Code Revision Commission

So that we didn't have to do the markup and that's cannot require, uh, it's based on. We don't have to do a markup. We just have to, I mean, there's the markup would be. It'd be so big you wouldn't even make it wouldn't even be legible probably because everything would be. Would have to doing that, we can just say the current sentence a, uh, I'll use my. Code Revision Commission will come to order. Uh, good afternoon. Appreciate everybody being here today. Uh, the first item of business is the approval of the minutes from our November 14, uh, 2023 meeting that's attached to exhibit B, uh, or is included in your packet is exhibit B. I'll give you a minute to take a look at that and then if, uh, we'll entertain a motion to approve. Uh, those minutes. OK, we have a motion to approve the minutes from November 14th, 2023. Is there a second? Any discussion? All in favor of approval, say aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved. The next item is consider consideration consideration of authorization of expense reimbursement for official commissioners, uh, commission duties by commissioners pursuant to 2516902. This is something that I think we do annually at our first, uh, commission, uh, meeting of each year and, uh, so I would entertain a motion for Uh, to authorize the expense reimbursement. Emotion. Is there a second? Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Next item of business is references in the Arkansas Code of State agency rules affected by the Code of Arkansas rules, that's found in exhibit D. and, uh, I guess, OK, I'll turn it over and let, let, uh, our code revisor explain that. Mr. Speaker, the bureau is currently working on a code of Arkansas rules project that will codify state agency rules. As part of that project, rules will be receiving new number assignments. There are state agency rules referenced in the Arkansas code, and we just wanted to bring that to you all's attention and under exhibit D, you'll find an excerpt from 12303D, which authorizes the commission and the Bureau to correct manifest effort references and laws. In the past, we've handled these type of numbering issues under our own authority. We just wanted to bring this to you, your attention to see if you would want us to proceed differently or to continue to do that as we find state agency rules that we can match them up with the new numbering we will just do that. On her own and so mechanically, as that happens, are those things that that you as staff are able to do unilaterally or ultimately do all those changes come to the commission for final review. In the past, we've just made those unilaterally and that's been the past practice for, for time immemorial, unless it was unless it was something that was difficult or where we couldn't make an exact match between the new numbering scheme, we would bring that to you all, but if it was a clear match with a new number. We would just make that change on our own and when there's any question related to that, I assume that you're, uh, Communicating with the agencies, boards and commissions that promulgate the rules to make sure that everybody's on the same page. OK. Any questions related to this? And I guess you're not necessarily looking for any action, just you wanted to bring this to our attention. Yes, sir, to see if there's a different way you want to proceed or if we just would continue proceeding the way we've done. Any, any questions, comments? Any objection to them, to the staff proceeding in that regard? I think it would be good that um, And I don't know how much trouble this would be, but as you make those changes, if you would, if you could maybe email an update or maybe periodically email an update of what to the commission of what changes were made based upon that and that way there's everybody's, Um, able to, if we're asked about it, we're able to go and see exactly what changes have been made. Yes, that's something we can do. OK. Any other questions, comments, if, if no objection, then, uh, the staff will proceed as been the past practice with great, with, with regard to, uh, making or updating references to, uh, the various rules that might be found in Arkansas code. All right, so that brings us to items E and F, uh, item E is a report of the Title 19 recodification Working Group and, uh, that report is found at exhibit E and uh. Is Ms. Bennett gonna push that or, OK, then I'll recognize you. I think we, our system is, you're just push the button and it should, should light up. OK. Um, I'm Camille Bennett. I'm the commission representative to the working group, as you will recall at the end of 2022, this group asked the staff of the Bureau of Legislative Research to form a working group and create a proposed draft recommendation of title of the reorganization of Title 19. Um, they did so with the working group, uh, they did an excellent job of assembling people across state government that were affected by the various sections. And I really want to commend the staff for their excellent job of preparing the drafts, organizing the work, breaking it down into small pieces that were easy or as easy as possible to review. I, I think what we produced was a, uh, wonderful product. Uh, we kind of broke it into. sections where there are non-substantive technical revisions if there were times that something seemed not technical, then, uh, we would bring it back to the commission for their review. Uh, Travis Fowler of the auditor's office served as chair of the group. He did a wonderful job of, uh, moving this forward, so we're happy to answer any questions, uh, there was a reorganization into some other titles in the code. Uh, one of the problems with, uh, Title 19 as it was not set up well to begin with, so various, um, code sections had been put into Title 19 that belonged better elsewhere. And if you're an attorney trying to do research that makes your life really difficult. So if you look at Appendix A to the report that shows where we, uh, recommend moving sections to other sections of the code. So happy to answer any questions that I can answer I'm quite sure the staff is happy to answer any questions, but we recommend that this be, uh, uh, a bill in the next session. Any questions? And I might say one other thing. I think we've set up a model that if we need to go to other code sections for review, we've got a really good model to do. And just for the benefit of the commission and anybody that, that may be, uh, Watching online. Could somebody kind of give us. State government that were part of that, go ahead. Uh, there were 11 members representing the Code Revision Commission, the governor's office, Attorney General's office, treasurer of State's office, auditor of state's office, Arkansas Legislative audit Department of Finance and Administration, Department of Transformation and Shared Services, Arkansas State Claims Commission, Arkansas Ethics Commission, and the Arkansas Bar Association. And was the, I assume that the recommendation, what was finally put together was unanimously approved by that group. All right. That's the report and that brings us to, are there any questions or comments on the report? If not, that brings us to item F which is uh the proposed draft recodification of Title 19, uh, any questions related to this, I guess what we'd be looking for is, uh, a motion to have it drafted, uh, and then I assume that, uh. That then the legislative members of this commission would, uh, work to sponsor it and to bring it forward during the next session. Any questions on the new or the proposed Title 19. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, I've got a question, OK? You recognize? Thank you. um, just Looking at and it might be. Might be before the uh Working group or for BLR. Just looking at what we did. As far as recommendation of transfer of subject matter to other code titles. A few that affected state employees. They recommended that we slide into Title 11 for labor and industry relations. And my question is if we have other codes like, um, Title 21 that deal with state employees and they've got a separate section for like workers' comp is why did we chooseitle 11 versus either Title 21 or potentially Title 25. Um, as far as the workers' comp provisions, I, I think the reason the working group chose that was because there's existing workers' comp provisions in Title 11. And so they thought it would be helpful if all the workers' comp type provisions were together in the same title of the Arkansas code. OK, so is it, is it not a concern because it, it, workers' comp is also addressed in Title 21 for state employees. Is there, are we co-mingling labor relations to the, the average Arkansas worker versus the separate provisions for any type of, uh, labor relations with state government by not keeping it intact with state government. I don't think there was any intent to do that. I think the intent was just to keep those provisions. Together that were already in Title 19 and just moved them to Title 11 because there was already workers' comp provisions there, but there was no, I don't think there was any intent to commingle type provisions or anything like that. OK, cause I just looking in Title 11, I didn't see really any, and of course, it was cursory because I just got this today, but I didn't see any references in Title 11 to state employees. They all basically got pigeonholed in 21 or 25. And so I guess just, just voicing my concern there if we're talking labor and relations or, or labor to industry, not necessarily to government should these, should those anything in in tide currently in Title 19, dealing with state employees. Should they Be pushed down into state employee titles. Yes, sir. I think the intent was it would become a new chapter entitle 11, not part of those existing workers' comp provisions that it would be in the same title, but not under the same umbrella of law. So it still remain a separate provision just for state employees and workers' compensation, but it would not be intermingled with those existing private sector workers' comp provisions. If that does that help, I guess it does, but when you look in Title 21, chapter 5 Subsection 6, it deals with workers' compensation for state employees. So I thought, my thinking would be if we fall in line with other, other recommendations that it would move into a subchapter of that versus in title. Um, 11, but yeah, it, it may be one of those situations there was multiple places that would make sense and so the working group just chose the one that made the most sense to them. Yeah, and if I could add to that, you know, there were several times we ran across. options, you know, things could fit here or there because those other chapters have not been codified. I mean, this is the first codification we've done in 40 years and there's probably a lot of other chapters that need to be reviewed and I, I'm with you, it makes sense for all that to be in one spot. Um, so maybe that's something we can look at in the future. OK. Thank you. What what happens this here is, that's the. Title 19. Yes, sir. That's the OK, so what if, so if As to the items that. We mentioned that we should be moved. Are they left in here? Or are they, will that require other action by us to move them elsewhere. They would be incorporated into the bill. So the way we were envisioning this is you would have the section of the bill that would be enacting the new Title 19 and that's what that's that's essentially what that is and then you would have additional sections that would take care of those transfer type provisions within that same bill. OK, so, so, uh, it sounds like to me that maybe we could. Take up the recodification of 19 and then, uh, maybe that's something that y'all could look at in the meantime about what that other bill looks like for those other sections outside of it and then maybe report back to us so we could do a follow up before session and I, I think the, the what we were envisioning was they would be part of the same bill, yeah. Matthew, do you want to speak on that? I was thinking the same as Kevin. I saw it as a single bill with. 10 or 15 sections. Probably that would, you know, one section repealing the current 19. Another section is setting up the new 19, which will be big. We're at like 1500 to 2000 pages at this point. And then several isolated sections that would be, for instance, the stuff on the Claims commission set out in the new chapter and those, those wouldn't be as long as the whole 19. But then we'd get everything set up in the right places because it would have been repealed when we zapped the entirety of night. Any other questions I guess in in. Whether it be Senator Clark or myself that will present a new package, I guess during that bill creation, if you would give us the The sweet spot, why we chose certain other titles versus other titles that may also house the same information that way our colleagues, if they catch it and have those questions, we'd be able to address that pretty quickly. And those were decisions of the working group. So, you know, I mean, if y'all want to, we can at a subsequent meeting, we could have, you know, members of the working group here to discuss that. What if we wanted to just about it. Why don't, what if we were to go ahead and take a motion on it as is, ultimately, Uh, in all likelihood, it's going to be Senator Bryant, Senator Tucker, myself and Representative Gazaway, uh, would likely be the ones carrying the bill. And then as we get it drafted, if we have questions, we could bring it back either to the commission or to the work or find out from the working group. And that way if, if, if we ultimately, if everybody ultimately ends up feeling comfortable with where it's at, we don't necessarily have to come back and have a meeting if. Senator Bryant, is that, is that address your concerns? So I'd entertain a motion to that to that effect that uh well essentially to approve the recodification of Title 19 and then as the legislative members have it drafted if, if, uh, any questions come up along the way, uh, we'll either get with the, uh, working group or if there's something else that we think needs to be changed about that we can bring it back to the commission for everybody to weigh in on. We have a motion. OK. And second, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. So that brings us to, uh, Everybody's favorite. Favorite uh biennial exercise technical corrections. So you have a packet there, exhibits G1 through G19. And, uh, we're gonna try to go through these. As efficiently as possible. So I'll just, uh, I'll just turn it over and uh for the explanation, so we'll start with G1, OK. Mr. Speaker, this is exhibit G1 contains proposed technical corrections to Amendment 51 to the Arkansas constitution. These corrections evolve correcting punctuation, conjunctions in a list. You can see these corrections on page one, line 35. Page 2, line 3, page 2, line 21, page 2, line 29. Page 3 line 12, and page 3, line 14. These are typically the types of technical corrections we do under our authority under 12303, but in this situation, since this is a constitutional provision, we did not have that authority. The commission also did not have authority under 12308 because these provisions are outside the Act that actually amended the Constitution. However, the General Assembly has the authority to amend these provisions under Amendment 51, Section 19. Any questions? So essentially what this is is that in a list. Instead of having the and before the last item or the or before the last item, we might have an and an additional and in the list or an additional or in the list. Any questions, discussion? I guess just just looking at the do not caught up by section, so the intent of this will be a bill to during the ninety-fifth. General Assembly. I'm just in the, in the do not codify I apologize, I'm I'm just not reading this, so I might catch myself as I'm reading it, but the enactment of this act that we'd be passing in the ninety-fifth shall not imply expressly or implied repeal an act passed during the regular session of the ninety-fifth. Would it not be the ninety4th? Where this was actually passed. this, um, proposed correction bill, sir, would be in the, in the ninety-fifth. And I think this is just a standard boilerplate that we use to make sure that this technical correction bill would not supersede any other act during that session. OK. Well, and, and also the, the enactments that we deal in technical corrections, they may or may not have arisen in the previous session. Some sometimes we come across things that are, they've been in the code for decades, uh, potentially. And so it's, I think it's to ensure that, you know, when we say it's a technical correction, it's not meant to be a substantive change that's just an adequate add uh an additional assurance to the to the body that When we pass this, we're not gonna have the unintended consequence of substantively changing something that we might already be dealing with in the session itself. Good question, though. Any, any other questions? If not, is there motion to approve? In a second, any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? G1's been approved. G2. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G2 contains the proposed technical corrections for Title One of the Arkansas Code. There's one proposed correction, it is repealing section 12 125, because the section expired in August of 2021. You can see this on page two, line 16 of the exhibit. OK. So this is being removed because by its terms it already expired. All right, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. G3. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G3 contains a proposed technical corrections for Title 4, the Arkansas Code. There's one proposed correction. It is simply ratifying a previous decision by the commission to correct the grammatical error. We have a motion in a second and he just, or is there a second? OK, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Yeah, let's have it G4. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G4 contains the proposed technical corrections of Title 5 of the Arkansas Code. Section one is proposing to remove a reference to a Class A misdemeanor. The offense referred to sexual indecency with a child only provides for a class D felony or a Class C misdemeanor. The bill that added this language originally did have a class A misdemeanor, but it was subsequently amended to change that to a Class C misdemeanor. However, this reference was not changed. All right. And then the other changes here are just clean up. I see like adding. Firearm behind federally licensed or adding firearms to federally licensed dealer. Yes sir, and Sections 3 and 4 are adding the word other in front of person to clarify that it's the death of the person who received the substance, not the actor. That's just typical terminology in the criminal code, um, section 5 is adding conveyance on line 19. That's just for consistency with the rest of the section that talks about delivery and conveyance. Section 6 is clarifying that the actor is an accomplice for purposes of an offense under that subchapter, the language seemed Somewhat unclear and referring to an accomplice under the section. Section 7 is just adding vulnerable in front of person to be consistent with the defined term. And then section 8, this one's a little more complicated, so I'll go into a little more detail. This one's adding the preposition to on line 19. This preposition was here before the 2023 amendment to this section, and it appears it may have been mistakenly stricken because it does not make sense for a party to determine the appropriate period of time. For these damages in addition to the court. It also causes there to be a silence on who the damages are actually paid to. If you go back and look at the act that that made the amendments to this section, it appears the intent was to add the Attorney General as an authorized party to file actions under this law. And this too may have been mistakenly stricken. On the, the reference in section one, the Class A misdemeanor that's being deleted. Were there other references to class A misdemeanor that were changed to the Class C misdemeanor or, um, Uh, I guess I, I would be curious as to whether or is that the only reference and therefore being conservative as we are and not trying to get into a substantive change. The thought is if the author of the legislation didn't change it, we're not going to, but the fact that we're not going to unilaterally change it to a class C misdemeanor. The class A misdemeanor now no longer exists, so therefore we can delete it. Yes, sir, there this was in, it's in an enhancer provision for offenses committed in the presence of a child, and I do not believe there is any other references. To that Class A. OK. So basically, we're going to clean up the code because that, that's completely inoperative now and then if, if someone, if the real intent was to include the Class C misdemeanor then somebody can run a bill to that effect to put that in. Yes sir. Any questions? Is there a motion to approve G4? The emotions or a second. We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes G5. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G5 contains proposed technical corrections to Title 6 of the Arkansas Code. Section one is removing obsolete language. Section 2 is removing obsolete language. Section 3 is removing obsolete language. On this one, if you look on page 4, line 5, you'll see the expiration provision. Section 4 is correcting a grammatical error on line 19, you'll see that it's adding or to the list of items. Section 5 is ratifying a previous decision by the commission to correct a reference error. Section 6 is ratifying a previous decision by the commission to correct a reference error. Section 7 is ratifying a previous decision by the commission to codify this subsection at 663 317. And that's all the corrections for this exhibit. Any discussion Is there a motion to approve G5? The motion is there a second? There's a 2nd, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes just for a point of clarification, some of these things that are ratifying previous decisions of the commission, those decisions, we would have taken that action last year following the legislative session and essentially said we're going to come back and do a technical correction. Yes, sir. These are the decisions made at the June and July commission meetings. And they were often conflicts, Mr. Speaker, where the commission was resolving it, but we kept a list and we'll come back and this way it'll end up in the act history where there'll be some official action. OK. All right, G6. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G6 contains the proposed technical corrections of Title VII of the Arkansas Code, Section 1 is ratifying a previous decision by the commission to merge two acts from the 2023 session, uh, just as a reminder, this was language based on a suggestion from the State Board of Election commissioners. Section 2 is ratifying a previous decision by the commission to correct a reference error in section 3 is ratifying a previous decision by the commission to correct a conjunction. Any discussion on G6? chair on on section one. So all, all this language is existing language, even though the board of elections may have weighed in. They didn't. Squeak anything or add any additional wording. This was their proposal to merge those two acts, which then you all adopted at the July commission meeting. So this is now part of the existing law. And there was no, there's been no subsequent change to it since that time. OK. Any other questions? But This language was in existence. Prior to that, correct? Just in two different sections. There were two different acts that required you all to merge them together. So, yes, the language came from those two acts. The State Board of Election commissioners proposed to you all, uh, a merger of those two, which is, which is represented in the subsection, you all approve that. We incorporated into the code and this is just simply ratifying that prior decision. Thank you. Any other questions? Is there a motion to approve G6. Is there a second? Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? G6 is approved. G7. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G7 contains proposed corrections of Title VI of the Arkansas Code, Section one is ratifying a previous decision by the commission to correct a grammatical error. Section 2 is correcting a reference error by inserting nuclear before fuel. This is a term that's used throughout that section and the subchapter. Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes G8. Mr. Speaker, exhibit GA contains the proposed technical corrections for Title 11. There is one correction for this title. It is a ratification of the previous decision by the commission to correct reference errors in this section. Any questions. Is there a motion to approve G8? A motion, is there a second? Second, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes G9. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G9 contains the proposed technical corrections for Title 12. Section one adds language to recognize post-release supervision created by the Protect Arkansas Act. Section 2 changes. is authorized to in May and adds language recognized post, post-release supervision created by the Protect Arkansas Act. Section 3 ass clarifying language to recognize an exception to be employed by the department that is in subdivision D2 of the section. It also attempts to clarify the type of an indication required under the section. The phrase written photographic identification did not appear to make sense. Section 4 is correcting terminology in the Child Maltreatment Act. The Child Maltreatment Act generally uses child and is a defined term. You can also see the use of child earlier in the sentence. In section 5 corrects a reference error. This office has been transferred to the Department of Public Safety, but the act that did the transfer did not update this language. Any questions? Motion and second, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. G10. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G10 contains proposed technical corrections to Title 15 in the Arkansas Code. Section one is clarifying a reference to golf lessons and making a minor grammatical change. Section 2 is clarifying a reference. I'll go into a little more detail on this one. The changes on page two, line 18. It appears the language of a minimum of And I was intended to apply to Little too because it would not appear to make sense to require an exact investment of $500,000. You can compare it to 4 A on line 6 and 7 for this type of language is not subdivided, and it's easier to see how the minimum language applies to both amounts. And then section 3 is removing obsolete language. You can see the expiration language on line 26. And the language that took effect after July 1, 2012, beginning on line 36, is there a 2nd, 2nd, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Yeah, I have it, G11. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G11 contains a proposed technical corrections for Title 16. Section one makes a name correction and adds language throughout this section to recognize post-release supervision created by the Protect Arkansas Act. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that after this was sent out, um, we found a, a mission on page one of the exhibit line 33. It should probably say on that line, a parolee who is on parole or a person. Who is on post-release supervision. And so we would request that. We'd be allowed to insert a person if this, um, section is approved. What line was that? That was, um, line 33 on page one. He would insert or, uh, it would insert person before post-release supervision. All right, any Any questions or discussion. Uh, would you Yeah, you keep moving. Well, go ahead and go through the whole thing and then we'll come back to that. Section 2 adds language to recognize post-release supervision created by the Protect Arkansas Act. Section 3 is a ratification of a previous decision by the commission to correct a reference error. Section 4 is a ratification of a previous decision by the commission to correct the word usage error. Section 5 is a ratification of a previous decision by the commission to correct a reference error. Section 6 is a ratification of a previous decision by the commission to correct a reference error. Section 7 is to delete a term not used in this subchapter. This language was borrowed from a Title 20 statute, but the language out of the Title 16 did not use this term. And then the final section, section 8, is adding clarifying language. It appeared to us the back to back with clauses seems somewhat awkward, and this language clarifies that the settlement is accomplished by a settlement agreement with the miner's guardian. All right, why don't we take up the proposed amendment to this and just refresh our memory what that what that is? Sure. This is on page one of exhibit G11 line 33. We think it would read better if it said a parolee who is on parole or a person who is on, or a person who is on post-release supervision. So we'd be adding that phrase to that line. The thought being if you're on post release supervision, you're not really a parolee. That's correct, Nick. OK, we have a motion to adopt with the. To adopt G11 with the recommended change to line 33. On page one, is there a second? Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. G12. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G12 contains proposed technical corrections for Title 17. Section one is a ratification of her previous decision by the commission to correct a grammatical error. Section 2 is clarifying references and making them consistent throughout the section. Section 3, I'll go into a little more detail. This is removing language that became obsolete in 2005. You will see this language beginning on page 3, line 1. This was an issue that was brought to our attention by Representative Collins. The language making this language obsolete is not in this section, but was in a separate uncodified section of the act. That act was Acts 2003, number 6661. The uncodified section stated, this pilot program of Leishenger for foreign trained graduates and the granting of Leishenger foreign trained dentist will expire at the close of the 2005 regular session of the Arkansas General Assembly. I'd also like to mention that this language, though it appeared to be obsolete at the time, was amended in 2019. The change muster shell and strike the language and a good moral reputation and character in two Kappa. Any questions? Is there a motion to approve a motion, we have a second. Section 4 is removing obsolete language. You'll see that 1783, 302 is being repealed by section 5. Section 5 is repealing the opposite language. You can see the language making this obsolete on line 26. Section 6 is adding language to correct a grammatical error. Section 7 is conforming to a criminal offense to the requirements of the Arkansas Criminal Code. The first defense under this section only authorizes a fine. So it's a violation under Arkansas code 51108. A subsequent offense is an unclassified misdemeanor. You can see this on page 5, beginning on line 34. Mr. Speaker, one thing to add to this is we did not offer any suggested language, but we'd like to point out that there is no fine amount that is listed for this offense. The language simply says punishable by fine, but it does not state an amount. You can see this on page 6, line 2. And then section 8 is repealing obsolete language. Uh, this evaluation reference year occurred in 2000. Section 9 is similar to Section 10. The primary difference here is that the misdemeanor offense does have a fine listed. The fine in jail time for this misdemeanor line up with a Class C misdemeanor. So it made sense to classify it as a class C misdemeanor. Section 10 is correct in an obsolete reference to the ophthalmology section of the Arkansas Medical Society, which is no longer in operation. We contacted the Arkansas Medical Society, and they indicated that the Arkansas Oophthalmical Society was now the appropriate entity. Section 11 is correcting that same issue as in section 10. Section 12 is adding clarifying language on the membership of the board. It's essentially moving some of the language around to make the section read better and adding language to clarify how the members are appointed. Section 13 is making a small stylistic change and removing obsolete language. The act that's referenced here on line 33, regulated and tax for production, importation, and distribution of opiates and cocoa products and has since been superseded by the Controlled Substances Act. Section 14 is adding clarifying language to make the subchapter references clear. Section 15 is similar to Section 14. And B, it's simplifying the criminal offense by using a reference to subsection A rather than repeat all of the provisions in subsection A. Again, it's also clarifying that the first offense is a violation because only a fine is authorized, and the second offense is unclassified misdemeanor. Section 16 is clarifying a term in this subchapter, the definition practice of pharmacy is the term that is used. Section 17 is clarifying the offense is a violation because only a fine is authorized. Section 18 is removing obsolete language on rulemaking. Section 19 is removing obsolete language. Section 2 is removing obsolete language. Section 21 is clarifying that this provision applies to the Arkansas State Medical Board. There's another section of law on the subject matter that deals with other boards. Section 22 is removing obsolete language. Section 23 is clarifying a criminal offense as an unclassified misdemeanor. Section 24 is formally creating the Arkansas Board of Paediatric Medicine and adding clarifying language. This is the name of the board as it's used throughout the code, but it's never officially created. Section 25 is clarifying a criminal offense as an unclassified misdemeanor in removing superfluous language. Though this defense calls itself a Class A misdemeanor. It does not match the penalties of a Class A misdemeanor. So it would be better classified as an unclassified. Section 26 is removing obsolete language and adding language being repealed from subsection B and section 27. You will see the changes on page 14, line 10. Line 21. And lines 333 34. Section 27 is being repealed because that language will now be in subsection A and subsection A addresses how the vacancies are filled. Section 28 is clarifying that the Arkansas Psychology Board is to use 173102 when reviewing criminal offenses of applicants and licensees. That is a section for all licensees to use when making these decisions. And if you go, if you look at 1797312F. It simply refers you back to 173102, and there are no longer waiver provisions under subsection H. Section 929 is correct in the word usage error. It's on page 16, line 2. Section 30 is removing obsolete language and clarifying references. You can see the expiration provision on line 12. Section 31 is removing obsolete language and clarifying references. Section 32 is clarifying a reference. This one will require a little bit more explanation. This appears to be a manifest reference error as a definition in 4 is for a chiropractic physician, but this subchapter regulates acupuncturists. This error was introduced by an amendment when these sections were in a bill, the definition of a chiropractic physician was added to 17102, 102 by an amendment, and it took the number of acupuncturists. And renumbered that definition, but the amendment did not update the reference here. Section 33 is removing obsolete language and correcting typographical error. Section 34 is removing obsolete language and making stylistic changes. Section 35 is removing obsolete language. You can see the obsolating provisions on line 32 and line 36. And that's all for exhibit G12. Any questions? I think it's trying to capture that you contract with the investigator. Yeah, page 8. 12. Sub 2. The governor. Um, also, what, what's the This section too, this governor shall appoint, how, how is that? What is that correct? It seems to be placing. It's my breed something mandatory on the governor, is that, is that the intention or is it for clarification purposes, or sir, it's for clarification purposes. If you look at the introductory language there at subsection A. It already indicates that the state board shall consist of 7 members appointed by the governor. The one had that language repeating that of the governors and just so for clarity, we repeated that language in two, but that directive is already up there in the introductory language. the new subsection A. So you, you think it's necessary to say it twice to to add. It I, I say that just. Because it's already clear that the governor is going to appoint all these people. I think something. Over and above that. As to these two, that's, that's my. No, but In the event, the language proposed in that first section is. At a point. Any other questions? I mean, I guess ultimately either, either we add the governor shall appoint or we should go up to one and delete the government. Right. Yes, yes, sir, yeah, that, that would be up to you all on how you wanted to address that. I think the intent here was just to have 1 and 2 be consistent, but I think you could do that. It is taken care of in that introductory language. Or you could put a coal in after shallow point and one and reformat in a subdivided list. I think some intent to do that is how we got in this shape anyway because 2 starting just referencing 2. And I think it was wanting to go back and pick up that shallow point in A1 and it just didn't do it. To concerned positions that are appointed after consulting with the optometric Association. No, sir. These are members at large. So Yeah, but yeah, I see what you're saying, my suggestion. would get caught up in that discussion. I mean, I Personally, I could be fine either way. I share the concern about adding something where it's the governor's shall do something, but, but I get I understand why y'all, why you. Suggest adding it here because it's, it's implicit for me in that I think we, we would, of course, defer to however you all wanted to do it. What, OK. What if we what if we strike it from both and in one it'll say after consulting our comma. 5 members who are licensed and. 2 But I guess we still need sir. Uh, because we're changing that from down there. Is that better? Seems like it's either one or the other. Any other comment. That Is that a motion subject to changing appointment to a point. Or right, that's what we have to at least do that. All right, we have a motion to approve G12 with the, with the one change being to. Page 8, line 11 appointment, changing it to a point. Any, uh, So we have a 2nd. We have seconding discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? G12's approved. G13. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G13 contains proposed technical corrections for Title 18 of the Arkansas Code. Section one is adding clarifying language to a criminal offense. As originally written, there was no conduct element for this offense. And Section 2 is ratifying the decision of the commission to correct reference errors. Any discussion questions. Emotion, is there a 2nd, 2, any discussion? All in favor of say. Uh huh, huh. Any post. All right. Motion passes. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G14 is proposing technical corrections for Title 19. Section one is removing obsolete language. The reference law here is being repealed by the Title 23 Corrections Bill, which will be in exhibit G16. In section 2 is removing similar references to this obsolete law. Any questions? We have a motion. The 2nd. Second, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes G15. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G15 contains proposed technical corrections for Title 20. Section one is ratifying a decision by the commission to codify this subsection at 2022, 1011. Section 2 is clarifying references. I'll go into a little more detail on this one. You'll see changes on page 2, lines 10 and 25, and page 3, line 3. When you look at this language, you'll see that the references to permit do not appear to make sense. The reference to a change removal or replacement is to the managing entity. For example, if you look on page 1 line 35, you'll see that the change removal or replacement language is referring to the managing entity, not the permit. The language already provides that the permit is void and that a new permit must be issued. You'll see an example of that on page 2, line 1. Any questions? Emotion is there a second? Any discussion? On favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes G16. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G16 contains proposed technical corrections for Title 23. Section one is ratifying the decision by the commission to correct a grammatical error. Section 2 is ratifying a decision by the commission that clarifying language and redesignate subdivisions. Section 3 is ratifying a decision by the commission to redesignate a subdivision. Section 4 is ratifying the decision by the commission to correct a grammatical error. Section 5 is removing obsolete language. This is a reference to the law being repealed by Section 7 of this exhibit. Section 6 is removing obsolete language. Again, this is a reference to the law being repealed by Section 7 of this exhibit. And section 7 is repealing an expired subchapter. This is this underlying law that's been referenced in those previous sections that we've talked about. You can find the cessation provisions beginning on page 32. Line 23. And the insurance commissioner certified back in 2016 that this pool has ceased operations. Any questions? Is there a motion? Motion and second, any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. G 17. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G17 contains proposed technical corrections for Title 24. Section one is formally created in the name of the executive director of APRs. This name is used throughout the code, but is not officially created. Section 2 is repealing obsolete language. Section 3 is repealing a section that has also codified at 1452106. That assignment seemed more appropriate as it concerns municipal police departments and not retirement. Any questions? On that section is is the other language that's codified, is it identical? Yes sir. OK. Any questions? We have a motion. Is there a second? So The 2nd, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes G18. Mr. Speaker, exhibit G18 contains the proposed technical corrections for Title 25. Section one is repealing language concerning an emergency session of the General Assembly. This is not a type of session that is recognized by our Constitution. I'd also like to say that we did not offer any suggested language here, but this section does omit fiscal sessions. Section 2 is removing obsolete language. You'll see this on page 2, line 1. Section 3 is removing obsolete language? Section 4 is clarifying the name of a state entity. We checked with this office and they're using. Cybersecurity is one word and they support this change in the code. Section 5 is correcting cybersecurity. Section 6 is correcting cybersecurity. Section 7 is correcting cybersecurity. Section 8 is removing obsolete language. The Human Development Center in Alexander was permanently closed in 2011. Section 9 is clarifying a reference and removing obsolete language regarding biennial appropriations. Section 10 is repealing obsolete language. This language dates back to an Act from 1844. In this section was tied to sales under that act. However, the general authority for the sale of state lands is now under the commissioner of State lands. Section 11 is repealing a reference to a non-existent entity. This board has not created a reference in the code anywhere other than here, and we could not find any evidence that was ever created by statute. Section 12 is repealing a reference to an abolished entity, Section 13 is repealing a reference to an abolished entity. Section 14 is repealing a reference to an abolished entity. Section 15 is repealing a reference to a non-existent entity. Again, we could not find any evidence this board was ever created and it's not mentioned in the code anywhere other than here. Section 16 is repealing obsolete language. You'll see it as temporary provisions for 1995 and 1996. Section 17 is removing obsolete language and clarifying a reference. Section 18 is repealing obsolete language. The provision making this obsolete can be seen on lines 31 and 32. Section 19 is removing obsolete language. Section 2 is clarifying a reference to make it clear that it's wastewater services being provided. Section 21 is repealing obsolete language. Section 22 is removing obsolete language. You will see that on the next page, line one. Section 23 is repealing obsolete language tied to August 1, 2017. Section 24 is correcting cybersecurity. Section 25 is removing obsolete language. Section 26 is removing obsolete language and clarifying that this is a continuing duty to keep articles of incorporation on file. Section 27 is repealing obsolete language tied to August 13, 2001. And section 28 is adding clarifying language that this board is now the Arkansas 9/11 board. And that's it for this exhibit, G18. Going back to section one. Is emergency session and uh. I think you indicated there's no, no reference to that in the Arkansas constitution, is that term used anywhere else? I'm not aware, we did not look at that, sir. But we're We're confident it's not referenced, it's not referenced in the Constitution. And if the Constitution doesn't have a provision for a session, we have no authority to meet. Just making sure we don't have, there's the Constitution only references regular fiscal and extraordinary. And the word special gets used, you know, in the code, some, uh, but that's an extraordinary session, a special is an extraordinary. It's used in that context, you know, and I don't know if here that was intended to be a synonym for special as well, although it used extraordinary at the same time. We can search for other references to emergency if you'd like for us to. Yeah, I mean, I, I think we go ahead and proceed, but I'd like. I'd like for y'all to look before we run it just to make sure that there's not something else out there that's OK. Do you want us to look for the specials as well while we're doing as well. It probably be worth knowing, yeah. We, we couldn't add beyond our. That's I intended, but I don't, I maybe it wasn't, I don't, I don't know, but that's not for us to do. That's what I would say is and I guess part of it would depend on when was that code section enacted, was that prior to the. Was that prior to the advent of even the possibility of a physical session. I'm almost certain this section was, aren't you, Kevin, that this would predate fiscal sessions. How did we when physical sessions came into being was I assume that that. At some point somebody looked to try to make sure that every reference included, so maybe this is just something that was overlooked in that process. Yes, sir, and if you in this bill also noted we caught a biennial. There was an effort after fiscal sessions came in to clean up all the references to biennial, which were throughout the code. we still stumble across one every now and then. So if they were going to add fiscal, that have to come from we, we could not. I, I think that, I think that, right, I think we would, it would take a legislative, I think it would take an act to add that just being consistent with how we've been very conservative about not getting into that. But if y'all will do that search and then maybe that's something to add as a. Not necessarily, it's not necessarily a technical correction, but it, but for the legislative members, we could. We could maybe take a look at, at handling that. All right. Any, any other questions? There's a motion. Is there a second? Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The odds have it. G 19. Mr. Speaker, this is the last exhibit containing, uh, proposed technical corrections for Title 27. Section one is removing obsolete language and making a stylistic change. Section 2 is removing obsolete language concerning disabled World War One veterans. This is on page 2, line 3. Section 3 is removing obsolete language. Section 4 is removing obsolete language. Section 5 is removing obsolete language. The section references being repealed here or references the sections that have already been repealed. By other laws or they're appealed by this bill. Section 6 is repealing obsolete language. This is the definition of a World War One veteran that's referred to in section 2. Section 7 is clarifying a criminal offense. This is another instance of an offense that only authorizes a fine, so it is a violation, not a misdemeanor. Section 8 is similar to Section 7, a violation, um, that was named as a misdemeanor. Section 9 is repealing a subchapter that is also codified in Title 5, as this is dealing with sentencing, we thought it was more appropriately codified there in Title 5 rather than here in Title 27. Section 10 is repealing an obsolete section. This section was addressing inclusion of traffic violations based upon the emergency highway Conservation Act from 1974, which is now obsolete and was fully repealed in 1995. Section 11 is making stylistic changes and clarifying the language to use permit or license and match 2716702. Section 12 is clarifying references and correcting a reference to a fund. There is no State highway fund in this language predates the creation of the State Highway and Transportation Department fund. However, the county aid fund does exist and is used to provide appropriations of funding to counties, including highway funding. And finally, section 13 is removing obsolete language. Any questions? We have a motion. Is there a second? Second, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. So I, I would ask that for the legislative members, if, if y'all will, uh, bring like the fiscal session issue to our attention. I would also say, um. I don't know if it's worth it, but it may be worth looking at that some of these that are referencing. Where there's a reference to a Uh, misdemeanor or I guess it was all misdemeanor offenses, but they or maybe even felony, but they don't match up with any classified if we could get a list of those, it might be worth taking a look to see if there need to be substantive changes to plug it into a. To a classification as opposed to having. Uh, references to things that are unclad. All right, so that concludes. Our technical correction package, which they've all now been approved. I think we had two that have small amendments to based on the motions. And so if y'all will get those prepared for the legislative members. So that brings us to item 8, the report of the code revisor. You're recognized. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention briefly that on the recodification of Title 19, that there may be, um, an issue with how we normally do the publication of the supplements. So generally, as you all know, the supplements contain the acts that were just recently passed by that legislative session. The Title 19 recodification will be a little bit different in that that would be a situation where the supplement would essentially make the existing bound volume obsolete. So we've checked with Lexus, they can do a soft bound supplement up to about 500 pages. You all may want to consider instead doing that as a replacement volume, but that's something that can be talked about in the future when we run up on that issue, depending on what happens with the Title 19 recodification. The other issue I'd like to bring up is that we would also want to include saving type provisions in the Title 19 recodification Bill. Of course, there will be legislation during the 2025 session, there'll also be affecting Title 19. So we would include provisions in that recodification bill to account for that, so that anything passed in that session was still control and be given effect, and we would then incorporate it into the subsequent recodification. And that's all I have. Any questions? Any questions? All right, anything else? If not, we'll be adjourned.