[22-I-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY OPPOSING ISSUE 4 (AN AMENDMENT TO LEGALIZE RECREATIONAL ADULT USE CANNABIS) AND TO ENCOURAGE PULASKI COUNTY VOTERS TO VOTE NO ON ISSUE 4.]

IF WE ARE PREPARED TO START OUR AGENDA, AMY, WOULD YOU READ A RESOLUTION, 22-I-71.

A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY OPPOSING ISSUE4, AN AMENDMENT TO LEGALIZE RECREATIONAL ADULT USE CANNABIS AND TO ENCOURAGE PULASKI COUNTY VOTERS TO VOTE NO ON ISSUE4.

JUSTICE MCCOY.

MOVE FOR THE ADOPTION FOR QUORUM COURT.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND RESOLUTION 22-I-71 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURTWITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE MCCOY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? YES. JUST A FEW TALKING POINTS AND I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE COURT.

I'M PLEASED TO REPORT I'M, ACTUALLY HAVE SOME MARIJUANA SUPPORTERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO ISSUE4.

DAVID COUCH AND MELISSA FULTZ, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.

AND SO PART OF MY PERSONAL CAPACITY IS TO OPPOSE THIS ISSUESTATEWIDE.

BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR FOLKS TO KNOW THAT A LOT OF MARIJUANA PROPONENTS AND SUPPORTERS, RECREATIONAL MEDICAL ARE AGAINST ISSUE4.

HERE'S A FEW REASONS.

IF ISSUE4 WERE TO PASS, IT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC SMOKING JUST LIKE WHERE CIGARETTES ARE ALLOWED IN PUBLIC PLACES, PARKS, WALKING DOWN THE STREET, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

ALSO THE UNDER ISSUE4, IF IT WERE TO PASS, THERE WOULD BE NO CAP ON THC.

DON'T ASK ME TO PRONOUNCE WHAT THC STANDS FOR.

I COULD PROBABLY DO IT AND GET CLOSE.

BUT IT'S THE MAIN COMPONENT OF MARIJUANA THAT ALLOWS USERS TO GET HIGH.

AND UNDER THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA, I THINK THAT CAP IS SOMEWHERE AROUND THE 20% RANGE.

BUT UNDER ISSUE4, RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, IT WOULD BE UNCAPPED SO PEOPLE COULD EAT GUMMIES, SMOKE MARIJUANA, DRINK DRINKS WITH THC AS MUCH AS 80 OR 90% THC. IF PASSED, THIS WOULD BE UNREGULATED AND CHECKED.

SO THERE'S NO WAY FOR THE LEGISLATURE AND A WAY FOR CITY COUNCILS, NO WAY FOR QUORUM COURTS TO COME IN AND SAY, WELL, HOLD ON A MINUTE, WE WANT TO DO A ZONING ORDINANCE OF SORTS TO KIND OF PROTECT OUR COUNTY.

THE QUORUM COURT, THE CITY, THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T TAX IT ANYMORE.

THEY CAN'T EVEN CHANGE OR AMEND THE AMENDMENT.

THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE AMENDED IS BY ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

TO THAT POINT, IF ISSUE2 PASSES, THAT MEANS THE THRESHOLD FOR OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND I GUESS BALLOT PREFERRED INITIATIVES LAWS WOULD GO UP TO 60%.

SO IF ISSUE4 PASSES, THEN THE THRESHOLD TO AMEND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, SHOULD IT PASS, IS GOING TO BE EVEN HARDER OR HIGHER, IF YOU WILL.

I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE.

IF IT DOES PASS, THIS WOULD CHANGE.

USE MY GLASSES HERE.

IF PASSED, THIS COULD ONLY BE CHANGED BY A STATEWIDE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER.

LAST, THERE ARE OTHERS MUCH LIKE MARIJUANA SUPPORTERS.

DAVID COUCH, MELISSA FULTZ, WHO CLAIM THIS IS A MONOPOLY, THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

IT REDUCES THE SALES TAX FROM THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA AMENDMENT AND ALSO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING WOULD ACTUALLY BE JUST A STIPEND.

AND IT'S ESTIMATED FROM WHAT WE GATHER, COULD JUST BE A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS PER OFFICER.

IT'S A STIPEND SO IT DOESN'T GO TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

IT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE DEPUTIES, TO THE OFFICERS.

BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

SO WITH THAT, I'D APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE AND ANY FOLKS WHO WANT TO BE A SPONSOR.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT JUSTICE CONEY HAS ARRIVED.

WE'VE GOT SEVERAL LIGHTS.

AND BEFORE WE START DOWN HERE, AS THE CHAIR, I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE KEEP YOUR YOUR COMMENTS ON 22-I-71. I WILL BE LESS LIBERAL TONIGHT WITH BUNNY TRAILING.

[LAUGHTER] SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, JUSTICE STOWERS.

THANK YOU, MR. KEITH. SO DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY, MR. MCCOY, THAT DAVID COUCH IS AGAINST THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? CORRECT.

MARIJUANA SUPPORTER AND PROPONENT, LIKES RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, IS AGAINST THIS RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ISSUE4.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I UNDERSTAND AND HELP ME, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU SOUND LIKE TO BE THE MATTER OF EXPERT OR I'LL ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AS FAR AS WHAT THE PHYSICIAN, SHE'S NOT A PHYSICIAN, BUT THE CITIZEN-LED INITIATIVE IS.

AND THAT IS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO GROW IT IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

[00:10:01]

THIS WOULD NOT DO THAT? OKAY. CAN CAN WE GET, ADAM FEEL FREE, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE BEST INFORMATION OUT.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON THE CONTENTS OF ISSUE4.

SO IF YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE THAT, I CAN PREPARE A SUMMARY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT A LATER DATE.

BUT I'M NOT PREPARED TONIGHT TO GO INTO DEPTH OR DETAIL ON.

I GUESS, WHAT I'VE HEARD.

THANK YOU, ADAM, FOR THAT.

BUT WHAT I'VE HEARD, MR. KEITH, THAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT WHEREAS WITH THE MEDICINAL MARIJUANA, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF SCRUTINY, GOVERNMENTAL BUREAUCRACY THAT'S INVOLVED IN MAKING SURE THAT DOESN'T GET OUT OF HAND.

AND WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME AND AT LEAST LISTENING TO THE ARGUMENTS BACK AND FORTH ON THIS IS THIS WOULD ALLOW A TENDENCY, WHETHER IT'S THE STRENGTH OF THE STRAIN OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, TO GET OUT OF CONTROL.

AND WHEN THERE'S SOMEONE WHO HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THIS COMMUNITY, A MAJOR PROPONENT OF LEGALIZING, AND STATES HAVE DONE IT AND THEY'VE DONE IT SUCCESSFULLY, SOME HAVE NOT DONE IT SO WELL.

I MEAN, TALK TO AN ED DOCTOR.

THEY HAVE MORE PEOPLE THAT COME IN THE ED MORE FREQUENTLY THAT HAVE OD'D ON ALCOHOL THAN THOSE WHO HAVE EATEN TOO MANY CHEETOS AND OD'D ON MARIJUANA.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS RESOLUTION THIS EVENING BECAUSE I'M HEARING FROM CONSERVATIVE CIRCLES AS WELL AS VERY LIBERAL CIRCLES, THAT THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS.

AND WITH THAT, I YIELD.

THANK YOU, JUSTICE STOWERS.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

YOU KNOW, I. JUSTICE MCMULLEN COULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? THANK YOU. YES.

ALL RIGHT. I'VE HAD MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THIS AND I KNOW THAT THERE VARIOUS COMMERCIALS AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPINIONS OF IT.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK, YOU KNOW, AT THE AMENDMENT ITSELF, IT LOOKS AS THOUGH, WELL, MAYBE SOMETHING HAS BEEN INCLUDED THAT DIDN'T NEED TO BE INCLUDED AND THEN MAYBE SOMETHING ALSO HAS BEEN LEFT OUT, PERHAPS THAT NEEDS TO BE LEFT OUT. I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION TO THE SPONSOR OF THE RESOLUTION IF I AM ALLOWED TO.

AND IF NOT, THEN I'LL JUST PUT THIS OUT AS A STATEMENT.

MY CONCERN IS THAT, IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT BABIES AT BIRTH, OF COURSE, ARE BORN WITH THIS IN THEIR LITTLE BLOODSTREAMS, BY USERS OF MARIJUANA.

NOW, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ON THAT FOR ME TO TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WOW.

BUT THEN WHEN I THINK ABOUT IT, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE WHO INDULGE IN ALCOHOL DURING PREGNANCY? I WOULD THINK THAT PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, THAT IS ALSO A NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE FOR THE BABIES AND YET THAT ALCOHOL IS LEGAL.

BUT I DO THINK, THOUGH, THAT PERHAPS SOME TYPE OF CAPS NEED TO BE PUT ON THIS.

THERE WAS MENTION OF THE DIFFERENT STRAINS.

NOW, FOR WHAT I JUST SAID, RETROGRESSIVELY.

I JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE.

THAT'S FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO YIELD.

OKAY. THANK YOU, JUSTICE MCMULLEN AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MAYBE JUSTICE MCCOY.

EVEN IF THIS RESOLUTION PASSED, THE STATE WOULD STILL, EMPLOYEES WOULD STILL GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRUG TEST THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THAT WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE. IS THAT CORRECT? THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR EMPLOYERS TO SET UP DRUG FREE WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS, I THINK IS THE EXACT LANGUAGE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. TO ME, IT'S.

YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. AND JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

IT'S MY OPINION THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL OTHERS HOW TO VOTE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S OUR JOB.

I THINK IT'S UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL TO VOTE ON THEIR OWN, AND THAT'S UP TO THEM AND THEIR CONSCIENCE.

[00:15:05]

SO ACCORDING TO THAT, I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS.

SECOND. SECOND.

SO IN TABLING THAT, DO DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC, WE CAN JUST TABLE IT? OKAY. YES.

WHEN THE ITEM IS TABLED, IT'S TABLED UNTIL A MAJORITY VOTE REMOVES IT FROM THE TABLE.

OKAY. AND THAT'S NON DEBATABLE.

CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SO MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE TABLE 22-I-71.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S NON DEBATABLE.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON TABLING 22-I-71.

MR. REED. NO. MS. LEWISON. YES. MS. BLACKWOOD. AYE.

MS. MCMULLEN MASSEY. AYE. MS. CONEY. YES.

AND MS.. MEDLOCK. NO.

SIX AYES.

SIX NAYS.

AND ONE ABSTENTION. MOTION FAILS.

MOTION FAILS TO TABLE.

SO IF THERE ARE NO, WE'RE BACK TO DISCUSSING.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL.

GO AHEAD. SO YOU AND I AND MANY OF US AROUND THIS TABLE HAVE BEEN AROUND THE TABLE FOR QUITE A WHILE.

WE'RE MORE LIKE BROTHERS AND SISTERS THAN WE ARE COLLEAGUES IN A LOT OF WAYS.

AND THIS WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL BE THE LAST THAT THIS BODY HAS WEIGHED IN ON EITHER AN ITEM THAT WAS REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE OR AN ITEM THAT WAS REFERRED BY THE PEOPLE.

AS FAR AS THE THREE THAT THEY GET EVERY OTHER YEAR TO DO THIS.

AND SO IT'S VERY TRUE.

I THINK WHAT MS.MCMULLEN SAID OR IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MS. BLACKWOOD, BUT THIS DOESN'T CAUSE AND EFFECT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WE'RE JUST STATING AS A BODY, OR NOT, HEY, THINK ABOUT THIS AS A PULASKI COUNTY VOTER, AND IF YOU THINK THROUGH IT, HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS, MAYBE WITH SOME PEOPLE LUKE'S TALKED ABOUT AND VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE AT THE END OF THE DAY.

BUT THIS IS NOT AN UNHEARD OF OR IMPRESSED IN IT.

I CAN THINK OF SEVERAL TIMES THROUGH THE YEARS MY TEAM HERE THAT WE HAVE WEIGHED IN ON BALLOT ISSUES.

SORRY. WHAT'S THAT? YEAH, THAT WE'VE WEIGHED IN.

HATE CRIMES MIGHT BE A GOOD EXAMPLE, WHERE WE'VE WEIGHED IN AS A BODY AS TO WHAT, HOW WE WOULD APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE OF PULASKI COUNTY VOTING.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE OUT OF LINE OR OUT OF ORDER OR THAT WE'RE SETTING SOME KIND OF A PRECEDENT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BECOME AN EVERY MONTH OR EVERY TWO MONTH THING.

FIRST OF ALL, THE ELECTION CYCLES ONLY COME AROUND EVERY OTHER YEAR WHEN THESE TYPES OF THINGS ARE HEARD.

SO, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANKS, MR. KEITH. THANK YOU, JUSTICE STOWERS.

JUSTICE MCCOY.

ONE THING I DID WANT TO MENTION IS THAT ISSUE4 FAILS TO CORRECT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CRIMINALLY CHARGED, CONVICTED OF MARIJUANA CRIMES.

AND IT PROVIDES NO EXPUNGEMENT.

SO THAT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE PUT IN JAIL FOR MARIJUANA.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

JUSTICE CONEY.

THIS IS A KIND OF WIN-WIN SITUATION BECAUSE AT FIRST WHEN I SAW THE MARIJUANA, I WAS SAYING, NO, IT HAS RESEARCH MORE FOR CANCER, JOBS, BUT IT DOES NOT ELABORATE ON HOW MUCH FUNDING WILL GO TO THAT. AND I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH IT, BECAUSE I SEE EVERY DAY BABIES BORN WITH DRUGS IN THEIR SYSTEMS AND THEY ARE TAKEN AWAY AND PUT UP FOR ADOPTION.

AND A LOT OF TIMES THE PEOPLE WHO ADOPT THEM, IT BE A FAILED ADOPTION WHEN THEY GET TO GROWING UP BECAUSE BEHAVIOR APPEARS.

AND IF YOU DON'T ASK FOR MEDICAID OR WHATEVER ON THE FRONT END, YOU STUCK WITH A KID WITH PROBLEMS. BUT IT'S A LOT TO THIS, AND I WISH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BY ITSELF, AND I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE JUST SAID NO.

[00:20:01]

BUT IT'S GOT SO MANY OTHER, IT'S GOT 4 OTHER, THREE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT I KNOW.

THAT IT HAS JOBS FOR ARKANSAS.

IT HAS CANCER RESEARCH, AND IT'S ANOTHER ONE, BUT IT'S JUST CONNECTED TO THE WRONG.

POLICE. RIGHT.

WE NEED MORE FUNDING FOR POLICE OFFICERS, BUT IT'S, TO ME IT'S JUST CONNECTED TO THE WRONG ISSUE.

SO WE STUCK ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I YIELD. THANK YOU, JUSTICE CONEY.

JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

AS I WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT AND SAY AGAIN, AND IF YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN ON THIS COURT FOR 16 YEARS, 17 YEARS.

I HAVE NEVER IN THE 17 YEARS I HAVE SAT HERE TOLD ANYONE HOW TO VOTE.

I HAVE NEVER COME ACROSS AN AMENDMENT WHERE I'VE TOLD ANYONE HOW TO VOTE, WHERE I'VE TOLD ANYONE HOW THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE, WHERE I'VE DONE A RESOLUTION TO SAY YOU MUST VOTE THIS WAY.

WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE THIS WAY.

THAT IS NOT WHY I'M HERE.

PEOPLE VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE.

PEOPLE VOTE. YOU VOTE THE WAY YOU WANT TO VOTE.

I VOTE THE WAY I WANT TO VOTE.

AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT THING THAT WE HAVE AS INDIVIDUALS IN AMERICA.

AND IT'S NOT WHETHER IT'S NOT ABOUT THIS, IT'S NOT ABOUT THIS.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THE WAY WE WANT TO VOTE.

AND WE AS A BODY SHOULD NOT BE TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE AND SAY, WE DON'T WANT YOU AS A BODY IN PULASKI COUNTY TO VOTE THIS WAY BECAUSE WE THINK, WE DEEM IT WRONG.

I DON'T CARE WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

I THINK THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I THINK IT'S WRONG.

I THINK IT'S NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD LOOK AT THINGS.

I JUST I AM TOTALLY 100% AGAINST IT.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS COME UP.

NEVER. NEVER IN 17 YEARS.

AND YOU MAY HAVE BEFORE THE 17 YEARS, BUT YOU AND I HAVE BEEN HERE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.

AND IF YOU CAN NAME ONE TIME, I WOULD BE GLAD TO SEE IT.

OKAY, SO HERE'S WHAT I DID.

AND NOT TO CUT YOU OFF.

SO HERE'S WHAT I DID ON THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY ARE GETTING OFF.

AND I SAID I WASN'T GOING TO BE AS LIBERAL.

THIS SIDE SAID THAT WE WE VOTED IN THE PAST.

SO I ALLOWED THIS SIDE TO SAY THAT WE WE HAVEN'T.

SO WE'RE THROUGH WITH THAT ISSUE.

NOW WE'RE BACK. WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE MAIN ISSUE.

AND IF IT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH 22-I-71.

SO, JUSTICE MASSEY.

OKAY. THIS DOES ALIGN WITH THIS BECAUSE IT CLEARLY SAYS AT THE END OF THIS RESOLUTION TO ASK VOTERS TO VOTE NO ON ISSUE4. I DON'T KNOW HOW I REALLY AT THIS TIME HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

BUT THE PART I DO NOT LIKE IS US SAYING, ASKING VOTERS TO VOTE NO.

I MEAN, WE'VE ASKED THE LEGISLATURE TO SUPPORT SOMETHING OR THE GOVERNOR, BUT WE'VE NEVER SAID TO THE VOTERS, DO THIS, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT PART IS SOMETHING, I THINK IT SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN FROM FROM THIS FROM THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, JUSTICE MASSEY.

SO GOING FORWARD, IF THERE IS A CONVERSATION, IF IT DOES NOT, IF IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THERE.

JUSTICE STOWERS.

NO. OKAY, HOLD ON JUSTICE STWOWERS.

JUSTICE LEWISON, YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET.

JUSTICE. THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO I'M READING THIS OVER AND IT SAYS, MOST MAJOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSIDER THC TO BE A VERY DANGEROUS COMPONENT OF MARIJUANA.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO THESE MAJOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT CONSIDER THIS ARE, BECAUSE I HAVE TALKED TO A LOT OF DOCTORS AND NURSES, AND THEY ARE FOR THIS.

THEY'RE NOT AGAINST THIS.

SO. DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC LIKE UAMS OR ST.

VINCENT'S OR WHOEVER? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THIS COMES FROM AND WHO THEY ARE.

SO, AGAIN, WE'RE.

I'M DONE. WOW.

JUSTICE STOWERS.

YES, SIR. SO ONE DID COME TO MIND AND THE MAJORITY OF US WERE HERE.

IT WAS I CAN'T REMEMBER JUDGE HYDE OR IF IT WAS JUDGE VILLINES, BUT WE DID VOTE AND WE VOTED AFFIRMATIVELY, BEST I CAN REMEMBER, TO SUPPORT THE

[00:25:05]

PERMANENT SALES TAX FOR THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, WHICH ALSO ASSISTS COUNTIES WITH OUR 15% OF THAT TAX, THE REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED FROM THAT TAX.

SO SO WE HAVE VOTED ON REFERENDUM ISSUES IN THE PAST.

I'M SORRY, MR. KEITH.

HAD TO GET YOU ONE IN.

WOW. Y'ALL GONE MAKE ME WORK TONIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. JUSTICE MCCOY.

THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, I GUESS, THE SAME FOLKS WHO WE PROBABLY ALL RESPECT AND APPRECIATE FOR VARIOUS REASONS CONSIDERS THC TO BE MARIJUANA ADDICTIVE AND SO ON.

IN FACT, THERE WAS LANGUAGE IN THIS RESOLUTION THAT ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL.

BUT ANYWAYS, I DOUBT ANYONE HERE WANTS TO SAY THE CDC DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON? OH, KRISTINA.

I'M SORRY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THIS.

MS. GULLEY.

AMY, I JUST WANT TO SAY THE RESOLUTION IS JUST AN EXPRESSION, RIGHT? IT IS. AND I KNOW THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE THE STATEMENT OF TO ENCOURAGE PULASKI COUNTY VOTERS TO VOTE NO ON ISSUE 4.

EXCUSE ME.

VOTERS ARE GOING TO VOTE THE WAY THEY WANT.

YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN THEY GO TO THE POLLS, AT LEAST FOR ME, I ALREADY KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE.

SO I WOULD SAY SUPPORT IT.

I MEAN, SUPPORT IT. I MEAN, I SEE THAT WHAT LUKE IS SAYING.

I MEAN, HE'S RAISED SOME GOOD POINTS THERE, BUT IT'S JUST A RESOLUTION.

AND IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT, YOU'RE NOT TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO BECAUSE PEOPLE GONE DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

ADULTS ARE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY. THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU'RE WELCOME.

NO OTHER COMMENTS.GREEN. YOU WANT YOUR COMMENT ON THE RECORD.

YES. WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU.

I'LL TURN YOUR MIC ON.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE HIGH ON MARIJUANA AND I'VE SEEN THEM SMOKING IT AROUND THE CHILDREN AND WHAT IT DOES TO THE KIDS TOO.

NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MS. MEDLOCK.

ALTHOUGH WE ARE EXPRESSING OUR OPINION, IN A SENSE, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO WITH AYE.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ABSTAIN. MS. BLACKWOOD. ABSOLUTELY NO.

MS. LEWISON.

NO. MR. REED. YES. SEVEN AYES.

FIVE NAYS AND ONE ABSTENTION.

SO WE ARE, THE QUORUM COURT IS NOT SUPPORTING THAT.

BUT VOTERS STILL GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE.

[22-I-67 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHED THE DAILY FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 TO BE CHARGED TO MUNICH* ALITIES FOR KEEPING PRISONERS OF MUNICD7ALITIES IN THE PULASKI COUNTY REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDEVANCE 14-OR-31 AS AMENDED AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 14-OR-31 TO DHtECT THE BDLLEVG STRUCTURE.]

NOW, AMY, PLEASE MOVE TO ORDINANCE 22-I-67.

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE DAILY FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 TO BE CHARGED TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR KEEPING PRISONERS OF MUNICIPALITIES IN THE PULASKI COUNTY REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE 14-OR-31 AS AMENDED, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 14-OR-31 TO DIRECT THE BILLING STRUCTURE.

JUSTICE LEWISON.

I MOVE THAT WE SEND IT TO THE FULL COURT WITH A DUE PASS.

A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 22-I-67 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURTWITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN JUSTICE LEWIS? I WOULD BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE MR.

[00:30:01]

HUTCHINSON COME AND EXPLAIN INSTEAD.

HE'S REFERRED IT TO THE LAWYER.

OKAY, SO, ADAM FOGLEMAN, PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY.

THIS ORDINANCE DOES, IN EFFECT, TWO THINGS.

FIRST, IT CHANGES THE DAILY RATE THAT THE COUNTY CHARGES TO THE CITIES FOR HOLDING PRISONERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY. IT CHANGES IT FROM $64.70 TO $71.29.

THE $71.29 IS THE NUMBER THAT WAS DETERMINED BY LEGISLATIVE AUDIT.

IT'S THE AUDIT VERIFIED AMOUNT THAT IT COSTS TO HOLD AN INMATE IN THE PULASKI COUNTY JAIL IN FISCAL YEAR 2021.

SO WE'RE FIXING THE NUMBER FOR 2023 BASED ON WHAT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT INDICATED THE COST WAS IN 2021.

AND THE OTHER CHANGE THAT IT MAKES IS IT PROVIDES SOME GUIDANCE TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ON THE BILLING RULES.

RIGHT NOW, THE ORDINANCE SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE SHALL ADOPT REASONABLE BILLING RULES.

THIS MAKES ONE CHANGE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT FOR EACH DAY THAT AN INMATE IS IN THE SHERIFF'S CUSTODY AT THE JAIL, WHEN THEY DO THEIR DAILY CENSUS, THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS CHARGED FOR THE FULL DAY.

THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAD ADOPTED A PRACTICE OF DOING PRORATION OF A DAY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF MINUTES THEY STAYED.

AND IT WAS GETTING IN THE WEEDS A LITTLE TOO MUCH.

AND SO THIS SHOULD SIMPLIFY THE BILLINGFOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND FOR THE CITIES.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. JUSTICE STOWERS.

THANK YOU, MR. KEITH. SO, ADAM, THIS ACTUARIAL CHANGE THAT YOU MENTIONED AT THE END, WILL THAT GET US TO A PLACE WHERE THERE'S LESS DISAGREEMENT AND MORE AGREEMENT, HOPEFULLY, BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FAR AS THE CITIES VERSUS THE COUNTY AND OUR POSITION AS FAR AS WHAT THEY THINK THEY OWE AND WHAT WE SAY THAT THEY OWE? SO IN RECENT MEETINGS THAT CHANGE, EVERYBODY THAT WAS PRESENT AGREED THAT THEY DIDN'T OBJECT TO IT.

AND SO THE, I GUESS THE POINT OF CONTENTION WITH THE CITIES HAS BEEN MAKING SURE THAT WHEN AN INMATE HAS MULTIPLE HOLDS, SO IF THEY'RE ARRESTED BY ONE CITY BUT THEY HAVE A WARRANT OUT OF ANOTHER, THAT THE RECORD IS CORRECTLY INDICATING THAT THEY'RE THE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY ON THAT DAY OR MULTIPLE DAYS.

SO THERE ARE STILL DETAILS THAT WILL STILL HAVE TO BE WORKED THROUGH IN THE BUILDING ITSELF.

BUT THIS WILL SIMPLIFY ONE ASPECT OF THE BILLING RECORDS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, JUSTICE STOWERS.

IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 22-I-67.

MR. REED.

YES. MS. LEWISON. YES.

MS. BLACKWOOD. AYE.

MS. MCMULLEN. YES.

MS.MASSEY. AYE. MS.CONEY.

YES. MR. KEITH.

YES. MS. GREEN.

AYE. MR. ROBINSON. AYE.

MR. MCCOY. YES.

MR. STOWERS. YES.

MR. ELLIOTT.

YES. AND MS. MEDLOCK.

AYE. 13 AYES.

13 AYES. WE WILL SEND 22-I-67 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURTWITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

[22-I-68 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 21-OR-46 (2022 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE TITLE II GRANT FUNDS FOR THE YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR THE PILOT TEEN COURT PROGRAM.]

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 22-I-68.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 21-OR-46 2022 ANNUAL BUDGET PULASKI COUNTY ARKANSAS TO RECOGNIZE AN APPROPRIATE TITLE TWO GRANT FUNDS FOR THE YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR THE PILOT TEEN COURT PROGRAM.

JUSTICE GREEN. I MOVE THAT WE SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURTWITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 22-I-68 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURTWITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE GREEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? YEAH. THIS IS FOR A PILOT PROGRAM FOR FOR THE YOUTH GRANT, FOR PILOT PROGRAM FOR THE TEEN COURT PROGRAM.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK JAMIE WHAT THE $2,000 FOR UNIFORMS IS FOR, CLOTHING AND UNIFORMS IS FOR.

DIRECTOR SCOTT, PULASKI COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES.

IT'S NOT A PILOT PROGRAM.

MY APOLOGIES. THIS IS THE CONTINUATION OF OUR TEEN COURT PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

WE SERVICE MILLS HIGH SCHOOL, JOE T.

ROBINSON, MAUMELLE AND SEVEN HILLS WITH THIS PROGRAM.

[00:35:04]

WE HAVE THIS YEAR 134 STUDENTS THAT ARE REGISTERED THAT WILL GET SWORN IN THIS FRIDAY BY JUDGE LEVERETT AND COUNTY JUDGE BARRY HYDE.

AND SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF A RESTORATIVE JUSTICE KIND OF PROGRAM WHERE WE TEACH THE KIDS ABOUT THE TEEN COURT PROGRAM, ACT PROGRAM.

WE TAKE THEM OUT TO THE [INAUDIBLE] CENTER, TEACH THEM LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE TO CREATING THE PIPELINE TO PRISON IN SCHOOLS.

AND SO THIS IS JUST AN INNOVATIVE WAY FOR US TO APPROACH THAT.

AND SO, T-SHIRTS.

WE BUY THE KIDS T-SHIRTS [LAUGHTER].

OKAY. SORRY.

I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE CLOTHING WAS FOR.

OKAY. YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. POLO SHIRTS OR T-SHIRTS AND MEDALLIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

OKAY. DON'T RUN OFF.

I SEE SOME LIGHTS ON.

JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

I JUST WANTED TO BE ADDED.

OK. JUSTICE CONEY.

WASN'T PARKVIEW BEING ADDED TO THIS PROGRAM PARKVIEW, I AM WORKING ON EXPANDING THIS PROGRAM TO PARKVIEW AS A PILOT AND JUST PARKVIEW.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET INTO THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, BUT PARKVIEW IS THE SCHOOL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENTER INTO.

AND THEN JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL IS THE OTHER SCHOOL THAT WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH.

AND SO HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE YEAR, NEXT YEAR, I CAN GET THE PROGRAM EXPANDED TO THOSE SCHOOLS.

BUT THIS MODEL THAT WE CREATED SPECIFICALLY WITH PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE KIDS GET A CREDIT FOR IT.

AND SO IT TOOK US TWO YEARS TO GET THIS PROGRAM UP AND GOING BECAUSE OTHER SCHOOLS DON'T HAVE A MODEL LIKE THIS.

THIS IS THE FIRST IN THE STATE THAT HAS A MODEL WHERE THE KIDS GET A CREDIT AND THEY GO TO CLASS FOR THIS.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PULASKI COUNTY, I MEAN, JACKSONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SEE HOW THEY WANT TO SET.

THEY MIGHT SET THERE'S UP LIKE AN AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM LIKE NORFORK SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS.

SO IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE LEADERSHIP, THE BUY IN AND WHAT WORKS FOR THAT MODEL FOR THE SCHOOLS.

BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE PRINCIPAL AT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT.

WE DID A TRAINING WITH THEM IN BOSTON AND SOME OF THE LITTLE ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT TO KIND OF TEACH THEM ABOUT TEEN COURT BEST PRACTICES.

SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS LIKE WE TOOK FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS TO GET PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT UP AND GOING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM.

JUSTICE MASSEY.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCOTT.

IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MS. MEDLOCK.

AYE. MR. ELLIOTT. YES.

YES. MS. BLACKWOOD [INAUDIBLE]. MS. LEWISON.

YES. AND MR. REED. YES.

13 AYES. 13 AYES.

WE WILL SEND 22-I-68 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURTWITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

[22-I-69 AN ORDINANCE AMENDEVG ORDINANCE 21-OR-46 (2022 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ESSER IH/OUT OF SCHOOL NETWORK GRANT FUNDS FOR THE YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS.]

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 22-I-69.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 21-OR-46 2022 ANNUAL BUDGET PULASKI COUNTY ARKANSAS TO RECOGNIZE AN APPROPRIATE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ESSER THREE OUT OF SCHOOL NETWORK GRANT FUNDS FOR THE YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS. JUSTICE MASSEY.

YES, I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 22-I-69 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.

JUSTICE MASSEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? YES.

DIRECTOR SCOTT IS HERE, BUT THIS IS MONEY THAT'S GOING TO GO TO THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM AND YOU CAN COME ON UP AND TALK ABOUT IT.

IT'S GRANT FUNDS AND IT APPARENTLY CAME FROM THE AMERICAN RESCUE ACT.

THIS IS A CONTINUATION GRANT AS WELL.

WE RECEIVED THIS GRANT LAST YEAR.

WE WERE ABLE TO START TWO NEW AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS WITH THIS PROGRAM AT SCHOOLS WHO HADN'T HAD A AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM IN TEN YEARS.

THAT WOULD BE LANDMARK ELEMENTARY AND COLLEGE STATION ELEMENTARY.

THESE PROGRAMS ALSO SUPPORT OUR OAK GROVE ELEMENTARY PROGRAM, OUR DAISY BASED PROGRAM, OUR HARRIS ELEMENTARY PROGRAM.