Bill
HB 1830
Arkansas HB 1830tightens oversight of contingency-fee contracts for the Attorney General by restricting fee bases, empowering government attorneys, and standardizing contracts.
Note on sources and scope
- The materials provided contain multiple, inconsistent documents all labeled “HB 1830” from different jurisdictions (an appropriation for Tunica County, an Illinois education bill, and an Arkansas Attorney General procurement bill). These appear to be distinct bills that share the same bill number. Below are concise summaries of each document as provided, with status and likely impacts.
1) HB 1830 — Appropriation for Tunica County (Casino Strip Resort Boulevard)
- Purpose: Appropriation to Tunica County for repaving and repairing traffic lights on Casino Strip Resort Boulevard.
- Key detail available: Bill title only; no text, dollar amount, or specific project schedule provided.
- Who is affected: Tunica County local government, motorists and businesses along Casino Strip Resort Boulevard (casino/resort traffic), local contractors performing paving and signal work.
- Status: Listed as “Died In Committee.” Introduced January 13, 2025. Because the bill died in committee, no appropriation was enacted.
- Impact: Had it passed, it would have provided state funding to repair/repave a local roadway and traffic signals, improving safety and transportation access for a commercial corridor; without enacted funding the county must rely on other funds.
2) HB 1830 — Illinois: Amendment to School Code (Evidence‑Based Funding / Professional Review Panel)
- Purpose: Amend 105 ILCS 5/18-8.15 (Evidence‑Based Funding for student success) to give the Professional Review Panel (PRP) the discretionary authority to study any proposed General Assembly legislation that would affect Tier fund distributions or adequacy targets used in the evidence‑based funding formula.
- Key provisions:
- Adds an explicit authorization for the PRP chairperson to direct reviews of proposed legislation that would impact Tier funding distribution or organizational unit adequacy targets.
- Leaves the broader evidence‑based funding framework intact (adequacy targets, local capacity, state funding calculations remain elements of the model).
- Who is affected:
- School districts and other organizational units whose state funding is determined by the evidence‑based funding formula.
- State Board of Education and members of the Professional Review Panel (PRP).
- Lawmakers: the PRP may produce analyses that affect legislative understanding and debate about funding changes.
- Procedural / timeline (as provided):
- Multiple legislative actions listed (readings, committee referrals). The materials indicate the Illinois HB1830 was read, amended, passed in both chambers and is associated with Act 689 (notifications dated April 2025). If accurate, the amendment would become law per the normal implementation timetable for amendments to the School Code.
- Potential impact: Adds formal review/oversight capacity which may slow or more closely scrutinize legislative changes that would alter school funding distributions or adequacy targets; could increase transparency and technical input into funding decisions.
3) HB 1830 — Arkansas: Amendments to contingency‑fee contracting by the Attorney General
- Purpose: Amend Arkansas Code §25-16-714 to impose controls and limitations on contingency‑fee contracts procured by the Attorney General.
- Key provisions:
- Prohibits contingency fees based on penalties or civil fines awarded (fees cannot be computed on penalties/civil fines).
- Requires that government attorneys retain full control over litigation strategy; outside counsel cannot make final decisions without government attorneys’ consent.
- Requires a supervising government attorney to be personally involved and to attend settlement conferences.
- Requires the government to retain authority to reject decisions by outside counsel; defendants may contact lead government attorneys directly.
- Mandates a standard contract addendum detailing responsibilities of private counsel and the Attorney General’s office.
- Clarifies the section does not expand the Attorney General’s authority to enter contracts beyond existing authority.
- Who is affected:
- Arkansas Attorney General’s Office, outside private law firms retained on contingency, defendants, and parties in state litigation.
- Procedural note (from provided text): Text shows amendments and internal drafting metadata (dates in March 2025); sponsors listed include Rep. M. Shepherd and Sen. K. Hammer.
- Potential impact: Strengthens governmental control over publicly retained contingency counsel, limits how contingency fees can be computed (excluding penalty-derived amounts), and requires standardized contractual safeguards—intended to protect public interest and oversight in contingency litigation.
Bottom line
- The materials supplied relate to three different HB 1830 bills. The Tunica County appropriation lacked substantive text and reportedly died in committee. The Illinois variant would expand the Professional Review Panel’s authority to study legislation affecting evidence‑based funding and appears to have advanced procedurally (materials reference Act 689). The Arkansas variant tightens procurement and oversight rules for Attorney General contingency‑fee contracts, prohibiting fee calculations on penalties and reinforcing government control of litigation. If you want, I can (a) try to locate the full text/dollar amounts for the Tunica appropriation bill, (b) extract the precise PRP amendment language and effective date from the Illinois Act 689 text, or (c) produce a line‑by‑line synopsis of the Arkansas procurement changes. Which would you like next?
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
