To Amend The Law Concerning The Executive Secretary Of The Arkansas Trails Council; And To Amend The Law Concerning The Participation Of The Department Of Parks, Heritage, And Tourism On The Arkansas Trails Council.
Summary
SB251 amends Arkansas law governing the Arkansas Trails Council. The bill changes the provision related to the council’s executive secretary so that the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism’s Tourism division designates a representative to serve on the council and that representative serves as the council’s executive secretary. In practical terms, the measure clarifies and formalizes the role of the department’s tourism representative within the council’s structure.
The bill is narrow and administrative in scope. It does not create new programs, funding streams, or regulatory requirements for the public; instead, it updates the statutory language describing how the Trails Council is staffed and how the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism participates in the council’s work. The change affects the internal organization of the council and the responsibilities of the department representative who serves in this capacity.
Impact
SB251 updates Arkansas Code § 22-4-404(c) to revise the Arkansas Trails Council’s executive secretary arrangement and the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism’s role on the council. The primary legal effect is to align the statute with the current administrative structure by specifying that Tourism designates the representative who serves as executive secretary. The bill affects the Trails Council, the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism, and the internal governance of state trail policy coordination.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate 34-0 and the House 97-1, indicating strong bipartisan approval. No committee transcripts were provided, and there is no indication of significant opposition in the available record.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention around SB251. Because the bill is a technical amendment to council administration, any disagreement would likely have centered on the exact wording of the executive secretary designation or the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism’s role, rather than on broader policy questions. The near-unanimous votes suggest that any concerns were minimal or procedural rather than ideological.