Latest news with #StateAgenciesandGovernmentalAffairsCommittee
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to eliminate daylight savings time in Arkansas fails in committee
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Arkansas legislators debated the impact of no longer adhering to daylight saving time on Wednesday. The bill failed but after much debate between legislators in a House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee on how it could impact things like our health or farming. Daylight saving time 2025: These states are trying to 'lock the clocks' Rep. Stephen Meeks (R-Greenbrier) sponsored a bill to eliminate daylight saving time in Arkansas and keep the state on standard time year-round. 'What daylight-saving time does is force us to get up an hour early each day, but we all don't go to bed an hour early every night, so we've got an already sleep-deprived society and we're making ourselves even more sleep-deprived,' Meeks said. He said there are health effects on our bodies when the clock springs forward. 'Studies after studies have shown that by staying on daylight saving time, it's like being jet-lagged all the time, we never fully get used to it, because that daylight sun in the evening is always trying to drag our bodies back to standard time,' Meeks said. Permanent daylight saving time? Where efforts to 'lock the clocks' stand He said there are negative health, work productivity and economic impacts to daylight saving time. Rep. Mark McElroy, who represents areas near the Mississippi border, told the committee it might be confusing for people in that area when the time changes as they cross a state line. 'We have some cross, and you touched on it, and a lot of them work in Mississippi and Memphis, and they go back and forth,' McElroy said. 'It's really going to cause confusion in Helena with people working back and forth.' McElroy and other legislators said this would be handled better at the federal level so that it is done across the county all at once. Arkansas lawmakers say push for permanent Daylight-Saving Time bill is bipartisan Meeks said he has no plans to try again because he is term-limited. 'I do have colleagues in the chamber who have expressed continued support for this and so my hope is the next generation of lawmakers will pick up the mantle and continue to work forward on this issue,' Meeks said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate panel advances two bills defining ‘public meeting' in Arkansas Freedom of Information Act
Little Rock Democratic Sen. Clarke Tucker (left) considers a question from Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, at a Senate State Agencies Committee meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. (Photo by Sonny Albarado/Arkansas Advocate) An Arkansas Senate committee approved two bills hours apart Tuesday seeking to define a public meeting, an issue that has plagued local elected officials and government transparency advocates for decades. Sen. Clarke Tucker, a Little Rock Democrat and sponsor of Senate Bill 227, told the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee Tuesday morning his proposal would, 'after 50 years, bring clarity to the law' by setting parameters for what members of city councils, quorum courts or school boards can discuss outside of a public meeting. The bill also would amend the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to add cybersecurity breach as a reason to meet in executive session, introduce and regulate remote meeting attendance, and allow a court to nullify official actions taken as a result of violations of open meetings law. Senate Bill 276, sponsored by Sen. Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale, defines a public meeting as any gathering of more than two members of a public body. Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, is co-sponsor of Clark's bill, but also has her own version, House Bill 1667, which hasn't been heard in committee yet. Both bills brought before Tuesday's committee would apparently accomplish the same goal — give members of local governments a clearer understanding of what they can discuss outside of a formal meeting — but opponents of Clark's bill said it would encourage 'daisy chain'-style discussion of public business by sequential groups of two officials. The FOIA allows residents access to public records, including communication between state officials. Members of the press and curious citizens often rely on the law to get additional information about contentious subjects, or to do routine checks into financial documents. The tool was used to uncover the $19,029 lectern Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders bought in 2023, and provided answers to opponents of the state's prison plan when officials remained tight-lipped. The law also sets standards for public meetings, though vagueness in this category for the last half-century has led to frequent litigation. Tucker said his bill would establish a distinct line for what type of discussion is permissible outside of a public meeting. Though not defined in current law, a meeting has generally been considered public when at least two members of a governing body meet. On Tuesday, Clark asked several questions of Tucker's bill, introduced hypothetical situations and asked about the level of involvement of school board members. Tucker maintained that under his bill, any number of members of a governing body could meet to chat, so long as they were not 'deliberating' or discussing items they would take action on in the foreseeable future. While members of a school board cheering on the high school football team together would pose no issue, Tucker said the situation changes once the substance of the conversation becomes actionable. 'If the substance is, 'We're deciding public business,' it doesn't matter if there's 10 people there or two, that needs to happen at a public meeting,' Tucker said. 'That's the distinction.' Tucker's bill received nearly unanimous support from the committee, of which he is the only Democratic member. A result of two years of work, Tucker said he collaborated with a bipartisan group of public meetings advocates, attorneys, members of governing bodies and state-level task forces. He said he worked to make the bill 'pro-transparency' and 'pro-fairness' for members of the public and those serving on committees and councils. Committee members applauded the effort Tucker put into the 10-page proposal, but they still questioned elements of the bill and how it might hold up if challenged in court. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, asked specifically about the use of the words 'foreseeably' and 'reasonably' in Tucker's proposal, referencing concerns that a federal court recently decided to declare portions of Act 372 of 2023, which Sullivan sponsored, unconstitutional. Tucker said his proposal did not restrict free speech, a foundational difference with the Act 372 lawsuit. He said he felt confident in the language as strict scrutiny would not be applied should the bill be challenged in court; the verbiage is typical in courts. In response to members' questions, Tucker admitted that he didn't think SB 227 was perfect, but said it 'goes a long way toward helping clarify what the law is.' Jimmie Cavin, an FOIA advocate, spoke in support of Tucker's bill Tuesday. He said he assisted with town hall meetings across the state during the last two years and encouraged members of governing bodies — like school board members — to get involved. 'It's such a positive step in transparency, and the greatest thing is [that] it's fair for everybody,' Cavin said. 'It's fair for Jimmie, and it's fair for Linda Hargis, my school board member.' Joey McCutchen, a Fort Smith attorney who has argued FOIA cases before the Arkansas Supreme Court, also testified in support of Tucker's bill. While McCutchen said he appreciated the definitions the bill introduces, he also said he appreciated the intent to ensure members of the public are also privy to officials' decision-making process. 'The citizens are entitled to see the sausage making,' McCutchen said. 'And if we don't see the 'Why?' and we don't see the sausage making, then we're going to be critical of the very board members that I know you're supporting, Sen. [Alan] Clark.' Clark presented his bill after 4:30 p.m., when the committee reconvened following the day's Senate session, and told fellow panelists his bill 'better defines Sen. Tucker's bill.' Tucker noted that two school board or city council members could subvert the intent of the public meetings law by having one-to-one discussions until all members, or at least a majority, agreed on which way to vote on an issue. 'That's possible,' Clark said, 'but that's not the spirit' of the bill. Little Rock law professor and FOIA expert Robert Steinbuch testified that Clark's bill needs language to address concerns about serial meetings. 'I don't want to pick a number for you,' regarding how many officials should require a public meeting, he told lawmakers. Andrew Bagley, Arkansas Press Association president and a newspaper publisher, was the only other member of the public to speak against Clark's bill. He began his remarks by noting that Tucker's bill was 'a very good piece of legislation that brought all the parties together at the table.' 'It was one of those moments where you almost felt like the lightning was about to flash and the thunder was about to roll because God was moving in our midst. Now we have a bill that would undo all the good we had this morning' because it would allow all the discussion to happen behind closed doors, Bagley said. Clark asked Tucker if he would support SB 376 if it was amended to prohibit polling or serial discussions between successive pairs of officials. Tucker said he would work with Clark to craft such language but could not support the bill as written. Clark promised he would work on such an amendment but asked that the bill be advanced Tuesday night. Tucker was the sole no in the following voice vote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House committee advances bills amending Arkansas ballot initiative process
Arkansas State Representative David Ray answers questions about his FOIA bill during a meeting of the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee on Sept. 13, 2023 at the state Capitol. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate 09/13/2023 The Arkansas House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs on Wednesday advanced three election-related bills. Rep. David Ray, a Maumelle Republican and sponsor of all three bills, said House Bill 1221 would clarify that the certification of ballot titles for initiatives, referenda and constitutional amendments as well as the signatures collected for those measures would only be valid for the next general election. This is not a significant change and codifies a long-standing practice, Ray said. 'Allowing initiatives to carry over for more than one election cycle would almost certainly result in a massive increase in mistakes, inaccurate signatures and/or downright fraud,' he said. Rep. Andrew Collins, D-Little Rock, questioned the need for the bill if it's already common practice. Ray said the law would help guard against people trying to circumvent the rules. Steve Grappe, the executive director of the grassroots organization Stand Up Arkansas and an active participant in citizen-led ballot initiatives, was one of two people to speak against the bill. Grappe, who said he'd be happy to work with Ray to reform parts of the ballot initiative process such as eliminating paid canvassers, argued that new laws have made it more difficult for groups that aren't well-funded to participate in direct democracy. 'We the people have the power and we give it to the General Assembly…and what we've seen over the last several years is this body making it more difficult for grassroots organizations to hold you accountable, or to present the initiatives that we want on the table to the body,' he said. The citizen-led ballot initiative process garnered much attention during the 2024 election cycle with groups collecting signatures for nearly a dozen ballot measures that addressed a range of topics, including eliminating the tampon tax, expanding abortion access and increasing government transparency. The sole intiative to make it to the ballot was a measure to repeal a Pope County casino license, which voters approved in November. A measure to expand medical marijuana access appeared on the ballot, but an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling prohibited votes for the measure from being counted. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX After the committee approved HB 1221 on a split voice vote, members next considered another bill from Ray, who said he doesn't believe the current process for reviewing proposed ballot measures is strong enough to protect voters from problematic ballot language. Currently, Arkansas' attorney general can deem a proposed ballot measure insufficient for issues like a misleading title or confusing language. House Bill 1222 would expand the AG's authority to reject a proposal if it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. Additionally, HB 1222 would prevent a sponsor from submitting more than one conflicting petition at the same time, which Ray said 'closes an egregious loophole in the process that led to abuse of this process last session.' Collins and Rep. Nicole Clowney, D-Fayetteville, questioned how this might conflict with the separation of powers by placing the Supreme Court's power in the attorney general's hands. Both Ray and Noah Watson, deputy attorney general of the opinions and FOIA division, said this bill would allow the question of constitutionality to be considered at the beginning of the process instead of the end. They also said petitioners who feel they've been aggrieved would still have the right to appeal the attorney general's decision to the state Supreme Court as they do now. Three members of the public spoke against the bill. No one spoke in support of it. In explaining her reasoning for voting against the measure, Clowney expressed concern over a section of the bill that would prohibit sponsors from submitting multiple petitions that are 'conflicting measures.' The bill defines conflicting measures as petitions that 'cover the same subject matter; are for the same general purpose; and contain different language in any part of their full texts, ballot titles or popular names.' 'We are giving any future attorney general truly what I see, I cannot read as any other way than a blank check to deny anything that is even closely related,' Clowney said. Other committee members joined Clowney in rejecting the measure, which ultimately passed on a close voice vote. The final and least controversial of Ray's proposals considered by the committee was House Bill 1223, which would allow a candidate for the Arkansas Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals who is currently serving in that position as an appointee to use that position as a prefix on the ballot. The measure passed with no discussion on a unanimous voice vote. All three bills will next be considered by the full House. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
