independent Citizens Commission
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Speaker 6
0:00
Commissioner Mays had a conflicting meeting, and so he cannot be here. But because we do have a quorum, I'm going to go ahead and declare a quorum. And just for the record, let's call the present, who's present, so that we have that record. Starting with Clark Smith. Present.
Thank you. Larry McCready? Good morning here.
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
0:40
Robert Husson? Present. Jan Zimmerman? Present. Frank
Speaker 6
0:45
Nguyen? Present. Okay. Pull your mic closer to you, Frank, so when you're ready to
talk, you'll be ready to go. Okay, you have your agenda, and before we begin, I'd like to really thank the
auditor's office for giving us quite a bit of information, and I know that TJ is going to make a presentation that we requested on kind of the history of this commission and what has been done and not done in the past, which I found very helpful in reviewing in preparation for this meeting. I'd like to point out that you do have a copy of the minutes of the last meeting,
and that was shared with the rest of the commission before this meeting, the draft was, and I'd like to ask if there are any amendments or corrections. If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of September 20, 2024. I so move
Speaker 6
2:08
That is Jan Zimmerman. And second. Second. Second. By Mr. Smith. and any discussion, any further discussion before we vote. I'd like for us to each have our mics on when we answer verbally. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say nay.
It is unanimously approved. Thank you. we're I'm trying to train us okay I'm trying to you know my including myself you understand so now as we know I we ask the auditor of staff state staff to prepare this presentation and we have a a screen and you also have a copy of it
in your packet. So I'd like to tender the floor to T.J. Fowler to present the information that's in this, I call it, PowerPoint. Thank you, Chair Tuck and Commission members. And for
Speaker 17
3:25
anyone in the back that can't see the screen, there are copies there if you would like
Speaker 19
3:32
to see it. Last meeting, y'all asked a couple questions, and I have endeavored to
Speaker 20
3:37
create a presentation that covers those questions. So the first section is just going over the constitutional requirements
of this commission. This commission was created in 2014 and its constitutional duties are basically twofold. You have to review and adjust the salaries of certain positions, so the seven constitutional officers, members of the General Assembly, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Justices of the Supreme Court, all the members of the Court of Appeals, circuit court judges, district court judges, and then by a further amendment in 2015, prosecuting attorneys were added to this commission's purview. This commission is also tasked with making
recommendations for per diem expense reimbursements and mileage reimbursements to the general assembly, which you all did at the last meeting. That second requirement is mandated to be given a certain period of time before each regular session, so once every other year. There are some limitations in the Constitution placed on your authority. First of those is this commission shall include in its considerations the overall economic condition of the state of Arkansas at
the time. There's no definition as to how that must occur. I have taken the liberty of including a report that was given by Secretary Hudson from DF&A to the budget committees in the legislature recently that just gives sort of a revenue forecast of the state. I thought that might be good information. Second constitutional limitation requires that the salaries of circuit judges be uniform throughout the state. I know that was a topic of some conversation last
time, so I wanted to highlight that. The commission may not diminish the salaries for the positions of the judges. However, other positions can be diminished. Salary revisions may not exceed 15%, and then if you propose a salary adjustment, there is a public comment period, and then we have to come back to another meeting after that public comment period. So that brings us to the second section of the presentation, which is just a historical overview of the
Commission and I was interested I went back on the website we have kept all the minutes of every meeting every report that the Commission has ever authored any handouts that the Commission has reviewed we're only required to keep that for so long but we've kept it in perpetuity and I think it's helpful and I've included in your packet the initial review and recommendations of the first Independent Citizens Commission. I hope you had an opportunity to look at that. So the first commission had a pretty heavy lift. They had to come in and they had to kind of
determine what are we going to look at? How are we going to make these decisions? And they actually met a dozen times over the course of a month or two. And they presented this comprehensive report and in that report they listed all of the items that they felt like they should review in order to make salary determinations. And I've made a slide that just sort of compiles those eight items into one location. So these were in an order in there. I don't know if they were adding
more or less weight to that order, but I'm just presenting them in the order that they were in that report. So the qualification and skill necessary for the office, the overall level of responsibility implicit in each office, total compensation including benefits other than salaries, travel and necessary out-of-office expenses required for each office, per diem mileage or other expenses received by the officials, any other factors that y'all may consider to be reasonable and appropriate, the overall public interest and salaries in
comparator states. And that is a good segue into sort of a historical salary review which y'all had asked me to compile that shows all of the salary adjustments that this commission has made since it was created in 2015. And I've broken them down kind of by the main category. And I look at the categories as constitutional officers, general assembly, and then the judiciary. So we'll start with the general assembly. As you can see, the changes here, I don't need to go through them
one by one. You've got them in your packets and you can see them. But what I've done is after each one, I've just annualized that increase because that was one question you all had for the judicial salaries. I thought I'd just go ahead and present it to you for all the salaries. And I broke it down into two components. So if you look at the salary adjustment from the very beginning of time with this commission, there's been a 12% annualized increase. However, for all of these positions, but more so the legislature than any of the others, there was a very dramatic increase
in the first 2015 meeting. Just to pull out some examples, normal members of the General Assembly were making $15,000 a year prior to this commission, and it was bumped up more than doubled to 39. So that was a pretty big bump. If you pull that bump out and you look at the annualized increases, it reduces to a 1.4% annualized increase from 2016 moving forward. Similar slide here for the constitutional officers. And again, I won't go through this
ad nauseum. Y'all can review it. There's no point in me just reading numbers at y'all. but the same sort of breakdown. So the governor, if you count the 2015 adjustment, has had a 7.1 annualized increase, but if you remove it, it's a 1.8. The lieutenant governor is an outlier here, and we'll talk about why here in a little bit. I've got some slides that talk about the duties of each respective office. Attorney general is relatively close to the governor, 8.3 annualized, but only 1.8 if you pull out 2015. Secretary of State, 7.4 annualized,
but 1.8 if you pull out 2015. And then the treasurer, auditor, and land commissioner historically have been treated similarly by this commission, and they were a 6.7 annualized increase, but only 1.8 if you remove 2015. Takes us over to the judiciary, and the table looks a little bit different because there's a blank for prosecuting attorneys in early 2015, and then they're the only thing considered in later 2015. That's a result of the amendment and then being added later.
Y'all had asked when was the last time we had given the judiciary a raise, and that was the end of 2022. So there is, if you look back at the other positions, the General Assembly and the constitutional officers, those occurred in mid-2023. So there was a bit more of a delay there, and I think we discussed that at the last meeting. So if you look at the judiciary's raises, their annualized with 2015 is quite a bit smaller, and then their annualized without 2015 is a little bit larger than others.
So it's roughly three and a half annualized if you look at all the adjustments, and that goes down to between 2.3% and 2.5% annualized if you remove that initial adjustment. So, that brings us to the questions you all had about the actual salary increases for state employees. You all had asked, because there had been some discussion at the last meeting, what sort of raises did normal state employees receive in Arkansas over the last two fiscal years since the last time the judiciary received a raise?
I reached out to the Office of Personnel Management and tried to get some numbers, and then I tried my best. I'm a lawyer, not a mathematician, but I tried my best to kind of create this in a way that gives y'all some guidance. So in June of 23, Governor Sanders authorized a 0% market adjustment for all executive branch salaries, a 4.5% base salary increase for those that were ranked highly effective in their reviews. That was about 18% of executive branch employees that became eligible,
and then a 5% base salary increase for role models, and that was 6% of executive branch state employees. And I should state the caveat here, these are simply authorizations. These are not raises. I don't know how many state employees actually received these raises. I tried to go down that road and it just became too complex. So all my assumptions in these slides are going to be, this is the maximum amount authorized, and that's all I can provide. So I tried to provide a median and a mean here. With the percentages we have, there were approximately 22,000 executive branch
employees in 2023. 16,720 of those received no pay increase. The mean executive branch increase would have been 1.1. The mean is just the average if you take these percentages. The median, which is where it falls in the middle line, was a 0% increase in fiscal 2024. June of 2024, so now we're moving into fiscal 25, Governor Sanders authorized a 3% market adjustment pay increase to all executive branch agency salaries, a 1% in addition to that 3% for meets expectations, 51% of employees
qualified, and a 3% base increase for exceeds expectations. 25% of executive branch employees were eligible. I have my math there. I won't read it to you, but the mean here was a 4.23% increase for fiscal 25 and the median was a four percent. So annualizing that over both fiscal 24 and 25, the mean base pay increase was 5.3 percent total or 2.6 percent per annum and the median base
increase was four percent total or two percent per annum for standard state of Arkansas government employees. Hopefully that answers that
Speaker 28
13:57
question that was asked. I'll stop there in case there any questions on that before I proceed? Any questions?
Speaker 31
14:10
Thank you. Madam Chair, TJ, these terms that are in here, like highly effective role models and met expectations,
Speaker 34
14:16
can you give some context to those? Are those
statutory terms or are those just simply terms that supervisors use in evaluating
Speaker 35
14:26
employees? My understanding and I'm a constitutional employee,
Speaker 20
14:30
so I don't fall under this. I don't have the same scheme, but non-constitutional branch executive employees all fall under the Office of Personnel Management, and the Office of Personnel Management every year puts out a review form. So there's an annual review for all employees, and I presume their superiors give them an annual review, and each
year it has changed a little bit over the last four or five years. We look at them in the constitutional offices and we kind of mirror our reviews off of them but they're not identical but essentially it is it can be a a joint subjective and objective review of that employee's performance and at the end you have certain numbers in different aspects and you add those numbers together and divide it by the total number and it gives you what this employee was so it's a it's a formalized packet the reason that the terms changed year to year is because that packet
Speaker 39
15:28
changed year-to-year. Any other questions? One other, TJ. Are there bonuses ever paid
Speaker 34
15:45
as well, or is it strictly evaluated in
Speaker 20
15:50
terms of adjustments to salaries? There are authorizations for merit bonuses. I don't know exactly how those work for all of what I would call standard executive branch employees. They are limited by the authorizations that are made
by OPM, and then I think the line items in their appropriations. So there is some discretion agency to agency for merit bonuses, but I can't
Speaker 46
16:23
question? All right. Moving on, Section 5, elected official salaries, comparators, and job duties. And I
Speaker 20
16:30
kind of took the liberty to do this one a little different than we have done it in previous years.
If y'all don't like it, let me know, and I'll go back to the old way. But in my review, and I noticed this last year, excluding the judicial positions, it's very difficult to make state-to-state comparisons for many of our elected positions. And I'll use the offices that I've worked in as an example. In Arkansas, the treasurer of state's primary responsibility is the investment of state funds and being the state's bank. In other states, the investment of state funds is run by an entirely separate agency or office. In the auditor state's office where I work now, one of our primary
functions is the administration of the unclaimed property program. We also print out all state warrants and we act as the state's accountant. In other states, the treasurer does the unclaimed property or even the attorney general does the unclaimed property. So it's just not an apples to apples comparison. I do think looking at the salaries of these other states is good just to know, to put ourselves in context. But as you get further from governors and judges, it's harder to say, well, this governor in this state makes this and so our governor is the same. It gets more
difficult. So what I have endeavored to do, I have started with the salaries in the other states, and I would love to thank the judge who was here last time, and he had that great infographic that was state by state. I totally robbed this from him and made my own because I thought it looked so much better than just listing it. So these are the governor's salaries for the states that are nearest us, and I limited our review to that. I've got in here, I've got governors,
I've got attorneys general, and I've got secretaries of state. I stopped there for the reasons I just mentioned. Auditors, treasurers, land commissioners, I just don't know that it's of a whole lot of value to look at those salaries in other states. But again, if y'all want me to provide you all with that information in the future. I'm happy to do so. Instead, what I did was I reached out to every single one of those constitutional offices, and I asked them to provide me with a list of the primary duties of that office. And from that information that I
received, I created slides for each office, just sort of listing the primary things that they do. So you can kind of understand what the governor does. And even I, who work in a constitutional office. I know generally the big ticket items, but there are a lot of small things that maybe the general public doesn't appreciate. So for the governor, their executive powers, obviously they're the chief executive, they ensure the execution and enforcement of state laws, and they're the chief administrator for state government. The governor has legislative powers to call special
sessions, to veto laws, budgetary powers. The governor oversees DFA, the Office of Accounting, so they're responsible for preparing the state budget and submitting that budget to the legislature to inform the legislature's power of the purse. They have appointment powers, and I know people in here are aware of it, but those appointment powers are vast. There are tons of boards and commissions, judicial and executive vacancies, and the governor is solely responsible for making those appointments, as well as the heads of all the state departments.
Emergency powers, they respond to emergencies and disasters and work with Adam over at Camp Robinson whenever we have natural or man-made disasters or emergencies, pardoning powers, commutations. The governor is the commander-in-chief of the Arkansas National Guard, and the governor is our diplomatic representative for Arkansas at a national level in D.C. and abroad. Lieutenant Governor is an outlier here. This is a part-time
position. The lieutenant governor presides over the Senate with a tie-breaking vote, serves as acting governor when the governor is out of state, and is first in line of succession for the governorship. The attorney general represents all state officials, departments, institutions, and agencies in legal matters, initiates civil lawsuits under all state and federal environmental protection law statutes, excuse me, maintains and defends the interests of the state in matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courts, provides formal
legal opinions upon request to a number of elected officials, provides legal advice upon request to state entities regarding the purchase of property, and I'll even add to that for state agencies that don't have in-house legal counsel, they act as their in-house legal counsel. The Attorney General is tasked with the civil enforcement of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which is essentially our Consumer Protection Act here in Arkansas, represents state and ratepayers in utility matters before the PSC, is authorized to investigate and
bring cases regarding abuse, exploitation, or neglect of nursing home residents or fraud against the Medicaid program, and the Attorney General acts as the state's lawyer in litigation involving state offices, agencies, or interests. So if the state is sued, they're the state's lawyer, or they may just step in on behalf of the state if they feel the state has an interest in some ongoing litigation. And I thought this was helpful. Some of the offices provided this, just kind of a snapshot of what the employees look like in the office. They manage an office
of 174 full-time employees, including 76 attorney professionals, and those attorney professionals earned salaries between $84,000.18 and $199,999.90. Brings us to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is the Chief Elections Officer for the state, maintains all of our election records, assists county officials with conducting federal, state, and district elections. I have a typo there. I apologize for that. Ensures compliance with all state and federal laws such
as the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, oversees training on the state's electronic voting system, and works with federal and state authorities on cybersecurity to ensure safe elections. The Secretary of State also handles all our business entity filings and commercial services. So if you have a business or corporate entity, an S-Corp, an LLC, you're required to file that with the Secretary of State and keep up those documents with the Secretary State. They house all those documents and handle all those filings and fees. They record trademarks,
file notary or e-notary public certifications, authentication of documents and apostolates, and records uniform commercial code filings. One thing that's, I believe, unique to the Arkansas Secretary of State is they are also responsible for this building that we're in now. They run all of the Capitol services, the facilities, so all the preservation and protection of the Capitol building, as well as the surrounding buildings. They have a very large maintenance and custodial service crew, and they noted that the state Capitol is 287,000 square feet.
They maintain the lawns, the plant beds, the parking lots, the walkways, and monuments over the 25 acres. The Secretary of State also commands the Arkansas Capitol Police Force, which is 30 sworn personnel and three staff, and the Secretary of State is an ex-officio member of the Capital Zoning District Commission and is chair of the State Board of Election Commissioners and the Capital Arts and Grounds Commission, as well as an ex-officio member of the I&A Board. What is the I&A Board?
I don't know. I apologize. The treasurer of state is the state's banker. They take in approximately $70 million in daily deposits from the various local, state, and federal sources and credit those deposits to the proper accounts. They process 2,000 to 3,000 checks and reconcile 3,000-plus accounts daily. The treasurer of state oversees the state's investment portfolio, which is currently around
$11 billion. That's a fixed-income investment portfolio managed by four investment professionals. There are 12 departments in the Treasury. Investments, investment accounting and compliance, legal, local government services, receiving and warrants, cash management, public engagement, information technology, governmental affairs, public information, 529 and ABLE. Those are the accounts for college savings and for people with disabilities, and financial education and HR. There are 35 full-time employees with salaries ranging from $41,000 to $142,000, and the
Treasurer of State sits on a number of boards and committees, including the State Board of Finance, Teachers Retirement Board, APERS, ADFA, the Highway Retirement Board, the Rural Endowment Board, the 529 Board, the ABLE Committee, and the Financial Education Commission. The Auditor of State, the office that I work in, is the state's accountant. It was originally created as a check and balance to the state treasury. It is granted executive branch audit authority, and the auditor's office issues all state
warrants, which is Arkansas government's fancy word for a check. We actually print every single paper check that comes out from any government agency upstairs in the Victory Building. They handle both the paper and electronic warrants. The auditor's state, which is the reason we're here, is the payroll officer for all state elected officials. We also administer the Arkansas Unclaimed Property Program, which you may know as the Great Arkansas Treasure Hunt. The auditor is the ex-officio member of the State
Board of Finance, APERS, Teachers Retirement, and the Arkansas 911 Board, and it provides staff to this commission. The auditor manages an office of 30 full-time employees earning salaries between $32,000 and $154,000 a year. The final constitutional officer is the land commissioner. The land commissioner researches, notifies, and collects for payment of delinquent property taxes, conducts public auctions of tax delinquent properties and online auctions of unsold
properties, processes applications for former property owners to receive excess proceeds from sales of delinquent properties, upholds public trust responsibilities and maintains submerged lands and navigable waterways in Arkansas, serves as leasing agent for natural resources on state lands, processes requests for patent information and applications for emerged land deeds, and serves as custodian of Arkansas's original land records. If you haven't ever been downstairs in the basement to see those original land records, they're actually quite interesting.
uh the general assembly and i put this one together myself i didn't reach out to the general assembly for this so if this is this is no good y'all can blame me uh it's a bicameral body with 35 senators and 100 house members it's a part-time position regular sessions and odd numbered years fiscal sessions and even numbered years those sessions start i believe the second monday in january of each year and they're supposed to last 60 days but they're generally extended by vote of the board. The Governor can and often does call special sessions. The General
Assembly is responsible for making and amending laws, has the power of the purse, controlling the budget of the state of Arkansas. House members serve two-year terms, and Senators serve four-year terms. And that concludes my presentation. I apologize if I've been long-winded. I hope it
Speaker 6
28:33
was helpful, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you very much, TJ. I really appreciate that. It is very helpful as we move forward in looking at those figures between 2000, you know, the original commission's work, which I will tell you, I know it was a lot of work because getting anything started is a lot of work.
And then looking at the median and the mean, averages both annualized over all those years and then just for the years since the big raises. Later on in this meeting, we're going to have a discussion about the issue of not requiring requests for raises.
And the bottom line here is that, as with any group of elected officials, they're less inclined to ask for a raise. And that was the reason why this commission was created, because they were less inclined to ask for a raise. And that's just human beings. I'm not criticizing them for that. And so, you know, we need to have that discussion after we go through the agenda
because we certainly don't want this to happen again in any category. So any questions of TJ? Comments? Remarks? Well, thank you so much. Very helpful. We'll go to our next item on the agenda, which is the continued review of salary adjustment requests for circuit judges, court of appeal judges, state Supreme Court justices, and state district court judges, and prosecuting attorneys.
And in the review
that TJ did, you had quite a bit of
that information. So in terms of the salaries, and as we know, when we were here last time, the president of the Judicial Council gave us this, hang on, it was blue.
It was well done, of salary comparisons and for the purposes of judicial salaries. So we've had access to that. Just for a review, in the Supreme Court salary comparison, Arkansas is number 28. So it's basically in the middle, sort of. But it's within the states, and you can see that there, I thought this was a really good, much better than we got in past years, showing basically light is 100,000 to 149,99, then the next level kind of a pastel blue, I'll call it that.
$150,000 to $199,9999. And then the dark blue is where we are, $200,000 to $249,9999. And then black is over $250,000. So for the Supreme Court level, it is in that dark blue. Then in the Court of Appeals Salary Commission comparison, it is number 22, so at $197,596.
So you can see where it rates with other states. And, you know, in connection with what TJ said about comparing salaries of constitutional officers around the nation and comparing judges' salaries, it's a good way to compare because even though our systems, our judicial systems,
have some variety in them across states, judges are doing basically the same thing. And whether you're on the appellate court or the trial court or the district court. Here the circuit judges are number 24 with 192, 919. So it's, they are in the middle of what I'd call the, it's not the dark.
In fact, I don't see any black on circuit judges. There's no black, whereas there is in court of appeals, and it has to do with the level. that judges are paid. And then, um, court of appeals salary is in the mid-range of its color level. And then finally, uh, the Supreme Court is in the low range of its category. So I just wanted to go over those before we have our discussion. And we've also been given the, um, the information
given August 22 about the state's current fiscal condition, or at least its estimate. That's the best we can do until we get into the session. So I'm going to open the floor now for revision. I would like to offer the opportunity to any representatives who are here to speak on behalf of these salary adjustments for all levels of judges and prosecuting attorneys.
If you would like to speak, please, I think this would be the time to speak. Anybody want to make a statement? And I know we've got Court of Appeals representative here. we've got Marty Sullivan, we've got Sandra Kay Palmer. I've got a cousin named Sandra Kay, sorry. Kay Palmer. And then for prosecuting attorneys here, Bob McMahon, right? And then,
I'm sorry, sitting next to Judge Harrison. Okay,
Speaker 57
35:54
thank you, thank you. Okay, thank you. I apologize
Speaker 6
35:59
for that. So please, if any of you would like to speak, please come forward and take a microphone. What is this?
Speaker 58
36:10
Lawyers don't want to talk? Oy vey, sorry.
Speaker 6
36:19
Anyway, I'm opening the floor for discussion now among our commissioners. Okay.
Speaker 62
36:30
Yes, please. Okay. Well, first of all, I mean, I appreciate the information, TJ. It gave me a picture. And I think when we were here last, it was, you know, we didn't recall as to why the judges were overlooked in the grand scheme of things on the last revision for all other positions.
So now that we have data, I believe that we can, you know, I think we have a path forward if that's what we so choose. I mean, what I noted here from the data is that, you know, while the, you know, other state employees, you know, annualized, it looks like the rates were somewhere around 1.8, 1.9 percent. You know, the judges were somewhere between 2.3% and 2.5% over that period.
So my thought, that's the range we need to operate in based on
Speaker 6
37:45
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I will note, in connection with what Commissioner Smith has said, I did, and I will tell you, it comes into the next agenda item.
The letter that the judges sent for 2023 unfortunately did not reach the auditor's office until this year. And that brings up the issue of should we wait for requests. So I want to apologize for that, but it certainly wasn't the Order of State's fault. And then I think that plays into we are now in 2024 going forward to 2025, how that failure, for the reasons I mentioned, to raise the judges' salaries should have any impact on what percentage is chosen.
I just raised that since there was no raise for judges in 2023. So, yes. Chair, this is a really
Speaker 34
39:12
basic question, but it's not clear in my mind. When does the fiscal year end? Like, what is the time periods we're talking about? We're mentioning, and there's data in here about fiscal year ending 2024, fiscal year ending 2025. Can you clarify that for me? It is July
Speaker 20
39:30
1 to June 30 as a state fiscal year.
And the way, just so you know, I try to put FYE so it's very clear, but the way the state looks at fiscal years is whatever number is at the end of FY is the last year in that
Speaker 72
39:48
fiscal year. Yeah. So we're in fiscal year
Speaker 75
39:56
Thank you. Right. Exactly. Madam Chairman, I think that it's incumbent upon us to add that it was certainly by no fault of our judges. Right. Their information was not received, and I feel like that we need to go back and correct that part of the equation as well as moving forward and looking at what things are to be.
Speaker 77
40:17
Yes. Thank you. Anything, Mr. Husson? Yes, ma'am,
Speaker 79
40:26
Commissioner. I guess the question or concern I'd have is if we're talking about the judges in this regard going back and reviewing a year that was missed, it looks like we have other areas of years that there was not a request made that taking that same logic, meaning that we missed reviewing. I just want to open that as a discussion.
That's opening up the opportunity of the door for us then to feel like we're going to have to accommodate that group as well. I understand.
Speaker 75
40:57
I understand. To your point, I would add that in the past, we have gotten notice from different groups that they did not want any sort of increase. Do we have record
Speaker 79
41:08
of that for years so that we don't take that into consideration? Yeah, yeah. Please,
Speaker 20
41:14
TJ. All the requests that have ever been made are saved on the website.
And just as Ms. Zimmerman mentioned, some of the years that seem to be absent in the tables, the salaries were considered and the decision was made for no raise to be made in
Speaker 43
41:30
those years. I don't know if that's true every single year, but just the absence of a year, I don't think necessarily states that there was a failure to consider the salary. Thank you. Mr. Gwinn?
Speaker 89
41:50
I feel like probably the higher the pay, the better quality we'll get. Because today, lawyers can make a lot of money. Correct. If they hustle or they work. But the quality means a lot to me.
Speaker 93
42:13
So with that, I'm with, I'm here. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 6
42:21
I do want to say that, and I mentioned this at prior meetings, having been in private practice, and I'm sure Mr. McCready can talk about this too, as being in private practice. Lawyers can make a lot of money, more money than in public service. There's no doubt about that, but some lawyers don't make very much. It's hard work, and it's time-intensive, and unfortunately, our state has a real shortage
of lawyers in rural areas, and it's, you know, we've got to figure out, and the law schools are looking at that, of how to attract lawyers, because we've got counties, and I'm sure, Marty, you can talk about this, where there are aging lawyers wanting to give their practice or at least sell their practice to a young lawyer, and they can't attract the young lawyers.
and that's creating a real problem on access to lawyers but you know so it's kind of like the doctor problem in Arkansas getting doctors in rural areas but um when I came on the bench I certainly could have made a lot more money than being on the bench but it was it was in in my case it was a calling so i made made
the call um but you know i agree with you that we need to have
uh we need to be able to attract good quality and does anybody else i mean larry would you like to address that issue
Speaker 34
44:22
uh madam chair i think you hit the nail on the head uh you know i think this is the great question that this body faces is how to balance certainly the need to attract qualified lawyers who want to serve on the bench. They're vital. But at the same time, I do think it's
important not to overgeneralize the incomes that all lawyers make, and it's so much better in private practice. It can be, absolutely, it can be. But I think that's the great challenge that
Speaker 6
44:58
we face. Thank you. Any more comments by any members of the Commission? Any questions? Well, I'm going to open the floor for a motion,
and then once the motion is made and seconded, there will be further discussion. So, I'm not making
Speaker 75
45:33
a motion. Madam Chairman? Yes. I'd be happy to make the motion, but I'm not exactly clear on the wording of the motion to be made.
So, could you give us a recap of how I should word that? Go ahead, teacher. Any increase? Yeah. Mr. Zimmerman, you have wide
Speaker 46
45:51
latitude to make the motion any way you want to make it. If you want to
Speaker 20
45:56
make it as a percentage annualized, you can do it that way. If you want to make it as a percentage over the total period where the judges haven't received a rate, and I assume we're still just talking about judges right now, you can do that. If you want to come up with a dollar amount, you can do that. If you want to do something completely different than what I just suggested, you are free to do so.
Speaker 46
46:16
I know that is the least helpful answer. you have received in a long time, lawyers
Speaker 75
46:26
are good at not helpful answers. I apologize. That's okay. So I would like to address when there was no increase considered due to, it sounds like a male problem, but by no lack of action on the judge's part. So someone please help me with this for the percentage. Was that the 4.5 that
Speaker 10
46:44
someone mentioned? Let's see. Let's go back and look.
Speaker 46
46:47
so I'm doing this correctly. I can go back to a slide up on the
Speaker 17
47:04
projector if you'd like me to. Yes, let's do. Are you discussing the percentages for just general state employees? Is that what you're looking at, or do you want to see the
Speaker 110
47:10
percentages for the other officials? No, sir, just for the judicial. Understood.
Speaker 63
47:17
I just passed it. Have we missed one fiscal session or two
Speaker 20
47:46
fiscal sessions? The last time the judiciary and the prosecutors received a raise was on November 18th of 2022.
Speaker 20
47:56
have been in the middle of fiscal 23. And one thing I guess I should mention is, unlike appropriated raises for other state employees, When y'all make a recommendation, it doesn't have to begin or end on a fiscal year. The Constitution basically states that after the public comment period, if y'all's decisions are ratified, you file those decisions with the Auditor of State, and those raises go
into effect 10 days after that filing.
Speaker 114
48:36
not run fiscal year. Okay. T.J., would you mind to remind the commission again what was requested
Speaker 55
48:44
by the judiciaries? Yes, I would love to remind you of that, but it will take
Speaker 118
48:51
me a minute to fill that document up. I mean, I've got a letter dated July 19, 2024, from the Arkansas Judicial Council.
And he gave a range of what other state employees received. And that was between 8 and 11 percent. Not taking your, between 8 and 11 percent. But where I got confused on it was that cost of living plus performance? Because it sounds like the performance rules can change year to year based on, I guess, how the valuation process is set up. I don't know that. Is that the case, TJ?
Speaker 20
49:32
I can agree with part of what you're saying. So I can talk to you about base salary increases because that information is available through OPM. When you're talking about one-time bonuses, that sort of thing, that is agency by agency. I think it's determined by their budget. There's just no way for me to give you a global answer there. So the information I've provided you is the authorization for pay increases, but not for any merit bonus that may or may not have been permissible in those fiscal years.
Speaker 6
50:09
So would it be accurate to state that 8% to 11% is not really what happened in terms of authorization? I mean, it was an average, but it's not actually. There are too many categories of the authorization. For base salary
Speaker 20
50:30
increases, that is not correct. Now, I don't want to say that those numbers are completely incorrect because they may be taking into account some bonuses
that some state employees received that were one-time bonuses in those years. I don't have access to that information. The only information I can
Speaker 85
50:48
provide is what actual pay raises were for state employees in those years.
Speaker 75
50:58
Okay. Thank you. Would you like to proceed? So I'd like
Speaker 10
51:04
to discuss for another minute. So according to the letter from Ken Coker, dated July the 19th, 2024,
it does remind us that the judges have not received a salary increase in nearly two years. Nearly all other state employees in the meantime have received salary increases between 8% to 11%. I'd like to hear from other
Speaker 75
51:30
commissioners because I feel like we failed to not consider this even earlier. You don't
Speaker 131
51:40
want my opinion, but my opinion would be somewhere around 10%.
I feel like if we're trying to attract, I don't know how to answer it, get a better group to run for these offices i feel like we got to get the pay up i mean and you take inflation over the past two years i mean that go to the grocery store i had a friend call me and said he's stronger because he can carry a hundred dollars worth groceries in one arm but at the end of the day we've got to keep the good people there my opinion now that don't mean
nothing but that's the way
Speaker 6
52:29
I feel. One option just to put it in play and and see and be sure that this can be done accounting wise okay is to have a bifold recommendation which means a raise for the current based on the current salary which is from 2022 okay a certain percentage and then another percentage on that
amount the total amount from the year from the three percent so it would be graduated in other words, if we had done it properly, setting aside all blame for anybody in this, then there would have been a raise in 2023, and then you could have that amount figured, and then on the total amount created for that, another percentage, and then you get the cumulative
effect. I'm just pointing out that's one possibility. Madam Chairman, that makes
Speaker 75
53:45
total sense to me. Would that be a TJ question? That is totally permissible if that's the way
Speaker 20
53:54
y'all want to do it. Obviously, giving a 2% raise and then a 2% raise is greater than giving a 4% raise. Right. Exactly. That makes sense,
Speaker 10
54:09
if that's what y'all wish. i'm still not totally clear about the percentages of the two percent and then the two percent
Speaker 75
54:15
and we've been asked from eight to eleven percent so well what i would like to know tj i was just
Speaker 20
54:23
making up numbers i'm not suggesting that two percent is too high or too low i apologize that's just an example might i also say that you could give ten percent and ten percent and that would be
Speaker 6
54:37
more than 20 percent. What I want to ask, and I know there's a record, and maybe you can pull it up, and maybe the judge, maybe Marty, you know, what was the percent, well, this is interesting.
it's up to us i mean there was no percentage given to judges in 2023 what was the percentage given in 2022 i can't remember madam chair appears okay five percent okay madam
Speaker 79
55:19
chair according to the numbers that tj's provided It looks like 7%. Okay.
And then, as I'm trying to get a comparison, I looked at the executive officers. They were the only ones that were given for this committee or this commission were given a raise in 23. Right. They were given a raise. And that was, they had missed for 22 as well. Right. So, two years. Right.
Speaker 6
55:41
And it was a 3% raise. Yeah. They did not want a raise in 2000. Gotcha. Early, in 2022. So, that total was what? Repeat? 3%. 3%. Okay. Okay. Mr. McCready.
Speaker 34
55:56
Madam Chair, my input on this is, and I want to point out a little bit, I am a little sensitive to this question because I practice in front of many people that this will affect. But I look at the annualized increase that is on the next slide here, and I do think that because there was such an imbalance that was corrected in 2015, To me, the numbers that I look at that are most compelling to me are the numbers that have the adjustment in 2015 removed.
So I think the 2.5% increase annual is in the range where we need to be. And that's not a reflection on that somehow I think that the judiciary is overpaid or they make too much or I don't want to reward them for the hard work they do. That's not the case at all. I am a little concerned about getting up in 10 percent about what the precedent that that sets in years going forward because we do have a duty to consider the overall economic impact in the state and in the economy and how other people will view that.
And so I do want to remain sensitive to that and in no way mean to reflect at all that that is somehow thinking that anybody on the bench or in the prosecutor's offices are unworthy of such an increase. No, that's understood. I do want to keep that in mind as we go. And so, you know, I will say that in looking at this, I do think the 2023, the failure to address this at that time, I do think we need to take that into account, and I think we need to make up for that.
But I think it, for me, it's more in
Speaker 144
57:42
line of what we're seeing with those annualized increases we saw from after 2015
Speaker 6
57:48
when sort of that larger adjustment was made. Well, you are correct that, you know, the other was the catch-up year for many years of not having increases. So I'm looking at the fact that we do have to balance all those factors.
The state's financial condition and what we have historically done, how it really played out. And then also, we all know that there's a perception in the public. It's not that we want to penalize judges
for that. That is not at all. But I do think
the remarks you have made about annualized, what I'd call gross annualized as opposed to taking out the 2015, is deceptive because we really needed to raise them substantially because we were way behind the eight ball.
So I'll tender it back to Commissioner Zimmerman and ask you to, if that's clarified anything for you, I don't know. It probably is just like TJ's advice, you know. So my question
Speaker 75
59:20
to you, Madam Chairman, will be, do we in fact need to have
Speaker 10
59:26
or do I need to make a bifold recommendation or should this be two separate motions? to, A, go back and correct in retrospect at the time that we missed,
and then a second motion then going
Speaker 6
59:46
done together because it is part and parcel of the same. You know, we're not saying you're only going to get this amount. We're saying you're going to get both amounts. So I would recommend one motion. Okay. So
Speaker 10
1:00:06
at this time, I would like to make a motion that we go back and correct in retrospect the time that we missed raising our entire judiciary and to make them hold during that time period at an annualized increase
of 2.5 percent, and that would cover the time that was missed from, I think that would be from 22 to 23, and correct me if I'm wrong, in addition to an additional annualized increase of another 2.5 percent moving forward in this fiscal year. Does that state it
Speaker 20
1:00:48
I just need to clarify one thing. You talked about retrospectively fixing things. We cannot go back and change the salaries they've received before.
I don't think that's what you meant. No, it's not. But I just want to make it clear that whatever changes we make would only be going forward. So to the extent you believe that there was some back pay that would be owed, the only way you could effectuate that is by changing the percentage now and moving forward. Is
Speaker 151
1:01:18
that clear? Are you talking about one percentage then? I'm
Speaker 43
1:01:21
not talking about any percentages at all. I'm just trying to give information.
Speaker 20
1:01:28
Is that 6%? Well, no, your two percentages I think are appropriate, if that's what you desire. 2.5 and
Speaker 57
1:01:35
2.5 on the total, which comes out to more than 5. Correct. Yes, more than
Speaker 34
1:01:44
5. Go ahead. Well, I'm not very good at math. Maybe Rob is better at doing those numbers. But my only thing in suggesting six is if we adjust such that it was a 2.5% increase for 2023 and then we do another 2.5% this year, that would be larger than a 5% increase.
And so I don't know where the math works out onto that, but I'm certainly comfortable rounding up and saying we do a 6% increase for this year that would adjust, would handle that adjustment for what
Speaker 34
1:02:17
not by fold? Not my fault, or we could do two and a half and three, or whatever, I'm not trying to correct yours. I'm trying to maybe simplify the
Speaker 54
1:02:28
thinking on it. The calculation. Robert, you're the mathematician, I understand.
Speaker 6
1:02:37
He's using his cell phone. You know that there's calculating going on here. I
Speaker 10
1:02:45
just want to make sure that we're covering them in a way that is certainly deserving for the educational level and the time spent for what our judiciary takes care of. Go
Speaker 79
1:02:59
ahead, Robert. The increase is nominal. It's not that much. When you compound the 2.5% for one year at 2.5%, it
Speaker 159
1:03:05
ends up being like six basis points.
It's not much. It's barely
Speaker 6
1:03:12
over five. So let me ask this, if we did 6% not bifold, that would be more than two and a half on the first half, and that would be clear? Yes, ma'am. Clear. Okay. Well, I'm going to go back to Commissioner Zimmerman
and ask you if you would like to rephrase your motion.
Speaker 162
1:03:42
Yes, I would, but again, I have one more
Speaker 10
1:03:46
question. In the judge's letter, they were talking about salary increases between 8% to 11% of other state employees. Are we still not holding our judiciary back on their
Speaker 96
1:04:02
increases? Well, as I read, as the explanations given by
Speaker 6
1:04:07
T.J. Fowler, the eight to eleven percent is is not exactly accurate let me put it that way that in fact
there were some you know there were performance based merit things there was a time when there was no raise at all and then a base raise the next this this past year and so i don't know whether it really was actually they received 8% to 11%. So I'm not sure that is what happened in the real world.
Speaker 82
1:04:51
Let me just put it that way, in the real world of actually getting those
Speaker 10
1:05:00
percentages of 8% to 11%. Okay. So I'm understanding from what you've said, Commissioner, that we're looking at possibly a 2.5% with an adjustment of an additional 2.5% in 2024 because it's bifold. Well,
Speaker 94
1:05:19
I think the suggestion was to not make it
Speaker 6
1:05:25
bifold and just make it 6% on their current salary, which would give them more.
Speaker 10
1:05:34
Madam Chairman, I'd like to move that we provide a 6% raise to our judiciary based on their current salaries. and of course
Speaker 6
1:05:47
that beginning will be once if it's approved and noticed and published and
as they say sealed in in wax and stone and all that okay um any second on that
Speaker 57
1:06:06
motion second clark smith commissioner is second any further discussion
Speaker 79
1:06:11
I just wanted to clarify that in their request, they also list out some specific positions within there, if I recall. Yeah. TJ, like, for example, prosecuting attorneys are a part of that, but they get a lesser raise, and that this would correspond with those other positions with this one motion. I don't
Speaker 166
1:06:33
know that that would happen automatically.
Speaker 20
1:06:43
Historically, y'all have made the motion to just continue along with those percentages, so it would probably be appropriate. I don't know if you want to combine it in one motion or if it makes more sense to go ahead and make the motion on the judicial salaries, and then
Speaker 46
1:06:56
if that is the decision y'all want to come to, y'all can make a second motion that the prosecutor salaries move up in that commensurate
Speaker 6
1:07:05
percentage that has historically been adopted. Yes, that's usually what we've done. So this is for judges solely. And then if we get past that, we'll go to the prosecuting attorneys.
Speaker 34
1:07:18
Okay, so it's limited to judges. My only comment, and I agree with the motion and I will support it, and I just want to reflect just so at least my understanding is that I don't want precedential value of 6% going forward because I think that's difficult. So this is taking into consideration the fact that it was missed in years past that we were trying to correct for that. We'll make a record of that.
Speaker 6
1:07:50
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question and ask for start the vote. All in favor, and I'd like you to turn on your mics. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. The motion has passed unanimously. And now we'll go to a second motion, which, as I recall,
Speaker 6
1:08:27
a level b and based upon the figure determined by the judge for the judges it'll be 80 percent or 90 percent i can't remember bob yes please into a microphone so that we can get this act very straight Thank you,
Speaker 169
1:08:52
Madam Chair. Bob McMahon, Prosecutor Coordinator. You're correct. There was a
percentage. So if you just adopted a motion to give the circuit judges a 6% increase, you figure that amount, and then my Division A prosecutors received 95% of that amount, and then my Division B received 85% of the 95%. So it's not actually a 6% raised. It's 95% what the circuit judges get and then 85% of what my Division A gets. And I think you all know who the 25 and the three are, but I can provide that information. Because there are 25
Division A in the state and then three Division B. But that is what you all decided before to use
Speaker 6
1:09:37
the percentage after the salary for the circuit judges. Correct. And this motion was for all judges, as I understood it, not just circuit judges. Okay. Yes. For the entire judiciary. So it applies to
the prosecutors. Okay. So, um, let, um, if there's no further discussion,
I'll entertain a motion, um, for the prosecuting attorneys A and
Speaker 62
1:10:14
B. Madam Chair, I propose that the Division A prosecutors receive 95% of the 6% increase, and the Division B prosecutors receive 85% of the 6% increase.
95% of 6% is 5.7%, and 85% is 5.1%. Okay. Any comments, discussion of that motion before I
Speaker 6
1:10:44
ask for a second? I think I understand the heart of Mr.
Speaker 34
1:10:49
Smith's motion, but I think the wording is actually 95%, not of the increase, but of the increased salary that the circuit judges get. Right. Not of the percentage.
Correct. Right. Correct. And so if the motion is amended that way, Madam Chair,
Speaker 6
1:11:18
I'll second it. Okay. Do you accept that amendment? Yes. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, I'll call for the question for the vote. All in favor of the motion as seconded for prosecutors A and B, please say aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. That is unanimous and approved. Okay. I really appreciate everybody's work on this so that we could get back on track. And we go to the next discussion. And it's not that we have to resolve it today. I just wanted to open the floor for this discussion, and we can set another meeting for this if we choose.
So I'm going to, as I mentioned earlier, ask for our commissioners to comment, remark on whether we should wait for written requests by public officials before considering any increase each year or whether we should go on our own motion, so to speak,
to consider the legislative salaries, the assembly salaries, constitutional office salaries, and the judges' salaries and prosecuting attorneys without request automatically each year. So those are the two options, and I'd like to open the floor. Mr. McCready. I'll start, Judge. I think what we
Speaker 34
1:13:12
just went through highlights the wisdom in considering it on our own.
I think it's much better if there is a group who doesn't want one. I'd rather communicate that, hey, we don't need a raise this year, rather than for reasons that may be beyond anybody's control that a request gets missed or doesn't make it to the appropriate person, I think that is unfair to them. And I think it also then will put this body in a more difficult position of trying to correct for oversights in the past. And I also think it's more consistent with the charge of this body,
is to look at that and use our own judgment and insight to set if we're going to just pay raises, or set
Speaker 175
1:14:00
pay rates, adjust salaries, that we do it on
Speaker 6
1:14:05
our own accord. Okay. Any comments, agreement, disagreement? Madam Commissioner,
Speaker 79
1:14:09
I agree with Commissioner McCready. I would probably take it one step further and just say I do agree we should look at all these on an annual basis, but I also think we all should ask beforehand these groups to give us a recommendation.
Sure. Writing so that we have record of that. especially if they were to request nothing for a consideration that year, then at least we feel like we've done our part. And there may be some cases, some instances where we may still give them a raise in those situations if we're worried about them getting behind for whatever reason just because they're being gracious and not necessarily... Asking. Yeah. We don't want to get in the same position we got
Speaker 6
1:14:52
prior to year. Years and years ago. And another thing, I mean,
you know, Now, just because we may consider automatically and ask for
their position doesn't mean we'll give them a raise. It just means we're reviewing
it to see if it's appropriate. Any other discussion, comments, remarks,
pros and cons? Okay. Well, if the commission is of one mind and approves, I'll entertain a motion.
Speaker 20
1:15:39
Yes. I don't know that this requires a motion. I think you're operating within your constitutional power. So y'all's decision to review or not review based on your own sua sponte decision versus some request, I think that's automatically in your purview, and you don't require a motion for that. Okay. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 29
1:16:00
you very much. I always just do things to be safe, to be honest with you. Maybe overdo it.
Speaker 6
1:16:10
I do want to say that I think it would be for
the auditor's purposes. As an operational matter, we might want to, the next year when we start these meetings again, that we might want to let those bodies know that we are going to do it automatically.
and if they would like to express their desires or whatever, they should notify us in writing. So that will be a protocol from now on. Okay? Well, thank you. And now, yes? Well, and I should mention, if the determination by this body
Speaker 20
1:17:01
is that y'all do want to annually review everyone, y'all haven't reviewed everyone this year, you're going to have to have a public comment period for the judiciary. Right. So if y'all don't want to have a second public comment period, you may want to consider the General Assembly and the Constitutional Officers today so that you don't have to meet.
Speaker 6
1:17:29
more time instead of four more times. Okay. Let's do that. If you prefer to, I think you're right, because then we would have another extra meeting for another notice period. So what
Speaker 114
1:17:45
is the desire of the body? Have we received any notice from the other bodies whether they declined review?
Speaker 20
1:17:51
No, we have not. I did receive some communication as I was reaching out to different constitutional offices to ask for information from this packet. And I'm going off of memory here, but the governor's office requested no raise. The Attorney General's office stated that they were happy with the decisions that this body had made and trusted this body to continue making good decisions. And I believe the Secretary of State, Land Commissioner, and Treasurer all had similar comments.
They were happy with this body. They weren't going to make a formal request, but trusted you all to go
Speaker 29
1:18:31
and do what was best for the state of Arkansas and their offices. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's good. And
Speaker 117
1:18:44
response from the Senate or the House. No, I've
Speaker 6
1:18:46
had no communication with them about this. Okay. Well, I will, in view
of that and of what we have before us, I will entertain any discussion about, first, if you want to address that today.
And second, if we choose to address that today, any particular motion. Because it is true, we gave those constitutional officers a raise last year. Right. So we are just talking about one year. Yeah. And the legislature.
Speaker 34
1:19:31
Can we clarify, for the legislature, we don't have the authority to set it, we just make
Speaker 6
1:19:41
a recommendation? No. Okay. This is authority on the per diem, it is a recommendation. Thank you for that clarification.
And you can, you know, as we said, doing comparisons with other states is a little bit dicey. Thank you.
Speaker 54
1:20:30
I'm going to give you all time because this is kind of out of left field.
Unknown speaker
1:21:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are we ready to make a motion?
Speaker 184
1:22:30
Commissioner Smith. Can you repeat the
Speaker 6
1:22:47
basis for the motion again? This would be addressing the, it'll be separate. It'll be legislature, and then we'd have a second motion for constitutional officers. So that will mean we've covered all the categories this
Speaker 57
1:23:04
year that we are told to cover under the constitutional amendment.
Speaker 6
1:23:26
moved? Because I'm not sure I can repeat that. Well, what I'm saying is start off maybe with the constitutional officers only. Make a motion on that with whatever percentage, if any, you wish to recommend for an increase. We can't decrease the judges' salaries. We can decrease the legislative and executive salaries.
Speaker 190
1:23:51
But I don't think you want to do that. That's right, exactly.
Speaker 78
1:24:14
Okay, Commissioner Smith. Yeah, it was, it's 1.8 in the past. The average
Speaker 20
1:24:19
number for all state employees or for the constitutional officers?
The executive officers, if you take out 2015, and the constitutional officers and the legislature are a little bit different than the judges in that they received quite a bit more of a salary bump in 2015. So if you look at their annualized with 2015, it's some pretty big numbers. If you take
Speaker 55
1:24:42
it out, they're all 1.8 except for the lieutenant governor, which is 1.6.
Speaker 118
1:24:51
Madam Chair, I move that we propose that we increase the constitutional officer salary
Speaker 184
1:25:17
2% and the legislative officer salary 2%.
Speaker 6
1:25:21
Okay. That's one motion. Two percent. It's one motion for two percent for both the legislative body, the Senate and the House, and all constitutional officers. Okay. A second? I'll second. Okay. Second by Commissioner Hussong. Any discussion on that motion?
Hearing no discussion, and we don't have any shrinking violets here, so I'm okay with assuming silence is consent to going further. Call the question and we'll have, I'll ask you to all turn your mics on. All in favor,
Speaker 57
1:26:21
oppose, please say nay. Okay, that will
Speaker 6
1:26:27
be approved. And I thank you very much for addressing
that so we're not behind the eight ball next year. Again. Now, I would like to thank the Auditor of State
staff for the excellent job, including T.J. Fowler, to help us. Oh, there we go.
We're back. To do this work with this historical review has really been quite helpful and I know we all agree on that. So we'll need to set a meeting date for the next meeting because we have to sign it first, right?
Speaker 17
1:27:33
The Constitution requires that you all meet again after a reasonable public comment period. The Constitution
Speaker 20
1:27:39
does not define how long it must be, but it cannot be longer than 45 days. Historically, this body has either done two weeks or 30 days, roughly. So the only requirement is that y'all set another meeting within the next 45 days. Any public comments that we receive, we will compile, and we will present to y'all and put on the website.
And then the next meeting date, there may be individuals from the public that come and make comments. At that time, after you've heard all the public comments, then y'all can either decide to ratify the decisions that y'all made
Speaker 6
1:28:17
here today or to adjust them based on the public comments. And once that, if we decide to ratify, then we sign, each of us signs
Speaker 58
1:28:28
the resolution. That's correct, Madam Chair. Okay. So we are on the
Speaker 6
1:28:34
25th of October, and I would like to suggest that our next meeting be,
so we're not getting into the Thanksgiving holidays, be on November 15. And, of course, we'll need to let Commissioner Mays know about that, if that's agreeable to all of you. I mean, I'm just looking at my calendar, and I want to be sure that's amenable
to our commissioners. Okay? Okay. Okay. November 15 at 10.
And that'll be in the minutes, of course. And if I lose my
phone, I'm in deep, deep trouble. Okay, the last item on the agenda is the election of a chairperson. We talked about it last week, and I asked for it to be any decision to be delayed until today.
So I will open the floor for
Speaker 34
1:30:01
that discussion. Madam Chair, if anyone wants to discuss it, speak up. Otherwise,
Speaker 144
1:30:06
I would move that you be reelected to serve or to continue
Speaker 6
1:30:17
That's a motion. Thank you. Second? Second. Thank you. Well, I thank you all. Well, I'm obviously very
grateful for the vote of confidence, and I willingly accept
if we get unanimous approval of the motion in a second. If all of you will put your mics on, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. I know. Marty Sullivan
wants a nay. No, he doesn't. Not not.
Okay. I don't think there's
any new business other than us meeting the next on the 15th. If I could just have
Speaker 46
1:31:09
a point of privilege, and she's going to hate me for doing this,
Speaker 20
1:31:14
but I just wanted to let the commission know that Donna Kerr in our office is going to be retiring in December after 40 years of service to the state of Arkansas. It's amazing that she started work at the state when she was one year old. But she's been a great asset. She predates
this administration and the auditor's office and we're going to have
Speaker 6
1:31:39
a hard time getting on without her, but we're going to try. Well, Donna, we thank you so much. And, you know, there aren't very
many people who are 40-year veterans in civil service, so thank you so much, and I know you have been on the ball for this commission as a staff person, even though I know you have tons of other
things to do, and we really appreciate it, and I would like us to give her a round of applause. And enjoy. If there is nothing else, I will adjourn the meeting at this time. Thank you. And that is 11.32, so one hour and a half.
Agenda
No agenda available.
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 6
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 17
Speaker 19
Speaker 20
Speaker 28
Speaker 31
Speaker 34
Speaker 35
Speaker 39
Speaker 43
Speaker 44
Speaker 46
Speaker 57
Speaker 58
Speaker 62
Speaker 63
Speaker 29
Speaker 72
Speaker 74
Speaker 75
Speaker 77
Speaker 79
Speaker 89
Speaker 93
Speaker 10
Speaker 110
Speaker 114
Speaker 55
Speaker 118
Speaker 85
Speaker 131
Speaker 144
Speaker 151
Speaker 9
Speaker 54
Speaker 159
Speaker 162
Speaker 96
Speaker 82
Speaker 94
Speaker 166
Speaker 169
Speaker 175
Speaker 117
Speaker 184
Speaker 187
Speaker 190
Speaker 78
Speaker 194