[00:00:03]
>> WE WILL OPEN OUR MEETING WITH AN INVOCATION BY JUSTICE MCCOY,
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.ALEX, IF JUSTICE LEWISON AND IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY STEP IN FOR JUSTICE MEDLOCK WHO'S NOT HERE, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND IF YOU CAN? JUSTICE MCCOY.
>> FATHER, WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TODAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND BE ABLE TO LEARN TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE AND USE THEM WISELY TO BE WITH ALL OF US HERE TONIGHT.
[INAUDIBLE] HERE'S WHAT IN JESUS NAME.
>> AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR STANDING.
AME, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? HOLD ON? WOULD HAVE YOUR NUMBER 9.
>> MS. MASSEY? ABSENT. MS. CURRY?
>> MS. GREEN IS ABSENT. MR. ROBINSON?
>> MS. MEDLOCK IS ABSENT, SO YOU HAVE 11 PRESENT.
>> ELEVEN PRESENT. WE CAN DO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTY.
JUST A REMINDER YOUR MICROPHONES AND NOT ON TONIGHT.
NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU HIT THE BUTTON, IT STILL DOES NOT TELL ME THE ORDER IN WHICH YOU HIT IT.
I'LL DO MY BEST TO SEE YOU AND RECOGNIZE YOU TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES?
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> THOSE OPPOSED? THERE ARE NONE.
OUR MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED FROM OUR LAST MEETING? ALSO, LET THE RECORD REFLECT JUSTICE MASSEY AND JUSTICE GREEN HAVE ARRIVED.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS, SO WE'LL GO RIGHT INTO OUR NEW BUSINESS.
AME, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 23-R-68.
[23-I-68 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE RATES OF TAXATION TO BE LEVIED ON TAXABLE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF PULASKI COUNTY AND CITIES; TOWNS; AND SCHOOLS IN PULASKI COUNTY FOR THE TAX YEAR 2023. Sponsor: Justice Lewison]
>> AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE RATES OF TAXATION TO BE LEVIED ON TAXABLE, REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY AND PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF PULASKI COUNTY AND CITIES, TOWNS, AND SCHOOLS IN PULASKI COUNTY FOR THE TAX YEAR 2023.
>> I MOVE THE RECENTIVE TO THE FULL CURRENT COURT WITH A DO-PASS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SENT 23-R-68 TO THE FULL "WITH THE DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION." I HAVE A CUSD.
JUSTICE STOWERS, BUT JUSTICE LEWISON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHY WOULD SOMEONE ELSE, DO YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT I KNOW OF EXCEPT FOR JUSTIN.
DID YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN? [LAUGHTER].
>> OKAY. YOU GOT TO FOLLOW THEM.
>> YEAH. WE GOT SOME MICROPHONE ISSUES.
IT'S JUST YOUR ANNUAL TAX LEVY.
YOU'RE BASICALLY PROVING AND ADOPTING WHAT THE CITIES HAVE ALREADY APPROVED AND ADOPTED.
YOU'RE NOT CREATING TAXES, NOT INCREASING TAXES.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO DO AND YOU DO IT ANNUALLY.
>> THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT JUSTICE MEDLOCK HAS ARRIVED.
>> MR. BLACK TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH THAT WE'RE NOT INCREASING TAXES, ADDING TAXES.
WE'RE SIMPLY THE BODY THAT'S CHARGED WITH ENDORSING THE TAXES THAT THE VOTERS AND THE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE DECIDED TO TAX THEMSELVES OF A YIELD.
>> THANK YOU. JUSTICE STOWERS.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.
AME, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL A ROLL ON 23-R-68,.
[00:05:01]
WE WILL SEND 23-R-68 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION.
AME, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 23-R-69.
[23-I-69 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE DAILY FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 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. Sponsors: Justices Massey, Lewison, McCoy, Stowers]
>> AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE DAILY FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 TO BE CHARGED TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR KEEPING PRISONERS OF MUNICIPALITIES IN A PULASKI COUNTY REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE 14-OR-31 AS AMENDED.
>> YES, I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO-PASS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 23-R-69 TO THE FOUR QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO-PASS.
JUSTICE MASSEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> I BELIEVE IT'S PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY THAT THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE DAILY FEE THAT WE CHARGE THE MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THEY'RE KEEPING THEIR PRISONERS.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT YOU'RE SO RECOGNIZED?
>> HE'S GONE. LET YOU USE HIS.
>> ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT LOOKS BACK AT PREVIOUS YEARS AND IDENTIFIES THE COST OF KEEPING AN INMATE IN THE COUNTY'S JAIL.
IT'S AN INMATE THE COST PER DAY PER INMATE.
THEY USE THEIR AUDITED FIGURES FROM THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET USING ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR A PREVIOUS YEAR.
THIS YEAR IT WENT DOWN ABOUT $6.5, $7 FROM PREVIOUS YEARS.
IN KEEPING WITH THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE PUT THAT FIGURE IN FRONT OF YOU AS THE EXPENSE TO BE CHARGED TO THE CITIES WHEN A PRISONER OF A CITY IS KEPT IN THE COUNTY JAIL.
>> ALRIGHT. THERE ARE A FEW LIGHTS ON, SO IF YOU'LL HOLD, JUST ESTABLISH.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. THIS QUESTION I'M GOING TO DIRECT TO MR. BLACK AND TO HUTCH.
WE'RE IN THIS INFLATIONARY TIME THAT WE LIVE IN THE PER DIEM THAT WE CHARGED THE CITIES IS ACTUALLY GOING DOWN BY ABOUT 10% WHILE ALL COSTS CONTINUE TO RISE.
CAN YOU GUYS GIVE ME SOME CLIFF NOTES EXPLANATION?
>> WHEN WE SAW THE NUMBER, WE WERE A LITTLE SURPRISED TOO.
SO WE SAT DOWN AND RAN THE COMPARE THE NUMBERS WE HAD IN THE SYSTEM, WHAT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT LOOKED AT, REALIZE THEY WERE ACCURATE.
WE LOOK AT THE FORMULA THAT THE STATE USES, AND IT'S BASED VERY HEAVILY ON PAYROLL COSTS AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF AGENCIES OUT THERE, SO THAT LOWERS THAT COST WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT A LOWER NUMBER.
IS THE BEST I CAN COME UP WITH.
>> A FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ENFORCEMENT DEPUTIES ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE ARE BEING ASKED TO WORK OVERTIME IN THE JAIL.
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THAT CAN VALIDATE THAT THAT ENFORCEMENT DEPUTIES.
>> BUT IS THAT BUT HIS DEBT GERMANE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> WHAT WE LOOKED AT, AND I DON'T KNOW, I'VE HEARD THAT RUMOR.
NOW, THE THING ABOUT IT IS WHEN LEG AUDIT REVIEWS THOSE NUMBERS, THEY REVIEW THE COST IN THE JAIL, NOT WHAT IT WOULD BE ON THE COUNTY SIDE OF ENFORCEMENT.
>> YEAH, THAT IS MY POINT, AND SO THAT OVERTIME IS CAPITULATED AND CAUGHT ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, NOT ON THE DETENTION SIDE.
>> CORRECT. IF THAT'S HAPPENING, CORRECT.
WESTERN EUROPE, WHAT HAPPENED THERE, I DON'T KNOW.
>> THAT'S MY CONCERN AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE RAISED THEIR HAND TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION TO THAT REGARD, SO I YIELD.
>> THANK YOU. JUSTICE MCMULLEN. WOULD YOU STILL LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED, JUSTICE MCMULLEN?
>> WOW. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT WE HAD INCREASED,
[00:10:05]
THERE WAS AN ISSUE BEFORE US TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD GET FROM THE MUNICIPALITIES.IF I'M THINKING IT WAS BACK IN THE SPRING OR WHATEVER, WHERE THAT CAME BEFORE US.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT AN ISSUE BEFORE US WAS RATHER AMOUNT WE WANT IT TO CHARGE THE MUNICIPALITIES MORE.
>> NO. THAT WAS LAST YEAR, IT WENT UP.
>> WE DID IT OVER OF OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
>> OKAY. LET ME MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOU.
WHEN YOU SEE OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, THAT WAS 2022?
>> THAT WOULD BE LAST YEAR. YEAH.
>> THAT WAS WHEN THE DECISION TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT.
>> NO, MA'AM. LAST YEAR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT WAS WHEN THE DECISION TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT FROM THE MUNICIPALITIES WAS BEFORE US?
>> YES, MA'AM. IT WENT UP IN 2022 FOR THE YEAR 2023.
THIS YEAR, WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON IS THE NUMBER OF SUPPLIED TO US BY LEGISLATIVE AUDIT THAT WE HAVE TO GO BY STARTING JANUARY 1, 2024, WHAT THE CITIES WILL BE CHARGED AND IT'S GOING DOWN.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE CLARITY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DECREASE, SO I'M STILL ON THIS PLANET.
>> THANK YOU JUSTICE MCMULLEN.
JUSTICE ROBINSON, DID YOU HAVE YOUR ANY ENLIGHTENMENT? OKAY. JUSTICE DAVIS.
>> ARE WE ABLE TO ASK FOR AN INCREASE BECAUSE WE LOSE MONEY ON LIKE LITTLE ROCK INMATES WHO THE WE HAVE TO HOUSE AND FEED IT COST US?
>> YOU'D HAVE TO GO BY THIS NUMBER ADOPTED.
THAT IS THAT IS FOUND BY LEGISLATIVE AUDIT.
>> THERE'S NOTHING WE AS A COURT CAN DO TO FIGHT THAT?
>> NOT AND BE ABLE TO STANDARD IN COURT.
THIS IS THE NUMBER THAT IF YOU'RE SUED OVER OR IF YOU WANT TO DO, THAT'S DEFENDABLE BY YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY IN COURT.
>> WHAT CAN WE DO IN THE FUTURE SO WE ARE NOT IN SUCH A WHOLE HOUSING OTHER INMATES THAT AREN'T OURS?
>> WELL, WE CAN CONTACT OUR LEGISLATURES.
I'M JUST ASKING WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO AS NEXT STEPS TO PROCEED?
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT NUMBER IS GOING TO BE.
IT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON THE EXPENSES AT THE JAIL. THAT'S WHAT THEY LOOK AT.
IF THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF VACANCIES, THE WAY THAT FORMULA SETUP THAT THE STATE USES, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT GO DOWN.
BUT THAT IS ALSO BASED ON HOW MANY PRISONERS YOU ARE HOLDING FROM MUNICIPALITIES.
WELL, YOU LOSE THE MONEY IS ON STATE PRISONERS.
THAT'S WHERE YOU LOSE THE MONEY AT.
YOUR REVENUE IS GOING DOWN ON THIS, BUT YOU ONLY PAID $40 A DAY FOR A STATE PRISONER.
THEY COSTS YOU MORE THAN THAT HOUSEHOLD.
>> IS IT WORTH HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE SHERIFF ABOUT DELETING SOME VACANCIES IF WE CAN'T FILL THEM SO WE CAN GET MORE MONEY FOR THE BUDGET?
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN.
IF YOU DELETE THE POSITIONS, THAT'S NOT CHANGING YOUR EXPENSE AMOUNT.
THE EXPENSE IS WHAT YOU'VE ACTUALLY SPENT.
WHEN THEY COME IN AND PULLED THAT NUMBER OUT AS AN EXPENDITURE, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE'S 50 VACANCIES.
WELL, YOU DIDN'T SPEND THAT MONEY ANYWAY.
OR IF THERE'S FIVE VACANCIES, YOU WEREN'T SPENDING THAT MONEY ANYWAY, IT'S LOOKING AT WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SPENT.
>> OKAY. WE NEED TO GET WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO SEE IF CAN HELP US OUT.
>> WELL, WHAT WERE YOUR LOSING MONEY AT IS NOT ON THIS.
YOU'RE LOSING MONEY ON THE STATE LEVEL.
STATE PRISONERS IS WHERE YOU LOSE MONEY.
>> THIS NUMBER RIGHT HERE IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY COST YOU.
YOU WOULD BREAK EVEN ON THOSE.
YOU'RE LOSING ABOUT WHAT? $23 AND CHANGE A DAY ON STATE PRISONERS.
>> ANYTHING ELSE, JUSTICE DAVIS?
>> SEEMS EVIDENT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PROBLEM AS TO WHY THE PREMIUM IS GOING DOWN BY AROUND 10%.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTIES IN THE ENFORCEMENT BUDGET BEING FORCED TO WORK OVERTIME IN THE JAIL.
[00:15:02]
THAT IS NOT BEING CAPTURED IN THE JAILS BUDGET.IT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING THAT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET OVER STAFFING LEVEL OF 45-50% IN THE JAIL, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE OFFERING SALARIES OF $50,000 A YEAR NOW AND PLUS THE COUNTY FRINGES.
I THINK THAT'S THE REASON THAT THIS WENT DOWN.
THERE'S MANPOWER WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF THE COST OF THE JAIL, IT'S BEING PERFORMED BY ENFORCEMENT DEPUTIES, WHICH IS BEING CAPTURED IN THE ENFORCEMENT BUDGET NOT ENDED IN JUNE BUDGET.
THEREFORE THAT'S NOT BEING SEEN BY LEDGE AUDIT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS WITH THE CITIES, WITH THEIR PODIUMS. I YIELD
>> OKAY. THANK YOU JUSTICE TOWERS. JUSTICE MCMULLEN.
>> WRITING QUICKLY. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS THE POINT TOO.
>> THANK YOU JUSTICE MCMULLEN.
JUSTICE CARRY DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING. JUSTICE CARRY?
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A GENERAL COMMENT OR MAYBE CLARIFY WITH THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ON THE ISSUES DEALING WITH THE HIRING OF STAFF, WHICH THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION AND THEN FORCING WITH THE OTHER STAFF HAVING TO WORK OVERTIME.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE BEING FORCED TO WORK OVERTIME, BUT THERE IS A LAG, THEY NEED ADDITIONAL STAFFING.
BUT I UNDERSTAND FROM EVEN THE AUDITS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US EARLY ON WITH THE REPORTS THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME CHANGES MADE IN SOME OF THE STAFF AND THEN THE WAY IT WAS DONE.
>> THE ISSUES OR THE VACANCIES.
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> NOT THE NUMBER OF VACANCIES.
THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE WAS DONE ON ENFORCEMENT.
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IN GAIN NOW, JUST BECAUSE I'M SITTING HERE, I THINK WE'RE RUNNING INTO TWO TOGETHER.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PER DIEM FOR THE JAIL.
THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERTIME AND VACANT OR FEEL POSITIONS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE TWO BUT ANYWAY, LET'S TRY TO SEE WHAT YOU GOT TO SAY, JUSTICE ELLIOTT.
>> I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD GO BACK AND STILL IN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DO THE TRAINING FOR THE JAILERS.
I DON'T GO BACK TO THE ACADEMY WHERE EVERYBODY ALWAYS WENT.
THEN THAT WOULD GIVE THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WITH PEOPLE THAT IS DOING THE WORK NOW WITH THE JAIL, THEY'RE HERE IN PULASKI COUNTY, THAT ARE FREE UP, MORE PEOPLE TO WORK.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, JUSTICE ELLIOTT AND I ASSUME THAT PEOPLE THAT'S FROM THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT CAN CAN TAKE THAT INFORMATION BACK TO THE SHERIFF. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IS THE DEAL.
>> THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISION BASED ON.
>> WELL, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO TRAINS THEM.
I GET WHAT MS. CARRY'S CONCERN AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. TOWERS ARE SAYING AND I'VE HEARD RUMORS.
THE FACT THAT MATTER IS IF YOU DON'T PASS THIS ORDINANCE, WE DON'T CHARGE THEM ANYTHING.
>> IF WE DON'T CHARGE THEM ANYTHING, WE LOSE MONEY. [LAUGHTER].
>> YOU ACTUALLY LOSE SOME REAL MONEY THERE.
>> YEAH. MAYBE SOME OF THE JUSTICES WILL CONTACT THE SHERIFF AND MAKE THEIR CONCERNS KNOWN.
BUT AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PER DIEM FOR 23R-69.
IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT 23R-69, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> FOURTEEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 23R-69 TO THE FOUR QUORUM COURT.
WHAT TO DO? PASS RECOMMENDATION.
[23-I-70 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 22-OR-45 (2023 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ELEVENTH DIVISION CIRCUIT COURT, AND TO CREATE A NEW GRANT-FUNDED POSITION FOR THAT DEPARTMENT. Sponsors: Justices Capps, Blackwood, Green, Lewison, Massey, Stowers]
>> AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 22 OR 45 2023 ANNUAL BUDGET PLUS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO RECOGNIZE AN APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE 11TH DIVISION CIRCUIT COURT AND TO CREATE A NEW GRANT FUNDED POSITION FOR THAT DEPARTMENT.
>> I'LL MOVE TO SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATIONS.
[00:20:03]
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 23R-70 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
JUSTICE CAPS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> YEAH. THIS IS A GRANT-FUNDED POSITION.
JUDGE JAMES IS HERE I THINK SHE SAID SHE'D HAPPY TO SPEAK ON IT.
>> OKAY. JUDGE JAMES, AND IF WE CAN LOAN HER THE MICROPHONE.
>> AGAIN, THIS IS A GRANT FUNDED POSITION BY DHS FOR A PURE SPECIALISTS.
THIS IS SOMEONE WHO HAS OVERCOME ADDICTION, HAS AT LEAST TWO YEAR SOBRIETY AND HAS GONE THROUGH THE PEER SPECIALIST TRAINING PROGRAM.
THEY WOULD COME TO THE DRUG COURT, BIG PART OF OUR DRUG COURT TEAM AND ASSIST OUR CURRENT DRUG COURT PARTICIPANTS IN ANY ISSUES THAT THEY MAY HAVE.
I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE A LOT OF MY DRUG COURT PARTICIPANTS ARE HERE TONIGHT AND I'M REALLY EXCITED THAT THEY'RE HERE.
I THINK THEY'RE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE CSI PEER SPECIALIST POSITION, BUT I WAS PRETTY EXCITED TO SEE THEM AND A SHOUT OUT TO CSI BECAUSE WE GET A LOT OF PARTICIPANTS IN DRUG COURT FROM THAT PROGRAM AND IT'S REALLY EFFECTIVE, AND IT REALLY WORKS.
THIRTY SECONDS. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> JUDGE MASSEY. JUDGE JAMES, I'M SORRY.
WE'VE GOT A FEW LIGHTS ON SO IF YOU'LL PLEASE DON'T RUN OFF.
I'VE GOT A QUICK QUESTION. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'LL BE UTILIZING PEER RECOVERY SPECIALISTS?
>> JAMES, I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR AND WILL BE A YES VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
HOWEVER, FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT APPLY, THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT FUNDING FOR THIS POSITION IF IT'S LOST, THAT THE DEPARTMENT MUST NOTIFY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE COURT AND HUMAN RESOURCES FOR DELETION OF THE POSITION FROM THE BUDGET.
LET'S PRAY AND HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO GET THIS GRANT YEAR AFTER YEAR.
>> WE DO UNDERSTAND ALL OF OUR GRID POSITIONS ARE FOR THE TIME OF THE GRANT ONLY.
WE WON'T COME BACK AND ASK OTHERWISE UNLESS WE HAVE GRANT MONEY.
>> I JUST SIMPLY WOULDN'T LIKE FOR THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT WITH YOU JUST TO STAND SO WE CAN SEE WHO THEY ARE.
>> MY DRUG COURT PEOPLE STAND UP.
>> JUST THANK THEM FOR COMING.
>> REMEMBER THESE ARE FOLKS THAT AT ONE POINT WERE IN JAIL, WEREN'T WORKING, WEREN'T PAYING TAXES.
NOW THEY ALL ARE AND THEY'RE DOING GREAT.
THIS IS PART OF WHAT DRUG COURT IS, IS HELPING FOLKS GET BACK INTO SOCIETY AND THEY'RE HERE.
>> JUSTICE MASSEY, ANYTHING ELSE?
>> I JUST WANT BE ADDED TO THE SPONSOR. [LAUGHTER]
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, JUDGE JAMES, WE APPRECIATE THAT.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 23AC70.
>> FOURTEEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 23R70 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
[23-I-71 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 22-OR-45 (2023 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR THE CRISIS STABILIZATION UNIT. Sponsors: Justices McCoy, Stower]
>> AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 22OR45 2023 ANNUAL BUDGET PLUS THE COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR THE CRISIS STABILIZATION UNIT.
>> MOVE WE ADOPT THIS INCENTIVE, THE FULL QUORUM COURT.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND.
WE SEND 23R71 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION.
JUSTICE MCCOY WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> WELL, I THINK WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR.
>> IT'S A BI-MONTHLY CSU REIMBURSEMENT.
>> CRISIS STABILIZATION UNIT REIMBURSEMENT.
CLEAR AS MUD. JUSTICE ELLIOTT.
>> JUSTICE ELLIOTT WOULD LIKE TO BE A SPONSOR.
NO MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 23R71?
[00:25:07]
THANK YOU. JUSTICE BLACKWELL.NOW, IF YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 23R71.
>> THIRTEEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 23R71 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO-PASS RECOMMENDATION.
WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF LATE VIOLENCE THAT SHOULD BE ON YOUR DESK AND THERE'S NO REASON TO WE CAN JUST TAKE THOSE UP, CORRECT.
>> IT'S JUST A MOTION TO HEAR THE LATE ITEMS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE HEAR THE LATE ITEMS FILED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> THOSE OPPOSED. OUR FIRST LATE ITEM.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 23R72.
>> AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23OR47 2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR THE COST OF MEALS FOR THE DETENTION FACILITY.
>> YES. I LIKE TO MOVE THAT THIS ORDINANCE, 23172, GO TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO PASS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE THAT 23R72 BE SENT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO PASS.
JUSTICE CARRIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY LIKE TO EXPLAIN, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED WITH THIS.
IF SOMEONE FROM THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT OR HUTCH.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS THING IS ON.
>> I TOLD THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, I'D EXPLAIN WHY IT DIDN'T GET INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.
IT WENT OUT FOR BID IN APRIL, THEY RETURN THEIR CHOICE IN JUNE, THEN IT HAS TO GO TO DHS FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE OF THE DIETARY STUFF.
I BELIEVE IT WAS A LADY THAT WAS LOOKING AT IT AT DHS PASSED AND IT SAT ON HER DESK.
NOBODY AT DHS WENT AND LOOKED ON THE DESK TO SEE WHAT THIS LADY HAD BEEN WORKING ON.
WHEN WE FINALLY GOT A HOLD TO SOMEBODY AND GOT IT BACK, IT WAS LIKE A WEEK AGO. THAT'S WHY IT'S LATE.
>> YES. IS THERE SOMEONE HERE TO REPRESENT THIS ITEM FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE? JUSTIN, IF THEY COULD BORROW YOUR MICROPHONE.
>> GOOD EVENING, JACK HENDRICKS, CHIEF DEPUTY OF DETENTION.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHIEF HENDRICKS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CURRENT INCUMBENT IS ARAMARK, IS THAT TRUE?
>> I UNDERSTAND BEFORE TRINITY IT WAS ARAMARK AND WE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH ARAMARK, WHICH IS WHY WE SWITCHED TO TRINITY.
>> WHO SCORED THESE THE THREE BIDS THAT CAME IN FROM TRINITY, SUMMIT AND ARKANSAS CORRECTIONAL SERVICES?
>> IF MY RECOLLECTION SERVES ME CORRECTLY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MYSELF, MAJOR ROSE, THE SHERIFF, LIEUTENANT ATWOOD, AND RODNEY SHEPHERD AT JUVENILE.
>> OKAY. WHY WAS THE INCUMBENT WHO WAS ALSO THE LOWEST BIDDER BY 15% NOT THE CHOSEN OF THOSE WHO SCORED?
>> I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS, THAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE FIVE EVALUATORS.
IT'S NOT DISCUSSED AMONGST ANY OF THEM.
MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE ON IT.
I WAS A LITTLE TIRED OF MY LIEUTENANT OVER OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT, HAVING TO BRING HER PEOPLE IN TO COOK BREAKFAST AND DO THINGS LIKE THAT WHEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO DO THAT.
THE ODR, WHICH IS THE OFFICERS DINING ROOM, HAS NOT BEEN STAFFED FOR APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MONTHS.
[00:30:04]
THE QUALITY OF THE MEALS WASN'T WHAT IT SHOULD BE.THOSE ARE JUST THREE QUICK EXAMPLES.
>> OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE ANNUAL COST DIFFERENCE WOULD BE BETWEEN THE SELECTED VENDOR, ARAMARK, AND TRINITY, THAT THE LOWEST BIDDER?
>> I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT THE INCREASE WILL BE PAYING ARAMARK WHAT THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU.
BUT I HAVEN'T DONE ANY MATHEMATICS ON WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF WE'D GONE WITH TRINITY AGAIN.
BUT THAT WAS UNTENABLE, AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR OTHERS APPARENTLY AGREED WITH ME THAT WE NEEDED SOMEONE ELSE IN THERE.
>> BUT GOING BACK TO ARAMARK, WHO WE'VE ALSO HAD ISSUES WITH IN THE PAST.
>> WE HAD SOME ISSUES RELATED TO RESPONSIVENESS FROM THEM.
>> WE CHOSE A VENDOR WHO IS 15% ABOVE THE LOWEST BIDDER.
AS A TAXPAYER, I DON'T CARE IF INMATES IN THE JAIL HAVE TO EAT BOLOGNA AND CHEESE FOR EVERY MEAL.
>> LET ME EXPLAIN THE PROCESS TO YOU.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THERE'S TWO PARTS.
THERE'S A TECHNICAL PORTION AND THEN THERE'S A FINANCIAL PORTION.
I CAN ONLY SPEAK FROM MY POINT OF VIEW AGAIN, BECAUSE I WAS ONE OF FIVE, 20% OF THE INDIVIDUALS.
TECHNICALLY, TRINITY WAS LAST.
THE PERCENTAGE IS THE WAY THEY WERE WEIGHTED AND THE WAY THEY WERE GRADED BY THE OTHER FOUR HAD ARAMARK WINNING THE CONTRACT.
>> I DO WANT TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND THAT IS THAT WE POSTPONE THIS FOR 30 DAYS AND ASK THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO COME BACK WITH THE FUNDING REQUEST AT THE AMOUNT FOR THE LOWEST BIDDER, THE TRINITY SERVICES GROUP.
IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO STILL GO WITH ARAMARK, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE, NOT OURS.
HOWEVER, THEY WOULD NEED TO FIND THE ADDITIONAL MONEY IN THEIR BUDGET TO SUPPLEMENT THE 15% DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE LOWEST BIDDER AND THE ONE THAT THEY'VE CHOSEN TO GO WITH.
THAT IS MY MOTION AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A SECOND.
>> JUSTICE DAVIS, WHAT HE SAID, YES.
>> WELL, BUT I GUESS WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT A CLEAR SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND NEAR NET WHICH YOU'RE VOTING ON, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN, JUSTICE.
>> THE CRUX OF WHAT THAT MOTION IS, IS IT'S BASICALLY TO POSTPONE FOR 30 DAYS.
WHAT HE'S ASKING IS IN THAT 30 DAYS, HE WANTS TO SEE A SECOND COST.
WHAT ESSENTIALLY YOU WILL BE VOTING ON IS TO POSTPONE FOR 30 DAYS.
ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S INVOLVED IS SECONDARY, BUT THE MOTION IS TO.
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, CORRECT? YOU WANT TO POSTPONE FOR 30 DAYS?
>> CORRECT AND MY DESIRE AS THE MEMBER THAT MADE THE MOTION WOULD BE THAT THIS BODY FUND AT THE LEVEL OF TRINITY SERVICES, THE LOWEST BIDDER, WHICH IS 15% LOWER THAN ARAMARK, AND THAT IF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS SO INCLINED TO SWITCH TO ARAMARK, THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO FIND THE 15% DIFFERENCE IN THEIR BUDGET.
>> THAT'S A FULL MOTION, ISN'T IT, OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING?
>> THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE TO 30 DAYS. [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE ACTUAL MOTION IS TO POSTPONE FOR 30 DAYS.
[00:35:02]
THERE'S THE DISCUSSION.IF THEY'RE JUSTICE MCMULLEN, I SEE YOUR LIGHT ON SO IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS? THE MOTION TO POSTPONE.
>> RIGHT. YES, MA'AM, WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT.
>> YES. I DISAPPROVED WITH THE MICRO-MANAGING OF THIS.
IT'S A QUESTION OF QUALITY CONTROL.
>> JUSTICE MCMULLEN. WE'RE POSTPONING.
>> WHAT I AM DOING IS DISCUSSING HIS MOTION TO POSTPONE IT.
THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING YOU IF I'M IN LINE WITH DOING AT THIS POINT.
BECAUSE IF I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE VOTE FOR HIS MOTION, THEN I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY.
>> BUT MY UNDERSTANDING THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE IT.
ANYTHING ABOUT MICRO-MANAGING AND ALL OF THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT FALLS IN LINE WITH POSTPONING.
>> THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS THAT I DON'T VOTE TO POSTPONE IT, BUT WE'RE NOT VOTING YET.
>> THEREFORE, THIS IS NO LONGER UP FOR DISCUSSION?
>> YES. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> THIS IS WHAT I'M DOING, DISCUSSING THAT.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T FIND THAT TO BE HUMOROUS AT ALL.
WHY DID YOU CALL ON ME? I THINK THEN WHAT WE DO IS NOT CALL ON ME AND GO ON AND VOTE.
>> IS OTHER LIGHTS ON? IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON POSTPONED, THAT'S FINE.
>> BUT THAT'S WHAT I JUST SPOKE ON. HELP ME.
I'M SIMPLY SAYING THAT I AM DISCUSSING REASONS AS TO WHY WE SHOULD NOT AGREE TO POSTPONE.
>> WHY I'M NOT SUPPORTING HIS MOTION TO POSTPONE, SO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE ALLOWING ME TO DISCUSS AND NOT DISCUSS.
>> NO. WHY WAS I INTERRUPTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, JUSTICE?
>> JUSTICE MCMULLEN, I'M ASKING YOU.
>> EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. I FIND IT OFFENSIVE WHEN I'M INTERRUPTED, AND IT ISN'T CLEAR WHY I'M BEING INTERRUPTED.
>> WELL, JUSTICE MCMULLEN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK.
IF NOT, I WILL SHUT YOUR MICROPHONE OFF AND YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK, SIMPLE.
>> I THINK THAT I HAVE JUST EXPRESSED HOW WHAT I THINK MY REASONING AS TO NOT SUPPORT HIS MOTION, AND THAT IS I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD MICROMANAGE.
I THINK THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS WITHIN HIS RIGHT, IN OTHER WORDS, TO LOOK AT QUALITY CONTROL WITHIN HIS DEPARTMENT AND THAT COME IN ABOUT BELONGING OR WHATEVER WE WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WHATEVER WE GIVE THEM IS CERTAINLY WITHIN THE RIGHT OF DRUG CONTROL.
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE, JUSTICE MCMULLEN?
>> APPARENTLY NOT IN THIS CASE.
>> I JUST WILL SAY WE'VE HAD APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK TO REVIEW THIS.
I WOULD APPRECIATE PROBABLY SOME MORE TIME BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, IF WE MOVE IT OUT RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOT BASICALLY TWO WEEKS TO FIGURE OUT ALL THE DETAILS OF $700,000 INCREASE TO THE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR.
I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME MORE TIME AS WELL.
I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT IT.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO HAVE AN EXTRA MONTH IN THE YEAR TO SETTLE THE SCORE, SO THAT'S ALL.
>> MY QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS IF WE POSTPONE FOR 30 DAYS? IS THERE ANYTHING GOING TO CHANGE IN REGARDS TO THE CONTRACT THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDER?
>> NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.
NOBODY'S GOING TO STARVE DURING THIS PERIOD.
>> SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A HEART ATTACK [INAUDIBLE]
>> JUSTICE MCCOY ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.
>> I WOULD LIKE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS.
I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE LET THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RUN HIS DEPARTMENT.
[00:40:03]
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SUPPORT AT LEAST FEEDING THE INMATES SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN EAT THAT'S OF SOME KIND OF QUALITY.I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYBODY ELSE THINKS, BUT I AM FULL AGREEMENT WITH LILY AND I HOPE FOR A GOOD VOTE ON THIS.
>> YOUR LIGHT IS NOT ON. [NOISE] JUSTICE MATLOCK.
>> I JUST WANT TO THROW THIS OUT JUST THERE.
CAN THESE PROCESS NOT BE NEGOTIATED? CAN YOU NOT GO BACK TO ARAMARK AND GET THEM DOWN TO 11 SOMETHING SINCE TRINITY OFFERED THAT? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE MAKING MONEY OFF THE DEAL.
[BACKGROUND] LET'S RENEGOTIATE THIS PRICE.
EVEN IF IT'S SAVING EVERYBODY MONEY.
>> I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THE TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PORTIONS ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
LIKE I TOLD JUSTICE TOWERS, THAT ON THE TECHNICAL PORTION, ARAMARK AND MINE GRADING WAS FIRST, AND THEN THE FINANCIAL PORTION, TRINITY WAS FIRST.
BUT THE WAITING AND THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT EVALUATED IT CAME OUT WHERE ARAMARK WON THE CONTRACT.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC IN THAT ARAMARK HAS ALREADY RAMPED UP AND STARTED THE HIRING PROCESSES AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
>> I JUST THINK IF THEY WANT TO WIN THE BID, THEY MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER NEGOTIATING SOME.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO WITH THE RFP.
THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THE FINANCIALS, IT HAS A BREAKDOWN OF ALL THE DIETARY INFORMATION, NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION.
IT HAS THE COSTS PER MEAL FOR BOTH JUVENILES AND ADULTS.
>> BUT IF YOU GET THE PRODUCT YOU WANT AT A LOWER PRICE EVEN IF THE OTHER ONE THAT YOU DIDN'T, YOU WEREN'T PLEASED WITH LOWER THERE.
>> THAT'S JUST MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> HUTCH, REMIND ME. GO AHEAD.
>> I WANT TO OFFER JUST A LITTLE INFORMATION THAT MAY BE HELPFUL.
THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROCESS THAT WE'VE HAD IS THE STATE LAW IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE LOWEST [INAUDIBLE] IS SELECTED, THAT'S WHY WE BREED TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THIS DISTINCTLY FROM THE FINANCIAL.
IF YOU WANT TO BUY RACE CAR, YOU DON'T JUST GO BUY PRICE, YOU GO BUY PRICE AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ACTUALLY KEEPS IN THE RACE, THAT'S BAD ANALOGY, BUT IT'S [INAUDIBLE].
YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THING THAT YOU NEED IS, THE FOOD THAT IT'S OF GOOD QUALITY AND RELIABLE SERVICES IS AVAILABLE, NOT JUST [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL ALONG, IS THE SERVICE ASPECT OF THIS CURRENT VENDOR IS HORRIBLE. IT'S TERRIBLE.
AGAIN, I'VE HAD MY PEOPLE HAVE TO COME IN AND START BREAKFAST THEMSELVES.
WHEN WE END UP WITH LAWSUITS OVER IT, THERE'S GOING TO BE CULPABILITY EVERYWHERE.
>> HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND THIS THOUGH.
I THOUGHT ALL OF OUR BITS WENT OUT WITH A CLOTH THAT UNTIL THE QUORUM COURT ACTUALLY APPROVES THE MONEY, THE CONTRACT IS NOT VALID UNTIL THE MONEY IS ACTUALLY APPROPRIATED.
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> BUT I THINK HE MADE THE COMMENT THAT ARAMARK HAD ALREADY STARTED, I GUESS, HIRING NEW EMPLOYEES, BUT TECHNICALLY [OVERLAPPING].
[00:45:07]
>> TO COVER TO START. THAT'S COOL.
LET ME SEE. I'VE GOT SEVERAL PEOPLE JUSTICE CURRY.
>> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO JUST COMMENT TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE'RE NOT HERE TO DIRECT ANOTHER DEPARTMENT TO DO THEIR JOB.
I THINK IN THIS CONVERSATION, THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE.
I WOULD LIKE FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS EFFORT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN STATED THAT THE QUALITY OF THE OTHER VENDOR, EVEN REGARDLESS, WE WILL BE INTERFERING WITH THE PROCESS.
I DON'T PLAN TO DO THAT. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I BELIEVE IT'S FOR HUTCH.
THIS SECOND ORDINANCE TODAY THAT IS A REDUCTION IN THE PER DIEM.
WHAT IS THE PROPORTIONALITY OF THE FOOD THAT WILL NOW NOT BE REFLECTED CORRECTLY IN THE PER DIEMS THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE MUNICIPALITIES?
>> WELL I DON'T THAT THEY INCLUDE, THAT'S GOING TO BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY LOCK UP, AND THE SECOND FACTOR IN THAT IS A REDUCTION IN THE REVENUE. BUT IF YOU GO ON THIS [LAUGHTER] FOOD THAT DAY WE CALL.
[INAUDIBLE] THAT'S THE IDEA WITH KUBLER ORIGINAL ORDER.
TOSSING $50 A DAY, YOUR CHARGE INCREASES AND YOU'RE CHARGING $63 A DAY. [INAUDIBLE]
I'VE GOT SOME NEW LIGHTS ON, JUSTICE MCMULLEN.
>> WELL, I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS VERY SHORT, AND THAT IS SIMPLY I REPEAT MYSELF.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO MICROMANAGE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND I DO TRUST EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE POINTED OUT TO US.
YOU SAID THE GRADING FOR THE LORD COMPANY WAS OKAY, BUT IT WAS A MATTER OF QUALITY AND I THINK THAT THAT'S ESSENTIAL QUALITY.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION.
>> CAN I GET A SECOND ON THAT?
>> NO. IT HAS NOT BEEN IN THE PAST.
IN THE PAST WHEN IT'S BEEN CALLED, IT IS CALLED IF WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> MS. MCMULLEN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT WHENEVER I CALL A QUESTION, IT IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE VOTE FOR IT.
>> I WANT CONSISTENCY AND WE SECONDED.
>> IT HAPPENS LIKE THAT EVERY TIME.
>> AM I ALLOWED TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT?
>> NO. YOU CALLED THE QUESTION [LAUGHTER]
>> I WANT TO KNOW IT'S JUST THAT I'M NOT MISTAKEN THAT.
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE MEANS OUR DISCUSSION HAS ENDED AND WE'LL VOTE, SO WE'RE CALLING THIS IS TO THE MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION.
MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION TO END DISCUSSION OF 23 72.
>> THE QUESTION TO VOTE ON IT.
>> MS. LEWISON? OH, I'M SORRY. MS. BLACKWOOD?
>> MS. GREEN? MR. ROBINSON, MR. MCCOY, MR. STAR WARS,.
>> SO WHAT DID GET US? [LAUGHTER] BACK TO?
>> THE MOTION FAILS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT WE CAN PICK UP WITH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
[00:50:04]
BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME LIGHTS ON. MS. MASSEY, YOU KEEP TURNING YOUR LIGHT OFF. YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK.I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSING ANYTHING BECAUSE OH, HOLD ON.
BECAUSE JUSTICE DAO WAS I DIDN'T TURN THIS LIGHT OFF. JUSTICE DAO.
>> SO IT'S BEEN MENTIONED THAT WE'RE MICRO-MANAGING A DEPARTMENT.
THE JOB OF THIS BODY, OUR PRIMARY JOB IS THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT OF ALL, PULASKI COUNTY, EVERY DEPARTMENT, EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL, EVERY OFFICE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TONIGHT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPENDING TAXPAYERS MONEY AND HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO SPEND IN A BIDDING WAR BETWEEN THREE VENDORS, SO IT IS VERY MUCH WITHIN OUR REALM OF RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE THE DEBATE, THE DIALOGUE, THE DISCOURSE THAT WE'RE HAVING AROUND THIS TABLE TONIGHT.
HAVING SAID THAT, I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, FOR HAVING RESOUNDINGLY ENDORSED MY MOTION. I YIELD.
>> WELL, I DIDN'T HAVE MY LIGHT ON, BUT YES.
MY QUESTION IS, I THINK HUTCH SAID THAT WE DO HAVE THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET.
>> YEAH I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO PASS.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT JUSTICE DAOS IS TRYING TO GET ACROSS TO EVERYONE IS JUST THE WORDING, I THINK IS WHAT PEOPLE FOUND OFFENSIVE BECAUSE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIND OUT WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON IN A PERSON'S BUDGET THAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT I'M SORRY.
YOU MAY NOT LIKE THAT, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.
HOWEVER, IF THEY'VE SIGNED THE CONTRACT OR WHATEVER AND THEY'VE GONE WITH THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY.
I WOULD SAY THAT WE JUST HAVE TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO FUND IT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME ON CONSENT, I DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A $700,000.
THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, BUT I HEAR YOUR CONCERN THAT THE OTHER COMPANY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE, THEY'RE NOT DOING WHAT? IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT REALLY GETTING WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR ANYWAY.
SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE PAYING OR THEY'RE NOT DOING PROVIDING THE PROPER SERVICE.
IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY,.
>> ESSENTIALLY, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [NOISE]
>> LET'S TRY TO SPEAK ON THE MOTION HERE.
MOTION IS TO DELAY FOR 30 DAYS.
MR. HENDRICKS, THE REASON WHY I APPRECIATE COLLEAGUES, REASON WHY I APPRECIATE THE MOTION TO DELAY IS BECAUSE THIS IS AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 43% APPROXIMATELY AND SO I APPRECIATE THE EXTRA TIME WE'RE HAVING TO FILL IN THE BLANKS.
MR. HENDRICKS, I'M GOING TO TRY TO ASK THIS IN A WAY THAT SPEAKS TO THE MOTION.
IF MR. STARWAR'S MOTION DOES PASS AND WE'RE GIVEN MORE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS OR THAT.
NEVER MIND. I CAN'T EVEN CONNECT THAT TO THE MOTION, SO I'LL ASK YOU OFFLINE ABOUT THAT, SO THAT'S IT. I YIELD.
>> I JUST LIKE TO ASK WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN IF YOU GO BACK AND ARE YOU ABLE TO RECONVENE WITH THE BIDDERS IN ANY WAY OR IS THIS A DISCUSSION?
>> NO, THAT DISCUSSION IS CLOSED.
SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND ROBERT KENNEDY, MARTIN, 30 DAYS, ALL OF THE LITTLE CONTACT TRINITY AND SAY HEY, WE NEED YOU TO EXTEND YOUR CONTRACT WHILE THEY WERE [INAUDIBLE] DIFFERENT.
[00:55:14]
THAT'S WHAT GOING TO HAPPEN. [INAUDIBLE]>> THANK YOU. AGAIN, WE HAVE AS I JUST TOLD US, THAT SHIP HAS SAILED AND AS OUR SPEAKER.
I'M SO SORRY, NOT CALLING YOUR NAME HAS TOLD US THAT THE SERVICES THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST, THAT THEY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH THE QUALITY, IT'S A QUESTION OF QUALITY THEN THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
APPARENTLY, THE DEPARTMENT MEETING MS. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WENT WITH ANOTHER BID, WHICH IS THE NEXT HIGHER BID.
THE LAST BIT THAT YOU DID NOT GO WITH IS THE THIRD.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE HIGHEST BID.
>> MADAM, WE HAD THE THREE [OVERLAPPING]
THEREFORE POSTPONING IT IS NOT GOING TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE.
HE HAS ALREADY GONE TO THE NEXT HIGHER BID BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY.
IF WE POSTPONE IT, OUR ONLY OPTION TO DO ANYTHING TO ADJUST THE COST WOULD SIMPLY BE TO GO BACK TO TRINITY.
AM I NOT CORRECT? I MEAN, NOT APPROVED ERROR MAP.
WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS? WITH POSTPONING IT, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WILL CHANGE.
WE WOULD SETTLE FOR A LESSER QUALITY, AND THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE MCMULLEN, JUSTICE MEDLOCK.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PERTAINS TO ANYTHING, BUT I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT I SEE AND THE PRICING IS THE PRICE FOR THE STAFF MEALS COMPARED TO TRINITY AND SUMMIT, IS THAT CORRECT? IN THE BREAKDOWN?
>> I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BREAKDOWN.
I SEE THE BREAKDOWN ON THE AIR MARK IS PRICING FOR THE STAFF MEALS IS 549? CORRECT? AND THEN TRINITY IS THREE DOLLARS AND SUMMIT IS SIX DOLLARS?
>> NO, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS AIR MARKS PRICE LIST.
>> I HAVE IT, SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS COST FOR THE MEALS WITH INMATE LABOR AND WITHOUT INMATE LABOR.
THOSE ARE THE TWO. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM.
WE WOULD BE GOING WITH INMATE LABOR.
WE'LL BE GOING WITH THE CHEAPER ADULT AND JUVENILE MEALS.
ACTUALLY, THE JUVENILE MEALS WOULD BE THE SAME.
BUT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? SO ON YOUR PRICE SHEET, THAT'S AIRMARKS PRICE SHEET.
>> I DON'T THINK WE HAD THE SAME SHEET THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE END OF WEEK.
BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BECAUSE ALL OF OURS IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS, IS YOU LOOKING AT UNIT PRICES IN YOUR UNIT PRICE? UNIT PRICE, AND I GUESS IT SAYS.
>> YEAH. SO PRICE PER MEAL USING INMATE LABOR, ADULTS DOLLAR, AND 60 JUVENILES $2.
THE TOTAL $3.60 PRICE PER MEAL, NOT DEPENDENT ON INMATE LABOR.
>> NO, WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME SHEET THAT YOU'VE GOT.
[BACKGROUND] THIS IS FROM PURCHASING TEAM.
[01:00:13]
>> IT LOOKS LIKE THE PRICE PER MEAL FOR TRINITY IS $45 WITH INMATE LABOR FOR ADULTS, ALMOST $70 FOR SUMMIT AND $70 FOR EARMARK.
>> HE NEEDS A SECOND. WE DON'T WATCH IT [OVERLAPPING] LET'S DO A VOICE VOTE.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S BE FAIR. I'LL BE FAIR.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE CALLING THE QUESTION ON IF WE GOT TO IN DISCUSSION, DEBATE ON TABLE IN THIS FOR 30 DAYS.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> THANK YOU, MS. MCMULLEN FOR KEEPING ME HONEST.
>> MR. DAVIS SLEEP FOR THEIR MS. CAPS.
>> CALL IN, A QUESTION. YES. WE'RE VOTING OR CALL INTO QUESTION YES.
>> MS. LEWISON, SHE'S STILL ABSENT. MS. BLACKWELL.
>> I'M SORRY, 11 AYES, AND ONE NO.
>> WE WERE IN THE DISCUSSION ON TABLING, SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TO TABLE.
POSTPONE, SORRY. WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE VOTING TWO POSTPONE FOR 30 DAYS.
EVERYBODY CLEAR? AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> YOU HAVE FIVE AYES AND SEVEN NAHS? I SHOULD SAY SO.
>> SO WE'RE NOT POSTPONING. NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TO SEND 2023 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
IF THERE ARE ANY DISCUSSIONS, JUSTICE DAVIS, YOUR LIGHT WAS ON.
DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINAL MOTION?
>> EARLIER WITH JUSTIN AND I THINK THERE WAS A SLIGHT SURPLUS LAST YEAR.
>> YEAH. I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS HOPING THAT ENOUGH OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL AS WELL.
NOT THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT THE FOLKS AT THE JAIL HAVE TO BE FED, BUT THAT WE WOULD SEND THIS BY WAY OF A NO VOTE BACK TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO COME BACK WITH A MORE REASONABLE FINANCIAL PLAN WITH THE LOWEST BIDDER.
IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 23I72.
>> MS. LEWISON IS ABSENT. MS. BLACKWOOD.
>> EMMA SMITHLOCK. EIGHT AYES, AND FOUR NAYS.
[01:05:05]
>> SO EIGHT AYES, FOUR NAYS, WE WILL SEND 23I72 TO THE FULL COLUMN COURT WITH.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES. WE NEED TEN.
>> YEAH. SO IT IS GOING THROUGH THE FULL QUORUM COURT, BUT IT MAY NOT MAKE IT OUT OF-
>> YEAH. SO IT GOES TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT, BUT IT NEEDS 10 VOTES AT THE FULL QUORUM COURT.
WE ARE GOING TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH 23I72.
CLEAR AS MUD. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 23I73.
>> AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 22OR45 2023 ANNUAL BUDGET PLASTICKY COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO RECOGNIZE AN APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE SHERIFF'S PACKED PEER SPECIALIST GRAND IN ORDER TO UPGRADE A GRANT-FUNDED POSITION FOR THAT DEPARTMENT.
>> YES. I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WHERE THE RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 23I73 FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.
JUSTICE MASSEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> YES. THIS WILL ACTUALLY UPGRADE A GRANT FUNDED POSITION FROM A PACK PEER SPECIALISTS TO A PEER SPECIALIST SUPERVISOR, I THINK INCREASE THIS JUST $6,138.
>> YES. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT WHAT I DID ON JUDGE JAMES ORDINANCE EARLIER THAT IF FOR SOME REASON THE GRANT WAS TO EVER GO AWAY, THAT IT'S BEEN THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THIS BODY TO NOT CONTINUE TO FUND THAT POSITION VIA THE GENERAL FUND.
>> YES. I THINK SOME OF US WOULD LIKE TO KNOW A LITTLE MORE WHAT THAT PACT PEER SPECIALIST STANDS FOR.
PEER SPECIALISTS, PULASKI COUNTY S/O.
>> WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT PA IS?
I'M THE RE-ENTRY DIRECTOR AT PULASKI COUNTY JAIL.
THIS IS A BUDGET NEUTRAL ITEM.
IT IS A GRANT FROM DHS AND THE PEER SUPPORT SPECIALISTS SUPERVISOR IS A NEW POSITION IN THE STATE THAT THEY'VE ONLY HAD ABOUT A YEAR AND THE PEER SUPPORT SPECIALISTS, YOU HAVE TO GET THAT LEVEL OF TRAINING FIRST AND THEN YOU GO THROUGH MORE TRAINING AND THEIR POSITION IS WITHIN THE JAIL WITHIN MY DEPARTMENT WOULD BE TO SUPERVISE THE PEER SUPPORT SPECIALISTS WITHIN THE JAIL.
>> THAT PEER SUPPORT SPECIALISTS RESPONSIBILITIES ARE TO BESIDES BEING SELF-EXPLANATORY OF SUPPORTING THEIR PEERS, CAN YOU EXPOUND ON THAT A LITTLE?
>> WELL, WE'RE A SMALL DEPARTMENT AND WE SERVE 130 PEOPLE, SO WE PRETTY MUCH ALL WORK AND DO A LOT OF THINGS.
BUT THE SPECIFIC DUTY OF A PEER SUPPORT SPECIALIST.
A PEER SUPPORT SPECIALIST IS A PEER WHO HAS SHARED EXPERIENCE, WHO HAS BEEN THROUGH DRUG ADDICTION AND WHO HAS COME INTO RECOVERY AND IS NOW WORKING TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE COME UP TO THAT LEVEL AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.
>> THIS PALASKI COOK COUNTY SO GRANT, WHAT IS THAT? JUST WHAT DOES THE SO STANDARD FOR?
>> SHERIFF'S OFFICE, OF COURSE. OF COURSE.
>> THAT'S OKAY. IT'S A LONG NIGHT.
>> WELL, I AM A GENIUS, BUT EVEN GENIUSES OVERLOOK THINGS.
[LAUGHTER] I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE ARE TO SUPPORT OUR CSI PROGRAM.
THEY ARE ALL GRADUATES OF OUR PROGRAM.
MANY ARE FROM DRUG COURT, BUT SOME ARE NOT.
BUT THESE ARE ALL MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE CSI PROGRAM IN THE JAIL, WHO HAVE GONE TO THE OTHER SIDE AND WHO ARE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED AND ROCK IN IT.
>> OKAY. SO HOW MANY DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T COUNT.
[01:10:01]
[APPLAUSE] YES, WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT. YES, IT IS.
>> THANK YOU. AMY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL ON 23I70? OH, I'M SORRY.
>> WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 23I72.
>> 12 AYES, [APPLAUSE] WE WILL SEND [APPLAUSE] 23I72 TO THE FULL COLUMN COURT, WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? WITHOUT OBJECTION.
ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? THERE BEING NONE. COMMUNITY, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? ANY COMMENT CARDS?
[Announcements]
>> GO AHEAD WHILE HE'S BRINGING IT UP?
>> OKEY-DOKEY. WE DO HAVE AN INVITATION.
>> OKAY. I HEARD SOMEONE SAYING SOMETHING.
NEVERTHELESS, I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE INVITATION FROM THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND THAT IS AN INVITATION FOR TOMORROW TO ATTEND FRIDAY.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE HONORING THE FAMILIES WHO WILL FINALIZE THEIR ADOPTIONS ON THAT DAY AS WELL AS ALL FAMILIES WILL FINALIZE THEIR ADOPTIONS OVER THE LAST YEAR AND I THINK IT'S WORTHY TO ATTEND AND WE'RE LOOKING AT FOSTER CARE TOO.
I THINK MOST OF THE JP'S DID RECEIVE AN INVITATION TO THIS.
I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF THAT.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE MCMULLEN.
IF THERE ARE NO MORE ANNOUNCEMENTS, MS. KELLY. YOU'VE GOT A MICROPHONE.
[Public Comment]
>> THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING ME.
I'M HERE FOR ONE REASON TONIGHT, AND THAT IS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM A CANDIDATE FOR JUSTICE AT THE PEAK DISTRICT 10, REPRESENTING NORTH LITTLE ROCK IN JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITIES.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF THE FORMER COLLEAGUES HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT ME RUNNING IN MY ELIGIBILITY.
I THINK ALL 14 JUSTICES KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO HOT CHICK CONVICTION ON MY RECORD.
YOU HAVE SEEN MY STATE POLICE NOTARIZED STATE POLICE BACKGROUND CHECK.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN YOUR DISTRICT, THE WAY THAT I AM THAT YOU GET INVOLVED.
I HAD BEEN ACTIVE IN DISTRICT 10 SINCE 2004 SO WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING TO MY FUTURE CONSTITUENTS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU PLEASE SPEAK ON FACTS.
THERE WAS NO CONVICTION ON MY RECORD AND MY ELIGIBILITY STATUS HAS NOT BEEN HEARD IN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT.
THE INJUNCTION WAS HEARD IN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT RULING WITH ME REGARDING INJUNCTION, SO I IMPLORE YOU TO PLEASE GO BACK AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND THANK YOU JUSTICE KEITH FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
BUT I CAME HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME JUSTICE IT'S BEEN OUT IN 10 MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS, AND I WANTED TO CLEAR IT UP, BUT I AM RUNNING.
IT'S UP TO THE VOTERS IN DISTRICT 10 TO DECIDE WHO THEY WANT TO REPRESENT THEM. THANK YOU.
>> I THINK YOU HAD A HAND THERE.
>> OH, I WAS GOING TO SAY NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO QUESTION AND ANSWERS.
[LAUGHTER] WE ARE OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED.
[LAUGHTER]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.