State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

You stay at the table and present all four, but we'll start with Senate Bill 147. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have some folks from TSS here, uh, regarding all four of these bills, um, Senate Bill 147 is one second we're gonna have them join you real fast. And if you'll introduce ourselves and tell us who you're with for the record, then Senator, you'd be recognized to proceed. Um, good morning. I'm Leslie Fiskin and I'm Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services, um, Senate Bill 147 is to change the, really change the name of of our department to shared administrative services, as you all know, our department was created in 2019 as part of um transformation of state government and taking over 45 departments and moving that, um, narrowing that down to 15 and consolidating our departments and so this new name change is really represent of of of the work that that we do every day supporting personnel procurement, IT employee benefits, um, buildings and our geographic information systems, and I'm happy to answer any questions um just, just for your Info here Really there's 1 Four sections of this bill, the 1st 102 sections are all literally striking the word transformation and and and then adding the word administrative under their Section 103 is a do not codify section in case we happen to miss any sections in the code that it would clarify that and then section 104 is an emergency clause for this to take effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year, so July 1, OK. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions from members of the committee? All right, say non senator you're working to close your bill. I'm closed and motion to pass up. OK. Alright, we got a motion to pass second from Senator Tucker. All in favor. Say aye. Po congratulations your bill passes. And we'll move down to Sent the 16515. Alright. Um, Have someone else coming for this one. I reckon. Hi, I'm Jessica Patterson, state procurement director. Great. Welcome. All right, Senator, you're organized to proceed. All right, members, I'm going to turn this over, uh, here's 165. OK. So Senate Bill 165, it just impacts a very narrow set of circumstances when in the procurement process there is a clarification that there is a need for a clarification of a respondents proposal that then because it is a it impacts the material change, then it triggers the need for a BAO. A bafo is the best and final offer, so once a BAO is triggered, then the way that it's currently written is it doesn't allow for a respondent to amend their proposal to to meet the clarification need and so this is just a very, a very minor tweak that allows that. OK. Yeah, yeah, there's other questions we're going to ask for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a competitive bid process. It's a there's more than one bidder who all gets to react to the change. So if there is a clarification that that triggers a bafo, then even under the current law, without, without the change, it allows any reasonably any bidder that is reasonably susceptible of being awarded the contract, so this doesn't change that. In other words, this is, this in no way changes that. There's still competitiveness after the change. There is still competitive after the change. It just allows us a little bit more flexibility and negotiations when a clarification is required. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. All right, any questions from members of the committee. All right, I don't see we have anybody sign up, speak for or against, with that closed. You got a motion to pass Senator Dodson, a second from Senator Payton. All in favor. Say aye. I opposed. Bill passes. Congratulations. Thank you. Moving to Senate Bill 166, 166 is also another uh. One recall regarding procurement, and I'll turn that over again, you probably need to put your name for the record again. Jessica Patterson. Jessica Patterson, state procurement director. So this amends the definition of a critical emergency procurement currently critical emergency procurements are only allowed when life or health are imminently endangered. This allows this broadens that definition a little bit to allow for an emergency procurement, a critical emergency. procurement to be executed when a state of emergency is declared by the governor. Right. Any questions from members of the committee? All right, OK, Senator Payton, you're organized for question. Thank you. Real simple. I mean we're only talking about Uh, procurement that's associated with the disaster. Correct. They couldn't be construed to be other procurements, right? No, no, it is only procurement that is that is directly related to the critical to the to the um to the disaster. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Senator. All right. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? All right, see other questions and not seeing anybody sign up to speak for or against, and closed, closed my motion to pass. I've got a motion from Senator Dodson. Second from Senator Payton, all in favor say aye. opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes, and I'll move on to Senate Bill 185. All right, Senate Bill 185 is the final one in are you? Oh, I think it's OK, you can, OK. Senate Bill 185, there is a change in here that all her explain. Hi, I'm, you don't I don't have to do it again, OK. This is just purely cleanup language in transformation, I think that this should have been moved over these two sections should have read Department of Transformation Shared Services instead of DFNA and so we're just cleaning that up. OK. All right, Senator Peyton, you're recognized for a question. But we just advanced another bill. It changes the name of that department. So we're going to have to wait until this bill passes before you can correct it. No, Senator Payton, that if you'll recall I pointed out Section 103 or 4, I think in that other bill actually is a do not codify section that covers any technical corrections of name changes during the 95th General Assembly or if any other bills passed or anything so it should be automatic so if both bills pass, this will automatically update to the new name. OK, we don't have to worry about which bill passes first. No. Thank you. Thank you to the language in that bill. Senator Tucker, you were recognized for a question. Uh Senator Flippo, did you, did you fiddle with my mic no comment. All I was gonna say, Senator Peyton and Senator Dodson has said, I'm on code of revision commission and I'll, I got you covered. All right. And there are questions from members of the committee. All right, seeing that questions and don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this. Senator Dodson, you're going to close, closed. Motion to pass. I got a motion to pass Senator Dodson, a second from Senator Payton. All in favor. Say aye. Uh opposed. Congratulations. I'm sure your bill passes. All right, do we have anybody else in here that Senator King, you've got one. We'll see about that. Everybody had time to get lunch, something to drink. We've already had some. All right, King, you're a recognized receiving your bill. We won't go into repeating about the bill. This only change was after it passed Senator Payton brought up a concern about changing, taking out the section, I believe that it should be a running kind of for your reporting bill, uh, Senator Payton wanted to change it to Uh, a full request and so we've got him with Rob Steinbach and John Toll, and we've amended it and it's been engrossed, so that's been the only change from the debate that we've already had. OK. Senate Bill 12. Don't give him a chance to get this bill real quickly, Senator King. OK, Senator Dawson, you have a question. Your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator King, can we have a presentation of the bill? I mean, I see there's been 2 amendment amendments on this since I've seen it last. So basically the bill from the first presentation is the same, the board of apportionment made up the Governor, Attorney General and the Secretary of State. We know after each census meets it is only a once in a 10 year event. If you look at the language in the board of apportionment in the Constitutional amendment, it is silent on this. And I believe that the duties are much like a jury that if you are a governor, you have governors and you have duties and constitutional duties that apply, but when you step in the board of enforcement, it's like a jury situation where it changes and basically all communication with the governor attorney general, and the Secretary of State regarding only border apportionment we tightened it from that language, original language, to make sure it can strain down to that basically if you look at what's happened over the last 10 years of every 10 years of the backroom deals you go to the the special interests, they go to lobbyists being hired, I believe that in this case because these impact is the districts are drawn for 10 years. So if an area is a gerrymandered, which I still believe is rigging election, then they're impacted or misrepresented for 10 years, and they can be diluted. We've seen districts where you have these sprigs and stragglers come out here where maybe one little bot of one county is out and it's a particular interest that the reason it got there and so those people, you know, impacted for 10 years, so that's why I believe that the communication then befoable. It does not prevent a freedom of speech where somebody can say something, but if the governor is out and somebody talks to the governor about all kinds of issues they can do that. If they say, well, what about redistricting, and then the governor is some of the regional regional. Conversation we amended it to would be like in a jury situation. So when I was on a jury, we were excused for lunch. We went up there and had lunch. People could talk to us, but we just could not talk about the jury part, and it just makes all that communication for you. It takes out the backroom deals and puts everything out there, does not stop a First Amendment right to say anything, it just puts everything out there instead of the backroom deals, the special interests, and all those things happening, so all that communication like a jury. And that then that border apportionment would decide just like we would on a jury with the case in front of them. Alright, you thought, um, so. If I understand this correctly. It This now covers Any member of the board of apportionment for. Only communications regarding redistricting. That's I see that in there. Um However, if uh. If someone Someone's uh just member of the general public. Or anyone else comes and talks to any staff or member of the board of apportionment about anything regarding redistricting. Then That staff member or the member of the board of apportionment has to record, right down, or electronically. Create a record of that communication of any private citizen, any legislator, any uh anybody else regarding that type of communication and if they failed to do so, then they're guilty of a class A misdemeanor, not the person, but would be the governor. The onus is on the governor. So let's say the governor's staff, you go and you make some communication to them, then it's their duty to report that basically it needs to be in. electronic, they can still have their First Amendment right to say anything, whether it's a protest or whatever, and but yet that communication would have to be written electronic or or communication recorded public meeting which support of apportionment will have as typically had public meetings before, so it does bring that out there where, you know, the communication much like I keep going back to a jury trial. It's the evidence, you know, decided. that is presented at the at the trial and then then the board of apportionment will decide on that. So with this include spouses of any of the members of the board of apportionment communication regarding Yes, so if I'm on a jury, I don't know if you've ever served on a jury before, but if you're on a jury, you may be in, we've got an attorney over here that can correct me, but I've served on some juries, so if the if the judge recuses you on Friday and then says over the weekend that any communication that you have, uh, you know, you can still communicate obviously with your spouse, but yet if there's any communication about the trial, then you're not allowed to discuss it and so the only thing you would do to say to your spouse is, By the way, you know, you Honey, you're going to have to, you know, do it in written electronic just like everybody else, and And who would be guilty of the glass a demeanor the public official, only the staff or the in that case the spouse or both, the my intent of one person. I mean, you cannot, the, the person, whether it's a spouse or an individual has a First Amendment right to say something. So it's the, the purpose would be for the governor attorney general, and the Secretary of State to say much like a juror, I don't know, maybe Senator Tucker can say if I'm a juror and I, I, I don't go by the judge's orders to not talk about the trial. Then obviously I'm in trouble, not the person talking to me. Would that be correct? So Thankfully we have an attorney on here, so. Right, Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Senator King, and, and I appreciate the fact that you voluntarily referred this back to committee for the purpose of amendment. It was, it had already cleared this hurdle, and Uh, you didn't have to take the risk of bringing it back through committee other than to do something that I thought needed to be done and some other people agreed with me and, and you, you did it reluctantly, but I appreciate you bringing it back. Is there anything in the bill that has changed other than the elimination of that one paragraph. We tightened the three things about the communication was only to redistricting. We tightened that. We tightened the onus of the reporting like a juror would be to say the governor or attorney general would have to say, uh, you can make your First Amendment, uh, uh, thoughts on. Districting, but, uh, basically we'd have to be written electronic or communication, and you know, with technology today, uh, you know, We have an online portals to do some communications obviously is much different than it was 2030 years ago when you had to show up at a public meeting or write a letter, so there's a lot of things that can be written electronic easily now as we know, and just for the benefit of the committee, I mean that paragraph. Left it Kind of open that maybe every communication had to be pushed out to the public now with that paragraph gone, the public has to ask for it through a 4 year request. Is that right? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senator Clark here to ask for a question. Senator King On a theoretical plane. I like this bill. Uh, which means I like this bill. Uh As I pointed out before, well, I'll just say yesterday I referred to you as the canary in the coal mine, which was a compliment, uh, and today I will refer to you as Don Quixote. Because this will keep. Honest people From having these communications. And it will not keep dishonest people and according to you, most people around here are dishonest. I never say most people that's not, that's not correct. Well, a lot of them, let's say a lot of them are dishonest and so it won't do a thing to stop them, but I think it's a good bill. Wouldn't you agree? Well, I think it's a good bill in a good direction as anything in any directions, there's consequences, but we do public written comments to all kinds of rules and regulations. This is not an unusual process. The reason I think it needs to be stepped up is because Every 10 years. I mean you can see, I mean, Senator Flippo might, he was here during redi. I was down here in 2011. It was terrible, the backroom deals. I mean that were done to make districts strong for them, these sprigs and stragglers, I mean, center Flippo, do you want to elaborate on any discussion that you saw that you thought was maybe somebody wanted a family member or anything you saw that, I just would like to go back and what's your district number again? Well, I was not here, so I had no communication on Senate District 28, but it is about the impact mainly is as I said to a governor in 200 or 13 when I came in, you know, you can go after one member or do something. It's inner party. It's could be Republican on Republican, Republican on Democrat, whatever, but you misrepresent a community, Senator Clark, for 10 years. And you impact every 10 year vote that we make is to, and that's why I, I'm, you know, gerrymandering to me is such a gerrymandering is nothing more than trying to rig election. That's it. And when it happens, and it's no different than Hudson Hallam destroying mailboxes or anything. It is voter fraud and election fraud to purposely manon districts for special interests or your own special purpose rather than just draw them fair in the first place. I'll just end with this comment. If we can't draw the districts fair on the front end and how can we trust the process for the next 10 years. I agree. And members if you would continue to phrase your questions to Senator King in a yes or no format. That would be appreciated. Originally I thought I was just talking to Peyton and that was it. I was not prepared to do anything or going to say anything until more questions. So I make a motion today. All right. Are there any other questions from members of the committee. All right, see, no more questions. Do we have anybody set up. We don't have anybody set up to for or against. With that, Senator, you're going to close your bill. All right, we're a motion for Senator King, second from Senator Peyton. All in favor. Say aye. opposed. Your bill passes. Congratulations. As amended. I just for your bill passes, yeah. All right, are there any anybody else in here or anything, right, see nobody else in here to hear anything. We are adjourned.