Caldwell, Murdock share thoughts on LEARNS Act

Local lawmakers shared their opinions this morning on the newly-approved legislation regarding education as well as proposed changes to unemployment benefits.

District 10 Sen. Ronald Caldwell, R-Wynne, said it is hard to come up with a statewide package because rural Arkansas has different needs than other areas in the state.

"There were some minor changes made to the LEARNS Act bill before it passed through," said Caldwell. "I had shingles and was excused for two days, non-voting on that bill. It has many good things in it, but it still has things in it that need to be fixed and we were trying to fix them on the front end. The bill is now going to the State Board of Education to have rules written on how many aspects of this will work. I am always cautious and careful of endorsing something when I don't know what the end result will be. In general, it is a good bill and it needs to be done.

“There are a lot of things that need to be addressed in our school systems and it is hard to come up with a statewide package into one bill because what we need in rural Arkansas, whether it be the Delta or southwest Arkansas, will not be the same to what they want or need to do in Jonesboro, Conway or northwest Arkansas,” continued Caldwell. “Usually one package does not fit all districts. Hopefully, the rules they are writing will address most of the issues."

District 9 Sen. Reginald Murdock, D-Marianna, said the bill was pushed through the legislature quickly, but said there are pieces of the bill that are 'attractive.’

"That legislation is a huge piece of legislation that was pushed through the legislature and there are still a lot of things that need to be talked about and worked out," said Murdock. "There are rules that need to be made that apply to the law that has been passed. There are way more questions right now. There are also some things that are attractive and things within the bill that seem to have some potential to address some of the issues that need to be addressed. It is just way too early to know for sure because of the way the process went. We have been hearing about it and we knew it was coming, but once it became a bill, they pushed it through."

According to Murdock, he heard no complaints from constituents in his district prior to the recent passage of the bathroom bill.

"The restroom bill is unnecessary for what it does," said Murdock. "I think districts

(Continued from Page 1) can handle that themselves by making sure to take care of the needs of children, even those who are different and make different choices. The districts can handle that and have been handling that. It is not something that we needed to get involved in in Little Rock. I think it is unnecessary. Nobody was complaining to me in any of the districts that I represent about this issue. Nobody in the Delta was complaining to me about it."

Caldwell said the bathroom bill states that a person cannot enter a bathroom designated for the opposite sex when it is known that a minor is in the bathroom as well.

"The bathroom bill is a safety issue, it is not a discriminatory issue against certain people, although some will claim that it is," said Caldwell. "Basically, the bill says that you can't knowingly go into a bathroom designated as opposite of your birth sex and be in that bathroom with a minor. It doesn't say that you can't go in there, just that you can't be in there with a minor. If you were born male and you want to go into the girl’s bathroom, it doesn't say that you can't do that, it says you can't do that when there is a minor in there."

According to Caldwell, the change in unemployment benefits is to push more people back to work following the Covid pandemic.

"The changing of unemployment benefits from 24 months to 12 months goes back to getting people back to work after Covid," said Caldwell. "A big issue, post-pandemic, is getting people off of the federal payroll and back to work. The issue is that everywhere you go, there are help wanted signs. If you got laid off from a job and there were no job openings and you couldn't find a job, I could understand having 24 months, but that was put in back during the pandemic. It was to be used as a bridge to help people find new employment.

“Now, with so many job openings, that would be the reason for the change,” Caldwell continued. “You can either go to work and earn a living or you can sit home and draw a government check. Most people will make the argument that they paid their unemployment in and the answer is no you did not. Only employers pay the unemployment insurance and that is a burden on the employers, not the employees."

Murdock said the change is something that will take away from those who have been displaced over employment.

"This change is going to affect everyone by going from 24 months to 12 months," said Murdock. "It cuts it in half and that is not good for those who have been displaced from employment. Obviously, I don't think it is fair either, but that is something that will take away from those who have been displaced and affect their ability to take care of their natural obligations, so that is concerning."