Arkansas Senate Bill SB42

Arkansas 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/13/25
• Report Pass: 3/13/25
• Engrossed: 3/17/25
• Enrolled: 3/19/25
• Chaptered: 3/20/25
• Passed: 3/20/25

Caption

An Act For The Office Of The Lieutenant Governor Appropriation For The 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.

Summary

SB42 is the fiscal year 2025-2026 appropriation bill for the Arkansas Office of the Lieutenant Governor. It sets the maximum number of regular employees at five and establishes salary limits for four listed positions: Chief of Staff/Legal Counsel, Communications/Policy Director, two Lieutenant Governor Security Officers, and an Executive Assistant/Scheduler. The bill also authorizes funding for regular salaries, employee matching costs, operating expenses, and conference and travel expenses, with a total appropriation of $572,911 from the State Central Services Fund. The measure is a standard annual budget act rather than a policy bill. It directs how state funds may be spent by the Lieutenant Governor’s office during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, and requires compliance with state procurement, accounting, budgetary, revenue stabilization, and salary-control laws. It also includes legislative intent language tying expenditures to the agency’s budget requests and supporting materials, and an emergency clause making the act effective July 1, 2025.

Impact

SB42 updates Arkansas law only for budgetary purposes by appropriating state funds to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor for FY2025-2026 and setting staffing and salary authority for that office. It does not create new substantive programs or alter the Lieutenant Governor’s powers; instead, it governs the office’s operating budget, personnel cap, and permissible spending categories under existing fiscal-control statutes.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed third reading in the Senate unanimously, 34-0, and then passed the House overwhelmingly, 94-1. The lack of committee transcripts or recorded debate suggests there was little public contention around the appropriation itself.

Contention

There is no recorded committee debate or documented opposition in the provided materials, so no specific policy disputes are evident. The only notable point of potential interest is the inclusion of two security officer positions and the overall staffing and salary levels for the Lieutenant Governor’s office, but the voting record indicates these provisions did not generate significant resistance.