Senate State Agencies

January 21, 2025

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:00:04] 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 18. Excuse me. You're recognized to present, senator. 

 

Senator Dave Wallace [00:00:22] Senator Dave Wallace, District 19. Go ahead and introduce yourself.

 

Alex Benton [00:00:27] Alex Benton, AG's office.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:00:29] Hello, Alex. Welcome.

 

Senator Dave Wallace [00:00:31] Senate Bill 18 is requested by the Attorney General's office. It's an amendment that makes a really good bill a better bill. Two 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 investigate that case as well as the local prosecutors. 

What we didn't think about is 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 it's currently written, 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 in 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:01:46] All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions from members? All right. Seeing no questions, would anybody here to speak for or against this? All right. We've got a motion from Senator Payton do pass. Second from Senator Dotson. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Alright. Senator Hester. All right, Senator, you're going to be doing SB 44. And you're going to take HB 1080 and 1056?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:02:39] That's correct.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:02:40] Okay. All right. We'll start with SB 44 and work our way down.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:02:46] So, members, we're actually going to vote on this on the floor today in our joint rules. So we had a law passed. But 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, I believe that it's stronger because if we're voting on it each time and it's in our rules that it will be there. This was something that Senator Hickey worked on with--

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:03:18] Sir, which bill are you on? Are you on 44?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:03:22] Sorry. Sorry. I had the wrong one. Okay. Senate Bill 44. Okay. So we have two different statutes, one that says we'll wait, this one, two weeks and one that says we'll wait 30 days for interim committees if we are having a recess. So what that means, if we're going to recess for 30 days or more, then you can have interim committees starting day one of that recess. Right now, we have conflicting law. 

One says it has to be two weeks and one says 30 days. So this is a 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. 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 them.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:04:15] Senator Payton, do you have a question?

 

Senator John Payton [00:04:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when we recess sine die like we're going to come back 30 days later, the committees cannot meet during that period of time?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:04:27] They can. Again, there's conflicting law. One says if we recess for more than two weeks, they can meet. Another one says, if it's 30 days, they can meet.

 

Senator John Payton [00:04:38] But you're preserving the 30 days.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:04:39] And preserving the 30. Actually, what it's saying is we have to recess for a longer time before you can have interim committees.

 

Senator John Payton [00:04:49] So if we remove the conflict, then we won't be able to have an interim committee until 30 days.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:04:57] No, unless we're recessing for 30 days. So right now, if we were going to recess for, you know, 15 days, there could be an argument that you could have interim committees on day one because you're more than two weeks with this law. I know it kind of seems backwards, but the deal is 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. And what we're saying with this is the recess has to be at least 30 days. If it's going to be for 30 days, then you can have interim committees. I think I'll explain this a little better. If we're going to recess for four days like we just did, you can't have interim committees.

 

Senator John Payton [00:05:43] Okay. So I have one more question. So that's if you recess to a date certain. Is it possible to recess without setting a date? And how would that apply?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:05:57] I don't think Jill is in here from BLR. I don't have a great answer for that. But if this gets out of committee today, I would have it by the floor. I'd be happy to come back to committee.

 

Senator John Payton [00:06:08] I'd just like to know. Thanks.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:06:10] That's a reasonable question.

 

Senator John Payton [00:06:12] Appreciate it.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:06:14] Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [00:06:16] I was just going to say, in response to your question, Senator, on the recess sine die, if this law passes, there would need to be 30 days between when we recess and when sine die comes in order for us to meet in the interim, right? But under the law now, if the sine die was 28 days later, we wouldn't be able to have 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 hopefully that helps you.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:06:47] Yeah. I think the question this committee needs to determine is, do we want that to be 14 days or 30 days? And we need to get rid of one of them. 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 to do 14 instead of 30, then I'm fine with that. We have just got to get rid of one of them.

 

Senator John Payton [00:07:11] 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:07:27] Senator Clark.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:07:29] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Hester, as it is now with two laws, then either can apply. So it's basically two weeks instead of four weeks.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:07:44] That's correct.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:07:44] So we're basically doubling the time. Have we had a problem with the two weeks?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:07:49] We have not had a problem because at that point leadership of the House and Senate would just make a determination on what really what they will allow. When we've got a conflict, somebody's going to make a determination. That's how we've been doing it.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:08:02] So what's the reasoning for doing away with the two weeks?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:08:08] Well, the reasoning is we have a conflict. And I think we should do away with one or the other so that whenever you ask to have your committee on the interim, BLR can advise you what the clear law is.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:08:20] Well, the reason for doing away with one of them is conflict. But currently with having both of them, you can do it for two weeks. And so we're doing away with the two weeks. And I'm trying to figure out why there's been a problem. I mean, I understand. Because we do away with four weeks, we're basically still where we are. We do away with the two weeks, we're changing it.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:08:43] I think that's a valid point. As I said, I'm happy to go either direction this body chooses to go. I'm happy either way. I just wanna get rid of one of them.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:08:53] So we haven't had a conflict with the two weeks?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:08:56] No.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:08:57] Thank you.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:08:58] Thank you, Senator. Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question.

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [00:09:01] So was it a flip of the coin that you came up with 30 days? How do you decide? What was the reason that we chose 30 days over two weeks?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:09:08] The reason we chose 30 days was if we go into a recess, I think members like a break. All right. And that's what it boils down to. Just there's a known break.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:09:21] Senator Dotson.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:09:23] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think I understand this, but more speaking to Senator Payton's question, I think both bodies have to agree if we're longer than three days adjourned. So that resolution that we passed in order to do four days or recess longer than three requires a vote of both chambers. 

And so I would imagine, I don't know this for sure because BLR is not here to verify, but if we take that vote, that resolution probably would supersede whatever the rule is that we're scheduled to vote on on the House floor or on the Senate floor today. 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 a 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 you're going to present it this afternoon will be the binding one for this General Assembly for the 95th General Assembly.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:10:35] Yeah, that's right. If we don't go this direction, we would also have to go back and redo the joint rules. But look, that's not a huge problem. Right? Like, I would just have to go talk to the House leadership and get them to agree to this to move on. But I concur with what Senator Clark is saying. We are giving something up, two weeks 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 interim committees.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:11:15] Senator Tucker, you're recognized.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [00:11:18] 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?

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:11:28] I would agree with you. 

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [00:11:30] Do you concur, Senator Hester?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:11:32] I concur. I'd say that the people feel like we're here enough already. 

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:11:36] Senator, I think Jill's on her way to throw you a lifeline. She's on her way down.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:11:41] Okay, good. We can hold on this one and.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:11:45] I want to go to Senator King. Do you have a question? So I tell you what? Members, do you want to hold on this? And Jill's on her way down, so if we got any questions for BLR. With that, Senator, if you just want to, we've already heard--

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:12:01] We can come back to it at the end.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:12:02] Yeah. Let's just go to House Bill 1080 or 1056, whichever.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:12:09] Let's do 1080.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:12:10] Okay.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:12:14] 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 removing the law requiring a fiscal impact for something that affects the budget. So the only reason most of us would be okay removing this law is knowing that it is in our joint rules. And again, one 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. I think actually it's more effective that way. It's House Bill 1080. 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:13:14] Any questions from members? Senator Clark, you're recognized for a question.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:13:20] So thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Senator Hester, we passed a law we couldn't pass, is that right? And we are repealing it now?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:13:28] We passed a law we can pass. But this body doesn't have to acknowledge it.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:13:34] Okay. So basically, it's an illegal law then if you don't have to obey it.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:13:40] Well, that's right. One body cannot bind the next.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:13:44] Okay. Thank you.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:13:47] All right. Any other questions from members? All right. Seeing no more questions, is there anybody signed up to speak for or against this? Not seeing anybody, are you closed for your bill? We've got a motion from Senator Payton. Second, Senator Dotson. All in favor say aye. Opposed. All right. Bill passes. Thank you. And we'll move on to House Bill 1056.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:14:10] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1056. Members, I've been working for 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 law. But what 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 goal with creating this new joint committee is just to say to the veterans that are moving here and that are here, that are serving, that we care for their success. We want them in Arkansas. We want a committee that's just focused 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. 

So if we have a joint meeting, this committee will go. Senator Flippo will be the chair of it. And now, next cycle, we may choose to change that. But as far as this bill creating it, effectively, State Agencies Committee for the Senate will also be our Military Committee.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:15:44] All right. Members, you've heard an explanation. Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for a question.

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [00:15:49] I can appreciate the sincerity that this is being done with. We have so many committees now and commissions now that really serve no purpose that I can determine. So right now, we have the Child and Youth. Doesn't that currently cover veteran's affairs?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:16:10] It does in the House. I don't believe that it does in the Senate. But in a joint committee, it would hear that. Anyway, so I guess--

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [00:16:17] So 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?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:16:34] That's correct. Just when the chairman would call a committee meeting.

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [00:16:38] Yeah. Well, again, I appreciate the sincerity. I understand the growing veteran population here. I'm just not in favor of 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 specific events. I have a hard time committing to that. Thank you.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:17:07] All right. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator Payton.

 

Senator John Payton [00:17:10] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the way I'm reading this, this committee would have to meet during the session. On 10-3-3302 it says powers and duties, and it says 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 shall be referred to the Joint Committee on Military 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 standing committee. I don't see how that reconciles.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:17:53] That's fair. 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.

 

Senator John Payton [00:18:02] Like Joint Retirement.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:18:04] That's right. But if there's a bill for military that will be sent there, then that committee, which would be this committee, would hear that. If there are no bills filed involving the military, then that committee would not--

 

Senator John Payton [00:18:16] This creates a full blown new committee.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:18:19] Yes, it does. No mistake, that is what this does.

 

Senator John Payton [00:18:28] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:18:30] Senator Tucker, you're recognized.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [00:18:34] Same question that Senator Payton had. I mean, this committee would vote on legislation during session.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:18:39] Yes, it would.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [00:18:40] 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.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:18:46] That's correct.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:18:49] All right. Senator Dotson, you're recognized for a question.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:18:52] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I'm generally okay with this particular concept. But just because of the earlier discussion that we're having on one General Assembly not binding 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 language to go in to create this type of a joint committee?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:19:20] If the chairman would allow, I would like to ask if Jill could come up.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:19:24] Yeah, absolutely, Jill.

 

Jill Thayer [00:19:37] Jill Thayer, Bureau of Legislative Research.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:19:42] I don't know if you heard the question, but 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 this session. We would be binding ourselves, but it would be in code. 

And the previous bill before you got in here, and I think one of the reasons you were called down was to ask basically, we're repealing or asking to repeal a section of code because it's going into joint rules because one General Assembly can't bind the next. Aren't we kind of creating the same sort of situation with this bill where we'd be putting something in the code but it wouldn't be binding on the next General Assembly?

 

Jill Thayer [00:20:27] So I would say that all joint committees have been created in the code. The joint rules generally are reserved more for procedural matters and not creation of bodies. You could include those there if you want to. However, the House and the Senate, each in their own individual rules, have acknowledged the joint committees within their rules to set out who the members will be and how they'll be assigned.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:20:53] So the individual bodies would be the ones that would be referring membership to a joint committee created in code that would be established, kind of like, I guess, Joint Budget or--

 

Jill Thayer [00:21:03] Joint Energy.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:21:05] --all of those different ones. Okay. Thank you.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:21:08] All right. Senator Clark, you're recognized for a question.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:21:12] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm interested in both reasoning and the procedure. This new committee is for Veterans Affairs only. So were House Children, Youth and Military, most things military or not veteran, so this would be very narrow. Or am I reading it wrong? So everything military. 

That would mean things that are normally going to Education, like we're going to allow school choice for people moving in although they're past the deadline, we're going to allow your welding certification to count here. All those things would now go to this committee that we're creating rather than the committees they are going to.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:22:13] Well, I would have to say 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 would be a call of Philip Treat. But it absolutely could take something from Education to Military.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:22:31] In other committees, that's okay if there's a need. But this committee would be the only other one during session. Well, let me back up. You and I have been here 12 years, in our seventh session. I didn't know Energy could meet during the session. So that's a new one for me. Then we come up and I was on Retirement. When would this committee meet? I don't like Monday mornings. You know, I like to come in here and be here in time for the Senate meeting. 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, maybe excruciating. Have we figured that out?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:23:40] We leave up times to meet with the chairman. So for the Senate, that'd be wherever Senator Flippo found a time.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:23:48] What's the thinking, and this might be a question for Jill, what's the thinking of making it joint rather than having a veterans committee on both ends?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:24:02] I would say that came from push back from me. 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 talked to what I call our military members. So Bryant, Wallace, Jane English. I clearly count her for her life of service. I just asked for feedback on this. And so I felt like this is where I ended up with the House and something I thought wasn't a new standing committee, but something the Senate might be able to work with.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:24:32] We're going to do something as serious as creating a committee. That's why we have committee meetings like this. It doesn't have to be a joint committee, does it? I mean,on that end, they got lots of members. Another committee gives some people a place to go. This end, what you're saying is feedback's pretty much, we don't want another committee. But we can still make this basically create a separate committee, but make this State Agencies and military affairs and not have to have a joint committee to do that. Am I correct?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:25:07] We could do that. 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.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:25:16] Well, I'm concerned about the meeting part. Having it and having State Agencies be that committee, I 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, I think it's much harder to make it that way.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:25:40] Sure.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:25:40] Senator Tucker, you're recognized.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [00:25:45] 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?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:25:51] Yes. If we pass it with the emergency clause, this committee would be able to meet this session. That's right.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:25:58] Senator Payton.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:26:00] I will follow up with that, which is part of the reason why 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 way.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:26:28] And I appreciate that. That's why you're the pro tem, sir. They got the joke. Okay. Senator Payton, you're recognized.

 

Senator John Payton [00:26:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I mean, already in this session, I've heard, and maybe they've been filed, but income tax relief for veterans, sales tax relief for active duty and veterans and based on lines 35 and 36 on page two and leading over into page three, 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-- shall be referred to the Joint Committee on Military. 

So we're talking about, as 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?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:27:35] Well, I would say the assignment of committees is left up to our parliamentarian, Philip Treat. But I can get some clarification. I've written several questions. And my intent is once I get all these questions that 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 what tax or what code it's going to adjust is where Philip Treat would assign it to.

 

Senator John Payton [00:28:12] Okay. Well, I don't know how he'd get around the 'shall be if it's pertaining to.' But thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:28:22] All right, Senator Sullivan.

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [00:28:26] So 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 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 it. So I heard you say you're going to pull it down, find some answers to those questions and hold it back for a while. So I'd appreciate that. 

I just don't see the need for forming a whole new committee. When I look at page three, the interim committee meetings expenses and staff, we already have that through the House. And it seems like we're just duplicating that by creating a whole new committee. 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:29:30] Thank you, Senator. Senator Dotson, you're recognized.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:29:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the question 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 the Aging, Children, Youth and 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'm just not sure where in the Senate these things automatically typically go. I've been around just long enough to remember trying to have joint committee meetings for constitutional amendments between the House and the Senate State Agencies during session. And it was brutal. Like it just didn't happen. 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, as I'm sitting here listening, the joint committee idea doesn't seem to be-- it may be very challenging to be workable during a session. During the interim, I think it's probably okay to have that because we meet quite a bit. But during the session, I'll let you answer the original question, if you happen to know or can find the answer to it, as far as where do those things typically get assigned?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:31:01] Okay. So they are assigned to whatever code they adjust. And Philip Treat looks at whatever bill it is, whatever code it 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 committee, would come to State Agencies.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:31:17] Well, you're the lead Senate sponsor here, Senator. But I was going to ask if you'd be open to pulling this bill down for today and visiting with Speaker Evans and getting with Philip Treat and then just talking to members. I do think enough legitimate questions were raised. We understand what we're trying to do with this bill. But I think there may be some reasonable things we might want to go back and look at and some verbiage that might be tweaked. And if you would be open to that.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:31:41] No, I'd absolutely be open to that. And I would say to Senator Sullivan's question, 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. Now, we may say we're handling that already, we don't need a committee. 

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 a not one-- 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:32:19] Great. I appreciate that, Senator. Thank you. Senator Clark. Sorry.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:32:24] Yes. If I may, before we go off to think about it, if I could redirect Senator Payton's question to Jill, the language that says 'shall,' is that standard language in creating the other committees so it won't affect our attorney in any way just deciding which committee is most pertinent?

 

Jill Thayer [00:32:48] Correct. That's just standard language to designate which committees from subject matters are referred to.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:32:54] I just want to be sure of that because if 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 okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:33:06] Thank you, Senator. Senator Tucker.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [00:33:08] Thank you. Mr. Chair. Same line of questioning. My suggestion, if we go in this direction, would be to insert the word 'primarily' before 'pertaining to.' And I don't know if that word is used. I haven't reviewed the code establishing the other standing committees. But I get Senator Payton's point. I mean, if it pertains, it shall be. And Senator Hester's answer earlier, which I think is in practice right, that if it primarily pertains to Revenue and Tax or Education, it will go to there. But that's not the way that it reads. So just throwing that out there as well.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:33:38] Thank you, Senator Tucker. All right. So I'm going to pull that down for the day and then we're going to circle back to Senate Bill 44. And I'll tell you what, Jill. Senator Payton is going to have questions, obviously. He can repeat that for you.

 

Senator John Payton [00:34:05] Thank you. So my question was, if we recess without setting a date certain, is that a possibility? Can you do that? And if we did, how would it be affected by whether or not that's more than 30 days or less than 30 days or two weeks even if this was still part of the law? So is that possible to recess to a date uncertain? And how would that apply to any limitation we do here?

 

Jill Thayer [00:34:35] So in my experience of being here for the last 18 years, there's always a date set for the recess and then coming back to sine die. 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 were nullified. So that's the reason that you've always set a date certain. I would have to do a little bit of research to see whether or not that's something that you can do or not. But right now, that's my understanding of it.

 

Senator John Payton [00:35:21] So if I could follow up, how far back in history was that? I guess my question is, there could be motivation to recess without a date. And if the only punishment was the laws they passed didn't become law, I mean, that may not be the motivation to recess.

 

Jill Thayer [00:35:47] I would have to do a little bit of research and get back to you on that, Senator Payton.

 

Senator John Payton [00:35:52] Okay. Thank you.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:35:55] Senator Dotson, you're recognized.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:35:58]  Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just as far as recesses go, it's been my recollection, and obviously this changes from regular session to regular session. But don't we typically recess somewhere between 2 to 3 weeks most of the time? After we get done, we say we're coming back for sine die and like 2 or 3 weeks somewhere down the road there. So 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. Can the leadership call us back into sine die before that 30 day recess is complete, or do they have to wait until that 30 day is done in order to sine die?

 

Jill Thayer [00:36:47] So the General Assembly usually passes a resolution that sets your recess and sine die 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 sine die.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:37:16] So if this passes and it's just in rule, we 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 if necessary, leadership could call us back within a week or three weeks or whatever to sine die if that was necessary?

 

Jill Thayer [00:37:39] Yes.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:37:40] So we still preserve that flexibility?

 

Jill Thayer [00:37:41] Yes.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:37:42] Thank you.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:37:42] Senator Hester. Senator King. Clark.

 

Senator Bryan King [00:37:54] So if we had stuck with the two weeks, then let's say there was 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 a very controversial issue or there was a big issue, possibly a chairman could bring up a meeting. 

And I'll turn back to our rule, if like Senator Stubblefield and I wanted to have a meeting on this proposed prison issue, which is a big, huge issue for the legislature to have to decide and 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 two weeks is a better option because there's an education thing that's not been resolved. 

So there was 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 just would rather see if we're going to do something within the two weeks. I think it gives more flexibility for members to have meetings without the leadership trying to knock it in the head.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:39:11] So 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 for my point there, we've been here two weeks and you haven't had your hearing on the jails or the prison you're going to have. So my point there is there is reasons that we have waiting periods. 

It's so, members, we're supposed to be part time legislatures. And when we move to recess, it gives members a known time that they can go back to their jobs and work and know that if we're going to recess for two weeks, they're not going to be having interim committees day one, two, three and four of that. That when we take a break, members get an actual break. 

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. If the body says, I don't want to recess, then we won't.

 

Senator Bryan King [00:40:11] Well, so the little personal thing, I'm like Margaret Thatcher. When you take personal things, then you lose on the argument. But I'm just saying certainly the proposed prison thing is a $1.5 billion--

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:40:23] Okay. We're not talking about the prison bill right now. We will at some point.

 

Senator Bryan King [00:40:26] I'm just saying we need to have flexibility to have meetings out there, to allow things, and a lot of times-- 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 found 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 goes with every governor I've been through. This is a democracy. We need to have flexibility for members to be able to have meetings, to bring important issues. Like I said, forestry under Mike Beebe, 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:41:13] Senator King, can you put a question in there?

 

Senator Bryan King [00:41:14]  I'm just saying we need flexibility and the citizens deserve it.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:41:19] Thank you. Senator Clark.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:41:22] Thank you, Mr. Chair. It seems to me that there's plenty of resistance without a rule that extends it to four weeks. As Senator Tucker pointed out, sometimes we are averse to meetings. We are especially averse to meetings when we've been in session for a while. And I know if I call a meeting, especially if it's some kind of special time, I'm visiting with all the members before I call the meeting. 

I tend toward freedom over rules because let's take the pandemic for instance. We never know when something like that is going to happen that's never happened before. And taking away the freedom to be able to do that I think is a problem. 

But having said that, maybe it's a problem or maybe it isn't, because when we recess for a holiday, which we normally do, we recess for spring break lately, the recess until sine die-- can you recess from a special session and come back? I want to know, if we're changing law and changing rules, the possibilities of recessing at that time. I'm asking both of you.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:43:03] I believe we can recess during a special session. I mean, maybe there's some law prohibiting it, but I know we have to deal with that. And  sometimes those special sessions could go from three days to 30 days. If there needed to be a recess. But am I wrong on that?

 

Jill Thayer [00:43:22] So the Constitution just requires that both chambers give permission to each other if they're going to recess for more than three days. I don't recall restrictions on recesses during the 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.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:43:40] So I can envision, and again 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 three months, except we've been in session for a few days, so everybody's not tired. 

But by law, you can't meet unless you recess for four weeks, which wouldn't be practical. I don't even know that the two weeks is practical. But you've got to have some rules. Can you see 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. And can it not make more sense for it to be two weeks instead of four?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:44:33] That's why I said whatever this body says, 2 or 4. 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 when we ask staff, when can I meet, they'll give us two different answers and leadership will decide. So if you want me to have the absolute say, 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, the worst case scenario is two weeks without meetings. It's the worst case scenario. 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 is two weeks. Worst case scenario.

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:45:28] So I agree with you on the clarity. 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 might be the better way to clarify?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:45:40] I would say whatever five members of this committee says is the best way to do it. 

 

Senator Alan Clark [00:45:44] Thank you. Thank you, sir.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:45:45] Senator Payton, you are recognized.

 

Senator John Payton [00:45:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Hester. I mean, 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 dates. 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 force a meeting in some instances. 

And I think we passed a law that even allows the members of the General Assembly with enough supermajority to create a special session. But with all that said, 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. And I wouldn't want the speaker or the president pro tem to be able, as one person, to squash that. So could we go with the 14 days instead of the 30 I think would be my preference just to have things as liberal as possible, if that would be possible to do that.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:47:09] Sure. If that's all we're going to do, I'd rather just pull it down, go meet with the House about it, say this is what we want to do. That way, there's just an understanding. But the way this currently reads, if we recess for 13 days, as the law currently is, there is no meeting, no ability to have a meeting. The moment we say 14, then you can have a meeting day one because it's considered an extended recess. 

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. Does that make sense? So really, the change is just two weeks in there. So I've circled around that a few times. 

But ultimately the difference is, worst case scenario, we can go two weeks without a meeting. And look, I can count. I see there's enough concern in here. I'm happy to go back. What I would like is some direction from this body. Is the two weeks something, if I bring it back, you'll vote for that? Fair enough.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:48:12] I think that seems to be the general consensus. But with that, Senator Dotson.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:48:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Senator has just a point. If the two weeks 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 32 to 14. What am I missing?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:48:38] 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.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:48:43] Okay.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:48:44] So I would drop this one, repeal the other law, repeal our joint rules, go back to our committees on joint rules, House goes back to their joint committee on House rules. All this is fine. It just takes a couple of weeks.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [00:48:56] Wasn't aware of the other statute conflicting. Thank you.

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:48:59] Yeah.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:49:00] All right. So you are going to pull Senate Bill 44 down and come back?

 

Senator Bart Hester [00:49:04]I should have presented this in caucus last week. Oh, I did.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:49:07] Experience. Mr. Hester. It doesn't come easily. All right, members, you're going to pull that. We've already got the 1056. Right. Who else? Senator King, did you have a bill?Senator, you're going to be running Senate Bill 12. Okay. All right. Members, he's going to be taking Senate Bill 12. You are recognized to proceed with your bill.

 

Senator Bryan King [00:49:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So going back a little past history, I was election commissioner, a Republican county election commissioner, when we were in the minority almost 25 years ago. I've been involved in elections going on 30 plus years ago. If you know, I have been an outspoken critic of voter fraud. There was not just a few elections stolen in Arkansas due to voter fraud, there was a lot of them. And it's been something I 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 all over East Arkansas, collected those, had a TV news camera go over there and disprove. There were several people. You'd see a John Smith with three signatures on there. And basically out of that and through exposing that it stopped a lot of the voter fraud that was going on back there. 

Now, I will tell you, voter fraud goes on with Republicans, too. It's just bad people when they're in elections. So basically what I'm saying is to get to the point is, you have a situation called gerrymandering and it's named after one of our founding fathers. And gerrymandering is the purposeful drawing of districts to have selected interests instead of fair lines drawn with the people. 

Currently, our system now is after the census is done in legislative districts, you have the governor, Attorney General and the secretary of State that are involved in drawing 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 interest and people go to the governor's office or whoever and want districts drawn for them. And communication, instead of open communications. 

Basically, what my bill would do, which is say it does not change the board of reapportionment. I've talked to some different lawyers about the constitutionality of this. So it basically 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 and 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. I mentioned other parts of elections and fraud. We've had several members 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 a lobbyist 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, 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 vote on an appropriation bill that may involve millions of dollars that happen. So when you have a situation where we've had fraudulent people using things to get elected, like I said, voter fraud happened here in Arkansas. It still can continue to happen. 

And when you have legislative districts drawn by communication with lobbyists, for example, we need those communications to be up front and honest. They need to be out in front of the 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [00:54:19] All right. Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Senator Payton.

 

Senator John Payton [00:54:24] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I've always got questions. Senator King. I can't say I disagree with you on your goals. 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 apportionment. What's that mean? I mean, are we talking about a communication from a citizen or a communication with their lawyer, one board member individually or the whole board, the board as a whole, which I think there's three members? So a communication to the Board of apportionment, 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.

 

Senator Bryan King [00:55:09] Yeah, sure. It could be the individual. And it doesn't involve communications directly with 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 Z state Senate district. They would simply-- it's very easy today in the drawing of the districts, 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 with the technology of getting districts drawn. 

So let's say that mayor or that individual, you could set up a portal. I mean, we do this with the highway department where they have public hearings and they have that on public hearings. So I think the issue is, it's very easy to know what those communications are. And let's say you're an Attorney General and you're out and about and people are talking to you, it would be like the same thing. 

Jurors can be recessed on Friday and come back on Monday and hear a case. But while they're there, they have instructions that say if somebody is talking to you about this case, say, hey, I can't talk to you about it, but you can express a written concern that way. We have everything above board, okay? 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 it just allows the communication to be out there and be upfront and honest with everybody. I don't understand why we want to continue this process, allowing backroom deals to be done, changing votes, whatever we've seen in this process. And like I said, I've seen Democrats and Republicans. We've seen cities like the city of Alpena up there had three state senators and two state reps. A little town of 300 people had that. They basically ignored that and didn't listen. 

I don't know what else to say. It just needs to be open and up front. This part about lobbyists having more influence than the private citizen. If the 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.

 

Senator John Payton [00:57:26] 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 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 if I'm hiring 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 that be the whole board at one time, two members of a board or a single member of the board and whether that be a communication like, well, how's it going on the drafting of the new map or something in detail. I don't know how you do that. I'm just saying.

 

Senator Bryan King [00:58:54] 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 put the average citizen who doesn't have the connections a lobbyist does. Okay. 

And you talked about, there's a difference between your private business of hiring somebody and the public's business. The public's business should be out there for everybody to see. 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 money. And we have a bad history of legislators either have went to federal pen or going federal pen. So there's obviously a reason. 

You have the idea of big powerful lobbyists with money influences saying, you know what, if I'm whispering in this person's ear, it would just basically mean that the lobbyist is on the same platform as the average citizen out there. It can be in electronic form. We have portals now, the technology where people can do that. 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.

 

Senator John Payton [01:00:00] So I guess I should ask, are those communications not already FOIA-able?

 

Senator Bryan King [01:00:06] To my knowledge, they are not. I mean, the Board of Apportionment.

 

Senator John Payton [01:00:11] When one's in writing, and when they have a meeting.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:00:14] If they have a public meeting. But the problem is, Senator Payton, is very clearly they are having private meetings with 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 still can't even-- it has flabbergasted me of the years of being down here, the amount of powerful lobbyists that may be hired to whisper in somebody's ear and be closer to the source of the actual drawer of the districts. 

I want to put-- the lobbyist, 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 record. Can you imagine a jury system--

 

Senator John Payton [01:01:04] This doesn't say that it has to be written.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:01:06] It says, 'shall be written, electronic or oral communication recorded at a public meeting.'

 

Senator John Payton [01:01:13] Right. So it doesn't have to be written.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:01:16] It does. It gives a lot of avenues to be communication. It could be somebody, if they don't have email, they can write a letter. They can show up at a public meeting. But we need the communication not between the lobbyist. Let's get it out of the back doors.

 

Senator John Payton [01:01:31] 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?

 

Senator Bryan King [01:01:40] Oh no, absolutely.

 

Senator John Payton [01:01:41] Or electronic.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:01:44] They have to have communication out in public the way it should be. I mean, it should be written, electronic, or communication at a public meeting, the board of apportionment, the governor, or whoever wanted to have town halls. And it's recorded.

 

Senator John Payton [01:01:55] I guess it depends on how you define a communication, because, I mean, that's free speech for them to have communication. I don't know how you're defining the communication to the board of apportionment here.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:02:12] I don't know. It says it right here. You can write a letter. You can make electronic, send an email. You can send a fax. You can send any-- all that communication. 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 back room doors and the lobbyists and everything else and bringing it out here to the public where everybody can see because it impacts everybody.

 

Senator John Payton [01:02:46] I'm going to let somebody else ask a question, but I think we need to define what that communication is.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:02:51] I don't know where 'shall be written, electronic or communication at a public meeting,' what other communication are you talking about?

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:03:01] We're going to pivot over here to Senator Dotson. We got other members, Senator King. Senator Dotson, you're recognized for a question.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:03:07] Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, listening to this conversation back and forth, the bill as I'm reading it-- and I've read it like five times while we're sitting here and once last night. As I'm looking through here, this isn't clearly defined as board of apportionment communications, whether it's the membership specifically or the public body, the board of apportionment when they're jointly meeting. 

So, a communication naming senators is not a public meeting necessarily, but if we put senators in here as opposed to 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, the secretary of state or the Attorney General, would be subject to public disclosure, as I am understanding it. So that doesn't specifically relate to map drawing or redistricting. 

That's any communication with those members specifically. So basically, it would be kind of like, as I'm understanding it, Senator Payton, 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 communication that is, right now, because they are named members of the board of apportionment, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with map drawing or anything like that.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:04:54] I'm more than happy to amend it to restrict it down to the redistricting process. If you want to, I'll pull it down. And I mean, that language, that won't be a problem at all. If you talk to the governor and say, 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.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:05:18] Okay. So.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:05:20] So, I'll amend that. That's an easy fix.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:05:23] 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 FOIA-able, only if it's a written or electronic communication. So I mean, 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.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:05:45] 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  that are using and are right here next to these people-- and in the communication you can even have with a lobbyist, the amount of impropriety that could be seen of this is some lobbyist could go, guess what, I've got six, eight bills. I'm here hired by these people and I'm talking to them all the time. Let's talk about the drawing of your district, which has happened. 

Okay. 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. Okay. 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'll make the amendment and make it a clear, easy fix that you can talk about whatever issue 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-- 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 direct access in the part of the process. 

We know legislative districts have been drawn for spite, personal reasons, money reasons, all those things. Like I said, I'll go back to 2011 when the town of Alpena had less than 300 citizens. Three state senators were 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 any communication on drawing. 

This is a ten 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 be more than happy to make a quick fix on it.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:07:59] AT the very least, that needs to be clarified. And there's other things in here.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:08:05] I'll clarify that. That's an easy fix. Senator Flippo, do you have a question?

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:08:07] Yes, Senator King, I 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 in answering some of these questions, because I've got two other members in the queue to ask a question. So just, to the point, I feel like you're saying a lot of the same things about 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 it more--

 

Senator Bryan King [01:08:33] 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:08:38] Yeah. All right. Senator Tucker, you're recognized.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [01:08:41] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator King, I'm supportive of what you're doing here. And I guess my two questions are, and kind of following up on the questions that Senator Payton and and Senator Dotson has, one question is about a single member of the Board of apportionment or to all three at once, and if you're going to make Senator Dodson's amendment, I think that's one thing we should talk about. Just be clarified.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:09:05] Yeah, we can clarify that. Yeah, that's why we have the discussion. That's why I like to run bills early where we have a lot of conversation about that rather than batching bills. Yeah that's no problem.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [01:09:14] And then the second thing is where staff fits in. So, let's say I talk to John Doe staffer who's the staffer for the governor on the redistricting process. The way you see it, would that communication not be covered by this? But then when that staff person talks to the governor, then that would be covered?

 

Senator Bryan King [01:09:32] 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-- was anybody here in 2010? Was anybody here? Okay. 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, I want my district drawn like this. I want my district drawn like that. No, I want to shut that off.

 

Senator Clarke Tucker [01:10:01] So a communication to a staff person for the governor, secretary of state or attorney general would also be subject to this?

 

Senator Bryan King [01:10:06] Yes. Same as a lobbyist. Same as everything. So if you want to clarify that, we'll put that language in clarify. That's no problem.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:10:13] Okay. All right. Thanks for that, Senator Tucker. Senator Clark.

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:10:19] 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, even if we passed this. But 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 Attorney General, is that right? Okay. So that's who we're talking to. But then we're also talking about their staff people who are working for them. I don't know how much of that has to be written down. 

But I understood all of that when I read this, that that's what you were talking about. So there's nothing that keeps the governor, the secretary of state and Attorney General or their people from saying, we want to put Senator Dotson out of his district. That keeps me from talking to them about it. It keeps lobbyists from talking to them about it. But it doesn't keep them as a board of apportionment from having whatever conversations that they want to have, however good or bad they may be.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:11:23] Yeah. I mean, I think that, first off, this issue only comes up primarily for the most part is every ten years after redistricting. Okay. So it's not an issue that's an every day, every year issue. Okay. 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. Okay. So let's say a staffer, you know, you're talking to him about a laundry list of issues that are normal legislative business--

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:11:59] I understand. I understand you can talk to them about anything else. I get it, clearly. I'm just saying that while I like what you're trying to do, if this becomes the law, and I'm not against it, if I communicate with them, it'll be in writing, it'll be an email or it will be in a public meeting. Otherwise it's forbidden. I get that. That still doesn't keep people from doing things other than what's best for the people.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:12:36] That's right. But it allows a better issue to make it harder to catch them when they're not.

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:12:41] You're trying to make it more transparent.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:12:43] Absolutely. And I'm just trying--

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:12:44] Good luck to you.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:12:45] Yeah. Hey, listen, I understand that if we look at a lot of different issues-- we had the forestry issue where a lot of this was discovered in FOIA. We would have never known and these 34 people would have never got their jobs back had we not had FOIA 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 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 is doing. We need to know these districts are drawn for ten years. I mean, this could be something that can influence votes for ten 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 is saying and everybody's doing. And we put it on the same level with lobbyists, put them in the same category and have them not have special rules and special connections and put it out here with John Q Citizen.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:14:01] All right. Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question.

 

Senator John Payton [01:14:04] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. So I think I can say, as Senator Tucker and Senator Clark said, I kind of agree with your objective here. My district was torn to pieces in the last redistricting, but there's nothing in the language of this bill that limits it to applying to lobbyists. And it doesn't say, FOIA 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 conversations. That's transparency. This bill, the way it's written, says you can't say it. You can't have the conversation. 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.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:15:03] And I keep saying the same thing over again. We stop the backroom deals. I don't say lobbyist--

 

Senator John Payton [01:15:09] You stop the citizen who's not a lobbyist. There's people in my district that know the governor very well, went to school with her and been around her. They're not lobbyists in anybody's definition. But you stop her from-- you stop the members of this board from talking to anybody, not just lobbyists, unless it's written, electronic or recorded in a meeting.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:15:36] There's nothing that stops any citizen from stopping and talking about this issue. It just needs to be in public. We either shut the door or open the door. When you open the door for transparency, you either stop a lot of people from doing really bad things. You also allow the recourse, as I've said many times, citizens have grown up and used FOIA to find out things that they were doing, things that they should not. 

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 jury system is built upon this type of concept. In 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 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 to this case, this issue only comes about every ten years. It should have a higher level of threshold of transparency, especially with the horrible history this legislature has had with corruption just in the last ten years. 

It's so evident to me to try to say, hey, all this communication-- and listen, let me tell you, gerrymandering and that is nothing different than rigging elections. If you sit there and go, we do not want these people. I don't like this person because they don't vote with my business special interest. I don't like this. I want this district drawn the way it is, rather than having aboveboard, fair, transparent process to allow a process that the citizens know. Just because one district is not rigged, okay. 

Let's just say it, gerrymandering is rigging elections. It is. And I've said this since when I was bashed down here for years by Democrats saying there's no voter fraud here. And there was, okay. 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 where everybody knows the communication going out. Just because a district is not drawn in an area, it doesn't mean--

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:17:47] Senator King, this is the fourth or fifth time you've said the same thing. So I'm just trying to say, if we get to the fifth time--

 

Senator Bryan King [01:17:55] Mr. Chairman, I keep getting the same questions over and over again. I don't know how to answer them.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:17:58] Well, then just say, I've already answered. I believe my previous answer, I'll stand on that. But you just keep on saying the same things over and over and over and over. I get it.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:18:07] Okay. The case is that if you keep asking the same questions, you're going to get the same answer.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:18:12] See? What a concise way to answer that question.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:18:15] If another member asks it-- Senator Flippo.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:18:18] Just be concise.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:18:18] 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 Scott Flippo [01:18:24] Senator Payton, are you--

 

Senator John Payton [01:18:27] Yes, sir. Thank you.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:18:28] Senator Sullivan.

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [01:18:30] So I like what you're doing. I like the changes. You're going to try to narrow it down. So on the very last sentence, it says, 'a person knowingly violates a subsection could be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.' Who's the burden on? Senator Payton 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. Is the burden on the governor to report that or the citizen?

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:19:01] Okay. The burden would be if the governor asked, that's the same question that has been asked before. So I won't answer that again. Or the same situation that's been given before. I won't go through the same answer again after the same situation. But what I'd say is, the governor would do, like what exactly, have to answer it the same way, much like our jury system to say--

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [01:19:19] So then the citizen is also-- there's a burden on the citizen to. Because one could say the citizen should have reported it. And a citizen could be convicted of a misdemeanor because they didn't report it. Also because we say if they're going to communicate with a board member, that would be a citizen, and the citizen is 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 could be found guilty if they don't report that.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:19:51] You know, I can clarify that language, but the person would be like you're a juror on a jury trial. And if when we went to eat lunch, we said if people came up to us and said, hey, you know, what do you do and which happened one time when I was on a jury trial, we said, you know--

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [01:20:06] It would help if we knew who the burden was on.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:20:09] This is a good discussion. And I sit here and Senator Dotson and Clark and I will try to do that.

 

Senator Dan Sullivan [01:20:15] Thank you.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:20:16] The burden needs to be on more the board of apportionment to say, much like I said, a juror has to say, you know, if I'm on a jury trial and can you call me on the weekend? And 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:20:39] All right, members. I don't see more questions. Oh, Senator Clark.

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:20:44] Senator King, 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, 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, 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. Am I on the right track here?

 

Senator Bryan King [01:21:34] Absolutely. We can have this conversation and I'll look at it amending the language to reach each one of you in this and bring up that and clarify it. So that's part of the discussion.

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:21:44] 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, I 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 we can't have a private conversation.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:22:12] And I'm not looking into mistakes, screw ups and bad judgments. Those things happen. I mean, my gosh, we all speed at some point in time. Okay. I mean, that is 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 has clearly happened. I'm trying to get it out here in the public arena where John Q Citizen comes up to you 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 a lot of past history of bad things that's happened that people have been convicted up here, we have a process where 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 doing.

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:23:03] Next, God willing, next redistricting, I'll be a private citizen. But you brought it at the appropriate time. Having just observed the last time, you definitely brought it at the appropriate time, whether it does any good or not. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:23:23] Thank you. And that's a good point. Senator Clark, since that's a new question, I'll answer it. Can I answer that one?

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:23:28] I don't think that was a question. I think that was a comment.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:23:31] 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 inside the bubble. This is a perfect time to bring this up.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:24:01] All right. All right. So we don't have anybody else, or seeing no other questions, we do have somebody signed up to speak for this bill. So, Jimmy Gavin, you want to come on up, Jimmy? I know it's not your first on this committee, but go ahead and introduce yourself. And I think yeah.

 

Jimmy Gavin [01:24:35] Jimmy Gavin, private citizen.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:24:36] All right. Mr. Gavin, proceed with your remarks.

 

Jimmy Gavin [01:24:38] Yes, sir. I think this is very exciting with all the issues we've faced in transparency over the last year and a half to two 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 amendment. 

I like what Senator Clark was talking about. It boils down to if you're approached, you simply say, hey, there's something I can't talk about. Please send me an 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 25-19-105 and apply the same principle. But I do think Senator Sullivan's right as far as on the Class A misdemeanor declared in there. 

But I think we also have to remember that prosecutors have what's called prosecutorial discretion. They look at intent and I think it's clearly 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 I think that prosecutor would have to make that decision to say, hey, this is clearly violating the law. So I think to worry about a citizen being prosecuted over that, while I get that concern, the prosecutors are not going to do that. But I think with the amendments that were brought up today are solid amendments, it's going to make this bill even stronger. 

The one thing that didn't get brought up that I'm going to contend that will get brought up to some point is under the record 25-19-105 in the FOIA, it's going to be that the governor's communications and working papers are exempt and the Attorney General has the same exemption. That argument is going to get brought up where you can't do this because those are exempt. But that's in their capacity as governor, 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 25-19-105 because they're operating as a board and not their position is a governor, Attorney General. 

And so I can see that argument being brought up. So I want to clarify that this should really operate common sense wise 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 for the legislature to show the people a state that the government can commit to transparency. And with that, I'll take any questions.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:28:10] Any questions for Mr. Gavin from members of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Gavin.

 

Jimmy Gavin [01:28:14] Thank you.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:28:16] Senator King, are you going to pull this?

 

Senator Bryan King [01:28:20] I'm going to try and amend.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:28:21] So you're going to pull this down for an amendment?

 

Senator Bryan King [01:28:23] They came back with the same questions again--

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:28:25] You'll be more brief with your response.

 

Senator Bryan King [01:28:26] The same answers.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:28:29] We'll do our best to make sure that doesn't happen. All right. So you're pulling the bill. All right. Anybody else have anything to run in here? Senator Dotson, what bill are you looking at? Senate Bill 56. All right.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:28:48] 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've done a lot of work on the rules and regulations, making those rules to where they sunset every 12 years and come up for a review process with six roughly equal sized groups, one group coming up every two years for 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 size number of rules in each of those groups. And with group one coming up, group two, so on and so forth. So we're into that process, I think, into the third rule review group. One of the things that didn't really make clear was whether or not the governor could readjust 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 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 the administration on when those come up. However, it brought up the question, can a governor or administration from one administration the other just make sure one group never comes up ever? 

And so what this legislation would do is to say the governor may amend the divisions of agency into rule review groups, but that won't make it to where any group of rules goes past the 12 year mark. So they can at least adjust them 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 past that 12 year sunset clause. So I'm happy to answer any questions.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:31:07] All right. Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions from members of the committee? Senator Payton.

 

Senator John Payton [01:31:13] Thank you. Appreciate your work on this. I remember several years 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 timeframe on that being done?

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:31:28] So originally all rules went through in the first two years. So I think that was in 2018 and we cleared up about 25%. All the rules either got repealed, removed. If you'll recall, we came in and--

 

Senator John Payton [01:31:44] So all the rules have gone through one review?

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:31:47] They all went through initially. And then the governor, Governor Hutchinson at the time, divided them into six groups.

 

Senator John Payton [01:31:54] I think that answers my question.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:31:55] I think we're in a group 2 or 3 right now.

 

Senator John Payton [01:31:58] So my real question was whether or not the 12 year clock had already started on every rule.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:32:03] Yes. Yes.

 

Senator John Payton [01:32:05] It has. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:32:06] Thank you, Senator. Senator Clark.

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:32:18] I thank you for the work that you did on this. Is there a reason why the administration, the governor decides what group they'll be in, which then decides when they'll be reviewed versus the legislature deciding?

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:32:41] Well, originally this was kind of a new concept. We made some modifications over the years. Originally, they were six groups with four years in each group. And it was kind of figured out in that first group that four 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. 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 the rules are the executive branch function, to determine which group of rules was placed in which group.

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:33:35] That makes sense. Not 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?

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:33:45] Yes. As far as, though, just making sure that this is coming up, and I don't have a good answer for that other than that's what we decided at the time.

 

Senator Alan Clark [01:33:58] 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.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:34:08] Thank you, Senator Clark. All right. Members, is there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Do we have anybody signed up to speak for or against this? You're recognized to close for your bill.

 

Senator Jim Dotson [01:34:17] I'm closed. And make a motion do pass.

 

Senator Scott Flippo [01:34:20] A motion. Second by Senator Tucker. All in favor, say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, Senator. All right. Anybody else? All right. Seeing no further business to come before this committee, we are adjourned.