JBC-Special Language

Turning off thank you for coming there's a little bit of housekeeping to take before you begin there are a few man meants that are not on the agenda but need to be taken up in the meeting they will be presented as hand out and distributed by staff before the sponsor of the amendment makes the presentation. When those come up I will need and motion to suspend the rules to take them up also as a reminder this is special language committee and as a special language subcommittee we will only take up special language we want that be taken up anything else that's not special language so that's got personnel or anything like that and it will go to personnel we will not be discussing that in this particular committee and with that we're going to start with adam number c one. The. Members if you'll turn in your packet to page two you'll see house bill ten thirty three are the treasure of state this is an item that was bright last week and revamped so we are going to be seeing a revised version this is a letter that stated february twenty first of this year from mister larry walther in the amendment numbers jar oh nine nine. Members there are seen questions on this amendment. That because you have to do I have a motion motion second i'm thinking all in favor site at okay without objection we're going to take two bills out of order and the first bill we're going to take as adam number seven SB fifty three and representative ward law is going to present this for me so representative. Milder. Thank you thank you madam chair we are on page twenty nine in your packet this is for department of transformation and shared services. The. Represent a word louder recognized. So many madam chair which one is this this is the small procurement oh so what this does is clean that up to where the agencies are not allowed to talk to the vendors are let the agencies know what the vendor needs to be it for the budget pretty simple it was some audit findings and audit this kind of clean set up and makes it more direct to the agencies. They have been answering questions any questions members. C n n motion i'll in favor of they are a poles na thank you with that we're going to move up without objection to adam number three. Representative andrews if you would like to present your bill members there's a hand out for this amendment is to speak forty seven department now sorry this is house build ten forty one department education division of elementary and secondary education public school fund there is no hand out my apologies. We are on page eighteen of your packet if you want introduced yourself for the record reps and avoiding district ninety eight you're recognized present thank you ma'am chair and believe it's adam c four but does your last week we came back and added language that we took the date all the way out took the waiver out this moment removes the date requirement from the school started date and gives the district slow control gives an authority to choose a starting date as long as the school calendar year meets the state standards requirements for the school length thank you senator tucker you recognize thank you maps. Just want to say job well done representative and make a motion for your bill today thank you representative richer send your recognized thank you thank you madame chair just had a question based on is there I didn't notice there any specific language to to make sure that at the end of the first semester that it's ending at the that they're getting a propers christmas break you know based on when it starts and they still are going to be able to. Run to the end of the year so they will have to come back based on the days needed. Is there any de- does that make sense when i'm asking you yeah I suggest saying but there's not this allows each district to make their own calendar so so they'll still be foot offered school district decides that they want kids to come back in those anyway never mind that never mind thank you madame chair thank you members and in quite other questions. Cnn motion motion second all in favor say I knows thank you we're going to move on where you're passing the over we're going to go back up and get back in line we're passing over and number two and then that's going to move us to number five. Oh i'm sorry we need to dram three sorry senator patent so senator pighten down there would probably be better thank you ok members this one does have a hand out is for sb forty seven department of inspector general ordinarily it would be on page fourteen of your packet but as I said there is going to be a hand out coming around if you are just give us a couple months. In a few recognize yourself in addition to sell for the record thank you manager center patent district twenty two and we have an amendment to this that we need a doc. It's probably the most diplomatic thing i've done in my lifetime but we've finally found language for this objective that. All the parties they've agreed to have emotion for adoption of the amendment second i'll in favor say I at your recognized to present your amendment thank you so an issue came up with we created the tax appeals commission to give citizens and taxpayers the right to appeal a decision to DF and a and through an independent body outside of a hearing that would take place in the fna and that's called the tax appeals commission as as citizens have. Have went there you know they have an a dozen great job they win almost all the cases there is very few times where the tax appeals commission finds in favor of the taxpayer instead of instead of dfa. But you know taxpayer has to hire an attorney and hester. He all refers to get representation to truck to show up with these things when the tax appeals commission rules in the taxpayer's favor. Ah the dfa has the authority to appeal that to circuit court. Or even if they lose there to the supreme court. And so in cases where the monetary value may be very low. Expecting a tax payer citizen who has already prevailed at the tax appeals commission to have to hire lawyers and defend that in the circuit court or even in the supreme court I felt like. We needed a threshold. Of where we would not do that. It's very important sometimes that those. Decisions. Get debated. To set policy for the future but I think that the f and I should come to the legislature in some of those cases and have us you know pass laws or or language instead going to the court so we've basically negotiated and agreed that a ten thousand dollar threshold it only pertains to sales texts disputes. And it it outlines that the fna will not. Seek. An appeal if the dollar amounts under ten thousand dollars they know it's basically all it does appreciate a good boat now move that we adopt arm not on this committee I can do that that kick as amended all right and sitter more you have a question it's I just for clearly say cause I think you've already said it but just want to circle back this was agreed to language with department I think you spend quite a bit of time working through that is that correct I really appreciate the department working with me on the language. We work the builder after the death but yes that's why we needed to adopt them and perfect thank you. Seeing other questions members motion do pass second one favorite site as amended i'll in favor they are thank you congratulations with that members we are passing over. Five and that's going to put us to the number six. Members this is for house bill ten sixty one department of energy and environment for division of environmental body there is a replacement hand out that is going to be coming around for item see six if you will give us a couple minutes to pass that out or nearly it would be on page twenty sixth of your agenda the new version is coming around and everyone please interdish yourselves for the record representative unger district nineteen. Representative lines term district eighteen thank you you're recognized because intermittent thank you madame chair. First let me say I had a late in the day meeting with secretary cory over this issue we have resolved some of our differences on this. Ripped required can we wait just a second to their passed out members of asked telling stay up on it thank you. Everybody gets her hand out. Okay you can proceed managed here. As I said I had a meeting waiting the day yesterday was sure to record we have resolved our differences on this basically the study will be pushed back to december which is acceptable to me the people doing the study will be the state geologist which is acceptable. The lab results will be done by the delab which causes me concern I wanted to go ahead and do this in public for purpose of record and transparency but because we were able to pash out our differences and he's assured me that he can find in house funding for this there's no reason for this to go to the house and for that reason I pull the bill down. Thank you. We appreciate that in your bills pull down thank you for your good work madam chairman may I have a moment sure I would just like to sound a word of warning for all of us we all live downstream we've seen this brought to like so well with the crypto minds this is a problem in northwest arkansas and we're about to all live downstream and cleaning this mess up so I would beg you to please watch closely pay attention closely to what's going on with this issue when you have employees in the department that have been rehomed because they were tipping off the landfill before surprise inspections that's a serious issue that representatives he's a director corey is trying and I applied them for that but when this landfill does have its big problem and it's coming they're going to look and say what we passed all our inspections it's on you and that means the taxpayer will be paying for the clean up so I would begin we need a q to do their job they are critically important sometimes I don't think they understand just how important they are but it's our job and it's incumbent upon all of us. To make sure where the watch dogs. Thank you. Thank you so much thank you appreciate it with that members that's going to bring us down the item number eight and sinner hester. Recognized members this is sp sixty to permanent education gets on page thirty two of your packet thank you members of as you probably don't know but if if you're and if you're a k twelve institution and you go to make some modifications to an existing building you are not required to add a uh storm shelter to it which we we've talked about it's a huge expense. This all this is also just saying if you're a higher ed. If you were formally a harred institution building used for higher ad. And now going to be used for k twelve it it gets that same exemption on an existing building happy to answer any questions members who are seen a question. Having then have emotion second i'll on favorite sag policy night all right we're moving on we're going to be down to number nine. Members this is thirty five page thirty five in your packets and it bill nineteen department of human services division of medical services this is a moment by sounder hicky center hike you recognized present thank you in members i'll have two of these what this is of the report that uh i'm looking to be required this particular one is as it deals with DHS with our medicaid trust phone our medicaid trust fund currently has six hundred a little over six hundred and thirty one million dollars in it what we do in our bureau has been good about this as they actually watched the balance of this all the time to make sure that you know basically that it's staying even or or that it's growing however what this report will do is it are disreported that they'll prepare will be sent to us through alc so that will have a copy in there will actually show what land items that those funds are being used for so I can use the term is more of a transparency. Transparency thing my reason for the issues multiple main reason is this is since we have so much money in there between because between it in the education department is going to come up it's about one point five billion dollars so as everyone here probably knows especially with DHS we always allow them excess appropriation and rightfully so because I get a lot of federal money. By them having that excess appropriation though they also have a funding source because we allow them to keep keep their money at the end of the fiscal year so again what this will do is just provide a report so we know what that money is being used for. I was too employed answering questions madame too thank you said who get any questions from the members see you know and do I have a motion so motion here to have a second. Second all in favor of say a opposed. We're gonna say it passed thank you all right that moves us down to number t members we are now on page thirty nine of your agenda this is house bill ten seventy four department human services this is the secretary's office this is a member by representative wardlands owner hickey representative is the only open presentation is he is in here is not the room to argue yeah I can do this and you're recognized this one's a simple members if you remember and we had a large discussion. What we are done with the. Department of human services and I think this was a state hospital hate to say that without no one but what what we had done is is they had some insurance claims but we had to provide the money up right so all this does is is is whenever they get their money back from the insurance because again we had to fund this on the front side what this does is require to go back into the restricted reserve account that which we took it out of it for some reason that that if that restricted reserve account if it's no longer there has a zero balance it would go back to the general revenue alternate to find which would which would require the all legislature to take out course if it goes back into the restrictive reserve account that takes the eight day or see body to remove it thank you any questions members see and I don't have a motion. I'll move to the amount second i'll in favor of say I opposed alright with that we're going to move down to adam number eleven. Members were you're moving to page forty three of your agenda this is house bill ten forty one department education division of elementary and secondary education public school fun. Neither amendment by senator hickey. You're recognized siner hiking thank you members i'll be happy to do the same thing but I did on. Number nine with dhs this is with education department their three agencies that allowed that are allowed to sweep their money which is DHS the education department unless I sweep their money let me rephrase it they get to keep it at the end of the fiscal year they have anything less left all other agencies are required to send it back we also allow with the department of corrections we allow one out land out of the cap which is the county jail reimbursement which we provided our transparency with that the other day so that's the reason that I do not have one for the department of practices because it is just one out one line item. The only thing different with the us is whenever you're talking about all expenditures within the education department you know that's almost impossible to do because things are being sent out sent out to all our public schools but they do have sub accounts so we're going to be maintaining and watching those balances to see exactly the way all that transpiring monthly. And you have any question. You're reckon that center is just my so on that when you say so what will this report look like well we don't know at this point yes we do because actually what I had done what I had done is for DHS i'd have to they been they prepared this information may way back before station or before station so I actually had a report that they prepared so we've got an outland here and that's why I was bringing it the spacial language so that it would be exactly the same so it'll be it'll be the same with a department of it. So i'll be happy to do it but basically it just shows you know the physical years you know physical years and in it also has whatever the you know. The sub burning is so as you know there's restricted fund balances which can not be spent on anything but that particular adam. And then we have unrestricted fund balances which looks like it's probably ten or twelve of those those dollars can be spent for anything so that's where the that's where the main metered the meat of it'll be because if they use those those phones that are although it may be listed for you know whatever it might be here I am just give you one era credit that will also want to make sure we've got some the net let you know that the members can follow and get a ten report for instance that good you have to constantly remind members that exist my only concern is that I will make sure that. Council in the bureau I guess you know beyond that has the right to craft report that has the information like who's going to be in charge of crafting the report so that it's understandable again again we used a model that we'll allow them to prepare in the beginning and we use that's the reason it was done this way so that they would know exactly what we will do we actually used it that d h n department here we haven't but it would be the same tap report department of air again is more it's more of me just being consistent you know with dhs but it we give you to create what they need to create in this legislative that's correct we're we're just telling them what we want yeah i'm not opposed to what we're doing and I just want to make sure that because it's law versus an alcohol record you know that the committee could call for this and alc sure and get it even could require to be reported a monthly quarterly whatever basis or putting in statute and it's going to make sure the statute written situation belor can draft what's going to be helpful to the members and it can be a little bit flu and versus a rigid this is what a report looks like. And it doesn't maybe it is not understandable for members yes sir I didn't say this because I wanted I want to be very clear our staff is not requested this or whatever this will be helped for a for our staff too is because they're they're continuously as you know interdismant doing their due diligence to make sure that those balances are not dropping off macro level so what this is going to do is just near it down to micro and you are correct. Although it says what they're going to provide to is that doesn't women use that we have to have a report to send it exact matter like seven minutes something we could do without legislation I don't mind we're doing legislation in especially because I think I understand that this legislation is only going to take you know this is only required filing until twenty five if i'm reading things since the special language is you know it's really just for something council could take it up and make it a report that I haven't avenue yesterday that could happen alright thank you. Senator hammer I see that you're in the queue but typically we don't take questions if you're not on members so if you have one to someone you could give it to the member and they could ask for you. The. Center gilmore yeah what's the start date of this sender who gave her thank you july one twenty twenty four and it course it goes to the fiscal year june thirtieth twenty twenty five so it's actually on its in the in the amendm. Thank you any other questions seeing and none do I have a motion and move to post second all in favor of the eye opposed they know. Bill has passed. Yeah. That's going to move us to adam number twelve senator king you're going to pass over that one okay thank you. And then that's going to take us down to adam number thirteen members were moving their page fifty one in your packet this is an amendment to the bureau legislative research and legislative council by senator rice. Senator rachel recognized they can manually this is just language to will put the bureau in land with state agencies legislative out. Committee authorizing employees to exceed the the maximum land adam for salaries if you'll see the. Uh. Added language also uh points out that eh legislative council are joint verge er we'll have. A review over there thank you senator and move adoption any questions see a nan I have a motion for a approval second i'll in favor say I pole saying they congratulations were moving on that's going to bring us down to item number four teen members were on page fifty four in your packet this is an amendment to uses appropriation bill this is by representative johnson and if your place to introduce yourself for the record who recognized it's representative lee johnson members this amendment we all know the crosses that were facing in the terminal health right now one of the main drivers of that crisis is a lack of sufficient work force we know we're going to need to create more work force in our state to meet the challenge of this issue this the limit creates an account within your budget to specifically address and the turnover helped work force in a variety of categories it also puts up some guard rails around how they could spend money in this account if money is available again right now this is just an account there is no funding identified we are hopeful to identify funding in the future I believe this is a timely issue I think it's important that we have this preparation then now so that is we move forward if we're able to identify finding we can go ahead and start this programs and get the moving forward and i'd be happy try to answer any questions. Members don't have any questions. See no to have a motion motion second all in favor say I know all right we're moving on a jump down we're skipping over adam number fifteen and that's going to put us at number sixteen. Members we are moving to pay sixty two in your packet this is house bill ten forty one department education division of elementary and secondary education public school fund there are three sponsors to the amendment representatives g hardest do and senator desalin I just got noticed from the sponsor that we're going to be passing over this one so I appreciate that thank you and with that that's going to bring us to were passing over seventeen that's going to take us to number eighteen. Members we are moving to page sixty eight in your packet this is senate bill fifty three department of transformation and shared services this is a moment by representative maybe. Representative maybe you're recognized if you can introduce yourself for the record thank you this is state representative julie maybe thanks madam chair this is actually not a change it's actually just a clarification based on some are it findings and. To just make sure that there's accountability and transparency again this is not a change it is a clarification. Thank you I question center to your more you recognize for question thank you material thank you representative so when you say it's just a clarification so what exactly are we doing so you may recall that there has been some concern over the definition of agencies and we are making sure that agencies in this language that is in it out and here are the general accounting and budgetary procedures law that agencies including without limitation the governor lieutenant governor of secretariat state treasurer state attorney general commissioner state lands in auditor of state. This has been the general practice of our auditors for decades and we're just clarifying that yes we agree thank you. Follow manager so I guess I have concern is is this constitutional under your knowledge of this what what is your understanding of that my understanding is that things are constitutional until they judge rules that it is night and therefore I believe that this is constitutional because we have the power as legislators to provide the appropriations and to set boundaries for those appropriations and this is completely within our power and again this is exactly the way that it has been interpreted in the past over and over again we have even had findings of constitutional officers in the past i'll remind us of findings with lieutenant governor mark dr um some of those finding specifically were dealing with the general accounting and budgetary procedures law and this was not mentioned at the time that it should not apply to our constitutional officers. Representative word longer recan answer question thank you madame chair maybe II i'm slow and it takes me mid catch up can you please explain to me what what exactly is your target with this language and i'm gonna listen really close maybe you've already done that not missed it but i'd like to hear it one more time I have no problem explaining it again first of all I think there has been some concern that the term agencies does not apply to constitutional officers and I think it's just common sense knowledge that yes when we have referred to agencies that it does include our constitutional officers that has been the standard practice so time outright there what's the definite matter of chair if I get some lead way a month ask a few questions as she answers. Yes sir so what what does changing the definition to agencies achieve for you and this language. It clarifies so that from this point moving forward our constitutional officers will understand that we do believe that they I mean let's look at some of the specifics here I mean this is not earth shattering accounting procedures this is basic basic accounting procedures that we think that they need to to do let's turn to page seventy one second let me answer your question okay so it says that here she shall determine that services material supplies equipment received comply with specifications indicated on purchase documents we're asking them to make sure that the specifications are the same as the purchase documents right we want to make sure that the quantities received as being indicated on the invoice agree with those shown in the receiving report we want to make sure that the utter price agrees with those indicated on the purchase documents we want to make sure that there's sufficient appropriations and finds available for payment of the obligation we want to make sure that the obligation was incurred in conformity with all purchasing and fiscal laws this is common since. This is night something that any of us especially when we run on a party platform it says that we want to stand for accountability and transparency we are asking for receipts we're asking for if you buy a hundred pencils that you make sure you get a hundred pincels not fifty pence. And if you want to transfer those a hundred hundred pencils to another department that it's done so everyone knows that you transferred those one hundred pencils to another department this is very simple common sense procedures that have been in place for decades that have been supported by supreme court decisions we have the authority we are body this is not a separation of powers issue were not were not changing anything are body has the authority given to us by our constitution to make the appropriations and we have the authority to put caveats around that to say that we're going to give you this money but you have to do XY and z in order to use it. This is common sense accounting we do not want to give an open checkbook. To anybody. Including our state agencies and i'm sorry or our constitution officers. Senator gilmore you recognize for question thank you ma'am chair and thank you representative you you're set specifically this was common sense i'm gonna ask and why why didn't we include other constitutional offices like I don't know game and fish higher rare there I say water corrections who consider themselves constitutional officers. III believe because they are in the constitution separately and then that does create separation of powers we cannot there is money that those but for instance the highway department there is money that they receive that is not one of our appropriations and we can't we can't put those safeguards around that so because they are in a different spot in the constitution as well we didn't include him in this. Because they are that money does not go through our legislative. Powers that money does not come here to this legislative but they have quite a bit that does. But we can't cross over into that area we we do appropriate the money for the governor's office for the secretary states office for the lieutenant governor's office etc so we have that ability and for those entities but i'm not sure understand thank you server hester you're recommended yes a representative maybe for for consistency you would you would classify the house representatives as a state agency now then for purchasing as well. So to my understanding as I was asked i'll be honest with you I was asked can we include the language where where I specifically talk about let's go back to the beginning and i'm just give you an example to say at the end of auditor of the state to include the house of representatives in the senator the legislative branch and that actually does create some constitutional concerns moving forward because and this gets you know kind of tricky but we we. There's let's talk basics there's three branches of government I think that if we wanted to do something like that we would have to do a separate bill and maybe this can be taken up in twenty twenty five or week and slow things down and fix it now but to my understanding it would have to be a separate entity because if we put the legislative branch into this document into what i'm proposing here and into this special language it then does cross over because then the chief financial officer then has authority over us and. That is a separation of powers violation. To my understanding that is how it has been explained to me but it does not create a separation of power to dilemma I guess you could say keeping it all there because first of all who hires our chief fiscal officer. And fires are achieved fiscal officer I think that keeps a balance of power there but more than anything a separation of powers does not necessarily mean within a branch it's rather between the three branches of government and that's where if we add legislation or legislators senators are our house of representatives into this language we are crossing over into what then might be a constitutional issue. Okay so you're saying all constitution officers should be considered state agencies except. Except the house representatives accept the senate except high red except game and fish except board of corrections except game infesion a second ago you said that game in fish that were held a higher standard would you explain that again to me how they're held to a higher standard oh II don't think I said higher standard if I said higher standard II apologize just to their their money is appropriate differently it's not through the same the same as we don't have authority so my point is okay this has been standard procedure from the very beginning and we have had other findings in the past i've got the turn the. I'd like findings from when our lieutenant governor mark dor was in office and those aren't it finding specifically talk about the general accounting. And budgetary procedures act and no one back then said hey it doesn't apply because it doesn't apply to constitutional officers. II will also say in our legislative audit we have three committees do we night and one of those committees as committees on state agencies I believe that's exact wordy and committing on state agencies does not specifically say constitutional officers but yet that is where all of our audits go does at night it goes to state agencies because the assumption is we consider them to be a state agency and our legislative auditors absolutely have the authority to audit those deposit to add it all the constitutional officers without a doubt and they do it every year. I'm just trying to keep in place what has been in place and add clarification we are not changing anything by this word represent the maybe we have other questions so i'm gonna move on and recognize senator this mind for a question alright thank you i'll first say there's parts that I think we do need to discuss in regards to the governor's office and other constitutional particular disposal lands but I think it's a pretty big discussion that is lot more expensive than what we're able to do here in special language I mean the other thing is because I know i'm really thoroughly confused about where we are singling out particular. Constitutional officers and then making this public statements which I have really concerned about that. Non constitutional officers but institutions that were created in the constitution and even something regretted by the legislature to then have some constitutional power. Or higher than the three branches of government. But then we're even doing less than that we're not even holding the judicial branch as a part. Of what you're seeking we're not holding ourselves for not holding the judicial we're not corrections were not holding higher ad and we're not holding gave in fish and we're not holding on an honor on because somehow we think they have more constitutional standing. Then. The three branches. II don't again i'm not adamantly opposed I think part of this needs to be considered what they're really but I at your language is just odd to me. Of we are including and who you're not including and I think it. I think it's a little short saturday and honestly probably creates farter for some future court cases that I don't think we need to uh. You know big playing in quite frankly and special language again I mean I think i've publicly said when we come back and regular session there should be some they added taking up but I mean what you're doing here is in what somewhere is very expensive and it also some ways very near really terrible daily and I think says a lot of things that you're not trying to say. Would you agree II would give me the understanding of why you who are maybe this is the question you say people or someone has told you something about the department corrections people have told you something about. Us legislatively who are who is is that bureau staff that's giving you that direction or who is giving the direction I will say that it is to my understanding and talking to other attorneys and and others that that. First of all I want to keep this simple. I do agree that we need to take this up in twenty twenty five and we do need to have further discussion but I think to my understanding that adding those other areas needs to be a completely separate. Um. Bill and done a completely separate way because that would mean if we added the legislative body in this that the chief financial officer would then have say over us who are the we are weak at let me let me finish what i'm saying we are as we are separate and that creates them. The conflict I wasn't asking you to repeat what you'd already said i'm asking you were saying that you've gotten some expertise or expert guidance from someone I have asked our bureau to pull information for me like they do for everybody else when we are trying to understand in and you know our bureau does an excellent job of not providing any opinions but was it the bureau or the other attorneys that you're referencing earlier. I don't know specifically what you might be referring to but I have got an information from the bureau I have several pieces of information here I have also talked to legislative audit as well this is their standard procedure and they will continue to to follow an assume that. Are constitutional officers have to abide by this until I court says otherwise I would disagree they were rying on attorney general's opinions in their fund to create their findings and now you have a subsequent attorney general's opinion and one attorney general's pin you cannot carry more weight for audit in another but II don't think you answer my question but I appreciate that the kind of the re-hash. Senator hickey you're recognized for a question. Thank you matter of chair I have a couple my first question is coming through for senator hammer he wanted to do but he wanted to ask legislative out it did not ask you to. I had to run there is correct oh no okay are our legislative auditors do an excellent job that not being either side of things not when I was my decision because i'm standing here representing my people back home i'm not up here representing any of you any constitutional officer or anything this is common sense I counting we're asking them to save receipts or asking them to make sure they're getting the best bang for the buck isn't that what we expect. Representative my barry can you answer the question cheap I believe she did she said no the thing is is that I think that was a fair question I have I had it myself i'll send her hammer asked me that I thought the debt needed to be stated in light of what of what is transparent here this somebody didn't think that leg out ahead pursued anything further past their old and again you u actually called me and was just I want to be totally transparent successful we're talking about here you told me and ask me if I want to run it I said no I do not I would try to support you but. There are also fault that the legislature would need to be included. A map on all of this and you can answer yes or whatever it's been this. Our appropriation bill our appropriation bill including the senate. Already has this language in there. And from standpoint and I heard you say that you want to declare a fast something. And this is not about our current attorney general this is not about our current governor this is about policy which I know that you're pursuing for the state of arkansas one concern I do have is that by doing this I don't want anybody to say well it wasn't in place before the end because in my opinion. If we're going to go down this road I want to go down it and pursue it the courts so that we can actually do that because this this changes the way we do policy all over the state of arkansas. This change is how i'd be willing to vote on appropriations and the only reason that i'm continuing to vote on the constitutional alters appropriation. Is because prior to hearing this i'd already voted on the senate and I thought it would only be fair that we would deduct to do a more the same so I have a little bit of concern and I did tell you I was going to support you what i'm in sitting here thinking about this I don't I don't want this in any way to affect some future court cases I believe sinder displaying may have said because from last day important I think that we are we may just need to get that clarification since our ages been there I don't know how we begin that or pursue that but at this point I believe that's what we need to do cause I personally for what it's worth is just a south arkansas. Yep well the from my standpoint the appropriation the appropriation already has this language in it I heard the little deal about agency but from that standpoint if they if if they if they called us a potato chip within that language and we voted in approved it and the governor signed off on it and that's that's how it's referred to so with that again i'm i'm beginning to get a little bit nervous right here that somebody may think that we don't have that already in place. So i'm on struggle with supporting it but I do thank you for bringing it any other questions members. Cassic seeing nine do I have a motion and I respond even ask a question. Do I have a motion. Cnn fails for lack of motion. With that members we're going to move down to adam number nineteen members this is on paid seventy eight in your packet you'll find a separate packet is got AC nineteen and the upper right hand corner says pays seventy eight at the bottom this is for department of transformation insurance services this is an amendment by representatives wardline. Representative you are recognized thank you better chair this member just cleans up the tips language and allows construction projects for an aggregate per district up to a million dollars allows them to be able to do. Evaluate emergency situation on the fixed situation I haven't go through a bid process they have to use an improved vendor through tips and behavior answering questions. Yeah. Any questions. Sinner just mind your recognized on tips where is that list come from the how does that work I just don't know enough about it the score board association has the list of each school has access to the list and in each local area there are contractors that become qualified to be on the list so it's a local less generated for each school district throughout the state by the school board association is why I understand it seemed as much so the school board association sets up a list of vendors that they vet that then become they don't set it up the memories had to plob at the they may and the list is my preferred list of vendors for the other school district to choose from there yes. The. Any other questions members. See in then do I have a motion out like who is in senator hill you're recognized my question for this day is going up to the million dollars on this and your own let the the local people turn into the states being at least how does this prevent a buddy system from take in place. The. I don't know that there is a way to prevent that outside of legislative audit doing their yearly audits and we catch it. It deprojects have to meet those definitions under the tips so I mean i'm not I don't know that i'm scared of it but we use tips right now for a lot of different items in the schools computers from example food service and those services have no limit the reason we put a limit on construction is because when they're building a school district it are to go through a bid if you replace in a roof because of a health storm to get score back go and you need to be able to do that in a hurry we talk to numerous super tenets and if out like that million dollar limit would be sufficient for doing that. Okay thank you for your answer. Any other questions members see in the do I have a motion motion all in favor of say I apposed are the eyes have it with that members we have two items that are not on the agenda that got a require suspension of the rules if we choose to hear them so do I have a motion to suspend the rules to hear the two items. Motion motion. Do I have a second second all in favor of say I apposed. With that we're moving on. All right the first one we're going to hear a cinema bill nineteen by we're gonna hear nineteen first senate bill nineteen members this is an amendment to department of human services division of medical services this is an amendment a code amendment by representative period representative will go to the table please and please interdish yourself for the record they moments coming around members you'll have a hand out members so will wait just a moment. Thank you madame chair mark period representative district sixty six. Thank you all for in this house out actually outside of still discussing some of it but by now you know everyone the room is heard something about while we're run in the special language and need to take from my point of view and representative ferguson is here to explain from a dennis point of view cannot can we have represent a ferguson recognizers that introduce or sell for the record please and sorry we were outside talking to janet man and try to resolve the especially yeah i'm am representative deborah for some district sixty three and ima retired thank you everybody's got their copies okay this is an amendment to your original one so we're going to have to have a motion to adapt amendment. Do I have that motion motion second all in favor of the ok mim member has adopted you now might present thank you madame chair. So you have the new amendment so after discovering the last night we had this new amendment drafted when show you know kind of narrows it more to districtly them the manage dental. But of in my real job i'm an insurance agent for being for thirty eight years and I work with a lot of medicare and medicaid beneficiaries in their health insurance plants and you know I understand the challenges a lot of them face lot of don't have computers sporadic cell service as far as having a access to the telephone in changes to their plan are difficult at their best the dental managed program which is run smoothly for more than seven years when d h d and RF this far for some unknown reason they chose to select four vendors instead of two. So he adjusted let you know compared to other states we owe some of the other states bigger states have three vendors in our texas florida new york. And of course they have a lot more beneficiaries than we do so we have now four choices which you know more choices more confusion so this language in this amendment simply states that d h in deciding how to split up beneficiaries the interest of the beneficiaries need to be considered in that they should not be required to change plans unless the plan they are own is no longer a mail. Nothing in the disamen keeps the beneficiary from deciding to change. But dhs should not be able to move them to a new plane simply to give a new company the business though. Representative ferguson she may have some points as far as in the the dennis saturday yeah I really think we have to think about this from the patient perspective patience medicaid primarily is for dental is children they cover very few benefits for adults so we're talking about we're talking about children and their parents in in choosing a dailist what this process by adding these two extra insurance carriers to the mix promise you it's not going to expand access to care of the problem with access to deal care is that dinners have not had a fee increase in fifteen years and when we went to manage care part of the raise in our participate in medicaid back you know when I practiced was because you could take your medicaid dollars and put it into a deferred compensation plan when we went to managed care dennis lost the ability to do they because it was no longer a statement program so that's those are two reasons our primarily the reasons that patience have trouble finding a denise and access to care but the dinners who do participate in these patients are a sand to. It to when you add these two extra companies those companies have to get approved busy m e s in the endinners have to agree to go through the credentialing process in became a credential with these two new carriers if you just randomly start reassigning all these people in distributing them to these two new companies that means that most of these patients are going to have to find a new dealest or wait for that deal is to be recrudental is going to be a huge disruption in care for kids. Members soon a ratio recognized for question. Thank you not I don't know another rooted as a lot of questions earlier now I was in the denise chairman here to say they didn't denise your and you know how they give you this one side to conversation you go to mail them gain answer but I could do a month in this very concerned about that and is he's aging he he has always taken medicaid based very concerned is it will be detrimental. Two medicaid patience is the extra process now it couldn't figure out why the the for and in and I found out the about the other state so i'm have to so man three. In also it can can you. Definitely state this is going to be that manner overall to the. And you can say it's a good program. But the end game is how does it work. Does it come down to. Some of these people that have just gone up with some medicaid patients are it's going to be more hassle to do deal with a fourth company what what is the negative I wouldn't exactly sure but I knew it was. Well I mean one of the things i've realized having an old repairer and taking here in my and is it's very difficult for patience to get negotiate the insurance industry for health care in general but particularly in daniel to expect these patience to have a nerve health acu to know how to uh ask to change companies or to change dealers I mean but most of them just give up and don't go at all I mean this would incept happening I think it's fine for a new patience to be redistributed to these two day insurance carriers and let them see if they could have better look part of the argument that medicaid uses is that well you know love these patients have been in a year even with the companies there with but if you look at privately insured denor patience over half of them hadn't seen a dentist in the last year so it's it's not just medicaid which has even mars results but to further disrupt that for kids inform patience is just unconscionable to me so this bill. Note that you're proposing. Yeah. Will overall basically help the medicaid patience not have to or it'll a will allow other patiences to stay with the carrier they're with nail in for new patients to be distributed to the two no catholics if people you know choose to change their but I found it electing to changes are complicated priceless for patience again a lot of time we do thanks for good reason but the real world they'll just and work that way so thank you for explaining that I have a question for you up here so thank you so when you were talking you said you were out in the hall younger target with dhs to try to resolve this what did your come up with in your conversations with dhs well wait we didn't resolve anything I guess that's why we decided to make a you know dhs thanks if they hadn't seen a patient twelve months that they should be redistributed at twelve months is unreasonable I can tell you because I mean I had like said any patience that dental insurance that hadn't been any twelve months in particularly medicaid patience they they patent kids generally if you've had kids you came to take into the dentist there all that stuff right poor school starts and then if you get delay medicaid patience are really terrible to cancel appointments for a variety of social reasons i'm not blaming them on being a responsible sometime they all have transportation and other issues that these major care companies are supposed to help help with but I don't think twelve months is a reasonable period of time to redistribute patience i'm in the market I talked about maybe twenty four minutes but we couldn't come to an agreement so that's why I would say that was my other question is what do you think is a reasonable time for I think twenty four months is probably raising you know if they had if the if the major care company had managed to get a man and an in in a couple of years then I think it's reasonable to let some other insurance company try how can we didn't put that in the language for twenty four well do we have time to. Are you gonna have another maybe that was why well and maybe if that was just discovered yeah I went wait I mean that's why you call the spec in the rain we're trying to work so I guess maybe if if DHS can work it out after this we dump carry the bill on to budget that is that I mean okay thank you senator dismantle recognized no no I would want to talk to someone about deters because that's my concern essentially what we're saying is is if you lose a bid you forever mortgage to keep your patient until they go somewhere else and we can't do that I mean II think everyone of us agree but that's what your language says again it we've all been tied up in a lot of different things and this is all come on the rado you know very last minute for me at least i'm not i've had the obvious reached out in some others at his daughter been consumed with another of the things trying to get us out of here about thursday or the thought that we were going to I don't know how we could support it with the way that it's written right now mean maybe there's a day that I mean yeah I don't know maybe there's a date that because be put on it or something that helps fix it but right now I just in it cause it's not just for this issue that the general folks are having this would be for all the way that I read it off future. You know bids and acceptance or whatever contracts for DHS is that takes over patient they could hold those patients for ever more so long as they didn't switch. So. That's that's what it says well in in the new insurance companies can actually reach out to patients in that insane and i'm hopefully that information republican that would be a possibility but that's what what your language you know I mean your language creates the system then essentially I mean I don't know who were running it for particular but whatever the entity is it's loser in this particular situation could have far patience you know for the next thirty years as long as they didn't leave they were still going to be a binder of the state. You know bad the necessity of what this is saying here and again I haven't talked to the house in any way about the does it make sense. That's what it says right and the architect medicaid program should provide the beneficiaries a road in a general managed care organization or says it's only going to are allowed to continue enrollment subject to eligibility which in the arts are medicaid program unless the beneficiary affirmatively chooses enrollment in an alternative dinner managed care organization. To the point if someone just raised there is no deadline there is no cut off it's forever well then you have an open a roman every year that you can chang. You have an open enrollment every year that you can change and. Okay so you aren't willing to put a date in it. They're changed or something. We would we were to entertain. Passed me a day that's what we're talking about may have your vote is yeah maybe talking myself I didn't have minutes against a clearly as is anyone else probably in the room that. Okay I just try to make sure I understand which all read it same way I mean that the statement is technically if they choose to stay. There is no cutoff date they can stay forever into your point then you got all these choices in some choices don't even exist its choices anyone senator problem understand so eventually if you have a if you have an open enrollment or an r p you have to know vendors that everybody's got a change to those two new vendors so if that's kind of what you're referring to that you mention that someone to stay if you have five members left on a plan you still have that far if they're not part of the plan they would be changed to one of the planes offered by the state. Though the so what i'm understanding I don't think that's what your language I may be wrong i'm not this isn't my world but I don't think this way the language reads. Ah my day and there is a precedent for this because from we added another pass we didn't reassign patience to the new state and have to do with a pay or so that's what we do go out i'll try to begin a little bit thank you and I have a question just want to make sure it cause I hear some i've been told that this language conflicts with federal regs and it might cause some issues with funding or something can now speak to their is that something that you're aware of. I'm gonna wear that above my page okay thank you representative you're recognized. Madame chair with your indulgence i'd like to talk to you the department. Yes that's fine is someone from dhs can come to the table please. Any for you well please introduce yourself for the record. Yeah. Good morning jean it man deputy secretary of programs in the state medicaid director mr ubank's deputy secretary for operations and budget you're recognized representative border think about germ misman if you look at the utilization of this program can you walk me through what the percentage rates look like right now for the membership that are using the dental medicare program in are not using the manager did not care program yes sir as referenced earlier we were in the huawei discussing utilization in non utilization over twelve eighteen months and twenty four months so we pauled the data after we received some questions during contract negotiations in the dental managed care percentages of non utilization for calendar year twenty twenty three was eighty three percent the so with that eighty three percent there's a lot of room for the manch care companies that are in place today four client tale but what would dictate those folks do you gain service. Is it access issue or is it that they just don't go to the dense to me what what's the problem with that procedure to folks that are not using the program I cannot speak for the beneficiaries I think there's a several issues that have been brought up today which is one of the reasons when we rebid this contract that is incurred contract negotiations when four bidders bed and the points were so close we decided to go with all four bidders to encourage the competition and hopefully increase some access that we haven't proven that yet but that was part of the the goal so I don't know that I can the test others have a tested that it's a reimbursement rate and it is the fact that medicaid beneficiaries don't go to the denise I think we have heard some numbers that even nine medicaid beneficiaries about fifty percent don't go to the dentist with on corporate insurance we have seen some national statistics that some of the medicaid beneficiaries up to sixty percent will not go to the denise so I think it is an uphill battle to get them into the dentist I will not hard from that what mister what's the reimbursement rate difference between today and the managed care contracts versus the old fee for service payments the u know what that differences are is there any difference I do not know the difference we pay the managed care entities the managed fair entities negotiate with the dentist you pay a capital rate to them and then they pay the dinner yesterday we pay a per member per month rate. Mr are you. The. Alright thank you members any other questions. Das center dismay you're recognized. Just walked me through with the impact of the memories as written no changes there's no more negotiation whatever it's happening but if this were to pass today what exactly happens having just received the new amendment where it just pertains to dental managed care my reading and i'm not a lawyer. Okay now that's fine plain reading of the amendment to me means that if they are already assigned to a member to a plan that we can't move them. Unless they affirmatively sign to move. And we do auto assignment in all of our capitation programs so that we can get beneficiaries into those programs there is always an opportunity to do a change for cause in those programs and also an open enrollment am annually for our qhes for our past for a net transportation for our pcm and i'm sure i'm leaving something out in addition to dental so I do think that this would hinder us from operating a program. Yes and I have a question. Okay so we we were doing this rfp. And I think we say there was going to be two or three we ended up with four. How did we end up with four. The procurement team followed their process when it came down to the bidding and the awarding of the contracts the points between number three and number four were less than one point and the difference in number one number four I believe was less than twenty points so the the department made a decision to award to all four given that the points were so close. And I would just like to say that that has been protested through osp and came back in that decision to word to offer was upheld and that the agency then current active contract negotiations with all four potential vendors at this time okay so just a mall up so there was one point between three and four less than less than one point less more popular one point OK so the between the number one in the number four there was twenty point how much between one into. I will have to get that for the committee I don't recall off the top of my head okay thank you. Representative tucker you're recognized they they said undertucker sorry thank you madame share I just followed up since we have the agency at the table an hour on senator disman's first question i'm just i'm just curious about this point if hypothetically you have vendor x. They have patience and their program there's a new rfp vendor acts either doesn't apply or doesn't plan doesn't get selected they're no longer an eligible vendor in the medicaid program. What would are we together so far so in that hypothetical is do you agree with center disbanks concern that patience would be able to stay with vendor x with this language even if they're no longer a vendor. So I think we need to break that down the left it so the vendor is the managed care company and the provider would be the individual dentist our goal or hope would be that if inder x is no longer the managed care company and vendor why is awarded the contract we would go through a readiness review and the network adequacy review before they go live and hope that all those providers participate with that vendor therefore there would be what's called no member abrasion there's always a risk of a member of raising where they would have to seek a different provider but part of our yet ready this review in making sure a new vendor is ready to go live is to look at that network adequacy throughout the state right. Did I answer your question both I think some somewhat I mean the real issue is and it's complicated and I don't know that i'm asking it exactly properly either but the question is in that scenario which for the psypothetical simple fight say there's only one vintage x and then a new rfp process and then subscribe there's only one vendor after that vendor why would everyone be transitioned automatically as part of that process yes so they would be transitioned to the to the new vendor right okay and and this language wouldn't allow vendor retain patience. Even in that scenario i'm not quite clear about about that with the amendment because the the minute does says that the beneficiary affirmatively chooses enrollment in an alternative dental. I did not have a clear answer on that for you okay all right thank you. Senator dismankle recognition and it's really I was trying to decide that myself because if you read it I believe that and when talks about eligibility which is the question the wording question that it's speaking to beneficiaries but then it goes back on to say to participate in the arts or medicaid program so they just have to be eligible to participate in the medicaid program. Unless the beneficiary affirmative choose romant in an alternative and so there that's the action they have to choose something different at I think the way that it's written in I don't think it's intentional. Is that essentially the state within after have some kind of contract with the company even if they they weren't awarded. You know to be one of the. We give in calm vendors they are. The bench care organizations. All right so if they weren't one of them is selected managed care organization that's the way that it read it again I know we're all trying to do this last minute you know there's we're trying to fix something but at that I don't see how you read it a whole lot different or at least there's plenty of interpretation that you can make. From it because it doesn't say. In an eligible. Mco it says el if they're eligible to be in medicaid I think that's pretty clear. And then just the question is then. Does their eligibility somehow translate back down into a alternative dinner managed care organization but they would have to permanently choose that one so it's a whole separate step I just don't think it's worth it correctly. But again i'm not an attorney either i've gotten text from plenty that are. I mean I think the other thing you have to consider with people not having seen a denised in a certain time frame with the assess. With the change in medicaid beneficiaries being disenrolled we've had a lot of churn in that space you know with people after the pen damage no longer continuing on the roads automatically so you've had some charn in that space too that's that's the reason it I mean II was hoping we could can decime agreement about the how long since they've been seen is an appropriate amount of time to let someone else with that patient be a santa but. Senator rates are recognized thank you and for dhs central talking about the count near the care. You stated a minute ago that the decision was made. Because there is a one point difference between three and four. Two award. Both. Who made that decision. I did your senator rice called you your honor so I the procurement team called and said here is the point scores in and here's our concern in what should we do and as and I said it was being less than one we should go with all four. So a single person made that decision although a variety of people about how many scored many scored. I did not make the decision in the vacuum sorry if I gave that impression the team that worked on the procurement and we worked with legal to make sure that we could make that decision so we felt confident in making it but I did make the final decision to go with the for me to say i've said here in heard things in and been involved in in these procurements before we're in lesson to who scores them and all that in iraq it can amaze me some time you come down to one point you say we're sorry you missed by one polite. And now we've got one person your town to me made a decision. The to put a fourth one owner that that concerning them. Thank you. N members just for clarification I did get what the scores were and i'm just gonna say him so everybody can hear some the highest gore was four seventy four o one the second has was four seventy thirty one. Dean we had a four fifty nine point ninety seven and then we had a four fifty nine point twenty. That way everybody's got that information and senator hickey you're recognized thank you matter cheer and just first one for you and then I will have one for the agency so at this point read here if we needed a uh amendment could that be done in this committee. My understanding is now it cannot go so we really don't have an option if if we need a death or we felt like we needed to add something as far as the eligibility deserve by because we're not playing on having another meeting is that true currently I don't believe we have another special language meeting scheduled. But we could if the chair so desired correct that would be true and thank you miss man and I will tell us me i'm harsh all the times when they sounded right here because i'm aggravated it is I kind of share. The cynter ras is concerned down there because i'm looking at the RFP that was regionally put out and you know arkansas department of human services. Developing a medical services is planning to procure at least two but no more than three contract contractors. Well. People in this in here unless you're some lawyer and that's what everybody doesn't like whenever they read something like this that's pretty plain to me and I guess my question to you is this whenever you all prepare this. Did you prepare it who prepared this rfp. Who who was involved in that the names I did not draft the rfp and I can get you that is a part of the procurement team in part of medical services to month to my knowledge but I can I can get you those names but you all most definitely reviewed it after it was done alright whenever you first reviewed this whenever we were getting raid before it was put out. Was it during tine was it you're in tier to have more than three. The. And I can say I trusted which you want that I trust you enough to tell me that I don't believe so so I think we were trying to reprocure the dental manage care program in wanted to have some some options and then also lessons learned I mean I think we put a lot more into that scope than we had from seven years ago from lessons learned going forward so my focus would have been on the actual scope of work so I appreciate what you say but I want to make sure I understood it was not charles and tent to have more than three. That's. Okay sorry I had to turn my mike on probably probably not I can't say that I had that conscious thought okay so but whenever the answer you're quite but whenever you review this or if people whoever your team he has reviewed this RFP and you read there you thought well we're going to have to but there is a possibility that we may have three. And you tell me if i'm wrong but in your man you didn't ever say there was a possibility that we're going to have four in a hear all this stuff with the scoring. And that's almost kind of irrelevant it's not about the scoring if you're if you're if you're a business and you're looking at an RFP and you're trying to figure out how to bid your product. How to be involved in that tap stuff and you have administrative calls in things like that what i'm going to do is i'm all look at it almost I will be says too and if it's two we may get a little extra but if it's three three is how i'm going to have to build it. Because if that's what i'm a look at is the worst case scenario unless i'm a wide up losing money. But whatever what so it's really not about the score everything in laugh has to have have a cut off. It's not about that it's about the the businesses that are out here trying trying to do this and granted yes there in it to make money obviously so we all know that. So how we do these rfps is what they bid their product down and if we go to four that that does especially you know you sit here and told me that that was never else in tent. Or that you didn't believe it was or probably was not an app and I appreciate you for saying that so. Thank you. Similar crown while you're recognized. She had read the numbers and I just kind of want to go over so between second and third there's almost eleven points so there was a pretty significant gap there. So mean again cut along mr hickey's. Line a question means you did state too or three we could have stopped right there because there was a. Substantial gap. What is the benefit of adding increasing two more companies for access of care help me with that. The. Okay okay so with adding two or three or adding two new vendors I mean the thought process was more access to care more competition giving the the providers in the beneficiaries it's more access more care I mean at I think it was it was the ability to hopefully have more participate. A follow up chair so I guess if it says two or three I guess that's the one place I have a problem to is if it says two or three that's what these companies are bidding on and I think we let a slippery slope if we keep doing stuff like that because then there's somebody's going to lose and be like I was only a point off why didn't I get awarded so just a statement thank you. Senator writer recognized that meant to and and I understand we're you know what we're doing with here may not be. Just exactly what it needs to be as far as boating on it I don't create another problem and i'm opened to listen to that but what i'm allowed d h DHS b light by going outside their own rfp. The going outside of that did you balance requirements. The protest was submitted to the office of state procurement in the decision to work for vendors was upheld and were incurred active contract negotiation with those four vendors who all pemped to the table to negotiate toward a contract understand thanks good legal i'm asking the DHS violate their own rfp requirements when you decided to add a fourth yes or no. I'm gonna say no because we we made the decision to avoid we've got differing opinions and I have a quick question is this the first time that this has been sent out for rfp or is it been done before. It was done previously seven years ago when the agency moved away from fee for service two may and each care. And this is the first time since that time it's at rfp for it that would be correct this is the repercurement after we moved to main each care in this service space okay thank you sinder disminder recognized yeah i'm still just trying to figure out how we. The. Roll out of the situation I mean am I sympathetic to the fact I think you've got some. Mco said of how clients you know taken care of those clients and maybe what happens with those clients and maybe there's some transition issues moving to another mco and so is that is the big question or is it is it. Do we know what it looks like for this transition to the other three entities and then also is what we were still not mean they're still is all going to be coming to review if the mean the alc chair could speak to it more than I could but met there is an issue than the ALC review still has a place to play in this conversation about the art them in the contracts at least so what is do we know what that looks like right now because if i'm understanding in representative correctly both of them I think main concern is. These folks getting lost in the system and not you know. Having consistent coverage I think yes so I think think there was a conversation right before we all were called to the table to discuss the amendment in the hallway and one of the options that we were discussing was reportioning only the nine utilizers run then reapportioning that um across there was actually a call scheduled at ten am this morning to discuss that with the vendors we did cancel that because we were still setting here trying to schedule that for the afternoon to have that conversation in the part of that conversation lead to do we look back twelve months eighteen minutes and I think twenty four months was also referenced for non utilization because the argument be if they're not utilizing then we're not managing them set what it if they're not utilizing the service the rear portion them across the entire vendor call for them to be able to do the readiness and go live and try to get them in but night to anyone that's had an encounter depending on what time frame was decided upon and I believe we just never settled that to my knowledge as we were as we were coming to the table now I guess my question in its minutes is that type of thing something that satisfactory. As a resolution or is it only the the language here that. Is the resolution I believe in it would be that language but we can't do verbal so we'd have to work on that language and come back what do they do you have to have language do that or an agreement mean is that something that the hs can do on their own. The. There that it was be ask us today so that's my question yeah I mean is it is the way that it's written does it give dhs a latitude we've gone through similar things before does it give the hs the latter two to redistribute that we were already considering that method of redistribution prior to the amendment so when we had the call with the four vendors I think it was approximately two weeks ago we had given an apportionment methodology we then received questions back on that about actual sound this legality and things and to legal and act in the actuaries were looking at it we had then that's what lead us to pull the arm encounters of non utilization and then we we looked at full reapportionment and then we looked at nine utilisation reimportion so we that's what the subject of the call was for this morning so we feel like dhs feel that we could do that without an amendment I think this I think the stick yesterday I think one of the. Not sticking points but one of the things that hadn't been decided was the length of time going backwards just per full discussed but if someone was not utilizing we need to worry about them falling out of the system because they're not utilizing anyway they have been renewalizing for twelve months and that this was really a question if we are then we're not I mean it would be almost better than they go with the company that might go try to pick them up and get them starting to get them engaged to get them utilizing I mean there's something not happening with the current company. That's. You know there are optus so somewhere would send it would have to do coming off of the public health emergency where you're losing coverage gaining coverage trying to have some cartonity whether not you know if you're having coverage so you can go to the dentist but we would know about looking back at twelve months if they've utilized not that's not in a question that have anything to do with we were we were asked for twenty four but I think she have agreed to eighteen. Now. So your would agree to eighteen or twelve or twenty four. Well i'm i'm thinking of negotiating something that should have been done a week ago but. I don't want to put something in all the doesn't need to be in law don't know what the other colleagues feel like I don't think this language is properly written if there was an avenue to be able to do this without substantial language I think that's a win win if i'm hearing which other thing with you you're okay with doing that the h s is they have ability to do that and so i'm not sure what we're doing at all right now. Don't know about representative periods his amendment but II think eighteen it's a good compromise so I think at the I think market up right thought twenty four a bit if they would agree to eighteen I think we can just move forward with that. I think the fallacy in all this for dhs and is is thinking that adding additional incoses going to alleviate the situation the mco payments are based on the medicaid fee schedule they can agree to pay more which they down but all all of these companies are going to pay based on medicaid fee schedule and there's not been a fee increasing fifteen years and that's why you're losing dataness. Okay alright thank you so just for clarification is dhs agreeable to put the eighteen months and and if they are agreeable for the eighteen months we can move on. The. Yes okay so we have on the record that you're both are agreeable for eighteen minutes yeah maybe I should clarify I mean I think we're agreeable to take that back to the contract negotiation table as the apportionment method offered to the vendors however I can't force a vendor or an impotential mco to agree to that contract term me no I want to be clear about that is that we're in active contract negotiation with the four perspective vinders at this time and then we've been having ongoing discussions about how a portion of it will take place approximately two weeks ago we had offered an idea or solution of how to move members to the four vendors and that was you know again wanted to look at etalization and wanted to like a actual that's fine but I mean we're setting here and it's either going to get something or nothing. And if we're in contract negotiations with them and way saying this is the way we're going to do our reappropriation I mean as a state and the person that's doing the negotiation on the contract why do we not have that ability to say after eighteen months on these then you'll have the ability to get why do we not have I guess i'm I miss in that point why do we not there and are negotiated with them have that ability to do that yes we can and we can certainly take that back into the negotiation. Can you not just make it part of it and say this isn't a negotiation this is what we're going to have to require because the legislature is saying this is what we want. Yes okay because otherwise we're going to be stuck with running some language we don't want to run that's going to make you do something you don't want to do. So that's what i'm saying so if you have got a commitment that you are going to tell the vendors eighteen months and they're okay what's that if we can get the sponsor the pool that down our all gonna sing come by all and we're good yes ma'am okay i'm only that up to the member member are you good with that. Ma'am chairman i'm good with it so you're willing to pull your roommate down thank you so much appreciate it thank you all. Hi with members we are moving on with SB eighty two members this is the last item on the agenda this is a bill by senator king there is a handout that is coming around and this is for the department of finance and administration disbursing officer. And there's appropriation as well as special language include. Center king you are recognized to present your appeal they're going to have a hand out slow you might want to wait just a little bit so they get it. Alright senator king if you're ready thank you madame chair members this bill is about setting up a grant program through dfa when the state comes in and has the depopulate chickens for a or whatever action they take or whatever reason they do then the grower that is impacted by the state's action this doesn't cover any other diseases like my brother not had a problem in a reform the other day it's done cover anything like that is only when you have state action that they come in and deep populated chicken think about their chickens or poetry for whatever reason they determine. So this would provide a grant access for them to apply that would still go through DFA still have rules in regulations that have to be met by dfa and come up with so let me give you a little bit of back history where this comes and we're compromise so we had the cook's venture good to mention was a company that start up company winning to business made these contracts with these growers they then failed in their agreement to provide feed you know their services then they called the state and then turn the state patrick fierce decided to go in and deep populate these chickens so these growers were not provided any knowledge you'll read in in these articles in here that they just showed up on the farm killed their chickens when I compared it to **** germany and that's learnedly what it was they just pulled up with a bunch of trucks and started doing it they force things on the growers like I said this comes down to the state actions. Cooks venture then bailed in their obligations to provide their concretional obligations to do that because they said they had no money and remember that phrase when we get to the point that here at the end so then the state patrick fears comes up there to a meeting and be in a poetry grower i've been in this business for over thirty four years in a multitude of jobs my brother and our contract growers are sell so I understand this business mr first when I looked at the law I don't think that he had the law so I ask him multiple times at the meeting you'll see this documented in these things that I handed out that said I don't have a state statute to do what i'm doing. You'll say multiple times I didn't have that he's now come up with the reason in saying it's a inflancer avian glance is a serious issue it is more perevolent when margaretory birds come down it's more prevalent when marveltory birds go back so we're going to go through our avian influence the time right now as margaretary birds start start to go back. The big question is in this is number one none of these birds tested positive raven into answer the state didn't even test all the birds in that the public was not informative when you have a situation like this there should have been public notices go out to newspapers because of if it really was a critical waving interest this situation like what happened in our in our former community we need to know that because when we have that we shut down you know we don't even let my dad is retired go to the coffee shop so that should have happened if it really was the situation he said he said it well he came back later in backtrack and said it was for animal welfare these chickens out there were starving to death. He let chicken starve for several weeks out there with no action on a grower's farm that's all being documented they came up with accusations that said these growers were being combative and everything like that one of them was gopro in it he's willing to turn over that. I will tell you this is going to go to court this is going to be an opportunity for this legislature and I know I would appreciate it being voted out because it needs to go to joint budget it's got a long process for it happens it needs to be debated i'm willing to do that but the problem is if this goes to court with what I think is going to happen is somebody it's been experienced in this the state will lose and then we're going to pay out attorney so this would just provide the grand opportunity to do that you could sit here multiple times what happened I asked for an emergency declaration from the governor and environmental because when you're depopulating killing one point three million chickens it's environmental impact so I looked at it like no situation in the stopped up fire where there was money appropriate last time we're a company failed in their obligations and I people know me i'm critical of governor hutchison but governor hutchison and legislature last time you know appropriate some money when a company failed in that situation and this is pretty much no different than that. So you have this that want to keep say in this he said I don't have a state statute now he's coming up with one. If you go in and do this you should have the law on your side it'd be like a a police officer rest the new and say why you arrested me what law my break and I don't have one. So that is going to be in the courts if we don't do something and have an opportunity to do it. If you look at a lot of this situation when the governor to die by request for emergency situation they said well we can't provide a bail out. For private companies that's exactly what the taxpayers did the taxpayers are on the hook to go out the cooks venture that failed in their obligations. It's cost us thousands of dollars to go out there in may and hours everything else the state pay so the taxpayers actually bailed out cook's venture. The one thing I want to close within this and I have all the articles in things highlighted in this. If you look patrick fist and west war got played the taxpayers got homes you know why cook's venture that was supposed to be going into bankruptcy and couldn't pay their money you'll see an article in here where axios worth sparkman did an article could venture recently got a seventy million dollars on a credit. Now how is any company bank rep can't pay the money and you fall for that and understand when mr fiscan war stepped into this. They provided no contracts documentation did absolutely nothing. Do protect the taxpayers or anything for their actions and once again they're the cook's venture you'll see in the article it now has a seventy million dollars a lot of credit so there is learnedly no one out there that this pass is the smell test of it how does bankrupt companies and also you get a seventy million dollars on a credit. So with that I would take any questions this could actually be for future are act cultures are no one industry poetry is the number one of the act culture when you have these situations is only depends on state actions it's much like if the state comes in and conditions your property to do a highway then you're it's allowed compensation in opportunity to get something back this is only that it doesn't apply to any other companies it doesn't apply the situation where those since winning in and into the contracts of growers it doesn't apply that only if the state action is to come in and depopulated this is an avenue to provide something that these growers they have no fault of their own can get an avenue to possibly get compensated for the state's actions and that taking question. Sooner he get a recognized for a question yes they have single king the man's not man is not on the merits of any step mans on the language. If you look at page two. I'm gonna be honest I just don't like the way this is written it says immediately upon the effective date of this act the cheapest offer start will work to okay. I'm already immediate problem effective day to say the cheapest wall through station transfer own his or her books and those of the state treasure in order to stay to some of five million dollars or as much as it is available from the general revenue the lot of reserve phone. And I know what you're tantalized as it probably would be the maximum amount of family. But the way I read it it could be whatever is available there even if it was over five minutes so I don't think it could be at I know you're going to tell me that's not your intent probably but the way it reads is just we we didn't I don't believe it's written correctly well as somebody in this business for thirty decades I will tell you with a new plan so you don't know what's going to happen there was avian influence or operates around that time and brought down the road you have to since for example they had an easy to plan to one father had it on the is far four hundred yards down there his son didn't have it those market populated so it would provide flexibility because you don't know what are about the information to situation could be much like covered there's there's no way to predict it in our work for example it wound up because they learned a lot from that situation as I said if it's a navy inflation they should have been in concern they should have been given public notices that culture are community shuts down we have five mile radius heart zones that we stay in you have a lot of different mechanism going place so would avoid inflation it's quite frankly just unpredictable what could happen if it was in fact that situation okay so my interest I was I was wrong so you're in tin is if if there was to be if there was to be a hundred million dollars there that. The that that amount would be available so yeah okay but that's all I needed to know that it to be clear it it's only to not provide not give an answer of a ceiling which I you know i'm trying to give a ceiling to start off with but it also would even influence it impact. You know we could implement four forms or impact eighty two forms now understand the state actions is oppressed in i've never heard of my decades i've talked to several people that said far more expensive have never seen a situation where the state is coming in the popular most the term synergy when it went and i've been in this business in all over fifteen states in different roles most of the time when you have an eighteen plans to situation if back and let me remind everybody none of these chickens tested positive rate and glancer okay none of them zero. So the state's role in that is not valley. So if you have a situation in black and evening plans that most of the time that I have no work in the decades i've been in this business and talk to people if the company will come in and do it so if you have an emergency plans to situation in behalf I don't know what companies are in your district now is but the say aye there abc company while abc company typically comes in indeed populates it now in that situation then that's a role of the company coming in to do it and doing a compensation package which typically happens. My thing is is the only if the state comes in in those action so if the company goes in and does it on their half then that's the company responsibility but if the state takes action it's no different than incoming in and condemn your property for whatever you say think in that probades and avenue for compensation a potential avenue for compensation done mean you're going to get it reset up the rules and go through there. The. Soon to hill you're recognized for question search a king looking at this you know you're specifically laying out for for poultry farmers on this. Let's see if i'm assuming this happened to what few dairy fart would have left or to the beef count industry should. Shouldn't they have the same rights as the public farmers on on come back on that we're actually make sure in favorite islands of one industry over the other you know we have in most of those situation like a mad county disease or something that is so you know out there if we did have that there's emergency declarations and flexibility to take care of that with the governors finds that they have and discretionary funds that's a possible avenue but I will say with inflance a it is a prevalent year after years in these are the hopefully worker that is a prevalent year to year year mad cow we haven't had an england scotland we took the measures and everything like that most of that stuff in the cattle port can be quickly more quickly contained it's less numbers if you have poetry for example you have people with barnyard chickens or you know they are wild birds that come back and forward so you know the poetry industry is much more larger the avian influence this situation that I mention is much more prevalent because every year for twice a year typically we have these situations happen it's predictable it's going to happen it's unpredictable it is with the cattle situation is up cattle farm been in there. It's it's very limited in scope it's not near on the radar is what in its not going to be near on the radar on the evening i'm a cattle guy too on the impact that it could make on our formers in our economy. You recognized. Now you even craig most but I was taking our rate in the paper last week were abandoned influence over has been detected in what they can do some texas in derek house. Even influence that they're there is some potential in that and stuff but our dear hearts are very small there are allowances for that i'm trying to give a situation and give evidence in documentation of an exact exact answer you know example that's happened I mean those things like that with the cattle port can happen but very rarely it's happening kansas that usually have drought situations that have more impact which you don't have an in the poetry dead impact it so i'm not saying it's not possible but in those situations it can't happen in that I believe with the governor's discretionary funds in the mercy declaration or or these things allow to happen we've had person in of things happening you can get money to but if they happen yes I said would they be inflincing this it's more for predictable situation that can't happen because like I said it's these magatorie words go back home then it's going to pop up again but I have right if you look in these things that I have highlighted you'll see multiple examples of what happened in this situation I mean i'm not making a hypotheticals or anything like that. The. Members any other questions. See none do I have a motion motion to have a second. I have a motion second. I have a motion in second all in favor of sight discussion. Sound to hake you you're reconnect or discussion on the motion we're given an open checkbook. I don't want everybody to miss it i'm not i'm and again i'm not on the merits of this but I want to buy to read that language. We're not doing a maximum were saying whatever is available in that account and that is our account that is one of our counts that we that when our surplus rose over it'll roll over into that that is one of our main accounts it and it only takes the entire legislature to get that out. But we're giving an open checkbook or that if we pass this through. Let me let me can I answer that manager that is that's not my seat that's never was an intina mine if you look what what happened is this this is passes that dependent will prom gate rules and regulations go through the industry standard so this will go through a lot of processes before it gets to an open checkbook and it's also limited to five million dollars so once again i'll go back and work we're having rules and regulations will go through active process to council this would be thoroughly vetted before it even gets to that point that it gets to there it's it's not an open checkman. Sound to hill you recognize I was forgetting the order that we're in here I was going to ask for the effort to come down to give the opinion but it's too late for that I just don't realize that yeah we're in discussion. Any other discussion. Our out I have of motion and a second i'll in favor of the all opposite no the nose have it with that I think that's the end of our agenda thank you all offer coming and staying and with that the amendments and bills have been adopted and released from the special lines of what it's the better language subcommittee he ten thirty three SB forty seven hb ten forty one SB fifty three SB sixty SB nineteen hb ten seventy four SB four and SB fifty one and with that we're adjourned.