State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

Public utilities or nonprofit utilities and they have investments just like the state does, and if they, uh, divest these investments prior to the uh required date, they will lose a lot of money and we don't need our utilities or nonprofits are losing that money, so this basically corrects that issue. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Alright, Representative Ladyman has explained this bill. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The bill we ran last session, I wouldn't say it had an oversight in it. Multiple times I met With uh different groups. And it was our understanding the state covered all those entities. Now putting this additional language in there. I don't, I don't necessarily have a problem with that, uh, because it does clear it up. Perfectly for all entities involved, but I do want to make it clear that this doesn't give them an exemption to keep those investments only gives them the exemption to keep them until they can divest them at a to a fiduciary so that way they don't lose any money or lose any of their constituents' money. Yeah, yeah, that's a good point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, do we have anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. All right. Seeing none, Representative Ladyman, you're recognized to close for your bill, um, clothes for the bill. Appreciate a good vote. Representative Ladyman's closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I see a motion to pass. Representative Hawk. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Yeah, have it, congratulations, Representative Ladyman, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're gonna move to Senate Bill 208. Representative Underwood. representative District 16. Uh, thank you, Chair. So this is um a Senate Bill 208 and then the next bill that we have is the bill that we heard about a week ago that we're here for, uh, a little over 6 hours, so I don't have a lot of comments on it, but once the bill got out of committee on the 208, which was the photo ID bill. Uh, I noticed that there was, and I think it may have came up during committee I looked at it a little harder and I felt like there was a technical inaccuracy regarding on on so I amended the bill and I did it on members own so that you guys had the opportunity to see the bill in its entirety. So, um, the amended language is on page 2 lines 2 and 3. were referenced, uh, verification of photo identification. We have changed the just the wording of that so that way it's more accurately cross referencing um what's already in code and so that's all that the change on this one and I didn't want to make Chairman Gasway run a technical correction bill later, so. All right, uh, Representative Underwood has explained the bill as it's been amended, uh, is there any, are there any questions by the committee? Saying no question about the committee, I heard someone make a motion, Representative Bolaw. OK, well, hang on just a minute. Um. So there's no discussion, there's no questions by the committee. We do, however, have someone sign up to speak. Against the bill. Kwami Abdul Bay. Mr. Bay, you recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Kwame Abdul Bay. With the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP first and foremost, I'd like to thank you, a representative uh Underwood because that technical correction is what I did bring up in the last uh last time I was here testifying against this bill. Uh, but what's still unclear to me as far as the reference to this bill to statute 7-1-101 uh subsection 40. Pull that up right quick. Uh, what this section is, is this is basically a section of uh definitions and the, the word phrase. That it refers to is verification of voter registration. Uh, I did a LexisNexis search for that word phrase and it only comes up 4 places in the entire Arkansas code and 3 of those places, it's referring to the act of voting. And then the 4th place, it's referring to the act of registering to vote. And when you look at the section. On voting, it actually gives you several different exceptions where you do order, Mr. Chair. point of order, uh. I don't believe that at the current moment we're speaking to the amendment that is on the table. So my, my understanding about the amendment was. Representative Underwood did not present the amendment, uh. In committee, Representative Underwood made the amendment on members own, which means the amendment's been engrossed into the bill already. We don't, we're not hearing the amendment per se. We're hearing the bill again. And because of that, uh, He is entitled to speak on the bill itself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. No problem, uh, Mr. Bay, you're recognized. Uh, so when you look at the three sections that deal with the actual act of voting, there are actually exceptions to having to present a photo ID. One is if you're in the military, uh, another is if you live in a long term, uh, living facility. You don't have to present ID and then when you look at the section on. Voter registration, it also includes exceptions for not being required to present a photo ID. It even says you can use a utility bill. You could use a uh federal or state check for your identification, so Bringing all of that into the forefront if we're talking about uh verification of voter identity and we're using this particular definition that's in code that definition includes several exceptions. So are we going to include those exceptions when we go out and we're requiring photo ID. For people who want to sign ballot measures. That's a question that we really have to consider here because it's not really ironclad. In this particular bill. Mr. Bay, is that, does that conclude your remarks? Uh I guess it does include my remarks, yes. And I ask that you do not pass it. OK, alright. Will you take questions from the committee? I will take any questions by the committee? Seeing no, thank you, Mr. Bay for being here. Appreciate those remarks. All right. Seeing no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Underwood, you're recognized to close for the bill. I'm closed. I'll make a motion to pass. Representative Underwood has closed for his bill. He's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Next, we'll move to Senate Bill 211. Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Um, on for this amendment, this was an amendment that uh Senator Hammer had promised that he'd make on the Senate end and I was unaware of it or I guess probably more accurately I'd forgotten about it until after we had got it out of here and so I did want to make sure that we honored um Senator, Senator Hammer's promise. So essentially what it does, the, the bulk of the amended language is on on page two, lines 2 through 7, and it adds so this is the bill regarding the canvasser affidavit. And it adds an exception for if the canvasser, um, passes away or has a medical disability. We didn't, we didn't want to be, we wanted to give some leeway in those situations and so that's essentially all this amendment does. And again, it's engrossed, so it's not just it's already added to the bill. I didn't explain that very well on the last bill. Alright, Representative Underwood has explained the bill, including the amendment that he's made to it. Are there any questions by the committee, seeing no questions by the committee, we do have one person signed up to speak against the bill, Mr. Bay, you. Recognized. And it's Abdulbay, I'm Kwame Abdulbey with the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, uh. There are two points that I'd like to bring up, uh, in, uh, when we were in our 6 hour session the other day, uh, it was brought up by members of this committee as well as members of the general public. On the question of why can't this, uh, affidavit that uh. SB 211 is trying to bring into existence, why can't that just be incorporated into the existing affidavit that is already on the uh petition part. Another thing that was uh. Disgust uh during uh that last session was what actually is a true affidavit. And since uh no one here could really figure that out. I did reach out to a friend of mine who is a uh state supreme Court justice in another state and I asked him what is a true affidavit versus a regular affidavit. And he explained to me that a true affidavit is an affidavit that has criminal liability to it. A regular affidavit only has civil liabilities to it. So What we're doing here with this affidavit, not only are we creating an extra piece of paper, but we're also criminalizing the act of collecting signatures for ballot measure. So that's a real concern when someone here in Arkansas wants to exercise their constitutional rights to. direct democracy. So what I would like for this committee to do and for you to do, uh, Representative Underwood is consider what was discussed in the last uh session and just incorporate this into the sworn affidavit that is already on the petition part with the language uh under penalty of perjury and that solves all the problems that this bill purports to solve. And that's the end of my testimony. And I will take questions. Thank you, Mr. Abdul Bay. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for your remarks. Representative Underwood, you're recognized clothes for your bill. I'm close from my bill and I'd make a motion to pass. Representative Underwood's closed for his bill. He's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you. All right, next we're gonna move to House Bill 1449, Representative Collins. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So 1449 uh is pretty straightforward, um, what this bill does is it moves the deadline for the final report that's due for candidates for state and district office. So right now, um, I'll give you the example of the general election. Your final report is due December 31st, and it has to include con con contributions and expenditures through December 31st, so effectively the deadline is the same day that you have to be reporting information for that. is at best a tight timeline and uh in in my case this past year, I had something that came in, an interest that came in on a bank account December 31st. I was actually waiting on New Year's Eve to see what that amount was going to be and it didn't come in until January 1st, even though it posted on the 31st. So it's just unrealistic, it's unnecessary, and what this bill would do is it would move that deadline to the 20th of the next month, so January 20th would be the deadline for. The file report, including contributions and expenditures through December 31st and the same would be the case for the primaries as well as special elections and runoffs, and that's what the bill does happen to answer any questions. Representative Collins has explained the bill. Are there any questions about the committee seeing no questions by the committee, we do have one person signed up to speak. Uh, concerning the bill, Mr. Graham Sloane. Mr. Sloan, if you'll identify yourself and state the organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to speak concerning the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Graham Sloan, director of the Arkansas Ethics Commission, um. Representative Collins did let me look at this bill, and we have talked about it and the uh the concerns that I see are that the when you move the report to be due 20 days after the month after the election, that's gonna fall on the due date of another report, so you're moving it to a date that there's already another report due. You'll have two reports due on the same day. The moving that deadline for the general. In that big of a deal, but if you move for the primary and the runoff elections. There's, when you get out there to the runoff, there's already A report due first that covers the subsequent period of time and then there's a report due 2 that recovers a previous period of time and it's just gonna add to that the confusion out there, but then the other concern I would see is that, um, you're moving the deadline for the final report for state and district candidates, but you're not moving it for county municipal and school board candidates and so for the final report, uh, for, you know, a particular election. Uh, depending upon what type candidates you are, you're gonna have a different deadline and that's, uh, could be a point of confusion. All right, thank you, Mr. Sloane, Representative Ray, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Um, Mr. Sloan, what you said that there would be 2 reports due on the same day, right? What, um, what would be, what would the other one be? Well, if you're talking about the primary election, the, uh, you know, of course, we have two different primaries and presidential election years, we have a March primary in non-presidential election years. We have a May primary. So if you had a March primary, the uh report would be due the last day of April. It's going to move it to. June 20th and that's gonna be your April monthly report due June 20th, and then if you're, if you're talking about a May primary, it's gonna be due July 20th and that's gonna be the June report that falls due on that same day. So there's a month, you're saying there's a monthly report due the same day as the post-election report and they're different one covers the primary and one covers the general and so you, you can't combine those into one report because it's a different elections. OK. All right, yeah, that answers the question. Thank you. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just thinking through this as a candidate who who files these reports, you know, on our end using the website we don't. Um, I mean, we click when we enter an expenditure or a contribution, we click, you know, what election it's for, but it's not as if we are filling out two separate documents, right, to submit forms. We just submit our expenditures and our contributions, and then the Secretary of State's website when we file them kind of sorts where they need to go, what what monthly report they're filed in. I guess my question is, what is the logistical issue that you see for candidates because I'm having a hard time understanding that. Well, the Secretary of State is the one that maintains the online filing system. So I, you know, as far as the mechanics of how that works and what I hear you saying is gene the information and it separates it into those two reports automatically for you, um, I don't have any reason to disagree with that, but that I, I'm not familiar with that process as far as the, you know, we don't even have a. account to get on their, you know, a dummy account to get on and play around so for technical questions you, you talk to them, I guess. Well, I guess I just, if you're, if you're worried about potential confusion, I guess maybe my question better put is, can you explain to me exactly who you are worried about being confused and how that manifests itself, because I'm not sure if somebody who files, what would be super confusing about it. Yeah, I guess I could say is, is that you're, you're gonna have um two reports worth of information that are gonna have to be keyed in at the. same time in order to file those. If you're gonna file two reports on the same day, you're gonna enter two reports' worth of information. There's going to be a lot of data input. Potentially. OK. All right, uh, Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you, Mr. Sloan, for your testimony, uh, to Representative Collins' point, there are, I'm sure for any of us who run for office, different deadlines that can prove to be challenging for various reasons, um, to the kind of the deadline that he spoke to on the 31st and looking at all of this, are, are there particular cases where you're hearing from candidates that they're running into the same problem like is this relieving something that the ethics commission is seeing as a persistent. Uh, missed deadline or or amended reports. The only uh candidate I've spoken with that raised that issue was Representative Collins and the, the final report, the due date is 30 days or the last day of the month after the election, you can file it the day after the election if you want to or you know, you know, you've got, I think it'd be 52 days before it's due and um but if you did wait till the last day to file it, then. there would be information. potentially as of that day that would go on the report, but that's the first time I'd heard that there was a problem with that deadline. Follow up Recognized. Thank you. Uh do we have any other reports that fall on the same day, like. two at the same time, does that happen? No intentionally, we, we don't do that, right? And then, you know, sometimes when a special election on a compressed timeline, you'll get out there and they'll be a runoff and you'll have a report for the runoff due before actually the last report for the The special election and, and so you, you do kind of get the reports get out of sequence in limited instances, but uh I think if you had 20 more days on there, you're gonna have more reports out of order, uh, out there. I understood that you said you're speaking concerning the bill. I'm sure trying to remain neutral as possible. Do you see merits for the concern that Representative Collins has expressed this afternoon. I think he has, he's he's raised a valid concern. OK. And I think I have to. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Alright, Representative Ray, you're recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Sloane, you referenced the issue with the two reports being due on the same day. What was the other thing that you mentioned that you're gonna have the different due date for state and district candidates are going to have one due date for their final and then County Municipal and school board candidates, they're also required to file a final report, but they're gonna have a different deadline, so you're gonna have different deadlines for the same report depending upon what type candidates you are. OK. Um, My other question is, so on the final report, let's say after the general election, the final report would be due the 31st. Um, what if you, what if you have an expenditure, you know, what if you file your report on the You know, the 23rd because you want to get it done before Christmas travels or something like that and then you have some sort of expenditure between then and the end of the year. Would you then have to go back and amend the report, or what would that go, what would that go on? You could file an amended report and then the law makes reference to something called the supplemental report, so whether it be an amended report or supplemental report, you could go back and correct it that way. OK, thank you. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee. Thank you, Mr. Sloan, for your remarks. Seeing no one else to sign, signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Collins are recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh, you know, as Mr. Sloan mentioned, I did speak to him before and I understand what he's saying. I, I also genuinely just don't think these are big concerns. The first one having two reports due on the same day. I, I mean, I just, I do not see the issue, as we all know when we go onto these websites, it'll make sure that you put your report in based on dates that are in the system. It won't let you put them in the wrong thing. If you say when the dates are, it'll go to the right report. The other thing is if you've ever um had multiple, if you ever missed a deadline, then you have multiple, multiple reports that you will do at the same time and they go into the website that way, um, the other thing I would say with regard to that is if you want to file your report on the 31st of that previous month, you can do it. Nothing in my bill would stop you from doing that. You don't have to wait until the 20th and I would say that Right now we have one date which is unlike all the others, the end of the month is a date that no one's looking for, no one's thinking about, and you have to then remember that your final report only is not due on the 20th, like everything else, and you have to go in and file that on December 31st or June 30th or whatever that date is. I don't find that to be particularly easy right now. I think this would actually make things easier to remember for people. As far as the uh you know. issue about county deadlines being different from state deadlines. The county deadlines are different in many ways from state deadlines, as we all know, there are bills out there that would address that, um, you know, this bill just deals with state and district candidates again this is totally separate section of code. And the last thing I would say is we have to do something because right now we have an ambiguous code here for state and district candidates. One section of code says that the final report is due 30 days. after the last day of the month in which the election is and the other section says that it's due on the last day of the month after the election is. Those are inconsistent. So even if it's a technical correction, which I don't think you could do for this. Something does have to be fixed. Well, what I would rather do is move it to the 20th of the next month so it can be in alignment with every other report we do. It gives people 20 more days if they don't want to take 20 additional days. They don't have to take 20 additional days. They can file their report early and I would move Dupin. All right, Representative Collins has made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'd consider doing the same bill myself, um, and I, um, I think it would be much easier for me to keep up with it, everything's always due on the 20th because, you know, having gone through this myself, you know, when you start throwing in those extra days or you know seem like they're just arbitrary other dates it you know in in the midst of a campaign, it's kind of hard to keep up with. So, um, despite it being brought by Representative Collins, I'm going to be voting for this bill. Thank you. All right. Is there any other discussion on the, on the motion. Seeing no further discussion on the motion, we do have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Congratulations, Representative Collins, you passed your bill. All right, next we have House Bill 1459, Representative Lee Johnson. Yes, Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. You're recognized. Yeah, so first of all members, thank you for letting me come and present this bill. I would encourage all of y'all, if you have it, to pull this bill up and look at it with me. Uh, there are bills that we get for different reasons, right? Sometimes constituents bring its bills, sometimes agencies bring its bills, sometimes associations, sometimes you're just sitting around late one night and think up an idea and those are the scariest of the bills that I present, and that's what this one is and so I'm asking you as a committee to help me look through this and tell me if this is something that. necessary, you know, in the medical field, we talk about something called alarm fatigue, right? This is where there are so many alarms for so many different things going off that eventually you just tune out all the alarms and you don't even hear them in the background, right? And you can miss things that way. So we have a process where we require reports with some regularity to different committees, to different entities, uh, sometimes that's required by statute. Sometimes it's requested. Many times these reports um are requested at a certain cadence. We want to hear the report monthly, quarterly, annually, um, you know, during my time as chair of the public health and welfare Committee, um, something that occurred to me in listening to these reports is it felt like many times we were getting reports and I didn't even really know the history behind why the report was coming to us and an agency would go to the work and the effort to put together a report, come to the end of the table. present the report and no one was really maybe looking at or listening to the report, and I have some concern that we may have alarm fatigue around the reporting, so I asked the bureau to pull up some information on on how many reports are required. Right now there are 164 reports are required to be presented by agencies to to committees at various cadences and almost none of those reports require any action. And so what I'm trying to do with this bill is come up with a where basically what we're saying is, hey, whatever the cadence is if the reports to be done monthly, quarterly, annually, once the report has been given for the 3rd time in the cadence, then whoever's giving the report would notify the committee, hey, this is the 3rd time. Do you still want to receive this report? And if the committee says, yeah, we want to keep receiving it, then it just keeps coming. But if the committee says, hey, we don't want to receive the port anymore, the agency doesn't have to keep bringing the report unless it's statutorily required, you know, if there's something in there that says you can never not report this, so this is my effort to try to clean up what feels like an overreporting that we have in the committee process, uh, and I'd be happy to answer any questions and, and would love to engage some thoughts and comments if there's parts of this that doesn't seem right. Uh, in general, this is something that's felt like it's unnecessary. Again, happy to receive those. comments in the form of a question, uh, if any members have any. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I just wanna ask you, I guess, about The methodology that you arrived at this to to to. Come up with the criteria here. I'm, I'm all in favor of getting rid of reports that we don't need that nobody reads that are duplicative, um, and I know it would be a lot harder work to go through and identify specifically which ones those are, although I think the various agencies might be able to point us in the right direction. Um, why did you, what did you consider that approach versus this approach. Help me understand what you mean by. that approach. Well, I guess the way I read this is. Well, let me, let me, I'll I'll hop out and read it, reread this section and then I might hop back. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to commend you, but this is exactly what Senate Bill 63 is doing also. What we find ourselves in a lot of times as chair and legisla council for so long is we end up with all these reports that some member asked for 20 years ago, but are no longer as applicable as they should be today, but yet we're still asking somebody in the agency level to to put this report together, bring it to us, and all that means time and efficiency that's not being gained, so I don't know what sleeping medicine you're taking, but I need some of. Because this was good, um, and I think that's something the legislature needs to understand. This doesn't take any power away from anybody, it just says that if you're going to request these reports, you, you request them and they fall off at a certain time unless otherwise requested. Do you agree? Am I understanding this correctly? I agree, and certainly that's my intent, like what the intent is to say to to create a process by which at some point and what I've suggested in here is just the first volley, right? I'm suggesting. upon the 3rd reporting of the cadence, whatever the cadence is, there's a declaration, hey, we just did this for the 3rd time. This won't be brought again to the committee or agency or whoever, whoever's bringing it before unless you want it if everybody says hey we don't want it anymore, but there's also language in there to specifically say it can be requested to be brought back at any time and so to, to your point, Representative Wardlaw, the, the whole point of this for me is just sort of forcing us to take a pause. And say, hey, is this something we really need or are we just making people do a bunch of work for nothing. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank, thank you. I, I think that there probably are a lot of reports that don't need to be repeated over and over again, but I am a little concerned about the maybe a yearly report, if I'm understanding what you're saying after the 3rd time, a yearly report would be given. You could have the option to not have it again, but if it's yearly, it's a whole, by the time it comes around 2 times, if it's to a committee, health committee or something, it's a whole new committee the next time. And so I just kind of am trying to wrap my brain around how that would work if if a committee, one committee heard it one year, then the next year and then a whole new committee is hearing it for the 3rd time, how that decision could be made. I, I, I, I'm I'm just asking. No, it's a great question. Again, I hope, I hope members know, I mean, there are times where I'm gonna sit in front of a committee and I'm going to passionately grasp hold of my bill until I sink it, you know, and, but this is certainly one like I'm, these are the this is the feedback I'm looking for, right? I, I don't, I'm not looking for a motion to pass today. Um, I'm looking for feedback. Um, I would say I think in my thought process, as long as the declarations there, which it would have to be, hey, this is the 3rd time the at least if nothing else, that committee, which maybe is full of new members, to stop and think, what is this report? Tell me more about this report, and I have to make an educated decision on whether we want to hear this report again and they may just say, yeah, we want to hear it again in a year from now. Uh, but at least it creates that pause moment for the committee to actually make a decision and not just reflexively just have them come back the next year. a follow up. You're going. Um, now I've already forgotten it. um. I guess so the it would then be sort of the responsibility of the agency that is filing that report to say, hey, this is the 3rd time because that also might change as to who um, who was, who was putting that report together because people change within a 3 year period of time, so I Just concerned it might be hard to keep up with, oh, this is the 3rd year, but those quarterly reports, I can see a greater value and I'm open to amending it to just say reports that are reported in a cadence less than a year and see, see what happens for a period of time. So that's a fair suggestion. I appreciate that. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think, I think my biggest question with this is how it interacts with the rest of law because, you know, what we'll have here because what you say in recurring report means it's required by statute. That's one of the ways it can be covered here and so when we pass something, we put it in law, we all vote on it, we all agree and, and that is the number of reports and the duration of those reports that we want. So are you with this bill if this passes with this? Overrule all of the legislature's previous decisions when we passed bills to put into statute that reports are due. This is the point where I'm reading rapidly trying to see, you know, I, I don't. I don't intend to empower a committee to overrule statute. So I, I would have to look at that and think about that and try to reread how I wrote it. Uh, sometimes, certainly there's, there's a statutory requirement. Sometimes we just request reports and then we never fall off the request and so I need to look at the language a little bit. I'll look at that closer and see. I think that's a good question for clarification. Yeah, I think, right, if it's a request by a committee or the assembly, that's one thing, but if it's requested in than the way I read this interacting is that this will essentially limit anything requested by statute to 3 iterations and, and I, I do have a little bit of an issue with that, but again, I know you're gonna look back at it. The other thing I wanted to ask you about is um Just are you concerned at all that it will um with there being no specification about how the notice is supposed to be delivered if the agency delivers a notice in fine print to whatever's requesting these reports and whoever's looking at, you know, say it's ALC they're looking at it and they don't notice it. All of a sudden that report, which someone thought was important at some point falls off the face of the earth, never to return, um. I I guess I'm just concerned about unintended consequences may be about less transparency from state agencies if we do this and because we're not specifying how the state agencies is informing the requester that they're no longer going to deliver the report. Yeah, I would agree. So I think that's something I can tighten up. I can certainly create some language there that requires both written and verbal notification in some fashion, so it could be some sort of email to the, to the to the entity that's requesting the reporter that. The report is going to and then additionally have some sort of verbal uh acknowledgement we could even require a committee to have a vote, you know, and, and so I can look at some ways to tighten that up. The other thing that occurred to me in reading it was if if I don't think there's good language in there around, let's say you're getting this report monthly and it's the 3rd month and the committee says, yeah, this has only been 3 months. We want it to keep going. There's really no language to reset the clock around the next 3 times, right? It really just That the 1st 3 times, so probably I need some language too to say. Hey, you know, we've, it's been 3 times, yeah, we want to keep going. OK, well when do we come back and ask you again, right? Is it after the next 3 times or because there has to be some sort of cadence if they say to keep it going, but, um, looking at the committee, I'm not seeing anyone telling me this is a terrible idea and don't quit working on it. Uh, so with the, with the permission of the committee and the chair, what I'd like to do now that everyone's heard just sort of the thoughts behind why I'm trying to do this. I'll pull this down. Yeah, and and I've The answerable questions. I, I, before I pull it down, I'll answer any more questions. My intent will be after questions to pull it down and then, you know, please approach me, give me some thoughts, ideas, I'll try to put them together. I think there's value in this exercise. I just know I probably don't have it exactly right yet. All right, thank you for that, uh, Representative Johnson. We do have a few more questions. I will, I'm just gonna add. Uh, some concerns here, the concern I have is that it appears these reports apply to reports that have been as Representative Collins noted. Put into statute, they were important enough that some general assembly at some point decided that it should be put in statute that these agencies or whomever should report to the General Assembly to make these reports. Some of these could be very, fairly important reports and what you, what I could imagine a situation being is an agency who has not made a report or has made a report and it's just been ignored for whatever reason or another, just waiting there 3 times. And then hoping it falls off so they never have to make that very important consequential report that the legislature told them to make. Uh, you know, a while back, and I'm sure your response to that would be, well, if it was very important, the legislature would know and note that the report hadn't been made or hadn't been presented and you know they would demand action, but you know sometimes we're not the best record keepers around here and if it's not on our agenda and it falls off, you know, it, it, you kind of lose track of it and then next thing you know they don't have to make it anymore and my thought would be I would rather that be on the agency than be on the general assembly. Uh, if they don't make the report, if they're not doing what they're supposed to do, that's on them, it's not on us. And if at some point we see the need not to receive these reports anymore. We can just run a bill in the legislative session and strike it and say we don't have to have that report anymore, um. Those are just some thoughts. I know this is apparently, you know, you're not necessarily looking for a motion to pass today and we're just discussing this, so those are my thoughts and I'm, I welcome your response to that I think, I think the response I have in my head ties into another bill that I, I'm not ready to present today 1461, which has to do with boards commissions and advisory councils. Uh, there's a process through JPR for reviewing uh boards commissions and advisory councils maybe I could create some language that said, you know, upon the. 3rd reporting of a statutorily required report, uh, the committee will have the option of referring that report being processed to JPR. Perhaps there could be some sort of accumulation because like again, you know, it's easy to fall off, uh, people's radar and lose track of, you know, statutorily required reports that maybe everybody would like to vote on and maybe not make statutory anymore. So if there's a way to maybe correlate those. I, I can, I can look into that a little bit and see. That way the process is a little different for statutorily required versus other. All right, Representative Wooldridge. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My uh comment was basically the same as Representative Collins, and I'll get with you offline. Thanks, sir. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, my, my comments are similar to what Representative Gassway was just saying. I'm, I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to do. I think there are way too many reports and, and we've probably reached the point where we've created busy work or pointless reports for a lot of our agencies, um, but. At some point, though, at least the ones that are in statute, someone or a general assembly at some point thought it was important enough to put it in there, I think. You know, obviously it would be a lot of work, but it wouldn't be too prohibitive to just have BLR pull a list of all the reports that are required by statute and then go through and pick the ones that seem, you know, that no one finds any value in and just abolish those reports rather than have this automatic mechanism that would be, that would be my feedback. I think that's a good suggestion, and I've already asked him I I already have the data on the reports that are required and how they're required. I don't know which ones are statutory, but it shouldn't be. too hard for them to find that out. So I'll go through that process and maybe get some information back to people that are interested to how many of the 164 reports that are required, how many of them are statutory versus not. Thank you, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this may be irrelevant if you take Representative Ray's suggestion, which I think is a really good one, but I did just want to flag, um, the adequacy report. It is statutorily required because obviously, uh, that was in response to a Supreme Court decision of the United States Supreme Court, right? So that's not the kind of thing that would even be um we we would not have the option to eliminate that kind of report, so I just don't want to create more work for us, rather than, you know, to go through these ones that we know we actually don't have the prerogative. yeah well before the session I already flogged some work out of BLR that maybe they didn't appreciate, but they, they were really good to put together this stuff for me back in October and uh and I, I committed to saying, OK, I'm gonna follow through and at least have this conversation, but yeah, I don't think it'll be too much more work. To layer on to what they've already done for me. All right, Representative Johnson, I see no further questions by the committee. uh, are you, you're not seeking a motion to pass at this time it's it's OK with the committee and the chair, and I'll work on it some and now that people know what this is about, I'm welcoming any input from anyone. All right, very good. Without objection, you can pull it down. Next we have. I believe you have another bill to present to us 1461. I, I do, and this is one I am looking to pass today so hopefully this will be quicker. I appreciate the patience of the committee on a Monday afternoon. So, uh, Representative Lee Johnson, District 47, um, this member's last session, we, we did some good legislation that moved the fire marshal, the state fire marshal, out of the, uh, Arkansas State, the police department into the Department of Emergency Management to align them with all the other fire protection services that we have in one place. It was a pretty big bill in doing that we tried to make sure we went through all of the code and moved all of the fire marshal. um, duties 1 2nd, Representative Johnson. So my understanding is that we were here in 14611415. I can't do 1461 yet. My fault. I, I didn't listen closely. I wonder why I was getting the curious looks from the members. No, stop. 146, I could do 1415. I, I do not intend to pass 1461 yet. It needs the amendments and stuff. So here's the issue we didn't put 1415 on our agenda to be heard today. I had, I sent out a list in advance, but I was working off the agenda that was on the Ark Lakesite totally understand the two bills that I had of yours that I sent to the committee to be prepared for today we're 1459 and 1461. So, so 1461, uh, since that's the one. I'm here and can present. I do not intend to pass that today. I'm waiting on some amendments. I think this one bears a good conversation, but I think it's probably better to have the conversation after some amendments have been made. OK, fair enough. All right, well, with that, um, Representative Johnson. Thank you. I'm thanks for attending and appreciate y'all visiting with me. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right, next we have. House Bill 1494 Representative Hawk. Oh, you're not going to run that OK. Representative Beatty, are you ready on 1470? We're not running that today, OK. All right. House Bill 1514 Representative Painter. You're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Stetson Painter, District 3, Baxter and Fulton Counties. Committee, Mr. Chair, this is probably the easiest bill you will hear in committee, all session, all we're doing is adding. Thank you. Uh, the Department of Military to the uniform attendance leave policy, uh, is this for critical need employees. The bill is clarification to make sure all 24 hour a day positions at the Department of Military are covered. Currently we have military firefighters, law enforcement officers, security officers, and dispatch positions involved in 24 hour operations at Camp Robinson, Fort Chaffee, and the air base. All this is doing is clarifying and making sure that the Department of Military is added for that. I'll be glad to take any questions. and painters explain the bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Painter, you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed for my bill and I appreciate a good vote. Representative Painter is closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee, Representative? Beatty, motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Yeah, Abbott, congratulations, Representative Painter. You. Thank you. Next we have Senate Bill 63, Representative Wardlaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to plow any new ground. I heard Representative Beatty did such a great job presenting it last week. That was a joke, by the way. He, uh, what I want to make clear is this bill doesn't do away with the power of the legislature at all to require secretaries to come to the committee. What we found over the last two years with this bill is it created a really hard schedule that could not hardly ever be met and to my knowledge, we never met the bill to its letter because secretaries, they have lives. Mom gets sick. Husband's in the hospital. They go out of town. They have planned vacations and those planned vacations we hit on the dates of council when their report was due. And for that reason we came to conclusion last Fall Uh, Senator Hickey came to me about this to just repeal it and allow the chairs to have some freedom to bring in the secretaries as needed so that they can give their reports and members can feel comfortable about their agencies. So that's the reason for the repeal. I'd be glad to take any questions. All right, Representative Crawford, you're recognized for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't want to be the only one, So you guys, I'll just chime in with me. OK, I hear what you're saying about people going on vacations and people do all of this. We all do that. But If we wanted to hear from a secretary, it would be once every 2 years is my understanding from anytime you want to, and you could do that before this bill, but the way this bill is written is have to give a single report every year before November 1st, and I'm telling you're getting 15 secretaries lined up to come to council when counsel only meets from June to that November, you're very limited in time to be able to get them all in there in that short period of time. And that The reason we decided to repeal it because we never could meet that short time period that was allowed for in this law, but A follow up. I, I don't believe. Um That we would get the information. That we wouldn't even be thinking about. But that we could hear what's going on. Under that department. And I just believe it's something that I personally would like to continue. I I really don't think it should be that much of what I'm trying to tell you. You can do that now, and if you have trust in your chairman, they can pull them in any time you want to. During the time I chaired council, I had different secretaries come to the table for different reasons, hundreds and hundreds of times that members request. You don't need a law for that. It's, it's, it's, that's big government. You can do that today as a member and it doesn't take the chair to do it, any member can request any time, any report that they want to see from any agency. That's the luxury of counsel. And we're blessed because we're one I can speak to this now because I traveled the country and go and speak to other legislators. We're one of the only legislators in the country that have a legislative council set up the way we do, which makes it a whole lot better for us as far as the amount of information we're able to gather. Representative Wooldridge, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, I appreciate you presenting this bill and representative Beatty did do a fine job, um, but one of the questions that I had, uh, whenever we were talking about this is there was a need at some point that necessitated this this law to to be put into place and now we're looking to repeal that, um. Do you know when this was passed or passed Representative Barry passed this bill. General Mark Barry, let me get it correct because the 3 stars means a lot. I hope he's watching. Um, he passed this bill when he was a freshman. He thought that it would be helpful to have each secretary come to a single council meeting and give a report. We let it, we, we didn't fight it. No one fought it. It passed unanimously like this one passed the Senate unanimously. But the problem was after we saw it in practice and the way it played out and with the deadline he put in place was too short because when you have the physical session and a regular session, you know, usually don't start council into either May or June, mostly June, and because of that you can't get 15 secretaries in there and that short time frame, um. They're, they're not going to stop doing the practice of this. This is just a remo remove that deadline that's never been met in the first place. OK, so is there any thought process to just extend the deadline to make it feasible or there's no reason to have it in law. There's absolutely zero reason to have it in law. We already have the power to do it. We don't need a law. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, just to follow up on that, uh, you know, this was discussed when Representative Beatty passed the bill and that. He didn't pass it. I'm sorry. presented the bill when Representative Betty presented the bill, better English. That's kind of like that semicolon, right? I'm sorry. All right, let me, let me know when you're through. I'm done. All right. So I think the point is, is that the legislature did think it was a good idea to the point that we passed a bill about it just about a session ago. And Um You know, there is Uh We don't always know who who's going to be the chair of council. And it could be that you have chairs of council that aren't so easy to work with. And, you know, having these uh secretaries show up regularly. At least you know for a fact they're going to show up and I know they probably responded real well to you, but Uh, you know, to some other members, they may not respond as well to and So what is the, what's the harm in having this law on the books to say that at least periodically they do have to appear and give a report. What's the harm? There's no harm. It's just never been met. The lot's on the books has never been met to the letter that was written because of the time frame. Um, If you want to leave it there, you can leave it there. I'm going to stand here and let you kill it because I'm going to stand for what I ran for in that small government, and there's no reason to have laws on the books that do not survey basis and having 15 secretaries come before November 1st or any other deadline you could put in there. There's almost no way it can happen. Um, I can tell you that from experience of 3.5 years of this law being on the books. And Representative Wardo to be clear, I'm not trying to kill it. I'm just simply inquiring out of just a genuine. But you have their rules to your point. You want to know how you can make them come to counsel. You have the rules, you have their contracts, you have their budget sessions, all held in Legislative council. So the likelihood of any secretary telling you they're not coming because there's no law that says they don't have to. It's very, very minimum when they have rules, budgets and contracts that have to be approved by our legislative council. All right, fair enough. Representative Beatty. Representing war law, we, we gave it the college try when we were down there. My question for you is passing this uh piece of legislation passing this out of out of committee to the full chamber. There's nothing in this legislation that would prevent a member from making a request of a cabinet secretary to appear, uh and provide information um that's important to that member or the council at any time. Correct. You are 100% correct. Thank you, sir. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not familiar with when uh General Barry was first elected, uh, but you're saying since he ran that. This has not been fulfilled in the way it was written. That's correct. We have not done what the law says we should be doing because you can't. The timeline can't be met. OK, alright. I promise you we've tried to every extent and every single time there's been a secretary either out of town, a family member sick. I, I can't name to you the the number. I hate to use the word excuses because they were all very valid and we took them. But we've never been able to get all 15 of them in before November 1st. Uh, follow up, Mr. Chair. Recognized. So in totality this. The Legislative council and the legislature as a whole is incapable of fulfilling what this law states we're supposed to do. This one, yes, sir. Alright, thank you. Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Don't you believe that just like all of Most CEOs Most secretaries have someone that if they could not make it that they could see someone in their place just to go over the report. I am so glad you just said that because the law doesn't allow that. If you read the current law the way it's written, it has to be the secretary, and we, we made that argument 2 or 3 times as we went through this, but I absolutely agree to you that they could send anybody in that agency's capable of giving that report, but the law does not allow for that. It allows, allows for the secretaries. themselves only. So do you not think that we could amend this rather than but again you don't rid of it, you don't need it. You have the power to call them at any time, multiple times a year if you see fit to for them to give you any report of their agency at any time you want to as a member, you don't have to be the chair of that committee. So you don't need a law. All right, I just believed that this was put in in 2021. And I believe that there in, in my opinion, there should be a way for us to work together, to work around it, to get the information needed and I know you say we can call them at any time. But in my world, I don't know what's going on in every cabinet in every secretary's position and when they come, then I'm allowed to understand it because the reporting is there and I can relate to my constituents that way. It's not bigger government. It is making the government transparent in our constituents' eyes by us being able to report to them what's going on in the aggencies. All right, Representative Crawford, OK. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee. There's no one sign to speak for or against the bill. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized to close for the bill. I'm closed for the bill. I make a motion to do pass. All right, Representative Wardlaw has made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Hawk. Colleagues, I, I had tend to agree with of War law on this and the fact that uh it's not a necessity, uh, you know, anytime that the chair of ALC could call in any one of these secretaries, and we, we do it all the time right now when we hold up budgets, uh, on the House floor. We we've got ways to get them in if we need them in. And so, um, I, I just don't understand why we need to have another law on the books to, to fix something that that's just not needed. So with that being said, I'll be a yes vote on this. All right, any other discussion on the motion? Seeing no further discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The Abbott, congratulations, pass your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee, I need a good grilling every once in a while. I That's why your please identify yourself for the, for the record and Your assistants or speakers. I'm State Representative Jimmy Gazaway. I represent District 31. I'm Leslie Fiskin. I'm Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. Jessica Patterson, I'm um director of the Office of State procurement. Oh, you recognize the present SP 147. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 147 is very simply just a name change. Uh, it changes the department's name from transformation and shared services to shared administrative services. Uh, which more accurately reflects the department's roles and functions within state government, uh, if there's any need by the committee that would like to hear. Anyone expound upon that, Miss Fiskin, I'm sure can uh can do that, Ms. Fiskin. Yeah, this name change really just more accurately reflects the roles and functions of our department and state government, particularly the functional areas of personnel procurement, IT employee benefits, everything that we do with uh real estate leases, buildings, and geographic information systems. As long as well as state surplus. And that's all we, all I have, uh, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to take any questions. Representative Bryan. Thank you. Um, so, We're taking transformation out of the name. So are we giving up on transformation? That's a serious question. No, no, we, we're not giving up on transformation and, and really the big part of what our department as y'all are aware of is the Arkansas Forward Project is what we're working on, on continuing to um improve um efficiencies operations processes and uh find savings along the way. This, this name just more accurately reflects like what our department does on a day to day basis. Our department exists to support all the other departments and share in these services and our experts. So, so you're still gonna be in charge of transformation. You're just removing it from the title. Well, I, I mean the transfer let me, let me, uh, let me clarify. I'm, when I say transformation, I'm using, uh, let me just try to define that term a little bit. Which agency of the, I mean, I know it's everybody's responsibility to some extent, but I think when this department was renamed Transformation and Shared Services. I think there was some expectation that it focused on identifying efficiencies and cost savings in state government. So is that going to continue or is your agency going to continue to be point on that? Yes, yes, and that, and that's part of our overall mission, um, on a day to day basis of, of what we're working on. OK, don't you find some value in having that in the name, if that's a major focus of the agency. It is part of our mission, but, but the reality is the, you know, when you look kind of nationally and you look at all the other, you know, states and that have the similar department as us, just the transformation is so connected to the name of the uh the legislation which was landmark legislation that y'all all supported and passed under Governor Hutchinson, but for us on a day to day. basis, the shared administrative services is really, that's what we're doing operationally every day while we are continuing to transform, find efficiencies, improve all of our internal and external processes and improve our customer experience. Hm OK. Um That's all for right now. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm uh I'm sure you guys have considered whether there'll be a cost associated with this and if you have what, what are we talking about as far as the costs that would be involved. There really is no fiscal impact, um, for, for us, you know, I mean, if you're thinking about, you know, letterhead or business cards and things like that, we're not planning on changing anything or reprinting anything until, you know, we've exhausted any um supplies that we have. OK, so that's all you guys believe would be the cost. There's no signage on your building that says transformation and shared services or anything like that. We do have a signage on the main floor of our building, um, but at this point we haven't priced changing that, but we're not planning on expanding, um, extenuating, you know, funds on anything if we remove that sign, um, you know, we don't have plans on spending more money on on other items. You know, we would update the name on our website, which we handle from an IT standpoint, we would change that ourselves. That's no cost. OK, thanks. signal about other questions from the committee. There's no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gassway your uh recognized the clothes for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think what I would say to Representative Ray's point is that it's not that. Transformation and shared services is going to stop with the goal of transformation, transforming state government, finding efficiencies. That name was very apt when Governor Hutchinson ran the transformation package. I remember I was I'm old enough to remember and was on this committee when Representative Davis came in here with the, the biggest bill probably ever passed in history of state government that changed every name of every agency and state government essentially and that was the, you know, that was the big transformation movement. It's not that that is that goal is going to stop or that those efficiencies aren't going to continue to be, uh, try to be found. It's just that this name now that uh the big transformation that happened under Governor Hutchin. administration has occurred, shared administrative services is a more accurate name for the agency. The agency wants to change their name. They're asking this legislative body to allow that and the bill passed with 32 yes votes and 1 no vote in the Senate. So with that, uh, I certainly would appreciate a good vote here and would make a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Saying none, all those in favor say aye posed. The eyes have it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations, Um, all right, next we're gonna hear Senate Bill 165. I reckon. Representative, that's why you recognize to present. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, and with that I would refer to Ms. Fiskin to allow her to present the details of this bill. Yeah. Hi Jessica Patterson, director of the Office of State Procurement. This bill deals with the BAO portion of the RFP process, um, the BAFO typically occurs after proposals are scored, but before it and um anticipated and before and anticipation to award is announced. During that period of time is when the um the highest ranked vendor who has received the highest score, um, this, the agency is able to conduct discussions. with them and they're able to do to do negotiations with them further if necessary. We have found that there are certain circumstances where during those discussions, there is some clarification that is needed, um, with the RFP itself and so when a cler and so when the agency needs to clarify that something a term or um a requirement or specification in the RFP, um, needs to be clarified, then a BAF. sometimes it's necessary. The BAFFO process allows um, it's BAFO stands for best and final offer. It allows the agency to contact all of the um the vendors who are reasonably um susceptible of being awarded the contract to come forward, um, based on that clarification, this amendment just allows during that BAO process for an offerer to revise their response to the to revise their proposal, essentially. In response to the clarification. All right, uh, Representative Rhodes, you recognized for question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your presentation, um, quick question, uh, there are a couple of things there that I was trying to follow and I'm not a expert in uh. RFQ, RFP, RFO, whatever, um, but I am familiar with the process. I heard you say something towards the end about This would allow The bids that are appearing to be reasonably acceptable offers to essentially renegotiate their offer. How is the decision made to eliminate some and retain others before giving them an opportunity to make a more competitive bid. So typically it'll, it will be the highest, not just the highest ranked vendors, but any of them that are susceptible of being awarded the contract. So in the RFP process, there are sometimes ones that are not susceptible of being awarded the contract because they didn't meet the minimum requirements. And so if they did not meet the minimum requirements, and they would not be reasonably susceptible of being awarded the contract. We would not allow them to then go forward and revise their proposal to Make them to to meet the minimum qualifications, but all of them that have met the minimum qualifications and are susceptible of being awarded the contract would be allowed to participate in the BAFO. Um, could I have a little latitude here, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Thank you. Are they, are they gonna be made aware of their ranking? No. And Their rankings could change. Based on this rankings could change based on this. They, they are re-scored. And what reason or rationale are they given that they need to redo something. Are they told a specific area or is it, hey, resubmit your whole bid, you're in the finals, but you may be, you may not be the best, the best and final offer is announced and um and again if there's clarification needed, if that's the reason for the BAFO, then um they will be given the additional clarification and be allowed to to um to revise their proposal based on the clarification. So is there anything in this or current code that states that As long as you meet the minimum requirements, you'll be able to continue. In the BAO you're saying that you won't disqualify anybody if they don't meet the minimum require as long as they meet those minimum requirements. My question is, what actually regulates that that happens that is not a change to the current statute. It is written now. We didn't, we didn't amend the statute to to make that change the way that it is written now, it's just that um each offerer determined to be reasonably responsible of being awarded the contract. shall be able to come forward and and present their BAO. So that, that's not a change to the current, to the current law. I appreciate you going back and forth with me on this, and you did a good job presenting and I I tried to follow through with you. Could you reiterate the need for this one more time and, and maybe make it even simpler for the the lesser intelligent at the table, so the need is really for efficiency, um, there have been times where you know an RFP, especially for a really complex contract can have many, many, um, different requirements in them. Sometimes, you know, um, the Office of State procurement and the agencies do their very best to make the terms as specific as possible and make them very clear, but sometimes there are terms that that are vague or that um that that needs some additional, uh, I mean, clarify, I don't want to repeat clarification, but but they just, we don't realize until we get to the discussion phase that we meant this and you were thinking something else, um, and so the current law doesn't allow if, if we reach that point, the current law law does not allow for um for the proposal to be revised, which means that if a clarification is needed on our part, that the offer can cannot amend their proposal and sometimes that would mean that we would have to start the whole thing all over again. So this is really for efficiency. If we have a clarification, a proposal needs to be amended. in response and that can take place without us having to cancel the RFP and start from scratch. And I appreciate that, um, and I'll jump out after this one, Mr. Chair. Um. Do you see that there is a potential for a competitive advantage to somebody through this process. No, because during the BAFO process during the discussions process, no, no, um, vendor knows each other's scores. No one even knows who the highest ranked vendor is, um, no one knows the proposals are still not voidable. No one can have access to each other's proposals, so it's still everything is sealed. At this point, thank you. I'll jump back in. Representative about you recognize for question. Yeah. Oh. And then representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so there was like for a little while, all of a sudden I had a bunch of contractors who were concerned about this bill, and then they suddenly were not. So do you know like what happened? Was there a misunderstanding by some people, and could you shed a little light on that? I think that there was a little bit of a misunderstanding and I talked to the contractors and I think that that um that after I explained it to them, I think that their concern was that um they were gonna know each everyone was gonna have. the proposals were going to be available to everyone at this point in in the process and that's not the case. I think that that was their biggest concern that I can remember, but um, Yeah, that's all I have OK, all right, so, but as far as you know, there are not, I don't wanna put you in a spot where you're having a speed for contractors, but um I'll just say the contractors I've talked to are now neutral on this. Thanks. OK, seeing no other questions. For the, oh, I'm sorry. Representative Ros. Yeah, thank you. Is there any kind of provision? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there any kind of provision if scores were to be leaked or supposed Scores being leaked. Is there any kind of provision to Break write contracts, start over before any kind of BAFO process takes place or anything like that. I've never experienced a situation where, um, where scores or proposals will be leaked. I think that that that would be a um A really that would be a big deal. Um, there's always, there's always the protest process, which is after um a vendor is awarded a contract that it can be protested, but certainly if there were proposals or or scores leaked, then we would cancel the solicitation altogether and start over. OK, thank you. Representative Woodrid. Thank you, sir. um, I, not to question your integrity or the integrity of your staff, but could you see a possibility in the future that someone could utilize this change to show favoritism or select or ask someone to rerun or resubmit clarification on a proposal that maybe makes them more attractive. Than the other proposals? Um, no, I don't think so because the clarification would be um like I said during um when there's a discussion between, uh, the, the highest ranked vendor in the state, so if the state didn't want to move forward with that. Um, with that vendor for, for a Um, a particular reason, then they can move to the 2nd ranked vendor anyways, um, but this is really they most likely want to to move forward with the highest ranked vendor, but for whatever reason their, their proposal was out of line with with what the expectation was. OK, that's helpful. So I, I didn't see that part in the bill, so this is typically gonna be utilized for whoever's gonna be the winning bid anyways. This just allows for clarification. Well, no, sorry, maybe, maybe I didn't say that, um, in, in the most clear way. It is during the discussion phase if a clarification is, is. A vague term or something that is needed clarification, it did shed light on during the discussion phase, so at that point, um. Um, OSP thinks that, well, this, this term, you know, the highest ranked vendor didn't understand it. So perhaps all the other vendors didn't understand it either. We need to clarify it for everyone so that everyone is is um is able to amend their proposals based on um this this clarification need. OK, I'm gonna try one more time. So I understand you're doing a great job. So this doesn't allow someone to change the body necessarily of their proposal to make it more lucrative or give an additional. advantage in being selected. It just allows for clarification when the state needs terms clarified it allows for clarification and and then a response to the clarification to to revise their requirement to to revise their proposal, given the clarification, but the clarification couldn't in any way make the bid more attractive, it could make the bid potentially more attractive because they can also lower their price during the BAFA process, and that is universal. That is the way that it is now. That's why it's called the best and final offer. It's really just a point to where we're, we're asking, we're making this, we're clarifying this term. Everyone come forward with their very best and final, given the clarification. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alright, uh, seeing no other questions. There's no one to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gadzwe you're welcome to calls for you. Bill, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm close to the bill. I make a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion. Saying no discussion, all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Now, Uh that's why you passed your bill. Thank you. Next up, we're going to um present uh SB 185. Uh, Representative Gasswe, you are recognized to present. Senate Bill 185. Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee, my understanding is that this bill is simply clean up bill that makes changes um that were left out during the transformation, uh, bill that was ran a couple of sessions ago. It updates references from DFA to TSS in the Arkansas Computer and Electronic Waste Management Act, but there may be a little bit more to it than that and so with that, Miss Fiskin, uh, may have some remarks. Now, Representative Galway, thank you. Um, this really is a technical cleanup that um this reporting used to has historically went to the uh Department of Finance and Administration and uh this state surplus marketing and redistribution is actually a part of transformation and shared services. So the reporting's already coming to us. We just found this technical change when we were looking at the code and that's why we're requesting for you to change that. Go ahead. Thank you. the the baby. Is it closed for questions? I don't know if they're closed at the very end of the first bill OK. My, my question is, I, I I, I think I'm gonna request with the, the change in the spill back to where you're changing department of transformation Shared Services that to keep from having another technical correction on this bill, uh, if Senate Bill 147 passes the Uh, passes, then we're gonna have to come back and amend this bill again to change the name of of the agency. Have, have you made considerations for that and considered pulling this bill down until we see what happens on SB 147. Um, yes, Representative Beatty, um, actually, um, Senator Dodson and the orig the bill that we went through on the Senate Bill 147 on page 66 um section 103 BLR provided for a section for um correction. So, um, technical correction. So if there's anywhere that our name needs to go back in and be changed throughout the code, anywhere, including anything that's changed during this legislative session, this um section 103 of that bill we'll take care of that. OK, good deal. Representative maybe you're recognized for a question. Representative right, you recognize for a question. I apologize if I'm making you be repetitive. I was trying to read something while you were explaining the the reason. Can you, can you just Restate why this is needing to change from DFNA to TSS. Because this um during transformation, this was a, a, an oversight that it was a part of the code that wasn't changed, the reporting of the marketing and redistribution, which is also called state surplus at the time was being done internally to the Department of Finance and Administration, and it, it then it was moved over to transformation and Shared Services, and this was just a part of the code that that didn't get changed, so the reporting is being handled through TSS right now. OK, so. In, in the, in the big transformation bill. So M&R used to be under DFNI? OK, and now it's under 10, and now it's a TSS, so this was this was just a reference that didn't get included in that. OK, all right, thank you. Thank you. Alright, see no other questions and there's no one to speak for or against the bill, uh, Representative Gassway, you're recognized to close for your bill. Close for the bill. Make a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Signal discussion on the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed Represent Catholic, you passed your bill. Uh, next up, thank you. His Senate Bill 166. Representative Gassway, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 166. All right, I think we have one of my uh counterparts here who is prepared to explain the bill and so with the chair's permission I'd ask that she be allowed to give an explanation. Please identify yourself and take off. Hi Jessica Patterson, um, director of the Office of State procurement, um, this bill amends the definition of a critical emergency to include a state of disaster emergency as declared by the governor, um, currently a critical emergency is only defined as an emergency in which human life or health is imminently dangered. We think that expanding the definition to include situations in which the governor has declared a state of emergency will allow for um for um. Emergency items, uh, particularly commodities to be able to be purchased on a much faster basis, um, when those things are needed, um, after a hurricane or a flood or something like that. So that's the basis for the bill. Representative Collins who recognized for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just because the section of code that this is dealing with isn't reproduced in full here. Can you tell me what, uh, what is allowed in a critical emergency, which is not typically allowed? Are we talking about reducing standards for procurement or doing procurement at all. I mean, is it what's what's allowed here um, a critical emergency, um, the recommendation is that they attempt to at least obtain 3 bids. um, to contact 3 vendors and get 3 bids, but they're not required to do a formal RFP under a critical emergency situation. So aside from recommendations which aren't binding, they can essentially just. Do whatever they want, right? I mean, there's no actual requirement of getting any bids. I think that there, there is not a requirement for 3 bids, but I'll even, I, I think enroll we um we ask them to if able to be able to obtain at least 3 bids. As part of their critical emergency. But again, these are emergency situations, um. Particularly those after, you know, um, natural disasters. And I can understand situations where it might be advisable. I also wonder about, like I'm thinking about there's some discussion about uh state of emergency about opioids. I mean, and so I would be a little bit concerned about I mean, I guess maybe my question for you is, do you know what kind of disasters we're talking about and is there a duration limit on how long a disaster can be declared. Um, I don't know if there is a, if within code that there is a um a like a maximum period of time to declare an emergency. We also found that um frequently when there is a state of emergency, um, made by the governor, then there is, then he or she includes a paragraph which says that procurement laws don't have to be followed during the duration of the state of emergency. This By adding it into the code, then they have to report under the code, under the critical emergency statute. They are, they do have to report to us now, which may not be required if that provision is required in the executive order. If I remember, I was, uh, the coronavirus pandemic, uh, state of emergency. I, I was not in this position then, so I don't recall. I can help answer a little bit of that. Um, the governor did operate under his emergency powers during the COVID pandemic. And following that session or following the period of time when the governor was operating under his emergency powers. Uh, you may recall that we, when we came back into session, I happened to run a little bill called the Emergency Powers Act amendment that revised the governor's emergency powers specifically related to a public health emergency. One of the things I learned during the course of that was, um, of course, we gave the legislature much more control in the event of a public health emergency. Then the legislature had under this the general Emergency Powers Act, but there is a very specifically defined disaster emergency, um. That includes things like earthquakes, floods, and we, we made sure when we were amending the emergency Powers Act, uh, to be very careful not to impede upon the governor's powers because they are very important that the governor had the ability to act very quickly in the event of a disaster emergency and so we're talking about things like earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, and so the things that would be concerned in this bill that I think relative to your question would be things like debris removal, aerial imagery for flood. sandbags. You know, tarps and just things of that nature, so, uh, when you're talking about and to your point, when you're talking about the definitions adding disaster emergency, uh, and kind of expanding the definition of critical emergency to include that, uh, is, is important. You may have some follow-up comments on that. No, that's very helpful. Oh, I'm sorry, you're asking her, I think, I think he covered it. You may have some too. Well, I, I, I do only in that I notice on in the statute, the state of disaster emergency may continue for um may only continue for longer than 60 days and less renewed by the governor, so that would be the outside limit it sounds like and what's renewed. Thanks. Alright, seeing no other questions. From the committee and there's no one to speak for or against the bill. Representative guys while you're recognized have clothes for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Close for the bill. Make a motion to pass. All right, we have a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? See no discussion, all of the favor say aye and a post. representative that's why you've passed Senate bill 166. Huh? Seeing no other. Then if I can for the committee, we stand ajar.