State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

All right, Cha quorum, we're going to call this meeting to order. First up, Senator Gilmore, Representative Ray, y'all want to present House Bill 1223. All right, members, we're going to be hearing House Bill 1223. Thank you, members. Senator Gilmore. Good afternoon, committee, Representative David Ray, District 69. Great. We proceed with your bill, OK, I'll defer to Representative Bray. All right. Good afternoon committee. Um, so House Bill 1223, this is a pretty short, simple bill. It deals with the use of officeholder titles as a prefix on the ballot for certain judicial appointees, so if you look at the bill, you'll notice that under our current law, someone who has been appointed to either a district court or a circuit court position. for at least 12 months can use their officeholder title as the prefix on the ballot if they're running for a nonpartisan judicial race, but if you're an appointee to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court under the exact same set of circumstances, you can't use your title, and I'm really not aware of any policy reason for this distinction. And so what the bill is Aiming to do is just bring some parity to how this section of the code treats those four court positions. And that's an explanation of the bill and would be happy to answer any questions. All right, members, are there any questions from the committee? All right, see none, you recognized your bill. There's no signed up to speak for or against, nope. Representatives recognize clothes. I think we're ready I'm close for Bill and would appreciate a much. Uh, of a motion, a motion. Senator Payton, second for Senator Sullivan, all in favor. Say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes. Thanks. All right, Senator Tucker, do you have a bill that you wanted to run? You do 169. OK, numbers we're going to be here in Senate Bill 169. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this is another technical corrections bill. The general counsel of the Senate sent this to state agencies and Senate Judiciary because it does I mean the Constitution. All it does is it's just punctuation issues. There was some conjunctions in the wrong places, two Ns and one or and and we're fixing those, and that's it. That's all this bill does. All right, for an explanation of the bill or questions from members of the committee? All right, see no questions. I have anybody sign up to speak for or against. You close your bill? Yes sir, I'm closed and make a motion to pass. All right, we got a motion from Senator Tucker. See you a second. Second Senator Sullivan, all in favor say aye. opposed. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Alright. Is there anybody All right. Anybody in here else to run a bill? More. Yeah, so, yeah, he just, he just left. Did you wanna? Senator Howard, do you want to do either 12:21 or 1222. OK, OK, yeah, if you want to go to the to the table and then we'll just start with 12:21 and Work our way down to 1222. Yeah You recognize proceed. All right. Sorry, I stepped out for a minute. I didn't know y'all were that efficient. OK, um, House Bill 1221. This is a relatively short bill that deals with the state's initiative system. So what it does is it simply clarifies that the ballot title that has been certified by the Attorney General and the signatures that are gathered for that ballot title are only valid during the election cycle in which they're gathered. So in other words, you could not get a ballot title approved now in 2025. And then go and collect signatures for 345 years and put it on the 2028 ballot or the 2030 ballot, you would have to if you got a 20 ballot title approved in 2025 and you started gathering signatures, you would need to use them for the 2026 election. That is the way this process has operated for the last 80 years. Um, so we're basically codifying what has been custom for as long as anybody can remember, but I think there's good reason for putting this in place. Because we have a pretty severe problem with the petition process in that there are, there is an egregious amount of either invalid or inaccurate signatures that are being gathered if you look at some of the examples from recent years, the 2024 medical marijuana amendment had over 5800 duplicate signatures. That's just duplicates alone. We had on the on the term limits. Amendment in 2018 again, 5200 over 5200 duplicate signatures in 2016 on the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, there were over 10,000 duplicate signatures and so it's not hard to imagine how if you were to carry over from one election cycle to another, the petitions, you're only going to exponentially increase the amount of these either duplicate signatures or just inaccurate signatures because over time, People move from one county to another. People move from one state to another. People, voters become deceased, unfortunately voters become ineligible to vote for after committing felonies or things, you know, for various reasons. And so, um, the other point I would make is that not only is the public well served by not having numerous invalid signatures. The folks that present the the sponsors of the ballot title are not well served by carrying them over from one cycle to the next because, as you all know, the approval of the ballot title is a pretty complex process that can hinge on even a single word or a single phrase. And When we meet every 2 years we pass. Often over 1000 laws changing laws, amending laws, repealing laws, passing new laws, and so if any section of code that touches that is mentioned in that ballot title if it changes, you then change the meaning of the ballot title that's been approved. So to prevent problems with that, I just think this is a very simple safeguard to improve the process. And I'll try to answer any questions. Thank you, members. You've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions, Senator, I'm gonna start with Senator Sullivan, Senator Payton, Senator Tucker. Senator Sullivan, so you're not aware of any of this occurring previously, I take it. That's correct. The way, the way the process is customarily worked for 80 years as people get a ballot title approved, and then they gather signatures and then they either get enough signatures to go on the ballot or they don't, and they and they fail and they can, they can certainly come back next time and try again but at the ballot title changes at all. Then those signatures would be invalid, correct? That's right. OK, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Payton, you recognize her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. Representative Ray. Uh, obviously I've had I've been down here more than one term, and I've had some bills that I wanted to pass that didn't get done and and We gather up co-sponsors to these bills that would kind of be similar to automatically putting the co-sponsors back on in the next session without going and asking them, wasn't it? That's right. You you raise a good point because as as time progresses and people, you know, people might change their mind on the issue and no longer wish to be affiliated with that issue, that's that's a great point, and I think that adds to the reason that we need this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Payton. Tucker. You recognize her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions. I mean, we, you're talking about duplicate signatures, but I just want to say it a sponsor has no incentive to get, it's illegal and it should be, but a sponsor has no incentive to gather duplicate signatures because they're going to get tossed. When it when it goes through the vetting process. I would disagree with that because of the cure period, so the sponsor is incentivized to get as many signatures as possible to reach the threshold for the cure period, and I'm not saying that anybody is is in intentionally gathering invalid signatures just to reach the cure period, but I think that it Human nature is such that you want to gather as many as you can so that you can qualify for that extension. And, you know, ultimately you use that extra time through the cure period to get the, you know, the delta between what you turned in and what you need, and if some of those get thrown out, you know, a lot of people's attitude is just we'll gather them during the during the cure period. In fact, I believe it was on the, the referendum. Uh, on the Learns Act, there was a quote in the paper from one of the attorneys affiliated with that entity who, or maybe he wasn't affiliate, he was just a quoted as an expert on the process. He basically said that that group made an ill-advised move not to turn in invalid signatures. Do you remember seeing this? He literally said that this group did something wrong by not turning in invalid signatures because they could have used them to qualify for the cure period. So, um, I do think that that is a sort of a perverse incentive. That's a very fair response. Implicit in your response though is the fact that sponsors need as much time as possible in order to gather the requisite number of signatures. That's how the cure period can be helpful. Right, well, this bill doesn't impact the cure period. But it does limit From a legal standpoint and maybe it's already limited from a practical standpoint to your explanation, the amount of time that they can gather signatures and so my, you know, my question really is, let's say right now, and you, you raise a fair point about Code language changing during a session, um, but let's just ask about a constitutional limit only, which does have a higher signature threshold. Could Isement a ballot measure to the Attorney General's office right now that I want to put on the ballot for 2028. And then just have 3 years to gather signatures. I mean, can I do that now under the current law? That would be a question best answered by the Attorney General's office, but to the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of anything prohibiting you from that currently. OK. But I would point out that every state that has an initiative process. Has some sort of Time limit on them. They're not just indefinite, so I, I think it, you know, in California, for example, I think you only which California is probably the most initiative happy state in the country. They only allow for, I believe it's around 6 months of signature gathering, so our system actually allows for far more than theirs does. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much Tucker. Any more questions from members of the committee. All right, see no further questions. I don't see anybody sign speak for or against. Would that representative, you're working to close for your bill. I'm close to the bill. I appreciate the questions and I would appreciate a good vote. All right, Representatives close for his bill. I have a motion and a motion from Senator Payton, the second from Senator Hammer, all in favor. Say aye. I opposed. All right, congratulations, your bill passes. Uh, we'll go to House Bill 1222. OK, thank you, committee. All right, so this bill amends our current statute dealing with the Attorney general's authority to review ballot titles. Um the the ballot title review process has been a very good thing for our state. It has been in existence for about 80 years and it has protected voters from numerous misleading ballot titles over the years and when the when the state Supreme Court upheld the ballot title review process in 1954, they noted that this process aids in the proper use of the initiative system. Um, but under our current law, I would argue that it is not nearly robust or strong enough to protect voters from some of the really problematic types of ballot language that we could see, so this bill would do two things. Number 1, this bill would give the Attorney General the authority to reject a ballot title if it were to be found in conflict with the US Constitution or federal statute. And the second thing the bill would do is it would, well, actually let me just explain that first and then I'll give the second reason. Um, so obviously the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It supersedes anything that we pass in this body. We cannot pass anything contrary to it and expect it to be upheld and in my opinion it would not benefit the voters of this state to have to weigh in and decide on measures that are in conflict with the Constitution that simply does not further anyone's rights, and it would not benefit the sponsors of such a measure to expand all of the effort and energy and resources to gather those. 70,000 or 90,000 signatures. For something that would be ultimately struck down and be unenforceable. So a good example of this is the 1996 initiated act on campaign finance, which that title was approved by the Attorney General at the time. The voters approved it by a 2 to 1, roughly a 2 to 1 margin. The only problem with it was pretty much everything in that act was unconstitutional. And so in the ensuing years since then, I think like something like 6 out of the 7 major provisions of that initiated act have been struck down by federal courts. s So that's the kind of thing that we would avoid by doing this. And as with our current law, anyone who disagrees with the determination on the legal sufficiency of the ballot title. They, they can if they are agreed, they can petition the Supreme Court for proper relief, and they have the ability to appeal that directly to the Supreme Court. The second thing this bill does is it prevents conflicting measures from being filed for AG review at the same time. So As you all, I'm sure are aware, when a ballot title is submitted for review, that is a formal request for an AG opinion. And I'm sure everyone in this room has submitted a request for an AG opinion. You know that is a that is a time consuming process. It requires a lot of in-depth legal research, and it can take months upon months upon months sometimes depending on the complexity of the issue and the backlog of requests and things of that nature, but these ballot title requests are not treated in the same way as your request for an AG opinion or my request. These are fast tracked. They are sent to the front of the line and by statute the Attorney general must render a determination on them within 10 days. And so, um, what that means is they're given the highest priority, but what we found in the last election was that there was a group who was disgruntled that their ballot title was not approved on the 1st or 2nd attempt, which is Not abnormal. This is a back and forth process typically, and it can sometimes take a few iterations, but what they did was they submitted 8 different measures at the same time, 4 versions of an initiated act and 4 versions of the constitutional amendment and the way the process works is the Attorney General only has 10 days. To render an opinion on each one of those, and so what they were trying to do was short circuit the system. We have already fast tracked these requests for for a review in the law. They're given the highest priority, but when, when you submit 8 of these things at one time. What it does is it waters down the attorney General's office's ability to thoroughly review and vet each proposal, and that doesn't benefit. Any of the citizens of this state, the process is supposed to be as thorough as possible. I sort of liken it to a test taker who instead of just answering the question on the test, writes down 5 different answers and sends it back to the teacher with a note that says, You tell me which one of these is correct. And so that's not how the process was designed to work, and so this simply puts in place a mechanism that prevents multiple conflicting measures from being submitted at the same time. You could still submit multiple measures at the same time, as long as they're not conflicting and if you're, if you're if your measure is rejected, if the ballot title's rejected, you can resubmit it immediately. You can resubmit it the next day, hopefully with changes that fix whatever was wrong with it, um, but it in no way, in my opinion, in no way campers, anyone's ability to get a ballot title approved through the normal process that we've had for 80 years. What it does do is it prevents, you know, abuse of a system that actually works pretty well. And on top of that it it wastes AG resources, but with that I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Representative members who've heard an explanation of the bill or any questions from members of the committee. Right, Senator Tucker, you're working for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've dealt a lot with ballot measures this week, and I'm not going to rehash anything that we've already hashed. I'm just going to ask a couple questions specific to this bill. One is, you know, I hear your explanation about passing laws that are unconstitutional or in conflict with federal laws. Should we not give the Attorney General the same authority on on legislative bills, so we have to, we have to run the bills by the Attorney General's office, our bills. To determine whether because we in my view, we've passed some unconstitutional legislation here and it's not just my opinion. We've passed laws that have been struck down by federal courts. Everything that you have said about some of the ballot measures, so Should we not ask the Attorney General if if our if our bills conflict with federal law or the Constitution before we're allowed to file a bill. Well, I think it's important to point out that each of us, when we're sworn in, we take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and you know, obviously interpretations vary, you know, your opinion on the constitutional constitutionality of something may differ from Senator Payton's, but you know. Ultimately, a court will be the uh the final determiner of that uh of that question and that's the way our process has worked, but with the initiative system specifically, you know, This is a very extensive lengthy process that has many, many different steps where people have to exert thousands upon thousands of hours either volunteer or paid to gather signatures. Those signatures have to be verified, um, then the the the issue if it passes that far, has to be put on the ballot and the voters have to weigh in, and there's campaigns on various sides and all of this. is we could avoid a lot of that by just simply Pushing the an initial review up to the front of the process. It would save a lot of time and effort and resources, frankly, on both. The state and on the sponsor's behalf. OK, so the distinction is It would say effort on the sponsor's behalf, but the resources on the state would be the same for an unconstitutional bill that passes through the state legislative process or an unconstitutional ballot measure that passes through. That process. Well, no, because the Secretary of State, for example, if, if, you know, if Senator Hammer here were to pass an unconstitutional bill, the Secretary of State doesn't have to hire temp workers and um dedicate, you know, measurable staff resources to reviewing signatures on on his bill. So there's a lot more that goes into this process, to your point though, People have different opinions about what's constitutional and constitutional, which is why legislators are allowed to run bills that they may have been advised to have some constitutional concerns, but they run them anyway. So the and by the way, When I say the Attorney General in this conversation. I'm not talking about General Griffin. I understand. I'm just talking about the position, who I respect, um, so the question is, what if the Attorney general has A different opinion about the constitutionality and the attorney general was wrong. In that instance, if the if the sponsor disagrees with the attorney General's interpretation. They have the exact same right they would under if he had rejected it on the grounds that the ballot title were misleading. They could appeal it directly to the Supreme Court, and seek proper relief. The Supreme Court of Arkansas. Yes, yes, so there's the distinction there as well because the Supreme Court of Arkansas is not the final arbiter on what the language of the US Constitution means. Federal courts are and then ultimately the Supreme Court. the United States, so Not to say that state courts can't hear federal questions because they can, but they're not the final arbiter, as I said, so it would be the ballot measure sponsor would be relying on the Supreme Court of Arkansas to make a decision interpreting federal law. In that in your scenario. Yes. OK, um, section 2. Those are my questions in section one. Section 2, I'm actually going to piggyback on something that I heard, a point I heard Senator Peyton make the other day on the other bills we were hearing. Point Senator Peyton May, and I'm paraphrasing. was, uh, when we go through a legislative process with bills here. They can be amended and improved. And that's not as available on the ballot measure process and, and so with this, are we Are we handicapping a ballot measure sponsor's ability. To improve their product if they have a concern brought to them about language. I don't think so because this is the way the process is functionally played out for the last 80 years since we got the ballot title review process. The way it has always worked is the sponsor submits a ballot title for review. The Attorney General has up to 10 days to review the ballot title, and then they either approve it, reject it, or they can substitute and certify. And um this has never been a problem before. The only time it has become a problem is in the last election when we had a group that that did not, they were, they were. You know, they felt aggrieved that the decision on the ballot title didn't go their way on the 1st or 2nd try. And so then they sort of invented this novel approach to really just sort of flood the zone and I think it was that attempt, if you ask me, it was designed to overwhelm the system and try to short circuit that 10 day requirement and The way we have set up this process for 80 years is that there's a, there's a back and forth, and I think that's important because No one benefits from a rushed process, as you know, you're Very capable attorney. The the legal sufficiency or the legality of some of these things often hinges on a single word or a single phrase. And so it's best to just give them the 10 days to vet that proposal and not have to deal with multiple proposals because what happened was of these 8 proposals they all had the same underlying text. The titles. We're just different, so I don't, I don't see any reason for allowing that. OK Uh, so, um, I'm gonna stay away from a specific example because we're not passing this law for that example, really we're passing this law for all future ballot measures, right? And so I, the justification for Section 2 largely is for the workload on the Attorney General's office. It is, yes, because they have, they only have 10 days and a lot of times, You know, some of these issues may be simple, but some of them could be extremely complex, totally fair, totally fair. So the follow up question is, why did we not write Section 2 to say That you could only Submit one at a time. And then you, then you could submit an amended version after you hear back from the Attorney General's office on the version you submitted. If if there's a change you want to make to it, we could, oh, you can. You can, you can what? So, I'm sorry, restate your question. I want to make sure I the response and my point is The response in Section 2 is overly broad in my view. Because what we're saying is to the concern that's been raised about the workload for the Attorney General's office. If it's saying we're flooding the zone. And the attorney General's office doesn't have time to properly review this many ballot measures on the same issue in a 10 day period. Then why don't we just say, you can only submit one at a time. Instead of saying this is You can't submit it another one again until the election cycle is over. Why don't we just say you just can't submit another one during that 10 day period. No, that that is what it says. So you can submit, first of all, nothing in this bill precludes a sponsor from submitting multiple multiple ballot titles on different subjects. You could submit one on a health care policy, on an education policy, on a highway policy. I'm with you there and you could, you could even submit multiple measures on the same general subject as long or sorry, for the same subject matter, as long as they were not for the same. general purpose and contained different language. So all three of those items are meant to be, are meant to be read together. It has to be A, B, and C. So you could even submit multiple measures related to education. As a subject matter, as a hypothetical subject matter at the same time, you just couldn't submit the basically the exact same proposal with different titles at the same time. That's, that's really the only thing it's preventing. And if you, if you look at Section B there, what are you on? 21? Yeah, sure. 21 to 24, you know, under that section it says If the if the petition is rejected the sponsor can submit it, can submit it again. So and and that's the way the process has always worked, and that's, that's the way it should be. I'm with you there, um. You can submit it the next day if you want. I'm just not reading that other language the same way that you are. OK, I guess the last question then is on online 25. You're not giving the attorney General's office any maybe the Attorney General's office. Might say, actually we're good, we can handle these. because of various other factors, but you're not giving them the ability to do that. You're you're mandating that they reject the petitions if it violates the terms of this section. Why is that? Well, I think it's I think it's best that the laws that we pass give clear instructions. And I think, I think it's just better to tell to to to dictate to the office of the Attorney General in this particular set of circumstances what their response should be rather than leave it open to, you know, what they, what they want to do in the moment, you know. As with any laws that we pass. If this law were to go into effect and it, you know, somehow became problematic, then we could revisit it and maybe change that shall to a may or or or alter the law in some other way. Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Sarah Payton, we're gonna ask for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Wright. We've both been here a few years. Um, I know I've seen legislation introduced. That failed in committee because the Attorney General appeared in committee and, and said that it was unconstitutional. I've also seen uh legislation introduced that passed committee and failed on the floor for the same reason that uh that the Attorney General and there's been more than one attorney general in my time that I've been here. But I've personally had legislation that I introduced that failed because the Attorney General said that it was unconstitutional. Would you say that the committee process. And the two chambers and all that, um. It's wholly different than than the process where, where something's put on the ballot for people to vote on. It hasn't been through that level of scrutiny and modification or amendment and things like that. It's a fair point to say that these two processes while they're they're they're somewhat analogous because they're both lawmaking processes. They're very different, and you're right, you have certain rights. In this legislative chamber that the voters who have to weigh in on these types of proposals, they don't have the benefit of having. They can't call the AG staff to the table when they go into the voting booth and ask them what their opinion of it is. They can't request a fiscal impact statement by rule like you can. Um, there's a lot of things in this process that are different, and that is I'm what I'm attempting to do is improve the process by adding this. and to facilitate a smoother process that benefits all Arkansans. Thank you, and I would just say, you know, if, if, if the Attorney general office um, puts a statement out regarding a piece of legislation that we filed, we can appeal that to a jury of 135 and obviously, In this process that you're proposing, they can appeal it to the Arkansas Supreme Court jury of 7. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Payton. All right, any questions from members of the committee? All right, so you know for questions. I don't see anybody sign up to speak for or against this bill. So Representative Braid recognize close your bill. Sure, I would just uh close for the bill by no one asked about the constitutionality of this, but it was asked about in in the House committee, so I just want to mention to hopefully set people's minds at ease. This process was challenged after it was first put in place and it went to the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1956 in the in the Washburn versus Hall decision and the court said that the the the process that reviews the ballot s is actually in furtherance of Citizens Amendment 7 rights that it gives them more information and helps them make a better determination, and I view this bill as totally in line and congruent with the spirit of that decision, and we'll be, I'm closed for the bill and would ask for a good vote. Alright, Representative Brace close to his bill. Do I see a motion a motion to pass from Senator Payton. 2nd. It's like Senator Hammer, all in favor. Say aye. Post. Congratulations, you both passes. Thank you. All right, uh. Senator Sullivan, you're gonna run into SB 184. I think this is a good place. Just do the journment. All right, Senator, if you'll. Introduce yourself and You'd be recognized to proceed with your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Sullivan, Senate Bill 184, committee, this is a very simple bill. It's an efficiency bill. It just moves the eliminates the state library board and the PBS AETN board and puts those underneath the Department of Education. They already fall under the somewhat under the Department of Education, when you read the bylaws they mention in both of those that they'll consult with and work with the Department of Education. You know, these boards and commissions meet once a quarter. They have a set agenda. They meet for about an hour, 1 hour and a half or so, and rarely did they come up with things that are consequential. Both of these institutions are very consequential to the state of Arkansas. They mean a lot, and they should be aligned with what we do in the state of Arkansas, particularly with our Department of Education. So that's what this bill is established to do is allow those The Department of Education to have oversight over those two. Groups, you may have gotten a lot of emails that said we're affecting the funding of libraries. This has nothing to do with county library funding, nothing to do with the operations of the two commissions, all their operations, all their functions stay intact, and with that, Mr. Chair, I'll accept any questions. Memories you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions from members of the committee, Senator Tucker, you were recognized for questions, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Department of Education have a position on this? They're OK. They're OK. Yeah, they have the capacity to take on this work. Do they have any what now the capacity, the ability to take on this work. Well, I would assume if they're OK, they do. Yeah, OK. And, and so that's a Pragmatic question, I guess the philosophical question is, it's your, it's your position. That I, you just stated this essentially that the Department of Education should have oversight over these two programs. And so by, you said that explicitly, so implicitly you're saying. That these commissions that it's, it's not important for these commissions to have some independent authority over these two programs separate and apart from the Department of Education. Well, those are your words, not mine. Yeah, but I'm asking if that's what you're saying. Well, I think they function better under the Department of Education and more aligned with what the goals and missions of the legislative and executive branch do. We fund them. We give them their money. We appropriate that money and we're expected, expect those organizations to align their functions with how we allocate the funds. Not that they have or haven't, but this makes it more efficient in that they absolutely carry out the functions of the Department of Education. I mean, both of them in their bylaws say they'll consult with and work with the department. And yeah, as it should be. So let me, let me ask that a different way. I think it's important for those programs to have Oversight that's independent. Of a state agency Um, and I, and so I take it that you disagree with that. that's your opinion? I respect your opinion, but, and this bill, and so we disagree about that. That's just a philosophical. OK, OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Hammer, you're recognize for a question. Thank you. Whose oversight and authority are they under now as far as like accreditation and other things that may have required funding attached to it. What accreditation? Well, accreditation or, I mean they they operate under somebody's oversight right now, correct? And that would be who. Yes, so they have which agency are you talking about? Well, I'll take the, let's take the library systems. Yeah, they have, they have state Laws they abide by, uh, you know, they have the standards for state aid to public libraries right here and all of those are just transferred to the Department of Education. And there were none that are independent, OK? And, and How would this affect, I'm looking on page 8. Line 25, the state librarian should be a person of good professional stain and reputation, holding at least a master's degree from graduate school library science accredited by the American Library Association is, is there any conflict or complementing Of each other that the American Library Association. has some bearing on what goes on and how is that going to change going under the Department of Vet or is it at all right now I'm not aware of any. Um, I asked the director of the library if they were affiliated with the ALA, and they are not members of the American Library Association, so and that requirement is a state requirement that they have that licenger and that this bill doesn't affect that at all. OK, so as far as the department's authority. Being greater or lesser than what it is right now. There'd be no change in that. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right, are there any other questions from members of the committee? OK, Senator Tucker, you're recognized for what. Thank you. On page, on page 3115. That subdivision 4. It says no member of the commission shall have any financial interests in any facilities. I'm just curious. If that was if that's going to be carried over to the department. It's the purpose of that is to make sure there's not a conflict of interest and and uh I don't know if that was copied over into another section to make sure there's not a conflict of interest or not I think we're already covered by a conflict of interest if you're a member of the state Department of Education, those conflict of interest and ethics laws still apply. I just didn't hear those conflict of interest laws still apply, is that, I think they, we are covered now if you're if you're an employee in the state, you're covered by and have disclosure responsibilities for conflicts of interest. All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right, members, any questions from the committee? All right, seeing the questions. I do have somebody sign up to speak against this, Miss Missy Misty Hawkins, library director for the Arkansas River Valley Regional Library System. Miss you want to come on up. And then this you just give us your name for the record and tell us who you're with for the record, and then you'd be recognized to proceed with the remarks. OK, thank you. I'm sorry, I'm nervous. You're fine. Don't be nervous, OK, I'm Misty Hawkins, and I'm the regional director for the Arkansas River Valley Regional Library System and we serve Franklin Johnson, Logan, and Yale counties. So as director of the Regional Library I serve Franklin Johnson. Oh Franklin Johnson Logan in Yale County. I'm here today not only as an experienced library director, professional community and economic developer, but also as a concerned citizen. First and foremost, I firmly believe in transparency and accountability. Dissolving the state library board would not only remove critical oversight, but also eliminate local representation. Silencing the voices of Arkansas residents and decisions that directly impact them. As a library professional, I'm deeply concerned about the consequences this bill could have on services across our state, whether intentional or unintentional. The state, the Arkansas State Library provides essential resources, professional support and funding that sustains services in our communities. Any threat to these resources jeopardize support and lifelong learning opportunities that so many Arkansans rely on. Additionally, the provisions outlined in SB 184 do not align with the framework presented by the governor's Arkansas forward initiative, also known as the McKinsey Report. Nor do they account for the existing infrastructure within the Department of Ed. At this point, it remains unclear what specific problems this legislation seeks to fix. Or whether actual professionals in the field were even consulted in the process. I urge you to carefully consider the full impact both immediate and long term before moving forward with this legislation. Consider the existing federal guidelines. Required for participation in the grants to states program and the approximate $3 million Arkansas receives annually through this funding. Consider my own regional library system spanning approximately 3000 square miles, which lost its bookmobile program due to similar legislative changes in 2001, and we never regain those that funding source to restore that service. Please, I'm asking you today to support local libraries. And vote no on SB 184. Thank you again for your time and your consideration. Good job, Misty. Alright, members, are there any questions from the committee? All right, so no questions, we appreciate you being here. You did a good job, Misty. And I see as Courtney Pledger out there, and Courtney, I didn't see you signed in on here, but I will give you the opportunity if you have something you'd like to say, you'd be recognized. Come on up here. Miss pleasure, if you give us your name and your position for the record, they'd be recognized to proceed with your comments Courtney Pledger, director of Arkansas PBS. right. Well, um, I just like to say that, you know, for over almost 60 years. We've provided educational local programs and resources and independently as an independent entity. Uh, for a long time, so, uh, one thing I really wanted to make you aware of is that uh this bill could jeopardize critical funding for the network. And also that we, we love ADE and we, we do, we work with them every day, very closely. Um, but In public television there are substantial and and complex regulatory responsibilities and believe it or not, public media is, is a very complex landscape to, to oversee, you know, and to manage. Um, I have a handful of concerns that it would centralize control of an independent public media network under a government entity. Um, ADE has Tremendous amount of expertise uh in their area and a wonderful board and uh but they've never had oversight of a public media or television network and it is complex and it's a public service institution and it's the independent oversight that ensures nonpartisan local educational programming without outside, you know, and political influence. Um, Arkansas PBS stands to lose millions in federal and private funding. We rely on federal grants, corporate sponsorships and private donations and absorbing Arkansas PBS into ADE could result in the loss of millions in funding leading to reduced programs and services for Arkansans and in our rural state that that is all of our rural communities that I think our services and content mean a lot to, um, the foundation heard from a donor yesterday. Sorry. That she was not going to send uh uh another donation because of her contribution was going not to independent PBS, but to the state of Arkansas that she just didn't feel that was what she wanted to support. Um It's also likely to undermine all of our award-winning programming and I just want to remind you that as it is under the current commission, we've, we've won over 60 national and regional awards and um also just like to say that on March 20th, the documentary unveiled Johnny Cash and Daisy Bates, uh, will premiere that we've made about the statues, the statues going into Statuary Hall and Mystery League, which our local kids' show produced right here will premiere nationwide on March 21st as an amazing educational project and product, you know, from the state of Arkansas. Um, we do all kinds of, of other things that that don't directly fall into The education bucket, uh, public safety, for one, and Arcan, Arkansas Citizens Access Network. There are, there are a lot of things we do education is at the center of what we do, no question, but I, I wonder if placing Arkansas PBS under ADE could potentially deprioritize some of the things that that we do, um, it weakens resources for public safety and civic engagement. We're a lot more than television. We serve critical public safety and civic resources and we are the nerve center of the emergency alerts, um, having expanded our towers from 6 transmitters to 10 over the past several years. To cover 96% of Arkansas and, you know, I think the bill threatens these essential services by transferring us to a department that by nature must, you know, have and does have other priorities, our mission is unique. And finally, there is public opinion about a trusted bipartisan institution. Arkansas PBS is is widely supported by Arkansans across political lines serving rural and, and urban communities, educators, veterans, and families, and there is likely to be public. Opposition from parents, teachers, viewers who rely on PBS's educational programming in our many community services and rely on us to be independent. Arkansas PBS is serving our Arkansas community, increasingly well, and I would ask, you know, why would we disrupt a respected institution. That's an example of efficient and cost effective governance. I would just hope that you would consider uh these perspectives in your vote and vote no. All right. Thank you, Ms. Pletcher. All right, we do have a couple questions here, Senator Hammer, you recognize ask her a question. Thank you, ma'am. Madam Chair, sorry. Thank you, Chairman. How much in private funding does your organization receive. I just can't pull the number. I've heard it before, but how much do you receive? You know, I don't, I don't have my CFO here, but basically, you know, 40% roughly is the state funding. Um, a little over a couple of million comes from the corporation for public public broadcasting, and that is that that's a big question mark. I mean, there's so many requirements to fulfill, to be able to to get a community service grant from From that Senator Hammer, I think you might get your question answered. We'll go ahead and introduce yourself and Your position for the record. Hello, Jason Kuna, Arkansas PBS CFO. OK, pleasure to be here. All right, thank you, Jason. Senator Henry, you want to ask that question one more time? Do you know what you're receiving private funding. Yes, sir, just one moment. I'll tell you what, while you're looking that up for the second time, I'll go to the next question. We'll come back to that one. How is this going to affect you all have taken on the sports side of things, how would this be impacted in the broadcasting of the sports segment that PBS does. Do you see any interference with that? Well, I mean, if, if we lose funding if we lose our our You know, our, our donor base and and we lose some of our grants, um, that's going to affect your funding. It's going to cut back our ability to produce things and, you know, truthfully, sports, I find it to be very important because it's a great thing that brings the community together, but, uh, in a list of priorities that it might be on the chopping block. And do you have that answer by any chance? Yes sir, through the foundation in private sponsorships we receive about just under, just under $1.7 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting just under $2.5 million. We do receive $5.8 million from state general revenue, so, um, All in all, it's a pretty well balanced about 51% comes from the state. The remainder comes through the corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Foundation and other contributors, underwriters. So would any of that part of it Be how would any of that part of it be. lost or threatened if moved under the Department of Ed. Well, I mean, to be honest, there's a whole string of things to qualify for the community service grant. So I mean that is a that that's a question I mean, the degree, it's, it's just very, very, very hard to qualify for that, that grant, so I can imagine that there could be a threat to that, I think on the donor base piece of it they're they're most definitely would be, and there are grants that um You know, want us to be independent entities and you know, we would just have to go through every single one of those, and I can't say exactly right here. All of them would be affected, but there's bound to be a significant effect, if I may speak to some of that Senator. Thank you for your time. Some of the, a lot of the way that we are structured our licenses with AFCC are held in the name of the educational television commission, so there's a lot of licensing grant applications that there would be a lot of. t r ative work that would have to be done to transition something of this nature, so it would take time. There is actually a lot of, a lot of paperwork on the background that would have to be changed to bring things into compliance and and in order to to accomplish this. And one more and I'll yield to want to get back in the queue, but um. I, I just don't know, so I'm asking, is your donor base public information or when somebody gives to you is that protected information? It's protected information. I mean, a lot of it is through the foundation, so the contributions through the foundation are protected. They are an independent 501c3, so they, they, they collect the funds and then they remit it to us. Do donors typically give to a specific reason or specific type programming when they give or because it just in the pot. It varies. I mean, they're given an opportunity to support something specific local production or, you know, a specific program or it can be a general, I just want to support public television and have you use it in the way that you need to use it, so it varies, OK, last one. the Your private donations that are protected under your 501c3 status. What percentage of them if you had to grab a number if you can, are directed to particular programming that if they pull that money, it would only be that programming because historically they are directing their money to a particular type of programming is do you have any way to quantify what that would be, or is that just a I don't really, I mean, I hate to give you an answer that's wrong, but I think um There's an awful lot of it that goes to our general support, significant amount of your money though comes from general fund revenues that did I hear the numbers right? These are about 5.8 million from the from the general fund taxpayer money. Yes, thank you. I could also say the FCC process is um because I've checked in with the the people who support us attorneys in DC they give us a, you know, all the very intricate laws within the FCC that it makes, um, 3 to 6 months, roughly to apply for a transfer of licenses, and if there is a lot of public comment and questions, um, that can go on for much longer than that, but it's a 1010 transmitters. It it's a, it's an operation to do it. Senator Tucker, you're for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, would you just repeat the numbers? I just didn't catch all of them. OK. It's about $5.8 million from state general revenue, well, uh, we get money to do the ideas program which education can award up to 3.5 here lately that's been running around 2.7 CPB that for It's about $5.8 million from state general revenue, well, uh, we get money to do the ideas program which education can award up to 3.5 here lately that's been running around 2.7 CPB. What does CPP stand for? corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's just under $2.5 million in the foundation is just under 1.7 million. The foundation is 1.7 million and those are just from private donors, some corporate, some individual, whatever the case might be. Yeah, so it's a concatenation, so it does some work from private donors, some are from underwriters that want to sponsor a specific things such as sports, things of that nature, and so then they they turned those funds over to help sponsor those those types of programs that they want to see. Just to My unsolicited answer to your question, Senator Hammer is a 501, obviously they have the the foundation, which is a separate 501c3 that's not a public entity, so it's not subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, but it is a tax-paying entity, and 501c3s, to my knowledge, have to submit the the names of their donors above a certain threshold, which I don't know, to the IRS when they pay their taxes. So it'd still be public information in that sense for for what it's worth. Yes, the foundation does file an annual 990 with the. Revenue Service, yes. So it's pleasure, my question for you is more of a kind of a big picture question. Where things set up in this way. Carefully because they need to be this way for for PBS to function in the manner that it does. Yes, yes, very specifically. OK, thank you. Thank you, Cen Center Hammer, you're recognized for another question. Just walk, walk me through again without a lot of time taken. Why, why is the transfer over the oversight. Of PBS. A threat To the Liener Of PBS and that and maybe I misinterpreted what you said. That's why I'm asking a question. I, I got the impression that by what is being proposed under this bill, you're going to have to go through, uh, yes sir, we would have to reapply for the licenses because right now the Department of Education and the Board of Education would reapply for the licenses. I mean, there's no, you know, to quote the people from the FCC that's not guaranteed. There are a lot of requirements to qu al ify for the licenses and it's a it's a time consuming process. It doesn't mean they won't go through, uh, but I, I don't truthfully, I don't, I don't know what all those, I've never done that, so each one of the, one of the 10 transmitters are licensed individually and each one of those call signs would have to be amended each one of the applications would have to be reprocessed so that there would be a period of time that would be necessary to Process, all of that, OK, but, but the ability to provide services through that transfer. Would it be, would it be threatened or would it allowed to be go on. I'm unclear about that. I don't know that I can honestly answer that, OK? And do you know of any other states that operate under this type of structure. Um, I do know that I was called the other day by West Virginia, uh, the head of that station that um said that they had um I, I, I'm like I hope I have this right, not have begun to enact this sort of transfer and when they got into it, uh, it, it ended up being a conversation that was this is complex and let's just leave the licenses where they are and just, and just keep operating. I think there were some changes, but they didn't transfer the licenses away from their board commissioners. Um I know that um I think Iowa. has a similar Situation, but vast majority across the country, um, You know, not, not that case in state networks. That that are actually state networks, OK, all right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Dotson. You have a question? You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um. So What is the, I guess what is the license. Or the licenses, all 10 of them that you have. What are they? Who are they licensed to? They're licensed to the AETC Arkansas Educational Television Commission, so that specific entity is what has the holds the license right now, right, OK. And then with regards to the, I think you kind of covered it. Or some of the question, questioning I had was in relation to this, but as far as What specific? Funding would be in jeopardy outside of donors that they can choose what they want to donate to. Um, there might be other donors that want to contribute more with the change. I don't know, um. But as far as state funds, those would be in jeopardy, correct? Correct. And then federal funds, those wouldn't be in jeopardy, correct? Well, the CPB funds, I, I have never dealt With an instance like this, um, I would have to dig into that and see if for that community service grant if there's an aspect of this that would would you don't know. I don't know the answer to that. I do know what other funding sources the corporation for Public Broadcast. 1.7 would those be in jeopardy with this change was closer to 2 for the corporation CPV is about just under 2.5, so just under 2.5, OK. So now those funds, of course, it's those funds are intended for a lot of different kinds of programs like interconnectivity and rural access, and so there are components that um So as long as the mission stayed the same regardless of what the name of the entity was, those funds would still be available. I believe they would be we would just have to go through some we're really talking about private donors. That may or may not be there tomorrow regardless of whether or not any changes are made. They may increase their donations. They may decrease them, but that's private money and they get to choose what they want to do with that money themselves, correct? Great. Thank you. Thank you Hammer. You're recognized for a question. A must share, you cited Iowa as being a similar structure to what's being proposed under this legislation. To your knowledge, do you know, have they lost any funding that you're concerned about losing or I don't know. I learned about Iowa last night. Because I think it was a fairly recent change, OK. And, and I'm, I'm just Trying to get my mind around something, so work with me here a bit and Senator Tucker can can help me out on this little too, um. If somebody is wanting to support the cause because they believe in it. And they wanted to give in a manner in which they could take the benefit of the 501c3 structure. With this legislation in any way prohibit The foundation or a foundation from continuing to exist and that money be given and support PBS, even if the operations direction of the operation directions were put under the Department of Ed. Well, I ask that question myself last night. I don't feel so dumb that several people, you know, that um The Board of Education, I mean, can the Board of Education have an affiliate? 501c3. To speak to that a little bit. Many of these people that have contributed to the foundation's endowment were contributing to for the mission of the ATC to ford the mission of the commission and so it does become a little bit precarious if that commission no longer exists, then how do you address those funds that were contributed for the benefit of the commission. So there will certainly be some time where we would need to consult a number of attorneys and their specialties to be able to get. This to where everybody would be compliant with both Internal Revenue standards as well as FCC standards that there's It's quite a complicated little web, so I, at the moment, does this one fall under an emergency clause, or is there like a period of time to do this. If not, that might be a couple of things to consider, but certainly there are many layers to this, OK? And then, and then the last thing, this wouldn't though stop you from um You know, as long as the funding was there as far as selling that because I just came here. Do you guys sell advertising? We don't. We are, we are not allowed to sell advertising. We have sponsor spots that basically recognize the sponsor's support of public television, and that money is given through the to the 501c3 or how's that money flow? Yes, ordinarily it's underwritten through the 501c3 through the Arkansas PBS Foundation, so they sponsor specific activities, specific programs, and then they are recognized, you know, as a sponsor or an underwriter for the program. Kind of advertising kind of not. That that's a good kind of way, no call to action, right, right. Thank you. Thank you, Centen Sullivan, you recognize question. Thank you. So it's a fact that you are now under the authority of the state, correct? Your commit your board and your commissioner fall underneath the purview of the state. Well, I mean you're in the Department of Education and there's there's a lot, there's been a lot of conversation about that and David Webb, you know, who's one of our auditors, um, in one of the subcommittees, I wish I had recorded it because it it made a lot of sense to me. I wish I could have recorded some of the events we had when we did the audit too and played those back now, but I won't go there. No, but what I'm saying is he explained why it didn't actually. Question is right now all we're doing is changing the oversight. And all the licenses and all the credentials that you have, BLR has researched these and said and placed it in the bill that they are now under the Department of Education, and they saw no conflicts or no problems other than your own testimony that golly gee, we're going to have to work really hard. And yes, you will, there will be impact. Absolutely, that's the whole purpose of the bill is that there's impact. There's been impact now. Under your oversight, there's been a tremendous impact. And we have rectified that and things have changed significantly, but it's my contention that we will operate better and more aligned with the goals of the state executive branch and legislative branch if this is under the Department of Ed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. All right. Are any of our members questions from members of the committee. All right, so no more questions, don't see anybody else sign up to speak. You all are excused. Thank you for being here. Alright. Senator Sullivan, you're recognized to go and close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, folks, you've heard a lot of I'm afraid, I'm afraid, I'm afraid. BLR looked at this. They transferred all of those issues, and they had no conflicts there are so no saw no issues with putting all of these functions and to say I'm afraid that my funding will be affected here. I'm afraid here it's strictly a scare tactic, and if you look at the past functions of the commission. The commission meets once a quarter. They meet for an hour or two. They're not allowed to talk to each other during the interims, so these boards are very ineffective at achieving what the director or the leadership chooses to do, and I think it's time that we consolidate that leadership under the Department of Ed that we have a single focus, you know, the governor has had a tremendous package with the Learns Act and now with higher ed coming on board, all of these things to make more efficient at educating the citizens of the state of Arkansas, and both of these commissions fall under that purview, and I think it's streamlines and makes it more efficient, and with that, Mr. Chair, I'd ask for a good vote. All right remember centers closed for his bill. Do I have a motion. You got a motion from Senator Hammer. Do you have a second? Senator Payton, all in favor. Say aye. Oops, discussion on the motion. We got Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. I know, I know we're trying to get out of here, but it's not BLR's job to know the function of ATN. Their job is to look at the code language and move responsibilities over. They don't know about licensing or those sorts of things, so BLR hasn't Checked all of that out because that's, that's not their role, that's not what they do, um. Maybe everything would work out. Maybe it wouldn't. I know that ATN serves a critical role for the people of Arkansas, not just for their broadcasting, but the other public safety work that they do, which is not a fit for the Arkansas Department of Education. So The fact that Things may not work out from a funding standpoint and against Senator Dodson, you pointed out it's not all the funding, but there's a portion of it. We know those donors will give to the current foundation. We know for certain they will. We don't know for certain if they will if this moves to ADE. This has been carefully set up thoughtfully over a period of decades for AETN to do the work that they do. And we could be jeopardizing that by moving it. If there were a good reason for that, that's something that we should look at. But you know, the, the justification that we have been given is just efficiency. Or alignment and That's just not a good enough reason to jeopardize the existence as it exists today of PBS and in my opinion, so I'll be voting now. Thank you, Senator. All right, we'll do that again. All in. Senator Hammer. OK. One more time. All in favor say aye, I opposed. All right, your bill passes. Congratulations, Senator. All right, members, seeing no further business come for this committee. We are adjourned.