friendly here and just trying to arrive at what's best you don't mind, we're just going to stay seated in case as he
shares, we can back and forth for expedite the time please. OK
Chair
Unverified
2:06:38
with that? DJ have a seat. Introduce yourself. Tell us you're with for the record, then proceed. All right, TJ Fowler, legal counsel for the auditor
Speaker 499
2:06:46
of State, Chairman Flippo, senators, it's good to see everyone. Senator Hammer, um, first, I'd just like to say that the auditors office has nothing but respect for Senator Hammer. We've worked well together in the past. I think he's a great senator and personally I think he's a good and decent man. This
disagreement and speaking in opposition is simply a policy difference. I think he's speaking on behalf of the best interests of some part of his constituency. and we have to look at the unclaimed unclaimed property program as to what's in the best interests of all Arkansans and the property as a whole. So, so maybe a little background on the unclaimed property program is warranted here. Um, the unclaimed property program exists as a piece of consumer protection to safeguard individual property rights, and there are 3 main parties to the
unclaimed property relationship. You have what we call holders. These are businesses or entities that hold money that doesn't belong to them. It belongs to another party that we call the owner. These are the rightful owners in our case generally individuals in Arkansas and then you have the administrator, and these are the government entities who are vested by law to handle these programs and to try to get the money that was once in the hands of the holder back to the owner. Um, UCP laws are triggered when
property's been abandoned, lost, or forgotten for a prescribed period of time. And it only implicates property that does not belong to the holder, so in the context of this bill, if nonprofit, excuse me, I've been sitting here a long time. If a nonprofit has any legal claim to property in their position in their possession, then it doesn't meet the definition of unclaimed property. So we're only talking about property where the holder has no legal claim. Um, UCP administration is unique in
state governments because it is, it is property that is held in a government coffer that is purely private property. It hasn't been levied by any tax. It is A private individual's property and we are merely the custodians. All 50 states administer unclaimed property programs and the Arkansas's unclaimed property program is it rests in the auditor's office. We have 10 dedicated staff, all was sophisticated software tools and training that allows us to identify the proper owner, locate them, and reunite them
with their property, and that is even when you're talking about an air claim or a complex air claim that may have multiple generations of heirs, and frankly that's a lot of what I do as counsel for the auditors' offices go through wills and trusts and make sure we're getting property back to the right people, even if it was originally owned by someone who's long since deceased in fiscal 24, our office processed 101,977 unclaimed property claims, and we paid out 36 million
$355,704.18 to rightful owners, so considerably more than the $10,000 that was estimated earlier. Um, what does this bill seek to do, and I apologize. I've got a whole write up on how to respond to the original bill and then the amendment kind of threw me for a loop, so I've got another set of notes here. Originally it sought to exempt nonprofit businesses with less than $5 million in revenue from the entirety of the unclaimed property statute and this committee rejected that bill last week. You're now presented with an amendment and unfortunately the amendment not only fails to fix the flaws in
the original problem in the original bill. It actually creates at least one new problem that I is worse. The amendment says that nonprofits with less than $5 million in annual revenue shall pay all unclaimed property that they hold over to the administrator after a one year dormancy period. It then says the administrator, and that's us, has 2 years to locate the property owner and then if we fail to deliver the property back to the owner within 2 years, it reverts back to the nonprofit organization, and I think Senator Tucker made a good
point, and I'd actually asked Mr. Lux about this earlier during the break. I'd said, Well, when it reverts back to y'all, who owns the property and Mr. Lux understanding at the time we spoke was that the ownership would actually revert back to the nonprofit, and as Senator Tucker eloquently stated more eloquently than I could, you can't through this law just change private property ownership. You can't make the lawfinders keepers just through this bill, um, and
And so the main problems here are first this new language changes how property is defined under the unclaimed Property Act, and that definition is really foundational as to how the whole act works. The unclaimed Property Act doesn't distinguish between dormancy periods based on IRS, IRS tax status of the holder, meaning there's nowhere else in the code that says if you're a nonprofit or a for-profit corporation. Here's your dormancy period. You heard Mr. Luck say that they have a 3 year dormancy period, and that's not
accurate. Dormancy and abandonment in the current act are defined under art code and 1828 202. It has nothing to do with the holder and everything to do with the piece of property. property itself. So for example, traveller's checks are presumed abandoned after 15 years. Money orders are presumed abandoned after 7 years. Stocks and other securities are presumed abandoned after 7 years, but there are exceptions in the case of stocks when you talk about stock splits or other actions that are contemplated under SEC
regs that govern those securities. There are 15 different property categories and all, and they all have a different dormancy period. And it's worth noting that Arkansas's Unclaimed Property Act is actually a derivation of the uniform unclaimed Property Act that's in effect for all, not all, but most of the 50 states and that uniform Act was created with input since the 1980s from national organizations, banks, the SEC, business associations, nonprofit
associations and many more, and it was ultimately it was ultimately adopted by that uniform. Code commission and each of those dormancy periods for each separate asset has been thought out by people that are a whole lot smarter than me, and they're really valid reasons why each of those assets should sit for that period before being considered dormant. This bill scraps decades of that sort of planning, and it basically says all property that is held by a nonprofit now has a one-year dormancy period. It doesn't matter if it's a stock, doesn't
matter if it's a traveler's check. It doesn't matter if it's cash. I understand that Mr. Lux is dealing primarily with liquid assets cash here, but that's not universal for all nonprofits in the state. This one year dormancy period would very would I know for a fact it would be the shortest dormancy period in Arkansas law, and I'm pretty certain it would be the shortest dormancy period anywhere in the United States, um. So that that that's my first
issue with the bill. The second is a little bit more broad. Sorry for the quick change of gears here. I'm a little punchy after sitting here all day, um, so. The second goes to Senator Tucker's point. This bill violates Arkansas's private property rights with any actual notice or judicial due process, and this new scheme where it's going to go to the auditor of state for one year and then revert back actually makes the state of Arkansas a party to that problem. So under this bill's amended, our office
assume our office is unsuccessful in returning the property after 2 years. The bill says the property is presumed abandoned and the administrators shall pay. or cause to be paid or delivered, the unclaimed property to the nonprofit organization. This part initially confused me because when I read it this morning, it basically says that property that it's already defined as abandoned under 1828 202 is once again presumed abandoned, and abandoned is a defined term under 202. So to me it looks like there's two different interpretations of this
language. First possible meaning either this means we have this eternal loop where property is abandoned. They have one year of dormancy, they send it to us. We have 2 years to get it back to them. It's then abandoned, so it goes to them, but it's abandoned property under the definition of the code, so they keep it for a year and then they have to give it back to us and we keep it for 2 years and we send it back to them for 1 year, and this loop goes on for eternity. That's a pretty nonsensical reading, but it is one possible reading. The only other reading you can have
is that if the auditor doesn't find the owner, the property is now double abandoned, which means that ownership reverts. To the nonprofit who originally reported the property, and again, as I told you earlier, I spoke with Mr. Lux, and that was his understanding of how this bill worked. Under this intent, if the auditor doesn't find the property owner in 2 years, then ownership reverts back to the nonprofit, and the original owner would somehow lose all legal right and title to the property, and I respect,
gentlemen, I very much respect that y'all write the law, but even this body doesn't have that authority. Doing so would effectively rewrite centuries of common law and constitutional principles of property ownership that are foundational to this country. This bill suggests that the government can take one ' s private property and hand it to someone else without any actual notice or due process and on a timeline that is shorter than most statutes of limitation for the underlying debt obligation. Even worse, the way this is structured, it makes the state
of Arkansas a key player in that transfer which would open the state up to legal liability. So let's say this property is owned by Adam, Arkansen, and it sits for one year at nonprofit X, and they send it to the state of Arkansas and after two years we send it back to nonprofit acts whom we grant full title and ownership by making the state of Arkansas the middle man in that transaction. Adam Arkansen not only has a conversion action against nonprofit X. They now have a takings and due process. action against the state of Arkansas. I know that due
process is a term you'll hear a lot as legislators and a lot of times people bring it up just to try and throw shade on a bill they don't like. I don't think this is one of those times. I think this is real due process as contemplated by the Fifth Amendment. We have the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, I think this is exactly what that is talking about in both the US and the Arkansas Constitutions. Um, I'll briefly address some things that were said that the last time around because I think
they're still applicable. It was stated in the last committee meeting that there were 4 states that have some exemption for nonprofits. Those states were Kansas, Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia is what you were told. We have relationships with all 50 states unclaimed property administrators because we have reciprocity with those states. We reached out to those states. Maryland, Virginia, and Kansas have no exemptions of any kind for nonprofits. Ohio. has a limited reporting exemption that relates only to hospitals. However, there are unclaimed property laws still
requires that the exempt hospital comply with the good faith due diligence provisions of that state's UCP code and those hospitals are subject to other laws that require them to return certain unclaimed property to their patients. Passing this bill would make Arkansas the only state in the union that would allow nonprofits of any size to keep money that belongs to a private citizen. Senator Payton, do you have a question. I can, I can
edge. Alright, I'm gonna go. So what confidence does
auditor's office have or lack it thereof of being able to track down the rightful owner. In the example that's before us, so you seem to be familiar with the testimony last week. There's a $10,000 deposits. They may have been elderly, they've passed away. I would think that the auditor's office We have great success in being able to track this down. Is it the, is the time frame too short or, or what is your confidence
Speaker 499
2:18:54
level on tracking down the rightful owners of this property. We have a high confidence level in tracking down the rightful owners of this property, and under the current law, it would be sent to us after the proper dormancy period and we'd be
given that opportunity, and we think that the current laws
Speaker 499
2:19:10
so you've you've not had the opportunity yet. No, sir. So my understanding is that most of these real estate agreements were signed in 1994 and there was a 30 year period on that $10,000 loan that came up in 2024. There's a 3 year dormancy period on these cash
transactions, so Diamante's Moneys would be they would be owed to the auditor's office in 2027, I believe, um, and so we have not received that money. There was something said at the last meeting that I planned to respond to under the original version of the bill. Maybe it's appropriate to respond to it now. It was said that they believed that they probably had a better shot of returning this money than the auditor's office because they're the ones with the relationships with these people.
The way property is reported to the auditor's office is what we call a NAPA standard file, and that's how most of the states do it. It's a, it's a very easy form that a business can fill out. It's been done that way so that small businesses don't have to devote a lot of manpower or attention. They go and they
check boxes, so you would say that the assumption that we needed this bill because there was an inability to contact or find the rightful owner that that premise that we started off with was wrong. Yes, sir.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:20:26
The the law as it as it stated now.
There is there any questions? I got a question as a member, Senator Hammer, thank you. One thing I want to take exception to
one thing TJ said, and we've got a great working relationship, but the word scheme was used in his comments. I think that was inappropriate because if it was a scheme, I wouldn't be doing it in a very transparent way like this, put it before the committee in order to have this kind of a discussion, so I want to take exception to that word that was
used. The second thing is, and this is my question I want to ask TJ. Based on the presentation that he gave, which is very thorough and I appreciate that. Then Based on
what you said, have we as a state violated our own law whenever we take The money And it's in the unclaimed property fund, and
then we take the money. And we put it into general revenue have we ourselves as a
state violate our own law, and members, part of the reason for this very open air conversation is not only to try to address this issue, but to look in a very open, transparent way that question, are we violating our own law because we are taking money that belongs to somebody else, and we are redirecting it into general revenue funds and If it's not good for them, why is it OK for us.
Speaker 499
2:21:57
First, let me sincerely apologize if I said scheme. That's not how I meant it. A strike it from the record. I've been sitting, sitting back here all day. It's been a long, long day, and I apologize. I may not be as careful with my words as I should be. I know, and and I should say before I came up here, I've got so much respect for what you guys do every single day during this session because it's been difficult for me just following the couple bills I have to, and y'all do this all day, so kudos and congrats, but I sincerely apologize to the 18 million, I think that's a great question.
and you and I have had conversations about this 18 million um. The answer is no. It is not illegal the way Arkansas does it, um, a little more background is warranted, and I apologize for making this drag on. I know it's late, um. Arkansas is not what is known as a true Sche state. There are true SG states in the union, and what that essentially means is Arkansas never takes money that has been sitting in the unclaimed property proceeds
trust and converts it to general revenue dollars. There's no time period where we say, OK, we didn't get it back to you. It's now ours. There are states that do that. These are generally states on the coast that are farther left than we are. There was actually a case that went to the US Supreme Court a couple years back. It didn't make it up on cert, but then the denial of Cert, the current makeup of the of the US Supreme Court said, we may hammer. these states that are doing this. What we do in Arkansas is at the end of every fiscal year,
we take $18 million out of the unclaimed property trust fund, and we move it to general revenue. And that is done under GASB 21. It's a governor governmental accounting Standards Board and legislative audit audits us on this every year, and we have to keep an accounting of it. We moved that to general revenue, but it creates a liability on the books of general revenue that extends in perpetuity and currently that liability is right around $400 million. Um. I don't know how many members
are aware that that is a liability, not a transfer based on this as we rule. If it were not a transfer to directly answer your question, excuse me, if it were not a loan, if it were a transfer, then yes, it would arguably
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:24:15
be illegal. Does that respond to your question, sir? It does, but it seems like we've created a law that benefits
ourselves, but we are opposing a law that would benefit nonprofits. Am I right or wrong on that?
Speaker 499
2:24:32
I agree with you, sir, and, and it is the auditor's position. I feel comfortable in saying it is auditor Milligan's position that that $18 million payment should cease. You a question. Senator
Payton. Thank you. I I I love the fact that you have a high confidence that you can find the rightful owners. I believe you have. far better tools to do that than what the nonprofits would have. I believe that getting the money
into your hands sooner and the records into your hands sooner and get to work on that means that they'll be easier to find. But I want To work out the spirit of this bill in a way that the logistics worked for the auditor's office. And that is at whatever time frame you've exhausted your efforts. That this goes back to the nonprofit and so are are you in a position to help us with that, or are we just gonna have to take a stab at it.
Speaker 499
2:25:33
I think the issue with reverting it back to the nonprofit is it's more complicated because the question is how is it going back to the nonprofit? Are you saying going back to them and they try to find the right flower, are you saying that it's an ownership reversion. I'm saying at
some point we give up. We can't find the rightful owner. They
Speaker 499
2:25:53
should get the benefit, the nonprofit. I think that is, I think that is constitutionally problematic because what you're talking about is the government without any due process to the owner without any notice to the owner
saying we, the state, are going to convert ownership of this piece of private property from one private citizen to
another private entity. Well, you say without notice, but I mean we have public notices that go in newspapers that nobody reads, and we consider that legal notice and
so when you post it to the treasure hunt or whatever they call it these days. I mean, there is public notice at some level. I think the
Speaker 499
2:26:29
difference is what you're talking about is some notice that is part of a court proceeding where they have
rules in place as to attempt to give actual notice and then when actual notice fails, they have rules for constructive notice and what and what this would be was would be purely some executive constructive notice without any judicial proceeding. I don't think it would pass muster under due process, but I I would defer to Senator
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:26:54
Tucker on that. Senator Payton. What I hear you saying, I want to repeat back to hear what If I'm hearing you correctly, there is some point in time where we've done all we can do,
and at that point in time when we've done all that
we can do, what's the better choice to go back to the nonprofits or to go To the state because ultimately if that money, and correct me if I'm wrong, TJ, ultimately
that money is sitting in a pot, and the bigger that pot builds, the more it can be. So I'll say two things. When
you cease doing anything, you've done all you can do. So at whatever point we cease doing anything. We've done all we can do.
I think it should go back to the nonprofit. If it goes back with conditions. that a claimant shows up and the nonprofit has not gone defunct. Then maybe we should allow that to remain as a liability to the nonprofit. But if the auditor's office can't help us work out the logistics. We're going to
take a stab at it and let the courts do it, so I
Speaker 499
2:28:01
would like to say if I could, we are working on two initiatives. One is a A piece of legislation you all
just passed. We call it data match, and it is allowing the auditor's office to send out checks for unclaimed property without anyone actually filing a claim. So before you had to have looked and seen and filed a claim. We now thanks to y'all, if we have sufficient personal identification and information, we can send those out on our own, just give them the check. The second thing, and I may be speaking out of turn here. but there are plans in the works
at the auditor's office for next fiscal year to roll out a program that we are calling Cold Case because there certainly are some properties that are unclaimed property that are old decades old, and And just like you were saying, auditor Milligan doesn't like the fact that it seems like some of these have just become stale and nothing's going to happen, so an entire segment of the team is going to be dedicated to researching those what we will call cold cases and attempting to get those older properties
Speaker 444
2:29:09
off the books of the auditor of state. Get a motion a motion for immediate consideration. Second from Senator Clark, all in favor say aye opposed? All right. They got a motion, uh, is there a motion on the bill? We We
got a motion to pass as amended by Senator Clark. Do I see a second, seconded by Senator Sullivan, all in favor. Say aye opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes.
Speaker 432
2:29:43
Who, who else has a bill? Jim, you got a bill? Anybody got a bill
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Scott Flippo
REGULAR AGENDA
SB283 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW CONCERNING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY.
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.
SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD.
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.
HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, AND COMMISSIONS.
HB1597 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE.
SB398 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO ALLOW A CURE PERIOD FOR INSUFFICIENT SUBMISSIONS.
SB403 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE THE 2030 ARKANSAS COMPLETE COUNT COMMITTEE; AND TO PLAN AND CONDUCT STATEWIDE EDUCATIONAL AND OUTREACH INITIATIVES TO INCREASE COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN THE 2030 FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS.
HB1410 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS.
HB1608 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND ARCHIVES; AND TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE ARKANSAS STATE ARCHIVES PRIOR TO THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.
HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
SJR1 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ENACT, AMEND, OR REPEAL LAWS CONCERNING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS OR ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE SENATE, AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
SJR4 J. Boyd AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE ANNUAL SCHOOL ELECTION SHALL NOT BE HELD IF THE PROPOSED RATE OF TAX LEVY IS THE SAME AS LAST APPROVED AND NO OTHER MATTERS ARE TO BE DECIDED.
SJR5 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND CASINO GAMING SHALL BE USED FOR CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES.
SJR7 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
SJR8 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100, CONCERNING CASINO GAMING.
SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN STATE COURT TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
SJR10 B. King A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CONCERNING EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY.
SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS.
SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, OR DISTRICT JUDGE TO DECLARE HIS OR HER PARTY AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE.
SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES.
SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS".
SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
SJR19 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO EXEMPT FOOD AND FOOD INGREDIENTS FROM THE EXCISE TAX LEVIED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 75.
SJR20 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION.
SJR21 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIATED ACTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION.
SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION.
SJR23 M. Johnson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PROCEEDS GENERATED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 91, MAY BE APPLIED TO MULTILANE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS.
SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES FOR INITIATED MEASURES.
DEFERRED BILLS
SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION.
SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS.
SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT.
SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COUNTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PERSONNEL RECORDS.
SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Mar 11, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 10
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 41
Speaker 45
Speaker 38
Chair
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 13
Speaker 93
Speaker 103
Speaker 104
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Speaker 112
Speaker 139
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 144
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 15
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 78
Speaker 92
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 188
Speaker 191
Speaker 165
Speaker 193
Speaker 204
Speaker 205
Speaker 210
Marty Ryall
Unverified
Speaker 219
Speaker 254
Speaker 260
Speaker 278
Speaker 96
Speaker 285
Speaker 287
Speaker 288
Speaker 224
Speaker 296
Speaker 297
Speaker 306
Speaker 169
Speaker 316
Speaker 317
Speaker 319
Speaker 321
Speaker 328
Speaker 338
Speaker 162
Speaker 341
Speaker 343
Speaker 352
Speaker 350
Speaker 358
Speaker 359
Speaker 362
Speaker 363
Speaker 366
Speaker 369
Speaker 22
Speaker 370
Speaker 387
Speaker 134
Speaker 416
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
Speaker 423
Speaker 436
Speaker 170
Speaker 448
Speaker 455
Speaker 462
Speaker 464
Speaker 466
Speaker 480
Speaker 482
Speaker 438
Speaker 489
Speaker 446
Speaker 123
Speaker 377
Speaker 499
Speaker 444
Speaker 432