JBC-Personnel
Video
Transcript
3 documents
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB392
Act 499
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…S. Evans, ex officio A. Call to Order B. Discussion Only 1. SB392- Classification and Compensation of State Employees C. Othe…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION OF STATE EMPLOYEES; AND TO DECLARE … | B. Davis | Notification that SB392 is now Act 499 |
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
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
3:21
OK, we're going to call this meeting to order. Good morning. Welcome, everyone. Um, the only thing on the agenda for today is discussion for Senate Bill 392, the class and Co, a new state employee pay plan. So, at this time, I'm gonna go down to the table and let um representative Chair Wootten, um, take the
meeting from here and we'll present the bill. Really. Good morning. We'll start off with a um Presentation by uh Chairman Davis, relative to the conduct of the meeting, and, uh, Ms. Bornhill, you're welcome, and Miss Fisk, you're welcome. Chaler can identify yourself at the appropriate time. So
at this time, we'll recognize Brianne to Chairman Davis.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
4:32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brianne Davis, State Senate District 25, um, again, this pay plan we're just, uh, presenting it today for informational purposes only, probably several of us have gotten emails from state employees around the state, um, and it's important for us to, I think, be able to ask questions and answer some of their questions and give people time to work through it and see exactly where they land on the pay plan and, and what that looks like for them, though Allstate employees, is my understanding, have been Told to speak with their
supervisor to help understand the new pay plan. Um, there's a few high points that I would like to mention before we kind of get into the weeds and take questions. Um, this has been worked on for a very long time now, really working hard to bring state employees up to labor market rate. Um, I think that's something we've discussed many times over the last several years is, you know, not just doing a blanket raise or cola for everyone, but really targeting employees that are not paid labor market rate and
ensuring that we're paying competitive rates, um, to the private sector so that, um, we have attract and retained the best. and brightest state employees, um, here in Arkansas. So, About 2/3 of state employees will be receiving a raise some pretty substantial, um, that means a third of our state employees have been paid labor market rate over the years, which is great, um, and we're just helping the rest catch up, um, some interesting things to note are the job families and job series, um, just creating a
path for an actual career path for state employees, so there is room for promotion and advancement along the way and also some competitive positions for supervisors and directors. Um, and then lastly I'll note that a lot of the emails we're getting, I think people may be saying, well, I was a GSO 9 and now I'm a GSO7. Why am I being demoted? Why am I being downgraded? And it's important to note that this pay plan that is being proposed is not apples to apples with the current pay plan. It's entirely new, um,
it's a, it's a brand new pay plan, and they're not comparable, so everything has been revamped if you'll look, um, in cases, you know, GSA. 7 probably has a higher max salary, um, then a GSO9 currently. So there's no demotions taking place, no one has been demoted, no one's been downgraded, no one is being reduced in pay. Um, so I hope that we can explain that well today so that people understand it's not an apples to apples comparison, and it's an entirely
new plan that we're really, um, looking forward to pushing and um just doing things differently, so. Uh, with that, I'll turn it over, um, to these two ladies and let them introduce themselves and we can get to uh discussion and questions. You're recognized.
Speaker 10
7:30
Good morning. I'm Leslie Fiska and I'm Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. I just like. To, um, make a few comments that, um, are, you know, similar, um, to Senator Davis,
um, so the, the, we're excited to be here today, and we appreciate, um, your support, um, as part of the Arkansas Forward Project, um, you know, we're working on all the functional areas of state government and the gover the governor specifically asked us to look at the pay plan, um, because it was broken, confusing, and did not reward hard work of state employees. Um, we've worked with all of the executive branch departments. Um, on this pay plan and gotten, um, significant input from them, specifically on the positions within their, um, departments
for every, every employee is going to benefit from this, um, as Senator Davis said, you know, we've got over 14,000 that are going to receive a salary increase to get them to the, um, entry level of the labor market rate. Including those critical areas that we have heard from you over, um, the past year, um, examples are state police, correctional officers, um, and then also, um, nurses. Um, this this significant portion of this, um, plan for the, for the group that's not included in the increases as, as Senator Davis
said, it creates defined career paths and job families with growth opportunities, um, it also includes a significant increase in the pay range scale for employees in this structure is really similar. to the private sector right now, um, our, our pay plan does not mirror, there's not any any mirror image back to the private sector. People try to move from public to private sector and don't understand which positions or what career path they would be in. So this will help us with recruitment, um, and retention.
I think it's a great day for all of Arkansas employees, um, and, uh, before I pass it to Director Kay Barnhill, I just want to thank, um, Kay and, and her team, we've got Ariel, um, Parish here, we've got Jennifer Elkins and we've got Nick Martin, and we have a team of 10 people at the Office of Personnel Management that have worked tirelessly with their expertise and commitment, um, to support state employees and put this together. So I wanted to make sure that they're recognized for their significant and work and expertise. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, you're recognized, Miss Barnhill. Thank you. Kay Barnhill,
Speaker 14
9:54
Department of Transformation and Shared Services. What I was gonna, uh, provide for y'all is a little bit about
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
9:59
how we came to the point where we are today, let you know what processes we've been through, what recommendations we've had and how we got to the point of where we are. Um, as you recall when the governor took over she she requested that we develop a labor market pay plan. The
reason our labor market pay plan is so important and so critical is that takes us to where we match our competitors as well as it relieves a ton of pressure off the performance evaluation process where in the past department managers have maybe used performance evaluation to give people raises when that was not the appropriate method to do it. So when you have a true true labor market plan, you're more consistent with the market and much more competitive and managers can truly manage the way they should.
Some of the things that have happened over the years is that we've had inflationary pressure since 2017, we've had increased retirements and generational handovers and we have fallen behind the competition with our private sector counterpart, counterparts. So what we, um, have done through this and we worked with the McKenzie consulting firm with Arkansas Ford. They came in and made several recommendations to us, and those included. We had 2,2
50 job titles, which was a lot of job titles. They recommended that we reduce those job titles to around 850 is what our final number was. The reason we had so many titles, you might have a DHS DHS accountant or a health department accountant or, you know, various titles through the different departments when in reality they were all accountants. They all required the same type of skills, and they may not have been paid consistently across departments. previously. That was one of our
major, uh, thrust here with this plan is trying to ensure we had equity and consistency across state government, um. They also suggested McKenzie also suggested that we have some different pay tables you'll see with this pay table we've added two new categories, which is the law enforcement table, as you all know, we've had tremendous problem with law enforcement salaries over the years, as well as the specialized table. The specialized table tends to include positions such as
attorneys, accountants, uh, engineers, those type of people appear in the specialized table. State general services table tends to include the majority of state employees. That's where about 90% of our state employees are actually in state general services. We also have a medical pay schedule which had fallen behind. That's where we were able to address nursing physicians with that pay table, we also have an information systems and technology pay schedule as well as an executive pay schedule. I
think these variety of tables help us address state government. needs you just can't fit everybody into one particular table here, um. We also Received advice on how to actually define some of your positions. Um, one of the problems we've had over the year is the increasing need to promote people to managerial positions who may not have had managerial responsibilities, but the only way to do that in the past, the only way to get an
employee increase was through the promotional process. So we established some criteria for my managerial jobs, so it'd be more consistent across state government, so that would. Again, provide more equity equity across the departments and the other big recommendation, uh, recommendation that we've really tried to implement this time is the career path and the job series. So these days, it used to be you could just come and employees were stuck at one particular level. What we've
done with this pay plan is identified career series or job families and the series you can start out as a specialist, you may progress to an analyst, you may progress. to a coordinator, and you may progress to a supervisor expert. So when an employee is hired, they can look and say, here's the possibility of where I can go. You progress through uh. Adding additional skills, for example, an employee who starts may be familiar with the government, but they may not
know how the ACA system works. They may not know exactly how state government is handled. It may take them a couple of years to learn all the internal processes involved in that particular career choices. So that's a major part of this pay plan and we, we can talk about that at length. If you want to know how we developed the plan and how we got here, we began by meeting with departments to understanding. needs. They identify target classifications for us that they asked us to pay particular attention to as well as
identify their needs and where they were not able to hire and attract and where they thought things needed to be improved considerably. Um, OPM then we researched labor market data for the 2250 classifications that we currently had, we used a number of sources with this uh with this market data, we use the IBM salary.com. We have a national compensation. Association of State governments, we use Bureau of Labor Statistics, and we also
use salary data compared by Arkansas data and many salary surveys that we collect, we participate with other states consistently on salary surveys on particular classifications. We looked at the salary data and then we also looked at every position in state government as to how it was in the org structure, um, because when you're determining grades, the organizational structure and the sour data both become very important. This is where we made some significant changes, for
example, if a if a manager did not have a couple of supervisors and a number of employees working for them, we may have taken them out of the management classification. maybe have made them a supervisor or expert or a coordinator. What we are trying to eliminate as there were several times across state government where you may have had a manager, a supervisor, and then an employee. So we had a 1 to 1 to 1 relationship. We were trying to make sure that the management position had more than one employee and had several groups that they were
working with. We did not go with the program management manager title as we have in the past when we talk managers here, we are talking about. managers, so that's one thing I want to stress to employees, I mean, to, to y'all, um, we, you know, some of the targeted jobs, you know, that have had high need, high turnover, and this will come as no surprise to you correctional officers, family service workers, nurses, LPNs, accountants, engineers, so those were a lot of the classifications that were identified by the various
departments. We also, uh, uh, reviewed and confirmed results once we got to the greatest. establishment process we again met with secretaries of the various departments for them to review, they took it back, they made comments and we made some adjustments at that particular point in time, um, I will state that this review and this process was reviewed and validated by McKenzie, saying that we had used appropriate approach to how you recognize
state jobs. Um, so as I mentioned a little bit earlier, what's in our plan? Will we move from uh, pay tables, 4 pay tables to 6 pay tables, as I mentioned, law enforcement and safety, state general services specialized services, medical information system and technology and executive, um. Again, we consolidated 2200 job titles down to 8 850, so they're more generic. This also helped you when you're gathering your salary data. You could go look
at an accountant, you weren't looking at just a Department of Health accounting you were looking at an accountant that was used all across state government, so that helped tremendously, um, we also identified job families and career ladders that give employees a career opportunity and identifies as a career job path and progression. We're hoping that uh in this act, we're also reducing the number of pool positions because we've had to use pool positions so heavily over the past years now with these career paths, we
don't feel like the need for pool positions will continue as it has in the past. There still will be a need. It just won't be at the volume that we've had previously used, um, if you look at our pay bands, we have uh raised pay bands to better match market value for jobs, uh. I've heard several employees say, well, I'm being downgraded. Well, if you actually look at the new pay tables, there's so much higher than the previous pay tables we had, so there really are no downgrades, no
loss of salary with this particular plan, and no demotions with this plan, um. As Secretary Fiskin and Senator Davis have previously mentioned approximately 2/3 of employees will receive market adjustments, um, those that do not, that means they were already at the market rate, and they are certainly eligible for performance increases. So that's what I want to stress, even if they did not receive a raise with this plan upon
implementation. They're eligible performance raises, and they also may be eligible for future promotions based on the career path. that they've been assigned to. And, um, Departments are going to utilize their budgeted funds as they have them now if they run out of funds, they are able to access the performance fund, which has a healthy balance in it at this particular time. Um, so what's not in our plan, I think I just said that already, but I will clarify, no loss and pay for any employees, no
demotions for any employees. This plan does not factor in performance because that's a totally different system. So this plan is a labor market plan and not a performance plan. What it does allow us to do is more effectively have a performance-based pay system because we're at the market, so we're not having to artificially inflate performance evaluations for. employees, um. So, uh, Like I said, this plan is driven by labor market rates, that's why there is no consideration
based solely on tenure. This is to meet the market. Our final results, and this has changed a little bit from what's previously been said. We've got actually 15,900 employees who will receive raises after we reviewed all the appeals, that number was increased, so out of the 225 employees that we currently have 159 should be getting an increase of some sort with this. plan and what I really want to stress is the grade ranges have been significantly increased.
Some, in some cases, I think maybe you will see that we're almost starting rates at what were previously minimums of the grades these employees were assigned to. And
Speaker 18
21:22
so with that, that's kind of my summary of where we are. We'll be happy to take any questions.
Let me add, um, my thanks to you, Miss Barnhill and to the your department, Madam
Secretary, and, uh, uh, and the efforts of the governor's office, particularly, this is, this is long overdue, the redo of the pay plan and the number of positions and the number of uh titles and all that needed to be redone and uh I I think you all have done an admirable. job of uh getting uh covering the many facets that you had to look at and to be able to
complete Senator Davis, I appreciate what you've done in uh working and representative Maddox and uh being a part of this is, this is in my opinion, this is a historic action for particularly for the um, excuse me. For the state employees. There's long overdue that we recognize more closely and more seriously
the market value that they have and to be able to um uh have a performance evaluation, but before we even started to look at that, we didn't need to pay a decent salary to all of them, and I think that's very Very good and very important, and we appreciate it. Members, it's your floor now.
Any questions? OK, we'll start off with uh Senator Hammer there we
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:27
go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, great work, my question is, and I should have got to senior Senator Davis, I apologize, but how is this going to have an impact on the retirement system with the increases or could you just talk about the relevancy between the two if there is any at all, and what's it do to the future of the, of the
sustainability of the retirement program or have y'all looked
Speaker 27
24:05
at that? OK. Um, I think the retirement systems are fine with this
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
24:09
plan, Senator Hammer, um, but, uh, director Mark White and director Amy Fettcher have reviewed this, uh, the plans even for their own departments and have had no negative comments. One thing I
will add to you, uh, with correctional officers in the past, we have provided them with differentials like for hazardous duty and other factors, those never counted toward those correctional. officers retirement because those are add-ons with this plan, we are adding on the hazardous differential into the base pay for correctional officers. So it is an improvement for them because they will now get full credit for their pay. OK, that's great. But, and, and as far as the strength of the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:53
systems 1015 years down the road. As, as the transition happens from From where we are to where this plan is going to take us, no concerns about, about the systems. I would have to leave
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:06
that to either, uh, Director Fetcher or Director White, but no concerns have been expressed to me at this point in time. OK. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Senator Hammer. Uh, Senator Tucker, you're recognized.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:30
Um, there we go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I heard you say twice, Miss Barnhill, that, uh, no one's getting a pay deduction and no one's getting demoted, which I, I understand. I've
gotten some questions about someone's grade number might go down. And so can you just explain that process and how that works, please. Yes.
Let me explain that with the old pay plan to the new pay plan. There's not a correlation of I was a grade 5 here, you know, and I should be a grade 5 on this pay plan. These grades have
been totally redesigned. The starting minimums for The the grades on the new pay plan are considerably higher than the old pay plants. So yes, an employee might have been a SGS 05 on the old pay plan, that would have a range if we use that as an example, a grade 5 would have had a range of 32 to 51. Well, maybe on this new pay plan, they're grade 4 and to show you the difference, that's a range of 43 to 63. So if you look at the long term, the grade ranges are considerably
increased for all. OK, thank you for explaining
that. I just want to join Representative Wooten and really commending
y'all on doing what in my view is a, is a really, really great job across the board. It seems to me y'all have approached this in a conscientious way and, and done it in a data-driven market-based manner, which is exactly what we needed and in particular, and you and I have discussed this on the public safety side because this is really impacted public safety in Arkansas with the salaries for a corrections
officers, and really in particular, parole and probation officers, and I just want to mention, you sent me this, thank you, that the minimum pay For parole and probation officers will be almost as much as for the the recommended minimum pay will be almost as much as what the maximum current pay is. And that, that is really remarkable, and I wanna, I wanna thank you in particular for that. Thank you. And if I could just make one
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
27:29
more comment to that. I think it's important
that with state employees have questions about, you know, why their grades changing, what it is. I mean, naturally when you're going from over 2000 titles to, you know, 800-ish, um. This looks completely different and it's a brand new pay plan and so I just encourage them to really, um, speak with their supervisor to help understand it, um, and why it's different and what has changed, um, because it's, it's not the same plan revamped. It's a brand new plan. And so I do think that's causing some confusion, and understandably so, but we just
want to ensure that their questions are answered, which is why, um, in my emails back to some people have emailed me. I've said, please get with your supervisor and, and talk through it with them because information is being sent down, and I want to
make sure that they really understand that. Thank you, Senator Tucker, and thank you, Senator Davis, and I think it's very important, uh, that's an important point that everybody recognized you can't compare this, this current plan that's being proposed to the old
plan. It was way outdated and needs to be dealt with, and it's been dealt with as Senator Tucker pointed out, particularly probation officers and other uh public safety officer. issues. Um, Senator, uh, Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you all for being here. Um, We
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
28:59
all agree that the pay plan needed to be updated, has been need to be sometimes, but I want
to kind of drill down into the actual cost of the pay plan, so we kind of know what how it's gonna affect the budget, um, can you tell me what the actual cost of the raises
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:19
are going to be versus how much the match is gonna be. Yes, ma'am. The actual cost of the raises from all sources is $113 million. There's $26 million a match included with that. I mean, that is on top of that, I should say. So 26 will
Speaker 27
29:34
be the. Yes, yes ma'am. And then on the
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
29:39
student loan part of the program, do y'all have an estimated what y'all might see that
Speaker 17
29:46
costing. No, ma'am. Let me explain a little bit about the student loan program. Currently,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:51
there are special language at the crime laboratory and rehab services that allows for student loan repayment. What we did with this is strictly made it so it could go across all State departments if the departments had the ability to pay. So we're not mandating that that program go in, but we're giving all
departments of, uh, eligibility to participate, we would have to come back to personnel committee with specific data. and rules to get that program implemented. OK, but y'all don't have an
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
30:19
estimate of what you're thinking that you're, we're gonna roll out a program, but we don't have in the back of our minds what we think it might cost us. It is
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
30:27
hard to estimate that because we don't know how many student loans are out there at this particular point in time, and without that data, we could not give you a meaningful, uh, estimation at this point. OK, and I'm just
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
30:41
As somebody who looks at numbers all the time rolling out a program or a benefit and don't have an idea what it might cost us, creates a little heartburn for myself, and I'm all for creating programs. We have several programs in our company, but we know the cost that we could max it out that this is the most that we're gonna be able to do it. So I'm just kind of curious when we start adding these into the pay plan, we didn't have an idea of what it might cost us and what the max will be, because the last thing you want to do is roll it out and then take it away.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:12
Yes, and I want to stress that we have not rolled it out as of yet. The department would have to bring it forward to committee with
Speaker 17
31:19
the cost estimates at that particular point in time, it just allows us to review and look at that particular program.
Speaker 64
31:28
Mr. Hudson, you were recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Uh, Representative Kavanaugh, it's an optional, uh, benefit. Um, the department would have to as, as, uh, Kay just said, we have to bring the recommendation to the
Speaker 65
31:38
department, part of the review process, both with them
and with DFA would be whether or not they have available budget for it, so it can't be
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
31:48
implemented unless it can be paid for. OK, um. And Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask about the performance fund. I know that we talk that it's healthy at this point. I think it's around 72.2 mil right now. Maybe some additional going into it, uh, with the raises that we have looking at doing. How much of this performance fund, do we see going have to be hit.
Speaker 70
32:16
For people, for the agencies to go against it. Uh, the, the department with the highest category
Speaker 65
32:24
of expense is Department of Corrections. Um, we increased their budget a couple of years ago and added $20 million in additional appropriation and funding for salaries that they've not been able to take advantage of, um, because of the, the pay inequities with the, with the old plan. So there's $20 million right there of the, you know, 64 $65 million in costs that we can. Say it will be addressed outside
the performance, uh, fund. Performance funds right now, we think it's about more, about 64,000 once you take out some other obligations that have been hitting it in the current fiscal year, and the governor's proposed budget we're going to add back into it about $3 million. So we, we think that the performance fund is is adequate to meet the need for this, you know, proposed pay plan. But the other thing I'd point out as well is that really the first stop before we go to performance fund is the existing budget. And I think there are lots of
departments that have, you know, existing savings measures in place. So go look there and then if they don't have the ability to fund it through, you know, existing funding sources, then they can come to the performance fund, and then I wanna note for members as well how performance funding works. If you draw down on that, let's say in FY 26, then the amount that you draw down in FY 26 from the performance fund gets built into your base and the RSA then for FY 27. So it makes its way into the. budget within a couple of years. OK, and that's the other thing
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
33:50
is at some point all these races have to go to, into the RSA and so you're working on getting that in the RSA so it actually becomes part of their budgets. It
Speaker 73
33:59
will be in the RSA for FY 27 if, you know, they draw down the performance fund. Otherwise, it's already in the
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
34:05
RSA because you're saying they already have it in.
So eventually it would all be in the RSA. It won't be outside the RSA. Yes, ma'am. Yes ma' it really
Speaker 75
34:12
is just a transition period for one year as we're implementing the new performance, you know, for new pay plan to be able to
Speaker 65
34:21
supplement the funding, but once you get beyond that transition year, it has to
be in the RS. Thank you. Representative Kavanaugh. Next is the representative Emmett. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
34:41
Chair. Um, I have several questions from my constituent. Sure, um, and if you've already addressed this, forgive me, um, was consideration given to longer
serving state employees who were put into a new classification above the entry level to receive some level of compensation. No, ma'am,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:00
to be honest with you, this plan is a labor market plan. Any employee whose salary fell below the labor market received an adjustment. Those employees whose salaries were already above the assigned grades minimum are not receiving an adjustment because they've been at the labor market. They've actually had the benefit of having a labor market
salaries previously. Those employees are eligible for both performance increases this year. That's a totally different system. Then this compensation system as well as those employees may be eligible for promotions within their career path, as I've said before, we identified career paths where you might have a, you know. Family service worker one, a social service specialist one, social service, uh, uh, coordinator, social service, uh,
supervisor slash expert that those employees will may be eligible for promotion to those titles in the future. Follow up,
Speaker 84
36:06
I have a follow-up ma'am. Um So this is a follow. Why did OPM
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
36:11
testify that they were going to make sure those employees were not left out from adjustments again. I am not
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
36:21
sure that we provided testimony. What we, what we've
done is exactly what the governor has asked us to do, which is to develop a market-based plan that's competitive, so we'll be able to attract people to state government, um. They made that comment may have been about a previous proposal several years ago that was not accepted at that particular point in time, this, this particular pay plan
Speaker 85
36:46
was truly market-driven. It One more follow up. Um, sorry.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
36:59
Was to stop giving those employees uh 0.5 or 1% per year of service pay raise up to the new pay maximum. That
Speaker 90
37:11
is. could we have given them a 5% to 1% per year service. I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:17
think we that was certainly something that could happen has an astronomical cost to go with it. We're already putting a whole, I think our first, um, Mission was to develop this
labor market plan. We're hoping those employees, like I mentioned earlier, we received that did not receive
Speaker 85
37:35
an increase here, receive it through the performance process or maybe a promotion in the future. Thank you.
Representative McCullough. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
37:54
good morning, everyone. Could, could you guys speak to, it's on section 11 where you add cabinet secretaries to the severance pay
code where it's currently just, um, agency directors, could y'all speak a little about that?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
38:08
Yes, the previous code referred to everything as an agency director and did not recognize the transformation that we went to back when we actually established the cabinet. So we've added cabinet secretary in that definition, just as we previously had agency director in that definition. That was just an inclusion and recognition of what's already occurred.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
38:33
And you'll find that throughout the bill Representative McAuliffe, like, um, it's, it's everywhere, just updating that language to ensure it's consistent. Thank
you, Representative McCullough. Senator Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, couple
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:53
of things. Number one. For anybody that's been around here very long, we know that the turnover rate, the cost to do business as far as employees been extremely high. I'm just
curious, the plans as far as tracking how this is going to improve in that area because that'll be cost savings poured right back into the budget if we can reduce the, uh, turnover rate. So is there any
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:19
discussion about that going on? Yes sir, we have looked at that in 2024 fiscal year, turnover was 19.7%, almost 20% in state government. Right now we're at 13.5%, but we haven't finished out the fiscal year. So it, it will certainly go forward, creep upward, um,
we're hoping that this plan, because we have competitive salaries. Well, reduce the turnover. It also should reduce the situation that's previously occurred for an employee may be trained in one department, but they've gone as high as they can go, so they get hired by another department who has that same job at a higher grade. So we really feel. like the job series in itself should help address the turnover program as employees now have a career path to go forward with.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
40:07
are the systems in place to be able to track and get that kind of data where, you know, there's a, uh, even a pyro team of employees, um, so that maybe, uh, 4 years down the road, um, you know, 2 terms down the road, you could be able to look and say, you know, because of this, we were able to regenerate back into the budget $10 million or something like that. Yes, sir. I think
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
40:30
we've got the data to do a comparative analysis. OK. And then the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
40:34
last thing is, and, uh, You just can't put a simple
response to this one, it'll be fine. The, the number one question I'm getting is, when am I gonna get my race? Um, which you, so would you just kind of hit that real quick, uh, for those that are
watching, so, so again, they can know. Yes, sir.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
40:52
Uh, the races, this plan will be implemented July 1st. That is when this plan is scheduled to be implemented at this point
in time. OK, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Representative Kavanaugh, you
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
41:08
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just two other areas I want to touch on real quick on the 6600 that aren't getting a raise. Do you know what type of jobs those are that are not getting the race that we were already paying
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
41:24
market value for. Uh, Representative Kavanaugh, it's not a specific category of jobs. It's really all over. It's any employee that was already above the minimum of the new grade they're being assigned, so
it runs the gamut from any, you know, high-level, low-level jobs, you will find I do have some statistics in here where. Um The lower grades are more, are getting more of the
Speaker 85
41:50
raises than the higher grades at this particular point in time. OK, but I guess what I'm
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
41:56
trying to find out, there isn't one specific I guess category that we already were paying market value. They're just kind of all over the place depending on what.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
42:09
Where they were at their old pay plan. Well, as you recall, previously, I mean, we still have what we call labor market special interest rates are exceptional well qualified special entry rights. Many employees who may not be receiving a rate this time may have gotten a rate in previous years, which put them at the market, um, and those classifications included, you know, all kinds of things from LPNs to accountants, to all kinds of jobs across state government, but I can't give you any particular
classification where the majority of the people are not receiving. And, and you may not
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
42:43
be able to answer this, but on our, uh, retirement plan with this increase that we're going to be doing. We, there's not been a discussion of what it's going to do to the plan, to the liability that's gonna be out there for the taxpayers, how much that's going to increase. There was
Speaker 107
43:02
in, I, I sat on AR's board, um, Actuarrily they're just
Speaker 65
43:06
so many factors. That go into determining that a
crude pension liability, compensation is one of them, but it's also age as well, um, the degree of turnover in the workforce. So at this time it'd be very, very hard to, to estimate what the impact would be over time. There should not be any immediate, uh, impact on it. It'll just increase the average compensation a little bit, um, we're, we're increasing comp. You know, $100 million in the grand scheme of total compensation it's in that. That pension plan, small
fraction. OK. All right, thank you. Thank you. Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:01
I got a follow-up question. Can y'all just, and you may have explained this, but can y'all explain how you determine the labor market rate? Yes sir. The way we determine the labor
market rate is actually, we had salary.com, which is a product that gives you labor market rates within your state with competing states within geographic areas. We use salary.com. We use the national compensation Association's salary survey data. We've, uh, responded to specialized. s ur ve y s with other states throughout the year and we keep those results and use those results as well, um. Like I said, we have a lot of salary survey work that goes on constantly within the office
personnel management. So we participate with others, so we get those responses back as well, but we did look primarily at in-state data because we didn't necessarily limit it to just government data because that's kind of comparing ourselves against ourselves. We looked at data that didn't didn't include private industry, so we can make sure we were competitive. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator
Representative Jean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
45:14
over here to your, your far right, um, and I apologize. I missed the 1st 15 minutes, had a meeting that ran a little long over the Capitol, um, From day one, We were, we were pretty much talking about this as a $102 million increase. When
did, when did it go up to 137 million. And You know, we were talking about 14,000 employees getting raises
and approximately 9, 9000 knot. Now I'm understanding that's 6600 and about 16,400 getting a raise. What, what changed because this was so, this was so much of the plan early, and, and now it's, it's changed, kind of helped me through that and if I missed it, I'm sorry, uh. No. I can explain that. When
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
46:06
the plan was originally introduced and when the governor originally reviewed the plan, we were setting at approximately 102 million plus match at the, the
100, that 102 million did not include match at that time, so you could add about 23 million to that, which
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
46:23
would make it about 125 points we had before that, y'all
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
46:26
weren't including the match did not include the match in the original We're including the match today with this 139,000. Part of the reason it went up, and we also went up from the 145 is because we did meet with agencies and departments one more time in December and they brought forth some classifications they
thought we had missed graded. Those might have included the customer service reps at the revenue offices. We ended up raising those grades. That's a high volume classification has about, I think, 250 people. We had, we actually raised the grade on a correctional corporal which had about 330,000 people. So there were 5 and I, if I could put my hands on it, I'd read you the list, but there are about 5 classifications that had over 200 employees that we actually made changes to, and
that's what raised that number from 14.5 to 159. Is
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
47:20
it 6600, the amount of number of employees that are not going to get a raise. So are we certain that those 6600 are already at market. Uh Standards for market. Yes, according
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
47:37
to the survey data that we collected, if those employees, the people that are getting raises again are those that were below the minimum,
those 6600 were already above the minimum for various reasons, and so those, those people are
Speaker 57
47:51
eligible for performance races, but not from the labor market study itself. OK. Mr. Chairman, could
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
47:57
I address a question to, uh, Mr. Hudson? Yes, you may. You stated that the performance fund,
I checked last week was at 72 million and I think you mentioned 64 million. Have y'all drawn 8 million out or is that something you're obligated to do and, and, and where is it going?
Speaker 122
48:17
I think that's the forecast through the end of the fiscal year, is that right, Robert? Yeah,
Speaker 64
48:25
so that's, that's setting aside that's really kind of just being as conservative as we can, any amount that's been budgeted in state budget, we went ahead and deducted that and that got us down to what you're talking about is, is that will
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
48:37
be effective July 1. It's, it, we had, we hadn't drawn down 88 million currently. No, sir, we haven't, but if agencies use 100%.
Speaker 65
48:47
Of performance fund that they budgeted, it would get us down to 6064, 65 million. We don't expect it would be that much for the purpose of this analysis, we assumed 100%
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
48:58
would be taken. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative Richardson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I had
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
49:09
a My question is, have you guys put any thought into individuals who are on a certain career path
and then change. For example, if If an individual works, MLK commission and we do away with MLK commission and now they've become an attorney. Attorney one, and that might be at a lower rate. Would you keep them the same when they
left? Does that make sense what I'm asking you what
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
49:36
you're saying. I think you're saying when an employee transfers to another department with a career path. The way things work right now employees do stay the same on a transfer, but then they would
become eligible in the case you just mentioned, we've got an attorney, 123, and an attorney 4. That employee would be eligible for advancement later on
Speaker 90
49:55
to the higher level, thank you. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you.
Uh, Jim, I wanna go back to the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
50:08
questions you're getting from Representative Lane Jean. The, the amount that's in the fund that's going to be drawn out of is estimated to be what? At the end of the fiscal year.
Speaker 122
50:19
So current Current cash balance is a little over
Speaker 65
50:26
70 million. You know, we have agencies through the budgeting process when they submit their annual operating plans, they can budget in a certain amount of performance fund usage. We forecasted if 100% of what they budgeted was actually used in the end of the fiscal year, beginning of the next fiscal year, it'd be a little over 65 million. We would not expect.
100% of what's been budgeted to be used
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
50:53
though. And, and this is as much for my educational purpose as anything. The replenishing of that account. is achieved by what mechanism? It, it happens, you know, from time to time,
Speaker 65
51:03
it's a, it's a, a one-off sort of adjustment that we make and we bring any request, uh, to replenish, uh, to this body for them to act upon. We can do it in the interim as well. We need to make a transfer from restricted reserve, but I, I really believe that the balance is still gonna
be healthy as we draw it down over the course of next year because agencies do have plenty of savings, I think to help offset a lot of this cost, but the governor's also adding a little over $3 million. in
Speaker 73
51:32
a proposed budget to the performance fund for next year to help offset some of this cost, right? I guess that's
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:39
what I was trying to get my mind around is that as far as pulling money out of the fund and replenishing it back in, um. Is this the lowest amount that
the account has been historically or is it on an upward tick, not necessarily plateaued or on a downward trend. It's one of
Speaker 65
51:57
the higher, I think, balances that we've had and has been trending trending up, you know, kind of over time. So I, I think we're, we're in a good good place on this. All
right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Representative Kavanaugh. Representative Kavanaugh. Thank
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
52:21
you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just want to ask real quick,
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
52:25
when you're making determination between, if you can just clarify between career path and competitive, so people can understand what the difference is and why you did it that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
52:34
way. Yes, ma'am. The career path is uh a path an employee can go up within their position if they attain additional skills, say they started out as a specialist, and within a couple of years they've attained the skills that they can become an
analyst, we can then promote that employee to the analysts say 5 years down the road, they become a coordinator. They can also get him get promoted without ever having to leave their position, a competitive promotion is for most all managerial type jobs were all employees would have to apply and that would be they would be moving to a different position
Speaker 85
53:14
that they were selected for through a competitive
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
53:17
process. OK. And also in the plan, there's a
ability to pay 10%, I guess, extra if they get an educational or certification, professional certification. Can you talk a little bit about
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
53:32
that? Yes, ma'am. That's a current provision in the classroom comp law today, so we have just continued that uh have the ability we are gonna suspend or end all current special entry rates, our current differentials in departments need. of re requests those type of things in light of the significant changes we made with
this particular paper. OK, thank you. Senator
Petty. You recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
54:04
been sitting here trying to figure out how best to articulate this question, so I'm just going to say it and hopefully it comes out OK. Um, this, this plan is a, a position plan, not a people plan. It wasn't developed with any particular individual or anybody in particular in mind, I
suspect included in these races are some folks much like the private sector, you're just looking for a warm body, uh, to fill the position. But is there any consideration in here for the, the 6600 that are at market rate, uh, do you have any feel for whether or not those were the higher performers already, and that's why they were at market and is this going to affect those in any way, uh, negatively. There's a,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
54:51
yes, sir, there might be a chance that those 6600 were
higher farmers. If we recall last year, Governor Sanders approved a 3% market adjustment across the board for all state employees and then state employees also received a 1 to 3% increase on performance. That actually made a significant impact on employees' salaries at that time, which might have pushed some of those 6600 above the minimum. I mean, the, the theory with the 6600 is. Yes, they deserve a performance increase if they've been farming
their job in an exceptional fashion or satisfactory fashion, but they are, um, they will be eligible for those increases that were approved last year, and that should happen before this pipeline goes into effect. The performance races go first. Oh, and there's no negative impact. No employees losing any money with this particular plan. I want to make sure that even if in their perceived, they think they're going to a lower grade.
There's not any, we're not taking 10% away from any employees or anything like that. All employees will keep their existing salary, at least keep their existing salary and may have an enhanced salary due to the labor market. Thank you, Senator, Senator Bryant. Thank
Speaker 36
56:11
you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just a couple of questions. One probably in the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
56:16
weeds and the other one maybe a higher level. In the crosswalk. I'll use an example on page 156. As I just randomly just kind of
scroll through just to question lines 31 and 32. OK. Where you have a current current position that is probably overly broad RN. And we're transitioning them into from a medical profession into a general services position. To Do those 31 and 32 would be I'm sorry, I was looking at the two examples where we have something going from a, a med profession into a, a general services profession where it's listed as an RN as a
title, and it's going into inspection manager or investigations manager. How do those job titles and roles, um, transition. Inside that agency. Yes, sir. During the interim and departments
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
57:11
have been allowed to what we call cross grade a position. So this position was properly authorized as an RN but may have been used as a medical inspector and investigator of hospitals. They have that ability to cross grade that position to a different title, which I'm sure is what happened
here because we actually use the actual jobs that the employees were performing when we made these assessments. We didn't pay as much attention to the. Authorized classification as to the actual job that they were using that position at. I think this is
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
57:45
a classic example. OK, so like in that in that example with that new qualification description require them to also potentially be an
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
57:54
RN. No, sir. We are rewriting all the job descriptions right now and an investigations manager is gonna
have different requirements then there are cases where maybe some might be RNs but not generally, you know.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
58:08
OK. OK, that makes sense. And then the, the other question is, where you have a, I guess the first question would be how many
in the pay scale right now are at max of their. Others positions. And I don't have
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
58:23
that totally, I can tell you that last year when we introduced the pay plan last year, we extended all the grades
by 10% because at that time we had 1500 employees above max. We reduced that number to around 250 to 300 employees above max now with this new pay plan, 52 employees that was my question.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? You would, I have
some to go through to kind of follow up on the questions that's been asked.
The, the total cost you gave 113 million. Now, with the matching, what
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
59:11
is that? That's a 26 $26 million matching, so 13926 million. What percentage
did you use? We used in this case
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
59:18
we used 23% because we didn't have to, usually if a new position is being started, we use a 40% match factor because that includes insurance, but this case we're already matching for insurance and all these positions, so we took, took those out so we reduced the
match costs, the percentage 23%. That's what you 30%. OK. What, what about
the constitutional offices. Do you have any estimate of what their Adjustments will be as a result of this new plan. No, sir. Constitutional offices
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
59:52
officers come directly here and y'all actually make those, so I don't even know necessarily what's been requested at this point in time. Following up on Representative Kamenau's
question. I'm a little concerned too about the loan program and not having a number to use to go by in the realistic uh Estimate of forecasts, we, I think we need that. I mean, could you not poll individual agencies and ask them to ask their employees, how much do you owe and how much will you get? And then why, why do we not make
it statewide rather than agency selection process that seems like to me that's going to put a lot of pressure on your, uh, Human resource people and your uh secretaries and directors of these various agencies, Mr. Hudson, would you like to respond to that? Yes, sir, I will, taking your first
Speaker 65
1:00:58
question first, you know, part of the implementation plan is you have to demonstrate that you can pay for it. And so we're not going to roll
this out in any department without understanding what the fiscal impact is on the apartment and their ability to use their existing budget to pay for that, uh, in, in terms of the other question, you know, how Should it be more broadly rolled out. I think let's, let's see actually how it goes and then if there's something that demonstrates a broad-based usage, we can have that conversation at a later time within the context of the overall budget, but this is just kind of a beginning part of this. Well, I
I'll say this to disagree. I, I
just wide open. I mean, uh, we, if we start something in government, it never ends, you know. And so, uh, um, I'm, I'm fearful that if we don't have some estimates, some number built in. I mean, even if we have to come back and make some adjustments. That's one thing, but just to open-ended, say, you know, we're gonna cover it just seems like it's kind of wide open. Well, I
Speaker 150
1:02:13
think that's, that's why you and I agree that, you know, wide open is the, the tendency
Speaker 65
1:02:17
of government and it, it tends to have a long afterlife, um, that's why we don't want to roll it out. You know, just broadly and say we're gonna do it without understanding. You know, what the cost would be and I think, you know, these departments coming forward who say they can use it and it's important to them for their makeup of their, their workforce to have this and that they can pay
Speaker 150
1:02:36
for it, then we can see what the utilization is. No, I totally agree. The
Could you, can y'all prepare for us, Senator Davis I need your advice on this. Can you all prepare for us a total cost bullet point. I mean, start with the 113 million and then the 100 and then in the 26 million plus and this, and then on down and are we sure that on the 113 million, is that going to be Uh, is that already budgeted in
their budgets or how much is there in the agencies now or how much more will we have to add to that to reach
Speaker 62
1:03:25
the 113 and 26 million number. Yeah, yes, sir. Let's, let's make sure that we, we all understand
Speaker 65
1:03:31
the 113, which is strictly on the salary side, is a total cost from all revenue streams, so that includes federal and special revenue the. GR impact just on the salary side is a little under $53
million. So most of the cost on the salary side and and matching for as well is not in general revenue. It's, it's
special revenue are federally funded. OK. So 53 million? Is that what you're saying? Yes sir
the, on the salary side, yes sir. OK, I, I think it would be helpful to the membership of this committee if we had a breakdown financial breakdown exactly what the estimated forecast or the
predicted costs will be, and you didn't answer my question, Ms. Barnhill, or Mr. Hudson, either one. Are the agents to the agencies have any money that they can use toward this without adjusting their budgets upward. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I, I think I
Speaker 65
1:04:35
spoke to that one, Representative Kavanaugh asked the question, um, that is the first pot we want them to go to. I look at their existing budgets and see what savings or unspent monies they have there and then repurpose that toward, toward
this need, um, if they don't, then they can come to performance fund, but
the first stop is look at your existing budget. OK, follow up on that if, if you would, relative to, are they using any of their cash reserves, we have some of them that, uh, uh, funding, uh, have a tremendous carryovers amounts for several years and it's, it's 4 or 568, 10 times their annual budget. So, are we looking at those
Speaker 65
1:05:22
reserves to whenever we are having conversations with, uh, an agency about the need to come to performance fund. We at DFA are looking at all their available resources they have before we kind of bring that request over. It is important to remember though that some of
Speaker 75
1:05:37
those cash funds are restricted on what the purposes they can be used for, not all of them can
be used for salaries. All right, thank you. Um, Miss Barnhill or Madam Secretary, do you all have any closing remarks you'd like to make?
Oh, I'm sorry. Oh. Representative Kevan, all, you're
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:06:03
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, back on the student loan, when I was looking at
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:06:09
the language. There's no consistency of what it's gonna look like. It's just gonna let each agency make their own determination. Is that how I'm reading the language, so it's not gonna be a consistent framework. It's just gonna let each agency make their own determination.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:06:26
Representative Kavanaugh with that particular language rules have to be developed. We'll, we will be bringing forth rules to you which all agencies will have to comply with and then the agencies can then tell you specifically how their cost and how that will work at that time. OK, yeah, because my concern is I don't want to have one set
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:06:44
of rules for one agency and one set for another. OK, all right, thank you. You recognize Ms. Barnhill.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:06:58
Um, yes, Chairman, and what I'd just like to say that um this pay plan I think will be a benefit to all employees, if not immediate in the long term and we do appreciate the governor's office and the governor taking so much of making such an investment in state employees, which I think will help improve uh employee morale and we'll end up providing much better services to the taxpayer Thank you, Madam Secretary. Yes, um, to echo, um, Director
Speaker 10
1:07:28
Barnhill's sentiments, um, this is a great day for state employees and, and we, um, are so thankful for the governor's leadership as part of Arkansas for to, to make these changes and progress, um, and support for, for the great work of all of our colleagues across state government, and we appreciate your questions today, and we appreciate your support. Thank
you, Mr. Hudson. Do you have anything? Senator Davis, would you like to comment? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:07:55
wanted to say a few things in closing, um, just a reminder and
really to Senator Bryant's question earlier that we through this pay plan, we're really looking at what the job actually does, and, um, as Miss Barnhill, uh, said earlier in testimony that, um, we had managers, not managing anybody. We had a lot of positions because our old uh plan was flawed. there were no ways to promote and move people up and around, so, um, that just speaks to the fact that this is a brand new system. It's not, um, like the old one and shouldn't be compared in that way. Um, I also wanted to say that there are
some new things throughout this bill that um will be taking place and so, um, myself and Representative Maddox were very careful in, in those new sections to say either through rule or policy, um, that they'll come back and present to the legislature and we'll either have review or approval. to those new things so that we can keep track of exactly what's going on, what it looks like and how that's um taking shape throughout state government. Um, so we'll have a pulse on this throughout the interim and be able to make changes as needed.
And if they are positions that maybe were missed or um not put in the correct place that if they're in the right job family, job series that that can be adjusted easily without coming back through legislation to do it. So just ensuring that we're taking care, um, of things that. Or that were possibly missed just due to the volume of state employees and positions that we have. And finally, I'll say that we do have um a cost sheet per agency and the fund source, um, that Tony Robinson has, and I'll have him send that out to the
committee so we can see exactly where the money is coming from, um, from each agency and the fund source for that, for that money. So, thank you, um, for the questions and I'm closed and I make a
Speaker 156
1:09:49
motion to pass. You want to vote on it today. No, no, no. No, I don't. No, I don't. I take that back. Sorry Just kidding. Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you for your comments, and we appreciate it again, we
appreciate the efforts that's gone into this, but I think the questions that have been put forward for y'all to answer that you should uh what that you would respond in a report relative to the, the, the cost and all of that which we went into and which Senator Davis alluded to. So we appreciate it. Thank you. With that we are.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Discussion Only 1. SB392- Classification and Compensation of State Employees
C. Other business
D. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JBC-PERSONNEL, Mar 11, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Ex B1 SB392 · Discussion Only › SB392- Classification and Compensation of State Employees | Exhibit | 222 | Official source ↗ |
| Pay Plan Tables | Exhibit | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Representative Jim Wooten Chair
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 14
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 18
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 27
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 17
Speaker 64
Speaker 65
Speaker 70
Speaker 73
Speaker 75
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Speaker 84
Speaker 85
Speaker 90
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Speaker 107
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 57
Speaker 122
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Speaker 36
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 150
Speaker 62
Speaker 156