Quorum Court - Regular Meeting

Will the Washington County Services Committee meeting please come to order? Good afternoon, justices and ladies and gentlemen in the gallery. Tonight's prayer and pledge will be led by Justice Dean. Justice Dean, will you please key up your mic?

If everybody would bow. Heavenly Father, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for everything that you've given us and for looking over us and taking care of us and for bringing everybody in safely tonight. I hope you see everybody home safely this evening. Thank you for everything. Amen.

Thank you, Justice Dean. Next on the agenda, we have the adoption of the agenda. Do I have any amendments? Justice Dennis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move that we approve a resolution recognizing Mr. Tom Sissom from the Northwest Arkansas Democrat

paper for his tremendous coverage of quorum court since 1993 i have a motion and a second is there any discussion i have a motion by justice dennis second by justice pond and dean i have justice lines not on that point not on that point on the agenda when we get back to it please All in favor of adding this resolution to the agenda this evening, say aye. Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. We will add this resolution recognizing Walter Cronkite, I mean, Tom Sism. Contribution to Washington County's Quorum Court.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're welcome. I have Justice Lyons.

Thank you, Madam Chair. uh i move we remove item seven from the agenda um it's a good topic we need to have discussion i think after reading it and some other discussions i've had we're a little ahead of ourselves i don't think we have input from all the stakeholders that we need to have there are several at least five articles that would probably have to be removed because i believe they blur outside of the scope of what the quorum court can put in an ordinance I think we just need to step back and pull the stakeholders together, look at this program, look at designing it and where we need to go and then come back with some type of ordinance that makes sense.

I have a motion to remove item number seven from the agenda and a second by Justice Lemming. Is there any discussion? I have Justice Koger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just say that I think it's good to have it on tonight if we could discuss it. I agree there are several things in there that probably cause concern, that do cause concern to me. But I think it would be great if we could just have a discussion about it. That would kind of get it started. Thank you.

Thank you, Justice Koger. I have Justice Rivera-Lopez.

I tend to agree with my colleague here. Again, part of this is understanding that I'd love for this to be a collaborative effort with everyone on this body. And I think part of doing that in the spirit is to understand where we are today. And if there are things, I did try to reach out to stakeholders. And there has been contact back. And I am more than happy if this is something, you know, we push back further. I'm not saying that it has to happen later. this month, but in the spirit of making it happen eventually, I think is that there's a good faith effort that we keep this and continue to work on it because I believe, as it is iterative, it needs to be something that we're constantly working towards finding a solution to answer. Thank you.

Thank you. Justice Hiers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to agree with both of the former speakers. I think it would be of benefit to all of us to go ahead and look at it and discuss it. We don't have to pass it tonight, but we could have a discussion and kind of work through it. We don't have anything else on the agenda except for our resolution, so I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Justice Hirons. I have Justice Bruns.

Madam Chair. You know, I've looked this program over pretty extensively. And I really like what it's got to say. And I agree with everybody else that we probably need to do some more homework on it. But the question I've got is, now that it is part of the agenda, What do we have to do to make sure that we don't get into tabling it to where we can't talk about it for a year? Or what is the proper procedure to get it to where it's just delayed? Do we withdraw it?

Well, the motion on the floor right now, Justice Bruns, is to be withdrawn. If you're opposed to it being withdrawn, then you can vote no, as others have stated the reasons why they will be opposing this motion. And if you're for it, the withdrawal of the item from the agenda you can vote in favor of it i get that okay my question is well we can handle that that portion because right now there's a motion on the floor and that needs to be disposed of first or reconciled first before we can move on

OK, I get that. But please answer my question.

OK, the way you do that is by asking not or vote. If somebody moves for it to be tabled indefinitely, you can say no, it does not. There's different parliamentary procedures. Or withdrawn indefinitely, you can say no and vote against that motion. And before you do, you can give your reasons state your reasons why you feel it needs to remain active and not go away.

Was there a reason why we don't have an attorney here tonight to represent us.

Yes, I did not ask him for representation. Anytime we have a committee meeting, county services, I will speak for myself. I will allow the chairman for budget and finance to speak for himself at his meeting, but I didn't see the need that we needed legal counsel on any of this, so therefore, no. That is why.

Well, I'm very concerned that we don't get ourselves into having to not talk about this for a year.

Okay, if you can't talk about it, can't come back up for a year, that means that it was voted down. Once an ordinance has been voted or a motion has been voted down, you can't bring it back for another year.

If we table it, it won't come back for a year.

No, if it's voted down. If the assembly here chooses to vote against.

Mm-hmm. Well, that's why we need an attorney.

No, votes against, it goes away, and you cannot bring it back up for another year.

Mm-hmm. I'm clear about the voting it down. I'm clear about that. You keep going back to that point. I'm not arguing that point. So I don't understand why you're going back to that point. But my question is, if we table this, and it's my understanding And I don't remember, but it's my understanding we can only table it for two months.

It's not a tabling. It is a postponement of discussion for a set period of time. You can postpone a motion.

Well, I just want to make sure we're proper. We're proper. I don't think this sounds proper.

It is proper. Is there another question? It is proper.

Okay, well, I just disagree with you.

Pardon?

I said I just disagree with you, but we can't answer it until we get an attorney here.

Well, I disagree with you.

Good. Good. I appreciate that.

I mean, parliamentary procedure is parliamentary procedure. If you want to use my book, you're more than welcome to use my book. OK. I have a motion and a second on the floor to withdraw the motion. Do you want to say something else?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree, we should discuss it, but exactly what was brought up is my concern. We bring it in, we amend it, we vote on it, we vote it down, can't bring it back for a year. I'd rather remove it, figure out how do we bring it in to have discussions on it in other forms with stakeholders, et cetera, get that discussion, figure out what that looks like. Let's go down to Pulaski County, which is the only county in Arkansas that has this, figure out their lessons learned, There's other organizations that can help us out, put it together, and then bring it back without getting into an area where we vote it down and we can't bring it back for a year, and that is true. It is proper, it could be postponed. I wouldn't postpone it, because if I remember correctly, I was gonna look it up. There's a set limit of time of how long out you can postpone it, which we got into. on the taxing thing, if you remember. And I don't remember the exact realm. I'd have to look it up again, which is why JP Lemming withdrew that at the time so that we can move on and then bring it back later. Thank you, Chair.

Is there any other discussion regarding, I have Justice Pond, the withdrawal, the removal of item number seven from the agenda?

Well, I'm not opposed to hearing some discussion about it. But I would be concerned about voting it down where it couldn't be brought up again for a year. So now your motion and the second you have on the floor is just to withdraw it at this time.

Correct.

And that way we wouldn't be taking a chance on it being postponed for a year. It used to be that if it was voted by a majority of the committee to just vote something down or refuse it, that one of the voters of the majority who voted it down completely could bring it back up again. before the, in other words.

They had to change their mind, change their vote.

If they changed their mind, they voted no, but they changed their mind, they could bring it back up at another meeting.

Within the same meeting.

Within the same meeting, yeah.

Not after a recess of a month.

Right, you can't do that. That happened once before under a different administration and they allowed it to come back but that was improper that they allowed that to come back. It has to be within the same meeting.

Okay. So I'd be a little hesitant about doing anything with it, but going along with the withdrawal this evening to keep from taking a chance of it not being brought back up.

And a lot of it has to do with what kind of motion item number seven is. Is it to Justice Washington?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just want to make sure that I'm understanding and provide some clarity. So our choices are if we want to get more information to have a discussion, we should just remove this from the agenda. If we want to have the discussion, we can have the discussion, but then a motion would need to be made to postpone it until a certain time. So I hear a lot of people being concerned about it never being able to be brought back up, but that is only if we say that we want to pass this and then it doesn't pass, then it can't be brought back up. And I believe that we also just use the terms tabling and postponing interchangeably when they're not. So when we table something, that means it's never brought up again, but when we postpone it, until a certain time that allows us to do that. So I just think that we're using a lot of words interchangeably. So the course of action is that we feel that we really want to have the discussion. We need to vote down the motion that was just made. And then at the conclusion of the discussion, someone needs to make a motion to postpone it until... whenever we get the information, if that's what you wanna do. If you feel that you need to have more fact finding, and that we don't have enough information to have an adequate discussion, then we need to vote in favor of the motion that is on the floor, and then that would just end that. So I just think that we're a little, we're conflating a lot of things here, so I just wanted to try to explain that.

Thank you, Justice Washington. Justice Koger, this is your second, oh, okay. Yes or no?

Thank you for that, I realize. So I have a solution. I would like to amend Judge J.P. Lyon's motion to remove it. I would amend that motion that we change it from a vote to a discussion, that we have a 30-minute discussion at least about this. Tonight. And so we won't vote on it tonight. We'll just discuss it. So if we change item number seven to a discussion of that ordinance, could we do that?

But it's also justice. You need a mic up. You need to cue your mic, please. This is your, you're sponsoring this?

Yes, and I would welcome that amendment to change it to a discussion. That doesn't bother me. I think it's a good discussion to have.

Thank you. Justice Lyons, do you feel that it needs to be a discussion or a just withdrawal? Because it's your motion to withdraw it. His motion was to withdraw it from the agenda this evening. I'm just asking a question before there is a second.

I agree we need to discuss it. I don't know parliamentary-wise That's a valid motion, but I'm not a parliamentarian. But we do need to discuss it. I'm asked to remove it so we can step back and figure out what is the right approach to do that, bring the right parties together. It's more than those on this court. In my opinion, there's a lot of stakeholders out there that needs to be part of this discussion as we work through it. Understand what's been done elsewhere so we don't run into the same problems they did. Learn their lessons and work around them. So, I mean, if it's a valid motion, it's a motion on the table, I guess what's the order of the motion to take care of?

We can vote on your motion. Justice Stafford.

I think J.P. Koger's motion needs a second, so I'll give it a second.

I didn't hear that you were making a motion. I just, it was just a recommendation to amend. Did you make a motion? I'm sorry, I didn't hear it.

That was my intention to make, I meant to say make a motion to amend JP Lyons' motion to change it, not to remove it, change it for discussion. That was my motion.

Okay, so will you make the motion, definite, or?

That's my motion.

I'll make that motion. I have a motion and a second to amend J.P. Lyons' motion of withdrawal to amend for discussion, correct? Correct. Okay, we're gonna vote on the amendment making this a discussion. Justice Wilson.

I didn't know if we were supposed to have some discussion on the amendment before we voted because I was going to say that it sounds to me like everybody in here is fine with having a discussion on this, but I think that having a discussion tonight, we've got a lot of people that haven't done very much homework. The discussion might be premature. And also during our discussion tonight, what we have had... Based upon what I remember about how we operate according to Robert's rules, if somebody said we want to postpone this indefinitely, that would kill it. Correct. Nobody's saying that tonight.

Correct.

And also, if we voted on tonight and voted it down, that would be the end of it. I don't think anybody's saying that either.

Correct.

So we're okay to proceed and work our way through this process, but... You know, for what it's worth, I don't know if we need to rush into a discussion tonight, but having said that, I'm open to a discussion probably at a later date because this is, I mean, we don't have a lot of experts in the room right now on this topic. We have some who've done some homework. But anyway, I think... In some cases, we're going to pull all of our ignorance on the matter together, and what does that tell us? That doesn't tell us anything. So I just think any discussion should be delayed. I'm not against it, but I don't think tonight's the best time. Thank you.

Thank you. We are now voting on the amendment to Justice Lyons. Motion to withdraw, and that is to have a discussion for this evening. A motion by Justice Coker, second by Justice Rios-Stafford. I want a show of hands. All in favor of amending, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. All opposed? One, two, three, four, five, six. That motion passes. So now I need a motion to adopt the agenda as amended that item number seven will be.

Oh, we need to pass the amendment.

It does.

Put it on.

It does.

All in favor of the amended motion to add that to, language to the agenda, raise your right hand and say aye. Aye.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11.

That motion, all opposed say no. Like sign. Can't do that, Justice Fleming. Motion carries. Now, do I have a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Justice Washington.

I move that we adopt the agenda as amended.

I have a motion that the agenda be adopted as amended. I have second by Justice Dean. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? The agenda is now adopted. Moving on to the Chairman's Report, and under this we have the Election Services Update by Ms. Jennifer Price. We'll do that first. Good evening.

I wanted to briefly talk about some of the outreach programs that the Election Commission will be doing this summer. Definitely, you know, wanting to celebrate the 250th birthday of the United States. So we have launched again the I Voted Sticker Contest. We had such a great success with the one that we did in 2024. And what a wonderful sticker. And so we want to continue by doing that. One of the things that we have done is that we've added a second category. So we're doing kindergarten through eighth grade, but then we're also doing ninth grade through 12th grade. So if you know anyone who's interested in helping design that next I Voted sticker that the voters get at the polling locations, please have them go to our website or go to your local library. The forms are at all the local libraries. and you can pick it up. The deadline to have it entered is June the 12th. We will have a commission meeting where we decide who the finalists will be, and then we will have in-person voting on June the 18th, and then we'll have online voting June the 22nd through the 25th. And so we're looking really forward to seeing all of those great I voted stickers that the kids are gonna submit to us. The other thing that we're doing is an election-a-saurus. So the local libraries.

Can you say that again?

The election-a-saurus is what we've called it. The election-a-saurus. Election-a-saurus. So all of the libraries in Washington County have a summer reading program. And the summer reading program is Unearth a Story. It is a nationwide program that the libraries participate in. We met with the local libraries before they launched the program to talk about what could we do to incorporate what our mission is, is getting voting out to the public and talking to the public and getting young kids interested in voting. And so we wanted to do an election, and this will be an election for voting for your favorite dinosaur. So we've called it the election-a-saurus. And the kids actually can participate on the actual voting equipment that we use at the polling locations. This is just a paper ballot that you have in front of us, but we actually have it programmed electronically, so when the kids come in to vote, they actually get to see the pictures of the dinosaurs, and they get to vote electronically. We did our first event on Saturday with the Lincoln Library. We had over 75 kids come in and vote, and it was great, but it was also great to hear the parents say, this is the voting equipment we use, and kind of interact with their kids about that. We will be at the Elkins Library on July 1st. We will be at the Prairie Grove Library on July 9th, Springdale Library July 11th, and then West Fork Library on July 22nd. So just getting out to those libraries and taking the voting equipment and being able to talk about voting and then letting the kids vote on your favorite dinosaur. Who doesn't want to do that? And then the other thing that we're doing is a future voter program. It's part of the stuff that we give to the students when they come in to vote. They get a copy of the ballot and then they get a future voter form to just kind of introduce them to that voting process. So that's kind of what we're working on this summer before, of course, we start to work on the real elections. So thank you, J.P. Eckie, for letting me come and talk about this just for a little bit.

I do have a question. What time are y'all going to be at the libraries?

So for Elkins Library, we will be at 1 o'clock. And then Prairie Grove will be at 1. On Saturday, at the Springdale Library, we'll be there at 10. And then at the West Fork Library, I believe we'll be there at 1. We post all of this information on our social media pages. So if you go to our social media, you'll see all the upcoming events that we're doing, talking about the times, talking about what we're doing. We really want the public to come to our social media pages to get election information. And so we really make a great effort to try and put all this information there so you'll be able to find all of that there.

And your social media page is?

It's our Facebook page, the Washington County Arkansas Election Commission, our Facebook page there. Not only have we been promoting the election-a-saurus, but we've also put up a couple of the I Voted stickers that we've got in. But during election season, we also put out all the information where, You can early vote, where you can vote on election day. The voter turnout results, even when we have election commission meetings, all of that is posted on our Facebook page. We also put tips on how to vote in the sense of what do you need when you come in to vote? What can you expect? If you requested an absentee ballot, what is the process for that? So we really try and provide that service to the public so that it's the one place that they can come to to get the information right from the election commission.

That's great communication. And I hope everybody takes advantage of that. Are there any questions for Ms. Price this time about what's going on? I think all of us just would like to commend you on the excellent work that you and your team are doing in providing for the public of Washington County. We really appreciate what you do for us.

Thank you very much. I have one other thing I forgot when I saw JP Hires. We also will be doing a training the high school students as poll workers again. That will be for the general election. And we will do that in September. We'll coordinate with the different high schools in the area so that those students can actually participate in the voting process as well.

That's wonderful. See what your face does?

Thank you.

Thank you. One more thing on the chairman's report. This past Tuesday, I had the great honor of representing Washington County. as a member of the AAC executive board at the girls state at Harding University in Searcy. I didn't realize Searcy was such a far, long drive. But there's nothing more invigorating than having about 500 high school girls cheering and yelling and whistling and high-fiving you as you walk down the, or kind of jog down the aisle, and encouraging you. And I wanted to say that I was so encouraged about the next generation. That's part of my mission is investing in the next generation. And it's great to see that the quorum court of the AAC quorum court, President Tommy Young and the other board members agreed that this would be a great place to help invest and let them know what civics is all about. And I mentioned Justice Hiers that she teaches at the high school. And we also attended Boys State. I didn't go to Boys State. There were other JPs that went there. It was just an exciting time to listen to the girls. And our keynote speaker was Congressman Bruce Westerman. So it was very good. And with that, we'll just move on to the agenda. Number five, we have Director Tinsley with his report. Good evening, Director Tinsley. Let's do that again. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair. Good evening to the County Service Committee members. I'd like to share our juvenile detention center monthly report for May 2026. This report covers 26 days of data. In May, we had 18 intakes and the average length of stay was about 10.59 days. Our average daily population came out to just over 6.62 residents. The most common charge for intakes was battery second felony at five cases. Of the 18 intakes from Washington and Madison counties, 10 intakes were from Division 8 and 8 were from Division 3. We also had four transports during the month of May. Two transports were handled by the Washington County Juvenile Detention Center. and the other two were handled by the Washington County Sheriff's Office. That concludes our May 2026 report. Are there any questions I can answer at this time?

Are there any questions for Director Tinsley? Seeing that there's none, have a great evening.

Thank you, Madam Chair, you too.

Next on the agenda is item number six, the Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Cantrell. Good evening, Sheriff, how are you? Light him up. There you go.

Good evening, Madam Chair, and I'm doing well tonight. Thank you for asking. Our Sheriff's Office report, it didn't get in your packet, but I think Mr. Allen got it distributed to each of your seating positions prior to the meeting. So I hope you have that in front of you. This report is from April 16th through May the 15th of 2026. Calls for service are up. Again, this month we're kind of seeing that trend moving up and Certainly, we know that more people are moving into Washington County, but also our positions are filled on patrol mostly and so Those guys are out doing a little bit more work and generating some self-initiated activity Detention intakes are up over a year ago sent fewer people to prison Our high count is down from a year ago as you can see our State average daily population of state prisoners is over 200 again this month, so that seems to be where we operate over the last few months anyway. So anyway, I'd be happy to answer any questions anybody might have about what's going on down at the sheriff's office or the jail.

Justice Cogar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have, mostly I have some of my regular questions, Sheriff Cantrell. Yes, ma'am. How many were sleeping on the floor last night?

This morning, when we did the count, it was 161, all males, no females on the floor.

Okay, and when you talk about positions, you said mostly field?

Yeah, there's three on patrol or enforcement that are still open.

Three open, and what about the team?

One in dispatch.

Okay.

That's open, and then still have 25

open slots in the jail detention 25 okay um so the average daily state prisoner has increased substantially i don't remember ever seeing in over 200 yeah you know it's been running two to 205 but yeah that's uh that's as high as we've been so that's 57 more than this time last year do you know correct do you have any thoughts on why that is well i guess uh you know they can they can uh set their emergency break and not take any more prisoners they have that

luxury that the counties do not have. I think we did the Protect Arkansas Act. There are people that are coming into the system now, and these are fairly recent because this was just passed, but some of the people that are coming in with sentences that they're going to have to do all of their sentence. So we'll see that take up those jail beds for a considerable time. But I think just more people going to prison and not enough places to put them.

Okay, and remind me what the current rate is that Arkansas, that the state of Arkansas pays per day?

They pay $40 across the state. 40? 40, yes.

So that hasn't changed, okay. And how many federal prison beds?

We had, this morning we had 84 federal prisoners. 84. 79 US Marshals and five Immigration.

Okay, and how many 309s do we have right now?

309s, we have 18 males and 20 females.

Okay, and at the last meeting, when you gave an update about the new jail bed space, that it would be left unfinished up to like 50%, is that still the case, or has that changed it?

Well, it turns out it's gonna be about 48 beds that'll be unfinished out of the 88 that, and then 88 that are finished, so...

Okay, and do you still anticipate that you will be taking, that the COVID mitigation project will be over and you'll be taking possession of that building in July?

Yes, we think that they'll be completed within about 30 days. Now it'll take us a little bit of time to do all our stuff. You know, we've still got to install the cameras and the phones and all the equipment that we'll need to operate it. But yeah, we should have possession of the building in about 30 days.

Okay, thank you. That's all I had.

And I didn't mention it, but usually you ask, but we do have one COVID positive that just this morning, checked positive, and that one person has exposed 38 others. So we've got those in isolation, quarantine, to make sure that they're going to be healthy and not get COVID. But right now it's a male, and they're doing okay.

Is there any other questions for Justice Dennis?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're going to get into discussion here in a few minutes. And I thought I'd ask you this, partly for me, but also for the public. Tell us about pretrial. What is the definition of pretrial?

Well, pretrial is someone who's waiting for their day in court That can be either a felony or a misdemeanor, someone who's been charged with a criminal offense and then waiting for their time in court. We have pretrial people in jail and we have pretrial people that are not in jail. And I think this ordinance that we may discuss later talks about people that are out of jail, services for the people that are waiting to go to court that are Not in jail, I think that's primarily what it's referring to. But that's pre-trial. People who are waiting and then post-trial are people that have been to trial and either been adjudicated and given probation or time served or sentenced to prison or whatever the disposition of the case was.

On those, the other question is, on those that are not staying in jail but are released, who decides that? Do you decide some of that?

No, well, I can release misdemeanants. I have that authority constitutionally, but I don't have the authority constitutionally to release felons. So it's the circuit judge, any circuit judge, and the prosecuting attorney can release people without bail.

So when we get too full, do those judges make rulings to get some out?

They can, yes. They have that availability. And they do release some, and the prosecutor releases some on felony citations, we call it, on their own recognizance without having to post bail, based on the severity of their charges. I think that's the primary thing they look at.

So how many skip out by that? I mean, how many leave the area?

Oh, I don't know. Most of them get picked back up at some point here locally. we don't find too many of them a few that leave the area but most of them just get picked up again and come back to jail and then you know after a time or two or three on a felony failure to appear the judge usually sets a fairly high bond to ensure that we'll come to court on the appointed day so

We spend a lot, how much money do we spend going after prisoners that leave the area?

Well, you know, if we go to California, you know, that's a week with two deputies to go to California. If we have to go to Los Angeles, we just got back from Los Angeles. Fortunately, we were able to stop in Texas and pick another one up that was ready to come back. So we got to get two out of that trip. But, you know, it's five days to California and back in California. Hotel and then the you know the deputy salaries and the vehicle mileage and gasoline and all that so it's pretty expensive It is yes, it's costly to to travel out of state and not all of them are in California know some of them are you know last week on Thursday and Friday we had to go to Pulaski County they picked one up Thursday and Their jail is chronically overcrowded like ours, so they require us to come pick them up that day or they'll release them. So we went Thursday and picked one up. They called ahead another one Friday and picked one up. But that's half a day's trip to go to Little Rock and back, six hours.

I'd like to set this next question up with a statement. I... I asked my wife, I said, why, because we had to go through several school zones. I said, why do you slow down and obey the speed limit so well on school zones? And her answer was, because I don't want a ticket, and I certainly don't want to pay for a ticket. So do you ever think that we, and I agree with her, I used to speed a lot on 49 when I was working, but now that I'm retired, I can't afford it.

for the future, which is how sustainable is the jail, filling the jail at this level, what sort of, I would say.

Out of custody and going to drug court prior to conviction, but they have to complete the program, so there's a, I don't know, a couple hundred, I guess, in drug court and 20 in mental health court, so some of that is happening. I think this is just an extension of some of those things that, or as I read it, to help people get to court, to help them make sure they get to their attorney visits and make their appointed court time and maybe get some counseling and peer support through peers who have been in similarly situated cases and just to help them navigate the system, I suppose.

And I know some people that are arrested are released with an ankle monitor or something. Is that part of the bail agreement or is that part of some?

Yes, we have to get, if it's a felon, we have to get the prosecutor or the judge's approval. And sometimes they'll recommend when they set bail, they all set the bail at a certain amount, provided they wear an ankle monitor. And then that was fairly effective, you know, we have some people cut them off or or abscond with our ankle monitor, but We try to use that for The nonviolent lower risk offenders is what we use it for at the sheriff's office, but that's something we do in-house And fund through the sheriff's office Okay, now there are some some counties and some programs that require the offender to pay for that ankle monitor, but our program, we pay that cost.

OK. And then a program like this, I guess I'm trying to get an understanding how it helps the current system. I guess the judge will decide whether to allow someone out on bail.

Maybe. I don't know, the right word is not hand holder, but to help them navigate through the system, I think so. I think that's the primary purpose of these individuals that would come onto the county payroll. Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome.

Do I have any other questions? I have Justice Bruns is your next. Sir, there you go.

Is that all for me, Madam Chair? Or is more questions for me? Okay, okay. I'll stand.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask because of The situation that JP Vladimir's put into, I think I would like to ask that we suspend the rules for this discussion and allow people to speak up to four times. That way he can answer questions.

Robert's rules of order. I have a motion from Justice Bruns to suspend the rules, Robert's Rules of Order, and allow four times to have comment on this. Second by Justice Hiers. Question. Is there any discussion? Justice Wilson?

Yeah, I mean, I don't have any problem with entertaining any options, but correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the original motion was that we devote 30 minutes for this tonight, which if we come up on that and it's not changed, then it wouldn't fit in the timeframe anyway to allow people to speak more.

That is true, it's only 30 minutes.

And we can extend that.

We'll say we have 24 minutes and 59 seconds. Just a minute.

Justice Cogar has a point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. My point of order is that when I made that motion formally, I did not limit it to 30 minutes. When I first spoke about it, I said, We could limit to 30 minutes, but the final motion that we voted on that was passed did not say 30 minutes.

I don't recall you saying that could be limited to 30 minutes, but that was the understanding of 30 minute discussion.

That's not what we voted on when you recited the vote. That's my point. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion on the floor by Justice Bruns and a second by Justice Hiers to allow people to speak up to four times. Is there any discussion on that motion? I have Justice Lines.

Not for that motion.

Not for that motion. Then can you turn off your mic, please, for that motion? then turn off your mic if it's not for your motion. If it is discussion for that motion, then please keep your mic on. I have Justice Washington next.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I would like to amend that motion. I do agree that holding us to only being able to speak twice may not be beneficial if someone has answers that someone else needs. But I also think that in the interest of time, that if everybody spoke four times, we would be here all night. So I would like to amend that motion that we do suspend the rules. and allow each person to speak for as many times as necessary, and we limit debate to a 20 additional minutes.

Restate that?

Huh?

Starting now?

20 additional minutes starting right now.

Okay, hold on, I need a... We'll only have 20 minutes. Is everybody clear on that motion? Did I get a second on that amendment? Who?

Wait a minute.

Hires, you. Okay, so you second. I have a motion by Justice Washington, a second by Justice Hires to limit the time on the discussion to 20 minutes and you can speak as long as you want or as many times as you want. All in favor of the amendment to that motion, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed to that amendment. Now getting back to the motion of 20 minutes discussion, allowing all to speak. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? That motion carries. We will have 20 minutes starting now. Okay. Justice Ricker.

Gee, that was quick. I'd like to see something as we continue the discussion later on from the comptroller's office that gives us a cost and an ongoing cost for this program if we do institute it. I'd also like to see something from, I believe I've heard Pulaski County.

I think there's some potential here to do some good stuff, but we just have to be cautious that the devil's in the details. Exactly. And work out those details and not try to push something through just to say we have it to really vet it and to make sure that it's something that will work for Washington County. One of the things I did notice is Article 8, and I'll be real brief.

study, he's talking to Sheriff Helder as closely as I did. I said, but you all are already doing these things. You all are already, you have the data. You're already doing these services. We're just spending money for another association or group to tell us what to do They're just not.

That's what pretrial services is. There is quite a few mechanisms that we can employ. Part of the reason that I did not have the language that JP Lyons suggested, while I absolutely agree we should help to make judgments on whether or not somebody should be released. If we have more information, we should be able to use that information to help make a decision. The only reason that I didn't do it, I was questionable about the legal language there. about whether or not we were then imposing on a judge in order to take away what is their constitutional right to make a decision on somebody's release or charge. That was my personal understanding. Again, that's also why I placed this under the jurisdiction of the county judge I thought that was a good separation of powers that the body that decides whether or not you are going, what your punishment would be, whether or not they would be the people who also ran this program seemed to me a little dubious. I did get the opportunity to speak with some of our circuit court judges who said They don't foresee that being an issue if we put it in one of the judge's offices who is not seeing criminal cases. So we do have options about how we implement this program. If there is something that makes any of us on this body uncomfortable, I do think that we can absolutely have those conversations. Furthermore, I think that all of the suggestions that we gather more information, I think that that's all meaningful. We can all do groundwork. We all know different people. Let's talk to them. Let's ask them questions. with the groups that you all are familiar with, with the other municipalities or county governments that are pursuing this, and to what ends that we can contact them. Obviously, we have a group here that I'm sure knows just about everybody you could know in the state and a little further out. I think those are all great suggestions that I don't think that, I don't take any exception to. Other than that, I do really appreciate all of the conversation here. I think it's all been pretty constructive. There seems to be the coalition of the willing here that want to do something. And I think that's a start. Obviously, I'm more than willing to amend this however you all see fit to get something on the book. I agree we shouldn't rush into anything. But part of the quicker we do this is the quicker we see the returns on what we're doing. Getting out a pilot program is exactly the sort of thing that this is intended to be. It's intended to get a start. Hey, what would this look like? Talk to the stakeholders. What would that look like? And then we can go into next year when I think, admittedly, we'd probably have a little more labor free up because it's not an election year. And so we have a runway there with a little more funding that's free to see how this program performs. There is nothing, there's no commitment of any funds here. J.P. Dennis, beyond this ordinance, I'm not saying that this is something that we have to fund every year. That's not in the ordinance. Again, that's not something that an ordinance can do is commit you all to funding something in perpetuity. That's the power of the quorum court to set the budget for each year. That doesn't change with this ordinance. Obviously, it's our job to weigh what, no, it's our job to weigh what services continue to be funded. That's our job. We look at the funding for certain services and we say these things should continue to be funded. We have that authority. That is our authority. But yes, I cede the rest of my time. I think I've gotten to say what I needed to say. Thank you, Judge.

Thank you, Justice Lopez. The amendment was just for him to speak 10 minutes and to answer questions. The motion on the floor was for Justice Rivera-Lopez to speak, giving him up to 10 minutes to answer any of the questions. So therefore, the discussion is over. Is there any public comment at this time? Oh, the resolution. We didn't put it. My apologies. Resolution number was not given a number. So it's number eight. One moment, please. There you go.

Are you open to a motion then? I would like to move that we as Quorum Court would recognize Tom Sissom from the Northwest Arkansas Democrat paper for his tremendous courage of the Quorum Court, tremendous coverage of the Quorum Court, and give him thanks for that. That does say courage, doesn't it? Yes, it does. Since 1993.

I'm sure Tom's not even moving his head. Would you please state that again in full?

Yes, I will. I would like to move that we approve a resolution recognizing Mr. Tom Sissom from the Northwest Arkansas Democrat paper for his tremendous coverage of quorum court since 1993.

I have a motion and a second from Justice Liming to accept this resolution. Are there any other comments that would like to be made on this resolution? I have Justice David Wilson.

I don't know if this is a comment or a point of order or what. I mean, I'm all for the resolution, certainly the sentiment behind it I think is perfectly appropriate. But it wasn't long ago we scratched and clawed about how a resolution ought to be introduced. I mean, does that not count tonight?

It does.

Like I said, I'm all for it, but I haven't even seen it.

And it's all in committee meeting, yes, and not at quorum court meetings. Isn't that correct? It was about not just going to the quorum court, but wanting to hear through committee.

And like I said, I'm fine with the sentiment, but I didn't see anything written out.

And that was, we were trying to get that information out on Mr. Sism's background and highlights on it which were sealed and we couldn't see it. Yes, you will see the language. All right. But the process was we wanted to hear resolutions through committee and not just at Cornport. This is a committee. We are the committee of the committee. All in favor of accepting this resolution and moving it forward to the full quorum court, and not just with the due pass recommendation, but it be recognized. Say aye. Public comment will come after this resolution. It'll be moved to the quorum court. Wait a minute. I'm getting daffy. There is public comment on this. It's a resolution or an ordinance. There is public comment. Or an ordinance. It's a resolution. It's just a resolution.

I know.

If the public wants to say something on this resolution, go ahead. On this resolution. On this resolution, yes.

Sarah Moore from Fayetteville. I appreciate this got added. I agree with you. You have had a lot of discussions about how things should be added, and I appreciate when you follow procedure. I'm guessing Tom must be deciding to no longer want to sit through all these incredible meetings with us that we've gotten to spend so many years with him. So I wanted to publicly express, too, my appreciation for his service. that at the full quorum court, if this is where this will go, that we'll bring him up and be able to publicly recognize him and bring him forward, because I know he has spent a lot of time in these chambers and other Springdells and others. So thank you for recognizing his hard service. A huge public service that we have entities that do cover the public's business. We are very aware that it's hard sometimes to, in all the minutia of the day-to-day, that everyone can't attend every meeting. And so it's incredibly important that we have a strong news reporting agency that tells what's happening with the people's business. And I really do appreciate folks like Tom who do that and do that for a long, long time with longevity in the history of our area. So thank you for your service, Tom. We really appreciate you.

Thank you. Any other public comment on the resolution? Seeing that it's done, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. That resolution's passed. Now we have public comment time. Let me stop this. One moment please.

Okay, I'm on, okay. I'm Leanna Houston, I'm one of the attorneys at the Public Defender's Office that we've been talking tonight about. I'm so excited that you brought this and that we're bringing up these discussions. We did talk about the CJCC that I was on with the sheriff, the prosecutor, the judges, and that was so helpful to us, not just for talking about pretrial services, but to talk about problems that we have in court or when we're visiting clients or when we're in, doing arraignments and that was so helpful to us to just deal with little problems and I hope in the future that can be put back together and we can continue that. After the CGCC was disbanded, where we had voted for pretrial services, our office started working with the U of A on social work students and we've had social work students with us each semester on a very small scale trying pretrial services where they talk to people at arraignments and they follow through and talk about What do you need? Do you have transportation to get to court? Please remember, you need to come see your public defender. You need to go to court. And working on those problems. But that's only a few months each semester and on a very small scale. So I worked on a grant and it has been funded to provide a full-time social worker for one year. So hopefully we could work on that to get some of the data that we're needing that y'all have been asking questions about. where we can do this program and work on the cost and how much would it save the county and what would we do getting people out of jail. We could talk to them when they're in jail. We can talk to the ones out of jail, work on getting them. So I'm hoping that can get on the ordinance or the ordinance can get on the agenda next Tuesday at the Finance and Budget Committee. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, Sarah Moore with Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition. I'm really appreciative that J.P. Lopez brought this forward. I hope you'll extend public comment tonight because I think most of the people in the audience are here because they want to see pretrial services put here as well as other residents. I appreciate that JAP Rio Stafford went through some of the history and is absolutely correct. I mean, this was in the National Center for State Courts report. We had full alignment on the CJCC to move forward with pretrial services. It can look a little different depending on the locality. But pretrial services truly is the least restrictive means possible for release for individuals out of incarceration. It is a National Institute of Corrections and Department of Justice best practice. It started back in the 90s. I'd be very happy to sit down with you. Unfortunately, this has been my life for the last seven years. I've done a lot of research, talked with places like NACO, who did a show with Douglas County, Kansas as a best practice, who put in place pretrial services. They're a handful of employees, and they're able to easily stay in touch with over 100 folks released from their detention center successfully. They don't put a lot of guardrails. They get folks out that are low, medium, and high risk, and they do that through a needs assessment and looking at what folks are facing. They don't even cut off, for the most part, certain types of charges, but again, those are decisions that are made with all the folks that you talk about, the key stakeholders, We did something similar as far as release mechanisms during COVID. We actually had the sheriff and the prosecutors that gave Sheriff, at the time, Helder, the ability with his staff, with Sheriff Cantrell, who's here with us now today, the ability to have release on certain felonies. And at the time, I think, I remember, and I might be paraphrasing, but I'm pretty sure this is a direct quote from our judge who's now retired. He said, if you put a string around someone's finger and they can get to court, I'm okay with that. And so there are a lot of technologies out there, you know, court reminder tools. I mean, the best practice is things about reminding someone with a physical person, you know, a live interaction. And as you heard, that was stated by Leanna Houston, that, you know, there's been some small incubated practices that have seen some good results. I'll tell you, we've gotten over 60 people out in the last two years from Washington and Benton County jails. and mostly from Washington County. We've gotten people to over 200 court appointments, so that tells you people have lots of court they're having to keep up with. We ourselves have gotten zero government money, and we've been able to save government entities about almost $300,000 getting folks to court. And so, you know, those numbers do add up when people miss court. You know, it is a huge, you know, congestion with a docket. It does cost when they interact with the different personnel, like our jails and our sheriff's office personnel, et cetera. And so, you know, oh, thank you so much. And again, I'd ask that you to extend the time because I think no more folks want to speak tonight. Thank you.

I'm Gladys Tiffany from Omni Center in Fayetteville. I really am just delighted at the conversation tonight. I really do feel like this is something that has been very much needed for a long period of time, and I'm just so delighted that it's been brought by a younger generation of JPs that is thinking and preparing for the future, and I believe that the discussion that's happened already is gonna be really beneficial for the county, and I'm just grateful to all of you for the level of thinking, and I'd really like to encourage you to follow through on that research that you talked about, because yes, there are people who know how to do this well, and tracking them down is really, really valuable. So thank you to all of you.

Thank you, Ms. Tiffany.

Hello there. My name is Sophia Dougweiler. I live here in Fayetteville. And I just wanted to say that I am a product of services like this. I started using drugs and alcohol when I was a child. Went to prison for the first time when I was 21. Upon my release from my fourth prison sentence, I finally got the support that I needed. In doing so, through case management and social support and transportation and just other forms of that, I was able to take care of other outstanding charges, pay all my fines and fees. I later received a full pardon from the governor. I'm a Habitat for Humanity homeowner today. And then I've been working in recovery and reentry for about seven years. And so, yes, something like this will help people get out of jail, people make it to court, but it also is a pathway for people like me to come back around and help innumerable people. other people, I think, to help a ton of people. You guys, I've dedicated my life to helping people who came from where I came from. And services like this really help create a pathway for me to do so and for others to then go and do so. And so you'll save money by not housing so many people, but you're also saving money from all the people that I help make it to court, from all the people that I help quit offending over and over and over. And so I really appreciate y'all's willingness to move this forward. and then giving the opportunity for people who do have more experience and more knowledge and are familiar with evidence-based practices. I appreciate that y'all are going to let them figure out how to implement it or how to inform you on how to implement it. So thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening and happy Pride Month, members of the County Services Committee. I have not been working on this for the past seven years, but I work for AJRC and I'm a resident of Fayetteville, but I have been working on it for the past few months. I take this as serious as any study or anything that I wanna gain proficiency in. I wanna tell you about just a case sample of pretrial services that is working. and this is just one of a few, so in Texas. In 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas oversaw a settlement in O'Donnell v. Harris County, and the parties entered into a consent decree, resulting in the first federally court-supervised bail reform that effectively prohibited the utilization of cash bail at arrest and before an individualized bail hearing in misdemeanor cases. Specifically, consent decree eliminated the use of Harris County's bail schedule at arrest for most people charged with misdemeanors. The settlement also required the county to follow new rules to ensure that people arrested for misdemeanor charges were released promptly on recognizance or with non-financial conditions. Now, since this decree went into effect in 2019, there's been a court-appointed supervisor that has been watching their services and this is from their ninth installment of a review they do for the judge. Our updating findings largely confirm what we reported in our first eight reports. The bail forms under the O'Donnell consent decree have saved Harris County and residents many millions of dollars and improved the lives of tens of thousands of people arrested for misdemeanors and these large scale changes have produced no increase in new offenses by persons arrested for misdemeanors. Overall, the work suggests that repeat offending by persons arrested for misdemeanors has remained stable in recent years. The number of persons arrested for misdemeanors has declined since 2015, and the number of those arrested for misdemeanors who had New Charles fined within a year has also declined. The analyses conducted show that the number of persons arrested for misdemeanors has declined since 2015 overall by about 10%. Additionally, The conviction rate fell rapidly from 60% in 2015 to 27% in 2019. The dismissal and acquittal rate increased from 31% to about 70% in 2023. From the pre-reform baseline to Rule 9, reforms reduced total misdemeanor assistance costs by 33%, yielding $1,191 in net savings per comparable case. When added with bond reform, it was a realized savings of $1,735. So this is not a question of feasibility or a cost prohibitive new services or safety. The question is whether or not the court is ready and willing to expand proven services that reduce jail overcrowding, release indigent defendants who pose no safety or flight risk, and provide the best opportunity for those released to fight their cases on strong footing outside of jail cell.

Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve nine minutes of citizen comments. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? We have nine minutes of citizen comments. One moment, please.

Hello, my name is Julie Gomez. I work for AJRC as well, and I'm a Fayetteville resident.

That means only three people behind. Unless they want to speak, just one minute.

I'd just like to start off by just repeating what I found on a quick Google search. The primary goal of pretrial services is to maintain the presumption of innocence and public safety while minimizing unnecessary pretrial incarceration. The goal of pretrial services, as I have learned throughout my nearly four years of being a community organizer and now a law fellow, is to allow folks to maintain employment and housing, while also reducing the burden on taxpayers' pockets. I'd like to bring attention to the City of Tulsa's pretrial services, which focus more on bond alternatives, workforce readiness, and mental health treatment, without defendants having to sit in a cell to get help. The requirements for these services are simple. They must, one, check in immediately after release and on a designated schedule, and two, maintain employment and not leave the county without prior court permission. Tulsa also assists individuals in advocating the system and transporting those who need a ride to court hearings. All of these actual pretrial services would come at a significantly lower cost to a community with better results. Majority of those interviewed were able to be released. The National Center for State Courts recommend pretrial services, and I hope that this body of Washington County will find the value this offers to taxpayers and Washington County residents. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Laura Villegas and I live in Springdale, Washington County. And I just want to continue a little bit about what was previously said about the reforms done in Harris County, Texas. Their pretrial reforms driven by the landmark O'Donnell consent decree successfully eliminated secured money bonds for most misdemeanor cases. So the latest result that we have is in 2024, data showed that 80% of misdemeanor arrestees were released on bond before their first court setting, dramatically reducing racial disparities and curtailing unnecessary jail stays. The structural impacts and changes include declining cash bail. By 2024, only 14% of misdemeanor arrestees were required to post cash bonds, down from more than 85% before the reforms. Pretrial release efficiency. Most individuals arrested for eligible misdemeanors are released promptly on personal bonds without requiring a formal hearing. Improved public safety. Data monitored during the reform era indicated that the rearrest rates stabilized or declined, and court appearance rates increased for misdemeanor cases. In short, by enabling appropriate defendants to remain pretrial, bond reform improved advocacy, reduced unnecessary incarceration, and lowered sentencing expenditures. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Lou Reed Sharp. I'm from Tawny Town, Arkansas. J.P. Bruns is my J.P. I just want to tell you all thank you. I think I've been coming to Quorum Court since 2020, and this just seems like a good tool. You're actually moving on something. We've got good sheriff. We've got good judges. We've got interested people. We have an overcrowded jail. It just makes sense to do this, but I'm so pleased that we actually have had a discussion and it's been on an agenda. After all this time, regular people can have some input in impacting change, so thank you all.

Thank you.

I saved my time.

I've got two minutes and 15 seconds.

Hi, Andela Hines, District 7. Going back to this report that we have referenced a few times today, one of the things that are said there, the largest issue facing Washington County's criminal justice system is a lack of strategic planning and coordination among partners. Washington County desperately needs a unifying entity to step up and lead stakeholders through development of a true collaborative Collaborative Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. And I think that's been clear tonight. As many times as we've said, we need time to discuss this. We need to get input from stakeholders. So I would ask that as you consider your candidates for judge, that you hold them to this standard and ask these same questions. JP Ecke brought up tonight a Bible verse, so I went ahead and I pulled out my Bible, and I want you to remember the two verses before, blessed are the peacemakers, we have blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Also flipping into Matthew 25, we have, for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited me in. Naked and you clothed me. I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison and you came to me. And then finally, I would point you to, for those of you who I know that your faith is important to you in the way that you work here at the Quorum Court, in Ephesians 6, we have, "'Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of gentleness, looking to yourselves, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens and thus fulfill the law of Christ.'" So finally here, the jail population in Washington County is driven largely by the pretrial population. Washington County must, at a minimum, address the disparities created through a bond determination system that does not take ability to pay into account, as well as the subjectivity of the current risk of flight assessment. So I appreciate your conversation today, and I appreciate your consideration.

Okay, with that, And I feel very good that the CRI is doing a lot of that in teaching biblical principles to those that are getting ready to get out. With that, this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.