Arkansas Legislative Council (ALC)

Members, please take your seats. We'll get started. If you will, uh, stand with me Newer, thank you for Traveling grace for everybody to get here, let us do the people's work as you watch over us. Thank you for for giving us our sins and our shortcomings. Lord, just give us traveling grace as we go home and have a great weekend with our families in Your name, Lord, everybody said. Amen. Thank you. Welcome to. Arkansas Legislative Council. Members, your everything's in your. Packet uh if you've had a chance to look at the minutes, I'd take a motion to prove in minutes. I have a motion in second all in favor I. It's past next step, members, we have a. Uh, report for July 2024 with Doctor Silva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Carlos Silva, the bureau of legislative Research and to then presented in July revenue report as we look at the first month, we had a 16 of $615.8 million on gross revenue collected. That's a decline of 4.3% from last year at $643.3 million as we make some of those adjustments that necessary adjustments we're gonna have for an available for distribution $527.7 million. That's a decline of around 4.6% from $553.3 million from last year for the month of July. As we move to page number 2. We just had one month here for the cumulative deviation and this is based on the forecast for May 15, 2024. That's a new forecast that have coming out and that that had happened before uh we have produced this report so that's uh increase here of 2.8 million. Surplus of $2.8 million as we continue to look into the consumer credit uh consumer credit, we see an increase in balance, um, from From last year to this year, that is slow increase there, outstanding balance had increased again for 2.1%, for 1.9% in June and we also have seen a slight increase on delinquency rate at 2.03% from last month at 1.85%. Those are national numbers and it's still below the pre-pandemic level around 0.5% below pre-pandemic level, and we also see an increase here on late payment that's edging a little bit higher, but we continue to follow up and and update uh the members with, with that. And if you have any further questions, I'm, I'm up to respond to any further questions. Thank you. Thank you Doc Silva. uh, we have any questions for Doctor Silva? Not seeing anything. Thank you, sir, for your report. Next up, um my co-chair has the executive subcommittee report. The executive subcommittee met on Thursday, July 30th, and approved a waiver request from the Whitehall School District to exceed the cooperative purchasing for construction services, acurate amount. The subcommittee also heard presentation from Kurt Per and Knight on the education facility property insurance study. The subcommittee met again on Thursday, August 22nd, and reviewed and approved an emergency rule for DHS division of county operations. Rich, I move for adoption report and be happy to answer any questions. Not seeing any question to have a motion to have a second. 2nd on favor I. Po's report is adopted. Next up, we go to the subcommittee reports administrative rules representative. Uh, Evans, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, uh, the rules subcommittee met on Tuesday, July 30th. All actions taken during that meeting were final pursuant to the motion passed by the Legislative Council at its June meeting. Two rules were pulled from consideration at the agency's request and all other rules were reviewed and approved. Subcommittee met again on August 22nd. Subcommittee considered and accepted recommendations by Group 2 agencies concerning the extension or repeal of rules in accordance with Act 781 of 2017. Pursuant to Act 595 of 2021, the subcommittee received agency updates on outstanding rulemaking from the 2023 regular session. Approved one agency's request for exclusion from the reporting requirements of the act due to ongoing litigation and filed one written update relating to the 2024 fiscal session. The subcommittee also received and filed quarterly reports by the Department of Corrections and the post-Prison Transfer Board. Two rules were pulled from consideration prior to the meeting, all of the rules were reviewed and approved as noted in the report. Mr. Chairman, I move for the adoption of this report as presented. OK, we've got uh. Question, uh, Representative Collins you recognize the question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd request that we pull out the DFNA rule for separate consideration? OK, uh, that is for. Give, give, I'm sorry, I missed. DF and I, the, uh, rule regarding the driver's licenses. OK, pull that one out for a separate vote. OK, members OK, members without objection. Page 3 F1 is the driver's license bill we pull for separate votes. Everybody understand that? OK, uh, with the exception of that, all in favor to uh well let me take a motion for the. Rules first I have a motion. OK, excuse me, I've got some more questions. I can't see this new board. We're gonna get, we're gonna get something a little bigger to see. Senator Tucker, you are recognized. Where are we procedurally before we vote on the rest of it, I just wanna also, uh, move to pull out the State Board of Election Commission rule. OK, members without objection will also pull the State Board of Election commissioners, uh, rule regulating voter registration that'd be separate everybody understand that. Mm OK, with all but those two I have a motion to approve. have a motion to prove it. I have a 2nd. On favor I. Opposed All right, first up, do we have anybody wanting to speak on those rules first. Now we're gonna take a vote on it. Representative columns you recognized. Uh, it's been, uh, discussed, but on the DFNA rule, um, you know, I believe this rule goes beyond rulemaking that would be permissible under law and into policymaking, um, obviously there's been a, a way things have been done by DFNA for a long time to change, uh, in midstream like this with no change in the law is, uh, disruptive to people, hurtful to people, and, um, it just seems like it oversteps what the agencies that should be in this case. So for that reason, I'm a, a no on this one. I assume we'll have time to discuss the other one when the, uh, motions before us. Thanks. Because I you members uh saying no. Further Questions or statements, this is gonna be on the driver's license rule. Everybody understand that? On favor to approve, say I. Opposed Passes. Next up we're gonna vote on the rule regarding voter registration. Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll, I'll be brief. I know this has been litigated as well, but, but, you know, we have a law on the books in Arkansas that you can use an electronic signature for anything. You can use it for a court document. You can use it to get a loan for $10,000,000 if you want. You can even use an electronic signature to register to vote. If you do it at a certain location. So the only exception we have for electronic signatures in Arkansas is if you are using it to register to vote other than at, at a designated location. And I, I, I think to prevent, uh, voter fraud is a worthy goal that I support, but it's also, uh, it needs to be balanced with a couple of things. One of those is evidence, and the other is the goal of making sure that all citizens of Arkansas have the right to vote. Uh, the last several election cycles, Arkansas has ranked either last Dead last or next to last, and the percentage of adults who are registered to vote. So if we want to talk about freedom in this state, there's nothing that's more vital to freedom than the, the, the right to vote. Um, and so while I believe that it's wrong for a fraudulent vote to be cast, and we need to do what we can to prevent that from happening. It's also wrong to prevent a real live Arkansan, our people from being able to vote. We have 3 documented cases of voter fraud in Arkansas in this century, and we have thousands of documented cases of Arkansans being denied the right to vote. So, you know, Expect this to pass today, but I hope we can work in the next session, not only on preventing fraudulent votes, but also in in empowering and making sure that the people that we represent can, can go to the polls and vote. So I'll be voting no on this. OK not seeing any more comments without objection to this rule is approved. It does not require. Next up, Next up we have uh. Claims review. And center Dotson, I believe he made it in. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the claims review litigation reports oversight subcommittee met on Monday, August 19th, 2024 concerning litigation reports oversight, the subcommittee reviewed 5 litigation matters and 2 settlement matters. The subcommittee also filed a report from the Department of Finance and Administration submitted pursuant to Act 557 of 2023. Concerning claims review, the subcommittee affirmed the rulings of the Claim commission as to 6 reissuance of warrants, one salary adjustment for awarded claims and 2 denied and dismissed claims. The subcommittee amended the amount awarded by the Claims Commission on one awarded claim. The subcommittee reversed the decision of the Claims Commission concerning one awarded claim, one awarded claim was held by the subcommittee pending receipt of further information. Finally, pursuant to Arkansas code annotated 195601, the treasurer of the state submitted a claim for additional general and special revenues that the city of Sheridan should have received based on the census count. The subcommittee approved inclusion of these amounts in the claims appropriation bill. I move adoption of the report. the motion is second on in favor of adopt the report say I. Pod report Report is adopted. Uh, next up we have the EBD, uh, division center Hickey or recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The employee benefits division oversight subcommittee met on Tuesday, August 20th. The subcommittee heard a presentation for representatives of the Seal Group on wellness programs. Which included recommendations for Arkansas. I moved for adoption of the report. Thanks, sir, seeing no questions, uh, I have a motion to have a 22, all in favor say aye. Proposed report is adopted. Next up I believe Representative Portner is going to give our game and Fish state police. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The game and fish. State police subcommittee met on Wednesday. The subcommittee discussed and adopted the recommendations to be included in the final report for the Arkansas Firearms and Concealed carry laws study. I move adoption of the report. OK members uh have a motion to have a second. All in favor say aye. Post report is adopted. Uh, number 11 on occupational licensing, uh, representative Meeks, you're recognized for the report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The occupational licensing review subcommittee met on Thursday to receive reports on occupational authorizations from the following entities. The Arkansas State Plant Board, Pesticide Division, the office of the Secretary of State, the Arkansas Insurance Department license division, the Arkansas Dietetics Licensing Board, the Arkansas Department of Labor, and licensing. Inspector division, the Arkansas Department of Health Center for Local Health, the Arkansas State Board of Registration for Foresters and the Arkansas State Police Regulatory Services Division. I moved the adoption of the report. You have a motion 2nd on favor I. report is adopted. Performance evaluation and expenditure review peer report, center this man. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. The Pierce subcommittee met on Monday, August 19th, submittee received reports, reviewed requests, and approved the following various temporary appropriation, American Rescue Plan Act Appropriation infrastructure Investment, Jobs Act appropriation and restricted reserve fund transfers. I 10 an appropriation request from the Public Defenders' Commission is held in the report. Um, I moved for adoption of the report in regarding the held item, the Public Defender commission approved or provided information that was requested by the subcommittee also moved. ALC approved the request for the appropriation by the public defender commission in item 110. Do we have someone here from the public defenders. Greg Parris, Arkansas Public Defender Commission. Thank you, Mr. Bears. Um, Kind of walk me through some of the testimony you gave in peer on Monday, I believe it was about the positions and how many you actually hired in the caseload and the reason for this request just a small synopsis. Uh, we initially had received some funds from Governor Hutchinson. With the expectation that we're going to apply for ARP funds, which we Along with the prosecutors did. We were both agencies were awarded $4.5 million and that wasn't with the assistance of certain senators and representatives. Uh, we had all agreed that. Both prosecutor and public defenders that the funding would be for 45 positions. But we were not gonna feel the 45 positions. Because we didn't think there were that many attorneys that we could attract. And we wanted to extend the funds as long as we could. Uh, there was also an agreement that we were going both pay the same amount of money to whoever we hired. So we would not have people jumping back and forth uh for more money as we are currently experiencing in our full-time positions. We were able to hire with the 4.5 million at one time, I think we were up to 37 attorneys. The prosecutor, coordinator, and I have remained in constant contact, I think. And I don't want to, I don't want to be real specific with Bob, but I believe Bob told me they were in the high twenties at one time is the most they were able to have and so we, we proceeded with the same amount of pay. And of course, our funds expired, were depleted faster because of the number of people that we had hired statewide to address the backlog. Uh, from, and when I say the backlog, we were working off the dates when the precurrium orders were entered by the Arkansas Supreme Court that began in May, excuse me, March of 2020. Until June of 2021, which was the last procurrium date when things started opening back up. And so those were the days that we isolated on for cases. When you look at your request and it's tied to requests and personnel, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask you those questions together at this point so that it expedites process. You're requesting 45 positions with this dollar amount. How many actual positions will you feel? and I've, I've represented and I will continue to represent. We currently have right now I think. 32 field with one already tendering a resignation with since I was here Monday. I do not intend to replace anybody. Who leaves. So my word to this committee is if I've got 31 employees. I'm not gonna go out and hire 32, 33, or 34. Whatever I lose while these funds, if we're granted these funds, whatever I lose, that money will be used to at least extend as much as possible. Those who remain on the payroll. So if I understand it correctly, you got $153,990.33 left in the account. Payroll on August 30th is $83,170 which leaves a balance of 70,82033 cents doesn't leave you enough money to make the September 13th payroll as you are. So, I think my request, it shares. Will give me the lead way would be that monthly you come to this committee and give us an update on how many employees are there, what that monthly payroll looks like and what kind of caseload that group of folks is knocking out in that 5000 caseload if I remember that number correctly from Monday. And keep us updated month to month as we go forward. I'll, I'll be more than happy to do so, Representative Woodlaw, and send that report. By noon on Thursday prior to council to, uh, staff. Yeah, it's a week before on Thursday by noon to staff. Yes, sir. OK, Mr. Chair, I'm perfectly OK with the report moving forward. Another question first, uh, right now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Parris, when you came in the other day to peer. You told us that, uh, uh, you were talking about the, the backlog. So in March of 20. There were 62,873 cases that were filed. At the end of June of 21. There was 4000. 44 cases pending. So where's the backlog? I mean, and that's all over the state and in a large chunk of those is Washington County and Pulaski County. So where's the big problem with the backlog that you brought to us because of COVID and I'm, and I'm not, I, I apologize, I'm not following your question. I think you said the term 62,000, and may I ask what you're referring to? Because that was not the number that was filed. Between March of 20 in June of 21. I just wanna make sure I answer you properly. So and I, I thought one of your spreadsheets and and uh this, this is the number of cases pending, and I believe it came from uh AOC. And it's as a uh uh March 13th of 20 through June of 21. And the total number of cases. That were filed during that time frame with 62,873 and as of 20th of August there was 4,404 pending. Can you tell me what documents you're looking at because I would just say there were not 62,000 cases filed between March of 20 and June of 21. They were not, I, I did provides the backlog for that time frame. The number of cases and I attached it with an exhibit to my letter. That talked about the number of cases that were filed, and I believe it was roughly for that time period around 11,000 cases. During that time frame. Th that March of 20. To June of 2 of those, the report from the AOC reflects that of those cases during that time frame, there are currently open as of the report, which was probably a couple of months ago. 5250. Felony cases statewide. And roughly 250 juvenile cases statewide, and that report is what I attached as Give me just one second if you would, Mr. Represented. The email that is from Scott Graves with the administrative Office of the courts dated May 16, 2024. That I attached. That breaks it down by counties with a total showing what is still open. And that email reflects that I specifically asked Mr. Graves back in May. The cases that are open. And still undisposed as of May 16th, and that's what I received back from ALC have a conflict there because it's just like in in Washington County for example, uh, of that 62,000 that was reported to me, there's only 11% and that's one of the, the, the top counties that have pending cases so I just didn't see where the backlog is. So anyway, let's, let's go on to something else. So here we are. You're about to run out of money. And you're sitting before us. So, Would you think that it's very poor planning on your part, uh. To to be coming in at the last minute asking for money. Could you not see this train coming down the track, 8 months ago where you could call somebody, uh, to, to resolve this before you have to start laying potentially laying, uh, attorneys off. We, uh, we began this process in April and as you will see at least from my email that I attached. I mean, my email is dated May 16th, so we began this process in April. We knew then if you're not getting some results to the quagmire that you're in. Did you pick up the phone and call anybody and say we need to rush this thing along we're running out of money. Who'd you call? We, uh, reached out to my liaison at the Capitol. Uh, it was sent over to audit as you will see, Mr. Quelbaum, who I personally know has been very assistful. It was forwarded to them so they could do some research on it as well. We've met with them. We've stayed in constant contact with them as well. Yeah, I just have, I have problems with, you know, public being a public defender is difficult enough, but when you're having to worry about whether or not you're gonna have a paycheck next month, that's even more of a challenge. So there needs to be a little more, uh, uh, thought going forward to ensuring that these attorneys are going to get paid, so that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, uh, Senator Hester, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman Rice. Uh, I think I just wanted to make clear that we, we all know that, that the public defenders do not control the backlog. You don't, you don't set court dates. The judges do all that. That is, if there continues to be a backlog, that is, that is out of your control, unless you're the one continually requesting that judges push court dates off, uh, and I'm understanding that you are public defenders are not pushing court dates off. We are not, and, and I will say. I would love for my public defenders to have less cases. Truly love for that because the numbers that we are having. Far exceeds national standards, and I know what that brings about in the future if it hasn't already started. Yeah, and, and I think this money becomes really important. I mean, there was a, a federal judge ruling that said now you have to represent, uh, at least in part of the state, everyone, even if they're worth, even if they're worth $100 million you have to represent them now, right? We have some absurd ruling, the uh the, the ruling which was handed down this week and I've kept the appropriate parties advised of it's been in the making for over 2 years. It's a federal lawsuit out of the Northwestern District of Arkansas. Where I was sued as well as my chief public defender in Benton County and a district court judge asserting that public defenders need to appear at all uh. For the purpose of if we are appointed, we can advise our client then or at least argue bail on their behalf. We have defended that. The opinion that came down this week from Judge Brooks, it's a 39 page opinion. Says we will be appearing. Uh At all first appearances. Now, the dilemma that I'm facing right now is this lawsuit really only applies to Judge Anglin's court in Benton County. Judge Anglin has first appearances at 6 o'clock in the morning. In fact, he's going to have one tomorrow morning on Saturday. Where a public defender will be there. I've got 3 other district judges in Benton County. Our first appearances, various times. I've got two circuit judges who have their court calendars. I've got juvenile court has theirs. I've got district court that has theirs. So you're gonna run into a quagmire that someone can't be there. And then I received a phone call yesterday from my manager in Jonesboro. Where the judges are saying we've seen that order. Although it's not applied to our court, we are part of the Western District. We expect you to be here now. As well. And the dilemma that I now face because I know we can't cover all these. This is impossible. Do I ignore a federal judge's order for the entire Western District. And say it only applies to that one court. Or do I give it credence throughout the entire Western District? Because if I don't give it credence, We're just another lawsuit possibly away for that court. And there were another lawsuit away for the Eastern District of Arkansas. That this is not filed in. But if you've got a federal judge's opinion in one court, in one district. I mean, I, I'm more presuppose the federal judge may rule the same way if the lawsuits filed in the Eastern District. And the bigger problem is when you get to these rural areas. Uh, and I come from one. First appearances can be held because they're not in front of judges with courts of record. There's no court reporter. It could be at 4 o'clock this afternoon. It could be at 1:30 this afternoon. It's when law enforcement calls a judge and says, Judge, are you available? Sure, I'm out of court this time. Come see me. They won't get a phone call, except for 1:30 be there. And if I've got a public defender that's 30 miles away in another court. Then you gotta start shuffling. How do you have somebody there? Or if you don't I'll be looking at probably a contempt citation in federal court. Well, I, I, I appreciate your, uh, letting us know because it's something we have to be aware of, but I think rulings like this are why we have courts of appeals. And, uh, because it's, it's at a minimum unpractical, uh, as, as you've, uh, it's like it's, it's not possible to represent someone that you've never met, you understand no facts, and they might be the most wealthiest person in the county. Uh, but now with this judge's order, you have to represent them. Um, anyway, I, I suspect I do not know that we'll be appealing this, but I am glad that the legislature at least is aware that Uh, of the burden that was just put on you. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. Center Chesterfield you Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure. What the problem is with the money. I do know we have the need has Your division come under audit and they set you misuse funds. No. No, it wouldn't, when, Your division come under audit and they set you misuse funds. No. No, it wouldn't, yes or no it's fine. Well, just for an explanation. Quterbaum contacted me about they wanted to see how the 4.5 million had been spent and, and I've worked with Ricky in the past. Greg got to work with and I, I told him, I said, Ricky, this is real easy because the only only way that money could be spent is for salaries. That's it's it. That is it. It cannot be used for any other purpose. And you need the money now in reality, I think this is what should be, don't over talk that lawyer. I know y'all have a tendency to over talk. You need the money now, is that what you're saying? Yes, ma'am. OK. That's, that is basically all I needed to know. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, uh. Not seeing any more central disc man you have a motion for the report, would you add the requirement, uh, for the month. Do that through a substitute or what do you, how you just However you want to substitute your motion to adopt the report and add the monthly report in there, make a motion, we adopt the port and the, uh, item 110 that was previously held. In addition to that, we'll have a monthly reporting that will occur the Thursday before or no later than the Thursday before the council meeting on the status of the public defender's office and these additional Thursday the week before. Yes, sir. OK. uh, I have a motion and a second. Everybody understand all in favor. I oppose. Thank you. Thank you for your being here today. Thank you. OK, members next step. For her review report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The review subcommittee met on Monday and reviewed methods of finance, discretionary grants, and services contracts. Two grants were held as shown on page 2 of the report. The first is for the health department with the Urban League and the department has requested to withdraw this item from legislative review. Uh, the second grant, which was held, was actually released today. Uh, the contract for corrections department for the medical contract will be held over until the September meeting. That contract is found in your packet on page 13, number 8. And I moved adoption of this report, including the DHS grant. They have a motion, or excuse me, I've got uh Central Chesterfield. Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd like to visit with the Department of Health, please. Department of Health, if you come up. These identify yourself. Matt Gilmore, Department of Health. Don Adams Department of Health. Senator Chesfield, Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at C1, 1 of the grants that was held. Um, I visited with Mr. uh Hamilton about the term effective culturally competent communication and resources. He said he was not familiar with the language cause and he is the head of the Urban League. Could you tell me where the language came from? Not off the top of my head, I can't senator. I can try to find out, uh, you know, I think they work, you know, they. The grant information is submitted to our staff. They prepare that and, and, uh, submit that. So I, not off the top of my head, but I can try to find that out and get that, get that to you. Well, one of, one of my concerns is, um, we're talking about a grant of 150,000, which in the scheme of things is a relatively small grant. Um, I have been working, been reaching out to members of this committee who had questions and concerns. And what they're saying is they want more specificity. Is that why you held a grant or do you not anticipate bringing it back with that specificity. Based on the comments and the questions that we that we got in here, um, this week, we want to make sure that, um, Those are addressed. We want to also make sure that what we've paid them for in the past is, is what is for what they did, and I, and I think we're seeing that. But I think we also want to make sure that, um, going forward that, that what they can offer meets the priorities of the Department of Health and the state and its needs. So I think we just want to further evaluate it and make sure we get our ducks in a row. Share with me what some of those priorities are. Um, Health education, vaccine, uh, awareness of, uh, of local healthcare providers, um, uh, you know, I think one thing they were going to do was offer some mental health, which is, you know, kind of in the space of DHS but general just health improvement, health awareness, connecting to communities and their areas across the state with minority populations. Let me just say that this this organization was founded in 1910, as I'm sure you're very much aware and uh Mr. Hamilton worked with the Department of Health. Previously, we had meetings they wanted to know how was the money spent, brought in the documentations, etc. because I sit in on the meetings. I don't want this grant to go away. Yes, ma'am. I understand. Uh, this is one of those organizations that has cachet in communities. And I think when people trust you. They're more likely to take advantage of what you're offering. And there are some organizations, especially in the minority community, the NAACP, which deals with legal. But this organization has always dealt with employment. And critical to employment is good health. And so I would ask that you work with them and perhaps bring this back so that we can review it after you have met with them. Because people are reaching out to me. Early in the morning and I'm not in early in the morning kind of person. This is critically important to my community and I hope that the health department. We'll take that into consideration that you will work with the Urban League for the specificity that's needed and not put in language that is a red flag to so many of my colleagues on this board. Uh, effectively culturally competent communication that is not something that makes any sense to anybody. And should not have been a part of this. It should have said specifically what they were gonna do. Am I making any sense? We will go back and try to figure out what that language came from, but I do think it's important though when we're working with different communities and populations and that sort of thing that we do, that we are able to communicate with them in, in their culture and that sort of thing. So I don't think that you also know that you and I both know that those are red flag languages, language terms in this environment, uh, so let's be more specific. and let us hope that you will bring this back because the community needs it and they have that footprint in the community that they developed during COVID. When they were passing out those, uh, uh, kits for folks to be tested that they were providing those test kits that they were going into these communities where others didn't have a footprint. This is an important grant. It's not a lot of money. But the folks who have reached out to me consider it very, very important, and I do too. So I appreciate you and thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to ask the questions. Thank you, Senator Chesterfield. Representative Thank you, Mr. Chair. As one of the members that raised concerns and questions, uh, I'll be very specific with, with what I ask in, in the committee is to, just to know what they're doing with the funds, uh, primarily from review of the website, there was no knowledge, there was, there was nothing on there other than just, uh, a couple of blurbs about health and health outcomes in the community, uh, probably very worthwhile organization. All we're asking is, how are you utilizing The funds, and are they, are they being used, uh, for health outcomes in those communities? Have you received any communication back on how these funds are being utilized? Representative Betty right now, we're just going through our records to make sure that, you know, I think there was concerns about, you know, the type of work that they were doing. We want to make sure we've dotted our I's and crossed our T's on our end, and then we're gonna evaluate, as I said, evaluate further, you know, what they can offer. We want to make sure that what they provided us is accurate and what we've got and documented is accurate, so. We're, we're gonna keep digging into it. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. Um, but, but those are our concerns. I think that was what was voiced by this committee is that those funds are being adequately utilized and in a proper manner. So, thank you. Yes, sir. Representative Es, did you, you make the motion while ago for the report. Um, yeah, on the report that I read, I moved adoption of the report, including the DHS grant supplemental coming after this for this report, uh, move adoption Act 2. Uh, on favor I. report is adopted representative these, uh, Mr. Chairman, I move to suspend the rules to take up an additional supplemental item supplemental item we need to, uh, approval take that up all in favor say aye posed representatives, you're recognized. The additional item is a request for an RFQ approval review. The request is from the Department of Education. Uh, it is for the division of elementary and secondary education to provide professional development activities to include knowledge, skills, experience and expertise for the development of a research-based process for the implementation of professional learning communities and OSP has approved the request. OK, I'm gonna ask the department to come up, uh, and give us a little explanation. Mr. Branston, won't you come on up with them? We'd like to see you, we'd like to see you at the table. Representative Es, would you repeat the motion we've got requests from a member, the motion I made was just to suspend the rules to take up the supplemental item. We, we will have the motion after we have. Please recognize yourself. Thank you for being here today. Good morning, Courtney Solis Ford, Chief of staff for the Department of Ed. Greg Rogers with the Department. Rascompartment a bed. Thank you all for being here. We, we do have represented Branscombe. At the table. Uh, can you give us, uh, some background on this. Yes, so, um, Arkansas code 6202305, uh, provides that any funding for professional development above a certain amount stated in law shall be used for the development of professional learning communities, and so, um, as we have done for the past 7 years, we make that funding available to school districts to implement professional learning communities. Um, we went through an RFP process if you all recall back in the. Spring, um, we had a contract on the agenda for your review in May. We pulled that contract, uh, to give time to address some questions that have been asked and then the vendor rescinded their contract completely. And so we then explored other options that we could make available to school districts and decided to do an RFQ instead, we have for the last two months been working on, uh, gathering information, getting input, and drafting that RFQ as we were about to. it and, um, provided the information to OSP. We were then informed of the requirement that we bring it to you all for review. So we do apologize for the last minute request, but we did not want to wait another month to get this information out and to start making this funding available to school districts. So that is the reason for the last-minute. Greg or I'm gonna recognize the co-chair represent Wardlaw. Thank you Miss chairs, one question for Mr. Branscombe, first, where's your office at today? You're looking at it. All right, now let's get serious. Miss. Courtney, and I'm not gonna try to do your last name, so I'm gonna just call you Miss Courtney. How many times have you, uh, worked in procurement for the Department of Education. I, I, well, as chief of staff, I try to be aware of the procurements that are going on. Yes, sir. It's really hard for me to understand how you guys didn't know that this should have been done 10 days ago to meet. The definition of the agenda for council this week. And it's kind of aggravating that we find out at 2:15 on a Thursday afternoon before we roll into council on Friday morning. That we've got to add a supplemental agenda item. And You guys know you have to have this approval, you know the laws, as you just said, you're an attorney. It's your job to understand the laws for the department. We need you to be efficient so that we can work efficiently and it's very strenuous on the staff of our department, the bureau, to have to put together agendas at the last minute on a Thursday afternoon. That that's just ridiculous in my opinion. Um, for the life of me, I can't understand why we wait till the last minute. Can you give us better explanation other than you just found out from the department of procurement that you had to do that. Um, so yes, you're right, I am an attorney and we do make every effort to be aware of laws. My understanding is that this was a new law that was implemented back in 2022, um, but not something that actually was implemented until January. 24, that information was shared by OSP, um, to the divisions and it just. Unfortunately got overlooked. And so, again, when we sent this to OSP, um, about a 9 days ago for approval, um, they scheduled a meeting with us to discuss it, which occurred, yeah, uh, the day before yesterday, Tuesday, right? Tuesday, um, in which we were informed that we needed to bring it. So I agree with you that we have full responsibility to be aware of the laws. We make every effort to do that and it was just an oversight on this occasion. Do. and apologize for the hassle and additional work that it creates on staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Woo, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, does this have to do with the solution tree. Contract, is that what this is? This is a result of the solution tree pulling their contract that we had brought, um, back to you for review in May. They pulled their contract completely and so we had to start a new process and we decided to do an RFQ instead of an RFP that we had done previously. Yes, sir. I guess I'm a little confused. Which is not unusual when it comes to the Department of Education. What $16 million. Did y'all consult with the district superintendents and others involved in professional development relative to extending another contract for $16 million. Yes, we did and that's what led us to decide to do an RFQ instead of an RFP. So that districts would have greater input and greater flexibility in how they chose to implement their requirement for poor professional learning communities. This would enable them to choose the vendor that they felt best was. Uh, fit their needs or if they so decided to use the funding to implement it themselves. One more question, if I may, on, on the page dealing with the uh RFQ makes the statement, why should costs not be considered in the procurement. What what does that mean? Do you all not consider costs of contracts and Down there we do, and that is certainly a factor. However, it's provided in law, um, by the General Assembly that we spend this certain exact amount. And so we make every dime available to the school districts. Again, it would then give them the flexibility to determine how to best use their funds that are provided and meeting their specific needs. So you're saying that someone may have bid 14 million. that Yes they did. I don't know whether they did or not, but you might go with a $16 million contract, is that what you're saying? RFQ we're not proposing to give a full specific amount to any vendor. We are just trying to identify qualified vendors that school districts can choose from, and they would determine the amount that they pay that vendor. They amount that they paid by the district. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Chesterfield, you recognize. Dear, um, correct me if I'm wrong, and I usually am, um, isn't PLC. The term that is, uh, copyrighted by Solution Tree or is this something it seems to me that that was totally connected with them, that that was there. Model, am I correct? Professional learning communities is a general term that's used nationwide. Professional learning communities at work is the specific program that's what I that's what I was confused about because you don't want to lean into their copyright information, they have said they don't want to play with us anymore. So we are now looking at providing the professional learning that is specific to each district's needs. Yes, Senator. Is that correct? And right, Greg? OK. He and I get the giggles when we see each other, um. So we are going to move apace now, and with this on the record, how long do you anticipate the process? What did you put in 30 days, they have to respond within 15 days, 30 days, because school is a bonus. Schools already starting. So what, what good is us giving you this money now that school's already started So yeah, we did the minimum amount of, of response to the RFQ which I think is the, the 10 or 15 days to try to get that so we can form The list of qualified vendors that teach that schoolish can then, uh, choose which one they want to use through a grant process through us. So the school districts will say they want to use a Professional development. Community, uh, partner with him and they'll send a grant proposal to us that we will review and make sure it's meeting those qualifications before it ever goes out. One of the hardest parts of going back to school was sitting through. Professional development for several days. For me for 30 years. Um, what did you do? For those individuals, um, at the beginning of this year because I know you had to have professional development or have we put it off until Christmas? No, ma'am. Professional development still occurred. All school districts still continue to provide the professional development required by law. Um, we have lots of professional development that is available through Arkansas Ideas and other methods, and many school districts provide professional development directly to their teachers. This professional development is specific to professional learning communities, um, and many of our school districts having had that exposure before had already implemented some of these, uh, practices in their school and so they can continued that professional development. This is just to enable those school districts who haven't, and for those school districts who have the opportunity to continue going forward. All right, thank you, Mr. Branskin, you want to add anything? Uh, Mr. Branscombe, you wanna Uh, Mr. Branscombe, you want to add anything? I'd really rather not. To be honest with you. He probably tell you what happened, but OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ladies, thank you Senator Hammer, you're at. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What's the deadline for them to apply and have that submitted to the department I was looking through the paperwork, but I didn't see it. Are, are you talking about the, the vendors? Well, the, the schools to provide to you. Their list of vendors so that there's got to be a deadline by which it has to be submitted, I would think, for the school to have have chosen their vendor so that they can get access to the money. Is there, is there a set date or? There will be, we haven't established that yet because we haven't issued the RF RFQ yet to see even which vendors will have that. So when we have that list, when we To have the qualified vendors list will produce that out to districts and then let them know the deadline for applying for the grants at that time. Do you have any idea based on this getting out of here today with that deadline might be, uh, I'd hate to guess, uh, once we get this out and get the RFP back, then I'll have a little bit more that I can, I can absolutely let you know what we're, when that's going to be, but I'd hate to guess right now. Just, just, I don't know that timeline just yet. OK, Mr. Chair. I'd like to address, chair, um, whether it, uh, whether they report back here to ALC or they report back to the education committee, um, I think it'd be prudent either within the next 30 days, they report back to ALC or if the chair would rather divert to the education committee so that we can have accountability for the progress of the timing of this, please. Thank you. I, I just, well, I like that when we get the RFQQ done and we get the contracts aligned, we will have to take those contracts to review and at that time, we'll have that more of those deadlines set out on when the, the grant will be done. I hope so. I'm, that's what I'm shooting for. Representative Beck you recognize. Thank you Mr. Chair. So this question. It might be in the details and I just missed it, But so the schools are going to submit who they want to do their professional development like group and you guys are gonna so how there's, how are you going to govern like the, I'm just gonna big over exaggerated the first school picks, they want $15 million for their development that leaves $1000 for all the other school districts. How, how do you, how do you handle that to make sure that it's a, you know, it's not just a first come, first serve. Uh, we're gonna distribute or make available the funding to school districts based on a formula. I don't think we've decided what that formula is, but something so that each school district, um, gets a per student amount. The, the purpose of the RFQ is to identify qualified vendors and so they would, um, for example, say, I want to use vendor A with the funding that you have allotted to me. And so, when they are contracting with that vendor, they know the amount that that's, it's going to be available to them. So Won't be so that one district can get all the funding. Follow up. Well, uh, so if a school district didn't. You know, for some for whatever reason didn't use the money that was allocated them based upon the formula that you guys are going to develop what would happen to those funds? They'll say they're available that 16.5 million to be used for professional learning communities, the way that the special language was reads is we had to make that much available for professional learning communities. And so that will be there. And what we're doing right now is just trying to get the RFP out to get that qualified list of vendors that districts can use. Once we have those that established and we bring those contracts back to review and 10 at that point, we'll have more of the formula and the, uh, the timelines established for how that, how we're going to allocate those funds. to the school districts. Thank you. Senator Blake Johnson. Excuse me, Senator Mark Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Folks, I thought we'd kind of moved beyond this and I, I share Representative Wardlaw's concerns about the timing of this, I think we, uh, we've been looking at this and it, it's, it's grown as we found out in leg audit this. This was like a cancer, it's grown so big and I'm not against professional learning communities concept, I think it's all good. I keep asking myself who are these vendors? Are these the same people? It's this is just people that work for the department are these people work for the co-ops? Are they the same people that in many cases, this should be part of their job. In day to day. Uh, and this is just another way to, to siphon some more money out. I'm not happy about the process because these are unanswered questions. I'd almost like to see who are the vendors we're talking about, uh, before we go ahead and do this now I'm, I recognize that it's a chicken and egg thing as far as we're gonna have a program, OK, then we find out who can respond to the RFQ, but I'm very concerned that We're paying could be, could be paying the same people to do their job. OK, here's an extra $16.5 million for doing your existing job now, I hope my concerns are, are ill placed and that y'all have a oh no, no, no, Senator, that's not what's going to happen. I'd love for you to tell me that, but can you tell me that today or do we need to come back next month and get those answers. So that certainly is not our intent. The purpose of the RFQ is to open it up and let any vendor who feels that they meet the requirements to apply. No vendor will be prohibited from applying, um, but no school district will be required to use any particular vendor, if any at all. Again, they could choose to do this in-house with their own staff. Um, I know the audit that was requested is ongoing, um, and so hopefully you all will have the results of that soon, but I can assure you on behalf of the Department of Education that our intent is to make professional learning communities and professional development available to teachers who need it, um, and to do so in accordance with the law. Well, my only question is that there are those that are truly outside consultants that are bringing some new perspective and and hopefully some value to the process and they deserve to be paid if they're bringing value to the process. There's also folks that they, this is their job anyway and I'm hoping that your formula will reflect that fact. If, if it's, if it's done in house that's fine. I'm sure they, they need some supplemental funding to, to do it, do it in-house. On the other hand, I don't think they need anywhere close to the level of funding we'd be looking at, uh, if, if it were an outside group and brought uh. Some added uh benefit. I, I, when we saw how this previous vendor. Payment grew and who it was going to and, and again we don't have the final results of that audit, but it raised a lot of alarm to me and I think several other legislators as well. So I will, I will hold off on making up my mind until y'all get me more facts, but that's all the more reason why we, we should have seen this a lot, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Like you represented Allen, you're reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I want to follow up with uh rep uh Representative Wooden said, uh, is this. Uh, RFQ dealing with solution tree? Will they be able to bid on this or be a part of the RFQ? There's currently I'm aware of that would prohibit them from applying. So is this another way Of bringing solution tree in when they said they didn't want to be a part of this? If they choose to apply and if they submit a proposal that meets the requirements set forth, we would have no legal reason to prohibit them from being on the list. It would then be up to school districts who they choose to provide those services. Follow up Uh OK. What, what assurances can you give us? That the Department of Education will not be pushing Solution tree because in the past. When talking to people in the community and other school districts, it was said that the Department of the Department of Education. was pushing Solution Tree. So what assurances can you give us this time that this will not happen. We no longer have a contractual relationship with Solution Tree. We want this to be completely at school district's discretion. That's why we are only making available a list of qualified vendors, school districts will be free to choose the vendor, if any, that they want to contract with and they will not, I assure you that they will not be, um, Try and swayed or influenced in any way from department staff to choose any particular vendor. 11 more question. What constitute a qualified vendor? So there are specific requirements that are set forth in the RFQ talking about, um, the priorities, the type of, um, services that we are looking for that school districts need, um, once submissions are provided, then there will be a committee of experts that review all of those submissions and proposals to make sure that they do align and so they that committee will determine whether a vendor is qualified. Thank you. Co-chair of Bola, you recognize? So going off what Mr. Rogers said a few minutes ago that you guys look to have some of these back to us by review of next month. I want to remind you of the law real quick, that there's a 10, that it's a rule, not a law, but a ten-day deadline to hit the agenda for next month. So by September 6th, Because September 16th is council week. We would need to see some of those, OK? I do not want to see another supplemental agenda because of this problem. You will not. Thank you Senator Hester, you have a motion for immediate consideration. I had members have a motion for immediate consideration and the second not debatable, all in favor say aye, opposed. The consideration is passed when I have Representative Eves. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is we need two motions. So the first motion would be to authorize a vote on the RFQ. So I'll make that motion. OK. I have a motion to accept review the RFQ in the 2nd all in favor I posed. That pass your next motion. All right, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to review the RFQ report. OK, I have a motion and a second to review the RFQ report all in favor. I post that is passed. Thank you. Uh last uh report is personnel and uh representative General Barry, you're recognized. Thank you, Senator. The personnel subcommittee met, uh, August 21st, the committee reviewed it and or approved items 1 through 12 on the report, the committee deferred to item 13, the Public Defender commission's request for positions for discussion today. The follow following the discussion and approval of item 810 on the peer report earlier I moved to adopt the personnel subcommittee report. Uh, including review of item 13 for the public defender commission. OK, members, I have a motion to have a second. Second, all in favor say aye, aye. Pod Personnel is passed members on your reports this week, we've got a, uh, something's got to be reviewed if there's other that you need and we do have a DHS, uh report number 5 on the Arkansas Department of Commerce, uh A is the developmental uh development finance Authority requires a motion. If I could have a motion to prove that. So Emotion and second on favor I. Pod Uh There any other ones, uh. That have questions on not seeing members we have, uh, on. Uh, sick and number 8 we have Department of Human Services, I believe Janet Mann's going to give our assisted living report. You'll come forward please. Members were. Not far from wrapping up. Thank you for being here, Miss Mann. Please identify yourself and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Janet Mann, DHS. Good morning. Um, as reported, this is the, um, the AF report as directed by Section 15 of Act 213 of 2022. I'm reporting to you the status of our efforts for the reimbursement rates under the Living Choices Assisted Living waiver. In January 2024, DHS did receive formal CMS approval for a temporary rate for, um, 8159 for urban facilities in 8567 for rural facilities, permanent for the curation of the current Living Choices waiver with an effective date of March 1. Then DHS petitioned CMS for approval to implement a new rate of $86.73 which represented the highest resulting rate from the rate study report. In addition, DHS continues to engage providers to discuss programmatic and policy changes submitted during this public comment. On July 3rd of 2024, DHS received formal approval of of the Living Choices rate waiver amendment from CMS approving the proposed rate to begin on July 1. 2024. We did, we then presented this to public health on August 14th, it was approved. We also presented it yesterday at rules for approval, and with that approval, we will begin implementing the new rate for July 1 of 2024. I'll answer any questions, sir. OK, and the payment will be back to July 1. is effective on July 1, so what we will do is we will reprocess the claims that have been currently filed and give and issue the differences in the payment to those providers, then we will have an effective date going forward where we will begin paying that rate on claims submitted that payment on the revised payment probably go out and talk to the systems team yesterday. we're trying to get it processed as soon as possible. So we're looking in the next couple of weeks. Thank you for being here today. Members, thank you for being here today. We appreciate your participation with that we are adjourned.