State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (46)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB357
Act 572
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
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 |
|
HB1607
Act 318
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. HB1607 Rose TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM. | Rose | Notification that HB1607 is now Act 318 |
|
HB1460
Act 324
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION. HB1460 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN BO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL … | Rose | Notification that HB1460 is now Act 324 |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ATE ARCHIVES PRIOR TO THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB227
Act 505
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD. SB227 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 | Notification that SB227 is now Act 505 |
|
SB282
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…mmer Sen. Jim Dotson REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB282 C. Penzo AMENDING THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
AMENDING THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR … | C. Penzo | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1365
Act 938
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OF ARKANSAS LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1988. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…eas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, AND COMMISSIONS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEA…”
|
TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB212
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PERSONNEL RECORDS. SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB241
Act 885
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB248
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB283
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. 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 |
|
SB376
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS. SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINAN…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS … | Hickey | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB398
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE. SB398 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETIT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO ALLOW A CURE … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB4
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…INITIATED MEASURES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB403
Act 449
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION. SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR1
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TOURISM. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle SJR1 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REQUIR…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF EACH HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR10
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. SJR10 B. King A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CONCERNING EFFICIENCY IN G…”
|
A CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CONCERNING EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF THE … | B. King | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR11
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OR THE CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY. SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONS…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT … | J. Payton | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR12
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR13
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS. Page 2 of 3 SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE F…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, … | J. Dotson | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR14
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR15
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…UE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC D…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR17
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREA…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR18
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…STITUTION TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS". SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. SJR19 M. John…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR19
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS OR ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS. SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR20
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…XCISE TAX LEVIED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 75. SJR20 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQU…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR21
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION. SJR21 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQU…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE VOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIATED ACTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR22
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION. SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR23
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. SJR23 M. Johnson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PROCE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PROCEEDS GENERATED UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 91, MAY BE … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SJR24
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DMENT 91, MAY BE APPLIED TO MULTILANE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS. SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO VOTERS. | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR3
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE SENATE, AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR4
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. SJR4 J. Boyd AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVID…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE ANNUAL SCHOOL ELECTION SHALL NOT … | J. Boyd | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR5
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ME AS LAST APPROVED AND NO OTHER MATTERS ARE TO BE DECIDED. SJR5 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR7
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES. SJR7 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR8
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 98, CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA. SJR8 B. King AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100, CONCERNING CASINO GAMING. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR9
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100, CONCERNING CASINO GAMING. SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
We call this meeting to order. All right, let's see here. Representative
Landstrom. Oh, so it's not that non-controversial then Senator Davis. Enlightened us with something noncontroversial and agreed upon. I What's your build you're running a number. House Bill 1607 members, 1607. Have Katherine Andrews come up to testify on the bill with me.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
0:39
Brian Davis state Senate District 25. Good morning, Catherine
Speaker 8
0:45
Andrews, director of the Arkansas Office of Outdoor Recreation. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 11
0:49
Senator Davis, to proceed with your bill. Thank you.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
0:52
I'm going to um this is a non-controversial, pretty simple bill. I'm going to turn it over to Miss Andrews to, um, let you guys know about
Speaker 14
1:03
it. All right, um, in 2021, Governor Hutchinson created an
Speaker 15
1:06
executive order to create the 16th formal
Office of Outdoor Recreation in the country here in Arkansas. Um, in the last 3 and almost a half years that we have had this Office of Outdoor recreation. Um, we have connected the industry we have worked with agencies like the Department of Commerce, Arkansas Economic Development Commission, um, making sure that they are aware of the benefits of outdoor recreation we've given away. millions of dollars in grants hosted two outdoor recreation summits, really bolstered the outdoor recreation economy in
Speaker 16
1:41
Arkansas, and that's our goal is to grow this sector of the economy in our state. All right, members. You've heard
an explanation of the bill or questions from the committee, Senator Payton, I ask for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:55
if you've already been able to do all that, then what is this going to do to to expand those efforts codification of the office by codifying it
Speaker 14
2:03
into law rather than having it in executive order, um creates
Speaker 15
2:11
Streamline of government creates more of a formation of the office creates efficiency long term set up for success rather than just keeping it in executive order. So you're not You don't foresee doing I mean, you may, you're
Speaker 24
2:22
gonna be doing more of the same, not something
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:25
new. Correct. OK, thank you. All right, Senator Sullivan, you're going to ask her a question. So help me out.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:34
What's the difference between an office and a board or commission.
And why do you need the follow up? Why do we need legislative approval to create a new
Speaker 8
2:56
office. So, yeah. There we go. A board and a commission is very separate from a state agency. So an Office of outdoor recreation is
Speaker 15
3:02
technically a state agency, a board and a commission is is appointed by the governor. I was hired, not appointed, so this functions as a part of the Department of Parks Heritage
Speaker 35
3:10
and tourism and is not a board a
commission. You need legislation. You need
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
3:19
legislation to create an office within a agency. It was created first by
Speaker 15
3:24
executive order, and now what we're hoping to do is codify it into law. To create a streamlined Form of keeping this office in place for years to
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
3:36
come. I'm just, I'm wondering, it seems like every time if the state needs Our permission to create an
office it seems like you could someone there could just say, look, this is your office over here. Go down there and I'll talk to you when I need you. So why, what authority does that office have? That causes the need for legislative approval. I'm not opposed to what you're trying to do. I'm just wondering why we have to approve an office and and what authority you
assume out of that. The Well, I, I think creating an office and taking it out of
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
4:15
executive order, um, of course, gives us some jurisdiction over it as the legislative branch, and I, and I think that that's a good thing, um, and, you know, instead of letting an executive order live on the books for decades if we just go ahead and put it into law, then we, like I said, have more um control and jurisdiction over what that office is doing and the reports, understanding how they're appropriating grants and things like that. I'm OK with it. I clearly understand
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
4:40
we have the power Get rid of this office if we want to do. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 45
4:45
you, thank you. Alright, members, any questions from the committee? All right, Senator King. We're going to ask for
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
4:55
a question. So just creating new positions and new people and hiring new people to take over, maybe
Speaker 15
5:01
I missed that. I've been, uh, here in this position since its inception in 2021. It's using existing positions within state government. There's no new budget line item or anything like that. It's using existing resources that we have within the agency and making it uh
focusing it on this purpose. OK. Alright, thanks. Any other
questions for the committee? Alright, see none. OK,
Senator Peyton, we're gonna ask for a
Senator John Payton
Unverified
5:32
question. Thank you. Uh, so in the bill, On page 2, line 16, it starts a paragraph says the office shall promulgate rules necessary. Who's going to review or approve those rules. Is that the the uh secretary. Of uh
Park's Heritage and tourism, or is that the commission? Who, who's going to be the one that
Approves or or reviews the rules that are promulgated by the office.
Speaker 14
6:01
It will be both, but ultimately the Secretary of the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism, um, and the rules necessary for the
Speaker 15
6:07
grant program have, so the fun part grant program has been around for a long time. Well, that's what I'm getting at. So
Senator John Payton
Unverified
6:13
in other words, the same people that are reviewing and approving the rule now will be then. Correct. Nothing is changing
Speaker 15
6:19
in terms of that. It's just putting that
program under the offices of outdoor recreation. All right.
Any other questions from the committee? All right, say no, don't have anybody to sign up speak for or against this. Senator, you are recognized to close for your
bill. Just ask for a good vote. I'm closed for my bills, Senators closed for a bill. I've got a motion, a motion from Senator Payton, second from Senator Sullivan. Any discussion say none. All in favor, say aye. opposed. Congratulations, Senator Davis. Your bill's passes.
Speaker 3
6:53
All right, let's see here. Next up, Representative Lustrom. wait. Alright, um. There he is. Is that
a house? Yeah, and Representative, what's your bill number? 1 1614 members.
Speaker 80
8:09
All right, remembers staff's going to hand out a An amendment here. And I'll let y'all
review the amendment. It's pretty straightforward, so at the I got a copy. All right. And then I'll take a motion to adopt. Got a motion in the second
Senator Sullivan, all in favor say aye opposed. All right, it's been adopted. Representative
Latro you were recognized to present your bill as amended, and if it'll start with introducing
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
8:52
yourself and Yes, sir. State Representative Robin Lundstrom, District 18, and my
Speaker 87
8:59
guest is. Annie Ballard, executive director of Arkansas Coalition Against Sexual Assault, also the chair of the Victim justice grant advisory board to DFNA IGS. Great. Thank you for being here. All right, Representative
Speaker 89
9:11
Lestrom, you were recognized to present your bill. Thank you, sir.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
9:14
First of all, I'd like to thank Senator Clark for coming in and saving the day so quickly, um, this bill basically is right in the title. It allows the or requires the grand advisory board to come and prepare an annual report for state agencies and on the grants that they recommend and what's going on with the money. Alright. Members have heard an explanation of
the bill. Are there any questions from members of the committee? All right.
Ain't no questions. I don't see anybody signed up to speak. For or against this. Representative, you're. Senator Sullivan, we're gonna ask for a question. Yeah, what is a sub? What's it called
Speaker 96
9:54
a sub-grantee. What page and line are you looking at, Senator? I'm looking for it. I just saw it.
Speaker 100
10:17
Mr. Chair, I will get with them offline and ask some questions pertinent to what the bill
does. Thank you, Senator. All right. Are there any other questions to the committee? Alright, see no, don't have anybody to sign up to speak for or against this. Representative Leundstrom, you'd be recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:35
Yeah, sure. Accountability and transparency are important, and I think it's important that this agency, or excuse me, that this group come and present to state agencies and let us know what's going on with the money. Great. All right, members, got a motion to pass from Senator
Dodson as amended. Thank you. Second from Senator Tucker, any discussion on the motion? All right, all in favor, say aye. opposed? Congratulations, Representative Luon. Your bill passes as amended. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right. Representative Bryant, you're ready to roll?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
11:20
yeah yeah yeah yeah. Old Havastein Hart, you know, Senator Tucker. And Senator, what bill are you running? Yes, I believe Senate Bill 357, Mr. Chair. OK, Senate Bill 357. Let me pull it up here.
Speaker 111
11:50
OK, and this does have a fiscal impact. All right, are you ready? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:21
Uh, running Senate Bill 357 regarding um applying
military service credit for the annual leave accrual for a state employee. Um I was contacted
about a year ago from an HR services director inside one of our departments that said that they were going to potentially lose a very valued employee because the offer to go elsewhere is greater. And I don't think that's an uncommon situation in state.
In state government where our Our compensation packages are typically lower than the private sector, so you have to look at your options of what's doing best for your family. For those that like the retirement and the leave accruals in lieu of maybe a higher salary. They'll typically stay. And if that higher salary overcomes those other compensation benefits, they'll leave, and that's kind of the nature of our of our society and capitalistic society. But something that I feel it would be a great benefit to the
recruitment of state employees is to take those that are willing and wanting to serve our nation or our state through the National Guard.
Um, they have a, a service-minded heart. They are dedicated in their performance or their jobs. They are trained to maybe a higher scrutiny being as military service members, and I think those are
the type of candidates we want to hire inside of our state workforce. And so one area that I think we could do better to be competitive is to take their
years of service and apply them to our accrual process of our state employees. And so you take myself for example, I, I served 5 years in the Marine Corps. Whenever I vacated the Marine Corps and worked a regular civilian
job for a year. I then took appointment with the Federal Aviation Administration. And when I got to the Federal Aviation Administration why I was
a junior employee. I had a mindset of a military background. I was well received. There's other military members that were also part of the
Federal Aviation Administration in my workforce, and I began accruing leave like
I had been an employee of the federal government for 5 years, which meant instead of accruing 4 hours every pay period, I accrued 6 hours every pay period, which 2 hours of pay period. 24 pay
periods a year that gave me a couple extra days of accrued annual leave that I was able to basically put towards my compensation package. And so while that process is federal to federal uh what this
bill would do is allow our state workforce to
look at that accrual of those years served in our military or our National Guard or our reserves and apply that to the accrual of the state employee. And so the example would be for the individual that I got called on through one of our departments was she, I believe, served 8 years in the Navy, highly valued employee. She was looking
to go to a federal position to where she can get compensated, the accrual process for those 8 years, which again it wasn't much, probably 4 to 8
hours of pay period, but it was enough for her to really consider that move, so I really asked that department head, well, let, let me, let me give a bill a shot and it was just a simple bill. Just expanded to make sure we cover all our bases, so if you're a reservist or a National Guards member, you get produced a form that's probably the bulk of the of the spacing, you get different forms from different uh services like Secretary Ward. He is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve. He gets a form
every year every hour he serves gets built up and you take those hours divide it by 365 because each hour accumulates to a day's worth, and then that generates a number and those Numbers could be accumulated as how many years served, which may be a decimal point of a year, uh, but it may be years served that he can credit to his current state employment. And so that's the goal of the bill. I believe it's a great
tool to recruit our military service members to retain our military service members in lieu
of maybe compensation of pay or additional retirement. This is a great way to Um Honor their service. So with that, Mr. Chair, I'll take any questions members you've heard an
explanation of the bill. Are there questions from members of the committee, Senator Peyton, you were recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So
Senator John Payton
Unverified
16:49
this doesn't affect retirement or salary. You're talking about days off or half a day off or something like that. That is correct, Senator Payton. Yeah, we
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:56
already have programs where we can do military buybacks into our retirement. So do you know the baseline for
Senator John Payton
Unverified
17:03
state employees, how many days off they get a year? I,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
17:07
I think different departments have different criteria. I did ask Mr. Wood, who is part of our military department to come maybe answer a little more
details because he's very detailed into this, um, yeah, I, I'm just curious because I work in the private sector where we work 6 days
Senator John Payton
Unverified
17:21
a week and Have, you know, My oldest child was 18 years old before we ever took a full week's vacation, so.
Speaker 123
17:35
introduce yourself and who you're with for the record, Jeff Wood, Department of the Military, and Senator Payton of the OPM actually has a chart for how many hours the states. And so I should
Speaker 124
17:47
have brought my glasses, uh. Oh, Office of Personnel Management Barnhill's office, so this is statewide, yes, sir.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
17:55
OK. What's the, what's the number? I said for the 1st 3 years, it's 8 hours and then years 4 through 5, it goes to 10 hours.
Hold on just a minute. My question was, what is the baseline that state employees get for time off. You're saying the 1st 3 years they only get 1 day a week
or one day a year they earn 8 hours a month. I'm sorry, 8 hours a month would be the accrual, OK, so they get 12 days a year off, yes. In their first, each of their 1st 3 years. Yes, Senator, yeah, 1st 3 years. That was my question. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Alright, members
are questions from the committee? Senator Sullivan in the opposition to this bill that
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:36
you're aware of? I have not received any calls except for from the military community that works for our state that would say this would be a great perk to their employment. Senator Bryant, you don't
derive any personal benefit from this, do you do with the state and this bill passes, I would, but I'm not certainly affect my vote. All right, members, any other questions for the
committee? OK, Senator Clark, you recognize her question. OK, yeah, um. Not sure I'm following at all.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
19:07
So back to Senator Peyton's question. Baseline for state employees.
Is what did you say for the 1st 3 years? It's 8 hours monthly, Senator. 8 hours monthly so that's 12 days a year. Yes, I think so. So 12 days a year and of course that's Christmas and beyond. Yeah, that this would be annual leave addition to any holidays or anything so it's an addition.
To holidays. So let me come back. So you're working, I'm assuming 5 days a week, not 6 like Payton talked about, he did 5 days a week. OK. And then What are the holidays because when I'm adding up my cost always. Uh, If you've got 12 days a week, what are the 12 days a year, what are the holidays on top of that? I um
Speaker 142
20:06
I'm trying to think it's, I know we get uh Thanksgiving, Christmas, uh,
Speaker 123
20:13
4th of July, I think there's a you get your birthday off annually as a state employee and then I think there's President's Day, um Martin Luther King Day, um. Labor Day, Memorial Day, I'm trying to think if there's any other, uh January 1st New Year's Day, yes, OK, so so far we've got 12 and
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
20:34
9, 21. I think that's it. I can't think of
Speaker 124
20:37
any other state holidays off the top of my head. It's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
20:45
So 21 days at the beginning, OK. And this does what then? If you're So if I look at
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:54
your day one employee and I would follow this, and I Through the 1st 3 years, 36 months, I recruited one day a month for 12 days annually, just annually. I'm gonna get that regardless. If I were to come on and say, um, and add, you know, basic military service for say 4 years, and so I have 4 years of accrued time of a of a full-time
military veteran that was and I went day one now I'd be starting
years 4 through 5, I would accrue one day, I mean instead of 8 hours, I would be able to accrue 10 hours. A month, which would go from 12 days, so I'd get an extra 3 days off as credit for my
military service. If I was in the reserves, they accrued differently, and I think like a good year would be like 60 hours of a crew time you would divide that by 365, and it wouldit out a number of you know, 3 months, and you'd
get 3 months accredited to that one day, which wouldn't be anything until I get closer to that 4-year mark, and it might mean I advance faster to my 4-year mark. Um, you take somebody like Secretary Ward, if he
doesn't mind me using his service, he has, you know, 20 years of reserve, um, service and still going has nothing
to do with state employment, just federal employment, and if you were to take all his service hours, it might pump out a number where he's Ineffectively served 4 years, 6 years as a full time, even
though it's 20 years of service of time and so he would be able to instead of having 10 years of state service, he would now have 14 years of service, which means instead of accruing 18 days he'd accrue 21 days. And
so it's giving that little extra perk to our state employees that have served our country and fiscal impact. I believe what the bureau came back with was Senator, it came back unable to
Speaker 122
22:50
determine because there were so many factors in each, you know, soldier, the number of years and things like that. I think the fiscal impact just came back as they were unable to determine it because there was just too many factors. Thank you. Make
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:04
sure I'm correct. That that is correct revenue impact could not be determined because it's just annual leave accrual. So you you employee uses it for vacation or
Speaker 116
23:11
to take off with their family. They use it if they don't, they're cruises, so they don't even
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
23:16
have a Number of Employ state employees that are.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:20
Uh Served in the military I do not, I do not know that number. I don't know if that's a prerequisite for hiring. It'd be hard like they probably do a survey
Speaker 123
23:39
determine who had that military background. Yeah, I have no clue how many just based off the number of that we only have 8000 folks in the in the entire state that are in the air or Army National Guard, so it'd be hard for me to kind of calculate how many there were. I think at the Department
of Military, of course we only have 400 employees, but not all of those are in the military, but this
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
24:00
covers everyone. Associated with military retired currently in the military guard. etc. Yeah, the only exception is if they work for
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:06
the state and currently serve, they can't double dip. So if you're already accruing time working for the state and you have a
National Guard position or military position, you could not double dip on that. It'd just be previous hours served. So if I was doing the fiscal impact, I would take the number of Uh
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
24:22
Current Employees who would be eligible. Unless for some reason we can't determine that. I take the number of current employees that could be eligible, and I would multiply it times. The maximum benefit. And say this would be the maximum benefit, this would be the maximum fiscal impact currently. And we don't know if we attract a lot more. What the cost would be, but
But our folks couldn't come up with a number. It's not your fault, but that's strange.
All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator Peyton, you're recognized for a
Senator John Payton
Unverified
25:07
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Diving in a little deeper if if you're working a 5 day work week. Which, as far as I know, all the state employees, that's what they're on. That's 21.5 days per month. And
If we add the 12 days to the vacation to the holidays. State employees At the base level, their 1st 3 years. are being offered a full month's worth of Of Time off. I mean, more than 21.5 days that they're getting when you combine the 12 days with the holidays. So I mean that's equal to one whole month of work that they're already being offered at the
very base in the 1st 3 years. Your argument For presenting this bill was that somehow the private sector is offering a sweeter deal than the state, and that we have to compete with the private sector to hire somebody, and my argument would be that if, if a potential employee I favorable to the time off and look and that's something that they're putting high importance on.
The state job is already very enticing. On the time it offers Off, so I'm not sure enhancing it by A third of a day per month or whatever whatever however it figured out 2 hours a month. I'm not sure enhancing it by that amount is going to achieve your objective. I, I just don't see how it would, the response
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
26:44
is if you go to a private sector, you, your compensation is probably going to be drastically greater, and if that is your goal, if you're if you're aiming after an
employment of money which I agree your your loyalty is with your paycheck, but
a lot of times your loyalty is just the service, Services. service to the nation. So while it might not benefit an entire workforce that 2 hours a day, because if you look at the window, really that's in essence what you're potentially going to earn as an extra 2 hours a month, which is, you know, an extra couple 3 days a year that may have a drastic input obviously to several of our
employees that decided that they're not going to pursue other employment at the federal
level, um, or in another state that gives state employees get
Senator John Payton
Unverified
27:29
the cash in their time off if they don't use it. That's Yeah, why should, should have
Speaker 123
27:36
studied up on my HR skills before I came here, but I think you have to every year you have to use or lose a certain amount. I don't believe you can cash out until you
Speaker 163
27:44
retire, and I think there's the under statute there's certain caps on that of how much you can just like the federal government, we pay them to stay home
Senator John Payton
Unverified
27:51
instead of being at work. Thank you. I'll get out of the queue and let somebody else
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
27:59
240 hours is the cap. So you can only accrue 240 and then you use it or lose it and at the end you can cash the 240 hours in. So you
Speaker 164
28:06
can cash in up to 240 hours. I believe so. If they don't, if they accrue
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
28:10
over 240 hours and they don't use it, it goes away. But you can't cash it in as far as getting
Senator John Payton
Unverified
28:16
paid for it. At the end, I know in the federal government you can't at
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
28:20
the end of service you can take your 240 hours and just cash it in for hours, hours paid. I'm not sure if the state does that or not. Well, the reason I'm
Senator John Payton
Unverified
28:29
asking, it's all about what the employee puts the highest value on the time off or or the dollar. And
so when you can convert time off the dollars, well then that makes it more universally attractive to both types of employees, but anyway, I'll let somebody else ask questions
Speaker 142
28:44
like Senator Payton. I'm pretty sure you can't sell it to you retire because I think part of
Speaker 123
28:48
the recent incentives. that were passed allowed state employees to start selling it, you know, a certain amount of leave if their agency, you know, did a process for it, so we all had to promulgate rules on these
are new incentives, and I think that was capped at 40 hours, and I think it was mostly aimed at those employees that just work hard every year and they end up in December and they're sitting on all these hours that they haven't been able to use because they're working and so I think that that was one of the incentives in the past last session was the ability to sell up
Speaker 163
29:16
to 40 hours, but there's a lot. recommendations on that that you have to go through. All right, thank you, Senator Tucker. Question. Thank
Speaker 168
29:24
you, Mr. Chair. Senator Bryant, the way I view this,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:31
the base level leave for state employees is an
important part of the discussion. Your bill does not change how much leave state employees are eligible to get in any way. The purpose of your bill is just to recognize the service provided to our country and to our state from someone who has served and that and that becomes part of their calculation. It's not increasing the number of the amount of leave any state employee can get. It's just recognizing the service that people have provided to our state and country. That is correct, yeah. Thank you. Yeah, with, with,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
30:02
with the with the goal to have the incentive to recruit and retain those that have military service. Senator Clark, I didn't think
Speaker 143
30:15
I had a question, but Uh So there's no
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
30:18
extra time off. There's no extra pay. You just Get a credit for working hours.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
30:33
For for your hours of military service, you get credit for that time. I
Speaker 123
30:39
think you would accruely faster than you would if you were a regular employee. If you came into the the state government with zero military experience, you'd get the low end of the chart. So I think the
Speaker 163
30:47
benefit to the soldiers is you would get, you would accruely faster, so I think there is some there is more time off. Yes,
sir. Senator Tucker, you want to jump in here. You
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
30:57
got to clarity to clarify the point that I was making. Let's just say hypothetically, we'll use you, Senator Bryant. You served
5 years in the Marines and you went to work for a state agency. You would be able to accrue leave as if you were a six-year state employee in your first year of state employment. But you're not changing the amount of leave that a six-year state employee is eligible for. That is, that is correct, yeah, so it's thank you. Alright, Senator Peyton, are you good? Are you OK, alright I see Senator Clark.
Speaker 160
31:35
I raised eyebrow. Senator Clark, jump in here. OK,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
31:39
back to my question. Do you get more leave, you don't get more leave.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
31:45
You, you, you're able to accrue that next step up, potentially at a faster rate. So if I was, if I was day one employee, I'd be eligible to accrue 12 hours, 12 days annually of annual leave. Up to 240 hours, so it'll take me several years if I use nothing to get to that to that
cap. If I came on with 2 years of full-time military service, I'd come on like a 3-year employee, which 3 years is still 12 days, but
the very next year I'd be considered a 4-year employee, which means 15 days instead of a two-year employee which is still 12 days. So I'd just be able to accrue it faster based on adding my military service to my role. OK, so on your 4th year, Is that what you're telling
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
32:29
me, or your 2nd year? Second year,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
32:37
You would get 15 days instead of. 12 days. Well, I mean 15 days starts on year 4. So I'd have to be an employee for 2
full years, add my 2 years of prior military service, then I'd be eligible to be considered a 4-year employee. OK. You
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
32:59
come in your first year. year Uh, how many you're employed? For, for that example,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
33:10
if I had 2 years of military service or 5 years of military service, it'd be whatever my military service time accrued is
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
33:17
equal to. OK, so if you had 20 years of military service. Your first year
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
33:23
you would be, I'd be considered a 2020 plus one day military or state employee and what's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
33:28
to leave for 21 years 20 years is you can accrue
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
33:32
up to one day, 7 hours or 15 hours of pay period. I'm sorry, a month, which is 22.5 days for the 1st 3 years double.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
33:41
Uh, what Mm Like roughly double, yeah 12
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
33:46
days to 22.5 days. And that's Time off, time
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
33:49
not worked. Right Or you said it retirement, you
can. Cash it in Yeah, so when you, when you leave state
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
34:01
service, Permanently or you retire, you can take that
maximum up to 240 hours and cash it in. OK, so for tired military served 20 years a
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
34:13
sermon that wasn't more, but it's caps at 20 years. Yeah, anything
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
34:18
over 20 years, it stops accruing at one
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
34:21
day, 7 hours you get 15 hours a month, which like I said, is almost double, so rather than 12 days You get 23 + 9 is 32. OK, that's the maximum it could be 32 versus What would we say 21?
Um So So if you were a 20 year employee, that's. 12 days Extra the 1st 3 years. Yes, well, the first year, because then you said you jump up. Well, no, you started off at the max, so you don't, you wouldn't jump up in that case, right? OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Tucker. You're recognized for the question. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Senator, do you think this would help recruit more
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:14
ex-military into serving the people of Arkansas state employees. Absolutely, thank
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
35:21
you, without a doubt. Uh Senator Dodson. Senator Bryant, you may have said this, but I just wanted to clarify for sure this is only counting military service before employment as a
state employee for that time of accrual. It's not. It's not like if you're a uh active military National Guardsmen or something, you're not double dipping. If you and
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
35:45
I'll let, I'll let Mr. Wood kind of expand on this because it's it's uniquely positioned inside the Department of the Military on how they coexist, but for my example, as a, you know, a veteran or as long as they're honorably discharged or a veteran or prior service in a in a military branch as a reservist. There's different forms that accumulate that calculate your accumulated service of years or months, days, and years, and it would a credit that and I'll let Mr.
Wood kind of address how we ensured we gave credit for the Arkansas National Guard, which is something I'm not familiar with. But he was instrumental to that Senator, I think we covered that, I think
Speaker 163
36:24
it's the very last sentence that basically says if you are a state employee for any period, which means any day during a period of a year that you were in the military, you don't get to take credit for that year, those points. I think that's in the very last sentence. So we were, we were very careful and make sure that state employees and national guardsmen and reservists didn't double dip. They don't get
double credit. And 2, we use the 365 formula so that you can equate National Guard Reserve Service to active duty service because if we had active duty members that were, you know, 4 years every day, all day. We wanted to make sure that we were fair in computing reserved time to that. So that's why we use the points system because each, each reservist gets a a a annual statement every year that kind of equates all the service you did into points and so that's why we divided up by 365. So I think the average guard guardsmen would get gets around
80 points a year if they don't go to a school or anything, so this would equate to about 2.5 months for every year of National Guard service. Thank you. Senator Sullivan,
Speaker 37
37:29
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
37:33
glad we can continue to do good things for our military, and we have done a lot. I think we're one of the top in the nation. So Um The taxpayer bears the burden for all of this, so we at the legislature are essentially just
passing that burden on to the state. At what point do we reach the saturation point what we're doing. A lot for the military but harming the taxpayer. Senator, I'd say that you know we
Speaker 163
38:03
were, you know, very mindful of that. So I think that's one of the reasons we tried to make sure the National Guard calculation was, you know, was, was accurate and secondly to kind of a point he made earlier, recruitment wise we have a hard time recruiting with the federal
side because they do give credit for military service, so we've had plenty of states a
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
38:25
different question so this is what we're doing right here is the burden falls to the taxpayer, Mr. Chair. Could I make a request that they provide a list of what services are things that we do for the military and what the actual cost is to to Senator Bryant. I mean, that's.
If he's, if, you know, if you two of you want to work together to to to to pull together a list of the services the state provides, um, that's fine, but uh. You know, You are you, is
Speaker 202
39:01
what you're wanting for Senator Bryant to pull. I would,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
39:04
I would add like the and I'll let Mr. Wood, because one thing I, if I was
to join safe state service, I don't come with the burden of health care because the military, my military service takes care of my health care, and that might not be the case for everybody, but I bet the majority, especially the National Guard,
they're able to get under Tricare or different set, so that's actually reduced burden to our state health care system, so I think there's there's puts and takes. that come out of our what we're trying to do, but overall what I would seek is do we, do we take that, you know, 24 year old that is bouncing job to job and he's ready for a new career. We take that 24-year-old that has 4 years of dedicated service. I know we have veterans reauthorization authority as a federal government where they
take those as a priority because they know the cost benefit of a solid ready to go disciplined worker has a greater benefit to their workforce than somebody they have to to be disciplined, so I think there's lots of puts and takes, and I think this again is just a great recruitment tool to Up that ability to attract that type of worker. Yeah, I would agree and I
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
40:12
think I'm just wondering at what point the recruitment tools become something that taxpayer can't afford, but I guess that's on
Speaker 37
40:18
me to figure out to vote to support
the bill or not. Thank you. Any more
questions from the committee, Senator Clark. Oh The
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:30
assumption that we hire military we're getting better, but My dad was a teacher. Uh, he quit teaching after 12 years, uh, and went into private business. A number of his friends did the same. Some of the top real realties top
insurance agencies, etc. and in our area, uh, all are from teachers who left teaching. I went into private business. So what is the same argument not carry over to teachers. Uh, I suppose it
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
41:06
could, you know, if you had a, and I don't know, I guess teachers work for the state and I, I don't know if that's state accrued time or if they left from being accrued time as a teacher over into another agency. I don't know what translates, but
today it's, it's that agency and what they want to attract and provide, and again this they don't have to hire a veteran, but if they do hire a veteran and they're getting that. Additional service, um, they have the authority to to grant additional time accrued, OK, and then also back when we
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:41
uh Made it where Uh Veterans and when I say veterans, it wasn't veterans. It
was military retirees with 20 years, veterans actually still pay income tax if they're if they're not retired military. Uh, but when we made it that retired military didn't pay income tax. The law enforcement been after me ever since to run a similar bill for them, uh, and then fire would be next and teachers would be next, uh. At Uh, at what point following up on what Senator Sullivan said, do we?
Come back and say somebody's got somebody's gotta pay. Uh Because that's basically what we tell law enforcement. Somebody's got somebody's got to pay income tax. Yeah, I guess
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
42:43
I'm not, I'm not following like just if we take somebody from our law enforcement community as a state employee, they want the hours they use as law enforcement. No, I'm talking about
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
42:52
in general. But, but yes, but, but the exact
same thing why again, I would assume that somebody with years of law enforcement would also Uh Mhm be a I guess what we're saying is a superior employee. Saying is as a, as
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:10
a thank you for their service, yes, so it's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
43:13
not that they're a better employee, it's a thank you for their service. Yes. And
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:17
to attract and recruit because they'll leave for that federal job or
that other benefit because they're, they are taking a lower rate of pay
for their desire to serve their state or nation or just that type of employment, so it just helps recruit and retain and appreciate them for their service. OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right. Any more
questions? Alright, see none when we have any guys signed up to speak
for or against this, see anybody. Senator Bryant, you're organized a closure bill. I want to thank the committee for all their questions.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:51
Again, this is just the process. I think it's
An advantage to the state and to our workforce to offer this to recruit and retain and attract and if there's Other, other avenues to
do this, I would, I would obviously be willing to review and support, so I just appreciate the process and. Appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Senator Senator Brown's closed for his bill.
I have a motion and a motion from Senator Dodson. I see a second. Second Senator Tucker in the discussion on the motion? All right, Senator Clark, we're gonna ask for more discussion.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
44:30
I don't know if there's been a session since I've been here that we have not had multiple similar bills, uh, certainly a bill of some kind. And we all appreciate our military. I got to ask though, where does the line because it's easy. I'm, you know, it's just money and I'm not paying for it. My constituents are, uh. And Uh, what it is easy to vote for. It's hard to vote against, but
because it's whether you appreciate the military or not? Well, nobody's going to come in here and say, well, let's just pay them for 365 days and not work at all, but we, we keep in every area where is the limit, uh, and I just, uh, I haven't been convinced of Central Bron knows that I appreciate him as much as anybody in the Senate, but I have not been convinced today. Thank you, Senator. All right. Any
more discussion? Alright. See, we've got a motion from Senator Dodson, second from Senator Tucker. All in favor,
say aye. Opposed. Do it one more time. All in favor, say Aye. Opposed Sorry, Senator Bryant didn't hear 5 years. All right. Next up, Senator Tucker, you want to do Senate Bill
227, Mr. Chair, just for clarity purposes so
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:03
they know he can come back and run that again. We don't need to do that expunge vote. No, 44
Speaker 83
46:09
right to come back and row again any time.
Speaker 223
46:14
Thanks. Somebody left. Oh That's a microphone. So. Senator Payton was worried somebody might have left their
sidearm on the table. I think it might be one of Ms. Wimberly's members. All right, Senator Tucker,
Speaker 107
46:33
you're running the Senate Bill 227. Yes, Mr. Sheriff, thank you
for this. Senator, as they're passing this out, is the amendment kind of the new bill that's that's exactly right. Yes, the amendment
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
46:46
is the new full bill. All right. Got a motion to adopt by Senator Hammer,
seconded by Senator Payton, all in favor say aye, opposed. All right,
the amendment's been adopted, Senator, you are recognized to
proceed with your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
47:07
Chair. As I was thinking about what issues I wanted to work on this session. I was thinking what the the safest political waters to wade into would be, and I decided it would be for you. Uh, so that was my thought process. This is a bill. To define after a long time, what a public meeting is for a governing body in the state of Arkansas. Governing bodies, as you know, are court city councils and school boards, but
also other boards and commissions that exist across the state. This bill is pro-transparency. And it's also pro fairness to members of governing bodies at the same time. And the way it's able to do that is because after 50 years, This will bring clarity to the law, and right now members of the public and members of governing bodies have a very difficult time knowing what the rules are that apply to them. And this brings clarity to that process. So I'm going to go through the bill substantively
and I'm going to talk a little bit about the process of how we arrived at this language, and I'm going to start with a substance in the bill. So we're a mending to Code sections. The first is the definition section in the Foyer subchapter, which is Section 103, and we're providing a number of definitions again which I think help bring clarity to the law. The first is Background and non-decisional information. And it means not deliberation. And then if you go down a few lines still on page one.
There's a definition of deliberation which I think is a is a a really good definition. And it means when Members of a governing body. Exchange information or opinion in one of two ways. The first way is about a decision. Are you seeking a decision disclosing your decision or inquiring about a decision that another member of the governing body has made about something that they're going to be voting on. The second way is not about a decision, but it's the same thing whether you're soliciting support or opposition,
disclosing your own support or opposition or asking about another member's support or opposition on something that a member of a governing body is going to vote on, so that's an important definition for later when we get into the meat. Uh, the last definition I'll point out to you is the definition of an informal meeting, which means the gathering of two or more members of a governing body outside of a public meeting. Uh, and then, uh, the definition of pole. This is something
when I started working on this, um, the, the original thought was there's a lot of case law that's happened over 50 years, and the goal was to try to put some of that into code. Quite frankly, it's impossible to reconcile all the case law with each other because we've had 50 years of cases and not all of them are consistent with each other. So the case law was still a guiding principle, uh, but clarity is, is really what we wanted to settle on more than anything, so polling is something that was established in case law a little over 20 years ago.
And it, it describes a situation where you have a non-member of a public of a governing body, asking every member of the governing body how they're going to vote on something and then taking action outside of a public meeting. And that's essentially the definition that we're trying to codify here when you have one person who's not a member of the governing body. And Uh, it's on any matter on which official action will foreseeably be taken by the governing body, and they're asking them how they how they're going to vote or whether they support or oppose
it, and this is language that we added through the process at the end. The last element is for the purpose of exercising a responsibility, authority, power, or duty of the governing body and what that basically means to me is because the thought was, you could actually pull all the members of a governing body and then not do anything with that information, and there's Really no harm done. You, you're not telling anybody else what a member of the governing body said and so what what this last element means is you're actually using that information, the information you've gathered has an effect and that you're trying
to get the governing body to make an official decision outside of a public meeting. Um, OK. Uh, we'll keep rolling on page 4, there's a definition for remotely, uh. That's a feature of the bill, but I'm going to move, move past the definitions and get into section 2, which is the changes to to section 106 of the FOIA subchapter, and this is really the meat. This is the section that deals with public meetings. So the first subsection A.
This is the first attempt to bring real clarity to public meetings, right, because people don't know what the rules are. When I say people, I mean the public and members of the governing bodies. And so this subsection A is really a table of contents for those rules. A one is about uh notice for public meetings as set out in subsection B. A 2 is about executive sessions set out in subsection C. A 3 is about recording public meetings as set out in subsection D.
A 4 is about public access to meetings and whether governing bodies can meet in person or remotely as set out in subsection E. And then A5 is about making sure the public. Can attend and hear all of the governing body's meaningful discussion and deliberation as set out in subsections F and G. So with that, I'm just going to go through each one of these subsections, uh, some, some more briefly than others. So subsection B, as I, as I
noted, was about notice. If you look at B3. This was
proposed in separate legislation in the last session two years ago. There are some changes to the. To the law, um, that are not in code and, and, and this is, this is one of them. But there's anyway, I don't want to get ahead of myself. This is one of them. This says when you're providing notice of the of a public meeting to the media. If you have a website or a social media page, then you'll put the notice on your website or social media page. If you don't have a website or social media page, it doesn't require you to get one.
so it's, it's really permissive, but if you have that, we want the public to be aware of the meetings that are taking place. Um, and this, this helps achieve that goal. Uh, if you look at B1, a lot of the governing bodies that we think of They have agendas, the notices provided a month in advance. I mean, city councils and quorum courts and school boards sit their meetings, meeting dates for an entire year ahead of time, right? And so this is not really applicable to them. It's, it's more for other groups, but if you have an agenda, you have
to post it 3 days ahead of the meeting. Again, it's not meant to be punitive if you add items to the agenda after 3 days, that's permissible. It's just giving
the public better notice of what you're gonna be talking about at the public meeting. Um Subsection
C. Again, is about executive sessions. One thing I didn't
mention in the definition of public meeting. is we excluded from the definition of public meeting. If you're in litigation and you have a court order to
alternative dispute resolution process, basically a mediation, then the governing body can communicate about their settlement authority outside of the context of a polling meeting. There's no opposition to that point that I'm aware of, but that's that's a real benefit to governing bodies because they'll be able to negotiate without the other side knowing what their settlement authority is, what their limit is in the negotiation process. Um, and we also excluded from the definition of public meeting. The child maltreatment oversight committee, which Senator Clark pointed out was, was a good change.
So back back to subsection C, all of these executive session notions are the same as they are under current law with one addition. This is another change to the law again that no one's opposed to. And that is to authorize governing bodies to go into executive session to discuss how they're going to respond to a cybersecurity attack. Subsection D, again, this, this is about how meetings are recorded, really the, the main change here is that If a member of a governing body
attends a public, public meeting remotely, then you have to record. Uh, that portion of the meeting in the same manner that the member of the governing body is attending remotely. In other words, if a member of the body is attending via Zoom, you record the Zoom call. If it's a phone call, you record the phone call. That's it. Subsection E Um, again, is about how members attend and how the how the public can attend. So E1, it just says a governing body shall ensure that Arkansas residents have reasonable access
to attend a public meeting, including through remote means if those means are being used by the governing body. So if the governing body is in person, um, you need to come in person, but if the governing body is meeting via Zoom, then the public can also attend via Zoom. Uh, if the governing body's meeting by phone, and the public can also attend by phone. We also amended to what extent governing bodies can meet remotely. So there's this is another thing that's in it for for governing bodies, um, we
think local governments should meet in person. So this change does not apply to quorum courts or the city councils, um, school boards actually have their own code section about how much they have to meet in person, how much they can meet virtually, uh, and so there's a a subdivision here that says they're governed by their own separate law about that. Everybody else. State boards and commissions which have people from all over the state. This authorizes them to set policies to meet remotely. That's a benefit to the members of the governing body. It's also a benefit to members of the public because if there's a
board meeting in Little Rock and you live in Perig Gould and the state board. He's gonna be virtually, then you don't have to drive from Perigold to attend the meeting. You can attend it right there from Perri. So just, just moving along if if there is a remote meeting, you know, this section requires that it's done in a manner that other members of the governing body and member of the public know the identity of the person who's attending remotely, know who's speaking when they speak, know how they vote, and to make sure that the person attending remotely can understand the other members of the governing
body and the public, and it also says if you attend remotely, you're not going to get mileage in per diem. OK. Subsection F is really The, the big meat of the bill, right, because the big question that has been litigated for 50 years is what kinds of conversations can members of governing bodies have outside of public meetings and there's not a lot of clarity in the law on that point right now.
Again, for members of the public or for members of governing bodies. And this addresses that. So, uh, sub subdivision F1 is about polling, and again, there's so there's really two types of conversations that can take place. One is when a non-member is communicating with multiple members of the body. And the other is when members of the governing body themselves are communicating with each other, so F1 deals with that first situation, which is polling, and it just says
polling is uh Members of governing bodies can't participate in polls. It clarifies two things. Number 1, administrative functions are permitted, so you're setting an agenda, you're setting a meeting, you can call up the members of the governing body and say, hey, can you meet Thursday at 3 o'clock? Get their answer and set the meeting. The other uh clarification for state and for public employees is you can communicate information to members of the governing body. That's, that has to happen for
People to be able to governing bodies to be able to function. So that's, that's permitted, um, public employees can communicate information about their jobs to members of the governing body. So F2 Uh, this is when members of the governing body are having conversations with each other outside of a public meeting. And again, the, the thing here is I think we could have a healthy debate about where we draw the line in terms of how much
members can talk with each other outside of a public meeting, but we have to have a line, and right now there's no clear line in the law, and the benefit that this bill provides is it provides a clear line as to what's allowed. Outside of a meeting and what's not allowed both again for members of the public and 4 members of the governing body. So where it draws the line is if you're deliberating, remember that's the definition of. Went through at the beginning of the of the discussion. If you're deliberating, that can only take place at a public meeting. If you're making a decision,
Taking, taking a vote, those sorts of things that has to happen at a public meeting where the public can attend and see what's happening, see what their elected officials are deciding and why they're making those decisions. If you are not deliberating. Then you can have those conversations outside of a public meeting. And again, You know, we, there's always going to be former quorum court, school board and city council members in the legislature, right? So I've had colleagues come up to me, uh, one colleague who's a former school board member. And what they said was,
I never had a conversation with another school board member the entire time I was on the school board because I thought I was breaking the law, and that's, that's not right. There are some conversations that you can have outside of a public meeting and, and people would be afraid to, you know, talk to each other at a football game on a Friday night because they were worried they would be accused of Having an illegal conversation outside of a public meeting, but they can be there together and they can say, hey, don't you think the middle school principal is doing a great job. Yeah, those conversations are permissible, and we want them to feel comfortable having those
kinds of conversations, but we also want them to know for certain that if they start deliberating on an issue they're going to be voting on, they cannot have that kind of conversation, and I had another colleague, I'm not naming any of these folks, but I had another colleague come up to me and say, Hey, I was on a city council, and the way we handled this was We just met one on one and decided how we were going to vote on the budget, and your bill makes that illegal and my response to that colleague was, That was illegal when you were doing it. But the problem is he didn't
know. He did not know that was illegal, and that's the benefit of this bill is, and I'll talk about the association of counties and the municipal league in just a moment, but they will be able to provide very clear training for their members about what's allowed and what's not allowed. That's the main benefit of the bill. So that's what's in F2. And then G makes clear that if you get together outside of a public meeting and you're deliberating or you're making decisions, that's not allowed. Uh.
H makes clear that 2 employees can get together outside just for again, for peace of mind, I think it's implicit in the bill. This makes it explicit to employees can can do their jobs outside of public meetings without fear of violating this law and then subsection I. It's just about the ramifications if you violate the section at a public meeting, then a court can invalidate the action you took at the public meeting. That's I want, I2 is if you had a prohibited communication or prohibited informal meeting outside of a public meeting than a court can invalidate it.
And then subsection subdivision F3, I mean, excuse me, I3, and this is current law. It just requires that once you come out of executive session, you have to take the vote that you discussed while you were in executive session, and it makes that clear. So that's, that's what the bill does. I want to talk. Thank you for your patience. I want to talk for just a moment about the process of getting to this point. Uh, as you all know, we've had media bills attempting to define public meetings for at least as long as I've been in the legislature. And 2 years ago we had one that
I voted against, and we were in this committee meeting in this room, and Senator Payton said to me, You, you vote against all these bills, Senator Tucker. Where's your proposal? So that's how this process got started, Senator Payton. You were, you were right. You were right, and I want to give you credit. And when the session was over, I called my friend and colleague and mentor John Toll, who's a FOIA expert and advocate, and I said, Man, we have got to work on this because we do need a definition of public meeting in the law, and he was having conversations with the Attorney general at the
time, already about doing something like this and the attorney general created a FOIA working group, and Ryan Owsley at the AG's office, who's also a FOIA expert, was kind of the unofficial chair of the group. The AG appointed myself, Senator Davis and Representative Ray, and then also John Toll was on the on the working group and also Ashley Wimberly, who you all know is the executive of the Arkansas Press Association. And so there were, it was bipartisan, both chambers, varying views on FOIA. We worked for two years on a public meetings bill, so this, this work has been going on for 2
years. Uh, I filed the bill a month ago. I thought the bill was pretty good when I filed it. I thought we were on the floor when I filed it and I was planning on sending it out to everybody, you know. And we run after we got off the floor, but I filed it and not 10 minutes later did I receive a text message from Lindsay French and said, I see where
you filed the public meetings bill. Let's talk. And uh that summarizes the last month of my life, and and
we have worked with everybody who has had an interest in FOIA over the last month, and you know, for folks who are transparency advocates and then folks on the government side who have to comply. on that side, we've worked extensively with the association of counties and the municipal League, but also the UFA system, the ASU system. School Board Association superintendents, uh, and, uh, you know, we've listened and made adjustments. I want to single out Lindsay French and John Wilkerson both. They have
just really been tremendous to work with through this process and Yeah, I think they made me a better legislator, so I want to, I want to thank them for their, their spirit and the good faith they brought to this work on the transparency side throughout this entire process over the last month, every step of the way I would communicate with Rob Steinbach, Ashley Wimberley, John Tall. We've been working on this for 2 years, and they were tremendous counselors to me throughout this entire process. The very last thing, you know, when you think of Foyer.
You can't help but think of Joey McCutchen and Mr. McCutcheon, who's here, all these folks can speak for themselves, um, you know, he, he brought some concerns in Jimmy Cavi brought some concerns to me late last week. Uh, we worked on those for the weekend, which is why you have the amendment as a bill today because I couldn't get engrossed by the time of committee. They had a, a good point. We negotiated a resolution on language between uh Mr. McCutchen and the Association of Counties and the municipal League at basically 9 p.m. on
Sunday night. Uh, when I felt I had really made it a tremendous accomplishment, and so, so everyone Has a has been really good to work with, worked in good faith. They kept the faith. They brought it all the way through. This is not a perfect bill, OK? It's not a perfect bill. I wish I could bring you a perfect bill. I don't think it's possible on this. It's not perfect to me. If I were writing it and I were in charge by myself, it would say a few things differently. But I will say I think the process on this was perfect. I think it was
perfect. Now that doesn't mean it wasn't always smooth, uh, even Senator Flippo, I've got to tip my captain them. He, he helped smooth something out at one point, but it was rough at times. People hurt my feelings. I hurt other people's feelings. We, we then we hugged and, and that happened on multiple occasions throughout the process, but again, everyone Brought good faith, kept the faith, working toward a resolution of bringing clarity to the law, and so I'm, I'm
very, this is a very, it may not be perfect. It's a very, very good bill in my opinion, and the process was perfect and that's, that's my presentation with that.
I'm I'm happy to take questions. All right,
members, you've heard an explanation of the bill or questions from members of the committee, Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:30
Thank you. And thank you, Senator Tucker, for bringing the bill. Go back to something you said and specifically how it relates to like an executive session of a school board. You, you made a statement about that a while ago
about if they're negotiating Could you revisit that part of the conversation, if you remember it my understanding is that, so if
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:07:52
you look at the definition of public meeting. Are you working off the amendment or the bill? The amendment what page are you on there? On page 3. It's
going to be definition 13. I'm sorry. It's going to be
definition 13, about 2/3 of the way down the page. OK. And then 13B. Public meeting does not include, and B1 is. The gathering together, whether in person or remotely of the members of a governing body to discuss the settlement. Of a cause of action in a court ordered alternative dispute resolution process, including without limitation of settlement of conference or mediation. Uh, I think, I think this is your question, and if it's not, please ask, but you passed the
bill two years ago that authorized that for school boards, so I think school boards are actually the only governing body in Arkansas who aren't affected by that because they can already do it. Every other governing body in Arkansas cannot do that yet, and this bill will authorize them to do that. So now you're saying it's OK for
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:09:08
those other governing bodies to do what we passed legislation to do two years ago. Well, I think that that bill
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:09:15
2 years. ago went a little further than just court ordered alternative dispute resolution processes, so to the extent it went further
than that, that's another discussion, but to the extent it went that far, the answer is
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:09:28
yes. OK. And This still preserves the right that that legislation two years ago. allowed to happen and just kind of vaguely an attorney could sit in an executive session. In order to give counsel to the school board about decisions that they're going to make so as to not let the other side have the advantage of getting
You know, those, those notes or those, those things that might otherwise be used against them either to purchase property or in a case that might go to court. Is that correct?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:10:03
For for school boards, yes, and this, this bill does not affect in any way that bill you passed two years
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:09
ago, right, but my question is going to be this. That that's what this is, that's what this is allowing now. For other entities outside of what the school board was allowed to. Is that correct? I believe this is more narrow than
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:10:22
the than the law for school boards because this only
authorizes that in a court-ordered alternative dispute resolution process, but in principle it'd be the same thing.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:34
You could say that. OK, I'm just wondering why the uproar last time and not the uproar this time and what's different just to help
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:10:41
me understand why. I don't. Unfortunately, recall with precision everything that you're billed 2 years ago did, but we can have that. I'm happy to take another look at it. I do think I'm fine. I'm just wondering
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:56
why this is OK when that wasn't OK, and what's the difference? I'm fine with the bill. I, I have no problems. It's great. I'm just trying to understand why not OK 2 years ago, now OK to extend it to give to others because to me it would seem like They're both good things.
So anyway, OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator, Senator Sullivan, Senator Dodson. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. So when we talk about clarifying what we're going to do. I
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:11:27
recently 2 years ago had a bill that was struck down in federal court, parts of the bill struck down in federal court for using language that wasn't what the court said was precise enough. So when I look here and I'm looking at page 3 of the bill. I, I don't see a
line number, but about 6 or 8. Climbs down. It says foreseeably so is that defined? It's not defined in this bill. It's a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:11:52
term that's frequently used in the law. So you don't. One anticipate.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:12:00
That someone who violates this law would say, well, you should have foreseeably known. Now we end up in court again because we haven't defined foreseeably and now we come back with another law to clarify in state law what foreseeably means, and I think there are several in here, you know, I think in the bill that I had struck down by our modified by the federal court, and they got rid of portions of it. Uh, they
were critical that we use the word reasonably. And one would consider. And there were multiple places where this bill says we're clarifying it, but we're still leaving a lot of room. For additional clarity. Would you agree or disagree with that or comment on it, I don't think
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:12:51
it's perfect. I think it goes a long way toward helping clarify what the law is a long way. And it's a fair question, Senator, absolutely.
I'm, I'm not concerned about the use of the word foreseeably because it is used so frequently in the law, you know, courts, courts know what it means, it's litigated all the time. It's an essential element of a claim for negligence, for example. You can't be responsible or liable for Something that you couldn't foresee and so it's just, it's just a term in the law that's used frequently. We use
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:13:21
the term in our law that got struck down by the plaintiffs, the people who filed the lawsuit using their policy and then the federal court ruled that our
language was strike stricken, but their language is OK and it's the same language. I'm just, you know, we continue to dig deeper and deeper and Not in all cases, but in some cases strain it gnats over this when because we don't trust the people that we elect. And I'm just, you know, to say that we're clarifying this more. There's no end to that. And that that is concerning to me, but I'm supportive of the bill as written. I think your
Speaker 277
1:14:03
intent was to clarify the problems that were out there, uh, and I think it does
Speaker 202
1:14:10
a good job of that. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Sarah Dotson. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:14:22
Chairman. Senator Tucker, um, I have a few different notes here, but on page 9, I'll start off with this just, this is kind of a uh. Related to When the governing body is doing
remote stuff, it says 3rd line from the bottom it says the public meeting. Governing body shall enable members of the public to attend the meeting, public meeting by the same means the members, so. Foreseeably that's Zoom or something, whatever that is. How does the governing body like I don't see anywhere in here where it says that the governing body shall have the control of who can talk.
So if you have 100 people call in and everybody. It Is it saying that, hey, this is We have controls. I mean, obviously, hopefully not, not everybody in the audience here that we have today is talking over us, but when you get on a call, I've been on a conference call with 100 legislators probably with you before, um. With the governor during COVID and that didn't work out so well, you know, you. Now foreseeably we have better
controls in the future, but as far as defining this, saying
that there should be some administrative function or feature with whatever the same means. I think the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:15:44
distinguishing word there, Senator, is the word attend rather than participate. The governing body shall
enable members of the public to attend. That word said participate. Uh, I would share your concern, but they're merely attending, and I, you know, I, for example, I've had court hearings by Zoom during COVID and where, you
know, there are functions available where the lawyers who are participating in the hearing or or Given different permissions than the public who is just watching the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:16:19
hearing. So the ability to control the the the mute button, I guess is what I'm asking about. So that you think that's covered in this language um, going back to, um, The definition of deliberation.
Um, On page 1 and In page 2 as you're going through this, um, So, Just kind of what I wrote down here, if someone is Say, say someone is part of a governing body and they're speaking. Maybe they're at a campaign event or something. And they're, they're talking about um I plan to To Vote this way on X, Y, Z.
Under this definition. Solicits disclose if they disclose how they plan to vote on some sort of a future action that the governing body may take. They may be a member of that if they're an incumbent or or plan to be a future member. That one in essence be a deliberation under this definition to where they would be disclosing and potentially committing a violation of the law.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:17:41
As I'm reading it, so if you speak to that, so the easy part of that is if they're a candidate this won't apply. It only applies to members of governing body, um, and that's one thing that we were thoughtful about is we want, we want this public meetings law to apply to members of governing bodies, not to staff. Or to candidates because the members are the ones who have to comply with this law ultimately at the end of the day. The more difficult uh answer to your question is, Whether Speaking at a campaign event is
an exchange of information between two members. I think you could make an argument on both sides of that, frankly, um. The, the, the reason why this is hard, and this goes to Senator Sullivan's point is because you cannot account for every hypothetical. And you just can't do it and so I think there will be Cass, litigating what some of this means. Um, but I think there will be a lot less than there are now. So, you know, I
think the answer to your question is I
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:18:47
think there's an argument on both sides of that. Well, the argument. Would uh you're an
attorney, you go before judges. Judges would look at the specifics of the law and as I'm reading it, that would be a specific violation of the law that someone would be dinged for because if there are two city council members at the same public event may or may not be. Something related to them even speaking, but they got called up
out of the audience. One of them got called up out of the audience and started talking about, you know, say somebody was asking them a question about whatever it happened to be, then all of a sudden if that wasn't deemed a public meeting and they didn't have the media there and they disclosed their viewpoint on something. I'll tell you, hey, all other city council members. Leave the room so I can tell everybody else here how I, what my thoughts are on the question I was asked, so I'll tell
you what my arguments would be if I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:44
were representing either side of that, right? So my argument on on the side that you're arguing is, is
that an exchange of information? Yeah, it is, yeah, um. So that that would be the argument on the on that side, on the other side is in an exchange between those two members. I think you can make an argument that
if you're speaking to a crowd of 50 or 100 people that it's not an exchange of information between two people. It's an exchange of information to the to a broader public rather than to one other person
on the governing body. The other argument I would make is The purpose of this is to say that members of governing bodies can't have those kinds of conversations in private. Right, and if you're making this announcement at a speech, presumably media was invited. Certainly the public was invited. They were there. Uh, on principle, what you can make an technical legal argument, but the principle of this was not violated in that setting because the public is there to witness and participate.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:20:47
Alright, well, I, I think. If a judge decides that's the case, then, but I guess the same argument's true. A judge can decide something currently without the clarification law, so I think this just makes it to where the judge has to decide that that is a violation because clearly They were disclosing that information and a poll was taken, whether directly or indirectly being asked whether
it was by the other member of the governing body or not, they found out that information and they disclosed that information. um, anyway, I don't think it would be an open and shut
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:21:27
case center and to your point, I think that could be litigated under the current law right now. I'm not sure the bill makes that situation
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:21:36
worse than the current law. And then is there a time frame on foreseeably like. Like
as far as Exchange of information related to some foreseeable decision that the governing body might make. Well, I mean
At some point in the future we're going to be discussing, you know, if they're, if it's a city council water rights or sewer rates or something like that we'll be making that decision, you know, might be 4 years from now, but I don't know as far as foreseeably you could foresee that at some point in time you'll be making that discussion, uh. But unless it's something that is I urgent, you know, coming up in the next 1 month or 2 or 3, that wouldn't necessarily be a foreseeable thing. Hey, we want
to talk about. The sewage problem in general, you know, that wouldn't be deliberative action that is before the council on published agenda that they would be discussing as far as what their philosophy is on so I mean that might mean, need some definition to the foreseeably to say, hey, this is only in the The foreseeable future is only what we can see in the next month or two or on publish agenda what we're dealing with
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:22:52
right now. Well, we've talked a lot about that, you know, the use of that word specifically, and while we settled on that word is because It's really impossible to pick a date. Because for example, um, going back to my hypothetical of two school board members at a football game on a Friday night saying the middle school principal is doing a great job. Uh, at that moment in time, There's no proposal on the table for salary adjustments.
And they just say, you know, we need to make sure we keep her in place, you know. We need to give her a raise at some point, um. In my view, That's That that's not a violation because it's, it's so broad and general, right? Obviously anything coming up on an agenda that you know is on an agenda in the next month or two. Obviously that's going to be included, right? But the reason why we didn't put a time limit or a month or 2 or 3 or whatever the number is. The reason we put a time limit on it is because there are some contracts like a
construction project, if you're building a new high school, for example. And that project's gonna take probably a couple of years, you know, to complete, so that is more concrete, you know, you'll be, you're going to be voting on that. Should we hire once once we get the foundation laid, should we hire this HVAC sub? Well, that might be 18 months out. But you know for, you know that's going to be happening. So that's why it's really hard to put a time limit on it because there there could be something that you know for sure you're going to be deciding as a governing body, but it might be
more than 3 months out. It might be more than 1 year
out. Right Some questions I have. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dodson. Any questions on this side? Senator Clark, you have a question. Hm I
Speaker 305
1:24:40
have so. You might want to go to Central Sullivan first. Yeah, I'll start
Speaker 43
1:24:49
with you and thank you, Mr. Chair. So kind of back to where I was before, um. Is this
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:24:56
Any way of limiting the free speech of the people, it's impacting. I don't believe so, no, sir not at all, sir. So because when again I'll go back to the foreseeably and I've looked up the judge's ruling against Act 372. And it called the reason he struck that was a stringent vagueness test. And he claimed that it met a high standard. And a high standard is a stringent vagueness test demands
that a law be exceptionally clear and precise, leaving no room for ambiguity or subjective interpretation. That would seem to be a clear description of for what might foreseeably happen. But if it doesn't affect First Amendment, so we're your contention would be that we are Uh, muzzling people from talking. They can't talk about this. But it's not a free speech issue. And then they
Foreseeably if they talk and foreseeably future and the law on the stringent test says it must be very clear and can't be vague at all. So help me reconcile
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:26:14
that. So there's a couple of points. One is the big point is in the litigation on Act 372, there was a
constitutional right at issue. And when courts review laws passed that infringe on constitutional rights. There's a very high standard called strict scrutiny, which I'm sure you're
familiar with. And um And it means exactly what it says, course scrutinize those laws very strictly for any imposition understand so right here if you're,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:26:40
if we're first I guess the first question would be, are we your contention would be that we're not restricting the free speech of, let's say a city council member to talk freely about how they would vote, your contention is we're not restricting their free speech right. That's correct. OK, so if we're not restricting
their free speech, then this strict scrutiny does. does not apply. OK,
Speaker 168
1:27:08
thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Clark.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:27:17
This is probably. My smallest issue, but why is per diem in a FOIA bill. Because
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:27:25
we're for the first time we're putting into law. That you can have meetings remotely. And, and
and so by creating that process, we are also regulating that process and and the one of the regulations of that process. some of them are that the public can still attend in the same manner, but the other is if you're not, if you're not driving, if you're attending from home, then you should be entitled to my. And I think how many of
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:27:55
these people that you were working with, I know you've talked to school board members and you've talked to court members because you talked to me, uh, but when you were writing all this, how
many, how many court members, how many school board members, former quote unquote members, former school board city council members
were part of that. Uh I can't tell you. I mean, so I know you, I know you understand this,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:28:20
but I'm just going to say it because it's an important part of the discussion, but the whole time I was working with the associations, so the association of Counties, the municipal League, the School Boards Association, who were there speaking on behalf of all of the members of their associations. I know you understand that. I don't, but I don't think they do. I think the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:28:37
Court Association as a stepchild, but that that's another. Uh, be glad to discuss that with them if they
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:28:49
come to the table. So beyond that, as I mentioned, as, as part of my presentation, I, I've been working on this for 2 years, and over that 2-year process, I have heard from, I don't know. Uh, I don't know. I can't tell you. I don't want to exaggerate, so maybe I'll stop it at 100, but over the last two years, many
dozens of elected officials in Arkansas on all three school board members, city council members, mayors, quote unquote members, and then even more after I filed the bill a month ago because you know people. People are reaching out emails, phone calls, text messages, um, and I've communicated with as many of them as I can, but it's, it's a bunch, but they weren't part of the direct working group. No, sir. OK. So
Oh, you could count Senator Davis on the foy on the the the attorney General's uh. A working group. She's a former school board member. He said what you
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:29:48
said if there was a conversation between school to school board members and the middle school. Principal's doing a good job. What of the conversation was the middle school principal's not doing a good job. I think we should renew his contract. So I'm gonna, I'm not punting,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:30:09
OK, but I'm gonna the same thing that I said to Senator Dodson, I mean, we could, we can go through
all the hypotheticals, and this is again this is not perfect and I'm happy to go through as many hypotheticals as you want, but this is, this is, this bill and no bill can answer all of those questions, so just with that, that preface, um, if If they say we should get rid of that principle. In my opinion, that crosses a line because now you're disclosing your position on something on an action you want the school board to take. OK, so we're having a
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:30:40
conversation and we can talk about how good someone's doing, but we, we talk about how bad some was that if we talk about any action.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:30:48
It's the action that's the distinction. If they say,
oh, that middle school principal, we might need to do, you know, we, we might need to provide some support for the middle school. That's, that's OK. So back to your friend who was on the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:30:59
school board. Or not your friend, somebody you spoke to who was on school board
who never had a conversation with another school board member. Uh You think he didn't go to the
school board association's training. I, I can't, I don't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:31:15
know, I can't say. Well, because what
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:31:17
you just described is I'm not a lawyer. I'm not walking around carrying my lawyer with me, so I can say this, but I can't say that. What's the safer action? To
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:31:30
not speak. Yeah, that's right. And, and uh so that does
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:31:34
that is that not what it serves to do? is to stop speech.
Speaker 324
1:31:41
And and again, that's what we just said was
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:31:46
that it is the safer action, but I, I, I believe in a, in the people that I've spoken with, not just the associations, but the actual members say that this language gives them more peace of mind about what they are allowed to say outside of a meeting. So, The that's, that's again, I've tried to craft a bill that benefits the public and benefits members of governing bodies, which is
it's a hard thing to do and again, I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think there is something in this bill for everybody, right? And the public knows that when members of governing bodies are deliberating, they're only doing that at public meetings, but members of the governing bodies know, hey, I can have these, these sorts of conversations, so long as I'm not deliberating. I can talk outside of a public meeting and no one's going to accuse me of violating FOIA. OK. Uh, let me
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:32:35
give you a hypothetical. OK, uh, County's got a sales tax. Uh
On the ballot. For for the public to vote on the public to vote on. Let's not talk about all the discussions that happened up
through that time. Uh, but Passes in November, uh, later in November, you present the budget. Or not very much later because you spend the whole month, uh, working on it, and The judge, county judge, proposes has in his budget a 10% raise for county employees.
Turns out that that 10% raise for county employees is because he promised the county employees a 10% raise if they'd get out and work for the. Sales tax. Oh, you supported the sales tax as a member of the Honor, as a member of the Court, although you never supported a tax in your life, you supported the sales tax, you said we're going to take away the property tax. Here's all the things we have to do juvenile detention center, landfill, etc. We're supposed to be getting fined every day. And then you find out that the judge offered a 10%, we'll call
it, we won't call it a bribe, uh, but
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:33:48
I'm getting the feeling this is more than a
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:33:50
hypothetical. Well, that's why I asked, you know, I believe in management wandering around and I asked how many people had served on the court, had served on the school board, etc. because you want to find out. How business is done. Go talk to the people who do the business and what I see mostly is people who have never served in any of those positions because every member of the legislature I talked to whoever served are pretty clear. So
The So you oppose the 10% raise. might support an 8% raise, but don't just you think the whole thing stinks. Which it does. All the employees can talk to each other. You talk about a chill at the courthouse. All the employees can talk to each other. The county judge can talk to every member of the Quorum Court.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:34:45
I'm not sure about that. Show me where they can't.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:34:54
In the definition of polling and then I didn't say they were asking where anybody stood. I said they could talk to every member because and and let me Well, let me go down a little different rabbit trail for a moment. We seemed a like kings more than we like. A democratic government. Because the school board. Uh, between the school board
attorney and the superintendent. Uh, most of our school boards have almost no say so, partly because they're not talking to each other, uh. City council City manager can talk to everybody, but city council's not going to because they're afraid that they may say something. And then the courts and so in Of course not talking to each other, so you have the county judge, you have the superintendent.
And you have the city manager running the government. And Now, private citizens can talk But there are elected officials can't. Now you would agree that the meeting, I know that you would agree because when you and I talked yesterday about this bill. Yes, sir. You first said that our conversation would not be illegal if we were quorum court members, right? And then you came back and said as a gentleman and scholar said, no, I was wrong because that's how
we deal with each other. It would have been illegal was our conversation productive? Uh, I hope, I hope
Speaker 328
1:36:26
it was because I hope I convinced you to vote for the bill.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:36:29
Is it the kind of conversation that you have if you're trying to do the people's business in a proper way. That's a question that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:36:37
can be answered with 1000 different ways. OK. Well, let's say Another hypothetical
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:36:43
that you know is not a pause you for one second? I'm I'm looking over
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:36:50
here, and Mr. Wilkerson and Ms. French. I, I
think mayors have been held to be part of the governing bodies, have they not? And, OK, is this an AG opinion? Is it, is it the same for a county judge or no? Do you know
Speaker 252
1:37:03
OK. No, it's not, it's not the same. OK, so I didn't mention Mayor
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:37:09
city manager, so I noticed that, yes, sir. Yeah. The, so no, it absolutely, uh, so.
It also gives all the power. To those who have the most power. Does it not? So I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:37:30
got 222 responses, OK. The first one is I'm not disputing. The notion that superintendents have influence over school board members,
right? But at the end of the day, the decision is is with the school board, it's not with the superintendent. I mean, that's where the the ultimate decision making authority is with the school board. The school board who can't talk like you and I talk. Well, they can talk to each other all they want at a public meeting.
And, and that's, that's where they're That's where they're litigating what decisions they're going to be making. So, and they, they, they can have, that's the point is that the debate needs to be where the public knows not only what decisions are reached, but, but why they're reached. You know I presented
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:38:12
a bill in Judiciary last night. While I was presenting the bill, which I had went and got input on and so you were getting text OK. You know, there's been a big furor, you know, that has gone 5
different ways before the time we get here this morning on this bill. On, on what the bill that I presented, I didn't know that and so you're suggesting that it's OK for the superintendent to talk to him. And for the county judge to talk, but what happens if you're not part of a political conversation. I don't understand what you mean. If you're not part of the political conversation, you lose. If I wasn't responding.
To everything that was happening. We just simply lose and so the superintendent can go say, here's what my opinion is, and I'm restricted as a quote unquote member as a school board member of telling everybody what my opinion is, and so if your ideas we're not going to have the decision made before we get there. Yeah, we're going to have a decision made before we get there, but the school board members not gonna have any input, uh, because they've heard one side of the argument.
And they can't hear another side of the argument. The and as you know, most of the time when I was on the decorum court, I not only followed FOIA. I fold it to the letter because if I had a friend that was coming over, did this for over 6 months and I've shared this with you, uh. If I had a friend on the court who was coming over, which we, we got together every Friday night because we were good friends. I called the newspaper the day before because back then it was 24 hours. I called the newspaper the day before and
said we're gonna, we're gonna have dinner at my house and there's a good chance we'll talk about business. And I did the same thing after the regular court meeting every month. I said there's 5 of us that will go to Dairy Queen and you're welcome to come because there's a good chance that we'll talk about business because we're humans, uh, you know, cows eat hay, humans talk, uh, we don't think a whole lot about what we can and and we can't say. So The, but did that.
Ad nauseam until the newspaper editor told the newspaper reporter, and that was Melinda Gazaway, she's still alive. One of the best newspaper editors I ever saw, even though we didn't agree politically and very tough on Foya, and she sent a message back to me through the reporter to grow up. In other words, I didn't need to, that was confusing to me, uh, didn't need to do that, but let's come back to where I intentionally violated the law. Hopefully we're past the statute of limitations. The we had 3 Republicans and 10
Democrats. I knew when I was elected, the only thing I had going for me was speech. Uh, and, and the newspaper. Uh, but another quorum Court member. Uh, became friends with the county judge. Republican And because I would rent and rave. I know y'all can't imagine me doing that because I would rent and rave because there was no other power, uh, and be in the newspaper, the county judge would call the other quorum
Court member in. And say what can we do to control Clark? Now that conversation, by the way, is completely allowed. What can we do to, you know, to calm Clark down and get the situation. Now the judge would roll over in his grave if he knew that us two court members got together and decided exactly how far we could push. Without pushing too far to get things done our way, which we consider to be conservative, uh,
but without that, We had no power. We had absolutely no power without those conversations, uh, but If you've never served, You don't have a clue. Uh, and so, We Uh Does anything
I'm saying make sense? Yes, sir. And let me, can I finish?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:20
I had two responses for you earlier, right, and I didn't finish the second one. I think the first one is you can talk to each other all you want
at public meetings, right? But the second response, and this is directly because you were doing this a long time ago, long before this bill was even thought about, right? And that is I think you can have a fair debate. About Where to draw the line. In terms of how much members of governing bodies can talk with each other outside of a public meeting. The debate is about where to draw the line. The problem with the line now, the problem with
the law now is that there is no line. And, uh, no clear line and the the The chief benefit of this bill is it draws a clearer line than we've ever had before. The line is not all that much, and this is the part that's responsive to your question, Senator. The line in the bill is not all that much different than the line that you were operated under when you were on the quorum court and, and I know you have a bill which you're perfectly entitled to present to move that line.
And uh and so what I what I'm asking you all to do with this bill today is help me draw a clear line. And then if you want to move that line, you know, let's have that debate, but we have to have
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:43:44
the line first. Why don't we have this bill for us. Why, why don't we have to obey
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:43:49
the same rules. It's a, it's a fair question. So, um, My first response is, and I said this to you yesterday, if this bill passes, and you propose a bill for the legislature to comply with this, I will vote
for your bill. I obviously never would. But that's my commitment. I would, I would support that, OK. Um, But I don't think that's going to pass the state legislation, which is why it's not a part of 227, but I do think there are differences, OK. For one thing, I don't think we should, we could pass a law about what processes we have to follow because it's in the state constitution that the legislatures in charge of their own rules, so I think it would be in our rules rather than a bill, for one thing. For another thing, there's no other governing body in Arkansas with
35 members, much less than 100, so. There's a difference in degree in the number of members. We also handle 2 years' worth of business in about 90 days, so the sheer volume of what we do necessitates that we have a lot of these discussions in public, because there's no other way around it. I'm not saying all. I'm not saying I agree with you there's no other way. And if, if all you do, that's a difference in degree with these other kinds of governing bodies that we're talking about because if you're making a handful of
decisions a month, you could really do handle everything outside of a public meeting and have everything lined up when you walk in, which is not feasible here. And then the other thing is, Um, even though the legislature is saying do as we say and not as we do, which I acknowledge, uh, we, I think we have made a good effort at transparency because I've been a member of the legislature for about 10 years. Every committee meeting that I've ever participated in my life was not only live streamed,
it's still on our website right now. You can go watch it and every vote I've ever taken is very, that's the same for the floor sessions as well and every vote that any of us I've ever taken is very easy to to identify. So I do think Uh, we do. We, we have extenuating circumstances because of the volume we handle and the and the amount of time that we handle it, but I think we make a good faith effort at being as transparent as we can be, even though I would vote for 227 if it applied to the legislature, and you
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:46:03
Said yesterday, and I know a great number of people believe this is that quote unquote is different from the Senate. The school board's different. The city council's different and maybe Senator Davis agrees with you statistically somebody has to, uh, but not one school board member, not one court member, not one former school board city council member who's also served in the legislature has agreed with that agree with what I don't know that we're different
that that that what we're doing here is different from what we did there and that the circumstances are different. I don't think they're, I think legislating is legislating. Regardless of what level it is, so I don't understand why we would, we would have different roles where we can talk. And they can't, but let's go to Poland. The The Who can't, if I'm on the court, who
can't ask me how I'm going to vote.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:47:03
Someone who's paid by the public entity that you govern or an employee or agent of the public entity that you govern. Technically, I suppose you'd be
Speaker 241
1:47:09
an agent. If you just went and got that information and gave it to
Speaker 188
1:47:15
someone. So that's, that's where the you were working for no one. That's where the 4th element of the polling comes into play. I am
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:47:27
going to jump in here, sir. So we're going to wrap this up. This is more of a conversation
than a specific question, Senator Tucker, dare I say I think you've lost Senator Clark. Um, but we've got other members that I've got in the queue here. I do want to wrap this bill up. We are going to adjourn at 12:30. I've still got several other bills, so you know, with that senator, if you got a specific question that you
can tie this up with, I just asked a specific question. Give a short answer, Senator Tucker. If you don't ever do anything with the information, it's not a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:47:57
violation of the poll as defined in the bill. You have to actually do something, and that's what the 4th element of
the definition of polling is you have to take the information for the purpose of exercising a responsibility, authority, power, duty of the governing body. Thank you.
Speaker 364
1:48:12
Senator Hammer, you're for a question. Thanks, Rapid fire. Here
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:48:16
we go. Ready? Can a JP this is sent to me, so I'm asking you, can a JP ask another JP to co-sponsor an ordinance. I don't believe so. Not in a direct
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:48:26
conversation outside of a public meeting. Even with this law being passed,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:48:30
they can't do that, OK? And the second thing is
On, on the last page of your amendment, it says 2 or more employees are agents of a public entity may communicate for the purpose of exercising authority responsibility, so I just, I'm just trying to get my mind around it. This is kind of more designed to where if I'm at a ballgame, I can talk to fellow board member, whatever, and just have as long as I don't solicit them could a whole, could a whole board actually be standing around in a football game and have a conversation. station to be protected by this
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:49:08
bill. Yes, sir, and this is why I think this is a better way to approach it than defining the number of people who can have a conversation because in my view, it's not the number involved, but it's the substance of the conversation. So you could actually have 6 members of a governing body in the same location, having a conversation outside of a public meeting that's entirely permissible. If they're saying, you know, go, go tigers at at the Friday Night Football game. They're saying, boy, our football coach is doing a great job tonight. Isn't he? There's nothing in the world wrong with that. You could have the entire school board
there and there's not a thing in the world wrong with that, but if the substances we're we're deciding public business. It doesn't matter if there's 10 people there or 2. That needs to happen at a public meeting. That's the distinction. OK, real quick then,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:49:51
what's the punitive action? Where is it in here, the punitive action for somebody who breaks this law is cited in here is that fall back on what's already in language or what. That's, that's new
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:01
in the bill. OK, it's subsection, subsection 11 and 2.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:50:08
OK. The first one is there's the first one is I'll look it up. That's fine. The other thing on page 5, it says the public is permitted reasonable access. Is that a term of art legally because who's going to be the determiner as far as what is reasonable access so as somebody can't block a public out from coming to a city council JP meeting or something like that. You know, again, the word reasonable is used in the law.
So that's OK, and then one of the things it talks about newspaper, radio, and some of this is existing law, but newspaper radio station, television station. Uh, and then they have to make it available if they've got a website. Some of these small towns. No, you know, they're punitive action toward any small town entity that doesn't have access to any of that stuff. There's nothing punitive in that, and we wrote it very specifically for that because
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:51:04
if you look at it, it says if the governing body or the public entity that governs maintains a website or social
media page. So if they don't, then they don't have to do
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:51:14
that. All right, last question. Did you run this by the FOI. Task force
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:51:20
twice, twice unanimous support both times. Did you run this amendment by them,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:51:23
not the last amendment, no. Changes it pretty pretty
substantive changes in here are substantial changes in some ways. Why would this not have to go back or have you talked to the members? I've talked to several members, not every member.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:51:36
I've talked to several members, and frankly, the last
Um, so I, I think the last amendment clarifies The extent to which this requires public transparency, so again, I'm not speaking for them, but this, the amendment went in their direction, so If that makes sense. The bill is not making anything less transparent. The amendments not making the bill less transparent. The bill. The amendment was making the bill more transparent, so I think they'll like the bill more than when they voted to unanimously support it. Are they under the and I don't know, I'm asking. I've actually
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:52:14
texted and asked, Are they under any of the same requirements that are like a school board or any other because of the way in which they are created. Can they have conversations outside of their public. Committee meetings. I don't know the answer
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:52:26
to that question, and I've had that conversation with Professor Steinbach, who's here, and he's on the FOIA task force. He's one
of the and and John Toll as I mentioned, I've been talking to them, you know, consistently throughout the entire process, but but
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:52:38
you you solicited the individual members of the FOI committee about the amendment, but they didn't have
a full blown board meeting to put their stamp of approval on the amendment. Is that correct? That's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:52:49
correct. And not every member, just a handful, a handful, but I think it's a representative sample. OK, but they,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:52:55
OK, that answered it. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Clayton for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Senator
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:53:00
Tucker, uh, Plaud your efforts. Thank you. It's the only reason I have to vote for this bill is the efforts
that you've put into it, but I think it's very ironic, and we should point out the fact that you could not have arrived at this consensus.
And this agreement without violating the principles that were putting in the bill. It's a fair point. So on the last page, uh, Senator Hammer. Almost got there for me, but I won and I too especially. Is that the totality of Punitive actions that can be taken against And this bill, yes, and yes. So basically the only thing that happens if somebody violates
this is somebody who don't like the action taken would sue and the action would be reversed. That's right. Thank you. I guess I can vote for it, but the only reason I'm voting for it is because it violates
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:54:05
the conversations I've had about this bill, outside of this committee hearing, we're not with members of this committee, right,
so none of those would have violated the principle of this, yeah. Senator Hammer, you're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:54:17
recognized for a question. Was there a law violated? When you poll the members of the FOIA committee without a full committee being present. Did you violate the law, not you, did they, was the law violated whenever that action took place as that committee is currently structured. I would answer that no because The
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:54:41
FOIA task force wasn't taking action as a result of those conversations.
Right, I was asking people's personal opinions, not as members really of the Fo the point of this is you can't make decisions. I'll just say a school board for the sake of this point. You can't make a school board decision outside of a school board meeting. The school board decision has to be at a school board meeting. My conversations with Professor Steinbach and and Mr. Toll were not about a decision of the FOIA task force. They were about the content of this bill that I was bringing to this body, not to the
task force, and I think it was fair to give you an opportunity to
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:55:14
explain that based on my previous question. So, um, and I do appreciate what you put in
and moving of the line, and I'm sure like anything else we do down here, it'll be improved on next time around. So thank you for what you did bringing it this far. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Alright. And our questions from members. All right, so no further questions. We do have several people signed up to speak for this bill. I would remind you all, I do believe this bill has the votes to pass. If I can get my colleagues back into this room, so there's only one way for it
to go, um, with that, Mr. Jimmy Cavin. Uh, yes, sir.
Speaker 371
1:56:12
Uh, Senator Payton, Jimmy Cavin, Arkansas First News, but I'm here representing myself as a citizen, and I wanted, before he goes out, I want to make sure the Chairman Flippo knows I heard him loud and clear.
OK, uh, just real quickly, and I'm not even gonna read it because y'all know it. The 2519102 legislative intent. I believe this bill embodies that and that's the reason I'm so excited about it. Just a few clarifications. I want to make clear that Hypotheticals we can all say them all day long. I wore Senator Clark out with hypotheticals this weekend and, and I just wanted uh thank him for having the patience the way
today to address those hypotheticals. I do want to take up for him and say he has talked to members, school board members and city council members because we all did. Senator Tucker, myself, Joey McCutchen, Ashley Wimberley, Jennifer Stanford in 2023 and 2024 we went across this state in Hilltown. Halls in in in all those governing body members attended those. I encouraged them. I called them and asked them to come so that we could get their input as well and they gave that input as far as the uh who
represents them. I can tell you, Lindsey French, I don't know about Mr. Wilson, but Lindsey French made sure that every government elected official in the state knew everything about this bill from start to finish, because I have the emails to prove it, don't I, Lindsey? Because I for them and so I went through hundreds of emails where she literally did that, so I don't, I think. Senator Tucker did a great job of getting everybody's uh in input on that. Uh, I think it's such a positive step forward and
transparency and it somewhat mirrors SB 12, which this committee passed, and I'm feel like y'all are gonna pass today in such a positive step and transparency and the greatest thing is it's fair for everybody. It's fair for GME and it's fair for uh Linda Hargis, my school board member. And we're never gonna agree on everything, but I think this is one thing that for the most part, I would say over 90% of the folks involved on both sides agree on this, and when does that happen around here?
It doesn't, but I can tell you real quick, uh, as far as the legislature and how it applies, when we went around these two town halls, the number one thing they talked about was open meetings. That's, and I think we can all agree on that. That's the number one thing they talked about. The #2 thing they talk about, and I don't want to make y'all mad, #2 thing they talked about is they want to apply to y'all. And so, and so when we talk about the difference in the legislature, and there is a difference in the legislature and these other bodies, and I won't go into details. Well, I
just don't know right now that it's feasible to apply that to the legislature as much as I would like it. I don't know it's feasible. It's feasible and these groups because they are small congregated city council's corn courts, school boards, committees. It's much smaller bodies and more together in a smaller community than the state legislature. Yeah, I'm gonna wrap it up because I don't want to miss Senator Flippo to start me bad eye looks. And so I, I appreciate y'all doing this. I can't tell you how much I appreciate Senator Tucker, and all the work he's done on this
because I can be a pain in the butt and I was to him all weekend and so I hope for a good vote and I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Speaker 374
1:59:29
Jimmy, he said you're a hell of a lot worse than a pain in the butt all weekend. I'm sure he did they uh, well, members, any questions for
Mr. Cavin? All right, see you. Thank you for being here. Be very happy for anybody to sign up to speak
for this bill to relinquish their time. That is not going to upset the chairman, I can tell you that. Joey McCutchen to speak against.
Speaker 27
1:59:55
I get that right, Joey. John, I'm taking you off the list, brother. Just FYI I don't know I take everybody else, but you're off. We appreciate the miss league's support
Speaker 377
2:00:12
of this. Alright, Joey, thank you Mr. Chairman Joey McCutcheon, um. Obviously here for myself, but also uh many of
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
2:00:18
the people that I've represented in cases that had the courage to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court.
4 of them on open meeting laws. Um And, and I, I just would say that that I think this would think Senator Tucker, I mean for spending time and and uh really, really doing an outstanding job, someone who's able to convince me, uh, to be on the same side as the municipal League, you know, that's a great accomplishment, but I think he's, I think he's done an excellent job, um.
I think that what we've seen in terms of the Supreme Court decisions are is that uh they're confusing to the citizens, and they're confusing to the governing body, and that's why I think we need definitions and that's why I really appreciate you, uh, explaining in this bill what background means, what non nondecisional means and giving a definition of of deliberation because Uh
That's the job of the the this body uh and and that's what I've said. I know I've worked with Senator Sullivan and I've worked with Senator Clark on on FOIA issues and I've always appreciated what y'all have done, um, we've had our tussles in other areas and, and, and uh, but, but I think this is so important that we're getting a definition, um, Senator Clark, you know that that I don't, I don't like your definition, uh. It speaks of two can can get
together because I think there's daisy chains and I think the intent of FOIA under 102 would would be destroyed without some parameters. Um, I think that what Senator Tucker has done is set up a bright line test on um On deliberation and that's strictly prohibited because the the citizens are entitled to see the sausage making. And if we don't see the why and we don't see the sausage making,
then we're gonna be critical of the very board members that that I know you're supporting Senator Clark, and, and that's what I want to see. Uh, I probably would have gone further than he went, but I appreciate the bright line. I appreciate you having me today. I'm happy to answer any questions. All members, any questions for Mr. McCutcheon? See, Joey, thank
Speaker 45
2:02:55
you for being here. Thank you. Senator Peyton,
I have a motion. What's your motion? I move for immediate consideration. All
right, got a motion for consideration, a second by Senator Sullivan. It's a non-debatable motion. All in favor say aye, opposed. All right. Yeah There Tucker. Now, you don't have to close your bill actually.
Speaker 363
2:03:17
Yeah, I'm sorry. Damn, we're just going to run the gauntlet. All right, members. Sir Clark
is Or Senator Tucker, excuse me, no offense, Alan, my bad. I'll have to pay for that later, uh, Senator Tucker is closed for his
bill. I got a motion due passed by Senator Tucker as amended a second by Senator Sullivan all in favor of any discussion on the no discussion. All in favor. Say aye, opposed. Congratulations, Senator Tucker. Your bill passes. All right.
We got. Uh, let's say a Senator Penzo's here. Senator Penzo
Speaker 384
2:04:08
OK, we're gonna give him a few minutes. He was here. He was here waiting, so. Alright, so you, yeah, hang on,
Senator Dots. I'm gonna let you go real fast. We're waiting on Senator. Yeah, well, we cut him off last time. Yes What number do you got? House
Speaker 387
2:04:26
Bill 1460. House bill. I think 1460. Go ahead, madam, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:04:41
members. House Bill 1460 is a pretty simple bill if you look through it, basically what it does, uh, right now, when certain boards and commissions were established. They say they have a date certain in there, so things like when this was established January 1st of 2012 or 1990, even back to 1975, so when Boards and commissions were established. They, they were established as representation from the
congressional district as it existed at that date. So what this does is says as they exist at the time of the appointment, so we're actually getting congressional representation regardless of of uh from that actual congressional district rather than from old congressional lines that might not be necessarily within and I'll, I'll shut
it down because I see nods. And oh, got a motion due passed by
Senator Payton, a second by Senator Tucker. Any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion. Senator Dodson, you're closed for your bill. I got a motion to pass and the second from Senator Tucker, all in favor. Say aye, oppose. Congratulations, Senator Dodson. Your bill
Speaker 363
2:05:54
passes. Senator Penzo. I like how you think because you know, your bills on top of the agenda,
that's the order that we go in. I don't know what would have given you that impression? Obviously you spent no time in state agencies. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:06:15
we just started new Oh, there, there's some people in here for other bills that we're not going to get to you by 12:30. This is the intent of the
Speaker 363
2:06:27
110% were coming back in. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sir. Senator Penzo, proceed
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:06:33
with your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. SB 2826 sets up a uh a process for our constituents to vote on whether or not they want fluoride in their water. This agreed upon, Bill? Is this
agreed upon? 0, 100%. Yeah, yeah. No, no, uh, no, no known opposition. Uh, yeah, yeah. Just kidding. So, so we can sit here and discuss whether fluoride. good or bad, but the reality is it's uh FDA classifies it as a drug. There's new research coming out that uh Uh, it could be have. Be a neurotoxin. So there's a lot of people that would like to
have this out of the water supply. Um, I'll go ahead and talk about some of the pros and cons, but ultimately this is about giving our constituents. Uh A voice on whether or not they want their water supply. So It may be discussed that fluoride is a natural, naturally occurring substance in well water, things like that. That's a totally different type of fluoride. That's, that's uh
usually calcium fluoride, which is naturally occurring. The fluoride that's put in our water supply is from industrial waste, usually aluminum manufacturing or something like that. So, so back in the day, you know, you've you've ever heard the term, the to pollution is dilution. The best way to dilute, you know, a pollution is to throw it in the municipal water supply and because they couldn't dump it in the creeks, so this is the best way to dilute it. They came up with an idea of it's good for teeth, um.
Arguably, if you're drinking well water and it has uh calcium fluoride in it, that might be good for your teeth. The reality is we spend probably $10 million annually. By the taxpayers to fluoridate our water. 99.5% of that water goes down the drain. Used to Water livestock to water grass. So only 0.5% of that actually
gets in to somebody's body, but once it's in the body, it affects the bones, not just the teeth. It affects organs. It, it affects uh uh thyroid, um, everybody knows that you need iodine, uh, for thyroid production. Well Sorry, I'm a little winded. I got through running up a couple of flights of stairs, so, um, but, um, So it can disrupt thyroid production in people. There's all kinds of studies out there, uh, that show that it's causes
cognitive deficiencies in children, um, there's actually a federal judge that just ruled that uh that uh the EPA needs to relook at whether or not fluoride's a neurotoxin. But like I said, this is not about What, it's a mandate. Without informed consent, so there's a lot of people. If the FDA says it's a drug and it's in our water supply. We're not, people don't have informed consent on that. There's a lot
of people that don't even know fluoride's in their water supply, and then the risk of it being a neurotoxin is something that that we need to seriously consider as well. All this bill does is it gives people the ability by 22 methods, uh, a majority of the vote of the quorum Court can trigger just to go on the ballot or a petition. Uh, samba no less than 5% of the total number of votes cast within the county, uh, for the county judge of the last election. Um
And it's the way it's set up. You know, the association of counties said there was no good way to break down who actually had water and who didn't. So this is if the county is supplied by that water system. It doesn't have to be the whole county. So there's 3 counties supplied by a water district. All three counties have to vote to Vote on opting out, and then the majority of the voters and then the majority of the counties and then then they can pull it out.
It also allows for OK. Got a motive for Motion to pass. Well,
Speaker 395
2:11:10
we need, we need a motion for immediate consideration.
All right, we got a motion for immediate consideration by Senator Clark, seconded by Senator Payton. All in favor say aye, aye, post. Oh I have it. Alright.
Pennzo, you're now close your bill. We've got a motion on the floor. Motion to pass and a motion to pass by Senator Clark, seconded by Senator Payton. All in favor say aye. Aye, opposed. Congratulations,
Speaker 121
2:11:40
Senator, your bill passes. Thank you, committee, and thanks for expediting. All right. All
Speaker 384
2:11:45
right, we will reconvene 15 minutes upon adjournment. We are adjourned.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Scott Flippo
SB282 C. Penzo AMENDING THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION.
HB1460 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
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.
HB1607 Rose TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM.
SB227 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 PUBLIC MEETINGS.
HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Mar 11, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 11
Speaker 14
Speaker 15
Speaker 16
Senator John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 24
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 35
Speaker 45
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 80
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 87
Speaker 89
Speaker 96
Speaker 100
Speaker 17
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 111
Speaker 123
Speaker 124
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 142
Speaker 146
Speaker 122
Speaker 116
Speaker 163
Speaker 164
Speaker 168
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 143
Speaker 160
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 202
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 223
Speaker 107
Speaker 277
Speaker 305
Speaker 43
Speaker 324
Speaker 328
Speaker 252
Speaker 241
Speaker 188
Speaker 364
Speaker 273
Speaker 371
Speaker 374
Speaker 27
Speaker 377
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
Speaker 363
Speaker 384
Speaker 387
Speaker 390
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 395
Speaker 121