State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

Senate Bill 14, Senator Wallace, I believe uh Representative Milligan's going to be presenting that, so Representative Milligan, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 14. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. I'm good to see you all this morning. Uh, is it all right if Alder Milligan sits with me since he's already sitting here? Is that OK? I can move. Now, Senate Bill 14, I hope you all had a chance to look over it, but it's, it's just a good government bill that improves the, the efficiency and cuts red tape on returning uh the people's money back to them in Arkansas, everybody, I'm sure has heard of the treasure hunt. Uh, well, Senator, I'll, I'll let Milligan talk about it, but there's a lot of people, you know, who maybe don't know, don't have access to and this bill will allow them to go in, uh, and, and $1000 down I I believe, and they're going to go in and they can send people their money back to them without them having to go through the red tape and and do the work, so if you don't care, I'm gonna let him speak on it for a minute. Well, as representative uh Milligan said no relation, uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, so this, this bill will allow my office too, automatically return Arkansas their unclaimed money. We've asked for enabling legislation for properties up to $5000. This is the threshold most of the 24 other states have that already participate. However, until this program gets implemented and uh any potential kinks worked out. I'm gonna only allow up to $1000 return, automatic return. We have over $400 million of unclaimed property that is owed to current and former Arkansans. This data match initiative will allow us to return $7 million back into Arkansas's hands, uh, to Arkansas's hands were rightfully belongs. We expect this initiative to cost about a million dollars in the first year we implement it roughly $400,000 each subsequent year. Our intent, if you will allow us to amend this bill is to pay for this program through interest earned in the unclaimed property trust fund. We invest a small percentage of unclaimed property funds in the state treasury money Management Trust and since I took, took office as a, we've earned about 5.9 million. Again, it's a government efficiency bill that cuts red tape, and I certainly would appreciate the committee's report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to also add that there's 23 states already doing this all uh Mississippi and Tennessee and Louisiana and North Carolina, all the ones that are around us are already doing this, so uh it's a good thing to get the people of Arkansas all their money back to them and, and uh we were open for any questions. All right, thank you, Representative Milligan. I also want to say chair Cesarorum. Thank you all for being here. And uh with that we do have some committee questions. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Question, are you currently dipping into that interest for anything else that we have approved to allow you to dip into the interest for any other purposes out of the. Trust. Representative, if I may, TJ Fowler, I'm legal counsel for the Arkansas Auditor of State. Uh, currently the auditor's office is allowed to invest a certain portion of the trust fund. We call it the unclaimed property proceeds Trust Fund in the Treasury's money management trust. It's a fixed income investment pool, all of the interest in that that is generated by that program flows back into the principal and it sits in the fund. Um, the way our office is appropriated or appropriated by state central services at the beginning of each year, but there's already in statute at the end of each fiscal year we repay state central services out of the proceeds trust fund. So essentially the entire program is paid for out of interest. All, all the salaries the entire program as it stands now, and this will just be one more addition to that program. All right, thank you. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, auditor Milligan, could you please, uh, talk to the data match uh process, how, how it functionally can you sort of explain how that works, uh, this seems like a great idea. I just want to feel comfortable knowing that the, we're gonna be sending the checks to the right people, um. So can you explain how the data match portion works. Representative if I might, I want to let, uh, our manager of that department, Josh Woods, uh, speak to that, uh, he's. I'm sorry, he speaks regularly out of state about the advantages of this, what he's learned, etc. So Josh, if you would. Thank you, Auditor Milligan. Um, yeah, uh, through the data match program, there will be several checks by the office, uh, that's made, but it will also, uh, will, uh, we plan to contract with a company by the name of Kelmar Associates to perform the data match, um, they'll take uh or uh records that uh Uh Uh, they'll, they'll take the records and they'll run it against several different processes, several different, uh, uh. Sorry. They'll run it against LexisNexis program that will authenticate the uh that the person is who uh we expect it to go to, um, it, it will confirm, uh, most recent address, uh, Social Security number, date of birth, whether they're deceased or not, uh, and then the uh the vendor would also run it again, run the list against. Um, several other sources just to verify that these are we're, we're almost 100% sure that these are the people, uh, that the person that we, we've identified is the person who should get the money. Um, and then the list will come back to our office. We'll, we'll, we'll have our eyes on it again, check, check it, uh, and then before any check is sent out to any owner, we'll send a letter to to the most recent mailing address as well. Just verifying, just telling someone we have, we've confirmed that we believe that this money is rightfully belongs to you and we're going to be sending you a check in the mail in the coming. So within we'll have a 90 day waiting period and if Uh, if there's no return mail uh during that period, then we'll send a check to that person. OK, what happens and I assume this would be really rare, but what would happen in the event that the check went to The wrong person that presumably had the same name, and then that person cashed it. Does the rightful owner have any sort of recourse? So, um, The the system should be set up in a way where that can't happen. What the system does is it looks at what we call PII personal identification information, and it takes a number of metrics, including Social Security number if, if it doesn't have sufficient metrics. So if you have a, if you have a John Smith, right, and it's a common name, it's going to require so many other pieces of PII that it should be impossible for the wrong person to get the check. Now we can't stop mail fraud. We can't stop someone intercepting the check. But then your protection becomes the same as any check or negotiable instrument where only the person that's the check is made out to can cash it unless you have some other legal instrument like a power of attorney or a trust. Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oil, y'all mentioned that this would ultimately be for situations where it's $5000 or less. Could you tell us, uh, currently or in the future how it's going to operate for people that's, you know, maybe owed $5100 and above. This, the plan would never be for this program to be dollar amounts over $5000. If you have a dollar amount over $5000 it's the standard claim procedure that we already have where you have to come onto the website and make a claim and then we're gonna get you that money. Have y'all considered uh doing some sort of nexus like this just to notify people that you may be owed money because I know a lot of people have no idea that they're owed money, and if you alert them to the fact that they might, you know, and they could, you know, I'm not saying send out a check, but they could at least know to contact y'all. Yeah, absolutely. We're, we're actually already doing that, um, any items we've we've uh we've matched up items that are over $5000 and we're working towards sending out letters to owners in the coming days. We're using the same features that that we would use in order to provide a data match. Now, uh, and we're going to send a cover letter and a claim form to each of those people. Tell them that we're we're pretty confident that this money belongs to you, please submit this claim form and upload it to our website so we can get this money back to you quickly. That sounds great. Thank you guys. Yeah All right, any other questions about the committee? Seeing none. Is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Milligan, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you Mr. Chair. Committee, I appreciate it. I think this will be a really good program. I appreciate the auditor's office, uh, bringing this to us and wanting to help the Arkansans get their money back and like I said, may not know that they're afforded the money, so I would, I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Milligan has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I see a motion do pass, uh, Representative McIlroy. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, the motion before the committee is uh do pass on. Senate Bill 14, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The Oz Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you. I appreciate it. Next item on the agenda. I have Senate bill. 102 Senator Davis and Representative Vogt. Just want to make note of the courtesy that we're extending to the senators by letting them go first. Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. We are so gracious for your courtesy. Um. I am Brianne Davis, uh, state Senate District 25 and I'm here today to present Senate Bill 102. So back in 2021, we passed Act 951, myself and former Representative Michelle Gray, and that's set standards for statewide for paid canvassers for statewide elections. So what this bill does is the exact same thing for local option elections. So specifically what dry issues, um, within cities. So All of the language is exactly the same, we just pulled the same language, so there would be consistency between what we're requiring paid canvassers to do for local option elections and those statewide elections. There is one change, it's on page 4, line 19. And it just says that the signature section of the petition shall be formatted as prescribed by the county clerk because the county clerk is the one in charge of those local option elections and contain the same number of signature lines prescribed by the Secretary of State for statewide petitions. And so every two years, the Secretary of State puts out basically an example sheet of what the, you know, what the page should look like for when you're collecting signatures and just to provide consistency there, we're just saying whatever. the Secretary of State prescribes in terms of signatures, which is normally 10, um, will be the same for these local option elections. And that really is the entire bill, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Senator Davis. Looks like we do have some questions about the committee, Representative Collins are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh I understand that this language is is elsewhere in code, but because it's new to um these types of elections and because, to be honest, we just were told this bill was going to be on our agenda this morning and you know, we haven't had a lot of time to look at it. Can you just go on a little bit more depth about what we're doing here, what this bill actually does? Sure, it just, um, yep. It, it references throughout the bill we're pulling most of the language from 79601B, um, which is where you can find it in Title 7 for most of it. And so it basically just defines a paid canvasser as a person who's compensated in any form for obtaining um sick petition signatures. Um, the sponsors have to train the paid canvassers on Arkansas law regarding um petition signatures and the sponsors are required to provide the county clerk with a list of canvassers and their current residential addresses, conduct and maintain background checks on all paid canvassers, submit signed statements verifying canvassers have no disqualifying criminal offenses, um, and it also lists a violation of requirements or fraudulent activities that it would may result in a class. A misdemeanor or class D felonies, depending on what it is. Um And only US citizens and Arkansas residents can act as canvassers, um, so that's what we do statewide, that's what we're looking to do here in these local option elections as well. But it would be it would be newly requiring them to get criminal background checks and is that right? That would be new for the local option. OK, and requiring them to be citizens and residents of Arkansas, just for the paid canvassers, yes. OK, and is that are those primarily the, the changes or there are other, I mean this kind of a long list of things that. Criminal charges potentially in the event of a violation of the section that's new, I guess for local option. Correct. OK. All right, just trying to wrap my mind around it. Thank you. Yep, absolutely. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman, and my understanding this correctly that we have a set of rules and regulations that paid canvassers must adhere to at the state level. But Those, those standards and rules do not currently extend to paid canvassers in a local option election. That's correct or a local option, OK, and so this is just extending that the same set of standards that currently exists to that. Yes, that's correct. And, and I will say too that it doesn't apply to any city or county elections and this bill specifically deals with the local option election, which all is in Title III because it deals with alcohol, uh, but it's my understanding that the cities and counties will have language, and I don't want to speak out of turn for them, but you may see something in another bill that deals with Title VII, which is. What we have for um statewide paid canvassers. So not to be confused. It's, this is not impacting all local elections, just those local option elections of touching on what was going to be my next question, which was, so there's 3 as I understand it, there's 3 categories. We have the statewide, um, initiatives that people gather petitions for. We have the local options which are for alcohol and then there's the local initiatives. So this, did you give any consideration to applying it to all three just so that we have it's standard across the board or what was the reason for not extending it to them, so they were already doing the work on their own bill and really this is everything in this bill is Title III and everything in their bill, I believe will be Title 7. So it's just dealing with two completely different parts of code. So just to make it easy and let the be about Title 3. That's why we kept it in that lane. OK, thank you. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Senator, I just want to say thank you for bringing this bill to our attention. I, I would think that your time is well spent on drafting and presenting legislation instead of ice cream theft and um I'm unclear what you're speaking of I just want to acknowledge that and um and thank you for the bill. Thank you. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Do you know what the value of the ice cream freezer is because I think it's above $1500 which would be a felony, just wondering if you understand that. Well, I have been searching for any member who possibly knows anything about what happened down in the house quiet room and I've been unable to find them. they pulled a print off the plug-in. Um Haley's laughing the house. All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing that, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Seeing no one sign of speak for or against the bill, Senator Davis, you're recognized to close for your bill. Uh, thank you, members. I won't take any more of your time. I think we've talked about this in depth, so I just would appreciate a good vote. Senator Davis has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Bray, you're recognized. I moved you pass a motion passed by Representative Ray. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Ya's have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Next we have House Bill 1194 Representative Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Frank Kavanaugh District 30, um, this bill is just a simple bill that would allow a monument to be placed on Capitol grounds for Hawsey, the first stand, and for those that don't know what hocksy the first stand is, it is the first challenge integration in the nation. And it actually set the standard, the precedent for all integration of schools and so we all understand the story of Little Rock 9, but most of America and most of our Arkansans don't understand the significance of Hoxsey and what it actually stands for in the civil rights story and that's what this monument would be for, and it just sets it up so that we can actually start fundraising to actually have a monument set up on the Capitol grounds. All right. Representative Kavanaugh has explained her bill. Representative Hawk, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Kavanaugh, I know that in previous monuments that we've had, uh, there's a challenge right now with the Secretary of State's office and others on fundraising. Is this gonna be done through them or is this a private fundraising effort. How, how are the fundraising dollars gonna be done? Well, we're already currently looking, we have a nonprofit already set up called Hocky the first stand and we're already fundraising and working on the civil rights museum actually, so we're. working on fundraising is not gonna make the Secretary of State do the fundraising for. OK, thank you. All right, any other questions by the committee? Representative Bennet, do you have a question? OK, all right. Seeing no further questions by the committee. Is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you committee members. Um, I would just say Hoxie, the first stand is an important story that we need to make sure that we honor and that we do this while we still have those who who, you know, heroically went in and did the segre desegregation. I can't even speak this morning, uh, of the school that they're here to see that we are honoring them and. I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Kavanaugh has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Motion do representative in it, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Yaz Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, members. Next we have Representative Underwood, House Bill 1243. My understanding is you've asked to pass that for today, is that right? OK. All right, um, Next we have I know Representative Beatty had 3 bills, but my understanding, Representative Beatty is only going to run one of those, uh, so Representative Beaty, you're recognized for, and you have to remind me which bill it is of your 3. 1379. House Bill 1379, Representative Beatty. It's a long walk down here to this end of the table looks like y'all are a million miles away. Representative Howard Beatty District 95 here to present House Bill 1379, uh, basically a, uh, to amend the law concerning special authorization reimbursement for meals, lodging while traveling on official state business and basically what what this is doing is putting the practice in, in the code what we're currently doing. Under the current law, the chief fiscal officer of the state, that's the Secretary of DFNA is responsible for approving special travel expense authorization. And the volume of special travel expense request, uh, somewhat makes it inefficient for the chief fiscal officer to continue approving those requests for employees of other state agencies and departments. Based on the way the legislature appropriates funds, it's probably more incumbent upon each cabinet secretary to take the responsibility for their own budget and their own travel expenses. HB 1379 would transfer the responsibility to review and approve special travel authorizations from the Chief Fiscal Officer of the state to the secretary or the Chief Fiscal Officer of the department for which that travel is going to be incurred. Uh, request for special travel expenses for constitutional or elected officials and their employees are not submitted to the Chief Fiscal Officer of the state. So, uh, those are done at the Constitutional level. So with that, I'll entertain any questions. Representative Beatty has explained the bill or any questions by the committee, Representative Collins are recognized. Thank you, um, Mr. Chair. So who is the chief fiscal officer of the department, um, for a cabinet department. Uh, most of those departments have a cheap uh financial officer or chief fiscal officer. So those are at the different, different agencies. I don't, I don't know who they all are at the different agencies in the state. OK, and I guess I don't really have a problem with it. I just didn't, yeah, that that wasn't necessarily a familiar title for me, so thanks. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um This, this makes a lot of sense, I think uh the. The chief fiscal officer of the state doesn't need to be micromanaging all these different travel expense requests, but I guess my question is how often do we have a special travel authorization. It sounds like there's a lot of them, but I'm reading the sheet here that only occurs when the travel expenses exceed the GSA rates, which I think in most cases are fairly generous. What are the circumstances under which we would have a special travel authorization and how many of those? Do you have any idea how many of those we have? I have no idea of how many, how many times that the chief fiscal officer has to step in and prepare the the process, but I would say looking at the volume of state employees and maybe the travel that they, uh, incur within high, high rate districts for, for lodging, um, that's when this problem would, would kick in, uh, where they would have to, you know, they can't find. nothing at the state rate or at the rate that we have approved. So I think that would happen more often than than not. OK, is there anyone here from DFNA that Yes, you might want to take a stab at that question. Andy Babbitt, DFA, um, So generally what we see with travel and these special authorizations is that we in our rules limit it to just the hotels, although the language is a little bit more broad than that, we limit it to just the hotel rate, but what we see is, uh, conferences a lot of times, which is where most state employees travel, they're going to conferences to learn, um, about their uh respected roles, uh, how other states are handling that. That's when we see these special authorizations, uh, requests come through. We don't have an exact number, but I would, um, I would put forth it, uh, we probably see hundreds if not in, you know, 1000 or so a year coming through, so again, I don't have the exact numbers, but that's kind of where I estimate it to be. OK, that's, that's good. Thank you. Representative Wardloger recognized. So DNA, I take it, see you on the table now. I think my question is answered, but y'all have asked for this change, correct? Yes, this is a department bill, yes, OK. Representative Collins, you're recognized. All right, one more, so Is is everyone covered here gonna have a department with a cabinet level secretary. I mean, is there any kind of state travel that maybe would be for a, I don't know, a commission or something where there might not be an overseeing cabinet secretary. With transformation, most of the regulatory boards and commissions now fall within one of those departments. And if it was to be, um, let's say ethics in this language would fall to uh DFA. Or to the uh commission to the executive director of ethics commission to approve. Well, I mean, that seems like that's what should happen. I don't know that it's quite written that way. OK. Understand. OK, thanks. All right, seeing no further questions from the committee, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Beatty, you're recognized a close for your bill. I just want to reiterate this, this is as in war law, um, uh, hit on the questions. It's a bill that came from DFNA, uh, I think putting this approval process back at the at the agency level where the travel and the travel request is being um being made is the proper place for it to be, uh, instead of going back to DFNA and having uh Secretary DFNA approve all. all the special travel for an agency. So, um, With that, I would offer a motion to pass. All right, Representative Beatty is closed for his bill, and he's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Seeing no discussion. And we have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Is Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Yeah. All right. Next we have House Bill 1369 Representative Ray. You're recognized. I'm actually going to pass over that bill. I need to do a small amendment. No. OK, committee, we have uh This was not on our agenda that was sent out and again I apologize for that, but Representative Richmond is here. For House Bill 1399 related to donation deeds and homestead donation deeds by the commissioner of State lands. I'm really not in the business of doing this, but uh. I'm gonna Allow you to present the bill if you'd like, Representative Richmond. And uh I apologize to the committee about this. I don't like to do this. And in the future, I probably won't, but I like Representative Richmond so much that I'm going to allow him to present his bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, with your permission, I'd like to ask. Mr. Kelly Boyd to join me here in case there's some hard questions, Mr. Boyd, you're recognized. And also, Mr. Chair, I have a AG opinion that I'd like to hand out to the committee. With your permission. Yes, sir. Representative Richmond, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we're gonna be discussing today in uh HB 1399 is a bill that the land commissioner brought to me and asked me to run it for them and what we're trying to do is to be sure that all the actions that's taken by the land commissioner is in fact constitutional. If you look at the AG opinion. You'll find that there was a Supreme Court case, Tyler versus uh Hempen County up in uh Minnesota and there was property taken from an individual that was delinquent on his taxes and that property was donated. It was a condo to be used for low income housing. The Supreme Court found that to be unconstitutional. Now here in the state of Arkansas for the majority of everything that we do concerning tax delinquent property, we are in fact constitutional. You'll find that in the AG opinion. But the donation deed, and this is when you have someone that has property. May be in the city limits, whatever, but that properties could be useful. And they have not paid their taxes. Don't seem to be willing to pay the taxes or don't get around to it for whatever reason. We have in the past taken this property and donated it to The city that it resides in or whatever to be used, maybe as low income housing or something like that. Sounds like a wonderful thing to do, except there's appears to be a problem, according to the constitutional and in fact this is unconstitutional to do according to the AG's opinion for the state of Arkansas. Now this was uh put in place in 1993. Since 1998, there's only been 218 of these deeds donated. Which luckily the exposure of the state of Arkansas, the possible lawsuit is not that great. But We don't want to continue doing this because it could possibly create exposure if we do it and plus it's unconstitutional. We don't want to be in the business of breaking our own laws. And if there's any questions, I'd be happy to take those. Uh, here we go. Before we move to questions, Mr. Boyd, do you have any remarks that you'd like to make? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Kelly Boyd, uh, Deputy commissioner of State lands and not at this time, sir. All right, uh, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is a whole lot to take in with zero warning. So apologies if this is sort of an elementary level question, but Representative Richmond, can you explain how this interacts with the bill that we heard earlier this session from Representative Long. I'm trying to um just see how the two relate to one another. I'm sorry, I can't comment on that. I, I'm not really sure I'm familiar with Representative Long's bill at this point, whichever one it is that we're doing. I'm not recalling exactly what he ran, so I apologize that no, I don't have a comment. Uh Mr. Chair, the, uh, Mr. Boyd says that he can comment on that. That would be very much appreciated. I had the very same question representing Clowney. Mr. Boyd, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Clowney, there are two types of deeds that are under discussion here. The one that was discussed a few days ago has to do with the commissioner of state lands ability to donate parcels of tax delinquent property. To state agencies to institutions, cities, county governments, whatnot. The urban homestead donation deed that we're talking about today would be a deed that say a um low income housing authority would come seeking a donation from the commissioner of State lands, um. We've done in the last just for the commissioner, uh commissioner Land's term, we've done 34 of these urban homestead donation deeds. These were all, there's a very strict set of guidelines. You have to be using them to construct low income housing. They have to have gone through what we call the live auction sale. We have regional sales around the state. The property is first offered for sale there. If it fails to sell there, then it goes on to a a a list of parcels we have for the 1st 2 years, we have to be able to recoup all the taxes, fees, everything owed against it. After 2 years have expired, then they become a parcel where we can actually negotiate the selling price, uh, with our uh online auction system that we have today that bidding price starts at $100. If a parcel had $500 old um taxes owed against it. We could sell it for $100 if that was the only bid that came in during that 30 day period. We up until last year when, when we became aware of the results of Tyler versus Hennepin County. At that point, Commissioner Land institute a policy instituted a policy within our office that stopped the process of both donation deeds and urban homestead donation deeds. So we do not do that and have not done that, the last deed of any type that we issued under this was an urban homestead donation deed in May of 2023. We haven't done, I'm sorry, May of 2024. We haven't done any since and we won't be doing anymore. We're in good shape. Today with that policy, what we're trying to do is look forward. To future administrations if this is and it has been determined to likely be unconstitutional by the Attorney General. Then we would propose that we just simply take this language out of the code and not make it an issue. Thank you. Representative Long, you're recognized. Yeah Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I just want to make sure if we did happen to get more money than what was owed that money would then be eligible to go to the the the the property prior property owner, um, is that correct? The correct, the way it yes sirresentative Long, the way that we do it now, a partial sales, let's say it has $250 owed in taxes, penalties, and fees, and the property sals for $500. OK, the person that, that is the record owner of the land or one of their heirs in certain circumstances would be able to file a claim with us for it, it takes one year. It resides with us for one year, starting one year from the date that it sells, they can file a claim with us for that $250. We call that excess proceeds. There's a specific process for that. If they do not claim that. Within that two-year period, On the 2-year date that that period is existed, it is sheets to the county. Commissioner of State lands doesn't keep that money. It goes back to the county to help recompense them for the failure of being able to receive their property taxes. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Representative Richmond for bringing this bill, um, as, as he mentioned before, the way we are right now, it's, we're operating with an unconstitutional law and your bill will fix that very much appreciate you bringing it. You're welcome. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, am I correct that your bill does not repeal the section that Representative Long's bill did repeal regarding transfer to state institutions. Represent college, you're correct. So why the difference? Why repeal the homestead, urban homestead, and not this one. If I had Let me rephrase that if Commissioner Land had his preference, both bills would pass. OK, so is the reason that there's already another bill out there and you just decided not to, not to include that in here because you want that other bill to pass too? And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if, if you're saying that you think that they both should be repealed, and this is your bill. I guess I'm just curious why not just put them both in there. When Tyler versus Hennepin County came out. We met and determined to make that process in our office. Commissioner Land also stated he wanted us to provide legislation and we dealt solely with the homestead donation deed. I don't have a lot of problem telling the state agency. That we don't do this. I don't think a state agency would be in a position to file a lawsuit against the commissioner of State lands. I do have a concern. That that could be so. The urban homestead donation deed. would be semi-public, semi-private organizations that could indeed file a lawsuit against us. We don't want to lose one of those, especially since we've done 200 and some odd of these over the last few years of 20 years. I would like to see um. Consideration given to expunging the vote. On Representative Long's bill possibly or if the committee passes this bill today and gives indication to the commissioner of State lands office that they would like for us to bring another bill back to eliminate those other donation deeds. Certainly we would do that. We feel that this. heart resolves our immediate concern. Our immediate exposure. The other bill would have been a very nice compliment to this bill. But we know for a fact that we need this bill. The way it is to pass. I appreciate that and one other thing I wanna just drill down on and I haven't had a chance to read the AG's opinion, um, but I do know that it's been talked about that that our laws is clearly unconstitutional under this, and I'm just not quite sure. I, maybe you can help me understand why everyone is so confident about that. I mean, in Tyler versus Hennepin County there was actually money that was obtained by the county and not return to the homeowner and as we. all know cases are decided on the individual facts before them, and this is slightly different here, right, because there's not actually funds in hand. It's just land being donated, there are no funds because, but I understand that the, the argument that could be made that it would apply to the facts that's set forth in these statutes, but why I guess why is everyone so confident that that definitely applies to these two sets of law. Representative Collins, a very good question if we donate a piece of property. We are taking away any possibility of that individual from recouping any money. Under the auction process, there's a chance. They start the bidding at $100. Let's say we've had that parcel for 5 years. Start the bidding at $100 they owe $250 if the parcel sells for 500, they can possibly recoup 250. If I give. Somebody that parcel for $0 they have no chance and the AG's office has opined that that likely violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution and therein is the difference. The auction program may not generate one penny of excess proceeds, but it might. The donation guarantee you it's not going to, and that's where the attorney general drew his line. And I understand that, and I think that may well be right, but I, I just would caution us, uh, maybe this is a little self-caution, not to, not to assume with too much confidence that that's right, because again, there are differences in the fact pattern in that case that was decided and and uh what would happen under these donation statutes, but I appreciate it. Thank you. Yes sir. Representative Rose, you're recognized. OK OK All right, any other questions by the committee? So I guess I have one my understanding, uh, is what you're wanting to do is delete a portion of code because you guys no longer want to use this process because you're concerned that it's unconstitutional. Is that a fair summation? Mr. Chair, that's an excellent, excellent and then we had Representative Long's bill, which We may need to bring back well I guess while we have the commissioner of State lands here, are you, uh, telling the committee this morning that it was the commissioner of State lands position that you were favorable toward Representative Long's bill. Commissioner of State land supports wholeheartedly representative Long's bill. OK. Well, that's good to know. Thank you very much, uh, Representative Wooldridge, do you have a question? I do have a question. I'm not exactly sure who it's to, I guess it would be to you, sir, if Representative Long's bill is a compliment bill, but it just includes the section that's not in this. Would there be a need to pass both? If Representative Long's bill does not pass, no, if his bill passed, would there be a need for this bill? Yes, sir. OK. Thank you, sir. OK, so, so the way I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong. Commissioner of State lands no longer wishes to utilize this process and this particular type of deed. Representative Long's bill would require that once property was sold well, a couple of things, but one of the things is once the property was sold, if there was any. Excess proceeds remaining after the sale and the satisfaction of any tax lien that that money would go back to the person who owned the property so that they could keep their equity. Uh, is that, is that a fair summation of Representative Long's bill and then kind of as it compares to what you're wanting to do here today. Uh, Mr. Chair, no sir. Representative Long's bill does the exact same thing that our bill does with some technical differences in code references, but beyond that there are two types of deed urban homestead and regular donation regular donation is something that we would give to a county we would give to um uh Arkansas Tech University if they came to us. Urban Homestead would go to like the uh Little Rock. Housing Authority if they had a parcel, both builds accomplish the exact same thing in the exact same manner by eliminating the language that gives the commissioner of state lands authority to even do it. All right, thank you for that. Appreciate that response. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. just a question, um, if we pass your bill today and, and Representative Long's bill and we expunged the vote and bring that back. Is there any overlap in these bills that, that maybe there were Long's bill would overlap on yours and, and may cause a an issue or a problem, and should we have maybe some reconciliation between these two bills to come up with, with a bill that addresses both issues. Representative Beatty, no, sir. We looked at both of them extensively. Representative Long brought his bill by the commissioner's office early on. It was his bill we were happy to run if you will remember, um, our general counsel was here at the table with him. We support that bill wholly and it will, it will only complement. HB 1399. Thank you, sir. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one question on the substance of the bill. I remember when we were um listening to Representative Long's bill, there was a little bit of concern that this would lead to an excess or at least more abandoned properties, right, that are just sort of waiting to be sold and don't have any buyers. Um, can you just address that concern for us. Yes, ma'am. Representative Clowney, um, 20 years ago, That might have happened with the onset of our online auction. In 2019 we averaged about 30,000 to 35,000 of these properties on our books at any one time. Today I have 1,024. All right. Any other questions by the committee? All right, seeing no further questions by the committee. Uh, is there anyone signing to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill Representative Richmond, wait one minute, Representative Long. All right, Representative Richmond, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee again. uh, let me first apologize for not being familiar with uh your system here and showing up and running the bill, but I certainly appreciate you guys being willing to hear this bill at this time. And uh as far as any opposition, I have no idea. There's no known opposition besides maybe a couple of you sitting in this room on this thing, but again, I think that I think this is the right thing to do, and I would appreciate a good motion and a good vote. Representative Richmond has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I see a motion to pass Representative Long. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, we have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Yaz Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Have a good day. Next we have House Bill 1365 Representative Brown. Representative Brown. Representative Brown, all right, Representative Brown does not appear. I'm gonna Let me say this. If there's a bill that I send out. On the agenda for this committee to consider on a particular day. And the representative or senator is not here to run that bill after it's been sent out ahead of time. The committee has read the bill, studied the bill, is prepared for questions and discussion. If the sponsor doesn't show up, it's going on the bottom of the deferred list, so that 1365 will be moved to deferred. And Let me also say That uh I was very uncomfortable with what just happened in presenting a bill that this committee was not aware was going to be presented today. I'm not gonna do that again. I did that this morning. It will not happen again. If, uh, if you have a bill to present, you need to let me know ahead of time so that that can be put out to the committee and the committee can have the opportunity to be prepared to have read the bill and for questions and discussion. I'm not going to do that again. So This year. Yes, sir. Um, and this is just a procedure thing, would it be a proper time now to make a motion to expunge the vote of Representative Long's bill so that we could maybe not here today but or hear it at a future, future time. Can we do that today? So my understanding is that there is not a need to expunge the vote. The bill has only failed once because it failed, it was put on the deferred list, but it can come off the deferred list with the request, as my understanding or with uh all I have to do is notify staff. Take it off the deferred list. However, there is a waiting period for the bill. So for example, someone had a bill on deferred that wanted it to be heard today and uh when I notified staff apparently it wasn't within the time period for that bill to be moved off the deferred list and back onto the regular agenda. And so, um, I think all that we'll have to do is set that for next Wednesday and uh just staff your notified. As of now that we're going to move that bill off deferred and onto the regular agenda and we'll consider that bill again next Wednesday. Thank you, sir. Representative Beatty. Mr. Chair, I would just want to note for, for the record for uh Representative Brown. He had special order of business and insurance and commerce today with the bill and it's still running in in that committee now. He's still presenting that bill. So just ask for a little lenient. Oh, Carolyn Brown, my bad. I, I stand corrected. I just knew Matt had that, that special order. I see. Alright. Representative Meeks. Uh, since we're on this topic, Mr. Chair, I'd like to request that House Bill 1069, the Daylight Saving Time bill be removed, be put up on the active calendar so we can hear it next week. All right. Saying no objection. All right, so there's one other bill. And I said I wasn't gonna do this again, so I'm gonna immediately violate my rule. But Representative Ladyman was here this morning. This happened before this happened this morning, so he and I have already discussed this, so I, I should say this new rule is going forward. Uh, but Representative Ladyman showed up this morning and asked if he could present this bill about the Mallard duck. And so I'm gonna allow him to do that. This will be the last time we do that, but Representative Ladyman. You're recognized on House Bill 14:17 to designate the official duck. Of the state of Arkansas. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the exception, and I'll try to be quick. Y'all been in here a while, but um, I actually thought my bill was on the agenda, but I appreciate you allowing me to run it. Um The reason I, the reason I wanted to do this, uh, I had my grandson and some other kids here at the Capitol and I was showing them the uh up on the 4th floor, the Arkansas tree, the Arkansas nut and all that stuff and we were talking and I said, you know, is there anything that we don't have as an Arkansas designate. So my grandson said, well, how about a duck? And I said, well, there's probably already a duck. So he goes and searches um on the web and actually there's only one state that has a designated duck. And that is Mississippi. And we don't want Mississippi to be ahead of us for anything, so I thought we needed a duck, but Mississippi designated the wood duck as their state duck in 1974 actually. So I decided to run a bill to designate the duck, uh, the mallard duck as the Arkansas duck. Let me just give you a couple of figures, uh, in the state of Arkansas, according to a study, the estimated expenditures for migratory bird hunters in 2022 totaled $306 million. That breaks down to $4.25 million per day over a 72 day waterfowl season. In fact, Stuttgart is known as the duck capital of the world, the state's positioning in in the Mississippi flyaway and abundant waterfowl habitat may get an ideal place for wintering ducks, hunters from all over flocked to the natural state to enjoy the world-renowned duck hunting season. The mallard duck. Um is the most common duck species found in Arkansas and across the country, according to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, so that's why we chose the Mallard duck. Um, and I talked to Representative Wardlaw about this, and we wanted to name one of the conference rooms, new conference rooms, the Mallard room, couldn't do that because the Mallard was not a state designated entity. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. Representative Beatty, you're recognized for a question. Representative Ladyman, um, I, I think you hit on a, a key issue that would maybe cause me to be opposed to your bill and vote no is when you were talking about Mallard, you were talking about migratory birds. And the fact that most of these mallards are just passing through and the only time they stay here for a lengthy period of time or when they're in our freezers. Um, and, and processed, whereas a wood duck. Pretty much they're, they're, they're natives, they're staying in our area and, and, and they actually are Arkansans, so to speak. So could you speak to that point for me, please? Well, the wood duck's already taken. Mississippi beat us to it. They have the wood duck as they're designated duck. So I, I don't think we want to be the same as Mississippi, but also, let me just say I talked to some folks. I'm not really a duck hunter, but I talk some duck hunters and, and uh they told me that most of their industry is based around the Mallard duck. So when they do do advertising and that sort of thing. The Mallard is definitely number one, so. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Representative Lightman, I know last session there was a bill to redesignate our state bird, um, and I think that bill was gonna redesignate the Mallard duck to be the state bird, um. Have you had any conversations with that bill sponsor. I actually was supportive of that bill, and I think it would be a little bit strange if we changed our state bird to the mallard and then also had this extra designation of state duck as a mallard. Have you, do you know if, have you had any conversations with the sponsor of that bill to know if that if that there's gonna be another effort to Change the state bird? No, I haven't. I wasn't even aware. I didn't remember that even being ran. But I think we could have a state bird and a state duck. OK. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions about the committee. Is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized to close for your bill. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'm closed. I would appreciate a positive vote. All right, Representative Ladyman is closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I see a motion to pass Representative McIlroy. Is there any discussion on the motion, Representative Collins, you're recognized for discussion. I'm, I'm sorry to do this, but I, I actually agree with Representative Ray. I think we, I mean, we've been talking about redoing the state bird and Mallard would be a great state bird. I just think this is gonna be kind of confusing. Um, it's not because I don't think it's a great idea, but I, if we actually do this with the state bird, I'd rather have it be a little cleaner, so I'm a no sorry. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I would disagree with that. I, I think there's a difference between a duck and a bird, um, much like there's a difference between a taco and a sandwich. So, uh Uh, I would say that this is a great bill and it differentiates uh one thing that we're known for in Arkansas and that's duck hunting. So, uh, I, I think this is a great bill and I would hope to see that it pass. All right. Is there any further discussion 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. The eyes have it. Congratulations, Representative Blay and your pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, that's all we have for today. I, I do want to say before we go that um. I did, uh, express a little frustration and aggravation. However, after further reflection, I do know what it's like to have to be in another committees and have multiple bills to run and be a busy representative, and I understand Representative Brown's not here and so I, I don't necessarily hold that against her, and I'll talk with her more about that, um. I'm being told she's coming up the stairs right now, uh, Representative McIlroy, uh, point of personal privilege, I have Arnell Willis Senior. Uh, he was a mayor of Helena and a former state representative and with him, he has uh Doctor Jeffrey Norfle from uh Shorter College president in a Shorter College, and David Moody and uh uh Representative Willis, former Representative Willis, with an old friend of mine. I do mean old too, but they're standing right over there. All right, well we're, I have my judge from Arkansas County, Mr. Eddie Besson, I just won't recognize him and thank you. We're honored to have you, the guests with us, with us, if y'all would stand up, we'd like to recognize you. Yes. All right. you just sent me a message Do you want to hand out the. We're gonna We're gonna give Representative Brown just a few minutes to be to get here, um, there's also an issue while, while we're here, there's also an issue that we need to address about subcommittees, uh, we have not, uh. We've not chosen subcommittees or made any uh assignments for subcommittees. If any of you have any preferences as to a subcommittee for this uh for this committee, please let us know because we'll be making those assignments soon. Representative Beck, do you have anything on that? Yeah, there's a list of the subcommittees if you want to get with staff. I think there's at least 4 subcommittees and so um. Again, if you have a preference as to a subcommittee, please let us know. This committee will be in recess for just a couple of minutes. All right, this committee's called back to order. We have Representative Brown here with us. Appreciate her being here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Carolyn Brown, uh, District 67. If you'll give me just a moment to get organized. Representative Brown's my understanding that you were in the City County Local Committee, is that right? They're, they're going along today, um. All right, as soon as you get organized, you'll be recognized to begin your presentation of House Bill 1365. I think, excuse me just one second. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for not being here earlier, but uh we've got some. Uh, bills were listening to in City County Local, um, this bill uh House Bill 1365 is an act to remove racial and gender quotas and qualifications of membership for certain boards, committees, councils, and commissions and. Other purposes. Um The problem is that Arkansas laws that discriminate on the basis of race and gender in appointments to state boards and commissions. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution reads in part states no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Arkansas's quoteas violate citizens' rights by treating them differently based not on their qualifications and unique skills needed to serve, but on the basis of race and gender. In 23, the state of Arkansas responded to a lawsuit challenging the social work licensing board's discriminatory race quota by overturning the unconstitutional requirement. Now is the time to eliminate the rest. No one should be denied the opportunity to serve on a public board due to race or gender and this bill is um I do have the support of the governor's office. They have no objection to it. It basically identifies each section of code, uh, for border commission council or commission, uh, where, um, race or gender gender is identified uh. For a quota and that's all it does, it doesn't reduce the number of members of the board and uh just personally I can say that um when I entered the workforce there were no such. Um quotas. I never benefited from any kind of a quota, nor did I seek any kind of benefit from that kind of quota and this. These quotas are unconstitutional. We just simply need to comply with our United States Constitution. And I would ask for a good vote. Or answer questions Representative Brown has explained her bill. Are there any questions by the committee, representative, and it, you're recognized. Oh, Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Brown, you mentioned the social work licensing board that had um one of these requirements that a member be of a, I don't remember if it was a certain uh race or, or sex, but you said that was, that was struck down by the courts, is that what's and that was at the State Supreme Court or where, where was that? I'm going to guess it was the state Supreme Court, but I do not know. I, I remember seeing it in the news. I just couldn't, I couldn't recall. All right, any other questions about the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill, seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Brown, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you committee um. I just asked for a good vote. Thank you, this is, this is the right thing to do. We need to comply with our Our state constitution needs to comply with our federal Constitution and all of our statutes need to comply. I just asked for a good vote. Thank you. Representative Brown has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Meeks makes 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 nose habit. I'm sorry, Representative Brown, your bills failed. Thank you committee. All right, I see a request for a roll call Representative I see two hands. Call the roll. Representative Wooldridge. Representative Wooldridge. Representative Rose. Representative Rose, yes, Representative Hawk. Representative Hawk. Representative Long Representative Long, yes. Representative Underwood Representative Underwood, yes, Representative Carr Representative Carr, yes, Representative Beatty Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Ray Representative Ray, yes. Representative McIlroy Representative McIlroy, no. Representative in it. Representative in it? No. Representative Evans. Representative Evans. Representative Collins, Representative Collins, no. Representative Clowney Representative Clowney, no. Representative Crawford. Representative Crawford. Representative Mayberry, Representative Mayberry, yes. Representative Barry. Representative Barry. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Wardha. Representative Meeks, Representative Meeks, yes, Representative Beck. Representative Beck, yes. Sorry, Representative Brown, the bill's failed. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.