State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

All right, members, we're going to call this meeting to order. All right. First up, Senator Wallace, you're going to be running SB 13. 18, excuse me. You're recognized present, Senator. Sir, Senator Dave Wallace, District 19. Go to introduce yourself. Alex spent in AG's office. Hello Alex. Welcome. Senate Bill 18, uh, is requested by the Attorney General's office. It's an amendment that makes a really good bill, a better bill. Um 2 years ago we wrote a bill that any time we send an issue from legislative audit to a prosecutor that our attorney general's office would be copied as well, and that gives the Attorney General's office the opportunity to to uh investigate that case. Uh, as well as a local prosecutors. What we didn't think about that when we do that, we're creating two reports, one from the prosecuting attorney of whatever county he's in, he or she, and the other from the Attorney General's office, so we've got two identical reports going upstream to the legislative audit. This bill, and the way that's currently written, uh, it means that the AG is supposed to be reporting on matters. That the prosecutor is handling and the Attorney general really has no true knowledge of that. So this bill will cut down the redundancy and the reporting requirements so that the AG only reports on matters that they're actually handling. And with that, I stand by for your questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. There any questions from members? All right, see no questions or anybody here to speak for or against this. I do that. All right, we've got a motion from Senator Payton to pass second Senator Dodson, all in favor say aye. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Right, Senator Hester. All right, Senator, you're going to be doing SB 44 near to take the uh HB 1080 and 10:56. That's correct. OK. All right, let's start with uh SB 44 and work our way down. So members we're actually going to vote on this on the floor today in um in our joint rules. So we, we had a law passed, but as, as we know, one legislature cannot bind the next legislature. And so we are moving this language requiring a fiscal impact study. We're removing it from law, but we are adding it into our joint rules. So actually we believe that, you know, I believe that it's, it's stronger because if we're voting on it each time and it's in our rules that it that it will be there. This was something that Senator Hickey worked on, um, sir, what are you on? 0, 40 you doing 44? Oh, sorry. Sorry. I was printing the wrong one. OK, Senate Bill 44. Uh, OK, so we have two different uh We have two different statutes, one that says, we'll wait, uh, this 12 weeks and one that says we'll wait 30 days for interim committees if we're having a recess. So what that means if we're going to recess for 30 days or more than you can have interim committees starting day one of that recess. Uh, right now we have conflicting law. One says, we'll wait, you, it has to be 2 weeks and one says 30 days. So this is BLR recommendation that we get rid of one of them because when members ask, they always have to say, well, there's conflicting. Law. So what this is doing, this is removing the two weeks and just staying with the 30 days. Um, again, we have two laws saying two different things, and we've got to get rid of one of them. Or we should get rid of one of, one, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when we sign it, when we recessiny diet like we're gonna come back 30 days later. The committees cannot meet during that period of time that they can, uh, again, there's conflicting law. One says if we, if we recess for more than 2 weeks, they can meet another one says if it's 30 days, they can meet, but you're preserving the 30 days. I'm preserving the actually what it's saying is we have to recess for a longer time before you can have interim. committees. So, so if we Remove the conflict. Then we won't be able to have it in our committee until 30 days. No, unless we're recessing for 30 days. So, uh, right now if we were going to recess for, you know, uh, 15 days. Uh There could be an argument that you could have interim committees on day one because you're more than 2 weeks with this law, um, I, I know it kind of seems backwards, but, uh, the deal is if, if we're saying we're recessing for an extended amount of time, the body could say we want to have some sort of interim committee because we're going to be recessed for so long. Um, and what we're saying with this is there that is the recess has to be at least 30 days. If it's going to be for 30 days, then you can have in committees. All right, I'm think I'll explain this a little better if we're going to recess for 4 days like we just did, you can't have interim committees. OK, so I have one more question. So. That's if you reset recess to a date certain. Is it possible to recess without setting a date? And how would that apply? I don't think Jill is in here from BLR. I don't, I don't have a great answer for that, but I, I could have it if uh if, if, if this gets out of committee today would have it by the floor. I'd be happy to come back to committee. I'd just like to know. Thanks. That's a, that's a reasonable question. Appreciate it. All right, Senator Tucker, you're going to ask a question. I was just going to say in response to your question, Senator, on the to the recess signing die if this law passes. There would need to be 30 days between when we recess and when Sony Do comes in order for us to meet in the interim, right? But Under the law now if if the signing that was 28 days later, we wouldn't be able to have an interim committee meetings during that time if this law passes. But the way the law is now, you have an argument if it's 14 or 30 days, but it's in conflict. I'm in support of what you're doing, but I just, hopefully that helps, yeah. Yeah, I think the pre. The question this committee needs to determine is do we want that to be 14 days or 30 days? And uh we need to get rid of one of them. Uh, the speaker and I have picked to get rid of the 14 days and keep the 30. And if the body says no, we want it, we want to do 14 instead of 30, then I'm fine with that. We just got to get rid of one of them. Just If I could follow up. So if we find out that it is possible to recess without a date certain, we would need to know how that applies and whether or not that would be considered more than 30 days or not. So thank you. Serge Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Hester, as it is now. With two laws, then either can apply so the 2 weeks can. It's basically 2 weeks instead of 4 weeks. That's correct. So we're basically doubling the time. Have we had a problem with the two weeks? We, we have not had a problem because at that at that point, leadership of the House and Senate just make a determination. Um, on, on what, what really what they allow and we got a conflict, somebody's going to make a determination. That's how we've been doing it. So what's the reasoning for doing away with the two weeks. Well, the reasoning is we have a conflict. And I think we should do away with one or the other. So that, you know, whenever you ask to have your committee on the interim, BLR can advise you with with a clear what law is. Well, the reason for doing away with one of them is conflict, but currently with having both of them, you can do it. 2 weeks and so we're doing away with the two weeks and I'm, I'm trying to figure out if what why there's been a problem. I mean, I understand. Because we do away with 4 weeks we're basically still where we are. If we do away with the two weeks, we're changing it. I, I, I, I think that's a valid point. As I said, I'm happy to go either direction, this body chooses to go. I'm I'm, I'm happy either way. I just want to get rid of one of them. So we haven't had a conflict with the two weeks. No. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Sullivan, you're our question. So is it a flip of the coin that you came up with 30 days. How did you decide? What was the reason that we chose 30 days over 2 weeks. The reason we chose 30 days was if if we go into a recess, uh, I think members like a breach. Alright, and, and that's what it boils down to just there's a, there's a known There's a known break. Dotson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um and And I, I think I understand this, but more speaking to Senator Peyton's question. I think both, both bodies have to agree if we're longer than 3 days adjourned, so that resolution that we pass in order to do 4 days or recess longer than 3 requires a vote of both chambers and and so I would imagine, I don't know this for sure because. Bill R's not in here to verify, but if we take that boat, that that resolution probably would supersede whatever the rule is that that we're. Scheduled to vote on on the House floor or on the Senate floor today, um, but the Senate rule to the question I might have, Senator Hester, the Senate rule that you're presenting on the Senate floor today that's concurrent resolution for the joint rules. That has the 30 days in it currently. So if we Don't pass this. And we adopt those, then there's a conflict that still exists. However, if we repeal this. The rule as as you're going to bring in it this afternoon will be the the binding one for this body or this general assembly for the ninety-fifth General Assembly. Yeah, that's right. If we don't go this direction, we would also have to go back and redo the the joint rules. But look, that's, that's not a huge problem, right? Like I would just have to go talk with the House leadership and get them, get them to agree to this, to move on, but I, I, I, I care what Senator Clark is saying like we um we have something that We are giving something up. 2 weeks. That that we Aren't currently That we currently have, we'll be giving something up and that thing that we're giving up is the recess has to be longer before we can call in interim committees. OK, Senator Tucker. Recognized Thank you, Mr. Chair. Personally, I prefer getting rid of the two weeks over the 30 days because theoretically that means less meetings. In my opinion, less meetings is better for everyone. Am I right, Mr. Chair? Do you concur? I concur. I'd say that people feel like we're here enough already. Senator, I think Jill's on her way to throw you a lifeline. Oh She's on her way down. OK, good. We, we can hold on this one and Well, I don't want to deprive Senator King. Do you have a question? OK, OK. So I'll tell you what, you just want to remember you want to hold on this and Jill's on her way down, so if we got any questions for for BLR uh with that senator, if you just want to, you've already heard 44 I'll I'll, we can come back to it's just go to 1080. OK. Or 10:56, whichever, let's do 1080. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this is what I actually started to present earlier. This is going to be in our joint rules today. This is, uh, this is removing the law requiring a fiscal impact for something that affects, uh, the EBD budget, um. So the only reason most of us would be OK removing this law is knowing that it is in our joint rules. And again, 11 legislature can't bind how the next one operates. So the last legislature, the 94th General Assembly can't tell us we have to get a fiscal impact study, but our joint rules can. So we're moving this from law to joint rules. Uh, I think it's uh actually it's it's more effective. That waits House Bill 1080. And, and you will see we are voting on our joint rules today on the floor. Our joint rules will have this language in it. I'm happy to answer any questions, any questions from members? Uh, Sarah Clarke, you were gonna ask for a question. So thank you Mr. Chair. So Senator Hester, we passed a law we couldn't pass, is that and we're repealing it now, is that we, we passed a law we can pass, but this this body doesn't have to acknowledge it. OK, so basically it's an illegal law that if you don't have to obey it. Well, that's right. One cannot find the next. So, OK, thank you. All right, I hear questions from members. All right, so no more questions or anybody sign up to speak for or against this. See anybody you close your bill. We've got a motion from Senator Payton, second from Senator Dodson, all in favor. Say aye. opposed Bill passes. Thank you. We'll move on to that 1050 house bill 1056. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1056. Members, I've been working for, um, you know, uh, several months with Speaker Evans, and he's kind of led the charge on this, seeking to set up a joint committee. So I would say from my perspective, much like joint energy, we know that they're dealing with something that's very important, but it is also not a standing committee that's going to meet consistently because there's just not a lot, but we do know is Little Rock Air Force Base is growing. The amount of veterans coming to the state is growing. The amount of growth at Ebbing in Fort Smith is growing significantly. I think the the goal, the goal of creating this new joint committee is just to say to the veterans that are that are moving here and and that are here that are serving that that uh we we care for their success. We want them in Arkansas. We want a committee that's just focused on on their issues. So what we've done is on the House, the Speaker will pick who's on the committee in the Senate, what we have done the intent is just to say that this committee is our military committee. Um, so if we have a joint meeting, this committee will go, Senator Senator Flippo will be the chair of it. And now, next cycle we may choose to change that, but as far as, as far as this bill creating it, uh, effectively state agencies Committee for the Senate will also be our military committee. Alright. Members you've heard an explanation, Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question. Yeah, I can appreciate the Sincerity that this is being done with. I'm really, we have so many committees now and commissions now that really serve no Purpose I can't determine, so right now we have the child and youth, and that currently cover Veterans Affairs. It, it, it does in the house. I don't don't believe that it does in the Senate, but in a joint committee it would hear that. Anyway, so I guess I'm on the, I'm on the child and youth committee. So I'm speaking to these right now as they come up and did I hear correctly that this committee won't necessarily have to meet a whole lot. Anticipated. That's correct. Just, just when the just when the chairman would call call a committee meeting. Yeah, well, let's again I appreciate your sincerity. I understand the the growing veteran population here. I'm just, I'm just not in favor of uh creating new and more committees without a very specific mission with some achievable goals that are stated that this committee is going to meet. We're going to do these, these specific events. I, I have a hard time committing to that. Thank you. Right. Thank you, Senator Solo. Senator Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the way I'm reading this, this committee would have to meet during The session On 103 3302. It says powers and duties. And it says, you know, on line 35 there, page 2, a bill or resolution introduced during a legislative session. In either house Of the General Assembly pertaining to military or veterans, she'll be referred to this. To the Joint Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. So if it's an interim committee, how can it meet during a session if it's not an interim committee, then we're creating a new committee, a new standing committee, what? I don't see how that reconciled that's not the word I should not have used the word interim. It will be a joint committee much like energy. So energy will meet this session if a bill is sent to them. retirement. That's right. But if, if, if there's a bill for military, it will be sent there and then that committee, which would be this committee would hear that if there are no bills filed involving the military, then that that committee would this creates A full blown new committee. Yes, it does. No, no mistake. that is what this, that is what this does. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Same question as Senator Peyton had. I mean this committee would vote on legislation during session. Yes, it would, yeah, but in a joint manner. It wouldn't come to Senate state agencies separately and then go to the House portion separately. It would just be one vote like retirement or energy OK. Alright. Senator Dodson, question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I mean, I I think I'm Generally OK with this particular concept, but just. Because of the earlier discussion that we're having on, on one general assembly not binding and the next general assembly, would this, since this would be going into code, wouldn't this be a better place to be in joint rules for this type of a language to go in to create this type of a joint committee. I think if the chairman would allow, I would like for to ask if Joe could come up and help with this. She'll say our Bureau of Legislative Research. Um, I don't know if you heard the question, but uh we've been talking a lot about Joint rules versus code one general assembly not binding the next general assembly, and this particular bill would go into code, obviously for, for this session we would be binding ourselves, but um it would be in code and we're The previous bill before you got in here and I think one of the reasons you were called down was uh To ask Basically we're repealing or asking to repeal a section of code because it's going into joint rules, um, because one general assembly can't buy the next. Aren't we kind of creating the same sort of situation with this bill, where we would be putting something in a code, but it wouldn't be binding on the next general assembly. So I would say that all joint committees have been created in the code of the joint rules generally are reserved more for procedural matters and not creation of, of bodies. You could include those there if you want to, um, however, the House and the Senate each in their own individual rules have acknowledged the joint committees within their rules to set out, um, who the members will be and how they'll be assigned. So, so the individual bodies would be the ones that would be referring membership to. Joint committee created in code that will be established kind of like. I guess joint budget or or all of those different ones. OK. Thank you. Alright. Senator Clark, you're for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The, I'm interested in both. Hm Reasoning and the procedure, the This is commit new committee is for veteran affairs only, so we're the house, children, youth and military. Most things military are not veteran. So this would be. would be very narrow. Or my reading it wrong. OK, so everything that would mean things that are normally going to education. Like we're gonna allow. Uh, school choice for people moving in, although they're past the deadline, uh, we're going to allow your shirt welding certification to count here all all those things would now go to this committee. That we're creating rather than the committees are going to. Well, I, I would have to say that that would be a call of Philip Treat. I think if it's primarily an education issue, it would still go to education if it's primarily just military. I think it always depends on what code it's altering, but that that would be a call of Philip Treat, but it absolutely could take something from education to military. Well, or in other committees, that's OK if we, if there's a need, the, but this committee Wouldn't be the only other one during session. Well, let me back up. You and I have been here 12 years in our 7th session. I've never seen, I didn't know energy could meet during. Uh, the session, uh, so, uh. That's a new one for me, uh. Then we come up and I was on retirement. When would this committee meet? I don't like Monday mornings, uh. You know, I like to, I like to come in here and, and be here. In time for the Senate meeting, uh, but if it's a joint committee, like retirement where both have to meet together, finding a time to meet. Seems like it would be beyond difficult, um, maybe excruciating, uh, we figured that out? Uh, we leave up times to meet with the with the with the chairman, so that would be for, for the Senate that'd be wherever Senator Flippo found a time. What's the thinking, and this may be a question for you, what's the thinking of making it joint. Rather than have a Veterans Committee on both ends. Well, I, I, I would say that came from pushback from me like the original, the original offer to us was to create another standing committee. And I knew that we'd be adverse. I talked to a few members, in fact, I, I talked to our, what I call our military members, so Bryant Wallace, Jane English, I clearly count her for her life of service. The, uh, and I, and I just asked for feedback on this and, and so I felt like this is where I ended up with with the house and something I thought wasn't a new standing committee but something the Senate might be able to work with. We're going to do something as serious as creating a committee. Uh, that's why we have committee meetings like this doesn't have to be a joint committee, does it? I mean, we could, I mean, on that end, they got lots of members, another committee gives some people a place to go, OK, this end we What you say in this feedback is pretty much we don't want another committee, but we can still make This Basically creating a separate committee but make this state agencies in. Military affairs. And not have to have a joint. Committee to do that. Am I correct? We could do that. We, we almost did that right by just saying rather than creating a whole new committee, we're just making state agencies handle that, but it is creating a new committee. Well, I'm just, I'm concerned about the meeting part, if we having it and having state agencies be that committee, don't have problems with that, but the joint part. I think on down the road, not just if it's next week and a bill gets assigned to it. Oh, I think it's much harder to meet that way. Sure. Right, Senator Tucker. I think you said this in the beginning, but I see the emergency clause. You would expect that committee to meet and operate this session. Yes, if, if we pass it with the emergency clause that this committee would be able to meet to meet this session. That's right. Payton. Which I will follow up with that, which is part of the reason why, you know, uh, we just assigned it to this committee basically or I did in this piece of legislation was because I didn't want to ask our members to pick something during orientation that wasn't even created yet. So the simplest way for us, the House is doing it where the Speaker just appoints. I knew Senator Flippo wanted me to just be able to appoint everybody, but I said no, Senator Flippo, we should probably do it this this way, and I appreciate that while you're the pro temp, sir. She They got the joke. OK, Senator Payton. It's in her song. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I mean, already in this session, I've heard, uh, and maybe they've been filed, but, uh, income tax relief for veterans, sales tax relief for active duty and veterans and, and based on lines 35 and 36 on page two and leading over into page 3. It says a bill or resolution introduced during the legislative session in either house of the General Assembly pertaining to. That's real broad. Pertaining to military or veterans shall be. That's not broad at all. That's. Shelby referred to the Joint Committee on Military. So we're talking about is, is, uh, Senator Clark said, we're talking about bills that are currently going to other standing committees, whether it be revenue and tax or education or whatever like that that are now going to be directed to this joint committee. Is that correct? Well, I would say the assignment of committees is left up to our parliamentarian Philip Treat, but I can, I can get some clarification. I've written, I've written several questions how my intent is once I get all these questions, then I'll hold this bill over. I'll go get your questions answered, but if something is adjusting our tax code, that would still clearly to me go to revenue and tax, you know, there are a lot of times bills fit in two different committees, and it really goes down to whatever that. Bill, what tax or what what code it's going to adjust is where where Philip Treat would have signed it to. OK, well, I don't know how he'd get around the Shelby, if it's pertaining to, but thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, Senator Sullivan. Uh, so when I, when I look at the definition for the child and youth committee in the House Veterans is on there as part of their Oversight and I'm kind of sounds like with the rest of the folks that I don't see the need for a separate committee if we're already dealing with this, so I heard you say you're going to pull it down and find some answers to those questions and I hold it back for a while, so I, I'd appreciate that. I just don't see the need for forming a whole new committee. When I look at page 3, the interim committee meetings, expenses and staff, you know, we already have that. Um, through the house and it seems like we're just duplicating that. by creating a whole new committee. There's, I'd be interested in what the expenses are to create more staff, more expenses. I'm sure they'll be traveling out of state and doing other activities, and again I'd like to see some particulars about what it is that they want to do that they can't do under the current structure. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Dodson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I, I guess the question I, I would have is just as regard to the types of things that are going into military and veterans affairs currently, where do those bills? I mean, I know in the house there's a, the aging children youth Military Affairs and all of that that most of those bills are currently assigned to, so they have their germaneness for this particular topic there. I, I'm just not sure where in the Senate. These things Automatically typically go and I, I've, I've been around just long enough to remember trying to have a joint committee meetings for constitutional amendments between the House and the Senate state agencies during session, and it was brutal like It, it just didn't happen and it was very difficult to get those things together, so having another committee that needs to regularly meet for this particular topic, which is a high priority topic, you know, as I'm sitting here listening, uh, the joint committee I did doesn't seem to be It may be very challenging to be workable, um, during a session, uh, during the interim, I think it's probably OK to have that because we meet quite a bit, but during the session, are, are we, and I'll I'll let you ask the answer the original question if you happen to know or can find the answer to it as far as um Where do those things typically get? Assigned. OK, so they assigned whatever code they adjust, and Philip Treat looks at whatever bill it is, whatever code is adjusting and off that code he has where he assigns it. So I don't know a lot of them would come to this meeting, come to stays, but, hey, tell you. Oh, I, well, you're the lead sponsor here, Senator, but I was going to ask if you'd be open to pulling this down this bill down for today and visiting with Speaker Reins and getting with Philip Treat and then just talking to members. I do think enough's legitimate questions or ways that we understand what we're trying to do with this with this bill, but I think there may be some, you know, some reasonable things we might want to go back and look at and some burbs that might be tweaked, um, and you would be open to that. No, I'd absolutely be open to that, and I would say that, you know, Senator Senator Sullivan's This question like, uh, Everything that this would do, we are currently doing and functioning, the whole point and purpose of this is to saying that we value these issues enough to create a standalone committee. Um, now we may say we're, we're handling that already. We don't need a committee that that that this body will, this body will choose whether we're going to do that or not, and I'm going to be Good. I got a lot of fish to fry this session. This is not one, but, but what I will ask, I'm going to pull this down. I'm going to visit with each member on this committee about their concerns, the questions I've written, and see if we can bring it back. I appreciate that. Thank you. Oh yeah, Senator Clark. Sorry. Yes, if I may before we go off to think about it, uh, if I could redirect Central Peyton's question to Jill. The language that says shall. Is that standard language and creating the other committees, so, so it won't affect. Our attorney in any way just deciding which committee is most pertinent. Correct. That's just standard language to to designate which committee's different subject matters are referred to. Just to be sure of that because it said it and the others didn't, then obviously you would have to go to that rather than revenue and tax whether you wanted to or not. So, OK, thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, Senator Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The same line of questioning, my suggestion if we go in this direction would be to insert the word primarily before pertaining to, and I, I don't know if that word is used. I haven't. viewed the code for establishing the others standing committees, but, but I, I, I get um Senator Peyton's point, I mean, if it pertains, it shall be and, and Senator Hester's answer earlier, which I think is in practice right that if it primarily pertains to reverend tax or education, we'll go there, but that's, that's not the way that it reads, so just throwing that out there as well. Thank you, Senator Tucker. All right. So we're going to pull that down for the day and then we're going to circle back to Senate Bill 44. a question I can OK. And I'll tell you what, Jill, Senator Peyton's going to have a question, so I'm going to let him repeat that for you. Thank you. So my question was if we recess to uh without setting a date certain. Is that a possibility? Can you do that? And if we did, how would, how would it be affected by whether or not that's more than 30 days or less than 30 days or 2 weeks even if if this was still part of the law, so is that possible to recess to a date uncertain and how would, how would that apply to any Limitation we do here. Sure. So there um in my experience of of being here for the last 18 years. There's always a date set for the recess and then coming back to Sannya and the reason for that is there is actually a Supreme Court case dealing with recesses that are indefinite and there was an instance where the General Assembly recessed indefinitely and didn't set a date when they were going to come. back and laws that were passed, um, were nullified. So that's the reason that you've always set a date certain, um, I would have to do a little bit of research to see whether or not that's something that you can do or not, um, but right now that's, that's my understanding of it. So if you, if I could follow up. When was the, how far back in history was that or and I guess my question is. There could be motivation to recess. Without a date. It and if the only punishment was the laws they passed didn't. Become law. I mean, that may not be the motivation to recess. I would have to do a little bit of research and get back to you on that, uh, Senator Peyton. Thank you. All right, Senator Dodson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just as far as um recesses go, uh, it's been my recollection and obviously this changes from General Assembly or or regular session or regular session, but don't we typically recess somewhere between. 2 to 3 weeks. Most of the time, um, after we get done, we say we're coming back for shiny dye and like 2 or 3 weeks somewhere down the road there, so, um, if, if this is to pass and it's just in rule for 30 days. We would have to recess for a minimum of 30 days in order to do any business in that 30 day period, um. Can the leadership call us back in to sign and die before that 30 day recess is complete, or do they have to wait until that 30 day is done in order to sign a, so The general assembly usually passes a resolution that sets your recess and sunny dye dates, and within that it sets out reasons that the president pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House can call the General Assembly back in during that recess, and one of those is to adjourn earlier than the date set, and the date that's set in there is to say that if there's no other business and if you don't need to come back, that's the time and the date that the General Assembly will automatically sign a die. So if that's if this passes and it's just rule with recess for 31 days or whatever it is, we could potentially then have interim committees in that day 2 through 29 or 30 or whatever and then um if necessary leadership could call us back in within a week or 3 weeks or whatever to sign and die of that if that was. Necessary. So we still preserve that flexibility. Thank you. Senator Hener he was. Are we done with questions? OK, OK, Senator King. Clark. So if if we had stuck with the two weeks, then let's say there's a controversial issue that's not resolved, and I've seen some of them happen and then you come back after the recess, you know, it just seems like to me it's just another mechanism where if a member had very controversial issue or there's a big issue, you know, possibly a chairman could bring up a meeting, and I'll turn back to, you know, our rule of like senatorsubble and I wanted to have a meeting on this, you know, proposed. issue, which is a big huge issue for the legislature to have to decide, and, you know, and then you you denied us to have that meeting, so I just see this as another thing that we need to have flexibility where members can bring up meetings and I think that the 2 weeks is a better option because. Say there's an education thing that's not be resolved. Say there's a, you know, a possible cronyism corruption issue which we've had a bad history of down here that needs to be brought up. So a lot of times leadership doesn't want to bring those up or have those dealt with, so I mean, I'm just I would rather see if we're going to do something, have it with the two weeks. I think it'd give more flexibility to members to have meetings without the leadership trying to knock at the head. So, uh, thank you for that. I think there's a big difference between somebody wanting to have a meeting and a political stunt. I feel like your goal is political stunts almost always, and we for my point there, we've been here 2 weeks and you haven't had your, uh, your hearing on the jails or the the prison you're going to have. So my, my point there is like uh there there is reasons that we have waiting periods. It's so members were supposed to be uh, you know, part-time legislatures, and when we, when we move to recess. Uh, it gives members a known time that they can go back to their jobs and work and they know that if we're going to recess for 2 weeks, they're not going to be having interim committees day 123, and 4 of that, that when we take a break, members get an actual break, uh, but certainly leadership could call us back in day one, but I would say if we're going to call back in day one, we shouldn't have recessed in the first place, and the body chooses to recess. The body says, I don't want to recess, then, then, then we won't. Well, but you know, so the little personal thing I'm like Margaret Thatcher when you take personal things, then, you know, it's out, you know, you lose on the argument, but I'm just saying, you know, certainly the proposed prison thing is a $1.5 billion. We're not talking about the right now. I'm just saying we need to be flexibility to have meetings out there to allow things and a lot of times, uh, you know, I know whenever the corruption thing was going on down here, there was a drive to make sure that we didn't have meetings on that. I'll go. back to even Governor Beebe during the forestry scandal where 34 people lost their jobs, and then we find out later that there was a cover up. There was federal funds being used. I mean, there's a lot of situations that we just need flexibility out there. And it's see, I mean, it's, it goes with every governor I've been through, you know, that. You know this is a democracy. We need to have flexibility with members to be able to have meetings to bring important issues up. Like I said, forestry under Mike Beebe, you know, they didn't like having meetings brought up. They tried to knock it in the head because they didn't want the truth to come out and when he a question in there at some point I'm just saying we need flexibility and the citizens deserve it. Thank you, Senator Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The It seems to me That there's plenty of resistance without a rule. That extends it to 4 weeks. Uh As Senator Tucker pointed out, sometimes we're adverse to meetings, we're especially adverse to meetings when we've been in session. For a while, uh, so, and I know if I call a meeting, especially if it's in some kind of special time. I'm visiting with all the members before I, before I call the meeting. The So, you know, I, I, I tend toward freedom over rules because let's take the pandemic. President, we never know when something like that's going to happen that's never happened before, uh. And why taking away the freedom to be able to do that, I think. is a problem. Uh But Uh, having said that, Maybe it's a problem or maybe it isn't because When we recess. But for a holiday, which we normally do, we recess for spring break lately. Uh the recess until Sonya. Uh, can you recess from any, can you recess from a special session? and come back. I want to know, I mean, we're we're making. Change the law and change in rules. Or the possibilities of recessing. At that time, I'm asking both of you. I believe we can recess during a special session. I mean, I, I maybe there's some law prohibiting it, but I know we have to deal with that and if, and sometimes those special sessions could be could go from 3 days to 30 days if there needed to be a recess, but Um, am I wrong on that? So the Constitution just requires that both chambers give permission to each other if they're going to recess for more than 3 days. I don't recall restriction on Recesses during a special session to Senator Hester's point, there's also no time limit on a special session, they could be as long as it takes to complete the business, so I can envision and again and like I said there's so many things we can't envision, but I can envision coming into a special session and something coming up that needed hearings, and again we haven't been in session for 3 months, etc. We've been in session for a few days, so everybody's not tired, uh, but by law, you can't meet. Uh, unless you recess for 4 weeks, which wouldn't be. Practical, I don't even know if that's the 2 weeks is practical, uh, but you've got to have some rules, so uh. Can you say that there could be a reason to keep the period shorter because like I said, there's already a resistance. To the meetings unless they're really important. Uh, and so Can it not make more sense for it to be two weeks and so forth. That's why I said, whatever this body says, 2 or 4, but, but look, all we have to do is go back and get the House to agree if we change it, and if we don't agree to this, then we just have conflicting law and we'll continue to, uh, you know, when we ask staff when can I meet, they'll give us two different answers, and leadership will decide, right? So if, if you want me to have the absolute say, that's, you know, or me and the speaker, that's fine. I would think this body would want to provide clarity on what we want, and I don't care what that clarity is. I just want. clarity. So under this, Under this, the worst case scenario is 2 weeks without meetings. It's the worst case scenario. Right, uh, if And so I think that's why I simply don't care. I just want clarity. Worst case scenario, a chairman wanting to have a meeting and not being able to have one in 2 weeks. Worst case scenario, Senator, I agree with you on the clarity that it should, we know there's a conflict, we ought to clarify it one way or the other. I'm just asking. Is it not possible that the other way may be the the better way to clarify. I would say whatever 5 members of this committee says is the best way to do it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Hester. I mean, I, I definitely appreciate the fact that you're trying to eliminate one of the conflicts. You didn't create the conflict and you're not proposing a rule that hadn't already been made and passed twice with conflicting uh dates, uh. I know in the House rules. Members can Force a meeting if enough members of the committee. sign saying they want to have a meeting, even if the chair doesn't want to have a meeting, they can, they can force a meeting in some instances, and I think we passed a Uh, law that even allows the members of the General Assembly with enough. Supermajority to create a special session, uh. But with all that said, I mean, I, I definitely want to support the membership being able to have a meeting when something rises to a unique level of importance that they're willing to get behind it, and I wouldn't want the speaker or the president down to be able, as one person to squash that, um, so could we go with the 14 days instead of the 30, I think would be my preference just to have things. As as liberal as possible if that would be possible to do that. Sure, um, if that's what we're going to do, I'd rather just pull it down, go meet with Hal, go meet with the House about it. So this is what we want to do that way there's just a, an understanding, but, but the way this is currently read, if we recess for 13 days. As the law currently is, there is no meanings, no ability to have a meeting. The dam, the moment we say 14, then you can have a meeting day one because it's considered an extended recess and um and so if we change this, we'll go from 13 to really 29 days. If we recess for 29 days, there's no ability to have a meeting. That make sense. So really the change is just 2 weeks. Uh In there, so I've I've circled around that a few times, but ultimately the difference is worst case scenario, we can go 2 weeks without a meeting and look at, I, I can count, I see there's enough concern in here. I'm happy to go back to what I would like is some direction from this body if is the two weeks something, if I bring it back, you'll vote for that, right? Fair enough. I think that seems to be the general consensus, but with that, Senator Dodson, Uh Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator has just, just a point if, if the two weeks is the uh is the consensus, I guess. I don't know, is there a necessity for this particular, because this is in statute already, it would just need to be. The Modification of the joint rules from 30 to 14. What am I missing? No, we would have to go back. There's another law that has it for 30 days, so we would have to go back and repeal that other law. So I, I would drop this one, repeal the other law, repeal our joint rules, go back to our, our committees on joint rules. The House goes back to their joint committees on House rules. All this is fine. It just takes a couple of weeks. Yeah, wasn't aware of the other statute conflicting. Thank you. All right, so you're gonna pull Senate Bill 44 down, come back. I should have presented this in caucus last week. Oh, I did experience, Mr. Ester. Doesn't come easily. All right, members, so you're going to pull that. We've already got the um 1056, so we'll see. Yeah. Oh, right. Who else? 3 teams you have a bill. OK Senator, you're going to be taking up, you're running the Senate Bill 12. OK. All right, remember she's gonna be taking Senate Bill 12. Yeah You are recognized proceed with you. Uh, so going back a little past history, I was an election commissioner, a Republican county election commissioner when we were in a minority almost 25 years ago. I've been involved in elections going on 30 plus years ago. If you know, I had been an outspoken critic of voter fraud. There was not just a lot of elections, a few elections stolen in Arkansas due to voter fraud. There was a lot of them, and it's been something I've backed up. multiple times over the years if you look at the General Assembly, we had a member, Hudson Hallam, that was convicted of voter fraud and in one of his interviews afterwards said this is just the way we've been doing it basically to paraphrase what he had said. There was another situation where I got a tip in eastern Arkansas that there were fraudulent voter registration forms, so I went over all over East Arkansas collected those, had a TV news camera go over there and disprove there were several people you'd see a giant. Smith with 3 signatures on there and basically out of that and through a Take exposing that it stopped a lot of the voter fraud that was going on back there. Now I would tell you voter fraud goes on with Republicans too. It's just bad people when they're in law elections. So basically what I'm saying is to get to the point is you have what a situation called gerrymandering, and it's named after one of our founding fathers, and you have a And gerrymandering is the purposeful drawing of districts to have selected interest instead of fair lines drawn with the people. Currently our system now is after the census is done in the legislative districts you have the governor attorney general, and the Secretary of State that are involved in drawing of the districts. I've been very problematic in that. I've seen it with Democrats down here. I've seen it with Republicans where more special interests and people go to the governor's office or who and want bills, you know, our districts drawn for them and communication instead of open communications. Basically what my bill would do was to say it does not change the board of reapportionment. It, uh, and I've talked to some different lawyers about the constitutionality of this, so basically we would say any communication to them, it would be treated like a jury trial. So in a jury trial, if you served on a jury, you have the evidence presented in front of you. It's all in written record and then Whenever, like I say I was on a jury and we went and ate lunch and during that lunch we could still talk, we could still talk, interact with other people, but if it came about the case, then it needs to be in written form or electronic form in a public manner, much like a jury that we expect our citizens to hear a case. These legislative districts are drawn, and it's very important. It's like one of those rudder issues like on a big ship, a rudder under the ocean can turn things, and if you have districts drawn, we have a bad history of, I've mentioned other Part of elections and fraud. We've had several members of our unfortunately go to prison for fraud over the years, so we even have, which is so egregious I don't even know how to begin. You have these people that draw the districts and they turn around and hire lobbyists to help them draw the districts. So you have the interchange of lobbyists, not only elected officials in the drawing of districts. So I have been through two of them. I've been under Democrats and it happened. And I've been under Republicans when it happened, and basically the process should be number one like a jury, like we expect our jurors to have our judicial system that written records should be out there to, uh, and we should have it like that. It's very simple. It's such an important process we think of even one district, how many times you've seen a boat on appropriation bill that may involve millions of dollars that happen, so when you have a situation that we've had fraudulent people using things to do. To get elected. Like I said, voter fraud happened here in Arkansas. It's still can continue to happen and when you have legislative districts drawn by communication with lobbyists, for example, we need those communications to be upfront and honest. They need to be out in front of people. If we cannot have a fair process of drawing the districts, then how do we expect anything after that. To be something that the people can trust. So with that, I'll answer any questions you've heard an explanation of the bill or questions from members of the committee, Senator Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I've always got questions. Senator King, uh, I can't say I disagree with you on your goals. I'm, I'm trying, I may get a little technical here about how this is going to achieve that, but when it says a communication to the board of apportionments. What's that mean? I mean, are, are we talking about a communication from a citizen, a communication with their lawyer, uh, one board member individually or the whole board, the board as a whole, which I think there's 3 members, so a communication to the board of apportionment. I need, I need to know what's going to be considered a communication and whether that would be an individual member or the board as a whole. Yeah, sure, it could be the individual more and it doesn't involve communications actually directly with the membership of the members of the board. So basically, let's say a mayor looks at a district and thinks, well, I want this city, X city to be drawn in Y District and state rep district in the state Senate district, they would simply, it's easy today and the drawing of the districts, I mean with the technology, it's not like the old days I was involved with where you had to just get paperwork out there and try and figure it out. I mean, it is so simple today of the technology of getting districts drawn. So let's say that mayor or that individual, you could set up a portal. You could set up, I mean, we do this with highway department where they have public hearings and they have their own public hearings, so I think the issue is, you know, it's very easy to know what those communications are. And let's say you're an attorney general and you're uh out and about and people are talking to you, it would be like the same thing jurors are can be recessed on Friday and come back on Monday and hear a case, but while they're there, they have instructions to say if somebody's talking to you about this case, just say, hey, it has to, you know, I can't talk to you about it, but you can You know, express a written concern that way we have everything above board, OK? We get rid of the backroom deals. We get rid of the lobbyists coming in. I mean, like I said before, we have this egregious, I can't even believe it happens where lobbyists are now hired to help draw legislative districts. So those people, it just allows the communication to be out there and be upfront and honest and out with everybody. What is, I, I don't understand why we want to continue this process, allowing backroom deals to be changing of votes, whatever we've seen in this process and like I said, I've seen it on Democrats and Republicans. We've seen cities like the city of Alpena up there had 3 state senators and 2 state reps, little town of 300 people had that. They basically ignored that and didn't listen. I mean, so I don't know what else to say. It just needs to be open and upfront. This part about having lobbyists, having more influence in the private citizen. If a lobbyist wants to have an open conversation about it. That's fine. They can do that and put them on the same level as a private citizen out there. Well, and so it's very obvious that it's very important that we elect people of integrity that we can trust because otherwise we'd need a body cam. On them 24/7 to record everything and every conversation they have with everybody over any topic, and The more restraints like that you, you put on whoever we elect, the harder it becomes to find good people that want to run for those offices that are willing to subject themselves to that type of monitoring and supervision. I know in the business world, you know, if I'm gonna hire a manager, there's got to be some level of trust between me and that manager. If I try to put enough oversight on them to know if they have a conversation. With somebody in the off hours. There'd be no way to hire a responsible intelligent person of integrity for that office. So I think it's important that you define what you mean by communication to the board of apportionment and whether, you know, whether that be. Uh The whole board at one time, two members of a board or a single member of the board, and, and whether that be a communication like, well, how's it going on the drafting of the new map, you know, or something in detail. I don't know how you do that. I'm just saying, well, if you look at it, it can be in written form that somebody can write a letter. They can do that, and it would be a public record. It would, it would put the average citizen who doesn't have the connections a lobbyist does, OK, and you talked about your, there's a difference between your private business of hiring somebody in the public's business. The public's business should be out there for everybody to see. Should everybody know it impacts everybody. You hire somebody, it only is segmented to your business. So these drawing of districts are very important. They can even pivot and make means we have a bad history of legislators in either have went to Federal Penn or going to federal pen, so there's obviously a reason that you have the idea of big powerful lobbyists with money influences. Saying, you know what, I don't know if I'm whispered in this person's ear, it would just basically mean that lobbyist is on the same platform as the average citizen out there. It can be an electronic form. We have portals now. The technology where people can do that. If a if a board of apportionment member, Attorney General, Secretary of State, wanted to have a public meeting and get public comment. They can go and show up and they can do it in public comment. So I guess I should have asked, are those communications not already for you? To my knowledge, they are not. I mean, the Board of apportionment in writing when when they have a meeting if they have a public meeting, but the problem is, Senator Paman is very clearly they're having private meetings with lobbyists. Lobbyists, we use our tax dollars now. Our hard earned tax dollars go to hire lobbyists to give them more influence, a more direct connection than the average citizen out there. I, I, I still can't even, it is flabbergasted me of the years of of being down here, the amount of powerful lobbyists that may be hired to whisper in somebody's ear and be more closer to the source of the actual draw in the districts. I want to put the lobbyists. I'm not taking anything away from them other than to put them on the same platform of John Q citizen out there. That's it. And it's clear right here, written communication, let's just have it like a jury trial where everything has to be out there for the public to see. and recorded. Can you imagine a jury system doesn't say that it has to be written. It says shall be written electronic or oral communication recorded at a public meeting. Right, so it doesn't have to be written. It does, it gives a lot of avenues to be communication. It could be somebody that they don't have email, they can, they can, they can write a letter. They can show up at a public meeting, but we need the communication not between the lobbyists. Let's get it out from the back doors, so maybe we should back up. Maybe I didn't understand. So you're actually saying with this law. that they cannot have a communication. Oh no, absolutely, or electronic. They have to have communication out in public the way it should be. I mean, it should be written electronic or or communication at a public meeting. The board of Aortionment, the governor, whoever wanted to have town halls and it's recorded. I guess that depends on how you define a communication because, I mean, that's free speech for them to have communication. Uh, I don't know how you're defining the communication to the board of apportionment here. I, I, I don't know. I don't know. It says it right here. You can write a letter. You can make electronics, send an email, you can send a fax. You can send any, all that communication, it's just, I'm not restricting communication. The only thing I'm doing is bringing it out from the back doors, bringing it out where it's been a clear history of being a manipulative tool to get things done up here inside here. I'm just bringing that conversation out from the backroom doors and the lobbyists and everything else and bringing it out here to the public where everybody can see because it impacts everybody. I'm gonna let somebody else ask a question, but I think we need to define what that communication is. I don't know where shall be written electronic or or communication at a public meeting. I, I, what other communication are you talking about? We're going to pivot over here to Senator Dodson for we got other members, Senator King, Senator Dodson, you're going to ask for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. You know, listen to this conversation back and forth, it The bill, as I'm reading it and it's I've read it like 5 times while we're sitting here and once last night, um. As I'm looking through here, this, this isn't clearly defined as Board of apportionment communications. Whether it's the membership specifically or the The public body, the Board of Abortionments when they're jointly meeting, so. You know, a communication. Naming senators. is not a public meeting necessarily, but if we put senators in here as opposed to a board of apportionment. The way I'm reading it, it would mean any communication that you would ever have with a senator or a member of the board of apportionment in this case, which would be the governor, Secretary of State or the Attorney General would be subject to um would be subject to, to Public disclosure, as I'm understanding it, so that doesn't specifically relate to Map drawing or district redistricting, that's any communication with those members specifically, so Basically it would be kind of like as I'm understanding it, Senator Peyton, you put a body cam on the governor and the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General and follow them around all day every day, and all of that would be uh communication that is, is right now because they are named members of the board of apportionment regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with I'm or anything like that. I'm more than happy to amend it to restrict it down to redistricting process if you want to, you know, I'll pull it down and I'll mend that language that that won't be no problem at all. Well, so if you talk to the governor and that's Governor, I've got this water issue in my district I want to talk to you about. That's fine, but if you say, Governor, I want to talk to you about the redrawing of my district, then yes, I think that should be public. OK, so, so I'm in that. That's, that's an easy fix. Now, if you're having that communication face to face orally, and it's not at a public meeting according to this, then that would not be foable only if it's written or electronic communication, so you could have, you could continue to have any communication that you wanted as long as it's face to face and nothing is written down or recorded. I think if you have a conversation with somebody in the board of apportionment about the drawing of your own district, then yes, I think it should be written. Electronic or in a public meeting the same way John Q. Citizen will have to. The lobbyists down here that are using and are right there next to the to these people and then the communication you can even have with a lobbyist. I mean, the amount of Impropriety that has been, could be seen of this as some lobbyists could go, guess what? I've got 68 bills. I'm here hired by these people and I'm talking to them all the time. Let's talk about the, the, the drawing of your district, which has happened. OK, let's just be honest. We have so many members that have went in corruption in this last few years, that is embarrassing to the citizens in Arkansas. OK, we've, we've had disclosure bills that keep getting shot down here and now we know why they were shot down. So any communication you or I have. With the Board of Apportionment. I, I'll make the amendment and make it a clear, easy fix that if you can talk about whatever issue you want, you want to talk about. Baseball, Bills, whatever, personal things, fine, but if you have a conversation about the drawing of your own personal district. You could have it with the lobby. I don't want you having a, I don't want to have the conversation with a lobbyist who sits there and has clients that may be influential, and he's sitting there with a direct access in the part of the process. We know legislative districts have been drawn to uh for spot, personal reasons, money reasons, all those things happen. Like I said, I'll go back to 2011 when the town of Alpena had less than 300 citizens, 3 state senators. We're divvied up and two state reps. I just want to put John Q. Citizen out there and have them on the same field with lobbyists and everything else that they can any communication on drawing a district. This is a 10 year process of drawing districts. It is influential on so many votes that that person may have that may have made a deal with a lobbyist or been influenced by a lobbyist to do it. So it just needs to be public, but I'll, I'll be more than happy to make a quick fix on your. I don't want the very least. That that needs to be clarified. Yeah, and there's other things in here, but there's that I'll clarify that that's an easy fix. Senator Filippo, do you have any questions Senator King, you know, don't certainly don't want the reputation of trying to quiet you down, but I would ask if you could be a little bit more concise with some of your remarks, um, and answering some of these questions because I've got other members in the queue to ask a question, so just to the point. I feel like we're just, you know, you're saying a lot of the same things about your your motivations and what you see the problem to be and what you're trying to do to fix it, but I think that's understood. So to give you more there's a lot of members say things, but I understand how things want to be constrained down here too, so that's fine too. Yeah, right, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator King, I'm supportive of what you're doing here. Um, and I just, I guess my two questions are, uh, and I've, I, I've kind of following up on the questions Pay and Senator Dodson asked 11 question is, About a single member of the board of apportionment or to all three at once, and whether that if you're going to make Senator Dodson's amendment, I think that's one thing we should, we should talk about. Just be clarified. Yeah, we can clarify that. That's what we have the discussion. That's why I like to run bills early whenever we have a lot of conversation about that rather than batching bill, so yeah, that's, that's no problem. And then the second thing is where staff fits in, so, uh, Let's say I talked to John Doe staffer who's the staffer for the governor on the redistricting process, the way you see it, that with that communication not be covered by this, but then when that staff person talks to the governor, then that would be covered. Yeah, I'm just saying I want to take all conduits out whether it's a staff person or this egregious policy of hiring lobbyists. I want to take that out. So if you talk to a staff person, which back in 2011, I don't know that there's anybody here in 2010. Was anybody here? OK, I'm the only one here that was here in 2010. So, the governor's staff people, people were going to them and saying, hey, you know, I want my district drawn like this. I want my district drawn like that. No, I want to shut that off. So, so communication to a staff person for the governor, Secretary of State attorney General would also be subject to this same as a lobbyist, same as everything. OK, so if you want to clarify that, we'll we'll put that language in to clarify. That's no problem. All right, thanks, Senator Senator Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator King, I like what you're trying to do. I'm not sure, but what you're tilting at windmills, uh, even if we pass this, but uh for those of us who wake up in a new world every day. The board of apportionment is the governor, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General is that Right, OK, so that's who we're talking to, but then we're also talking about their staff people. We are working for I I now I don't know how much of that has to be written down, but I understood all of that when I read this. Uh, that that's what you were talking about. So, But there's nothing that keeps the governor. The Secretary of State and Attorney General Or their people from saying we want, we want to put center Dotson out of his district. It keeps me from talking to him about it. It keeps lobbyists from talking to them about it, but it doesn't keep them as the board of apportionment from having whatever conversations. That they want to have, however good or bad they may be. Yeah, I mean, I think that the first off this issue only comes up for the primarily for the most part is every 10 years after redistricting, OK, so it's not an issue that's an everyday, every year issue, OK? And that's why I'm bringing it up early. So basically, you cannot stop if people want to be dishonest, but also when you have transparency, Senator Clark, you have the ability for John Q. Citizen to know. what they're doing, OK, so let's say a staffer, you know, you're talking to him about a laundry list of issues that are normal legislative business, then I understand. I understand you can talk to him about anything else. I, I, I get it clearly. I'm just saying. That while I like what you're trying to do. I'm going to, this becomes the law, and I'm not against it. Uh, if I communicate with them, it'll be in writing. It'll be in email, or to be in a public meeting, otherwise it's forbidden. I get that, that still doesn't keep the People from doing things other than what's best for the people, right, that's right. But but it allows a better issue to make it harder to catch them when they're not. You're trying to make it more transparent. Absolutely, and I'm just trying to to you, hey, listen, I understand that if we look at a lot of different issues. I went back to the force. I mean, a lot of times when center flippos talking about I mean I've been down here. We had the forestry issue where a lot of this was discovered in Foya. Uh, we would have never known in these 34 people would have never got their jobs back had we not had. For you in that situation, we had the economic development district up there where FOIA brought out a lot of communication. So when we have FOIA and transparency, it puts the average citizen on finding out the wrong actions easier if you close that action off where they don't even know and can't know about it, it makes it harder for them to find out, so it's actually a recourse if there is somebody doing bad. We need the more transparency in government, clearly our founding fathers said that transparency is important, or they wouldn't have talked about it so. much. So they need to know what their government's doing. We need to know these districts are drawn for 10 years. I mean, this, this could be something that can influence votes for 10 years, not just one session. That's why it's so important like a jury trial to get all this out here where everybody knows what everybody's saying and everybody's doing, and we put it on the same level with lobbyists, put them in the same category and have them have not have special rules and special connections and put it out here with John Q. Citizen. All right, Senator Payton, I ask for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Um So I think I can say. Senator Tucker and Senator Clark said, I, I kind of agree with your objective here. Uh, my district was torn all to pieces in the last 3 districting, but uh There's nothing in the language of this bill that limits it to applying to lobbyists. And it doesn't say, I mean, for you is supposed to say that these records are available for people. Transparency is us being able to see what was said. Hear what was said, know about those. That's transparency. This bill, the way it's written, says you can't say it. You can't have the conversation. Unless, unless it's written or electronic or you're in a meeting where it's being recorded, you cannot have the conversation. That's what this bill says the way I interpret the language of this bill. And I keep saying the same thing over again. We stopped the backroom deals. I don't, I don't say you stop the citizen. Who's not a lobbyist, you, I mean, there's people in, in my district that know the governor very well known her went to school with her and been around her. They're not lobbyists in anybody's definition, but you stop her from talking, you stop the members of this board from talking to anybody, not just lobbyists. Unless it's written electronic or or recorded in a meeting. There's nothing that stops any citizen. From stopping and talking about this issue, it just needs to be in public if we either shut the door or open the door. When you open the door, transparency, you either stop a lot of people from doing really bad things. You also allow the recourse, as I've said, of many times citizens have grown up and used for you to find out things that they were doing things that they shouldn't have. This does not stop any of that any more than I'm on a jury trial, and I go out and the judge recesses on Friday. Our whole system is built upon this type of concept and our jury system, our judicial system set up by our founders would collapse if we had the same system that is done with this, with the lobbyists and everything else. If I dismissed the judge dismisses the jury on a weekend. He instructs them. You can do your normal business. You can do anything, but when it comes time about this case, this issue only comes about every 10 years. It should have a higher level of threshold of transparency, especially with the horrible history this legislature's had with corruption just in the last 10 years. I mean, It's like so evident to me to try to say, hey, all this communication and listen, let me just tell you. Gerrymandering and that is nothing different than Reagan election. If you sit there and go, we do not want these people. We, I don't like this person because they don't vote with my business special interests. I don't like this. I want this district drawn the way it is rather than have above board fair, transparent process to allow a process that the citizens know just because one district is not rigged. OK, let's just say it. gerrymandering is rigging an election. It is. And I've said thetais when I was bashed down here for years by Democrats saying there's no voter fraud here and there was, OK, I kept saying it. In this process that I've seen over the years, this process is so corrupted. That we need an above board transparent process that where everybody knows the communication going on. Just because a district is not drawn in the area, it doesn't mean another district is the 4th or 5th time you've said the same thing, so I'm not trying to, I'm just trying to say if we get to the 5th time chairman, I keep getting the same questions over and over again. I don't know how to answer just say I've already answered. I believe my previous answer, you know, you know, I'll stand on that, but you just keep on saying the same things over and over and over and over in the case, I get it. OK, the case is that if you keep asking the same questions, you're going to get the same answer. OK, see what a concise way to answer that question. If another member asks if another member keeps asking the same question, then you can go to them and say, you've already asked this question, and we can stop that process. Senator Senator Payton, are you? Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. So I'm looking at like what you're doing. I like the changes you're going to try to narrow it down so the the very last sentence that says a person knowingly violates the subsection could be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Who's the burden on? So if, if Senator Peyton mentioned a while ago, people know the governor and they see her out on the street and they say, Governor, I'd like you to draw the boundaries this way, uh, is the burden on the governor to report that or the citizen? OK, the burden would be if the governor asked that's the same question's been asked before, so I won't answer that again, but I will say the same situation that's been given before. I won't go through this same answer again after the same situation, but what I'd say is the governor would do like what exactly like I I have to. Answered the same way, much like our jury system to say so then the citizen is also there's a burden on the citizen too, because one could say the citizens should have reported it, and a citizen could be convicted of a misdemeanor because they didn't report it also because we say and if they're going to, if they're going to communicate with a board member that would be a citizen, and the citizens going to communicate to the board member. They're going to have to do it in written electronic or recorded at a meeting, so the citizen There's also a cup could be found guilty if they don't report that. You know, I can clarify that language, but the burden would be like you're a juror on a on a jury trial, and if we, when we went to eat lunch, we said if people came up to us and said, hey, you know, what are you doing? which happened one time when I was on a jury trial, we said, you know, hey, help me if we knew who the burden was on to it we can this is good discussion and I've sit here in Senator Dodson and and that and Clark, and I will, I will try to do that, but the the burden needs to be on more of the border of apportionment to say much. Like I said, a juror has to say, you know, if I'm on a jury trial and Dan, you call me on the weekend and I've, you said, hey man, what's going on with that trial or I've got an opinion on that. I have to say, as the judge instructs me, Mr. Sullivan, I can't talk about that right now. You're going to have to show up at the jury trial and make your comments. Alright. Members, I don't see more questions time, Senator Clark. Senator King The let me see if I can clarify. If I A billionaire businessman or an average citizen want to speak to the governor, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, or their staff. About redistricting. What rather than me being guilty of A crime just for starting the conversation if I was a citizen and didn't know, it would be their duty to say, I can, you can email, you can write or you can talk to us at a public meeting and you're encouraging through this legislation, you're encouraging public meetings and public hearings for people to communicate their desires in this is that Am I on the right track here? Absolutely, we can have this conversation and I'll look at it, you know, amended in the language to to reach each one of you in this and bring up that and clarify it. So that's part of the discussion. But if we were to make the mistake, have a new member who has no idea that this legislation has been passed, which is very likely, and they go. and say here's what I'd like to happen the staff or the office holder themselves would simply say can't have a conversation with you about that according to this law, you can come to a public hearing. You can email me. You can write me, but, but we can't have a private conversation. I'm not looking into mistakes, screw up some bad judgments, those, those things happen. I mean, my gosh, we all speed at some point in time, OK? I mean that that's not, that's not what I'm trying to get at. What I'm trying to get at is the backroom deals, the lobbyists, the drawing of districts for favors, all that stuff, which is clearly happened. I'm trying to get it out here in the public arena where, you know, John Q Citizen comes up to you and and the governor or whoever and says, hey, you know, I know they're drawing this district, you know, I have my opinion on it. All you have to simply say is say, well, you know what, we had a law that because of our a lot of past history of bad things that's happened that people's been convicted of here. We have a process where you can, you can make your views be known, and you put that person on the same transparency, John Q. Citizen, as you do some powerful lobbyist or anybody else down here. Well, next, God willing, next redistricting I'll be a private citizen. The But you have brought it at the appropriate time. Absolutely having just observed the last time you definitely brought it the appropriate time, whether it does any good or not. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And that's a good point, Senator Clark, since that's a new question, I'll answer. Can I answer that one? Don't think that was the question. I think that was a comment. And let me expand on that before I close and say it is the perfect time to address this. None of you sitting in this room will have probably have to worry about redistricting to any large magnitude, and this thing of the governor attorney general, the Secretary of State continue to hold over things on people. It takes away that power and puts it out there and puts the public out there where they have equal power with the lobbyists and the inside things of the bubble. This is a perfect time to bring this up. Right. All right, so don't have anybody else or don't see any of our questions. We do have somebody signed up to speak for this bill. So Jimmy Cavin, if you want to come on up, Jimmy? Yeah, if you notice like first time in this committee, but go ahead and introduce yourself, private citizen, I think, yeah, and then you know Jimmy Kim and process. All right, Mr. Gavin, proceed with your remarks. Yes, sir, I think this is very exciting. With all the issues we faced in transparency. Over the last year and a half to 2 years. This is a welcome to transparency. I think it's a very positive step to show the people of Arkansas, the government can commit to transparency. I think it's wonderful. I think the language and I get what a lot of the senators were talking about, and I think it's very easily cleared up with the amendments. I like what Senator Clark was talking about it boils down to if you're a you simply say, hey, there's something I can't talk about, please send me email, text, communication like that. I think the open meeting law aspect to it is hugely important, and I'm glad to see that language in there. As far as communications and records, I think you just simply look at the definitions under 2519105. And apply the same principle, but I do think Senator Solon's right as far as on the Class A misdemeanor, the clarity needed there, but I think we also have to remember that prosecutors have what's called prosecutorial discretion. OK, they look at intent and I think it's clear the intent of this legislation, if a prosecutor were to look at, and I get the concern about a citizen being charged. But I think any prosecutor that would look at that would say, what's the intent of the conversation. Was their intent to violate the law. And if it's a conversation with lobbyists and stuff, then, then I think that prosecutor would have to make the right decision and say, hey, this is clearly violating the law. So I think to worry about a system being prosecuted over that. Well, I get that concern. The prosecutors are not going to do that. But I think with the amendments that that were brought up they are solid amendments that's going to make this bill even stronger. The one thing that didn't get brought up that I'm gonna contend that we'll get brought up to some point is under the records 25 19105 in the foyer, it's gonna be that the governor's communications and working papers are exempt in the Attorney General's the same exemption, right? That argument is gonna get brought up where you can't do this. Because those are exempt. But that's in their capacity as governor and attorney General. This would be them being on a board. So this is their capacity as a board, so there's no worry about violating their exemption under 2519105 because they're operating as a board and not as their position as governor or attorney general. And so I can see that argument being brought up, so I want to clarify that. Uh, this should really operate. Common sense was the way all boards and commissions should operate. I think the great thing about this bill, it kind of takes a little extra step than those other boards and commissions with the extra step of transparency, saying, hey, We can't have those discussions or here's my favorite word, which Senator Tucker knows I love this word deliberation. Right? And so I think that's a key part of it. If we're going to deliberate about these issues, then we have to do it in public. That is the very definition of transparency. I love this bill. I think it's a positive step forward, uh, for the legislature to show the people of state that the government can commit to transparency. And with that, I'll take any questions. Great. Any questions for Mr. Kavin from members of the committee? Alright, thank you, Mr. Cavin. Thank you. Senator King. Are you going to pull this in. I'm gonna try and OK, so you're gonna pull this down in a minute they came back with the same questions again. I'll be the same answers, so we'll do our best to make sure that doesn't happen. All right, so he's pulling the bill. All right. Anybody else have anything to run in here, Senator Dodson, what bill are you looking at? Senate Bill 56. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Senate Bill 56 is a fairly short bill. If you'll recall over the last few years we have established, we've done a lot of work on the uh the statutory or the the rules and regulations making those rules to where they sunset every 12 years and come up for a review process with 6 roughly equal sized groups, one group. Coming up every 2 years for that that rule review process for all agencies in state government. Well, when the legislation was passed, 4 or 6 years ago, I can't remember when we ran the original legislation. We had the governor establish those six groups with roughly equal sized number of rules in each of those groups and um with group one coming up, group 2, so on and so forth. So we're into that process, I think, into the 3rd rule review group, um, one of the things that didn't really make clear was whether or not the governor could readjust the the the groupings of those rules and so when Governor Sanders came into office. She came in and readjusted some of the groups of rules, which is completely fine. Hey, this is the this is the next group of rules that's coming up, and this is what we want to focus on. There needs to be some flexibility in that as administration on when those come up. However, um, It brought up the question can a governor or administration from one administration to the other, just make sure one group never comes up ever. And so what this legislation would do to say the government may may amend the divisions of agency into rule review groups, but no that won't make it to where any group of rules goes past the 12 year mark, so they can at least Adjust them, you know, for the next term, and the next term or two when they're in office, which groups they want to focus on as long as it's not going to kick that particular group of rules passed that 12-year sunset clause, so Happy to answer any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions from members of the committee? Senator Payton, thank you. Appreciate your work on this, man. I remember several years that that you worked on it and got it done. I know we're not to the point that every rule has been reviewed yet. And what was the time frame on that being done? So originally all rules went through in the 1st 2 years, um, so I think that was in 2018 and we cleared up about 25% of all the rules either got repealed, removed, if you'll recall, we, we came in and so all the rules have been through one review. They all went through initially and then the governor Governor Hutchinson at the time divided them into 6 groups and so I think we're in the group. 2 or 3 right now of that question was whether or not the 12-year clock had already started on every rule, so that answers my question. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Centra. Right, Senator Clark. The, again, and I thank you for the work that you did on this. The, is there a reason? What the. Administration, the governor decides when these What group they'll be in, which then decides when they'll be reviewed versus the legislature deciding. Well, originally this was kind of a new concept we've made some modifications over the years. Originally they were, they were 16 groups with 4 years in each group and um You know, it was kind of figured out in that first group that 4 years was a long period of time where we had Two cycles of general assemblies that were trying to review one group of rules to try to condense that to one group of rules coming up every single general assembly. So there's been some modifications in that, um, the initial Discussions with the governor's office at the time back in 20, I guess it would have been 17 session was to allow the governor as the executive branch because rules are the executive branch function to determine which group. Which group of rules was placed in which group, if that makes sense that it's a huge deal, but is it not a legislative function to review the rules and so therefore to decide how the rules are reviewed. Yes, so As far as though um just making sure that this is coming up, uh. And I don't have a good answer for that other than that's what we decided at the time. Well, I'm going to defer to you because you were the one that Got all this started. Otherwise I'd probably be pushing for the legislature just to decide. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Clark. All right, members, any other questions? All right, see you then. I don't think we have anybody sign up to speak for or against this. They're do you recognize the clothes for your bill. I'm closed and make a motion to do pass. I got a motion second Senator Tucker. All in favor say aye. Congratulations, Senator. Thank you. Alright. Anybody else? All right, see you no further business come before this committee. We are adjourned.