[24-I-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY ENCOURAGING STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE 21-OR-34 AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE CITIZENS OF COLLEGE STATION REGARDING HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC IN POSTED SECTIONS OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY. ]

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ RESOLUTION 24I-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY ENCOURAGING STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE 21-34 AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE CITIZENS OF COLLEGE STATION REGARDING HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC AND POSTED SECTIONS OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY. JUSTICE GREEN.

YES. THIS IS THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY BROUGHT BEFORE US LAST MONTH, AND THIS IS THE RESOLUTION WE BROUGHT BEFORE US LAST MONTH.

OKAY. OKAY.

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

MOTION. SECOND.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND RESOLUTION 24I-36 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE GREEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURTS LAST MONTH WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET SOME RESOLUTIONS FOR AGAINST THE WHAT'S THE SPEED, 3M AGAINST 3M? AND I THINK WE ALL AGREED TO IT THE LAST TIME BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE IS MR. DORN HERE? OKAY? HE'S NOT HERE, BUT HE MADE A PRESENTATION AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD.

BECAUSE IT'S A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY, AND IT'S A HASSLE FOR THEM.

AND WE DO ALREADY HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT THEY'RE NOT THOSE TRUCKS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH THERE.

SO THIS IS JUST SOMETHING TO REFRESH IT.

AND I HOPE THAT WE'LL SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE NEW PASS RESOLUTION.

[00:05:02]

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE STOWERS, THANK YOU.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THIS RESOLUTION AND WANT TO BE ADDED TO IT.

WE HAVE CERTAIN RULES AS IT RELATES TO WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT ON OUR COUNTY ROADS.

AND WHAT MISS GREEN IS ASKING FOR HERE TONIGHT IS FOR THOSE RULES TO BE ENFORCED AND FOR FINES TO BE LEVIED.

IT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS FOR FINES TO BE LEVIED AS, AS NEEDED.

FOR TRUCK DRIVERS WHO ARE OVER THE LIMIT ON OUR COUNTY ROADS.

SO, MISS GREEN, I CONCUR AND WILL BE A YES VOTE ON YOUR RESOLUTION, I YIELD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CAN YOU SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HERE WILL YOU KIND OF RAISE YOUR HAND FOR THIS ORDINANCE? DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO'S HERE FOR THIS AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CONTENTS? NO ONE. THAT'S OUT OF ORDER.

WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION AT THE END OF OUR MEETING FOR THE RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE RESOLUTION, JUSTICE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MCMULLEN. IS THAT IT? THAT'S. I SUPPOSE SO.

YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

OH, NO. I'M SORRY, JUSTICE ELLIOTT.

I WANTED TO BE THE SPONSOR YOU WANTED.

OKAY. JUSTICE ELLIOTT WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A SPONSOR.

AND MY BUTTON IS NOT WORKING.

IT'S ALREADY ON.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A YES? I WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A SPONSOR, AND THEY DID COME BEFORE US AND MADE A GREAT PRESENTATION AND SHARED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAD GONE ON WITH THIS ISSUE, AND SOMETHING DEFINITELY HAS TO BE DONE.

I AM IN AGREEMENT.

YES, MA'AM. [INAUDIBLE] YOUR RESOLUTION IS ON THE FLOOR.

WOULD YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO IT? I JUST HOPE IT PASSES.

I RAISED MY HAND TO BE ADDED.

OKAY. YES.

AMY, DID YOU? JUSTICE. MCMULLEN WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A SPONSOR.

JUSTICE LEWISON JUST ADD US ALL.

YEAH, JUST ADD EVERYBODY EXCEPT THE ONES THAT DON'T WANT TO BE ADDED.

SO. SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY YOU CAN ADD ME AS WELL.

SO IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS AT THIS POINT, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CALL].

12 AYES, 12 AYES.

WE WILL SEND 24 I 36 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR ORDINANCES.

[24-I-37 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 17-OR-12 (PULASKI COUNTY PERSONNEL POLICY) AS AMENDED TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ]

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ? 24 I 37 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 17I-12 PULASKI COUNTY PERSONNEL POLICY, AS AMENDED, TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. JUSTICE STOWERS MOVE FOR THE ADOPTION.

EXCUSE ME. MOVE THAT.

WE SEND THE ITEM TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS.

LAST RECOMMENDATION.

A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 24I-37 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE STRAUSS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN OR DO YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE? I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY, MR. FOGLEMAN. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. ADAM FOGLEMAN, PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR WASN'T ABLE TO JOIN US.

HER SON IS. HER SON IS STARTING COLLEGE, AND SO SHE'S THERE WITH HIM.

SO I'M PINCH HITTING.

SO I'LL RUN THROUGH A COUPLE OF BULLETS ON MR. FOGLEMAN. WE STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU.

CAN YOU PULL THAT JUST A LITTLE CLOSER? I'M GOING TO HAVE TO YELL INTO IT, I THINK.

ALRIGHT, SO I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH THE BULLET POINTS OF THE THINGS THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH.

AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

SO, THE FIRST POINT IS THERE IS A MODIFICATION TO THE OVERTIME CALCULATION.

THIS IS SPECIFIC TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND IT PUTS EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD WITH RESPECT TO OVERTIME BEING A 40 HOUR CALCULATION, INSTEAD OF HAVING AN 80 HOUR, TWO WEEK PERIOD CALCULATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT THAT

[00:10:05]

REQUEST WAS COMMUNICATED THROUGH MY OFFICE FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

AND SO WE PASSED IT ON TO HR.

THE SECOND BULLET POINT IS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FACILITY OPTIONS FOR AFTER HOURS WORKERS.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION TREATMENT.

THE THIRD IS TASK BASED, ARE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING SAFETY SENSITIVE DESIGNATIONS UNDER ARKANSAS LAW.

THE FOURTH IS TASKING HR WITH PRESCRIBING THE METHOD MANNER OF DESIGNING HOW SUBMISSIONS ARE MADE TO AIR.

RIGHT NOW. VARIOUS OFFICERS SUBMIT ANNUAL EVALUATIONS IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

AND SO THIS WOULD GIVE AIR THE AUTHORITY TO KIND OF STREAMLINE THE PROCESS AFTER THEY PROVIDE THEIR RECOMMENDATION OR DESIGN PROCESS TO THE VARIOUS OFFICERS, AND AN OPPORTUNITY OF FEEDBACK IS RECEIVED.

SO THERE'S A GIVE AND TAKE THERE.

THE NEXT POINT IS TO UPDATE THE TECHNOLOGY USE POLICY TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.

THE NEXT IS STREAMLINING ELIGIBILITY FOR CATASTROPHIC LEAVE, MAKING IT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD.

AND THERE WAS A SECOND PROVISION IN THERE ABOUT EMPLOYEES WHO LEFT AND CAME BACK.

THAT WAS KIND OF CONFUSING, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S APPLIED.

AND THEN THE LAST IS UPDATING THE FMLA SECTION AS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, IN CONSULTATION WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL WHO PROVIDES ADVICE ON BENEFITS.

AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

ADAM. AMY, PLEASE LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT JUSTICE MASSEY AND JUSTICE MATLOCK HAVE ARRIVED.

AND REMEMBER, PEOPLE, YOUR LIGHTS ARE ALREADY ON, SO YOU HAVE TO LET ME SEE YOUR HAND.

OKAY. JUSTICE CURRIE, GO AHEAD.

OKAY. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE.

OKAY. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THIS ORDINANCE.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO ASK, HAS AN IMPACT ANALYSIS BEEN DONE ON THE CHANGE? IF APPROVED, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ITEM G.

ITEM G IS DEALING WITH THE.

EMPLOYEE FBMLA HAS ANY ANALYSIS BEEN DONE AS TO IF EMPLOYEES HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR FULL AMOUNT ONCE THEY USE THEIR STATUS UP? HAS ANALYSIS BEEN DONE ON HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT EMPLOYEES? AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE OF CONCERN.

I WAS ASKING ABOUT PROJECTIONS ON THAT ISSUE ALONE.

IS IT A COST SAVINGS TO THE DISTRICT? TO THE COUNTY? ARE WE CONCERNED ABOUT EMPLOYEES THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS MAJOR CHANGE, WHERE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS INCLUDED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL WITH THE HR CHANGE? MR. KEEFE.

THOSE ARE SOME OF MY CONCERNS.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAN.

FROM THE STAFFING WAS THAT ADDRESSED TO ADAM WELL, OR EVEN WITH THE.

YEAH. ADAM. BUDGET PROJECTIONS WITH THIS IS MORE THIS IS MORE OF A LEGAL ISSUE THAN A BUDGET ISSUE.

OKAY. SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DID AN AUDIT ON PERSONNEL POLICY AND MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BE MADE CLEARER.

HR WORKED WITH THE WE HAVE AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL THAT PROVIDES LEGAL ADVICE ON, ON THE ALPHABET SOUP OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SOMETIMES. AND THIS WAS RUN BY THEM WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER A FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED.

I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT.

IT WAS SHARED WITH THE ELECTED OFFICIALS PRIOR TO BEING PRESENTED TO THE QUORUM COURT.

OKAY. OKAY.

OKAY. I GUESS I'M STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

AS TO THE FEEDBACK, IF ANY OF THAT CAN BE SHARED FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER ELECTED OFFICIALS REACHED OUT TO HR TO DISCUSS THIS.

OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE QUITE A FEW ISSUES THAT ARE STILL PENDING THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE

[00:15:06]

INVESTIGATED ON, ON THE ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED.

SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.

THANK YOU. JUSTICE CURRIE.

JUSTICE STOWERS, THANK YOU, SIR.

AND AS WE LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE, IT IS A BIPARTISAN SPONSORED ORDINANCE WITH THREE R'S AND THREE D'S.

SO THIS IS NOT A PARTIZAN ISSUE IN MY PERSPECTIVE.

THIS IS THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN 33 YEARS, 1991.

I'M SORRY. WHAT ARE YOU ON? YOU'RE ON THE WRONG ONE. YOU'RE ON THE WRONG ONE.

YEAH, WE'RE ON 24 HOUR 37, 37, 38, 37.

OKAY. FIRST ORDINANCE.

LAUGHING AT HIM, TOO.

OKAY, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HUMAN RESOURCES ORDINANCE.

YEAH. YES. OKAY.

I AM SORRY I GOT LOST.

DO YOU YIELD OR ARE YOU STILL SPEAKING? WELL, I WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, FOR MR. FOGLEMAN TO SPEAK TO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST REFERENCED AND SPEAK FROM THE POSITION OF WHY HUMAN RESOURCES WANTS TO MAKE THIS CHANGE.

WITH RESPECT TO LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.

I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A CLARIFICATION TO ENSURE THAT THAT THE THAT THE PERSONNEL POLICY CLEARLY COMMUNICATES THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF EMPLOYEES, AND IT PLACES EMPLOYEES IN LEAVE WITHOUT PAY STATUS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE ON FMLA OR SIMPLY ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.

ON THE SAME ON THE SAME FOOTING.

MR. FOGLEMAN. MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION WOULD BE AS IT RELATES TO THIS ITEM.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR OVERTIME PAY AT 40 HOURS RATHER THAN 80 HOURS, AND THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE A BENEFIT TO THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ON PAR WITH THE OTHER COUNTY EMPLOYEES AS IT RELATES TO OVERTIME.

IS THAT CORRECT? AND IF IT IS, CAN YOU EXPOUND A LITTLE BIT ON HOW THIS WOULD BENEFIT THE SHERIFF DEPUTY? THAT'S CORRECT. SO WITH RESPECT TO OVERTIME, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE ON AN 80, 80 HOUR, TWO WEEK OVERTIME SCHEDULE.

SO YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF TWO WEEKS, AS OPPOSED TO A WEEK AT A TIME TO DETERMINE OVERTIME ELIGIBILITY.

THIS WOULD REDUCE THE WINDOW THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT, WHICH MAY VERY WELL INCREASE THE ELIGIBILITY FOR OVERTIME FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

I CAN'T SAY WHAT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT WOULD BE, BUT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT OVER THAT WEEK THAT THEY'RE WORKING MORE THAN 40 HOURS BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT A SINGLE WEEK AS OPPOSED TO TWO WEEKS, THERE'S A GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL BE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME PAY.

ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. COUNTY ATTORNEY. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, AT LEAST, THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE UPDATES OR CHANGES IN THIS ORDINANCE ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND HAVE TO DO WITH CHANGES IN STATE LAW, STATUTE, AND THAT WE'RE BRINGING OURSELVES MAYBE NOT JUST STATE STATUTE AND STATE LAWS, BUT WE'RE BRINGING CONTINUING TO BRING OURSELVES AND TO STAY CURRENT WITH CURRENT LAW.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. I YIELD. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE STOWERS JUSTICE MEDLOCK.

THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THAT QUESTION ABOUT THE OVERTIME WITH THE SHERIFF'S PAY.

MY I JUST KIND OF WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THE HEALTH INSURANCE.

AGAIN, YOU SAID IT'S MAINLY A LEGALITY THAT BROUGHT FORTH THE CHANGES, BUT WITH THE HEALTH INSURANCE, THE WAY THAT IT IS NOW, IF THEY MISS AND THEY HAVE TO PAY IN FOR THEIR INSURANCE, IT'S JUST THE COUNTY PORTION NOW THEY HAVE TO PAY IN THE FULL AMOUNT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PART G THAT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT ADDRESSED ONLY LEAVE WITHOUT PAY THAT WAS NOT FMLA AND THAT THE PART H PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED FMLA LEAVE SEPARATELY.

THE CORRECTION IS JUST MAKING IT CLEARER THAT ALL PERSONS ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE ALSO UNDER FMLA, WILL BE TREATED THE SAME.

SO THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE MONEY ON THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE IT THAT THEY PAY IN TO KEEP IT.

[00:20:03]

SO UNDER ANY PERSON ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY STATUS, IF THEY CHOOSE TO CONTINUE THE COUNTY'S HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER SHARE. YEAH.

BOTH. YES.

WELL OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE MEDLOCK JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

YES. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THIS.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, BECAUSE IT DOES SAY RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYING THE FULL AMOUNT, EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER PORTIONS.

IT DOES SAY THAT IT DOES IN BOLD LETTERS HERE.

BUT I DID PULL UP THE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

I PULLED UP THEIR FACT SHEET FOR THE FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT.

AND ACCORDING TO THEIR FACT SHEET, IT DOES SAY GROUP HEALTH PLAN BENEFITS.

EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE FOR AN EMPLOYEE ON FMLA LEAVE UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS IF.

AS IF THE EMPLOYEE HAD NOT TAKEN LEAVE.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF MEMBER IF A FAMILY MEMBER COVERED IN IS PROVIDED TO AN EMPLOYEE, FAMILY MEMBER COVERAGE MUST BE MAINTAINED DURING THE EMPLOYEES FMLA LEAVE.

SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AND WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS IS IT IS ARE WE SURE THIS IS EXACTLY.

IS THIS LEGAL? SO BEFORE I HAD A CONVERSATION, JUST BEFORE I CAME IN HERE TO VERIFY THAT VERY THING.

AND THEY'RE UNDER THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

THERE IS AUTHORITY TO TREAT EMPLOYEES ON FMLA AS YOU WOULD TREAT ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.

AND SO IF YOU'RE TREATING EMPLOYEES ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR STATUS, OTHERWISE YOU TREAT THEM ALL THE SAME.

AND SO I'M HAPPY TO PASS YOUR QUESTION ON AGAIN TO THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL THAT THAT CONFERS ON BENEFITS. QUESTION. YEAH.

AND I DID PULL IT UP FOR YOU.

SO I DO HAVE IT HERE.

SO I CAN GIVE YOU THE FACT SHEET.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT SHEET.

AND ALSO I RELY ON THE LAW ITSELF.

RIGHT. AND LOOK BEHIND THE KIND OF THE BLANKET STATEMENTS THAT ARE ON THE, ON THE, THE FACT SHEET PAGE.

BUT THERE ARE, THERE ARE REGULATIONS THAT UNDERLIE THE ENFORCEMENT OF, OF FMLA, AND THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE RELIED UPON.

WELL, AND I ALSO QUESTION THAT WITH US NOT HAVING HR HERE, SHE DOESN'T SHOW UP QUITE OFTEN.

AND SINCE WE DON'T HAVE HER HERE, I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT SHE BE HERE TO TELL US WHY SHE WANTS THESE CHANGES, ALL THESE CHANGES DONE. I KNOW YOU CAN DO YOUR BEST TO TELL US WHY, BUT.

BUT YOU AREN'T HER, AND YOU CAN'T REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY TELL US WHAT HER REASONING IS BEHIND ALL THESE CHANGES THAT SHE WANTS DONE.

AND SO I TRULY FEEL LIKE THAT IT'S HARD TO PASS SOMETHING WITHOUT HER BEING HERE TO EXPLAIN HERSELF.

GREAT. AND I YIELD.

OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. JUSTICE STOWERS.

YES, SIR. SO MISS CYPRUS DID REACH OUT TO ME TODAY AS THE LEAD SPONSOR ON THIS ITEM.

AND SHE IS TAKING HER SON TO FAYETTEVILLE TO SCHOOL AND WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE.

HOWEVER, SHE SAID THAT SHE WOULD BE HERE AT THE FULL QUORUM COURT.

SO IF MY SECOND WOULD BE FRIENDLY TO THIS.

AND WHO GAVE THE SECOND ON MY MOTION TO SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT? WOULDN'T IT ELLIOTT IF YOU WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO DISPOSE OF THAT MOTION AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND THIS ITEM TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION THAT WILL ALLOW THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO BE HERE AT OUR FULL MEETING IN TWO WEEKS, AND TO ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS THAT THE BODY MIGHT HAVE.

AND THAT WAY WE KEEP THE ITEM MOVING ALONG SO THAT THAT IS MY MOTION.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A SECOND.

SECOND. OKAY.

JUSTIN, JUST A QUICK NOTE.

THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE.

THIS IS JUST A STANDARD ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THREE SEPARATE READINGS ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS.

SO IN THE EVENT THAT THIS DID GET OUT OF COMMITTEE, YOU WOULDN'T ACTUALLY VOTE ON IT FOR FINAL PASSAGE UNTIL OCTOBER.

SO I JUST I KNOW WE DEAL WITH EMERGENCY ORDINANCES QUITE A BIT.

THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

[00:25:01]

SO THERE IS BETWEEN TONIGHT AND THE END OF OCTOBER BEFORE.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TIME TO GET SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT YOU GUYS NEED TO HAVE MADE JUST A SUGGESTION.

SO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE NOW IS AN APPROPRIATE MOTION.

AND WE'RE SENDING IT.

SENDING IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. JUSTICE CAPS.

I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT SAME TOPIC ABOUT FMLA.

IT LOOKS LIKE UNDER TEN.

SO [INAUDIBLE].

I'M SORRY. IT SAYS TO THE EXTENT AT WHICH THE EMPLOYEE'S FMLA IS PAID.

SO THAT IS YET ANOTHER POD OF INDIVIDUALS.

IF THEY'RE USING SICK OR VACATION TIME TO SATISFY THEIR FMLA REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY DO NOT FALL INTO THAT ENTRANCE.

THAT THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

SO, WHAT WAS ADDRESSED EARLIER ONLY APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES IN A LEAVE WITHOUT PAY STATUS.

OUR POLICY DOES REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO EXHAUST THEIR SICK AND VACATION TIME BEFORE GOING INTO A LEAVE WITHOUT PAY STATUS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I YIELD.

THANK YOU.

THERE APPEARS TO BE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

YES. YES, THERE IS ONE.

PLEASE. JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

YES. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THE SHERIFF CAN COME UP AND SPEAK.

IS IF HE WOULD BE WILLING TO TELL WHAT? WHAT THE ORDINANCE MCMULLEN.

GENERAL. WHAT? JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

I'M SORRY. I HEAR YOU WERE.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RESPOND.

CAN YOU HOLD ON JUST ONE MOMENT.

SHERIFF? YES.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT THE PURPOSE OF YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE HIM SPEAK.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

WELL, IN THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.

RIGHT? SO I'M TRYING TO.

NO. GO AHEAD. JUSTICE.

MCMULLEN. WHAT'S YOUR CONCERN? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE SHERIFF'S COMMENT ON THE OVERTIME PAY.

PARTICULARLY IF THERE IF HE WOULD BE WILLING TO SPEAK ON THAT IS.

BUT ARE WE APPROPRIATE JUSTIN.

BECAUSE. YEAH.

THAT'S. YEAH.

OKAY. WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS ISSUES.

OKAY. YES, SIR. SHERIFF, YOU.

I ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM.

EXCUSE ME. POINT OF ORDER.

WHEN I GET READY TO SPEAK, THAT SOMEONE ELSE SPEAKS OUT OF TERM GENERALLY.

WELL, IF Y'ALL WOULD RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE THIS CONFUSION UP HERE TONIGHT THAT WE SEEM TO BE HAVING.

PLEASE DON'T LOOK AT ME.

WELL, LOOK AT THE PERSON. IF Y'ALL WOULD RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR TONIGHT, THEN WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE HAVING THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING.

THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF ME SITTING OUT OF ORDER.

OKAY, HOLD ON. HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO. OKAY.

ALL I'M SAYING IS IT'S AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO THINGS.

AND IT APPEARS THAT NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT APPROPRIATELY TONIGHT.

SO IF WE WANT TO ACT THIS WAY, THEN WE CAN.

BUT IF NOT, THEN IF YOU RECOGNIZE ME, I'M GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY THEIR FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

FAIR ENOUGH. YES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.

GO AHEAD. SHERIFF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I DO SUPPORT THE PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE DEALING WITH THE OVERTIME.

I THINK THAT'S A FAIR THING TO DO.

IF WE'RE GOING TO TREAT ALL EMPLOYEES THE SAME, THAT SWORN PERSONNEL BE TREATED LIKE OTHER EMPLOYEES AND ARE PUT ON THE OVERTIME SCHEDULE OF 40 HOURS A WEEK.

SO THAT'S MY COMMENT ON THAT, I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? JUSTICE MCMULLEN? NO I YIELD.

THANK YOU.

NO MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.

WE ARE VOTING TO SEND ITEM 24I-37 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? .

[00:30:05]

SO, I HAVE NINE AYES, 63 NAYS, AND TWO ABSTENTIONS.

SO IT WILL GO TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.

SO 24I-37 WILL BE SENT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 2438 ORDINANCE TO INITIATE AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICES FOR ALTERNATIVE

[24-I-38 AN ORDINANCE TO INITIATE AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICES FOR ALTERNATIVE COUNTY ORGANIZATION; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF A COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD TO CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS; TO ESTABLISH THE COMPLETION DATE OF THE ANALYSIS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

COUNTY ORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF A COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD.

TO CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS, TO ESTABLISH THE COMPLETION DATE OF THE ANALYSIS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

JUSTICE STOWERS LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND THE ITEM TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 2438 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.

JUSTICE STOWERS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? I WOULD LIKE TO AGAIN RECOGNIZE OUR ESTEEMED COUNTY ATTORNEY, MR. FOGLEMAN. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE. SO THE LAST TIME THAT PULASKI COUNTY UNDERTOOK AN EFFORT LIKE THIS WAS IN 1991.

AND I THINK THAT IN LARGE PART, A GENERATION HAS PASSED SINCE THERE'S BEEN A BROAD OVERARCHING REVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF PULASKI COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

IT TOOK, I THINK, 20 ABOUT 20 YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OR 15 YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 55 BEFORE THIS WAS UNDERTAKEN, WERE TWICE THAT PERIOD NOW.

AND SO THIS WOULD JUST PRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR CITIZENS TO, TO SERVE THE COUNTY, TO LOOK AT WHAT COUNTY OFFICERS DO AND TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS THEY MIGHT HAVE.

I'M GOING TO SAY THAT ONE. JUSTICE LEWISON.

YOUR HONOR, I TAKE IT I'M READING THE THING WHERE IT SAYS THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 552 IS TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE SERVICE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE THROUGH THE STRUCTURE THAT IS MOST ECONOMIC EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE.

LIKE WHY, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS? ARE WE BRINGING THIS UP NOW? I MEAN, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE DEPARTMENTS AND MAYBE I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR.

SO CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN THIS TO ME? SO THE LAST TIME THAT THAT THE COUNTY TOOK AN EXAMINATION OF ITSELF LIKE THIS THE, THE CORONER'S OFFICE WAS MADE AN APPOINTED OFFICE.

I THINK WE'RE THE ONLY COUNTY IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS THAT HAS AN APPOINTED CORONER.

AND WE ALSO HAVE ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND THE MOST PROFESSIONAL.

WE NO LONGER HAVE AN ELECTED SURVEYOR.

WE'RE ONE OF THE FEW COUNTIES THAT DOESN'T ELECT A SURVEYOR.

THESE ARE SERVICES.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A SURVEYOR IN 1874 WAS TO ENSURE THAT WE CREATED A A MODERN AND RELIABLE SYSTEM OF LAND RECORDS AND COULD IDENTIFY WHERE PROPERTY WAS.

I THINK I THINK WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED THAT.

AND WE'RE NOW TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN CONTRACT OUT THOSE SERVICES.

WE CONSOLIDATED THE OFFICES OF CIRCUIT AND COUNTY CLERK, AND THAT'S A BIG, BIG JOB.

IT'S A BIG RESPONSIBILITY.

AND IT'S IT'S BEEN WELL FUNCTIONING SINCE THEN.

WE ABOLISHED THE OFFICE OF COLLECTOR IN 1992 AND PASSED THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES ON TO OTHER OFFICERS.

BUT EVERY SO OFTEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OURSELVES NOT JUST AT THE MICRO LEVEL, BUT ALSO AT THE MACRO LEVEL AND, AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE CITIZENS ARE GETTING WHAT THEY'RE PAID FOR, QUITE FRANKLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ARE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIVE.

AND THE WAY THAT THE LAW ALLOWS THAT THAT BE DONE IS THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY CITIZENS THAT ARE WANTING THINGS CHANGED WITH THIS.

I MEAN, MAYBE YOU WANT TO GET ABOUT THE CORONER'S OFFICE, BUT I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS.

IS THIS GOING TO TURN OUT LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE DEPARTMENTS AND PUT DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER LIKE THEY DID BACK THEN WITH THE CIRCUIT CLERK? I DON'T KNOW. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE ADVISORY BOARD WOULD BE NINE CITIZENS.

I CAN'T I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL.

I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THOSE NINE CITIZENS WILL FIND OR RECOMMEND.

BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT WHOEVER IS APPOINTED TO FULFILL THESE RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD TAKE THEIR JOB SERIOUSLY AND TAKE A HARD LOOK AT WHAT THE COUNTY DOES.

[00:35:04]

WELL, I STILL HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THIS.

I MEAN, 1991.

SO WHERE DID THIS COME FROM? JUST THIS WEEK THEY DECIDED YOU DECIDED TO PUT THIS ORDINANCE THROUGH.

I MEAN, I'M JUST MISLED BECAUSE I NEVER THOUGHT THERE WAS ANYTHING WE WANTED TO CHANGE ABOUT THE ABOUT PULASKI COUNTY.

WELL, I DON'T THINK WE WILL KNOW UNTIL THE CITIZEN BOARD UNDERTAKES THIS REVIEW TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THERE'S HOW MANY ON THE CITIZEN'S BOARD.

NINE. 999.

AND THEN WHO'S OVER THE CITIZENS' BOARD.

THIS BODY WOULD CONFIRM OR DENY ANY APPOINTMENTS.

IT WOULD BE THE COUNTY JUDGE BY LAW WHO MAKES THOSE APPOINTMENTS.

THAT'S A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.

AND ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THIS IS THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SUBMITTING THEIR NAMES FOR CONSIDERATION SHOULD SUBMIT LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FROM DISTRICT OFFICERS.

THAT WOULD BE ALL OR COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS SO THAT THERE IS A, A, A BROAD REPRESENTATION.

NOT YET. AND IN CONNECTION TO THE OFFICERS AND THE VARIOUS DISTRICTS OF THE COUNTY, I'LL LET YOU DO IT NEXT.

SO THE JUDGES OVER IT.

SO DOES THE CORRECT DOES DO WE HAVE A SAY IN WHO GETS PICKED? BECAUSE WE NEVER SEEM TO HAVE A SAY IN ANYTHING.

SO YOU DO THE QUORUM COURT IS WHO CONFIRMS OR REJECTS APPOINTMENTS.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE YOUR SAY OKAY THAT'S ALL I WANTED.

THANK YOU OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, JUSTICE LEWISON.

SO WE'VE GOT SEVERAL LIGHTS I'LL GO TO JUSTICE STOWERS.

AND THEN I'VE GOT EVERYBODY DOWN THAT I'VE SEEN.

THANK YOU, SIR. SO, MR. FOGLEMAN. IS IT NOT ACCURATE THAT WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS THIS GROUP WOULD COME UP WITH, THAT THIS BODY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACT UPON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MERELY RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT MY POINT BEING, EVEN IF THIS IF THIS BODY ACTED UPON THOSE, WE DON'T HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN A GENERAL ELECTION.

SO THE COUNTY JUDGE NOR THIS BODY HAS THE ULTIMATE SAY IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE.

WHATEVER THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THAT COME OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE VOTERS OF PULASKI COUNTY AND BE RATIFIED OR REJECTED.

SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE STUDY CAN COME BACK AND THE COUNTY JUDGE CAN IMPLEMENT IT, OR THAT THIS BODY ALONE COULD IMPLEMENT IT.

IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

WELL, AND IT WOULD ONLY GO TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IF A MAJORITY OF THIS BODY ACTUALLY AGREES THAT IT SHOULD GO TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, IT COULD BE REJECTED BY THE QUORUM COURT. CORRECT.

BUT THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THIS BODY NOR THE COUNTY JUDGE HAS THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

NOT WITHOUT FIRST TAKING THE MATTERS TO THE PEOPLE FIRST.

THANK YOU, MR. FOGLEMAN.

I YIELD. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE STOWERS. JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

YES. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, BASICALLY WHO WE'RE LOOKING AT, RIGHT? AM I CORRECT ON THAT? YES. SO IS THE COUNTY JUDGE EXCLUDED AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL? IS HIS DEPARTMENT EXCLUDED OR HIS.

IT'S INCLUDED ALSO.

OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS INCLUDED.

OKAY. SO THEY WILL GO THROUGH EVERYBODY, EVERY DEPARTMENT, EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT LIKE ROAD AND BRIDGE.

THEY WILL GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT AND LOOK AT THEM AND SEE IF THEY'RE RUN EFFICIENTLY THEN.

SO THE WAY THAT IT WORKED 32 YEARS AGO WAS THAT QUESTIONNAIRES WERE SENT OUT.

THEY HAD A MUCH SHORTER TIMETABLE 32 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS HAPPENED, I THINK IT WAS INITIATED.

AND WITHIN SIX MONTHS THEY FIRST THEY ADOPTED AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AND THEN WITHIN SIX MONTHS, THEY HAD THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE THEY SENT OUT QUESTIONNAIRES TO EACH OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO GET FEEDBACK ON WHAT THEY DO AND HOW THEY DO IT AND WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH OFFICE WAS.

THEY SPOKE TO STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

THEY HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE THE ELECTED OFFICIAL AND THE PUBLIC COULD ATTEND AND ANSWER QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE DETAILS ON HOW THE

[00:40:01]

OPERATIONS WERE STRUCTURED.

AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS CAME DOWN FOLLOWING THAT THAT STUDY PERIOD.

THIS WOULD HAVE ABOUT A YEAR STUDY PERIOD, BECAUSE THERE THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION WOULD BE IN 2026 IF AN ITEM WAS TO BE REFERRED.

SO YOU ARE YOU SAYING THAT EACH DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO BE LOOKED AT OR NOT? EACH ELECTED OFFICIAL WOULD BE LOOKED AT.

YES. WHY? SO IT SO LIKE AND THE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO EACH ELECTED OFFICIAL.

SO OKAY, SO EACH ONE OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS IN EACH DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDING THE JUDGES AND ALL OF HIS DEPARTMENTS WOULD BE LOOKED AT.

SURE. YES.

OKAY. AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THIS WAS SENT UP FOR AN ELECTION.

AND WHAT'S THE COST? YEAH. WHAT'S THE COST TO INCLUDE IT ON A ON A BALLOT.

WHAT WOULD THIS BE? TO PUT IT UP FOR AN ELECTION.

THERE'S NO IT'S NOT A SPECIAL.

SO IT WOULD APPEAR ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, WHICH IS A COST THAT'S BORNE BY BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE STATE ANYWAY.

SO YOU WANTED TO DO IT QUICKLY SO THAT IT COULD GET DONE AND BE PUT ON THE GENERAL ELECTION IN 2026.

NOW, THAT'S NOT QUICK.

THAT'S A THAT'S A YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW.

OKAY. SO YOU WANTED TO DO IT FOR THE 2026 ONE.

OKAY. TWO YEARS FROM NOW.

OKAY. AND SO THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE.

BUT THEN THERE WOULD BE.

COST [INAUDIBLE] PEOPLE YOU KNOW WERE AGAINST IT AND PEOPLE WERE FOR IT, THERE WOULD BE ALL THAT KIND OF COST, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD GET INVOLVED.

BUT THAT WOULDN'T AFFECT US.

WHAT WAS THAT THE COST INVOLVED WHEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE AGAINST SOMETHING, YOU GET UP AND YOU, YOU HAVE ADS AND YOU SAY, I'M AGAINST THIS.

I DO NOT WANT THIS, YOU KNOW, TO WIN.

I DO NOT WANT THIS TO SUCCEED OR TO PASS HOW YOU DO WHEN SOMETHING GETS UP, PUT UP FOR ELECTION.

SO THERE WOULD BE THAT COST AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD PAY FOR ANY COST ON THAT END EITHER.

NO. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF, TOO.

OKAY, I YIELD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. JUSTICE CURRY.

YES. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADD, I THINK SHE ASKED A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT.

THE COST WOULD BE TO BRING IT TO THE BALLOT.

BUT WHY WOULD WE NOT CONSIDER HAVING SOME PUBLIC FORUMS PRIOR TO CONSIDERING A PROCESS OF THIS NATURE? SINCE IT'S BEEN SINCE 1991, AND BRINGING IT TO THE PUBLIC FOR A CONVERSATION TO GET INPUT FROM THE VARIOUS 15 DISTRICTS THAT WE REPRESENT.

WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN? I'M KIND OF IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN IS THIS BEING BROUGHT IN THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION? AND WE RECEIVED IT TODAY, COUPLE OF DAYS AGO TO REVIEW.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY RUSH.

THIS ISN'T AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE.

OKAY. THE TIMETABLE THAT'S SET OUT TAKES, YOU KNOW, A GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO APPLY FOR, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE WEEKS IF AND WHEN THIS ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED, SO THAT IF THEY TAKE NOTE TODAY THAT THIS MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY, THEY'LL HAVE 80 DAYS TO 60 DAYS BEFORE THE 60 DAYS NOTICE BEFORE ADOPTION, AND THEN 21 DAYS TO GATHER THEIR INFORMATION AND SUBMIT IT FOR CONSIDERATION, ALONG WITH LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE VARIOUS ELECTED OFFICIALS.

THE BODY WOULD THEN UNDERTAKE A STUDY FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS NINE MONTHS BEFORE AN ELECTION.

I THINK THERE'S NO RUSH THAT'S BUILT INTO THIS.

THIS IS CONTEMPLATIVE.

WHAT DID THEY SAY? I'M GOING TO ASK AGAIN. THANK YOU.

AND AND TO ADDRESS YOUR YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE VARIOUS DISTRICTS.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE, THE COMMITTEE ITSELF CAN DO IS TO, TO VISIT THE DISTRICTS AND TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK ON THEIR, THEIR LEVEL OF SATISFACTION FROM THE SERVICES THAT THEY ARE RECEIVING. WE REPRESENT THOSE DISTRICTS.

SO THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, I'M INQUIRING, WHY COULDN'T IT BE DONE IN A CONVERSATION PIECE WITHOUT PRESENTING IT IN THE ORDINANCE LIKE THIS PRIOR TO.

WELL, THIS IS THE PROCESS TO, TO UNDERTAKE TO, TO GIVE SOME STRUCTURE TO THAT CONVERSATION.

[00:45:02]

OKAY. JUSTICE.

SORRY. JUSTICE. MASSEY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

WHETHER WE AGREE WITH THIS PROCESS OR NOT, THIS IS A VERY NORMAL PROCESS.

I DON'T KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT ALL OF US UP HERE ARE NOT JOHNNY COME LATELY TO PROCESSES AND POLITICS.

I DO KNOW THAT I HAVE BEEN A PART OF MANY ADVISORY BOARDS, AND THE PROCESS IS THE MAIN BOARD, WHICH WOULD BE THE CITY BOARD OR THE QUORUM COURT OR WHOMEVER WILL MAKE A DECISION, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN AFTER THOSE PEOPLE ARE SELECTED, THEN THEY MAKE A DECISION AS TO BRINGING IT TO THE PUBLIC.

THEY HOLD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.

COME ON NOW. WE KNOW THAT THEY HOLD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.

SO THAT'S WHAT WILL PROBABLY TAKE PLACE AFTER THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ARE HELD.

THEN THEY MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY BRING THEM BACK TO US.

THEN WE WILL BE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER AS TO WHAT GOES BEFORE THE PUBLIC TO VOTE ON.

I THINK CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN REEVALUATED IN 30 YEARS, I THINK THAT'S RATHER ANTIQUATED.

PROCESS. PEOPLE MAY LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS, AND THAT'S GREAT.

OR THEY MAY NOT, BUT I THINK DOING A STUDY IS THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING TRICKY ABOUT THAT, ESPECIALLY IF, I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND SOME FOLKS CONCERN IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY DON'T LIKE A PARTICULAR ELECTED OFFICIAL OR THEY DO LIKE A PARTICULAR ELECTED OFFICIAL, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF WANTING TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS ABOVE BOARD.

AND SO A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE WARRANTED AND MAKE SENSE.

BUT IT'S AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THEY WILL MAKE THEY'LL PUT IT BEFORE THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE KNOW THAT THAT HAS HAPPENED IN MANY A DAY.

I'VE SERVED ON MANY OF THOSE AND WE BOUGHT IT BEFORE THE PEOPLE.

I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND SAY, WELL, NO ONE SAID ANYTHING TO ME.

I'M JUST ONE PERSON.

SO, OF COURSE, NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING TO ME ABOUT CHANGING ANYTHING, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED.

PEOPLE. I MEAN, COME ON NOW.

PEOPLE DON'T TYPICALLY THINK ABOUT THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN IN THEIR COMMUNITY IN REGARD TO THE PROCESS OF HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS, THEY JUST THEY DON'T THEY KNOW THEY WANT IT. RIGHT, BUT THEY DON'T REALLY THINK ABOUT, OH, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS OR WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT.

AND THEN SOMETIMES THEY DO.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY, WELL, NO ONE SAID ANYTHING TO ME.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED OR NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED.

SO I DO WELCOME THIS PROCESS.

IF IT IF IT GOES FORWARD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE MASSEY. JUSTICE MCCOY.

YES. THANK YOU.

I THINK TO PIGGYBACK OFF JUSTICE MASSEY I THINK WE'VE HAD ONE HUGE CHANGE TO OUR SOCIETY SINCE 34 YEARS AGO OR 33 YEARS AGO.

THAT'S CALLED THE INTERNET, AND IT HAS MADE THINGS A LOT MORE EFFICIENT IN REGARDS.

SO I, I THINK, IF FOR NOTHING ELSE, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE INTERNET NOWADAYS AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES, I THINK 33 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, I THINK IT IS TIME.

SPEAKING OF TIMING SORT OF WHAT ATTORNEY FOGLEMAN SAID IT THERE IS NO RUSH ON THIS, BUT WE'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN TWO YEARS OUT FROM A 2026 ELECTION.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO FIND THIS ADVISORY BOARD FOR THEM TO DO THEIR RESEARCH AND STUDY.

SO I THINK I THINK TIMING IS RIPE NOW TO DO IT WELL AHEAD OF OUR NEXT GENERAL ELECTION IN 2026, WHEN THIS MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.

SO I SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE AND I HOPE YOUR COLLEAGUES WILL TOO, I YIELD.

THANK YOU. JUSTICE MCCOY JUSTICE.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS IS A LOFTY GOAL.

I AGREE WITH DONNA IN SOME WAYS.

AND THEN THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT I THINK ARE LEGITIMATE AND LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.

FIRST OF ALL, JUST TO START, WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE COST OF THE COMMITTEE, IN OTHER WORDS, TO DO THE PROPER RESEARCH. ARE WE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT AT THIS POINT OR EVEN GUESSTIMATE? SO MY ONLY ANTICIPATION OF COST WOULD BE IF THE COMMITTEE ASKS FOR A PART TIME STAFF.

THERE IS A BUILT INTO THAT PROCESS AFTER THE COMMITTEE IS SEATED, THEY HAVE A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THEY ELECT THE CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR AND SECRETARY OR CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE TO THEN MAKE A REQUEST TO THIS BODY FOR AN APPROPRIATION IF THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A REQUEST.

I CAN'T SPEAK TODAY WHETHER OR NOT A REQUEST WILL BE MADE, BUT ULTIMATELY Y'ALL GET TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE.

YOU COULD REJECT ANY REQUEST, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT.

AND THEY COULD BE LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES OR TO THE EXISTING STAFF OF THE COUNTY.

AND SO WITH RESPECT TO THAT IT I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO IT, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT

[00:50:03]

REQUEST. AND YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND WITH A YES OR A NO.

OKAY. WELL YOU KNOW THEN ALSO I WOULD THINK THAT THERE MUST BE SOME ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT, THAT MAY BE SHAKING IN THEIR SHOES AT THE THOUGHT OF THIS.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE.

WOW. SEE THERE WE GO.

ALL RIGHT.

NOW, I THINK YOU SHOULD ADDRESS THAT.

WHOMEVER SAID IT.

NEVERTHELESS, BEFORE I WAS SO RUDELY CUT IN ON, I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL POINT OUT THAT IN THE PAST I KNOW THAT LIKE YOU SAID, THERE WERE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE MADE.

FOR INSTANCE, THE CORONER'S OFFICE BECAME AN APPOINTED OFFICE AND THEN THE SURVEYOR.

NONE. WE DON'T HAVE A NEED.

WE DECIDED TO ELIMINATE THAT.

ALSO, THE COLLECTOR WAS ABOLISHED.

AND AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, WE NOT ONLY HAVE THE CIRCUIT CLERK, BUT IT'S THE CIRCUIT COUNTY OR THE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK.

SO AND THOSE WERE SOME CHANGES.

SO NOW WE'RE SAYING PERHAPS WE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AGAIN.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR CONCERNS, REAL CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO DRIVE THIS EFFORT.

I THINK THE GREATEST CONSIDERATION IS HOW MUCH TIME HAS PASSED SINCE WE'VE TAKEN THIS LOOK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BUT THEN, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT.

WELL, I DON'T I DON'T ALWAYS CHECK MY BALL JOINTS BEFORE I DRIVE OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, BUT EVENTUALLY, IF I'D BE CONCERNED.

SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO LOOK TO KNOW THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CORRECTION.

AND THERE ARE A SERIES OF CHECKS IN HERE IF.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THINKS IT'S ADVISABLE AND THE QUORUM COURT DOESN'T, THEN IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE.

ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE TO TABLE IT INDEFINITELY.

SECOND. SECOND.

APPROPRIATE. SECOND IT.

SAY IT. I'M SORRY.

WAS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

YEAH. FINALLY.

OKAY. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE.

ITEM 24I-38 INDEFINITELY.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON TABLING THE ORDINANCE? GO AHEAD. JUSTICE STOWERS.

YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. KEITH.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE WANT TO NOT DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN AS A COUNTY AND AS A QUORUM COURT, WHICH HAS OVERSIGHT OF ALL DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE OPERATING AS EFFICIENTLY AS WE CAN.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN INSINUATED HERE TONIGHT THAT THE THERE'S SOME ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT FEEL THAT THEY HAVE A TARGET ON THEM OR WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN 20 YEARS, PROBABLY NONE OF US WILL BE SITTING AT THIS TABLE, AND NONE OF THE CURRENT ELECTED OFFICIALS WILL PROBABLY STILL BE SERVING.

SO THIS IS ABOUT EFFICIENCY.

THIS IS ABOUT BEING THE BEST STEWARD OF THE TAXPAYERS DOLLARS THAT WE CAN BE.

AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WOULD BE OPPOSITION TO A STUDY THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE IN OVER 30 YEARS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE RUNNING AS EFFICIENTLY AS WE CAN, BECAUSE THE LAST STUDY CERTAINLY BROUGHT OUT CERTAIN POINTS AS IT RELATED TO THE COLLECTOR AND THE TREASURER, AND AS IT RELATED TO THE CLERK AND THE CIRCUIT AND COUNTY.

AND AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE WITH JEROME'S DEPARTMENT, WITH I CAN'T THINK OF THE NAME OF IT RIGHT NOW.

HIS OFFICE. YEAH. CORONER'S OFFICE.

THANK YOU. SO, I'M OPPOSED TO TABLING THIS AT THIS TIME.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO GET TO THE QUORUM COURT SO WE CAN HAVE A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JUSTICE STOWERS.

ARE THERE ANY? ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS FOR TABLING THERE? THERE BEING NO DISCUSSION TO TABLE.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS AMY'S GOING TO CALL THE ROLL TO TABLE INDEFINITELY.

24I-38. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL,

[00:55:03]

AMY? [INAUDIBLE] AYES AND TEN NAYS.

SO IT FAILED.

SO THE MOTION TO TABLE FAILED.

SO WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION IS TO SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

IF THERE ARE NO MORE THIS THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION.

JUSTICE CAPPS.

I HAVE A QUESTION JUST ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS.

SO THE APPLICATIONS WILL BE SENT TO THE JUDGE, AND HE WILL MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BE APPROVED OR NOT BY THIS BODY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. AND SO WILL THE APPOINTMENTS BE APPROVED OR DECLINED? INADEQUATE AS A SLATE OR INDIVIDUALLY? THAT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THIS BODY.

IT WILL DEPEND ON HOW IT ARRIVES AS AN ORDINANCE.

YES. AND I WANT TO ADD THAT THE APPOINTMENT FOR AN ADVISORY BOARD IS, IS AN AUTHORITY THAT'S FIXED BY STATUTE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S WRITTEN THE WAY THAT IT IS.

THE INCLUSION OF THE LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FROM DISTRICT OFFICERS AND FROM COUNTY OFFICERS IS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS WIDESPREAD SUPPORT OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENTED AMONG THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ULTIMATELY APPOINTED.

OKAY. THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.

SO IT'S BY STATUTE THAT IT'S APPOINTED BY THE JUDGE.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THAT'S STATE.

YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU I YIELD. THANK YOU, JUSTICE CAPPS.

SINCE THERE ARE NO MORE.

YES, I GOT ONE MORE.

OH, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

I'M SORRY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WITH THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THEY WERE ELECTED.

THESE PEOPLE WERE ELECTED BY PULASKI COUNTY.

AND EVERY YEAR WE DO DO A BUDGET AND WE SCRUTINIZE THEIR BUDGETS.

WE GO THROUGH THEM DILIGENTLY.

I HOPE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, PROCEDURE AND NOT MAKING SURE THAT THEIR BUDGETS ARE GOOD AND THAT THEY DON'T CHARGE TOO MUCH.

AND I THINK THAT THAT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE DO TO ENSURE THIS, THAT THEY THAT THEY DO A GOOD JOB. BUT I ALSO SO I ALSO SEE THAT THIS PROCESS IS ALREADY BEING DONE DAILY.

WE SEE IT DONE EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I MEAN BY US LOOKING AT THEIR BUDGETS, BY THEM BEING ELECTED OFFICIALS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD TAKE IT UPON OURSELVES TO SCRUTINIZE OUR OWN ELECTED OFFICIALS.

SO THAT'S MY ONLY PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH IT, IS THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW I'D FEEL IF SOMEBODY I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, TO SCRUTINIZE US. I GUESS THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OKAY.

BUT BUT WE ARE ELECTED.

WE ARE ELECTED. AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY WE'RE DOING THINGS, YOU CANNOT UNELECT US.

RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW I LOOK AT THIS, RATHER THAN US GOING OUT AND SCRUTINIZING OUR OWN ELECTED OFFICIALS. ARE YOU ASKING FOR JUST TO MAKE A STATEMENT? THANK YOU. JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

JUSTICE MASSEY.

SINCE THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE, I FEEL THE NEED TO SAY THIS, THAT I'M TRULY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME WANTING TO SCRUTINIZE NOT ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL.

I THINK IT'S KIND OF ABSURD TO SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.

I THINK THAT IF IT'S BEEN 30 YEARS SINCE WE'VE LOOKED AT A PROCESS THAT A COUNTY OR ANY BUSINESS DOES, BECAUSE BUSINESS BUSINESSES DO DO THAT, THEY DO YOU KNOW, LOOK OVER THEIR PROCESSES TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN IMPROVE.

I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO AND TO AND TO SAY THAT WE WANT TO.

WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS BECAUSE WE ARE WE'RE FEARFUL OF SOME ELECTED OFFICIAL BEING TARGETED.

AND I THINK THAT'S JUST A LITTLE ABSURD.

AND I THINK IT'S NOT FAIR TO EVEN PUT THIS OUT AND SAY THIS WHEN YOU HAVE NO VALIDATION FOR THAT, YOU HAVE NO VALIDATION FOR THAT.

IF YOU HAVE. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEING SAID. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

BUT NO, WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

WHICH MEANS THAT I'M SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR GENERAL PUBLIC IS HEARING.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAID SOME OF THE THINGS THEY AGREED WITH YOU BY SHAKING THEIR HEAD IN AGREEMENT.

BUT THIS IS NOT TO TARGET ANYONE.

[01:00:03]

I DON'T, I DON'T I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN SEE HOW WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT THAT, BUT TO MAKE OUR PROCESS BETTER OR MAYBE, MAYBE OUR PROCESS IS GREAT AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR CHANGE. BUT SINCE IT'S BEEN 30 YEARS, WE NEED TO LET WE NEED TO LET OUR WE NEED TO LET SOMEONE DECIDE THAT AFTER LOOKING AT WHAT'S GOING ON AND HOW WE DO THINGS.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION.

SECOND. SECOND. THAT'S WHAT I WAS FIXING TO DO.

THE CHAIR HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED TO CALL THE QUESTION.

DOES THE DOES THE CHAIR HAVE TO RECOGNIZE.

YEAH. HE JUST.

I HAD MY HAND UP.

RECOGNIZE ANY MOTION? NO. IF THERE TO MAKE IT A VALID MOTION, PLEASE ALLOW THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE YOU.

THANK YOU. SO.

SO I WILL GET TO YOU.

THANK YOU. I HAVE SOMETHING SOMEBODY ELSE.

OKAY. MISS CURRY? MISS CURRY? YEAH. JUSTICE CURRY.

I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY, AS A REPRESENTATIVE, I DON'T EVER MIND BEING EVALUATED AND CONSTITUENCY DO CONTACT US.

I THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF A LOT OF THE UNKNOWNS WITH THIS BEING PRESENTED.

THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED WOULD BE ONE OF MY CONCERNS.

WE ALL ARE OPEN TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY BETTER AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT WE SERVE THE PUBLIC IN THE WAY AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AND BE OPEN.

AND WE DO SCRUTINIZE BECAUSE WE REVIEW EVERY MONTH THESE BUDGETS.

OF COURSE, IT'S A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

AND I HAVE TO SAY THIS, I'VE ASKED SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD AND I'M IN MY SECOND YEAR OF THE FIRST TERM, I DON'T GET A CHANCE TO SIT IN THE IN THE REAL BUDGET MEETINGS BECAUSE I'M NOT RECOGNIZED AS A BUDGET PERSON.

THERE ARE LIMITED PEOPLE THAT ARE RECOGNIZED TO BE ON THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.

SO SOMETIMES WE DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE INS AND OUTS OF WHAT'S GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES.

BUT WE WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

BUT WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE AND I'M AN ACCOUNTABLE PERSON.

I FEEL THAT OUR COLLEAGUES ARE ACCOUNTABLE PEOPLE, BUT IT'S A LOT THAT GOES ON THAT IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

BUT WE. BUT I'M WILLING TO LEARN, AND I KNOW ALL OF US ARE WILLING TO LEARN IF WE DON'T.

KNOW. BUT THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF UNKNOWNS, EVEN WITH THIS PRESENTATION, BECAUSE WE NEVER GOT AN ANSWER ON WHO PUSHED THIS ITEM TO COME TO THE BOARD.

WE NEVER GOT AN ANSWER ON THAT.

I DID. OKAY.

WELL YOU SHARED SOME THINGS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF YEARS AND ALL OF THAT, BUT BUT WHY NOW? WHY NOW? SO HAS THIS BEEN 32 YEARS? OKAY, SO I UNDERSTAND.

I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE TWO, SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THAT.

YEAH, I CAN I'M CALLING A POINT OF ORDER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T EVEN SIT HERE AT THIS POINT.

JUST AS GREEN. AS I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT.

AS I SAID LAST YEAR, THEY SEND US AN AGENDA OUT EVERY TIME WE HAVE A QUORUM COURT MEETING.

I READ THE AGENDA SO I KNOW WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA, AND IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, I'LL CALL JUSTIN OR EITHER THE SOURCE OF THE THE ORDINANCE OR WHATEVER IT IS I CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

IF WE READ WHAT THEY SEND US, THEN WE'LL UNDERSTAND.

IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND.

CALL SOMEBODY AND ASK BEFORE WE GET QUORUM COURT AND HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS.

I CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

SECOND, WE DID RECEIVE OUR PACKETS A LITTLE LATE.

YEAH, I GOT MINE ON MONDAY.

A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND TO CALL THE QUESTION.

OKAY. THAT'S NON-DEBATABLE.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON CALL TO QUESTION? THAT IS UNDERSTOOD.

ALL RIGHT. MISS MEDLOCK.

SO I'M VOTING ON WHETHER TO END THE DISCUSSION TO CALL THE QUESTION.

YES. NO DISCUSSION.

WELL, IS EVERYBODY FINISHED TALKING IN THE DISCUSSION? YOU'RE CALLING? MR..

ELLIOTT. YES. MR..

STOWERS. YES.

MR.. MCCOY. YES.

MR.. ROBINSON. YES, MISS DUGGAN? YES, MISS GREEN I.

ARE YOU OKAY? ARE YOU. OH. ARE YOU ABSTAINING? YES. I'M ABSTAINING.

OKAY. MISS BLACKWOOD I.

MISS LEWISON. YES.

[01:05:03]

CAPS. NO. OKAY.

SO I12.

THREE. FOUR. 12 AYES, ONE ABSTENTION AND ONE NAY.

OKAY, SO NOW WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO SEE 24 HOURS 38 TO SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT? WE ARE. SHE'S GOING TO CALL THE ROLL TO SEND 2438 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

AMY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL BY MISS LEWISON.

ABSTAIN. MR. KEITH. YES. MISS GREEN.

AYE. MISS DUGAN.

YES. MR. ROBINSON. MR..

MCCOY. YES. MR..

STOWERS. YES.

YES. DO I HAVE TEN EYES, THREE NAYS, AND ONE ABSTENTION. ALL RIGHT, 24 I.

38 WILL GO TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO 24 I.

39, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23 OR 47 2024 ANNUAL BUDGET.

[24-I-39 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-47 (2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE SHERIFF’S OPIOID RESPONSE TEAM GRANT. ]

PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE SHERIFF'S OPIOID RESPONSE TEAM GRANT.

JUSTICE BLACKWOOD MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 24 OUR 39 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? I THINK THIS IS JUST A BASIC GRANT OR THE SHERIFF LIKE TO COME UP AND EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS, BUT I THINK IT'S BASICALLY JUST THE GRANT FUNDS THAT WE NORMALLY PASS.

NOT THE SHERIFF. YOU'RE STUCK WITH ME.

I'M STUCK WITH YOU.

OKAY. HELLO.

I'M KATHY MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR OF REENTRY.

I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE THAT WE CONSIDER THIS OPIOID RESPONSE TEAM.

AUGUST IS NATIONAL OVERDOSE MONTH.

WE LOSE FAR TOO MANY OF OUR PEOPLE EVERY MONTH.

I, IN FACT, WEAR A BRACELET FOR MATTHEW, THE SON THAT I LOST TO AN OPIOID OVERDOSE FIVE YEARS AGO.

SO IT'S A IT'S A MUCH NEEDED, A MUCH NEEDED THING.

DO YOU ALL HAVE I WANT TO PRESENT JUST WHAT IT IS SO YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

OKAY. PCSO IS REQUESTING FUNDS FOR AN OPIOID RESPONSE TEAM.

A NARCOTICS INVESTIGATOR AND CERTIFIED PEER SPECIALIST COMPRISE THIS TEAM.

THE TEAM WILL BE TRAINED FOR OVERDOSE RESPONSES WITH AN EMPHASIS ON OPIOID OVERDOSES.

THE INVESTIGATOR WILL WORK WITH THE RELEVANT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SUPPORT RELATED TO OPIOID OVERDOSES IN THE REGION.

THE INVESTIGATOR WILL LEVERAGE THE PCSO'S EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEA TASK FORCE BY LIAISING WITH THEM THROUGH THE PCSO DEPUTY ASSIGNED TO THE DEA TASK FORCE.

THE PEER SPECIALIST WILL PROVIDE ADVOCACY DURING OVERDOSE CALLS, AS WELL AS FOLLOW UP WORK WITH THE OVERDOSE VICTIM AND THEIR FAMILIES. IN ADDITION TO THE DIRECT OVERDOSE CALL WORK DETAILED ABOVE, THE OURT WILL ALSO WORK TO MITIGATE THE HARMS CAUSED BY OPIOID USE THROUGH EDUCATION, COUNSELING AND DIVERSION.

THE OURT WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH AN EXISTING PROGRAMS TO BETTER SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF PULASKI COUNTY.

THE INVESTIGATOR WILL WORK WITH THE OK JUNIOR DEPUTY PROGRAM TO FACILITATE OUTREACH FOR DRUG AND RESOURCE AWARENESS TRAINING FOR SCHOOLS WHEN NOT ON OVERDOSE CALLS, THE PEER SPECIALIST WILL WORK WITH THE REENTRY TEAM AT PCSO TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COUNSELING AND FOLLOW UP INTERVIEWS POST-RELEASE.

THE OURT WILL WORK UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE REENTRY TEAM TO WORK WITH THE COURT SYSTEM TO DIVERT QUALIFYING INDIVIDUALS FROM PRISON TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE SENTENCING FOR MEANINGFUL LEVELS OF TREATMENT WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

THE OURT PLANS TO LEVERAGE EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS WITH DRUG COURT, VETERANS COURT AND PROSECUTORS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THE PRIMARY GOALS ARE TO PREVENT MINOR DRUG USERS FROM BECOMING MAJOR DRUG USERS, AND TO REHABILITATE HABITUAL USERS INTO PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.

PCSO REENTRY HAS HAD SOME SUCCESS WITH THESE GOALS.

[01:10:01]

RECIDIVISM AMONG REENTRY GRADUATES, AND WE HAVE SOME HERE WITH US.

TONIGHT IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE AVERAGE FOR ARKANSAS AS A WHOLE.

AND I BROUGHT SOMEONE WITH ME TONIGHT.

I HAVE THE DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS OPIOID RECOVERY PARTNERSHIP, MR. KIRK LANE, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

BY A MATTER OF INTRODUCTION, MY NAME IS KIRK LANE.

I'M A FORMER PULASKI COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OFFICER.

I LEFT IN 2017, RETIRING AFTER 22 YEARS OF SERVICE AND ENDED MY CAREER WITH PLATTE COUNTY AS THE CAPTAIN OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION. I BECAME THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN BENTON, AND THEN IN 2017, I WAS APPOINTED.

EXCUSE ME. IN 2017, I WAS APPOINTED TO OR 2022, I WAS APPOINTED TO THE STATE DRUG DIRECTOR FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS UNDER GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON. RECENTLY, I'VE TAKEN ON ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT WORKING FOR THE ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE AND THE ASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, OVERSEEING THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT MONIES THAT COME INTO THE CITIES AND COUNTIES PORTION.

AND WE SET UP A A PROPOSAL PROCESS.

AND PLASTIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT APPLIED TO US.

AND WE LOOKED AT THEIR APPLICATION, ALONG WITH THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT WERE OVERDOSING OR FATAL OVERDOSING IN PULASKI COUNTY, REALIZING THAT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS AS A WHOLE PULASKI COUNTY HAS PROBABLY PARTICIPATED IN A PROBABLY A THIRD OF THE OVERDOSE DEATHS THAT ARE OCCURRING IN OUR STATE.

MOST FRIGHTENINGLY, THAT WE'RE REALIZING ABOUT 10% EACH YEAR, HIGHER AVERAGES OF FENTANYL OVERDOSE DEATHS IN OUR COUNTY. AND SO WHAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS TRYING TO DO IS TRYING TO AFFECT THAT MORE DIRECTLY THAN OTHER THAN YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER, OR YOUR MOM OR DAD HAS DIED OF A DRUG OVERDOSE.

THEY'RE TRYING TO AIM THEIR INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSE, HOLDING PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR POISONING PEOPLE, AND ALSO GIVE RESOURCES TO PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO RECOVER AND TO FAMILIES THAT ARE TRYING TO RECOVER FROM THAT OVERDOSE, DEATH OR AN OVERDOSE SITUATION.

WE FOUND IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO SET UP A PROPOSAL PROCESS THAT FIRST DIRECTED THE PULASKI COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, OR ANYBODY THAT APPLIES TO US, TO SIT BEFORE THEIR COUNTY JUDGE AND THE MAYORS IN THERE, BECAUSE THE MONEY CAME TO THE CITIES AND THE COUNTIES.

AND SO WITH THAT, THEY HAD TO APPROVE THAT PROCESS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.

IN THIS CASE, YOUR COUNTY JUDGE AND FIVE MAYORS IN PULASKI COUNTY ALL APPROVED THIS PROCESS.

IT WENT INTO A REVIEW PROCESS THAT WE HAVE ATTORNEYS THAT SIT ON THAT REVIEW PROCESS AND ADVISORY BOARD A COURT APPOINTED WHAT THEY CALL A QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD DO THIS, AND WE FOUND IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO GIVE THE PULASKI COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OVER $300,000 TO FORMULATE THIS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

ON THE 2ND OF JULY OF THIS YEAR, WE GAVE THEM THEIR FIRST CHECK, AMOUNTING TO 200 AND ROUGHLY $249,000 TO BEGIN THIS PROCESS.

AND THEY HAVE A SERIES OF MILESTONES BASED UPON WHAT WE APPROVED THAT THEY COULD SPEND THAT ON, THAT THEY HAVE TO SPEND THAT MONEY ON.

AND IF THEY COMPLETE THAT, THEN THEY WILL GET THEIR SECOND YEAR MONEY, WHICH WILL BE $100,000 TO ESTABLISH THAT OVERDOSE RESPONSE TEAM WITHIN YOUR COUNTY.

THERE ARE 11 OVERDOSE RESPONSE TEAMS THAT COVER 35 COUNTIES IN THE STATE TO DATE.

IT ATTRIBUTED TO ABOUT 44 ARRESTS, BECAUSE THEY'RE CONCENTRATING THIS EFFORT ON THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SPREADING THIS POISON, AND IT'S LED OVER TO A THOUSAND PEOPLE TO TREATMENT AND RECOVERY.

SO IT'S WORKING IN HOT SPRINGS.

I CAN USE HOT SPRINGS AS AN EXAMPLE.

THEY WERE RESPONDING TO 12 OVERDOSES A MONTH.

THEY'RE NOW RESPONDING TO 1 OR 2 BASED UPON THE EFFORTS OF THE RESPONSE TEAM.

SO WE'RE SEEING EVIDENCE BASED SUCCESS IN THIS.

AND WE'D ASK YOU TO LET THIS GO FORWARD.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. THANK YOU.

HOLD ON. I'VE JUST GOT 1 OR 2.

THANK YOU, MR. LANE. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY GRANTS YOU'VE AWARDED IN PULASKI COUNTY SPECIFICALLY? WOW. I'M GOING TO SAY PROBABLY 20.

WE'VE BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE 2020 2ND NOVEMBER OF 2022, AND WE HAVE PROVIDED FUNDING.

WE DON'T PROVIDE GRANTS.

WE PROVIDE COURT ORDER FUNDING FOR RECOVERY, TREATMENT, PREVENTION, ENFORCEMENT DIFFERENT ASPECTS THAT MEET WHAT THE COURT REED OR COURT SET DOWN, WHAT THAT SETTLEMENT FUND SHOULD GO TO.

[01:15:02]

AND I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU LOOK AT IS, IS SUSTAINABILITY.

I THINK YOU AWARD FOR WHAT, 1 TO 2 YEARS.

AND THEN YOU LOOK AT HOW PROGRAMS ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO SUSTAIN THE PROGRAM ONCE THIS FUNDING IS NO LONGER THERE.

SO I ASSUME THIS GRANT, THIS PARTICULAR GRANT MET THAT FUNDING.

BUT I'M CURIOUS, WHAT WAS UNIQUE ABOUT THIS GRANT THAT THAT ALLOWED IT TO GO FORWARD TO ACTUALLY HAVE A, I GUESS, TO TO MAKE IT TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. ONE WORD HEART, HEART, HEART, HEART ONE, THEY CARED ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

THEY WEREN'T JUST TRYING TO GET THE MONEY.

THEY REALLY CARED AND REALLY WANTED TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO SOLVE PROBLEMS WITHIN THE COUNTY.

OKAY. YES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. JUSTICE GREEN.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, SIR.

IS THIS IS THIS A GRANT THAT YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, OR THEY'VE GOT TO APPLY FOR IT? THEY HAVE RECEIVED A CHECK.

THEY RECEIVED THE FIRST CHECK.

SO IF THE QUORUM COURT DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE THIS GO FORWARD, SIMPLY GIVE THE MONEY BACK.

THANK YOU. JUSTICE CURRY.

I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE KATZ. I HAVE JUST SORT OF A GRANT PROCEDURAL QUESTION.

IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THESE POSITION CALLS WERE GOING TO BE STARTING BACK IN APRIL.

WILL THAT JUST BE FRAME SHIFTED FOR THE GRANT TIME NOW? YES. YES, MA'AM.

WE SHIFTED THE MILESTONES TO BE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30TH FOR THEIR HIRING.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR COMING. AND I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED.

AMY. I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED.

ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED.

THERE YOU GO. ALL OF US.

IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 30 ON 24? I'VE 39.

OKAY. CAN I DOUBLE CHECK? I'VE GOT TO ADD MISS CURRY.

MISS CAPPS, MISS LEWISON AND MISS MCMULLEN.

DID I MISS ANYBODY? MEDLOCK. MEDLOCK AND DUGGAN.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. NOW FOR THE VOTE.

MISS MEDLOCK.

MR. ELLIOTT.

YES. MR. STOWERS. YES.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

OKAY. NOW WE WILL SEND 24 R HOURS 39 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 2440 FOR ME, PLEASE? AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A PART OF SECTION NINE, TOWNSHIP TWO NORTH, RANGE 12 WEST.

[24-I-40 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A PART OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 12 WEST, FORMERLY PART OF CAMP ROBINSON AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF SHERWOOD IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS INTO THE PULASKI COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT # 5 PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE 14-284-224(d).]

FORMERLY PART OF CAMP ROBINSON AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF SHERWOOD IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, INTO THE PULASKI COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE, PURSUANT TO ARKANSAS CODE 14.

DASH 284.

DASH 224 D JUSTICE STOWERS I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND THIS ITEM TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND, THE MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE SEND 2440 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE STOWERS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? YOU KNOW, I COULD TAKE A STAB AT IT, BUT MR. FOGLEMAN IS FAR MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION, SO I WILL DEFER TO HIM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. JUSTICE STOWERS, THE THERE'S AN AREA OF CAMP ROBINSON THAT IS BEING DECOMMISSIONED AS PART OF THE MILITARY BASE, WHICH MEANS THAT IT WILL NO LONGER HAVE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES PROVIDED BY CAMP ROBINSON IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES OF DISTRICT FIVE, WHICH IS SHERWOOD AND GRAVEL RIDGE GENERALLY.

IT REQUIRES EITHER A PETITION OF CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA THERE ARE NONE OR AN ORDINANCE FROM THE QUORUM COURT, AND THIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATE POLICE, WHO WILL OPERATE THEIR FACILITIES ON THIS THIS AREA OF PULASKI COUNTY.

AND IT'S SUPPORTED BY THE ARKANSAS MILITARY DEPARTMENT.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, THERE SEEMS TO BE NONE.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?

[01:20:05]