July 21: Senate ethics hearing on Senator Alan Clark and Senator Mark Johnson (transcript)

Senate Business Meeting transcript

July 21, 2022

[Senate Ethics Committee findings and recommendations on Senator Alan Clark and Senator Mark Johnson]

Dismang All right. With that, the Senate Business meeting will now come to order.

 

[Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance]

 

Dismang Are there any senators who need to be recognized for leave at this time? We do have– I wrote it down– Senator Garner, Flippo, Stubblefield, and Teague are requesting leave. Without objection. Madam Director, please call the roll.

 

[Present: Ballinger, Beckham, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismang, Elliott, English, Flowers, Fulfer, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendren, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Leding, Pitsch, Rapert, Sample, Sturch, Sullivan, Tucker, Wallace]

 

Leave: Garner, Flippo, Stubblefield, Teague]

 

Dismang Members, the purpose of our meeting today is to hear presentations regarding the findings and recommendations of the Senate Ethics Committee as they are set forth in the two reports in the binders that you have at your desk. One, concerning the findings and ethical violations by Senator Alan Clark and the other concerning findings of ethical violations by Senator Mark Johnson. Under the procedures that were adopted by this body on Monday, we will hear the findings and recommendations regarding the Senators separately, meaning that we will begin with Senator Alan Clark and complete the procedure related to him before beginning to hear presentations and testimony related to Senator Mark Johnson. You should all have at your desk the binders containing reports and exhibits submitted by the Ethics Committee to the President Pro Tem in accordance with Rule 24.10 for the Senate’s consideration. You should also have a copy of the procedures for today’s meeting as well as a flowchart.

 

Senator Hammer, if you could, state your name, your position as it relates to these proceedings, and then please face me.

 

Hammer Senator Kim Hammer, chair of the Ethics Committee of the Senate.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

Hammer I do.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, sir. You are welcome to proceed. And, again, a reminder a presentation shall not exceed one hour.

 

Hammer Thank you. On June 15, 2022, I received a petition filed by Senator Jimmy Hickey alleging that Senator Alan Clark had violated the Senate Code of Ethics when he asked another senator, Senator Mark Johnson, to sign his name on the sign-in sheet for the Boys State meeting that took place in the Senate chamber on Friday, June 30, 2022, which petition– which the petition alleged Senator Alan Clark did not attend. Under Senate Rule 24.09(b), the Senate Ethics Committee is required to begin its investigation within 10 business days of receiving the petition. I notified the members of the Ethics Committee on June 16 that we would begin our investigation on June 22. The Committee conducted a thorough and fair investigation over the course of multiple days in which we heard from all parties involved, allowed witnesses to be called and exhibits to be introduced. We deliberated for hours and worked to make sure that the reports accurately reflected our findings and recommendations to the full Senate. The six other committee members and I worked to protect the process set forth in Rule 24 and to provide you with what we consider to be legitimate and thoughtful recommendations. Today, I come before you to present the Senate Ethics Committee findings and recommendations related to the allegations against Senator Alan Clark. 

Finding and facts include that the Senate Ethics Committee found the following facts based on the exhibits and testimony presented to us: Senator Alan Clark was appointed by Senator Jimmy Hickey to serve as a member of the Arkansas Boys State for 2022. On June 2, 2022, Senator Alan Clark was in Little Rock and signed in, attended a meeting of the City County Subcommittee of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee for which he received per diem and mileage.

Senator Alan Clark testified that on the evening of June 2 he began to feel ill and decided that rather than driving home, he would remain in the Capitol Hill apartment overnight. Boys State met at the Senate chamber on Friday, June 3, 2022, at 9 a.m. The meeting was gaveled out by the presiding officer at 11:32 a.m. Senator Clark testified that he woke up the morning of June 3 still feeling ill and made the decision not to attend the Boys State meeting. Senator Clark stated in both his written and oral testimony to the committee that, due to his concern for exposing Boys State participants to his illness, “I decided that it would be better to have someone sign me in rather than to go in.” He stated that he contacted Senator Mark Johnson to ask Senator Johnson to sign in for the meeting. And then around noon on June 3, Senator Alan Clark attended a meeting of the Republican Party of Arkansas offices in Little Rock and then went to lunch with other senators. 

Staff testified that they never saw Senator Alan Clark at the meeting on June 3. Our staff provided written statements and testified before the committee. You have the written statements in your binder under Exhibits Tab 3. Staff also testified that they did witness Senator Mark Johnson sign Senator Alan Clark’s name on the sign-in sheet for the June 3 Boys State meeting. Senator Bart Hester testified that Senator Clark told him during a phone call that he did not attend the meeting on June 3. And Senator Hester and Senator Hickey directed Senate staff not to pay Senator Alan Clark mileage and per diem for the meeting on June 3. Senator Clark stipulated all these facts in written response to the petition, which was submitted to the Ethics Committee on June 2022– June 20, 2022, and is located in your binders at tab 5. 

The Committee analysis that although Senator Clark stipulated to all the facts on the petition in his written statement testimony to the committee, he did now put forward some justification for his actions related to the incidents of June 3, 2022. Senator Clark attempted to justify having Senator Mark Johnson sign him in for a meeting that he did not attend by telling the committee that he felt he was owed the reimbursement for mileage and for per diem because he had driven to Little Rock and intended to go to the Boys State meeting. The committee did not find that this justification was valid due to, number one, the fact that Senator Clark had received mileage and per diem for attending the Legislative Audit meeting the previous day, and his decision to spend the night in Little Rock was due to illness, not legislative obligations. Further, Senator Clark attended two personal functions on June 3 in Little Rock, showing that the Boys State meeting was not his only purpose for being in Little Rock. And then finally, Senator Clark did not attend the Boys State meeting. 

Per diem and mileage is only owed to legislators for his or her attendance at legislative meetings. Arkansas Code 10-2-212(c) regarding per diem and mileage reimbursement for members of the General Assembly states, “A member of the General Assembly shall not file with the House of Representatives or Senate claiming per diem or mileage reimbursement in excess of the maximum amount prescribed by law.” In addition, Arkansas Code 10-2-217(c) provides for mileage and per diem reimbursement for members performing other legislative interim duties, which includes Boys State, and specifically states that, “It is the intent of this section to establish uniform per diem and mileage allowances for attendance by members of the General Assembly at meetings of interim committees of the General Assembly and for performing other interim legislative duties.” 

Senator Clark attempted to justify his position through his questioning to Senate staff, “What does it really mean to attend a meeting?” He attempted to stretch the definition of attendance beyond the reason, which compounded the situation that staff had already been placed in in order to testify regarding the attempt to sign him in by another member. By his own admission, Senator Clark never attended or entered the State Capitol building throughout the entirety of the Boys State meeting on June 3, 2022, for which he was attempting to claim mileage and per diem reimbursement. Mileage and per diem, pursuant to the law, is awarded for attendance at a meeting. There can be no question as to whether or not you attend a meeting when you were not even in the building when it occurred. 

Committee conclusion and recommendations: The Senate Ethics Committee was presented with allegations of two violations of the Senate Ethics Rule 24.03 and Rule 24.06(c)1. And after many hours of deliberation and review of all testimony and exhibits presented to it, the committee arrived at the following conclusions: Senate Rule 24.03 reads in pertinent part as follows, “Senators shall comply with all constitutional and statutory provisions related to the elected office. Violations of any constitutional or statutory provision shall be grounds for administering penalties as provided in the Code of Ethics.” Senator Clark did not attend the Boys State meeting on Friday, June 3, 2022, but attempted to collect per diem and mileage reimbursement for which he did not– for which he was not eligible under law, asking another Senator to sign Senator Clark’s name on a sign-in sheet for the meeting. 

The committee found these actions to be a clear violation of Senate Rule 24.03, specifically with regard to provisions of Arkansas Code 10-2-212 and 10-2-217. Senate Rule 24.06(1)(c) reads, “A Senator shall not knowingly seek, accept, use, allocate, grant, or award public funds for a purpose other than that approved by law or make false statement in connection with a claim, request, or application for compensation, reimbursement, or travel allowances for public funds.” And then by asking that his name be signed on the per diem and mileage statement sheet for the Boys State meeting on June 3, 2022, a meeting that he did not attend, Senator Clark knowingly sought after per diem and mileage reimbursement for public funds for which he was not eligible. The committee found these actions to be a clear violation of Senate Rule 24.06(1)(c). 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to at this time call some witnesses if the chair would allow.

 

Dismang Thank you. Members, Senator Hammer has five witnesses that will be called. Leigh Ann Golden-Smith will be the first. We’ll see if we can have her come in. The next, just as a heads up, will be Sabrina Lewellen. She will have to be participating by Zoom, and so we will have to take a break for her to be able to get set up to participate today. But up first will be Leigh Ann Golden-Smith. Yes, sir. Senator Pitsch, you’re recognized for a question.

 

Pitsch We have the witnesses’ written testimony. Can we reference which tab that is so we can see the written testimony while they’re giving theirs?

 

Hammer Mr. Chairman, may I? I think you’ll find it at Tab 3.

 

Dismang If you could, just please face me and state your name, employer, and your position.

 

Golden-Smith Leigh Ann Golden-Smith. My employer is the Arkansas Senate. I’m a constituent advisor.

 

Dismang Thank you. Can you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Golden-Smith Yes.

 

Dismang Thank you. You may take your seat. You are recognized, Senator. You’re recognized.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, take a deep breath, please.

 

Golden-Smith We’re here. We’re here. We’re good. Thank you.

 

Hammer Mrs. Golden-Smith, because your name has been invoked in public as part of providing testimony to the committee and because it is provided in the manual, I just simply wanted to ask you, is there anything about your testimony that you would like to add or that you would like to subtract or are you in full agreement with what has been presented to the Senate Ethics Committee and today to the Senate body?

 

Golden-Smith I have no changes.

 

Hammer That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.

 

Dismang I think at this point, would– Senator Clark, would you like to ask any questions of the witness? All right. Seeing none, and then we open it up for members at this point. We’re going to repeat this process for everyone. Does any member have a question? If so, rise. All right. Seeing none, thank you, ma’am.

 

Hammer Thank you.

 

Dismang Next is Sabrina Lewellen. And again, we’re going to have to recess. I’m going to probably need up to 10 minutes. We’re going to recess for five and then we’ll come back, come back. And I’ll call you back in with the button and then we’ll get started as soon as we get Ms. Lewellen on, on the Zoom call. So again, we’re going to take just a five minute recess. Plan on being back in here pretty promptly. But it may take up to 10 minutes.

 

[Recess]

 

Dismang Members, at this point, we’re going to or– Ms. Lewellen, could you please– can you please state your name, your position, and your employer, please?

 

Lewellen My name is Sabrina Nikae Evelyn Lewellen. I am the Deputy Director and Assistant Secretary of the Arkansas Senate. And that is my employer.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, Ms. Lewellen. Can you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Lewellen Yes, sir.

 

Dismang Thank you, ma’am. You’re recognized.

 

Hammer Thank you, Ms. Lewellen, for joining us. My one question I have for you is this. Regarding any written testimony– which should be in Tab 3, members– the written testimony that you provided to the committee and because your name has been invoked in public because you’ve been cited as a witness to this, I wanted to ask you, is there anything that you would like to change or is there anything about the statements that you’ve provided that you’d like to change at this time or are you comfortable with everything that has been presented that your name is attached to?

 

Lewellen I am comfortable with everything that has been presented that my name is attached to. Just want to apologize to Senator Clarke Tucker that there’s not an ‘e’ on his name.

 

Hammer He’s used to it. That’s all, Mr. Chairman.

 

Dismang Thank you. Senator Clark? Do any members have any questions? Any questions from anybody in the audience– or of the members? All right. Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Lewellen.

 

Lewellen Thank you, sir.

 

Dismang All right. Senator Bart Hester, would you come forward? If you could, just face me, state your name and your position.

 

Hester Bart Hester, Arkansas State Senator.

 

Dismang Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Hester I do.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, sir. You may be seated. You’re recognized, senator.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hester, you had provided testimony in which there was a text exchange– members, that you should find in Tab 2– I believe that’s where it’s located. And I just wanted to, because your name has been invoked in public and is attached to testimony associated with this matter, give you the opportunity– is there anything about your testimony or anything that you shared in committee or that is associated with your name in the way of evidence to this that you would like to change, alter, or do you stand by what you presented?

 

Hester No changes.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any questions, Senator Clark? Any of the members have any questions for Senator Hester? All right. Seeing none, you’re dismissed. Thank you, senator. Up next will be Ann Cornwell. Just please face me. State your name, your employer, and your position, please.

 

Cornwell Ann Cornwell, Secretary of Senate.

 

Dismang You’ve got your right hand raised. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Cornwell I do.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, ma’am. You may be seated. And Senator Hammer, you’re recognized.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Afternoon, Ms. Cornwell. Thank you for being here. My reason for you being here is because you had provided testimony to the committee and also your name has been invoked publicly with regard to testimony related to this matter– in Tab 2, there is a text message exchange. I wanted to ask you, is there anything about your testimony or anything that you provided related to this matter that you would like to change or do you stand by your statements that have been provided?

 

Cornwell I stand by my statements.

 

Hammer All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Dismang Thank you, Madam Secretary. Up next– you’re dismissed.

 

Hammer Did you want to ask senators–

 

Dismang I apologize. Senator Clark, do you have any questions? All right, members, do you have any questions? Good. All right. Thank you. Up next will be Lesley Rogers. If you would, just face me and state your name, employer, and your position with us.

 

Rogers I’m Lesley Rogers. I work for the Arkansas Senate. And I’m the manager of constituent services.

 

Dismang All right. Could you please raise your right hand? And do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Rogers Yes, sir.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, ma’am. You may be seated. Senator, you’re recognized.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rogers, thank you for being here this afternoon and making yourself available to the Senators. My question for you is because your name has been involved in public and you have provided testimony in this matter to the committee. And what I wanted to ask you, is there anything about the testimony that you provided or anything that has your name attached to it that you would like to change or do you stand by everything that has been cited in reference to the testimony you provided?

 

Rogers No change. I stand by it, sir.

 

Hammer All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

 

Dismang Thank you. Senator Clark, do you have any questions? All right. Seeing none, members, do you have any questions?  Seeing none, ma’am, you’re dismissed. Thank you. Members, do you have any questions for Senator Hammer about any of the testimony we’ve had or his presentation? All right. Seeing none, Senator Clark– you’re dismissed. Senator Clark, you’re recognized. I now recognize you, the respondent, to present a response to the findings and recommendations of the Senate Ethics Committee. If you could, just, same as before, you can state your name and position as it relates to the proceedings.

 

Clark Alan Clark, State Senate District 13.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. You have your right hand raised. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Clark I do.

 

Dismang Thank you, sir. You may proceed with your presentation.

 

Clark Thank you, Mr. Chair. The– just one point of clarification. The– and not an excuse, just a point of clarification. I was dressed and on my way over here at 11:20. I had had 2 hours of sleep and running a fever. Had I come on over and signed in, we wouldn’t be here. When I had the idea, again, of not making the teenagers sick. Having said that, I made a mistake. It won’t happen again. I apologize to you, my colleagues. I apologize to my constituents. And I apologize especially to our staff.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, Senator Clark. Do you have any witnesses? And members, do you have any questions of Senator Clark? Seeing none, would you like to make a closing statement, Senator Clark? Does not wish to make a, a closing statement. Senator Hammer, I will now recognize you to give your closing statement.

 

Hammer This was a difficult process for the Senate Ethics Committee, the parties involved, and our Senate staff who was placed in an uncomfortable position of having to provide testimony about the actions of the senators. The committee feels that its findings and recommendations are fair and justified in light of the facts brought forward during the investigation. In arriving at our recommendations for the penalties to be imposed, the committee selected penalties that we felt were commiserate to the violations committed by Senator Clark and that they are specifically related to receiving and approving of mileage and per diem reimbursements. In addition, we were cognizant of the limitations of us not to attempt to bind the next General Assembly by recommending penalties that would cross over to the 94th General Assembly, such as a loss of seniority. 

The Senate Code of Ethics begins with the following language, “The holding of public office is a public trust created by the confidence which the electorate places in the integrity of senators who served on the Arkansas Senate.” Members of the Senate are expected to carry out their duties in a manner that brings honor and integrity to the body. It was with this in mind that the committee met, deliberated and came to our final recommendations that are before you today. We did not enjoy this process. There was no political motivation in the rendering of our decision. Rather, we tried to work as a body toward the cause of maintaining the integrity of the Senate and as we are charged to do under Rule 24. As such, I ask the Senate to adopt the recommendations of the committee regarding Senator Alan Clark. Mr. Chair, at this time, I have two motions.

 

Dismang You’re recognized for a motion, for your first motion.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First motion is I move the Senate find that Senator Alan Clark has violated the Senate Code of Ethics, specifically Senate Rule 24.03, compliance with the law with regard to Arkansas Code 10-2-212 and 10-2-217.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, Senator. We have a motion. Do we have a second? We’ve got a second by Senator Pitsch. Is there any discussion on the motion? Senator Ballinger, you’re recognized for discussion.

 

Ballinger I’d like to make a substitute motion.

 

Dismang I think you may be ahead of where you’re wanting to be.

 

Ballinger You know, actually, I absolutely am.

 

Dismang So at this point, we’re just voting if we agree to the violations and findings, correct? I’m not missing anything there, right? So does anyone have any discussion in relation to this particular motion? All right. Senator Rapert, you’re recognized for discussion on the motion.

 

Rapert Right. And again, I wish the flow of this somehow maybe that we could have asked questions again after we heard the other testimony. So I guess my point is, are we allowed to ask a question at this point of Senator Hammer, just on some of the process here?

 

Dismang I mean, so the difficulty is we’re in a discussion, you know, we’re, you know– we’re in a discussion process, not a questioning process.

 

Rapert Okay.

 

Dismang I would give some latitude with the fact of where we are is new and maybe some of this was unexpected by members or not understood by members. So if you have a question on process, I’m happy to take those.

 

Rapert If you prefer, I can put it in the form of discussion–

 

Dismang That’d be great.

 

Rapert –and do that. And you want me to do that here and now?

 

Dismang That’d be– yes, sir, if you feel it’s appropriate.

 

Rapert Well, my, my question would have been on this is just to clarify for my own understanding that no money ever actually got paid to Senator Clark. And so in some ways, the process has been somewhat intervened because he didn’t receive anything in that, in that regard. Unfortunately, we didn’t get to hear everything internally in the discussion in the committee, so we don’t know what all was said and the demeanor and all of those things that are there. But I just want to make sure that I’m clear on that. And I suppose when Senator Hammer closes he can speak to that or not. But my understanding is no money ever changed hands with that. And that’s an important thing. Because if somebody is going to be penalized, what are we going to be penalizing for? So that’s a clarification there on that. And, honestly, I do sympathize with the fact that somebody is ill. And I’ve also– we’ve all seen, Mr. Chair, addressing you in this case, that we all have seen members that have a habit of popping in committees and signing and then leaving intentionally and nobody ever says anything. Well, at least some people say something, but many of us are left wanting as to how in the world that can be an existing common practice that’s well known and yet here we are today, expending tens of thousands of dollars today and then tens of thousands maybe in the course of bringing the committees together over $155 that never got taken by anybody.

 

Dismang And just for clarification, the good news is today we had an ALC meeting and members were present for multiple things in the same day. And as far as money trading hands, I mean, I’ll just speak to it– and we need to ask these questions, I would agree. You’ve had the opportunity to ask Senator Hammer that question or Senator Clark that question. And if you like, you need to ask them and ask them, you know, with the next witness, the next time we go through this. And again, I understand where we are, but I think the binder was pretty clear that no money did trade hands. All right. Do we have any other discussion? Seeing none, per Senate Rule 24.10(f), the roll will now be called. I ask that all members take their seats. The pairing of votes shall not be recognized. Each senator present shall verbally respond when his or her name is called by voting with one of the following responses– you can take your seat also, sir– yea, nay, present or abstain. If you do not respond, you will be recorded as abstaining. Madam Director, please call the roll.

 

[Roll call on motion to find that Senator Alan Clark violated Senate Rule 24.03, compliance with the law with regard to Arkansas Code 10-2-212 and 10-2-217

Yes: Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Davis, Dismang, Elliott, English, Flowers, Fulfer, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendren, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Leding, Pitsch, Rice, Sample, Struch, Sullivan, Tucker, Wallace

 Present: Mark Johnson

 Abstain: Clark, Rapert 

 Leave: Flippo, Garner, Stubblefield, Teague]

 

Dismang  Thank you. By a vote of 28 yeas, 0 nays, 1 present, and 2 abstaining, the motion carries and is adopted. Senator Hammer, you’re now recognized again for your next motion.

 

Hammer Mr. Chairman, I move that the Senate find that Senator Alan Clark has violated the Senate Code of Ethics, specifically Senate Rule 24.06(1)(c).

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I have a second by Senator Pitsch. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, per Senate Rule 24.10(f), the roll will now be called. I ask that all members take their seats. The pairing of votes shall not be recognized. Each Senator present shall verbally respond when his or her name is called by voting with one of the following responses: yea, nay, present or abstain. Madam Director, please call the roll.

 

[Roll call on motion to find that Senator Alan Clark violated Senate Rule 24.06(1)(c)

Yes: Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Davis, Dismang, Elliott, Dismang, English, Flowers, Fulfer, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendren, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Leding, Pitsch, Rice, Sample, Sturch, Sullivan, Tucker, Wallace

Present: Mark Johnson

 Abstain: Chesterfield, Clark, Rapert

 Leave: Flippo, Garner, Stubblefild, Teague

 

Dismang  With 27 yeas, 0 nays, 1 present, and 3 abstaining, the motion carries and is adopted. Under Senate Rule 24.11, if a Senator has been found to have violated the Senate’s code of ethics, then the Senate shall proceed to discipline the member. As such, I will now recognize Senator Hammer for a motion.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Senate having found Senator Alan Clark in violation of the Code of Ethics pursuant to Rule 24.11, I move the Senate impose the following penalties on Senator Alan Clark: a letter of reprimand, number one; number two, removal from any committee chair or vice chair positions that he currently holds for the remainder of the 93rd General Assembly. Senator Clark shall not be eligible for per diem, mileage for attendance at interim committee meetings for the remainder of the 93rd General Assembly. Senator Clark should not be considered for future pro tem or Senate– by future pro tems of the Senate for appointments to serve on Boys State or Senate Ethics Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, may I have latitude to address one of these points–

 

Dismang Yes, sir.

 

Hammer –for clarification? Interim committee meetings, if you look in your book and it’s under the tab– it’s in the Senate rules. You’ll find an explanation of what interim committee means. That is in reference strictly to committee meetings here within the state. It does not apply to out-of-state travel or out-of-state conferences. That is specifically referenced in the, in the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Dismang Thank you for the motion and the clarification. You’ve heard the motion. We have a second on the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion? Senator Ballinger, you’re recognized for discussion on the motion.

 

Ballinger I have a substitute motion.

 

Dismang All right. What’s your substitute motion?

 

Ballinger To adopt all of the– that original motion but to limit the penalties regarding the chairmanship and the per diem to 90 days.

 

Dismang Senator Ballinger has made a substitute motion to adopt Senator Hammer’s motion, but to limit it to 90 days and not until the end of the year.

 

Ballinger Correct.

 

Dismang Correct? We have a motion. We have a substitute motion. Is there a second? Senator Beckham seconds your motion. Is there any discussion on the substitute motion– or amendment to the motion, correct? Is that the right way? Senator Wallace, you’re recognized for discussion on the amendment to the original motion.

 

Wallace Yes, sir. Members, for me and I believe for all of you, it is an honor, a great honor for us to be sitting here in these seats. There have been men and women sitting in these seats for nearly 200 years. With great honor comes great responsibility. And I would ask that the penalties stand.

 

Dismang Thank you, Senator. Senator Wallace has spoken against the motion to amend. Would anyone else like to discuss? You can do that from your seat, senator. I’ve got– Senator Ballinger, you’re in for discussion. Then I’m going to go to Senator Hendren. Then I’m going to go to Senator Rapert. Senator Ballinger, you’re recognized to discuss your amendment to the original motion.

 

Ballinger I just– for clarification for everybody, I don’t disagree with anything that Senator Wallace said. In fact, I know the people who are, who are on the committee who I respect greatly. And I think that the committee did good work. And I am not, I am not, I’m not even saying that our colleagues don’t deserve the punishment that, that was handed down. But I’m saying for this body, I think it’s good to show them, in particular, you know, at this point, all we know is Senator Clark, he’s recognized his error, he’s, he’s apologized to the body, and I think it’s appropriate to show him some grace. Obviously, we’re not lifting the penalties. Even what we’re lifting off, I think, is relatively small. It’s just showing something that we’re giving back in grace. And that, that’d be my recommendation.

 

Dismang Senator Hendren, you’re recognized for discussion on Senator Ballinger’s amendment to the original motion.

 

Hendren  I think– and I guess I may need a parliamentary inquiry here. I can make a substitute to a substitute, correct?

 

Dismang You can.

 

Hendren I would make a substitute to the substitute that we go with the committee recommendations as presented by Senator Hammer.

 

Dismang So we have a– I think they’re amendments, technically, the way we’re working here. But we’ve got an amendment to the amendment that has been presented by Senator Ballinger to revert back to the original recommendations made by Senator Hammer and the Ethics Committee. So I’ve got a motion. Do I have a second?  I’ve got a second by Senator Pitsch. Is there any discussion on the motion? Senator Rapert, you’re recognized for discussion on the motion.

 

Rapert Yeah.

 

Dismang So at this point, what we’re doing is actually just back to discussing Senator Hammer’s original motion.

 

Rapert Right. Right. Well, first of all, I’ve supported the institution of our ethical standards in here and believe in that. And in no way am I disparaging anybody in any of the process. I’m just thoughtfully considering where we’re at and about what we’re about to do in terms of meting out punishment in this particular circumstance. And I have to say what needs to be said. I’ve been here 12 years, and I’m sitting here looking at three names of colleagues that went to prison. And we never spoke as a body about anything related to those folks that were punished criminally. We have one member that is, has resigned, pled guilty, pending sentencing, and we never as a body spoke to that. And we’re taking– and the other thing is, one, to be fair, one other under indictment. And I’m just, again, trying to think of the standard that’s about to be set. And the other thing, and again, not disparaging anybody whatsoever, but had we an opportunity to think about this– because I thought about this through the night. We have two gentlemen here that have been judged by the committee. But if we were in any other body, people would object to the fact that the person that made the complaint appointed the members of the committee. Because, again, it’s our fault as a body that we did not predict what might have occurred if a pro tem decided he had to bring a charge. And we, what we have is that we’ve got a member that was on the committee that stepped down. 

But, Senator, as I say, I’m trying to be very thoughtful here. Because, number one, they stipulated, they made it– they absolutely committed an error. But I’m trying to find out the punishment, which is what’s happening, the discipline that’s about to be meted out when no money changed hands. They’ve admitted to that. And it’s tough knowing so many other things that go unanswered around here. It’s just, it’s just difficult. And so I would– I was hoping that the substitute motion would have been to give them a letter of caution or warning. But to basically try to take their heads off seems a little bit out of balance and out of equity. And again, I will follow up because I know some of you may not have considered the point. No disparagement whatsoever to anybody involved in the process, but it looks bad as a body that the person bringing the complaint also appointed the members of the committee. And I’m just bringing that up for process and would hope that maybe we consider the old saying that you live with the sword, you die with the sword. And I think I’ve just pointed out there’s some inequity in what we’re about to do. Thank you.

 

Dismang And I don’t want to– just for those following along, I mean, I don’t, I don’t believe that that had any bearing in the appointments, had any bearing. And if anyone has any reason to think otherwise, then I think that should be fully discussed. I mean, after all, Senator Johnson, who is one of the respondents, was actually appointed by the pro tem. So it would’ve been a strange occurrence to be able to premeditate that you’re going to appoint someone that you’re going to later have to remove because you’re going to file a complaint against. So I don’t want us to go down that road anymore, but we can have a discussion about how we alter our rules, just like we altered our rules in response to the things that you noted before. And that’s what brings us here today. Senator Johnson, you’re recognized for discussion on the motion.

 

B Johnson Members, I’m not a lawyer. But in our penalties, in, in, in, in law, we have treble damages and punitive damages. Treble damages is three times and compensatory and punitive is limited to four times the compensatory damage. And that 90 days would be a, a, a treble damage, and the maximum with punitive damage would be the four months. If, if I’m incorrect in that, you know, the compensatory damage did not actually happen, but it was in, in the action. So that’s, that’s the discussion I would like to have if, if others would. It is– I don’t know if that was considered in the committee, but it’s, it’s, it’s how it is in law.

 

Dismang So we can bring that up in discussion for others. But I do want to just let us, just kind of bring us back. We are discussing the original motion that was made by Senator Hammer. We’re, I mean, I think we’re past the point of adjusting that any further. And so at this point, it’s– I mean, what we’re going to be asked to do in a little while is yes or no on that original motion. Am I missing anything there? No. And so, you are after– and I think, Senator Pitsch, you’re recognized. And then I’m going to go to Senator Sturch and then Senator Clark and then Senator Flowers.

 

Pitsch The thought occurs and I debated on whether to say or not, but our committee heard three full days of stuff. And I agonized greatly. If you’ve not read this, then you really need to read that. Because we didn’t lightly as a committee come forward with what the punishment was. And Senator Wallace was addressing that in his statement.There was great agony over what do we do with this. This was not a Johnny come lightly to this situation. And there was a multitude– and we’ve talked about it– what we saw in those three days is not what this body is seeing in front of them. And the only way this body is going to get that is if they have read details. And I looked it up last night, as was said earlier, but I’ve delved into the details and, you know, that’s, that’s the process. And I wanted to make sure I point out that that’s the process. There was great work by this committee put into it. And I guess that’s self-serving, but this didn’t come lightly.

 

Dismang I paused before I started writing things down. Did I say Senator Sturch was next? Okay, Senator Sturch, you’re recognized. Senator Pitsch has spoken for the motion, and Senator Johnson spoke on the motion. Senator Rapert spoke against. And now we’re at Senator Sturch.

 

Sturch Thank you, Mr. Chair. This may be a question– I guess this is the best way we can do it as far as to ask the committee chairman how they came to these penalties. But I wanted to ask that question as far as this first one, about per diem and mileage If the committee chair could speak to why both per diem and mileage. Mileage, of course, is a legitimate expense. We know that. So I just wanted to ask, if he could, to speak to why both per diem and mileage for that. Why could we not separate the two, give the mileage but hold per diem?

 

Dismang And so we’re not at a point right now where we’re going to discuss altering anything. It’s, it’s a yes or no. And if the chair wants to speak to why they chose both, then that’s a whole other, you know, then I believe they have the latitude to be able to do that. Again, I don’t want us to get into questioning– we’re at a point now where we’re speaking for or against the motion. And so I’m going to let Senator Hammer gather his thoughts and I’ll go to Senator Clark.

 

Clark Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, let me make this simple, because I’m speaking for it. I want to support Senator Hendren. I want to support Senator Wallace. I want to support Senator Hammer. And I want to support the committee. We will have some discussion later about this process. I very much wish that it had been public. I very much wish that, since there’s only one of me and seven of them, that it was public and everybody heard every word I had to say and every word they had to say and it’s not just a report of them about me. The– and the– I wasn’t aware I wasn’t supposed to defend myself. But this is where we want to set the bar. I think we should set the bar. I’m good with it. Just, I expect this committee and this body going forward– this– because this ain’t going to be the last hot potato– that this be the bar. And so since I’m good with it, let’s do it and be done.

 

Dismang All right. Senator Clark has spoken for the motion. Senator Flowers.

 

Flowers I won’t be long. I’d just like to say this. I’m speaking for the motion and the recommendation. My, my motion in the committee would have been losing seniority. But Senator Blake Johnson mentioned– I think he’s trying to instruct us on criminal penalties. What he’s talking about is not a criminal penalty. Treble damages, compensatory damages– those are civil matters taken up in civil proceedings. I think we owe the people of Arkansas a duty to understand that we are legislators. We make the laws that they live by. And we don’t even understand them? That is troubling to me. And I’d just like to say our ethics are about public trust and integrity. So whether it’s a complaint that’s filed by your best friend, your mother, your father, your sister, your brother, you have a duty to have integrity. Good character is needed up here, people that understand what the heck they’re doing and putting on the people of the state of Arkansas. So let’s get our facts clear. I’m for the motion. Wish it was stronger.

 

Dismang Thank you, Senator Flowers. Would anyone else like to speak on the motion? Seeing none, I give you latitude to respond, if you’d like to, in regard to why you chose to not separate per diem and mileage.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two points to address. As stated in 10-2-212(1)(c), a member of the General Assembly shall not file with the House of Representatives or Senate claims for per diem or mileage reimbursement in excess of the maximum amount prescribed by law. That is a point of reference in response to one of the questions. With regards to the amount of per diem received– and it would have only been $155– the penalties were not based on the amount of per diem. And the Senate Ethics Rules don’t establish a minimum amount for finding a violation. Rather, we as elected officials are entrusted and should hold ourselves to a higher standard with the expenditure of public funds. These acts were done knowingly, as Senator Clark has stipulated to the facts or Senator Johnson had sufficient knowledge that Senator Clark had not been in attendance. Finally, and possibly most importantly, we looked at the facts that this transgression involved our own Senate staff, and they were placed in the position of being complicit to those acts that violated the law or the Senate rules. And that is an explanation as to why we chose the penalties that we did. Thank you.

 

Dismang Thank you. Any other discussion? All right. Seeing none, I just want to restate because I think we’ve come a long ways, just make sure we know what we’re voting on. The motion is, The following penalty is being placed on Senator Clark: letter of reprimand, removal from any committee chair or vice-chair position that he currently holds for the remainder of the 93rd General Assembly, Senator Clark shall not be eligible for per diem and mileage for attendance at interim committee meetings for the remainder of the 93rd General Assembly, and Senator Clark shall not be considered by future president and president pro tems of the Senate for the appointment to serve on the Boys State, Girls State or the Senate Ethics Commission. With that, we do have a motion. We have a second. Madam Director, please call the roll.

 

[Roll call vote on the motion to approve the prescribed penalties for Senator Alan Clark

Yes: Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Davis, Dismang, Elliott, English, Flowers, Fulfer, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendren, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Leding, Pitsch, Rice, Sample, Sturch, Sullivan, Tucker, Wallace

No: Ballinger, Beckham

Abstained: Clark, Rapert

Present: Mark Johnson

Leave: Flippo, Garner, Stubblefield, Teague]

 

Dismang  Thank you. By a vote of 26 yeas, 2 nays, 1 present, and 2 abstained, the motion carries and is adopted. Members, we’re going to recess until– you want to do 10 minutes? We’ll just do 1:10. We’ll come back in the chamber at 1:10. And at that point, we will take up Senator Johnson’s– the findings of the Ethics Committee on Senator Johnson. Thank you.

 

[Recess]

 

Dismang As we stipulated earlier, Senator Johnson, Senator Clark, and Senator Hammer had no additional witnesses or exhibits. And so we’ll now recognize Senator Kim Hammer, chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, to present the findings and recommendations of the committee regarding Senator Mark Johnson. If you could, again, senator, since we’re technically in a severable proceeding, I would ask that you please state your name and your position as it relates to the proceedings. And then please face me, raise your right hand. 

 

Hammer Mr. Chairman, Senator Kim Hammer, Chair of Senate Ethics Committee.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Hammer I do.

 

Dismang Thank you, sir. You are welcome to proceed.  

Hammer Thank you. On June 15, 2022, I received a petition filed by Senator Jimmy Hickey alleging that Senator Mark Johnson had violated the Senate Code of Ethics when he signed the name of Senator Alan Clark on the sign-in sheet for the Boys State meeting that took place in the Senate chamber on Friday, June 3, 2022, which the petition alleged Senator Alan Clark did not attend. Under Senate Rule 24.09(b), the Senate Ethics Committee is required to begin its investigation within 10 business days of receiving the petition. I notified the members of the Ethics Committee on June 16 that we would begin our investigation on June 22. The Committee conducted a thorough and fair investigation over the course of multiple days in which we heard from all parties involved, allowed witnesses to be called and exhibits to be introduced. We deliberated for hours and worked to make sure that the report accurately reflected our findings and recommendations to the full Senate. The six other committee members and I worked to protect the process set forth in Rule 24 and to provide you with what we consider to be legitimate and thoughtful recommendations. Today, I come before you to present the Senate Ethics Committee’s findings and recommendations related to the allegations against Senator Mark Johnson. 

The finding of facts: The Senate Ethics Committee found the following facts based on the exhibits and testimony presented to us. Senator Mark Johnson and Alan Clark were appointed by Senator Jimmy Hickey to serve as members of the Arkansas Boys State for 2022. Boys State met in the Senate chamber on Friday, June 3rd, 2022, at 9 a.m. The meeting was gaveled out by the presiding officer at 11:32 a.m. At 11:31 on June 3, Senator Clark texted Mark Johnson the following request: “Would y’all sign me in? I’m at the Capitol Hill but running a fever so didn’t come over.” Senator Mark Johnson responded, “I signed you in.” And you can see this text exchange in Exhibit Tab 8 in your binder. 

In addition to the text messages from Senator Clark, Senator Johnson was also alerted to the fact that Senator Clark had not attended the Boys State meeting as evidenced by two encounters with Senate staff. Ms. Leigh Ann Golden-Smith testified that Senator Johnson approached her to ask for the sign-in sheet, saying that, He wanted to sign in on behalf of his friend, Senator Alan Clark, who he said he was not able to– was not at the Capitol today. Ms. Golden-Smith directed Senator Johnson to Sabrina Lewellen for the sign-in sheets, and you have Ms. Golden-Smith’s written statements in your binder at Exhibit Tab 3. Excuse me. Ms. Lewellen testified that Senator Johnson approached her and asked if the sheets in her hand were the sign-in sheets and stated that he needed to sign in for Senator Clark. Ms. Lewellen replied, “Sir, do you mean Senator Clarke Tucker? He was here earlier and signed in already.” Senator Johnson replied, “No. Alan Clark.” Ms. Lewellen testified that she responded to Senator Johnson and stated, “I did not see him today. Could he have signed in at Audit?” She said Senator Johnson took the sheets from her hand, signed Senator Clark’s name, and stated, “He forgot to sign in.” Staff testified that they never saw Senator Alan Clark at the meeting on June 3. 

Senator Bart Hester testified that Senator Clark told him during a phone call that he did not attend the meeting on June 3. Senator Clark stipulated in his written and oral testimony to the committee that he did not attend the Boys State meeting on June 3. And Senator Johnson in his oral and written testimony to the committee that he did not ever see Senator Clark at the Boys State meeting on June 3. The committee analysis is that Senator Johnson attempted to justify his action of signing Senator Clark in to the Boys State meeting that he had done so “with the understanding that Senator Clark had been in attendance at least in part for the morning session.” Senator Johnson testified that he had been absent from the Boys State meeting in the chamber on June 3 for 35 to 40 minutes to go to a doctor’s appointment and presumed that Senator Clark had been in the chamber during that time. The committee was not persuaded by these justifications due to the fact that, number one, testimony and exhibits presented to the committee showed that there were three instances prior to Senator Johnson signing Senator Clark’s name on the sign-in sheet that show Senator Johnson was aware of the fact that Senator Clark had not attended the Boys State meeting that day: the text message from Senator Clark at 11:31, one minute before the meeting was gaveled out asking Senator Johnson to sign him in and stating, “I’m at the Capitol but running a fever so didn’t come over”; Senator Johnson’s encounter with Ms. Golden-Smith regarding in which she testified that Senator Johnson told her at Senator Clark was “not at the Capitol today.”; and Senator Johnson’s encounter with Ms. Lewellen in which she told him with regard to Senator Clark, “I didn’t see him today.” Again, all three of these occurred before Senator Johnson took the sign-in sheet from Ms. Lewellen and signed Senator Clark’s name.

The committee’s conclusion and recommendation: The Senate Ethics Committee was presented with allegations of two violations of Senate Ethics rules, Rule 24.03 and Rule 24.06(c)(1). After many hours of deliberation and reviewing the testimony and exhibits presented to it, the committee arrived at the following conclusions: Senate Rule 24.03 reads in pertinent part as follows, “Senators shall comply with all constitutional and statutory provisions related to the elected office. Violation of any constitutional or statutory provision shall be grounds for administering penalties as provided in the Code of Ethics.” Senator Mark Johnson signed Senator Alan Clark’s name on the sheet, sign-in sheet for the June 3, 2022, Boys State meeting, which Senator Clark did not attend, thereby indicating that Senator Clark was entitled to collect per diem and mileage reimbursement for which he was not eligible under the law. 

The committee found these actions to be a clear violation of Senate Rule 24.03, specifically with regards to the provisions of Arkansas Code 10-2-212 and 10-2-217. Senate Rule 24.06(1)(c) reads, “Senators shall not knowingly seek, accept, use, allocate, grant or award public funds for a purpose other than that approved by law or make a false statement in connection with a claim, request, or application for compensation, reimbursement or travel allowances from public funds.” By signing Senator Clark’s name on the per diem and mileage sign-in sheet for the Boys State meeting on June 3, 2022, that Senator Clark did not attend and that Senator Johnson knew Senator Clark did not attend, Senator Mark Johnson knowingly made a false statement in connection with a claim, request, or application for reimbursement. The committee found these actions to be a clear violation of Senate Rule 24.06(1)(c). Mr. Chairman, I’d like to call witnesses at this time, please.

Dismang Thank you, Senator. If we could have Leigh Ann Golden-Smith please come to the chamber. We’ll do this one more time, I hope. If you could, please face me, state your name, employer, and your position.

 

Golden-Smith Leigh Ann Golden-Smith. Arkansas Senate. I’m a constituent advisor.

 

Dismang Thank you. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Golden-Smith Yes.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, ma’am. You may be seated. Senator, you’re recognized.  

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, good afternoon. Thank you for being here today and making yourself available to the Senators. I simply want to ask with regards to the testimony that you provided to the committee and the fact that your name has been stated in public and part of the record, is there anything about your testimony that you disagree with that has been provided or are there any things that you’d like to change about your testimony and do you stand by it?

 

Golden-Smith No changes. I stand by it.

 

Hammer All right. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.

 

Dismang All right. Senator Johnson, do you have any questions? 

Johnson No questions.

 

Dismang No questions. Members, do you have any questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you for your time. You’re dismissed. Thank you. Up next would be Sabrina Lewellen. We’ll bring her up on the Zoom call. All right, Ms. Lewellen, could you please state your name, your employer, and your position, please?

 

Lewellen Sabrina Nikae Evelyn Lewellen. Deputy Director and Assistant Secretary of the Arkansas Senate. The Senate is my employer.

 

Dismang All right. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Lewellen Yes, sir.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, ma’am. And you’re welcome to proceed, sir.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lewellen, because your name has been invoked in public and you’ve provided testimony to the committee  and because you’ve been cited in the matter before us today, I wanted to ask you, is there anything that you would like to change, anything that you disagree regarding testimony that you provided or do you stand by the testimony as it is presented to the Senate?

 

Lewellen I stand by my testimony as it is presented to the Senate. For consistency, I apologize to Senator Tucker for leaving off the ‘e.’ Sometimes spell check is not my friend.

 

Hammer Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. 

 

Lewellen Thank you.

 

Dismang Senator Johnson, do you have any questions?

 

M Johnson No questions.

 

Dismang No questions by Senator Johnson. Are there any questions by anyone else in the audience? All right. Seeing none, thank you, ma’am, for your time.

 

Lewellen Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you.

 

Dismang All right. Senator Bart Hester, if you could, please come forward. If you could, just state your name and position.

 

Hester Bart Hester, State Senator.

 

Dismang Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Hester I do.

 

Dismang All right. You may be seated. Senator, you’re recognized.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hester, I wanted to ask you because your name has been invoked in public and you provided testimony associated to the committee and also because it’s also part of the written record, is there anything about your testimony that you provided to committee or that has been provided in print form that you disagree with or do you stand by everything presented as your testimony?

 

Hester No changes.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. Senator Johnson, do you have any questions?

 

M Johnson No questions.

 

Dismang No questions by Senator Johnson. Members, do you have any questions for Senator Hester? All right. Seeing none, you’re dismissed. Thank you. Next will be Ann Cornwell. Yes, ma’am, if you could, please state your name, employer, and your position.

 

Cornwell Ann Cornwell, Secretary of Senate.

 

Dismang Thank you. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Cornwell I do.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, ma’am. You may be seated. And you’re recognized.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Cornwell, for being here this afternoon to make yourself available to the Senate. What I’d like to ask you is your name has been invoked in public and you provided testimony to the committee and it is also part of the written record. And what I wanted to ask you is there anything about your testimony related to the matter before us on Senator Johnson that you’d like to change, disagree with, or do you stand by your statements as provided?

 

Cornwell I stand by my statements.

 

Hammer All right. That’s all, Mr. Chair.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. Senator Johnson, do you have any questions?

 

M Johnson No questions, Mr. Chair.

 

Dismang No questions. Do any other members have any questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you, ma’am. You’re dismissed. Up next will be Lesley Rogers. If you could, just please state your name, employer, and your position.

 

Rogers Lesley Rogers, Arkansas Senate, manager of constituent services office.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Rogers Yes, sir.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, ma’am. You may take a seat. Senator, you’re recognized.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rogers, thank you for being here this afternoon and making yourself available to the Senators to answer questions. What I wanted to ask you is because your name has been involved in public and you provided testimony to the committee for the decisions they made regarding the matter of Senator Johnson. I wanted to ask you, is there anything about the testimony that you provided either to the committee or that is provided in print that you disagree with or would like to change or do you stand by your testimony?

 

Rogers No change. I stand by my testimony.

 

Hammer Thank you, ma’am. That’s all, Mr. Chair.

 

Dismang Senator Johnson, do you have any questions? 

 

M Johnson No questions, Mr. Chair.

 

Dismang No questions. Members, do you have any questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you, ma’am. You’re dismissed. That concludes the witnesses by Senator Hammer. Members, do you have any questions of Senator Hammer? Seeing no questions of Senator Hammer– and this would be the appropriate time to ask some of the questions that y’all had wanted to ask earlier. Okay. All right. Seeing none, thank you, Senator Hammer.

 

Hammer Thank you.

 

Dismang I will now recognize Senator Mark Johnson, respondent, to present his response to the findings and recommendations of the Ethics Committee. Please come forward. If you could, just please state your name and your position as it relates to the proceedings.

 

Johnson Mark Johnson, State Senator, District 15.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, sir. And then, again, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

Johnson I swear.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, sir. You’re welcome to proceed with your presentation.

 

Johnson Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, the first thing out of my mouth is going to be an apology. I apologize to each and every one of you individually and collectively for having to go through this process. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here that all the facts, except maybe one, were stipulated to by both Senator Clark and I. I did something that I shouldn’t have done, whether it was out of inattentiveness or not paying close enough attention to what he had texted me or whatever. But I did sign his name and that was wrong. 

The only thing that was in the committee’s report, and I do not complain about it or take issue with the committee, is the notion that I truly knew in the front of my mind that Senator Clark had not been in this room on June 3, 2022. It was my presumption– dare I say, my– I had inferred that he had been here because, as stated in the testimony, I had been out of the room for approximately 40 minutes from approximately 9:25 to about 5 minutes after 10. I had gone down the street to a doctor’s appointment. And when Senator Clark made the request of me I was operating under the presumption that he had been in the room during the time that I was not there. And that was an error. I was wrong. I did not verify that fact. But I want to insist to my colleagues, I am not a liar and I did not lie. Other than that, I fully accept everything that’s been stipulated to, the testimony that’s been given by all the witnesses, the decision by the committee and the appropriate sanctions. I fully accept that and humbly apologize for the actions that I made that led to that. 

If I have a prayer in this, it is that the Senate can move past this and that we didn’t set any bad precedent that we’ll regret later in how we do business. I do want to add my comment to what Senator Clark said about that this process, I think, would have been much better for all concerned if it had been in the public. And I think we should consider that certainly– and I recognize that certainly a, a respondent may get some protections by there being some things done in executive session. But I think that if a respondent wishes to make sure that all testimony is given or that light is shown on it and the public can be fully aware of everything we’re doing in this chamber, including this session today being live streamed, I think we need to seriously consider making that change. But I accept the sanctions recommended by the committee. I thank the committee for the hard work that they put in, and especially Senator Wallace who had to at the last minute fill the seat on the committee because I was a member and had to be, to stand down, and there was a vacancy. So I’m grateful to the committee for working so hard and doing this. And I know you all took this very seriously and prayed over it. 

So, again, I want our body to come out of this stronger, not weaker. More cohesive and less divisive. And so the best thing for me to do at this point is to simply say I accept the recommendation and the motion that Senator Hammer will give and I will vote in favor of the motion. I have voted present on every other thing here today, but when that comes up, I will vote in favor of it because that’s where we need to be today. So thank you for your attentiveness and thank you for the opportunity to be your colleague and to serve in this wonderful body. God bless you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Dismang Thank you. And you would not like to call any witnesses? I’ve got to just confirm there’s no witnesses that you’d like to call. And I do need to ask if members have any–

 

M Johnson Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to call any other witnesses and I will waive my right to further closing comments. 

 

Dismang So members, do we have any questions of Senator Johnson? Seeing none, thank you, Senator Johnson.  

 

M Johnson Thank you, sir.

 

Dismang I’ll now recognize Senator Hammer to give his closing statement. Senator Clark, for what purpose?

 

Clark I missed my chance to ask Senator Hammer a couple of questions. May I do that? Before he makes his closing statement?

 

Dismang I mean, I tried to at the end of his remarks say, This is the appropriate time to ask Senator Hammer questions. I realize that this is the first time that we’ve done this. We made some hiccups on the first round, I would say, nothing significant. But there may have been needed some more clarity, especially in regards to the questions. I thought we provided that. Senator Hammer– I’ll just tell you this. I’ll leave it up to Senator Hammer. Senator Hammer, would you like to answer any questions from Senator Clark? And there will be no questions from anyone else in the chamber.

 

Hammer I’ll take questions.

 

Dismang Okay. Senator Hammer, you’re recognized to come down and answer questions from Senator Clark.

 

Clark Senator Hammer, the committee’s decision on Senator Johnson seemed to weigh heavily on the text exchange. Is that correct, incorrect?

 

Hammer I think it was a contributing factor, along with all the other evidence that was presented.

Clark How did you obtain the text exchange?

 

Hammer I believe they were requested– may I, Mr. Chair?

 

Dismang Yeah.

 

Hammer It was requested by committee members. When the exchange was given in testimony, it was requested that the– Senator Sullivan requested a copy of the texts. Senator Johnson agreed to provide it. Correct? Correct.

 

Clark Okay, so Senator Johnson gave it to you voluntarily?

 

Hammer Yes.

 

Clark The– someone brought up to me– a member of this body that the text exchange– and, and I asked the senator, I said, “How many texts do you get in a day?” And he said, “More than I can count.” And I said, “How many do you read thoroughly?” And he said, “None,” which I would agree with. And I asked him– I said, “Do you have any idea how many meetings I go to in a year and I get there and there’s nobody there but me?” It’s about five or six, actually. And then I pull up the email and look and find out where the meeting really was because we’re so overloaded with information. I found it interesting and bothersome, actually, that the– we are lied to a lot. But I don’t lie to you. You don’t lie to me. That we found it that easy to find that Senator Johnson was lying. The– and that is what y’all had to do, right?

 

Hammer I think what we were doing was establishing the facts as to whether or not you were present and whether or not Senator Johnson signed your name for you.

 

Clark Okay, but I thought on the report that it said that he knew that I wasn’t there.

 

Hammer I think through testimony that was provided, that was the conclusion of the committee based on all the evidence that was provided, including the text that he provided voluntarily at the request of Senator Sullivan, a member of the committee, during testimony.

 

Clark So the committee came to the conclusion that he lied about it? All right. Thank you.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hammer, for indulging Senator Clark. With that, I’m going to recognize you again, Senator, for your– I just lost the place of where we were– for your closing statement, which I believe we’ve done. And then we’re going to move to–

 

Hammer I don’t believe I’ve done–

 

Dismang You’ve not done your closing? All right, if you could, you’re recognized for your closing statement.

 

Hammer Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated earlier, this was a difficult process for the Senate Ethics Committee, the parties involved, and our Senate staff who were placed in the uncomfortable position of having to provide testimony about the actions of the senators. The committee feels that its findings and recommendations– excuse me– are fair and justified in light of the facts brought forward during the investigation. In arriving at our recommendation for the penalties to be imposed, the committee selected penalties that we felt, that we felt were commensurate with the violations committed by Senator Johnson and that they are specifically related to receiving and approving mileage and per diem reimbursement. In addition, we were cognitive of the, cognitive of the limitations on us to not attempt to bind the next General Assembly by recommending penalties that would cross over to the 94th General Assembly, such as loss of seniority. The Senate Code of Ethics begins with the following language: “The holding of public office is a public trust created by the confidence which the electorate places in the integrity of Senators who serve in the Arkansas Senate. Members of the Senate are expected to carry out these duties in a manner that brings honor and integrity to the body.” It was with this in mind that the committee met and deliberated and came to our final recommendations that are before you today. And as such, I would ask the Senate to adopt recommendations from the committee regarding Senator Mark Johnson. Mr. Chairman, at this time I have two motions.

 

Dismang Senator Hammer, you’re recognized for your motion.

 

Hammer Thank you. I move that the Senate find Senator Mark Johnson has violated the Senate Code of Ethics, specifically Senate Rule 24.03, compliance with law in regard to Arkansas Code 10-2-212 and 10-2-217.

 

Dismang Thank you. Members, you’ve heard the motion. We have a second by Senator Sullivan. Is there any discussion on the motion? Senator Clark, you’re recognized for discussion.

 

Clark Not that it matters, Mr. Chair, because for all the talk about decisions being made here today, this is not a legal process. It’s a political process. The one person that can’t talk to anybody is the respondent. Everybody else is doing a lot of talking and decisions were made long before we got here. But the fact that in every other case we give colleagues a lot of leeway, but then we get an ethics charge, and all of a sudden, we’re, we’re uptight and serious and we’re deciding, he must be lying when, when the same guy that’s telling us the truth every other time says, I thought he was here. And for that reason, I couldn’t possibly vote yes.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, Senator. Senator Clark has spoken against the motion. Would anyone like to speak on the motion? Senator Sullivan, you’re recognized.

 

Sullivan Thank you, Mr. Chair. The committee worked on this and it was tough with our friends. The general public hearing this– and I work for a company, administered hundreds of employees. When these things happened, people got fired– no questions, no hearings. You came in and talked to the CEO and you lost your job. That’s very true. So, and I don’t recall anyone, and I can only speak for myself, I never considered the senator to have lied. I considered him to have had enough information to make a decision to question whether he should do that or not. But not in my association with Senator Johnson have I ever considered he lied to me. I think he made the wrong decision. And it was a big deal. I think the citizens of the state, if they have a job and they worked and they did that, would have faced serious consequences. And I support the motion. Thank you.

 

Dismang Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator Flowers, you’re recognized for discussion on the motion.

 

Flowers I support the motion. And as an attorney for over 40 years, I’ve seen people go to jail, even prison– whether it’s an attempt at a criminal act or the criminal act is completed makes no difference. Our state laws prescribe penalties that include jail time. And while Senator Clark says this is not a legal proceeding, I don’t know why we’re– are we illegally doing this? I don’t know. I don’t think so. But we’re not in a courtroom. But we do make the laws that the citizens of Arkansas have to comply with or suffer consequences. And if the issue is whether you think somebody has lied or not, I’ll tell you this, I didn’t think he was telling the truth. You get an 18-word text message that clearly says, I’m not coming over there to the Capitol. And you write back and say, I just signed you in. People are sitting in jail for that. The apology should be to the state of Arkansas and our staff.

 

Dismang Is there any other discussion on motion? All right. Seeing none, pursuant to Rule 24.10, the roll will now be called. Each senator present shall verbally respond when his or her name is called by voting with one of the following responses: yea, nay, present or abstain. Madam Director, please call the roll.

 

[Roll call on the motion to find Senator Mark Johnson violated the Senate Rule 24.03, compliance with law in regard to Arkansas Code 10-2-212 and 10-2-217

Yes: Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Davis, Dismang, Elliott, English, Flowers, Fulfer, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendren, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Black Johnson, Mark Johnson, Leding, Pitsch, Rice, Sample, Sturch, Sullivan, Tucker, Wallace

No: Clark

Abstain: Rapert

Leave: Flippo, Garner, Stubblefield, Teague]

 

Dismang All right. Thank you. By a vote of 29 yeas, 1 nay, 0 present, and 1 abstaining, the motion carries and is adopted. Senator Hammer, you’re recognized for a motion.

 

Hammer Mr. Chairman, I move that the Senate find Senator Mark Johnson has violated the Senate Code of Ethics, specifically Senate Rule 24.06(1)(c).

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, Senator. Members, you’ve heard the motion. I’ve got a second by Senator Sullivan. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, pursuant to Rule 24.10, the roll will now be called. Again, each senator shall verbally respond with his or her, when his or her name is called, with one of the following: yea, nay, present, or abstain. Madam Director, please call the roll.

 

[Roll call vote on the motion to find Senator Mark Johnson violated Senate Rule 24.06(1)(c)

Yes: Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Davis, Dismang, Elliott, English, Flowers, Fulfer, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendren, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Leding, Pitsch, Rice, Sample, Sturch, Sullivan, Tucker, Wallace

No: Clark

Abstain: Rapert

Leave: Flippo, Garner, Stubblefield, Teague]

 

Dismang Thank you. By a vote of 29 nays, 1 nay, 0 present and 1 abstaining, the motion carries and is adopted. Under Senate Rule 24.11, if a Senator has been found to have violated the Senate, Senate’s Code of Ethics, the Senate shall proceed to discipline the member. As such, I would recognize Senator Hammer for a motion.

 

Hammer The Senate having found Senator Mark Johnson in violation of Senate Code of Ethics pursuant to Rule 24.11, I move the Senate impose the following penalties on Senator Mark Johnson: a) a letter of reprimand; b) removal from any committee chair or vice chair positions that he currently holds for the remainder of the 93rd General Assembly; c) Senator Johnson shall not be eligible for per diem or mileage for attendance at interim committee meetings for the remainder of the 93rd General Assembly. I would add that you could check your binder under Senate rules regarding the definition of interim committee meetings. It does not pertain to out of state travel or expenses. d) Senator Mark Johnson shall be removed from the Senate Ethics Committee for the remainder of the 93rd General Assembly. And finally, e) that Senator Johnson should not be considered future pro tem– should not be considered by future pro tems of the Senate of appointment for serving on Boys and Girls State or the Senate Ethics Committee.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you, Senator. Members, you’ve heard the motion. We’ve got a motion. I’ve got a second by Senator Sullivan. Is there any discussion on the motion?

 

Rapert Discussion.

 

Dismang All right, Senator Rapert. You’re recognized.

 

Rapert My discussion on this– obviously, I think this has been one of the most difficult votes of any in 12 years that I’ve ever gone through and experienced. I voted yes and no on many issues, but my abstentions on these is because I’m just concerned about the process. Not that anything’s been done wrong here, but it’s just I wish that we would have thought about some of the implications. And my concern about some of the penalties– I’ve made it plain, stated plainly. People have asked me about it. In my profession in business, you never, ever sign for someone else, period. You can’t do that. I have seen people fired over that issue. And so I don’t defend that. Even the respondents didn’t defend any of that and they’ve apologized for it. But my concern, the reason I speak on this, is that my vote today is about my concern over 12 years, not just this incident. And this is why that it’s hard for me to see the penalties extended as far as chairmanships and the losses of this and basically banishment, you might as well call it, because there’s so much other stuff that needs tended to. So I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything, but I just feel a little uncomfortable. And that’s why I’m abstaining from the whole thing at this point. And I pray for the Senate because if we’re not careful, there will be a tendency of people to politicize this process, to weaponize this process. And I’ve seen those tendencies over the years. 

But I just hope and pray that as the body does look at the rules going forward, which I won’t be here to be a part of all that, that you would approach it very cautiously. Because at the end of the day, they admit they made an error, whatever you want to call it. But we’ve sat here, we’ve gone through this process, and nobody took anything that wasn’t due them. They’ve been properly chastised about that, and here we are going through this display. It’s very difficult for everybody concerned. And therefore, I will stand alone in abstentions because I would hope that anybody that undergoes this in the future will be given the opportunity. I will close by saying this. The Rotary four-way test, which we’ve spoken of on this floor when things have happened in the past of the things we think, we say, or do. First ask, is that the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendship? And will it be beneficial to all concerned? These gentlemen admitted they, they shouldn’t have done what they’ve done. But I don’t know, given the 12 years that I’m looking through, if it necessarily is fair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Dismang All right. Thank you for your comments and explanation. Members, any other discussion on the motion in front of us? All right. Seeing none, pursuant to Senate Rule 24.10, the roll will now be called. I ask that all members take their seats, which we have. Each senator present shall verbally respond when his or her name is called by voting in one of the following responses: yea, nay, present, or abstain. Madam Director, please call the roll.

 

[Roll call vote on the motion to approve the prescribed penalties for Senator Mark Johnson

Yes: Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe, Caldwell, Chesterfield, Davis, Dismang, English,  Elliott, Fulfer, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendren, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Leding, Pitsch,  Rice, Sample, Sturch, Sullivan, Tucker, Wallace. 

No: Clark

Abstain: Rapert

Leave: Flippo, Garner, Stubblefield, Teague]

 

Dismang Thank you. By a vote of 29 yays, 1 nay, 0 present, and 1 abstaining, the motion carries and is adopted. With that, is there any other announcements to come before us at this time? Seeing no other announcements, with that, our Senate business meeting is adjourned. Senator Sample.

 

Sample Thank you, Senator. With a heavy heart, members, I have a motion. I move that the record submitted by the Senate Ethics Committee and any motions passed today by the Senate and any documents resulting from the actions taken during the Senate business meeting today be submitted to the Pulaski County prosecuting attorney for his consideration.

 

Dismang And if you would, restate your motion one more time. And do we have a second?

 

Sample I move that the record submitted by the Senate Ethics Committee, any motions passed today by the Senate, and any documents resulting from the actions taken during the Senate Business Committee today be submitted to the Pulaski County prosecuting attorney for his consideration.

 

Flowers Second.

 

Dismang We have a, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Senator Ballinger, you’re recognized for discussion on the motion.

 

Ballinger I yield to Senator Hickey.

 

Dismang Senator Hickey, you’re recognized for discussion.

 

Hickey Members, I would ask that you vote nay on this motion. The– we developed a process. There are some questions that have been brought up about this process today, but I know how hard our Senate Ethics Committee worked. I know how they labored. I know how all of you have labored over this. So I would ask that you not pass this. Thank you.

 

Dismang All right. Senator Flowers, you’re recognized for discussion.

 

Flowers I’m speaking for the motion. Like I said, in all my years and decades of practicing law, I’ve tried to explain and instruct and defend clients, even prosecutors and clients, based on laws that are made in bodies like this. Even our state ethics laws, not the one that we just came up with in the Senate, but anything that the Ethics Commission does in terms of reprimands or any kind of punishment for violations of ethics rules of Arkansas, it’s not just limited to that. It can be prosecuted. And I’m telling you, it offends me to think that we, because we are elected as senators, are above some kind of criminal process that people that I know all over the state of Arkansas, all over this country, have to suffer criminal consequences. Unemployment insurance benefits, people that submit those for pay may not get them, but they’re filed on as felons because they submitted it.

 

Dismang Thank you, ma’am.

 

Flowers These things need to be attended to. We need to account before we send out laws to the state of Arkansas, the citizens of the state of Arkansas. It’s a travesty that we have to protect one another and sit up here praying every day when we come in here. Justice should be served.

 

Dismang Yes, ma’am. Members, is there any other discussion? Senator Sullivan.

 

Sullivan Yeah, just a question of process. So I don’t know the answer. Does a prosecuting attorney need a motion by this body to make that move? That serves no purpose that I’m aware of.

 

Dismang I’m proud to not be an attorney and do not know the answer to that. Senator Hester.

 

Hester I make a motion, a substitute motion that we adjourn.

 

Dismang All right. We have a substitute motion to adjourn. We’ve got a second. Any discussion on a motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed. Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you, members, for your time today.