Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (16)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB592
Act 996
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…Gonzales TO REGULATE DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AGREEMENTS. SB592 Elliott TO AMEND THE PATIENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1995; AND TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE PATIENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1995; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Elliott | Notification that SB592 is now Act 996 |
|
HB1924
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…AUTHORIZE THE TERMINATION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. HB1924 Dotson CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUI…”
|
CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUIRE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A TWO-YEAR REAL ESTATE … | Dotson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1027
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1027 Rye TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATE…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL AN INSURED'S DAMAGED … | Rye | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1068
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1068 Evans TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO CO…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE AGREEMENT. | Evans | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1103
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1103 Sullivan TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INI…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE ACT OF 2015; AND TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS … | Sullivan | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1271
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1271 Rushing TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF A REAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF A REAL ESTATE LICENSING COURSE BY THE … | Rushing | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1273
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1273 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE BOARD TO REVIEW THE … | Pilkington | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1410
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1410 Gazaway TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS AND RESIDENTIAL TENANTS; AND TO REQUIRE MINIMUM HABITABILITY … | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1462
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1462 Gazaway CONCERNING DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION INVOLVING A DE…”
|
CONCERNING DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION INVOLVING A DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1516
Act 836
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1516 Capp TO ALLOW A FOUNDATION TO SERVE AS A FIDUCIARY; AND TO…”
|
TO ALLOW A FOUNDATION TO SERVE AS A FIDUCIARY; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A FOUNDATION … | Capp | Notification that HB1516 is now Act 836 |
|
HB1704
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1704 Gazaway TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE EN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE ENFORCEMENT ACT; AND TO REGULATE STANDARD-FORM CONTRACTS. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1964
Act 1065
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…; AND TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC SUBJECTS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION. HB1964 Gonzales TO REGULATE DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AGREEMENTS.…”
|
TO REGULATE DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AGREEMENTS. | Gonzales | Notification that HB1964 is now Act 1065 |
|
SB551
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB551 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TERMINATION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE … | J. English | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1510
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1510 Lowery TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW".”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW". | Lowery | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1703
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1703 Dotson TO CREATE A TWO-YEAR LICENSE OPTION; AND TO REQUIRE…”
|
TO CREATE A TWO-YEAR LICENSE OPTION; AND TO REQUIRE FOUR HOURS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION PER … | Dotson | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
SB392
Act 728
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…so members the motion before you is a motion of do pass on Senate bill 392 as amended all those in favor say hi hi any opposed say kno…”
|
TO REPEAL THE EXEMPTION TO CERTAIN LAWS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT RECOGNIZE IN THEIR POLICIES … | B. Ballinger | Notification that SB392 is now Act 728 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
0:00
Be seated. We will move to the agenda. I know Representative
Cloud is going to run a bill for Senator Elliott, Senate Bill 592, to amend the Patient Protection Act
of 1995. There's There's an amendment that is going to be distributed.
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
0:44
Representative Cloud, you are free to explain the amendment.
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
0:51
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Joe Cloud, State Rep, District 71. This is an amendment to Senate Bill 592. You'll see it's pretty straightforward. Lines 30 through 32 of the original bill have been struck. And then as you've received the amendment now, you can read the substituted language. If there are any questions about it, I'd be glad to answer them.
Okay. And it also adds you as a co-sponsor. Correct. Yes. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion? All those in favor of adopting the amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. And the amendment is adopted. You are welcome now to discuss and present to
us Senate Bill 592 as amended. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
1:46
Chair. With yours and the committee's permission, I'd like to ask Mr. David Ivers, attorney, to join me
Speaker 17
1:50
In case we have any legal questions, that would be fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
2:14
the committee. I'm David Ivers, representing the Arkansas Medical Society. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 592 is an amendment to the Patient Protection Act of 1955.
This will protect the rights of
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
2:30
Sorry. Thank you for that correction. You're welcome. 1995. This protects the right of the patient to see the health care provider of the patient's choice. and after adverse professional review action unless that health care provider has violated the appropriate standard of care, and that unless is a big word there. If a physician on a hospital medical staff is suspended or terminated from the staff,
then insurance companies typically can and do remove them from the provider networks. Obviously, this strangleholds the physician's ability to practice medicine at all. The problem arises if this hospital decision was driven by a decision other than patient care factors, economic factors, health care issues, behavioral issues, dependence issues, the list could go on and on. This bill states that the insurance company may not exclude a physician from its network based solely on a peer review decision unless the hospital's physician peer review committee concluded that the physician's conduct adversely affected or could have adversely affected a patient by violating the standard of care or pose a risk to the health or welfare of a patient.
This is a bipartisan bill. It passed in the Senate 35 to 0. The amendment has been made in collaboration with the American Association of Health Plans, and as far
as we know, there's no known opposition. So I would entertain any questions.
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
4:12
Let me ask one question. You mentioned of the list of reasons why there might be separation. You mentioned dependency. I assume you're talking about some type of a drug dependency?
Correct. If that were found, if that drug dependency were found to be hindering the physician's ability to treat the patient, then that would be a valid reason, correct? Absolutely. Okay. But there would have to be a peer review finding that the dependency actually contributed to adverse care. Yes, or could have. Or could have. If
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
4:52
I could give you a personal example, when I was chief of staff,
we had a physician that unbeknownst to anyone at the time had a chemical-dependent problem. He came to us and admitted the problem. There had never been any patient issues whatsoever. He was suspended off of staff and sought treatment. In six months, he was reinstated. to this day is still flourishing in his medical practice so if if the potential
had have been there because he was suspended not for a patient care issue and he had been taken off all insurance networks he wouldn't be able to go back and practice okay all right members any questions if not
is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the bill if not representative cloud your I would make a motion do pass okay
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
5:54
we have a motion do pass is there
any discussion no discussion so members the motion before you is a motion of do pass on Senate bill 392 as amended all those in favor say hi hi any opposed say know and the bill passes. Congratulations.
Chair
Unverified
6:29
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, committee. Representative Rushing, are you running 1924 today? Okay. Representative Rushing is
running HB 1924 for representative Dotson and you're you are
Chair
Unverified
6:52
recognized to begin your presentation all right thank you
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
6:56
mr. chair thank you committee the way I understand it is house
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
7:02
bill 1924 was filed as a compromise bill that we've seen on the agenda of 1703. I think 1703, I didn't even quite understand the reasoning behind
1703. And so Representative Dotson, I think, has taken some time to meet with the Realtors Association and the Real Estate Commission. And I think it's probably not what every party wants. I think there'll probably be some people up here to speak against it. And I'm not for all of it. and they're not for all of it, and it's just because we see things differently, but I think it's a good compromise, and I think Representative Dodson worked hard on it. Basically, what it would do is it would require the first bill that he had wanted to extend the real estate license
to having a two-year option on being able to get our license. Right now, we get our license once a year. We renew our license at the amount of $60 every September, and this wanted just to extend it to make us have a two-year license and I can't remember what his fee was I don't know if it was the same fee but it was just from not going through the paperwork of extending it so we just have that option of every two years now I don't think that that was really agreed upon because they didn't know the financial impact with the real estate
Commission. And so this bill, instead of actually doing that, asks that they'll do a feasibility study on the two-year licensures. And that way, they can come back in two years and report back to us on if it would be possible to make this easier for real estate agents and if it was still cost-efficient for the Real Estate Commission. 1924, you'll see it also still leaves the continuing educations of not less than six but no
more than seven which is what we have now we we do seven hours of continuing education in the 1703 I believe representative Dodson wanted to bring it back to four hours with one including safety which kind of really cuts back into a even in my opinion cuts it back a little bit too far and so I think we're good with seven or eight and i'm glad to see that he made this change to this particular bill um i think that he's tried to work hard with each party on each side
and i think that his purpose of this bill because i think that's been confusing because over the last three sessions you'll see that we've had all kinds of education bills coming and going out of here and out of this committee and off the floor and in the senate on realtor education and And I think that's because some of us that are practicing realtors, we are concerned about our continuing education. As a broker of 60 agents, I'm concerned about the continuing education of my agents, but I want quality education.
And I know that the Real Estate Commission is working really hard, and our educators have been working really hard to come up with some quality education. And I have to say the last couple years in my office, the educator that we have had do our training has done a wonderful job and is very well, is very knowledgeable and is able to help our company. So I do think they're doing good there. I still think there's a lot of things that need to be taken care of.
And so I think allowing the education requirements to be put back on, to add more hours, it just gets confusing for us as realtors on what we're supposed to take. And I'll just give you an example. So
what's my CE requirement for 2019? All active licensees must have seven hours, which is include three hours requirement advertising,
one hour in safety, and a three hours elective course. Ethics needs to be done every two years of not less than two and a half hours. So for 2018, that's for 2019. For 2018, all licensees had seven hours, which included one hour of safety. Then the brokers, if you're a broker, a principal broker, associate broker, you had another three hours, if you accidentally sat in one of those classes that were designated for brokers and you weren't a licensed broker, you wouldn't get
credit for it, and we did
have that problem. So I think there's just a lot of confusion. I did try to run a bill in state agencies to help try to clarify some of that by asking the Real Estate Commission to post this on their website, but they were opposed to that, and I do know that they do have that on their website, and all I was asking with that bill is to just to make it a standing law that we had to have some disclosure there. But they were opposed to that one as well. So I think we're just trying to get some kind of clarity for all of –
there's 10,000 licensed agents out there approximately. 7,000 of them are realtors. There are approximately 3,000 or so that are just real estate agents. So they don't even have the association to back them up to know what they're supposed to be doing. And so they rely on the Real Estate Commission and their website and the notices coming from them. So I think that we always hear from the Realtors Association, and I've been an avid participant in the association at all levels for many years.
I've been at the local level, the state level. I've been on national committees. And so I understand the process, and I understand how the process works, and I understand how many people that they represent. But I also understand that probably if you were to go into any given office, unless somebody in that association, the Realtors Association, if you were going to that office, they probably don't even know what's going on. I mean, unfortunately, our agents are misinformed. And a lot of times they don't know what's going on up here.
And that's important for continuing education as well. So, you know, those are the kind of things that we need to make sure that we see. Because I know that out of my 60 agents, I could probably walk in there today and say, what, you know, what bills are at the Capitol affecting you that's going to affect your education and your business? And they would probably say, I don't know. I don't know of any right now. And it's just because if anything like we see with any topic here in each industry,
they may not know what's happening. but I think we just need to get this problem resolved for a while and just kind of
let it go nice and steady. And with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you for that presentation. We do have some questions. Representative Lynch? Yes. I see on the last one day on 7th floor.
Bob Walker
Unverified
13:53
Please speak into the microphone. I don't have a tablet down here. Well, I'll read it to you. Okay.
Speaker 36
14:08
Anyway, the section where the commission may promulgate rules to add additional hours of continuing education has been struck. Yes.
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
14:18
Was there a reason for that? The reason for that was actually added in last
session, and it was on a bill that I actually ran that we added it in because we had taken it back to seven hours instead of nine hours. And we struck that. Well, it's my understanding that the reason that Representative Dotson struck that was because, again, of consistency and being able to know exactly so people can go now to the law and see how many hours they have to take.
But if we give that opportunity to the Real Estate Commission, then there is the possibility that there could be hours that people don't really even know that they have to take. So in the current statute, it says no more than seven, but if they propagate a rule and it changes it to eight or nine and it doesn't get followed up with, then they're kind of stuck. And so trying to just take back that, take that back so it just can't go up all of a sudden.
And it does have to go back. It does still have to go through rules and regs and through LAC, so it does have to be heard. And I think that one of the things that they did, and I'm not 100% sure, like I said, I'm just filling in on this bill for Representative Dotson, but I think that the Real Estate Commission did change the post licensures from how long you have to get your education, your 18 hours, instead of a year to six months, which I think is a really good change.
And so I think that people, I think we're all open to that kind of stuff, but I think that we just need some
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
16:03
better disclosure. Follow-up? You're recognized. So if the commission promulgated a rule, they're not required to communicate that to each license broker? Well,
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
16:11
they are, but they are required, but the methods in which they communicate are not always effective. And as
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
16:19
I said, I tried running a bill to try to correct that problem, which they were opposed to on that bill.
The means in which they tried to communicate are not – and I'm just talking from a practicing person that's been involved on all ends. I mean, I've been involved at the level where these people are coming to speak against it. I've been involved at that level too, and I understand their concerns because they have a hard time communicating as well. But we just need to make a more efficient, effective way. And right now, that's not happened over the last few years that I've been here anyway.
Representative Bruce Coleman
Unverified
17:00
Representative Coleman, you're recognized. Thank you. In this first section there where you're having the Real Estate Commission conduct a study, can't they do that without legislation? Do we need legislation to have them conduct a study of these?
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
17:19
Well, I suppose that they probably could. I think that the reason that Representative Dodson put this in here is because he wanted to make sure that it actually got done. I think that was kind of the compromise because the original bill, 1703, was actually changing
it to a two-year's license, that you had the option to go to a two-year's license. And so this just comes back and says, okay, well, you didn't like the two-year license option because you didn't know the outcome on the financials for the Royal State Commission and so I would just we'd want to see a two-year feasibility and see where it goes so that that was my understanding on that so do you have a follow-up not yet
Speaker 14
18:03
not yet okay we will come back to you when you do let me let
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
18:08
Let me ask a couple questions, Representative. I understand that the optional two-year real estate license, you're just saying that they should study that. Yes. You're commissioning a study with this legislation, or Representative Dodson is. However, I notice on the last page, you are referencing that if the licensee fails to complete the post-licensure education requirements within 12.
You struck that to the six-month period after the date the license was issued. The commission shall place the license on inactive status. Now, my question is this. I could see where if you have a current one-year license, that a six-month lapse would be legitimate to suspend their license. or excuse me, excuse me, if you change to a two-year license, why would you change?
I think the confusion here is that part of the bill is to commission a study and part of the bill actually makes changes. So you're making a pretty substantive change there as far as... On
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
19:23
that particular piece, the reason that he changed that is in current statute, it does say 12 months, and the real estate commission is the one that wanted the six months for the post licensures, and so he changed that. That was one of the rules they promulgated this last time by using the other is to change it to six months.
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
19:45
Okay, and that makes sense. If they have a 12-month license and they've not done their CE or their continuing education at all for the year, then you're not going to be renewed. So, but they ought to be put on inactive if halfway through that license period, they didn't fulfill their requirements. Right. Okay. And so, yes, and I think that, I think all
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
20:07
of us are in agreement with that portion of the bill, I would assume. Okay. So where does, I
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
20:15
know we do have some opposition lined up.
Where's the opposition to a study or is it to the addition of the possible course offerings on page two? Actually, I don't know
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
20:27
because not a single one of them has approached me about the bill at all. Okay.
Well, we'll find out then. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ask for you to get inside someone else's head. So, okay. Members, any additional questions?
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
20:48
Representative Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, Representative Rushen, on line 26 on the first page, it struck is to will become. Is that an effort just to clarify that a person with license would become inactive if they don't do any continuing education? Or is that a change? It was sort of vague in the current statute?
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
21:20
You know, I really couldn't, that was a BLR change, and so I really couldn't, I couldn't tell you what
Speaker 58
21:26
their reasoning was for me. All right, thank you.
Speaker 59
21:29
You know, they stick some ors and ises and on there. Sometimes
you don't know what they're for. All right, thank you. It does mean what, you know, what the meaning of is is, right? Depends on that. Yes, okay. Oh, all right. Well, I see no more questions. Oh, Representative Lundstrom has a question.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
21:50
I appreciate you running this bill for Representative Dotson. You've obviously managing 60 realtors on your own is a pretty hefty lift. This feels like we are micromanaging realtors all over the state. You ran a bill two years ago that removed some of this language. So I'm confused why we're going back and forth and back and forth and micromanaging realtors. It seems like we're making this more difficult. Actually, I added the language. You added the language. I
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
22:19
didn't I didn't I didn't I didn't remove the language I added the language and now we are
I don't know that you would call it micromanaging the realtors I think what we have right now is misinformation and and we have seen through the last couple years with this new language with the rules that that that that being able to go to the rules committee even makes it harder for us to get that information out and so it was an unintended consequence of what we thought It was a compromise on my bill last time to allow them to do that, to take it back to seven hours instead of the nine hours.
And so I think that that's your, I mean, that's about the best explanation I can get is just trying to just get it back to something that everybody has a definite of what we've got to do. Because right now, there's not a definite. I mean, they can go tomorrow and, you know, go to rules over the interim and change it, and then it's just notification, and, again, we have a problem with notification. Follow-up? What's the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
23:25
number of hours you have to do right now to keep your license?
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
23:29
Seven. Seven hours. One hour of safety and six hours. And for this year, three of those hours must be in advertising, and if you hadn't had your ethics, then two-and-a-half hours of those must be done in ethics. And one safety. And
one safety, yes. Members, any additional questions? If not, we'll turn to the audience. First person signed up to speak against the bill is Bob Walker.
I believe at this time we've authorized a handout, which is a copy, I believe, of the current legislation.
Bob Walker
Unverified
24:39
Mr. Walker, if you'll identify yourself for the record, you're free to make your presentation. Excuse
Speaker 70
25:02
me. My name is Bob Walker. I am the chairman of the Arkansas Real Estate Commission. I am a 44-year realtor member, broker, and I'm also an educator.
So I'm going to try to speak on as many ends of this that I can. Taking the bill as it is, the feasibility study on a two-year license, I think this may be one of those situations where we have a solution looking for a problem. we have heard nothing and I get across this state whether it's teaching or doing anything else I get across this state and I'm involved with a lot of
realtors and I've not heard one of them say sure wish our license was a lot longer a couple reasons for that number one a new licensee getting in the business quite frankly they're not sure if they're going to make it the first year and then you have others like myself that are let's say seasoned I may be looking to get out and so a two-year license kind of makes it a little bit tougher for me plus the fact that this is optional so I'm gonna have half of
the members in my office say yeah I want a one-year license I want a two-year license I will tell you and I think most brokers would back me up on this it's hard enough making sure that all your agents get license renewed by the time they're supposed to get them renewed and trying to keep up with well now who's got the one-year license who's got the two-year license I think that puts a lot burden back on the broker not to not to say that even from the Commission
standpoint I believe changing to a two-year license or even an optional license would have quite a financial impact I believe somewhere in the neighborhood at minimum seventy five to a hundred thousand dollars in trying to get everything lined out for that so that's one of the reasons I think that the feasibility study we're not we're not seeing the reason for it on the part about they actually list in this bill in section 2 basically the things that can
be taught in CE personal safety of course current real estate marketing and advertising, updates to contracts and other real estate, and any other relevant real estate education. Well, I really and truly believe the only thing we need is relevant real estate education. And things change, you know, as well as I do, in any field that you're in, things change in a rapid manner. And so we don't want the educators to be basically hogtied on something if something was coming
down the pipe that realtors need to have or real estate licensees should have that education on that we don't want to be tied to that and as an educator going across the state and teaching I have a lot of people that ask me can we do something on this could you look at doing a class on that and so that would help us to make sure that we could get what people are looking for out there that is relevant real estate education and the
other part about excuse me I think there may have been some confusion a minute ago on the six month to get your education versus the twelve month that was on post license education didn't have anything to do with continuing education so I just wanted to make that point and the fact is and you did get a handout passed out to you on bill 1527 I believe it was that at that time we
thought we think took care of the hours question that came in to be so it is as As representative rushing said, it is seven hours right now is one hour of safety and then three hours of anything that may be mandated by the commission, which is representative rushing said this year is in advertising and then three years as an elective where it gives the educators the opportunity of coming up with whatever plan or whatever class that they can get approved by the commission that they can do.
Because I know now, especially since the commission took over real estate education, there are agents out there that are seeking certain things. They want a certain bit of knowledge that maybe all the schools aren't offering. So it gives them that opportunity also to seek out those things that will help them in their daily practice. So I think these things are the main things as far as what the opposition is.
And as I said, I am a real estate broker also, so I'm speaking to you also from that standpoint. As far as notification, I think somebody may need to correct me on this. I believe the CE started in 88, I believe it was. I've never had a problem knowing every year what I had to do there's notification that goes out to the licensees brokers are well aware of what
the requirements are I make sure in in my office that the agents know this is what you got to do and if there was a mandated course this is what you need to do so I don't think there's a problem there and as far as people sitting in the wrong class the only thing I can say on that is I know whenever I've taught this across the state last year the year before when we had brokers doing once one part and salesman doing the other five times before that class was
started it was always said if you are a broker and I'm doing the salesperson's class, you're in the wrong class. So I don't think that there's a problem, if there is, it's with the educator that doesn't make that very clear to
Speaker 69
31:58
someone. And I'll take questions if you
Speaker 9
32:02
have any. Yes, I have several questions. You
referenced the, on page two,
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
32:11
the listing of possible coursework as hog-tying educators. And I'm just wondering, of course, I'm never very fond of language that goes into statute that says any other purpose or any other relevant, but this does say that, any other relevance. So how does that hog-tie any educator when you've got the terms, phrase, any other relevant real estate issues?
Speaker 70
32:43
Well, I think my only comment on that is really relevant real estate education is the only thing you need to have in there. I mean, the commission is going to make sure that whatever courses are approved, and currently we have 26 courses approved for CE education. And so I think you can look at every one of them, and you're going to see that it all is relevant real estate education.
So all I'm saying is, in my opinion, we don't need the other language in there because the commission's always going to make sure that whatever gets approved or anything that's mandated by the commission is going to be relevant to
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
33:35
the licensees. Based on what? because the only thing that I see that would have been in there without two, three, and four would have been the only thing that's dictated is personal safety precautions, and I understand the need for that because
of the issues that we've seen.
But other than that, it's just open-ended, right? To
Speaker 70
34:00
some degree, yes, sir. Okay. Now, if I could follow up with that. Sure. Currently, and Representative Rushing pointed this out, currently we have three hours of mandated commission education for CE. We also have the one hour of safety. So that would leave three hours of an elective that they could choose whatever they wanted to do.
But also, there is every other year, there is a requirement for realtors anyway to have ethics. So on, let's say, this year, for example, if we did the mandated commission education and we did ethics and we did safety, well, that's all there is.
okay the other question i have um and i'm just going to tell you
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
34:59
that i'm uh on edge about
dollar estimates being thrown out dfa does this to us all the time in shooting down legislation that we might have on tax exemptions they just pull a number out of thin air
Bob Walker
Unverified
35:15
saying that this is going to cost the state $350,000. So I'm very, you're not under oath,
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
35:23
but I'm going to have to challenge what method you use to come
Speaker 79
35:28
up with the $75,000 to $150,000 cost
just to implement this simple little bill. DIS has
Speaker 70
35:34
told us it would take somewhere between $800,000 and $1,000 man-hours at $95 an
Speaker 69
35:40
hour to implement it. to be able to implement an
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
35:43
optional two-year license? I believe that is correct. Yes. Okay. I
would think that the committee would want to see that kind of documentation before that number is thrown out. Any other questions, members?
Any other questions? Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for the bill? If not, we'll move to the next person who is signed up to speak against the
Bob Walker
Unverified
36:24
bill, which would be Tony Moore. If you'll identify yourself for the
Tony Moore
Unverified
36:28
record, you're free to present. Thank you. My name is Tony Moore, and I'm the principal broker and owner of Moore & Company Realtors in Russellville.
I also have offices in Clarksville and Moralton, and I'm here today to speak against the bill. I'm a licensee for 36 years, principal broker, and a lister and seller for an awful lot of long, long time. And so I would like to just fill in the gaps. I thought Chairman Walker did a great job and loved to answer any questions you might have to fill in. A little bit of the difference here, we had a compromise in Representative Rushing's bill back a few years ago
were that we allowed to compromise from a six-hour continuing ed to seven. We are at six hours, one of the lowest CE of any realtor group, real estate group within our area that averages nine hours. And so we felt like it was imperative to try to improve that, and there was some opposition against that. And at that moment and in that timeframe, uh, Beverly Carter, the tragic story, I'm sure all of you recall of the realtor being killed and we compromised to the one hour of safety with the right to adjust to the nine hours, uh, after September of this year.
And we were able to focus on just that one hour safety for those agents and making sure that was taken care of our industry is changing. It's changing at a very fast rate, and we're doing our best as commission to keep up with it. And so to do that, the ability to be able to add those certain hours, for an example, just a few years ago, we had a great economic downturn, as all of you are very well aware, and in that was what became what I call short sales. It was a situation whereby we were trying to help people impoverished in certain economic situations,
And we actually were needed to add some CE to agents to understand some of those paradigms that are happening. We feel like that's certainly going to happen in the future. We just don't know what that is. And I appreciate the representative's comments. If my eyes were better, I could see her name tag. Thank you very much for the term about micromanaging because that's why I'm opposed to it. If you will see so fit to allow us to have the flexibility to be able to adjust our CE to best fit the needs of the market at the time,
because our mandate's about taking care of the public, and we need that option to be able to adjust. And then I'd like to address really very quickly Representative Rushing's comment about communication. Yes, I would agree. I think we can always do a better job communicating. I'm not sure I'm ever satisfied. And to that event, we've been in a three-year rewrite of our website program, and we're investing over $500,000 in that update, and it's being rolled out as we speak. And so we certainly recognize that we are behind in trying to make sure that we have cutting-edge technology,
and we're investing a tremendous amount of money in making sure that we do improve it, because I think she's right and that we can do a better
Speaker 23
39:44
job doing that. Okay, thank you. Members, any questions? any questions thank you very much thank you testimony well
once again i'll turn to the audience see if anyone wants to speak for this bill maybe maybe they changed your mind since the last time that i asked for it no apparently not
well we do have one last speaker who signed up to speak against the bill and uh that would be
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
40:15
Carolyn Cobb you are recognized if you identify yourself for the record and
Speaker 88
40:22
then you can present thank you mr. chairman committee
Speaker 89
40:25
members my name is Carolyn Cobb I'm a realtor I'm an executive broker and I'm the president elect of the Arkansas Realtors Association so I'm here also to speak with mr. Walker and mr. Moore against this bill and mine's pretty succinct
with what they have already said, so I won't elaborate too much, but we don't see the need for the two-year license option. I agree. I think it's confusing and would be difficult to manage. As I travel the state as well in this position, I've not heard any talk about wanting a two-year licensure option. And except for the one hour safety we already have, we don't need to restrict the topics.
We have to have the flexibility to address issues as they come up, and I think the commission does a very good job of that with their topics and the educators. I don't see a need to delete the provision from the 2017 session to remove the cap on CE. The commission can set the number of hours by regulation. If the Arkansas real estate commission and the Arkansas realtor's association to decide to try to increase the number of hours, it can only be done by promulgating a rule and
your legislative council and administrative rules and regulations committee would have to approve all of that, of course. So in conclusion, I think the law as it's written, as it's currently written is fine and we see no need to change it. be happy to answer any questions members any questions if not thank you for your testimony thank you mr. chairman thank you committing sure
Bob Walker
Unverified
42:16
representative rushing will turn back to you to see if you have any responses that you'd like to offer to
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
42:25
the committee I can I'll be glad to answer questions if they have
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
42:30
any if not i can just address them in
Speaker 23
42:34
my closing so either either way okay we're open again for questions members if not you're you're recognized to close
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
42:41
all right thank you mr chair um i will just address kind of the uh reasoning i think behind uh representative
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
42:49
of Dotson on adding those additional areas of education inside of the statute. And I think that's because when you see complaints that are filed by the public, more than likely they are coming from the fact of there was some kind of misrepresentation in advertising or that that real estate agent didn't know how to fill out the contract and didn't get good guidance there. And so I think that he wanted to make sure that these topics are covered because it is protecting the general public.
And just having it wide open to any, these may get looked over every time. And I think that even the Real Estate Commission and the Realtor Association would agree with me. I'm not going to speak for them, but I'm saying that I think that they realize, too. I mean, because we do have a contracts class every year to go over the changes with the brokers. but it's not a mandated contract course. And so we learn a lot of terminology when we're in real estate school, and we learn ingress, egress, and, you know, calculate square footage.
We really don't learn contracts much. And then when we are thrown into the business of actually working, then we have to deal with contracts. And I think that as a broker, we see this. We see this all the time, that maybe our agents don't fully understand contracts. And it is a broker's responsibility to educate them on using the contracts. And I think that the brokers do take up a lot of responsibility on that education. And so I think that that is his reasoning for wanting to put that in there.
And, again, I think that it still gives the flexibility of the commission to be able to do what they need to do by having that any other relative real estate language in there,
Speaker 34
44:44
as vague as it may be, and Representative Lowry doesn't like that
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
44:49
vague language. As far as the flexibility study, I think that you probably heard why he took out the reasoning for wanting a two-year licensing and putting it into a feasibility study because I think that, as the commissioners pointed out, that there may be some economic impact,
And I think it's something that Representative Dotson in his original bill didn't maybe foresee. And so that's why he's asking for the feasibility study. They're regular realtors. When we go out, realtors and real estate agents on a day-to-day, we just want to sell real estate. You know, we don't want to worry about, I mean, they're not up here today. Why? Because they're out there working. They're out there selling real estate. I mean, I actually want my agents to be out there working. and I really don't want them spending their day up here.
But, you know, I think that that's where the thing comes in on, well, maybe you're not hearing about a two-year licensure because it's never been proposed and it's never been something that's been we've had the opportunity to even discuss. And so I think this gives us the opportunity actually to discuss a two-year to see how it would actually work and see how many agents would actually be open to the idea. And I hope that I did not butcher Representative Dotson's bill too bad.
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
46:10
And with that, I'm closed. Thank you. Members, any discussion? Well, I have a couple of discussion items. I want to say that typically I don't like that vague reference. But in this case, when there are accusations of micromanaging, this phrase absolutely blows that argument out of the water because it does say other relevant information, so it's not micromanaging. The other thing that I would raise, having been, I was executive director of an association
that represented insurance agents, and issues about licensing and CE came up. I don't know how a number like the cost of $75,000 to $150,000 can be thrown out when you don't know how many real estate agents would opt for the two-year license. DIS cannot come up with a number that also you have to net-net.
You have to figure out what your man hours are going to be lessened And if you're not have, say, half of them to opt for a two-year license, that means that 10,000 agents, you're not going to have to process a license for them every year. And that has to be built into the estimates. So I just think, you know, my caution would be in any committee testimony that we not give a lot of credence to dollar-figure cost if we really don't have the study in front
of us. Members, any other discussion or any pushback on what I just said? So, because you know, we need to wake up, you know, let's
Speaker 79
48:02
go ahead, let's liven things up a little bit. All right. Representative Lynch.
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
48:07
Go ahead, Representative Lynch. If you put a system in place to change the way a system is managed, the use of the system is not the cost. The cost is providing the changes to the system.
Is that not true? Yeah, it could be, but then over time you would recover those costs, correct? No, you never recover. You never recover. No. Wow, okay. All right. Any other discussion? so we're getting into the minutia now that's okay okay
Bob Walker
Unverified
48:44
well uh is there a motion representative vaught we have a motion of due pass um and i guess i
should have asked for that before i asked for
the discussion but that's okay it gives us a second chance for discussion representative Blake, I know
Bob Walker
Unverified
49:01
you just want to jump in. I didn't say anything. No, okay. Innocent today. Okay. All right. We have a
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
49:10
motion of due pass before us. All those in favor of the due pass motion signify by saying aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Say no. No. Wow. Tough
Bob Walker
Unverified
49:23
call. Let me see. Representative Rushing, I think it has nothing to do with your presentation.
We will tell Representative Dotson you
Speaker 22
49:33
did yeoman's work, but the motion does fail. Representative Gonzalez, we're ready for you. House Bill 1964. Members, House
Bill 1964 is before you.
Representative Gonzalez, you are recognized to make your presentation. Thank you,
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
50:05
Mr. Chair. Committee, this is a bill that's brought to me by the AG's office. I hope that it's a little simpler than that last one we just set through. Basically, what the problem is is you have DME companies out there advertising that their products will be paid for uh to for paid for by medicaid or medicare
and what's happening is those people are going out and purchase or getting those products with a promise that they'll be paid for by medicare and you have to have a prescription or recommendation from a physician or nurse practitioner to to qualify or to get those products paid for. So when those things aren't being paid for, then that person is being billed for them. But when they, they were led to believe that they would not be charged for them. Uh, so this is anti fraud bill to kind of stop some of that stuff from happening. Uh, AG's office is
here. If y'all have any questions on it, but it really is pretty, uh, pretty simple bill. So there, there is one word in here that may need to be amended. We were just talking about earlier on line 27 on the first page where it says medicaid will cover because a lot of the advertisements do say medicaid may cover um so that may be a little technical correction cleanup that needs to be done later on but i'd just like to get this thing moving because we're late in the session and
i think it's an important bill we need
to get it out of here sure members any questions Representative Lynch, motion at the proper time. Any other discussion? Representative
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
51:49
Ferguson? Yeah, Representative Gonzalez, are you going to amend it on the Senate end? Yes. Okay, thank you. If
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
51:54
that change is needed, we're going to go back and consult with the Attorney General's office to see exactly what that needs to say and if it's worded right. So we may not need to do that.
Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'll turn to the audience. Anyone wishing to speak against the bill? Anyone wishing to speak for the bill? If not, Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized to make a, excuse me, to close. I just appreciate a due pass. Okay. We have a motion from Representative Lynch of due pass. Any discussion members? If not, the motion of due pass is before you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no.
And the bill passes. Congratulations.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
52:41
Thank you very much. At least I got one done
Bob Walker
Unverified
52:53
in this session. Okay. Does, members, is there anyone that would wish to
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
53:00
run Representative Kapp's concurrence for her? House Bill 1516.
Representative Bruce Coleman
Unverified
53:09
Okay, Representative Coleman, thank you. Representative Coleman, District 81, and the amendment to Caps Bill, there was a typographical error in it, and she's corrected that from the 750,000, there was one zero left off of of that, and this is the correction for the amendment, so I move that we adopt the amendment.
Okay. You've heard discussion of the amendment. Any questions? If not, Representative
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
53:48
Coleman has moved that we accept the amendment. Concur in the Senate amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no, and we have concurred. Members, at this point, I have no additional business before us. However, we are tentatively scheduling for 9.30 Friday morning. That is,
again, that is tentative based on the direction that we get from the speaker as far as our Friday schedule, and it's also based on what we may receive from the Senate. So if there's no additional business before us, we are adjourned.
Agenda
TO OFFER TESTIMONY ON A BILL, PLEASE SIGN IN TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1516 Capp TO ALLOW A FOUNDATION TO SERVE AS A FIDUCIARY; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A FOUNDATION TO SERVE AS AN EXECUTOR OF AN ESTATE.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1704 Gazaway TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE ENFORCEMENT ACT; AND TO REGULATE STANDARD-FORM CONTRACTS.
HB1510 Lowery TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW".
HB1410 Gazaway TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS AND RESIDENTIAL TENANTS; AND TO REQUIRE MINIMUM HABITABILITY STANDARDS FOR TENANTS OF RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY.
SB551 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TERMINATION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
HB1924 Dotson CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUIRE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A TWO-YEAR REAL ESTATE LICENSE; TO AMEND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS; AND TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC SUBJECTS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION.
HB1964 Gonzales TO REGULATE DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AGREEMENTS.
SB592 Elliott TO AMEND THE PATIENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1995; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1103 Sullivan TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE ACT OF2015; AND TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE FUND.
HB1068 Evans TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE AGREEMENT.
HB1027 Rye TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL AN INSURED'S DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLE IS REPAIRED.
HB1271 Rushing TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF A REAL ESTATE LICENSING COURSE BY THE ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION.
HB1273 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE BOARD TO REVIEW THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF RIDESHARING APPLICATIONS.
HB1462 Gazaway CONCERNING DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION INVOLVING A DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE.
HB1703 Dotson TO CREATE A TWO-YEAR LICENSE OPTION; AND TO REQUIRE FOUR HOURS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION PER YEAR OF THE TERM OF THE LICENSE, TO INCLUDE PERSONAL SAFETY, CURRENT MARKETING TRENDS, AND REAL ESTATE COMPLIANCE.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Apr 3, 2019 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Carolyn Cobb
Unverified
Representative Mark Lowery Chair
Unverified
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
Speaker 17
Speaker 10
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Representative Laurie Rushing
Unverified
Bob Walker
Unverified
Speaker 36
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Representative Bruce Coleman
Unverified
Speaker 14
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 59
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 70
Speaker 69
Speaker 9
Speaker 79
Tony Moore
Unverified
Speaker 23
Speaker 88
Speaker 89
Speaker 34
Speaker 22
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified