Code Revision Commission
Video
Transcript
2 documents
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 8, 2026
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
0:00
Commission to order. The first item of business is the approval of the minutes of the December 20th, 2018 meeting. Everyone should have a copy of the minutes in your packet. I believe we do have, we have three members of the commission attending by phone. Senator Ballinger, Commissioner Settle, and
Dean McCabe, I believe, are on the telephone. So they've called in today. Is there a motion to
approve the minutes as printed? So moved. Is there
a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved.
The next item of business is the consideration of a proposal for the replacement volumes of the Arkansas Code. And I believe we have Leslie Matheny, Director of Government Content with LexisNexis. If you'll have a seat at the end of the table
and then... if you'll state your name and then you can
make your presentation thank you mr chairman i'm leslie
Speaker 11
1:31
metheny from lexus nexus and i'm going to make my presentation very short because i met with staff prior to this meeting to go over the multiple choices for replacement volumes and we came to conclusion with the wonderful input of Mr. Henderson and his many years of knowing what's going on and I'm going to defer to Mr. Henderson for the presentation. Okay. Vincent
Speaker 13
2:03
Henderson, code advisor. I believe in your package you have the letter
Speaker 15
2:09
from LexisNexis, from Ms. Matheny, gives a listing of possible replacement volumes. I've looked at this, reviewed those. If you look on the last couple pages, it'll indicate what they estimate the pocket part subs would be in page count, what the volumes are, and what the percentage of increase is. I can tell you overall, Lexis expects subs this go be approximately 30% larger than two years ago. After looking at this, what I'm recommending
for us to replace this next year, essentially starting hopefully in January through August, working on them, are volumes 2A, 6C, which would be split into two volumes, and then volumes 26A and B, and 27A and B. Those four volumes are Title 26, which is taxation, 6C
is Title IX, which is family law, which is right now about a three-inch-wide volume, three-inch thick volume that they'll be splitting. And then 2C is part of Title IV business commercial
Speaker 18
3:32
law. Mostly, I think, uniform laws in that one. I'm sorry, you
Speaker 20
3:38
said you'll keep the volumes here. I sure
Speaker 21
3:45
and B, and 27A and B. that gives us enough
Speaker 15
3:57
work to do uh without overloading staff
we've got some other things we're trying to work on and deal with including recodification title 19 the other recommendations uh we're uh going to be looking at a little later on where we see where we are both respect to these volumes but also respect to any special sessions or also what may come
Speaker 15
4:31
Okay. The other thing I want to mention in part of our discussion is ordinarily we would have the commission come up, uh, meet and make a decision on replacement volumes, uh, usually somewhat ahead of time. So we, uh, last time I think we did about 15 or 16, it seemed like 20 or 30, but about, I think about maybe 16, 17 replacement volumes because of, uh, legislations come through
because workload, uh, what we're asking for is that these volumes be, be approved, but that we allow, uh, around this to have a commission meeting, perhaps have the, the, the chair of the commission, uh, in consultation with myself and Marty and Marty and Mr. Miller, uh, to approve, replacement volumes that are already on this list
Speaker 18
5:36
rather than have another commission meeting to make that determination. Any discussion? I suppose you could
Speaker 31
5:47
always email us with your recommendations. Rather than having another meeting, I'd probably feel more comfortable with that. Certainly, yeah. Not that That would not be a problem. No, of course it would.
Chair
Unverified
6:07
Any other questions, comments? Senator Bond, you're recognized. Well, and I
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
6:14
have a motion that I think piggybacks on that may want some clarification, but my motion is I move that the
commission approve volumes 2A, 6C, 26A, 26B, 27A, and 27B, which I think were just mentioned, for replacement for 2020, and that the chair of the commission be given the authority to authorize the Bureau of Legislative Research
to begin work on replacement volumes for 2021 based on a recommendation from the code revisor and the director of the bureau. And so my understanding of this motion would be that they would just be giving authority to begin the work but not necessarily approving the future replacement volumes. Is that correct? Yes. So that's my motion. Is there a second? I second it.
Speaker 44
7:02
All right. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye.
Speaker 50
7:11
Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. I have a question,
Speaker 31
7:21
if I may. Sure, you're recognized. Maybe this has been answered. What percentage, Ms. Matheny, I mean, how many people purchase books anymore for the code in the state? I mean, what percentage or quantity as opposed to, you know, getting the information online? It's actually held pretty steady.
Speaker 11
7:42
Rather than me make up numbers on the fly, why don't I get exact numbers and have them distributed to the Code Commission? I think that would be
Speaker 31
7:52
more appropriate. Okay, thank you. I don't know anybody that buys a book anymore. I can't even
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
7:59
find them at the ULR Library anymore. Yes, you can. We
Speaker 11
8:03
still buy it. McMath Woods still buys the books. We find overall that statutory material tends to hold its own for what it's worth. Mr. Chairman, there was one more matter in our letter that I would like to bring to the Code Commission's attention,
and that is that we did ask for some slight pricing adjustment in replacement volumes index and code supplement. and that is we ask for a raise of a 3% raise for replacement volume to index and cumulative supplement. I guess the question I would have is
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
8:47
when we I guess it was about a year ago nine months ago
when we talked about the contract with regard to the printing of the code I thought we took up price and how it is bound and all the different, and that was all things that we factored in. Is this something different than what we considered with the new contract? Pricing was only included in
Speaker 62
9:12
the contract for one year, and then every year we still have to come back to the Code Commission for an increase.
Speaker 65
9:28
the pricing was good through 2020 and this is for 2021 correct okay thanks so this this
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
9:39
would apply not to what we just approved but to the what we're going to begin work on correct okay any other questions I
guess we need a motion. Is there a motion to approve the prices as presented by LexisNexis?
Speaker 70
10:00
I move to approve the price increase proposed by LexisNexis for replacement volumes index and cumulative
Speaker 56
10:07
supplement for the year 2021. Okay. Is there a second? Okay, there's a second. Any discussion? All in favor, say
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
10:17
aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much.
Next, we'll move to our codification conflicts, and I believe Mr. Miller is going to present those. we have quite a few and I know I think we've already maybe lost one member of the commission to a scheduling conflict and I know there's several of us that have other things that we have to tend to a little later on so anything we can do to kind of keep this moving along is much appreciated. As exciting as codification conflicts are we do want to keep it. This is going to just jump
Speaker 79
11:01
off the page as we're going. You'll be having so much fun you won't even notice. You'll probably cancel what you have to do. Just a bit of preface for this, and Mr. Henderson will help me with the presentation of them. You may recall last session we did this for the first time. We always have act conflicts. We have always had pieces of legislation that overlap one another, and our staff has to make decisions on how to publish the supplements. The statutory direction is to reconcile everything to the extent that you can.
when there's irreconcilable conflicts, the later act, the later act number prevails, not the act later in time, the later act number. So in the past, we would reconcile these, we would publish the supplements. Invariably, we would end up with some comments after the supplements were released, some surprised with the outcome, people hadn't recognized the conflict, and it only became clear when the supplement was released. And Bettina may remember, and some others, we would end up doing some revised supplements because we would meet and folks would raise the issue and we would
change the decision. So we decided it would be more practical to do this on the front end for us to make a master list of the places that we were finding them to be irreconcilable and tell you what we were thinking and then you can bless those and we can get the supplements published and to the extent there were issues raised it would be something you had already talked about and were familiar with. We have a somewhat long list here but first of all let me say this is the full list, we have culled it down to just the ones you see today of the ones that are a challenge. Our staff has worked tremendously hard trying to work these out. I think just overall
from a drafting standpoint, from the legislation, there were fewer this time. This list is a little bit shorter with the exception of Act 910, the transformation bill, which really sandbagged us because it was guaranteed to have conflicts in it because it was amending so much. It touched on so many acts. But most of those conflicts, as you'll see, aren't super difficult, but we do want to get your review on what it is and make sure you're satisfied with the concept. Vince's staff continues to make changes.
I know as we're looking at the supplements, he goes through and makes name changes and things like that. We've discussed some other areas of the code where he's made some name changes. I know the method of execution section is something that we talked about, just where 9-10 left us kind of in an in-between place, and they have some existing authority
Speaker 83
13:27
to do that. It's a tremendous amount of work. Our staff is working like we have never worked before in this process, and I'm really proud of them and the job they're doing. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Vince. The first one is something we have never done before on this list.
Speaker 15
13:43
This is a brand-new thing. The first item on the list has to do with some amendments to the state constitution. This past session, legislation was enacted, as I'm sure you're aware, that gives the commission some authority to make some corrections, essentially technical, to different parts of the constitution where the General Assembly has the authority to amend them.
The first item is Amendment 51, Section 13B1B, Act 684. As originally written, this relatively minor thing, accredited post-secondary did not have hyphenation in it. Act 684 put some additional language in and did hyphenate.
accredited post-secondary and we'd like to take the hyphens out. Not a particularly major issue, but technical. Part of the reasons for the
Speaker 18
14:55
legislation. I don't know how you want to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
14:58
handle this. For these first two, I mean, one is correct to spelling.
The second is to place a comma and insert the operative date. I would just say present those two and then without, I think, unless somebody tells me otherwise, I think Without objection, we'll just let those be approved
instead of having to take motions and votes on every single one of
Speaker 15
15:25
these. I would like for you to take a look then at the Act 1004. I believe you
Speaker 26
15:32
have that or you have it online. It should be in
Speaker 93
15:37
the packet there, but I can pull it online if we need to. On the first page
Speaker 15
15:45
on line 35, After the word disabilities is where I recommend putting a comma, I need to explain something to you about this.
However, that subdivision 1A talked about dispensaries and locations of which may not be within 1,500 feet of a public or private school, church, and it did say, or daycare center, existing for the date of dispensary application. And this past session, the or facility for an individual with developmental disabilities was inserted there. The situation is this.
What would normally happen without a comma is the principle of the rule last antecedent would apply. So that the existing for the date of the dispensary application would only apply to the facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. And not to the other items in that list. that is a public or private school, church, or daycare center. Plus, by inserting that in between, the gentlemen have now separated that existing before the date
from the daycare center. In other words, the two ways to read this is that it has to be 1,500 feet from a public or private school, church, or daycare center. or facility for individuals with disabilities, the additional subdivision B, if you look on the second page, talks about that not applying or affecting existing locations dispensaries
issued a license before the effective date of that subdivision that may be located within 1,500 feet of facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. So the question is, if someone were to move a school or a church within 1,500 feet of dispensary, will the dispensary have to
Speaker 18
17:50
move? In other words, what was the intent by that? It's one of the few instances where comma can make a great deal of difference in the meeting.
Speaker 97
18:02
I think, I mean, my recollection of the act was
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
18:06
he, Senator Garner and Representative Wardlaw were adding, they wanted to add the developmental disability facility to the list, and then that the, um, that provision
related to an existing, uh, facility was added because of the fact that since this was an additional, this was an additional facility being added, if someone had already located one, they would be grandfathered in, essentially.
Speaker 98
18:38
And so does your proposal, does it carry out?
Speaker 15
18:42
By inserting a comma, that would then apply that same exception for the date would apply to all of those. And that's why I agree with you. I think that's what was actually intended, and hence the need for the comma. Which exception? In other words,
Speaker 18
19:01
if a church moves within 1,500 feet of a dispensary, the dispensary still keeps its license.
Speaker 15
19:09
If a daycare center moves within 1,500 now, then it still keeps its license. The same way as the Development of Disabilities Facility would
Speaker 70
19:29
operate. I'm having a tough time following you, I'm sorry. And I
Speaker 31
19:35
pride myself on being something of a grammarian, but I probably need to relinquish that. Because why is subdivision B only applied to developmental disabilities facility?
Why wouldn't it apply to churches, daycare centers, etc.? I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:52
think that it was only as to developmental disability because churches and daycares had always been prohibited, therefore there would be no, there should have been nobody that could have had a facility or an application
approved. That's my belief and what I recall about this particular. Okay.
Speaker 15
20:19
Tell us where the comma would go again. On line 35, on the first page, immediately after the word disabilities, by putting that there, that's a signal that the existing for the date of the dispensary application would apply to public private schools, churches, daycare centers, as well as to own disabilities facilities. Which it did
Speaker 111
20:42
apply to prior to this act. Okay. We believe so. Okay.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
20:54
we going to handle this one? This one, the first one, since it was just some dashes, we'll say without objection, that
will be approved. The second one, it probably would be best to take a motion and a second.
Speaker 18
21:07
Under the law, we'll have to report this to, I believe, the speaker, President Pro Tem, the governor,
Speaker 31
21:14
if I remember correctly. Excuse me. I move that we add a comma after the word disabilities in line 35 of Act 1004.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
21:21
Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? And just to be clear,
so by adding the comment, that does not, I mean, the intent of this particular piece of legislation was to make sure that there's not a dispensary located within 1,500 feet of a developmental
Speaker 98
21:46
disability facility. Right. And by adding this comma, we have not done anything to undermine that.
Speaker 18
21:54
No, in fact, actually, with that comma, you technically probably would not have needed the subdivision
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:00
to be. Okay, and furthermore, prior to the Act, a dispensary cannot be located within 1,500 feet of a public or private school, church, or daycare center. And it's my understanding,
based on what you're telling us, that by adding the comma, we preserve that restriction. That's correct. which otherwise might have,
there might be an argument that you could locate a dispensary within 1,500 feet.
Speaker 18
22:24
Yes, or more correctly, someone could move a school within 1,500 feet of dispensary and then cause problems for dispensary having to give up its
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:36
license. Okay, so the issue is, I think now I understand, the issue is that the existing before
the date of the dispensary application, as you read it as drafted, it would only apply to a developmental disability facility where when we add the comma, then it actually applies
to the schools, church, or daycare.
Correct. That's right. Okay. Which that was the case prior to the act. I believe that's what was intended. All right.
Speaker 4
23:07
Any other questions or comments, discussion? Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor
Speaker 15
23:23
say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. The next item is
Speaker 126
23:28
request. The second part, the effective date.
Speaker 15
23:32
Excuse me, I'm sorry. Yes, thank you. I had that listed. The language. On the second page, on line 5, it starts talking about license for the effective date of this subdivision. This had
Speaker 18
23:58
an emergency clause, and I believe the actual effective date was April 15th, when it was approved.
Traditionally, when we go through legislation, we have this code of language and codification process. we will automatically insert the actual effective date, and that's the addition to this as well. So
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:22
you want to actually put the actual date as opposed to effective date?
Speaker 31
24:29
Right. Okay. Any questions? I move that we put the actual date into Act 1005.
Speaker 136
24:37
1004. Sorry, 1004. We have a motion. Is there a second? Come on people We got a second Okay any discussion All in favor say aye Aye Any
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
25:02
opposed Motion passes There's only three of us here today That can vote right No That's three
Speaker 140
25:14
the phone Got three on the phone And I was, until just now, I was on a, had another call, so I just got
Speaker 85
25:30
no idea what it was going on. Don't worry. Yeah, I was. Mr. Speaker, as long as you tell me, it's uncaddened. All right. The next item is now a request for correction in Act 910 by Ms. Amy Fetcher, the Secretary
Speaker 107
25:42
of Transformation and Shared Services. All right, Matthew, are you going to present that or are we going
Speaker 148
25:55
to let Secretary Fetcher present that? The issue, I was pulling it up here, it's section 3496, which I printed off for you there. Let
Speaker 18
26:07
me get it on the screen. Page 1138, line 26.
Speaker 151
26:13
The, you can see here, section 3496 of Act 910, amended 21-5-402A1DNE, and
Speaker 152
26:19
the issue was with E here. And I believe Ms. Fetcher is saying that the intent was for that to be the Secretary of Transformation of Shared Services or
Speaker 79
26:31
his or her designee in lieu of the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration. So her request was to change that to what was
Speaker 15
26:44
intended. I can explain that a little further. The State and Public School Life and Health Insurance Board is actually under the Transformation
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
26:56
Shared Services itself. So there's, you know, I mean, I think the thing that we're
always leery of in the Commission is, you know, trying not to make a substantive change without it being very clear that, well, really, actually, we try and avoid any substantive change, it's really
the more accurate way to say it. You're telling me that there's other evidence outside just the fact that it was left off, that that
change was left off, that this particular board falls under
Speaker 85
27:33
the transformation in shared services. Yes. Section 6051, I don't think you'll have this, part of
Speaker 18
27:43
Act 910. creates a new subchapter 15, 2543-1501
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
27:47
at SEEK. So it would be accurate to say that there's actually an inconsistency created
by not putting, by not, it's not just that the wrong secretary, that there wasn't a change made from DF&A to shared services. There's actually an inconsistency now because that board is under shared services, but yet there's still a reference to DF&A. That's correct. Okay. Okay. And Mr. Speaker,
you're exactly right that in the past
Speaker 79
28:14
we've been mindful of things like this,
but there's a section in Act 910 that gives the commission some extra power.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
28:24
That was going to be my next question that I recall that we added to that to try it, since we knew that this large bill might have some tweaking as we move ahead. But
Speaker 152
28:38
it did require a vote and I think some reporting, right? Vince, I think we
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
28:43
report that out. Yes. All right. Any other questions?
Is there a motion? All right. Do I have a second? Second.
Speaker 4
29:05
Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye.
Speaker 161
29:14
Any opposed? Motion passes. all right do we want to do the we'll be moving into the conflicts not involving act 910
Speaker 79
29:20
we segregated them out to the not 910 and 910 because you'll see some systematic consistency on the 910 ones a lot
Speaker 152
29:27
of them tie together okay um yeah go ahead whichever however you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
29:31
think vince you want me to kind of
Speaker 83
29:38
introduce them and then you can say what the suggestion is yes that'd be If you look in your, I've got these organized here, hopefully, where they're easy, because you're going to be comparing Act 501, Section 1, and Act 741, Section 2. You'll notice that both these acts deal with the labeling
Speaker 152
29:52
of agricultural products that are edible by humans.
the reason we bring this to you is that there was a the Act 501 gives power in this area to the Bureau of Standards and Act 741 gives power to the Agriculture Department. And I think the first one I believe,
Speaker 79
30:10
Vince can nod along because I think I'm right one of them is a shall and one of them is a may. Yes, I believe that's correct, yes. So that's the key difference between them. Um, I think Vince's recommendation was to codify both.
Speaker 15
30:27
Yes, we recommend codifying both of them, but we recognize that in light of the
Speaker 18
30:33
conflicts that we really can't resolve, uh, that further legislative action will probably be necessary. And as
Speaker 168
30:41
I recall, well, you alluded to it, one of them is
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
30:46
May, so it's permissive authority, So while there, on the surface, may
appear to be a conflict, it's not necessarily an irreconcilable conflict under both acts, correct?
Speaker 169
30:58
I'm sorry, go ahead. Where in the bill is the language, Shao and May, the
Speaker 15
31:07
laws? The May language is in the Act 741, on page 2, line 30. And as the speaker noted, that's
Speaker 152
31:23
why we like to bring these before you.
Speaker 79
31:26
In practice, they may work this out among themselves,
but on paper you can see how there could potentially be a conflict because they could both do
Speaker 15
31:35
rules, but they may work it out. And the shall in the Act 501 is on page 3, beginning on line 14, Director of Standards shall, Administrator.
Speaker 167
31:51
Again, I'll probably get rules. Vince's thought was to, there have been separate chapters. You know, they can be published separately.
That was our thought, but we were going to, we defer
Speaker 178
32:05
to you. One question I have is the Bureau of Standards, isn't that
Speaker 180
32:13
under the Department of Agriculture now? He's asking. Could this be interpreted as the Bureau of Standards under the Department of Agriculture that has a responsibility either way? I'm not
Speaker 98
32:29
100 percent sure. I'm seeing a few heads in the audience nodding yes.
Does anybody disagree with that? Okay. I mean, to me, it seems like
Speaker 186
32:40
the easiest thing to do would be codified, hope that he gets
Speaker 188
32:42
clarified before, or it isn't a problem before we can clarify it. Right. But it seems like it's a, otherwise we could be messing with what the intent of the legislature was. Right. Which I don't like either of these facts, so, but they passed. Any other questions?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
33:11
All right. so the recommendation is just to codify both? Yes, sir. And I think on this, without objection, then we'll codify both of them just in the interest of trying to move this
Speaker 152
33:28
ahead. Okay. All right. The next one on the list, Act 495 and Act 1051, each
Speaker 83
33:34
of these acts amends the exact same sections of law when you look at them. If you look at Section 1 of Act 495 and Section 1 of Act 1051, you can see the differences.
There's some commonality in adding knowingly and some things like that, but machine
Speaker 152
33:53
gun and shotgun or rifle are repealed in 1051, whereas they were still in the earlier
Speaker 79
34:02
Act, Act 495. There's some changes like that that are consistent throughout. I believe Vince's recommendation was to codify 1051 in lieu of Act 495. Because it's
Speaker 15
34:15
it's later, but it also makes the changes made in the early act and other changes as well.
So it's more comprehensive in that
Speaker 18
34:26
regard. And it essentially incorporates the intent of the earlier act as well as adds to it.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
34:38
I believe Senator Ballinger is on the phone. Yes, and Representative Gonzalez is here as well. Senator Ballinger is codifying the
Speaker 188
34:47
later act. Even though Representative Gonzalez was derelict in not adding my name to the latter act,
that is the one that we worked together, so it just went further than what
Speaker 202
35:09
my bill did. Okay. So, yeah, I would say you just
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
35:15
codify the second one, and it basically encompasses mine. Okay.
Speaker 152
35:19
All right. Any other discussion or questions? Without objection, we will codify the later act. The next one we're
Speaker 83
35:25
looking at is 6-15-2701C2. What you have are the entirety, I think, of Act 631 and then an excerpt from Act 757.
C2 in the first act is on page 2, lines 24 through 27. You can see that it's been amended to refer to a school district support plan. And when you look at the later act, which is page
Speaker 152
35:51
11, lines 16 through 19, there we've referred to a school-level improvement plan, which is the later act.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
35:58
Vince, I can't remember what your recommendation was. This is the same
sponsors on the two, and I'm assuming as it's been our past practice,
they were notified of our meeting and... I communicated with both. Yes, sir. Did they indicate that their intent was to codify the later act?
Speaker 151
36:22
We didn't discuss it to that extent. I see Lori and Courtney here. They may know.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
36:38
You'll state your name and who you're with. Lori Freena,
Speaker 213
36:44
I'm general counsel for the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. We we didn't know that this one was going to there was a conflict in this one. I mean if we had the opportunity to sit and look through it we probably could could certainly figure it out and be of assistance. I can't hear what she's saying. If we would have could have the opportunity to
look through this, we could certainly help to figure it out. Why don't we do this? Why don't we pass over it? Why
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
37:19
don't you all take a few minutes to take a look at it? And then if you all have an opinion on it, then we can bring you back to the end of the table. That would be
Speaker 79
37:33
great. And I believe Vince's recommendation was to codify the Act 631 version as it was more comprehensive. If you look at the markup there and the changes, it was much more comprehensive than the change in the later act.
Speaker 15
37:44
We recommend using a comprehensive school level or school dash level improvement plan,
Speaker 18
37:48
using that term and merging all the other changes made by the acts which really aren't in conflict. I guess the question
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
37:57
we I mean that seems like we're kind of picking and choosing at that point. I'm just kind of
leery of getting away from the standard of the later act trumps the uh the previous act and so but anyway let's why don't we pass over that and we can come back to
that because just just it seems like it's the same scenario potentially as what we just approved where we went with the later act uh i just i'm very leery of the commission getting into trying to determine based on which one's more extensive or which one we prefer or whatever the case may be. So let's pass over that and we'll come back to it. And that's perhaps a precursor to what you're going
Speaker 79
38:40
to see on the 9-10 changes because what you see on 9-10 is a lot of elaborate changes and then 9-10 largely did name changes when it came to the names of the entities. So
Speaker 104
38:51
the decision you make there is going to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:56
be important when you hit 9-10. But 9-10 is transformation, correct? Yes, sir. And so, you know,
I think that with regard to transformation, that's a little different in that there were changes that had to be made throughout the code that were largely, it might have been changing a title where the
transformation bill was just having to take the code as it is as opposed to being a specific piece of legislation
like we're seeing on some of the others. But we can
Speaker 226
39:27
look at those when we get to it. 6-18-505, Acts
Speaker 83
39:33
557, Section 5, Acts 640, Section 9. When you look at Act 557, you can see that it amended in Section 5, it amended the section to include some additional language, and that section was repealed in full
Speaker 79
39:54
by Section 9 of Act 640.
So in that case, we'd go with the repeal. The
Speaker 18
40:04
alternative is to have it one subdivision, C1, hang out with nothing else left on it. All right.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
40:14
Later. Okay. Why don't, if it's okay, if there's no other question or comment, then without objection, we'll go with the later act.
Speaker 83
40:26
Okay. Okay. 6-18-1005 is going to be the inverse.
of what we just discussed because when you look at section three it repealed 6-18-1005
Speaker 232
40:36
in full on page three line 26 going on for a couple of pages and then when we look at the later
Speaker 152
40:51
act it amended that section 1091 section two amended the section that had been earlier repealed. On page 4.
Speaker 79
40:59
Yes, on page 4 of line 10, act 1091. And historically, under our
constitution, repealed language can't be revived. So historically, in these type of situations, we've gone with the earlier repeal as opposed to bringing back something that was already
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
41:15
eliminated. And that's been our history of constitutional interpretation. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Any question or discussion? Let's do it. No, I would just say that if that's what
Speaker 178
41:30
the story that we've been doing, you hate to change it. Okay.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
41:37
So without objection, the earlier act would apply in that it repealed the entirety of that section and cannot
Speaker 98
41:48
be revived under precedent and constitutional authority. Yes, sir. Okay. All
Speaker 232
42:00
seem familiar because it's the same thing, same issue that we
Speaker 83
42:06
just discussed. If you look at Act 532, Section 1, it repealed this subdivision. B4C2 was repealed.
It's on page 4. On page 4, you can see there that B4C2 was repealed in full. It runs from line 10 to line 30. but
Speaker 232
42:28
then you're going to find that it's amended by Act 757, section 49, page 20, lines 27 through 36.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
42:36
And the change was just a
change from school to school level? Yes, sir. So it was a term that was changed, but again, based on what you just told us,
we would still go with the earlier act as that whole section was repealed? Yes, sir.
Yes, sir. We've gone with the earlier act when it does away with it completely. Is there any question or discussion on this? No. Without
Speaker 243
43:11
objection, we will go with the earlier act that repealed that section.
Speaker 83
43:18
All right. 6-61-201, Act 55, Section 1, amends the makeup of the Higher Education Coordinating Board.
Speaker 152
43:24
And then Act 1084 of Section 1 also amends the makeup of the Higher Ed Coordinating Board. You can see that
Speaker 83
43:34
in Act 55, the language on page 1, lines 30 through 34, regarding person relinquishing membership on the board, that was repealed in Act 55, but it actually ends up being restated in Act 1084. On page 2, lines 5 through
Speaker 79
43:53
10, that language is basically moved from where it is in the act to another spot.
So it re-emerges when it was repealed earlier. I think Vince's recommendation was just to codify Act 1084
Speaker 152
44:06
because they're in a reconcilable conflict because of the treatment of that issue. So this
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
44:17
would be adopting the later act? Yes, sir. Is there any question or discussion?
Speaker 152
44:27
without objection we'll adopt the later act 25-17-307 this was
Speaker 79
44:32
the act 315 is the act that
went through and repealed and regulations it cleaned up the code to simply do away with the term and regulations and it had some language in it like our technical correction bills do for the commission that it is subservient to other acts that amend the section. So I'll
Speaker 83
44:52
start with that. If you look at Section 8, page 10 there, it amends this section a little differently. I think it refers to policies, and the later act referred to
Speaker 232
45:13
rules. Yes, page 835. If you look at line
Speaker 83
45:24
4, you can see there it says rules. The only change is that regulations has been stricken. Well, if you look at the earlier act it has changed rules to reference policies. So I think
Speaker 79
45:41
Vince's recommendation based on the language of the later act that specifically it
Speaker 18
45:45
should. Based on also language 315 we would take the other act and not the
Speaker 152
45:53
315 change. So we would codify 256 in lieu of 315 based on the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
46:00
directions in 315. okay because the because 315 itself
Speaker 136
46:05
says it's subservient yes yes okay is there any question on that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
46:16
no okay 26 so without objection we'll we'll adopt
Speaker 152
46:22
that uh 26 just 57-259 this one's
This one's perhaps the hard one of the
Speaker 83
46:29
bunch. Act 580, Section 12, which is there for you. It's page 8 of Act 580, Section 12. You can see that 26, just 57, dash 259C was amended. And then you look back over at Act 1071, Section 28, and if you read the lead-in language, it says that 2657-259 is as amended by the earlier
Act. So this is an attempt to incorporate Act 580 in there. But there was what appears to be a technical error, because if you look at page Act 580, line 15, where it says, shall not be construed, the knot did not make the trip over on page 51 on page 51 and
Speaker 30
47:23
20 which begins line 21 yeah line line what
Speaker 30
47:31
where would it would be oh yeah okay it says
Speaker 176
47:36
shall be construed but a strict a true interpretation of what was in act 580 would be shall not be construed.
Speaker 155
47:42
And of course, the sentence both ways makes sense with or without the not. Of all the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
47:48
words. So this could be a situation where the previous change just didn't make it into.
Speaker 79
47:59
amend the section as amended by Act 580. You know, it's clearly stated there in the later act that they were efforting to do that, but the word
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
48:07
is missing. Representative Davis is here.
I think both of these are his. Is that consistent with, uh, so the not should have made it over into the later act. Okay. All right. Any
question or discussion on that? I was going to only suggest that while we do this,
Speaker 18
48:25
that this may need to go into a bill this next session to confirm that. When we've had some
Speaker 173
48:31
of these like this, we've put it in the technical correction Bill? Yeah. Just to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
48:35
ratify. And I trust that somebody is making a list of these things.
Yes, sir. All right. Good deal. We will remember. All right. So
without objection, we're adopting the language, or actually, well, tell me this. Is it just the not, or do we just say that we're adopting the previous
act? We will need to add the not. So we're, without objection, we're adopting, we're bringing the knot from the previous act over. Basically, you're conforming
Speaker 79
49:07
the two acts and bringing the knot over from 580.
All right. And then we'll put that, when you see the technical correction bills, we'll
Speaker 176
49:19
put that in there. So is this the difficult matter? That was the difficult one. Good. These are not as juicy as some of
Speaker 226
49:32
the ones we've had in the past. You really don't think highly of it. Is that the only
Speaker 232
49:40
conflict between us two? That was the only conflict, yes, sir. Act
Speaker 83
49:44
27-24-208. You can see that Act 167 added language regarding a surviving spouse who would
be entitled to receive a Purple Heart recipient license plate, and it sets out the scheme there. You prove eligibility. There's payment of a fee. When you look over at the later act, It amends the same section, basically is accomplishing the same goal, but it's including more than
Speaker 152
50:07
Purple Heart recipients. It's incorporated Medal of Honor recipients, Distinguished Flying Cross. The standard there is a little more extensive than it was in the later act.
Speaker 85
50:19
It being the more comprehensive act, more
Speaker 18
50:22
complete, includes those matters essentially from the earlier act. That's why we recommend codifying the later act. Well, and
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:29
just from a quick review, the
earlier act allowed the surviving spouse, a Purple Heart recipient, to receive a Purple Heart recipient license plate. And I think that this subsequent act allows them, they would have a, it would actually be a sticker that would say surviving spouse that would be affixed to the license plate. Is that correct?
Speaker 22
50:51
Yes. That's why it's more comprehensive. So, I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:54
mean, it is the difference between, I mean, it's... That's
right. it's the difference between having a Purple Heart license plate and having a Purple Heart license plate that says surviving spouse. But again, this would, I take it this falls to the authority the later act
would apply. Mr. Henderson was erring on the side of the later act because of the
Speaker 152
51:15
similarities in the subject matter, and obviously it's difficult for us to reconcile them without doing some rewriting.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
51:24
Okay. Are there any questions or discussion
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
51:31
Later Act. Okay. Is it okay to do so without objection? Without
objection, we'll adopt the Later Act. All right. All right. Maybe
Speaker 152
51:42
this is the hard one, Ms. Brownstein. I may have spoke too early. These next two, 1602 and 1605 and 1609, are going to be related, but we'll treat them separately because
Speaker 83
51:55
the subject matters are different. If you look at 1602 here, Act 577, Section 4, you can see that it adds some new language to the definition of a handheld wireless telephone to incorporate push-to-talk capabilities.
That's on page 2, lines 21 and 22. And things get tricky when we go over to Act 738, Section 7,
Speaker 79
52:18
because Section 7 repeals the entire subchapter that deals with handheld wireless communications, and it restates it. It sets out a, basically it repeals all the existing law and replaces it with a new chunk of law. The term
Speaker 152
52:34
handheld, Vince can tell me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 79
52:39
but I don't believe the term hands-free wireless device made it over to the new language. I think
Speaker 15
52:48
correct. The handheld wireless device, or excuse me, handheld wireless telephone language was repealed in the later act. And clearly what this is intended to repeal and replace, which is essentially an amendment, If you look on page 8, beginning line 21, you'll see that it's changed over to a wireless telecommunications device.
Now, the situation is, however, naturally, they did not pick up the change that was made in the early act, which added device was pushed to talk capabilities used in a similar manner as citizen-band radio or citizen-band radio hybrid. If you look also in that early act up above in Section 3, you'll see
Speaker 18
53:33
where that language is added in in the version of this in subchapter 15, 1503, 2751, 1503, 2B, 3I.
Speaker 79
53:43
The incorporation of those was a little more aggressive than we would do at the staff level. So
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
53:50
we bring this to you
for how to handle it. So the previous act added some further exception or something. It added this device with push-to-talk capability, which it says it does not include. Yes. The later act removed that whole section, basically moved it, created a new section,
took the previous definition but did not include the change that had been made earlier in the session. It used a
Speaker 152
54:23
different term. And it's not apples to apples on the
Speaker 281
54:29
definition. It used a different term. It says
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
54:32
wireless device. Is there anybody here that wants to speak for or against this? I mean, is
this something where everybody agrees that really that that push-to-talk capability should be in the new act,
and it was just a matter of if it wasn't caught at the
Speaker 18
55:00
time? Well, for what's worse. Okay. What I was going to say is I spoke this morning with an attorney from AT&T. They
Speaker 15
55:08
contacted me Friday and managed to get a hold of them this morning. I explained to him the situation. I explained to him that at least the probability
Speaker 18
55:17
or possibility that we'd be making the change in the subchapter 15 version
might have to leave the language in the subchapter 16 version as enacted in a later act with the possibility of legislative correction later on. He seemed to be satisfied with that,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
55:38
at least he didn't seem to object to it. Is
there anybody here that wants to speak on this? So, is the recommendation to include the previous, basically to incorporate the previous
Speaker 231
55:53
act into the new section?
I can't recall Vince's recommendation. What was your thought as you
Speaker 15
55:59
looked at it? My recommendation was that we take the two acts as they are and treat
Speaker 18
56:04
the later act. insofar as the sub-Chapter 16 thing as law, having done away with that language that was in the earlier act. So basically the later act prevails. Later act prevails in respect to sub-Chapter 16, yes. And that's our typical staff
Speaker 79
56:22
recommendation in one like this because we hate to do that much rewriting without your direction.
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
56:28
I so move that we do that. We codify the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
56:34
later act. Okay. Okay, before we
take a second, Representative McNair, the first was your bill. Do you have any
Speaker 290
56:42
position on this? I visited AT&T, and they felt like it would work
Speaker 291
56:48
either way, so I'm fine as long. It was just the use of new technology for the bill department. They thought that it would be applicable in either way.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
57:00
All right, and so we have a motion to take
Speaker 124
57:17
second okay we have a second any discussion no it does not that's
Speaker 18
57:28
That's really the problem, I don't expect that sub-chapter answer.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
57:34
All right, I'm going to let, is there anybody from
the audience that wants to speak on this? Mr. Kuhn, if
Speaker 298
57:49
you'll come to the end of the table. Robert Kuhn with Impact Management Group, who represent AT&T. I think in the conversations that I had with their staff is, you know, from a policy standpoint, they felt like the restatement of that section in the subsequent act was consistent with the descriptive nature of what was described in the first act.
And since you were adding an exclusion to that definition, I recognize they changed it from handheld telecommunications device to wireless telecommunications device. It would kind of leave that one section of the code with a different exclusion than all the other exclusions that were put in. And, you know, procedurally, obviously, you know, I defer completely to this committee on what you all think is appropriate. I do think we think that, you know, the two sections from a definitional standpoint are consistent with each other. And, therefore, you know, to the extent that you're able to, you know, incorporate that exclusion and move it over since it's 1602 kind of being replaced in that second bill the way they did it, you know, I think we would want that exclusion to be moved over as well.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
58:50
Okay. We don't have the authority to do that, do we? I mean, I think that it kind of gets back to the trying to stay within the parameters. What we've done in other circumstances, I know we've had situations where we've codified. We've actually codified both when there's an inconsistency just so they're both out there. I don't know if that's a possibility in this circumstance. I mean, I guess the challenge of what we have here is that we have a change that's made to a section.
The section was, it's not just that the section was removed, but the section was removed, and then a new section created. So it's a little more of a challenge than maybe what we've seen on
some others. Thank you. Any other discussion? What
Speaker 15
59:43
I will say is, as a matter of practice, we will take the language from the early act, and
Speaker 18
59:48
it will be a note along with this in the section in subchapter 16.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
59:55
So there will be a note, and I think there will be a note indicated in the code that there was a prior act that referenced that particular exception. So there would be something in the code if there wasn't an issue to be
argued on that matter. Yes, sir. Any other discussion? We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No.
Speaker 152
1:00:26
The ayes have it. The next one is we're in the same subchapter, 2751, 1605, and 1609. Keep 738 fresh in your mind, because when you look at Act 288, here it was an amendment regarding the authority of a law enforcement officer to stop or detain a driver
Speaker 79
1:00:49
solely to determine compliance with the provision on using a handheld wireless telephone in school zones. You can see on page 2, line 6, that we added some language,
making it a primary offense of sorts for a law enforcement officer to be
Speaker 152
1:01:05
able to detain. And the same problem that we just had, that section got repealed as part of the new subchapter in Act 738, and I'm not certain, Vince can let me know, I'm not certain
Speaker 79
1:01:20
that the provision on restrictions in school zones made it over into the new language when the subchapter was recreated. Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 152
1:01:31
Did not. so we don't have an apples-to-apples section to drop that language into when we're looking at the new subchapter. So we
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
1:01:41
have a later act that does not have the language of the previous act. Is that it? Okay.
Speaker 83
1:01:49
Well, if you look at page 9, there is a section. There are lines 21 through 31 of Act 738,
Speaker 152
1:01:57
which is in your packet right towards the back. You can see there there's a restrictions in school zone section.
Speaker 308
1:02:12
I'm looking for the other act to see if that adds up completely. I don't think it did add up completely. Yeah, so there
Speaker 152
1:02:41
is the restrictions in school zone section recreated, but you can see that
the language on a law enforcement officer did not get added in the later. Page 9 of Act 738, lines 21 through 31, that's the section, but it did not add, it obviously reenacted that language
Speaker 167
1:03:01
without the provision on the law enforcement officer making the stops in there. I think to be consistent, we have
Speaker 65
1:03:09
to go with a later act. That's what we did just now. All right.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:03:24
okay, Representative Gasway. I apologize, but I'll pull the microphone down so they can hear
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:03:33
it on the telephone. I apologize, but I'm not exactly understanding what you're asking us to do
Speaker 94
1:03:43
here. I think Mr. Henderson's recommendation was to codify the
Speaker 79
1:03:47
second act, which does not include the language that was added by the earlier act
to the repealed section about a law enforcement officer being able
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:04:00
to stop. And am I correct that this is basically the same exact language that we just dealt with in the previous section that we went with the later act
on, We're talking about use of a handheld wireless telephone and the definition of a
Speaker 199
1:04:16
handheld wireless telephone. That one was a little different in that the term changed. We didn't use the exact same defined term.
So that one was about the definition. This is
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:04:26
just about how it's used in a
Speaker 152
1:04:29
particular section. The issue is just that it was added to a section that was repealed, then reenacted later
Speaker 79
1:04:35
without the added language there, which we struggle with gleaning the intent of that, And that's why we bring it to you to determine if that language should indeed make the trip over or not to the new subsection.
Speaker 199
1:04:47
Okay. So it was added, then it was taken? It was added in
Speaker 79
1:04:52
the earlier act, basically repassed. That section was repassed in the later act, but it did not include the language that was added by the earlier act when it was reenacted.
Because we repealed the section, rewrote the whole subchapter, brought over some of those existing sections as new language. but we didn't include the change that was made in the earlier
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:05:15
act. Well, I mean, my thought on that is you have to assume that that was done intentionally. As much as I don't like that, probably, I think that's probably what you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:05:28
have to assume. All right. Any other discussion? So without objection, we're going with the later act.
Speaker 222
1:05:36
All right. All right. We are going to move into the Act 910
Speaker 152
1:05:42
portion of the show, which is a new bundle that is a depressingly large binder clip in front of you. But these will go pretty fast, I think. I know Ms. Fetcher and Representative Davis are here. They have some thoughts on some of these, I believe. I know we'll be talking about kind of what Vince's thoughts were on them as well. To the extent that we differ, I suspect they will say.
So just as a precursor, as I mentioned earlier, you're going to
Speaker 83
1:06:14
see a lot of a more substantive act versus almost Scrivener changes in Act 10, where we're changing
Speaker 79
1:06:21
a lot of department to division, division to department, director to secretary, and those are typically the later act. So that will be kind of the problem we're
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:06:30
wrestling with as we go through these. And we were given broader authority with regard to this particular
Speaker 329
1:06:39
Yes, sir. Yes, that's correct. Yes, sir. How broad? I can
Speaker 148
1:06:51
pull that up if you'd like for me to. Just tell me. Can you tell me? I'm having trouble remembering off the top of my head,
Speaker 15
1:06:58
so let me track it down real fast. Vince, it's at the start of the act, isn't it? Yes, it's on page 11. with a project of large and comprehensive transformation state government of this chapter is inevitable that certain sections of the code require technical changes to follow the intent of the chapter will be either admitted or amended in a manner that is later found to be erroneous
and unintentional. And if the correct statute or change to remedy an unintentional error is readily apparent consistent with the intent of this chapter, the intentional error should be corrected as part of the codification process due to the technical nature of the intentional error. It is the intent of the General Assembly to empower the Arkansas Code Revision Commission to correct technical errors identified in the Arkansas Code during the transformation of the structure of state government under this chapter to allow this chapter to be fully implemented. Any person or state entity identifying one or more sections of the code that require
revision to implement the intent of this chapter may notify the director of the Bureau of
Speaker 264
1:07:48
Allegiant Research or his or her designee
Speaker 330
1:07:54
of the section or sections at issue. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I thought for the other members of
Speaker 331
1:08:02
the commission, I might just make a comment about the intent of the Act 910. Act 910 was such a large bill, but it was largely name changes. And as we developed that bill, we obviously found hundreds of pages of corrections and cleanup
that various agencies needed to make. And by and large, we elected to not include that in the transformation bill because we wanted it to just be about transformation and not some omnibus cleanup bill. So for the most part, what you'll see is in Act 910 are name changes. And then later acts, which I understand you normally would let prevail, may have some substantive changes as the agencies took that cleanup action. we have provided
Speaker 330
1:08:47
the speaker I don't know what your title is in here Mr. Chairman, Speaker which hat are you wearing today? So we provided him and Mr. Miller here with an explanation of the resolution that we suggest for
Speaker 331
1:09:03
these conflicts I apologize we didn't bring a copy for everybody but they have that and I'll let them go over that but for the most part it's a substantive change the other acts should prevail, but the name changes that were in 9-10 should remain.
Speaker 79
1:09:21
And before we get into the list, one thing that Vince and I discussed that we just wanted to mention to this group, and
Speaker 152
1:09:29
it's not something that you have to address, the Alcoholic
Speaker 79
1:09:35
Beverage Control Board, is that right, Vince? Yes, that's correct. I'm not sure it got accounted for in the transformation process. I'm not sure that in the bill it ended up assigned into a department. And that's the type of technical error. You know, we could insert it into the appropriate list, technically, if you would like to. Obviously, the division, you know, the division is set somewhere.
We're talking about the board. The other boards were systematically moved around. That's not something you have to address. It seemed germane to just bring it to your attention, though.
Speaker 107
1:10:11
So do you want action on that? We just wanted
Speaker 252
1:10:14
to see if y'all wanted to discuss it. It can just be as it is, and that can be something that gets dealt with
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:10:21
later. Is there any pressing need for us to,
I mean, I want us to, you know,
I'd like for us to take care of the errors that have been made, but, you know, trying to stick to being as non-substantive as possible. I will tell you it would
Speaker 18
1:10:38
be nice to have a decision. We can't make a recommendation as far as where it should go. I think it has more to do with ultimately where the people running the whole transportation wanted or thought it was supposed to go.
Speaker 27
1:10:58
Do you all have, Secretary Fetch, do you have any opinion on
Speaker 336
1:11:03
that? It was the intent for the board to go as well as the division in every case throughout 9-10. It would be an
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:11:11
error if it did not. Okay. So we moved the division, the alcohol beverage control division of DF&A, but there was apparently
no reference to the board in that section. Would it make any sense at
Speaker 65
1:11:28
all not to have the board go with the division?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:11:36
board. Okay. So you could say that
even though the board didn't get moved, there are other indicators in the statute as a practical matter that that was the intent? Correct. Okay. Any discussion on that? Without objection, are we in agreement to
move the board, the ABC board to be moved over
as the division was moved over okay and that would
Speaker 152
1:12:07
be one of the items would report to council and to you as the speaker and to the pro tem that that action
Speaker 345
1:12:17
was taken ABC is being moved where I'm sorry I'll let them the division was already moved they're wanting to move to make sure the board went with the division D.F. and
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:12:26
A Okay. And there are other places in the transformation bill where
it indicates that that did in fact happen, it was just left out of a particular section?
Speaker 331
1:12:36
Yeah, I would say, to the Speaker's point, the division was moved, so all the staff of the board were moved, just not the board itself, the members of the board, you might say. But I think another indicator that that would have been the intent is the fact that literally every board or commission was moved underneath one of the cabinets. None of them were left on their own. Do you
Speaker 351
1:12:58
know of any reason why that might have been done intentionally? No. Okay. No. No one even requested it.
Speaker 331
1:13:07
I mean, it's just been oversight. And so, I mean, I guess the other
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:13:11
point would be if the board has no, if it doesn't go with the division, the board really has no means by which to act or to
carry out its function. Probably if you wanted to challenge it, you
Speaker 331
1:13:21
can say they don't have any authority to do anything because that was all moved to DF&A. All right. Okay. So we took that up without objection.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:13:30
We're going to move over into the next list. I'm going to ask Representative Gasway to take over the chair. I've got to step out.
So, Representative Gadswell, I'll turn it over to you.
Speaker 83
1:14:06
There we go. We'll mow through these like we did before. Act 757, Section 5, page 2 of the act there in your section, you can see there we've moved from the Department of Education to the Arkansas Geographic Information Systems Office to make changes in the maps of school districts to show boundary lines.
But when we look at Act 910, Section 1167, page 419, Section 10, there we were changing Department of Education to Division of Elementary and
Speaker 152
1:14:40
Secondary Education. That's its successor name under Act 910 is the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. But that is the later act, and thus why we, and I will say Act 9-10 had language in
Speaker 79
1:14:54
it that it's the opposite of what we talked about earlier on the Rules and Regs Act.
It's supposed to prevail in the event of conflicts. Act 9-10 is. But you've got kind of the complicating factor that obviously this wasn't intended to be a, this was kind of a name change, not a substantive change in duties. It's just an analogous name for the Department of
Speaker 358
1:15:23
Education. So 757 is the later act? 757
Speaker 152
1:15:27
is the earlier act. 910 is the later act.
Speaker 336
1:15:31
So as I understand it, Act 757 was a cleanup bill from the Department of Education that was to try to address any of these things. It just happened to pass earlier. And then when Act 910 was written, it
Speaker 336
1:15:51
The Department of Education and I both think we should go with Act 757 language.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:16:03
Okay, quick question. So I see in 757 and specifically
Speaker 344
1:16:08
1613-1404-D2-B. It's addressing making maps is what that section is doing, and so Geographic Information Systems
Speaker 359
1:16:18
would just be making the maps. So it currently reads Arkansas Geographic Information Systems
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:16:25
Office, and you're saying that that is not correct? No, that is correct.
Speaker 79
1:16:33
Pre-publication of the supplements, it reads Department of Education. I see. We had an effort to change it to Arkansas Geographic Information Systems Office, and And then as part of the transformation bill, the Department of Education got swapped out with basically the new name for the department. Under Act 910, it would have been the same people who were always doing it, basically. It was not changing who was doing the maps. And so this needs to be changed?
I think Vince's recommendation was the earlier act, but just because there was an
Speaker 291
1:17:14
intent to change who was doing it. If I
Speaker 15
1:17:19
could get my microphone on. What I was recommending is to use the geographic information systems because that is more nature of a substantive change, in fact, whereas 9-10 looked like it was simply going through changing the Department of Education
Speaker 102
1:17:36
to the name of that as a division of Under Secretary Ed.
Speaker 336
1:17:40
Correct. At 9-10, we did not make substantive changes. We told agencies specifically that would be a cleanup bill that you need to run at the agency level, and that's what the Department of Education did to clean up several things. That's 7-57. It
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:17:57
that one came before 9-10. Yeah. Okay, I understand it now. Because
Speaker 152
1:18:03
9-10 is supposed to prevail, but you also have some extra power,
and then there's kind of a common sense aspect of looking at
Speaker 15
1:18:12
it. The other aspect of 910 is it has language in it that where some other legislation during the session
Speaker 18
1:18:20
repealed language that 910 did not revive it. And that's really another way of looking at this. Technically, 757 repealed that, amended it, replaced it with something else, and 910 doesn't revive it. Okay.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:18:37
I mean, with that understanding, in my opinion, it seems pretty clear that this should be, I mean, that the Arkansas Geographic Information System and Act 757 is clearly what was intended. My only concern would be that, you know, if we generally go with this rule that 910 prevails over everything and we, are we only using that when it's convenient for us or are we going to use that, you know, as just as basically the general rule? Can somebody address that? I agree with you.
Speaker 15
1:19:12
Act 910, recognizing that it appears to, to a certain extent, substantively make changes for the purpose of reorganizing the executive branch of government. With that, along with that, there are going to be changes of names of various agencies and boards, commissions, departments, divisions, and that sort of thing. Those are more technical from the standpoint of what 910 was otherwise trying to do in the way of the reorganization.
We looked at this with respect to 757. It did not appear to us that 910 was intended to make that kind of 70 reorganizational change,
Speaker 18
1:19:54
for a better way of putting it. that this is merely changing, going through the motion, so to speak, of changing the Department of Ed to simply Division of Elementary and Secondary Ed. I'm
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
1:20:08
persuaded that the intent of the legislature was to have the geographic service do the maps.
Therefore, I'm in favor of adopting the earlier act in this instance. In
Speaker 15
1:20:21
the final analysis, it doesn't really change from the standpoint of the reorganization because it's
Speaker 119
1:20:29
still within and under what was the Department
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:34
of Education. So I think maybe in summarization, I mean, understanding the intent of 910, understanding the intent of 757, it would make sense in this situation that this is not really substantive in nature, but just naming the proper authority,
And therefore, we should, in this instance, and not always, generally the rule will be that 910 will prevail. But in this particular instance, given the understanding of what's happened, that Act 757
would prevail. Is that correct? Do we need a motion in that regard?
Speaker 139
1:21:11
With respect to the 910? Or just a particular matter? To
Speaker 152
1:21:20
confirm what I just said. CONFIRMING USING THE 757 LANGUAGE AND NOT THE 9-10 LANGUAGE FOR 6-13-14-04.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:21:26
CORRECT. IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVE.
I MOVE. I GUESS, CAN I SECOND THE CHAIR OR SECOND THE MOTION? I'M NOT
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:21:44
suppose without hearing an objection, there's been a motion, and without hearing any objection, that motion will stand approved. Okay.
Speaker 375
1:21:57
This next... I'll wait for a moment.
Speaker 33
1:22:08
Bob Ballinger's gone. Okay. Mr. Miller,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:22:12
do you want to proceed?
Speaker 152
1:22:14
Sure. This one's going to feel real familiar. 6-13-1414D.
Speaker 83
1:22:19
We're looking at the next section of Act 757, Section 6, not Section 5, which again made the change regarding the Geographic Information Systems Office.
When we go over to Act 910, Section 1168, we see the same change that we dealt
Speaker 79
1:22:40
with in the section before where it made the name change. So this is the exact same issue you looked at, a different application. We'll have
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:22:47
it a couple more times, too. Same issue. Any objection to allowing that change to be made, as was the other? Seeing no objection, that was. Okay. Change will be approved.
Speaker 83
1:23:05
D3B2. Act 757, section 22, page 8. There's the page there in your packet. You can see there that public school district classified by the Department of Education as being in need of level 5 intensive support. Then we go over to Act 910. Section 1275, page 448, lines 11 through 24, public school designated by the Division
of Elementary and Secondary Education. What do we want to do?
Speaker 382
1:23:50
I'm looking back at the other one. so i
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:23:58
found where we are in the acts mr miller this is out to speed i am mr miller or miss fetcher
could would either one of you like
Speaker 248
1:24:11
to explain i'm i'm going to turn mine off so miss
Speaker 336
1:24:14
fetcher's okay so the um the department of education says that only the state board of education has the authority to classify a public school district as being in need of level five intensive support the division of elementary and secretary education could recommend that the state board classify a district as being in level five but only the state board has the authority to classify the district
Speaker 363
1:24:42
the department is involved in that process okay and
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:24:45
that changes and so the change that's
Speaker 173
1:24:48
being made is found where? The page and
Speaker 152
1:24:59
lines? Page in 910. The first act, Act 757, it's on page 8, lines 11 through 20. Okay. And Act 910, it is 11 through
Speaker 79
1:25:13
24, I believe, on page 448. Okay. It might be helpful if we peek
Speaker 83
1:25:18
ahead at the next one because there's an internal conflict in the acts,
and I think it's what Ms. Fetcher is referencing. Okay. Let's look. The next one is 6-15-2502D3C2. So we're in the same subdivision. We're one level down. And when you
Speaker 15
1:25:48
way here. Yep. If you look on the page 8 version, starting on line 22, the language we're looking at
is on line 33, where it was changed to be classified by the State Board of
Speaker 152
1:26:02
Education. It said department, and here it's been changed to State Board of Education. And the one we just looked at, it said Department of Education rather than State Board. So there's some inconsistency. Act
Speaker 18
1:26:14
9-10 did the same thing to both. Within
Speaker 152
1:26:17
that statute section, in fact. Yes. Act 910, in both instances, changed it from department to division. So
Speaker 79
1:26:22
Ms. Fetcher, I believe, was referencing the internal inconsistency in the act
between one place it says Department of Education and one place it says State Board. Vince's staff had
Speaker 65
1:26:34
caught that as well. I see. So what is,
Speaker 15
1:26:37
in your opinion, the correct terminology? In 910, put the division, which, if I understand correctly, is also not correct, but it's supposed to be the State Board. Thank you, because that's what we
Speaker 335
1:26:49
thought we would have seen, but okay, that makes
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:26:53
sense. So in Act 910, it is the State Board.
In Act 910, it's division. Division, and we didn't change where it says State Board to division. Is that correct?
Speaker 161
1:27:06
No, the earlier act, I'm going to, Ms. Fetcher can interrupt me or Ms. Farino. No. The earlier
Speaker 79
1:27:13
act intended to move it from the department to the state board. It missed one instance of changing it from department to state board, and that was caught in the first conflict we looked at, where it was department to division. The second one is as they intended it,
and there we end up with the difference between state board in the earlier act and division in the later act. Lori's giving me a thumbs up, so I think I've got it. So there's an internal inconsistency in Act 757 right off the bat in that in one place it gives authority to the department and then another to
Speaker 393
1:27:48
the state board immediately after itself. So it's supposed to be, in your view, Ms. Fletcher,
Speaker 83
1:27:55
the board. Okay. I see. They've given me materials here noting that post-Act 9, there's other inconsistencies in 910 after the passage of Act 757,
Speaker 79
1:28:02
like the usage of academic distress and school improvement, which are antiquated terms under Act 757, but are going back, using the 910 version would kind of re-instigate those. So there's a scheme to Act 757, basically. The double-barreled part of this is, first of all, do you want to make a change in Act 757 to correct the mistaken Department of Education to State Board when we publish the supplements?
And then do you want to use the 757 version in lieu of Act 910 for the reasons that you just said? That the
Speaker 169
1:28:42
result will be they'll all be state board.
Speaker 79
1:28:45
Yes. Yes. With your direction, we would amend the supplement to say state board there. That might be the kind of thing we put in the technical correction bill next time,
Speaker 311
1:28:54
though, as we discussed. I move that we amend the language to be state board in all instances and put it in the technical corrections bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:29:05
All right, there's been a motion, seeing no objection, hearing no objection, that
Speaker 308
1:29:15
motion will be approved. All right, let me
Speaker 79
1:29:20
get back on track. Could we have brought more paper? Okay,
Speaker 226
1:29:25
we could have. He's exactly right. We could have brought the whole, the
Speaker 83
1:29:33
entirety of Act 910. 6-15-2305B4D and 6-20-2305E4.
You may want to trust us on this one. Vince did some sleuthing and figured out what happened, but we wanted to show you the problem. If you look at on page 569, which is the second page of the materials
Speaker 325
1:29:47
there, at line 32, you can see there's just random language. 31 ends in a period
Speaker 15
1:29:54
and then all of a sudden you have and secondary education and that runs to line 2 the next page yeah it runs over to line 2
Speaker 83
1:30:09
if you look on page 571 which is the next page you can see at lines 30 and 31 it says that 620 2305E4 is amended but there's no language underneath it and then there is some more
Speaker 79
1:30:27
the language at the top of 572 right vince well if you look at bottom of 571
Speaker 85
1:30:33
where it says d1 by the end of each school year each school just submit to the
Speaker 15
1:30:40
now Division of Elementary, and then starts up with 4A. So we think, somehow or other, the language there, D1, bottom 571, belongs with the language that begins on line 32. So we read, by the end of each school year, each school district shall submit to the Division of Elementary, then back to 569, and secondary education, a report listing each program upon which funds allocated of the subdivision before expended, not expended, and any other information required by the
now division of elementary and secondary education. Then 2i, the division of, go back, elementary and secondary education developed appropriate reporting forms for use by school districts. Somehow or another, this section got cut, sliced up, put on different pages, and had sort of put this puzzle together. It matches up. If you want to trust
Speaker 86
1:31:36
us, it matches up if you look at the code and it's
Speaker 79
1:31:41
current. That language is there as part of those code sections, how it got disjointed.
Speaker 167
1:31:46
They're pages apart, so I'm not sure exactly what happened.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:31:52
So in the process of making basically what were these technical corrections of replacing Department of Ed and Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, existing language got moved. It's
Speaker 152
1:32:00
the intended changes, but they don't technically fit in the sections where they are. Basically, we can mentally move everything around and make the changes that we believe were intended. They clearly don't make sense as they exist.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:32:11
No, they don't make sense. But we know where it was supposed to be.
Speaker 152
1:32:18
Okay. So if you all are okay with that, we'll just publish it as
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:32:25
we think it was intended. It seems to me
Speaker 79
1:32:29
as it was very clearly intended. Okay. Is that correct? We thought so. But it's unique. Okay. It's unique. So we put it on the list just for
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:32:39
your consideration just because we had never had anything quite like that before.
Speaker 173
1:32:44
Okay. I understand. Seeing no objection, that change will be approved. 6-45-106A2A1, a little lie.
Speaker 83
1:32:52
Act 757, which we've talked about quite a bit. Section 63, same thing that we talked about earlier. It changes department to state board of education, and then if you look at Act 910, section 1817, right in the middle of the page, 16 through 21, departments change the division of
Speaker 152
1:33:15
elementary and secondary education. So this is basically the same issue we spoke about
Speaker 79
1:33:21
a couple of moments ago and provides further support for your decision to change that isolated department to state board.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:33:28
Okay. Seeing that we've already dealt with this issue and there was no objection, and seeing no objection to that requested
Speaker 278
1:33:38
change, the change will be approved. All right.
Speaker 152
1:33:41
12-9-602. This one, I'm going to let Vance drive here a little bit because this one is tricky. Act 151, Section 8. Page 6.
Speaker 83
1:33:53
It demands 12-9-602 in its entirety. It makes quite a few changes, as you can see, over pages 6, page 7, page 8.
And it deals, it talks about the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training as being the entity with authority. And when we get over to Act 9-10, in sections 58-28 through 58-32, So the bottom of 1886, the entirety of 1887, top of 1888, changes commission to division, which as I understand it under the Transformation Act,
Speaker 152
1:34:32
the commission continues to exist, but here in 910 the
Speaker 79
1:34:37
powers have been diverted to the division.
So Ms. Fetcher looks like she has thoughts.
Speaker 336
1:34:44
There was some input on this one from Alita. There had been confusion for years because the commission and the agency had identical names, and so Act 9-10 was a place where we allowed them to try to clarify that. It's only representing the practice of what is being done now in Act
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:35:08
9-10. Okay, so can someone explain what the recommended change is?
Speaker 181
1:35:13
I guess, is Ms. Fetcher suggesting we just incorporate division into the
Speaker 79
1:35:20
earlier act in place of commission? Would that be what we did? Vince, does that make sense?
Speaker 84
1:35:30
Well, the way I looked at it was that looking at the early act, But we,
Speaker 18
1:35:43
fact that we understand that with most of these boards and commissions in particular,
the board and commission, like public service commission, for example, is
Speaker 15
1:35:54
separate from the staff. And so we weren't certain whether 910, when changed that division, was trying to make that separation or whether it was intended for the commission as a body and the commission staff was supposed to go along with it. And there really wasn't enough in 9-10 for us to really make that determination. That being said, because of that,
in light of the authority given
Speaker 18
1:36:22
the commission under 9-10, if the Code Division Commission, excuse me, authority, you could decide that, yes, that word
Speaker 15
1:36:31
division includes the commission. A couple ways of handling that would be to simply codify 910 with the term division in there. An alternative would be for us to instead add the word commission and division in those references to make that clear.
Speaker 18
1:36:53
I think that was more along the lines of the kind of clarity that I suspect you might have been looking for. with
Speaker 105
1:37:01
910. Does division refer to the staff and commission as the board? Yes,
Speaker 79
1:37:07
that's a traditional view, see. That was a consistent 910 challenge in that when like a term state plant board was referred to, and sometimes it means the agency incorporating functions of its staff, and in some cases it means the people who sit on the board and vote on things. So that's become the challenge here is just to the extent sometimes the
commission means appointees, and sometimes it means a staff function. So I think,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:37:32
to be clear, the second suggestion to me sounded most appropriate, that you
would refer to the commission and the division. And in some instances, you may only mean the division, and in some instances, you may only mean the commission. The question is, in my mind, would be where in the code were you intending to refer only to the commission? Where in the code
were you intending only to refer to the division and where in the code were you intending to mean both
Speaker 79
1:38:01
and I don't know that and 910 made an effort to do that um that was one of the things that 910 really did make an effort to do was to differentiate between the board and the staff and basically I think what Ms. Fetcher is saying that the 910 is showing an intent to make it the staff and not the board but you may have to capture that spirit over in the earlier act 910 means the division, not the board.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:38:34
Yes, sir. Okay, so my concern would be where in other sections of the code we mean the board that we've named the division. And are there any references there where you have identified that?
Speaker 366
1:38:52
And we changed those throughout in Act 910. Act 910 made all the changes that
Speaker 79
1:38:58
we saw that needed to be differentiated were made. The earlier act here that we're looking at did not make that effort to do that.
It was just using the existing language that was referring to the
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:39:11
commission. So regardless, we're a little better off than we were before, although we may not be
Speaker 86
1:39:17
completely there. No, the 910 was an effort to bifurcate, you know, the term and
Speaker 331
1:39:22
use it in a different way. That's why we think we should stick with 910 because it includes the effort to
Speaker 152
1:39:30
make that distinction. But there is more. There's more to it in 757. There's substantive language back
Speaker 79
1:39:36
in 757. So the suggestion to somehow incorporate commission and division or something like that may pull them both.
If we just did 910, we'd lose the substantive changes
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:39:47
of 757. Okay, so can you point us then to the substance of language you're referring to
Speaker 83
1:39:59
in 757? Page 6, bottom of the page, Section 8, starting at Line 24. You can see that it repealed
Speaker 152
1:40:06
this language, this A1B on the employing agency maintaining an original form, added language down there at 3 on the submission being subject to the provisions of 553-103
Speaker 83
1:40:19
concerning false swearing, change some things regarding affidavits, and B. Okay.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:40:28
So you're just saying that that act did contain some substantive changes? It did contain some. I
Speaker 86
1:40:32
think Mr. Henderson's suggestion was just to try to use
Speaker 79
1:40:35
this language but try to capture some of the division terminology that was used in 9-10 in this section, maybe by saying commission and division. Was that right? Yes. So does that need
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:40:43
a technical corrections bill to do that, or how are you proposing that we do that?
Speaker 85
1:40:50
Under 9-10, the Co-Division Commission has the authority to go ahead and make these kinds of changes, but regardless, I would certainly want all this in a correction bill to have that ratified. Okay. Just to be sure. If I
Speaker 336
1:41:04
could just say, if we add commission and division in every one of these instances, the way I understand it from the Director of Alita is that it will give power to the board
Speaker 338
1:41:15
that they don't currently have. It's made at the division level.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:41:21
I see. So you're suggesting that we don't add commission and division?
Speaker 161
1:41:28
Yes, sir. Okay. And that we just... Are you suggesting we use division in place of commission? Or just use
Speaker 79
1:41:41
the later act? Use the later act. And
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:41:44
that case would lose the changes of... 750. You'd lose the changes of 757, is that correct? Yes, sir. Which
did have some substantive changes that appear to be of some consequence.
Speaker 152
1:41:56
Is that right? It was the provisions that I just read there. It changes the way things are done. It's not merely Scribner
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:42:08
changes. Yeah, I don't know that I would personally be comfortable with scrapping that particular act in favor of 9-10 if there are substantive changes that would be done away with. I
Speaker 368
1:42:21
guess I thought I heard one of the option is just changing and adding the word division in there to correct it on Act 151.
Speaker 417
1:42:30
I think you can retain the sensitive portion of it and make the title changes. And if the legislature wants to do a bill that would correct that themselves, I would agree with her.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:42:55
Okay. Okay, so I understand that. And if that's the case, then I would be inclined to do that.
I think there's still some question in my mind about where distinctions need to be made between the commission and the division because division is all-encompassing, and if there are distinctions that need to be made, ensuring
that those are there. And I realize we may be kind of repeating
Speaker 86
1:43:24
the same argument. As Representative Davis was just saying to me, I believe the suggestion is to use the naming convention from 9-10,
Speaker 79
1:43:31
but keep the substantive text from 7-57, so just replace commission with division in each instance,
just as it was done in 9-10. Basically merge them. Okay, I understand that. But we were leery to do that because of the difference
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:43:47
between the commission and the division, obviously. So is there a motion to do that? So I guess if I were going to summarize it, basically there would be a motion to merge the language that exists in 757 and 910 with respect to the references to the division.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:44:14
earlier, sorry. Okay, so 151 and 910 to incorporate the references to division
from 910 and to keep the substantive changes in 151 and also any distinctions that are made between where there's a distinction
between the commission and the division. Does that sound correct? I
Speaker 148
1:44:37
believe so. Vince, did that sound right to you?
Speaker 15
1:44:42
Okay, I want to make sure I'm clear here. In respect to the changes made by Act 151, where the term commission is used, you're wanting that to remain, or you're wanting that to be changed to division? I believe changed to division. Changed
Speaker 18
1:44:54
to division. That's what I thought. That's what I just wanted to
Speaker 335
1:44:58
double check and make sure. And that's what was done in 9-10. Okay. And, yeah, in light of what was done in
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:45:06
9-10. Okay. Yes, I agree with that. So, I'm sorry, but if we do that, why did we go through the discussion about maintaining the distinction
Speaker 86
1:45:12
between the commission and the division? 910 has already made that
Speaker 79
1:45:21
distinction. I think that if we used the version of 757 without division, then it would be inconsistent with the other changes that were made in 910 because it's gone through and made an effort to isolate the commission when it needs to vote and the division when
Speaker 336
1:45:35
it needs to do staff functions. The naming convention in Act 910 tries to distinguish between the commission and the division or the staff.
So that's why the language there is more correct than Act
Speaker 424
1:45:54
151. Okay. All we have to do is recommend that we go with what is in
Speaker 336
1:46:00
910. On the naming convention. And then on the substantive changes in Act 151, you would incorporate those and just use the naming convention from 910. And again, we
Speaker 79
1:46:13
did not do that as staff because we didn't know the commission and division were two different things.
Speaker 167
1:46:21
So that is why as staff, we didn't do that automatically. But Ms. Fetcher is saying that that was the overall intent of Act 910 was to clarify that. So
Speaker 65
1:46:33
point again to the section of Act 151, the exact language we're talking about, please. Page six, start
Speaker 83
1:46:44
at line 24, and you can see there in lines 27 and 28,
Speaker 79
1:46:50
see it's using the existing language, Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training, and then it's doing
away with the requirement that that be in writing right after that, and you can see there's other similar substantive changes. It hasn't made any changes to the, the commission was always doing it under this section. What 910 did was come along and clarify that the division is doing that and not the commission itself because commission was being used as a global term for both individual functions and staff functions. So
Speaker 94
1:47:20
my concern would be if I sat on the commission,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:47:27
if I'm a member of the commission, not the global commission but the actual commission, and I want to retain the authority to make those changes, And it's now been given to the division, and the division is made up of some higher-ups in a bureaucracy that oversee the commission, the body of the commission. Then I've just given away the authority of the commission. Would
Speaker 148
1:47:54
that be correct? That's technically what happened in 9-10.
Speaker 429
1:47:58
But I think that was, you know, that's
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:48:07
the legislature's decision, not ours. I'm a little uncomfortable with this one personally. Maybe
Speaker 431
1:48:17
we can review this at a later meeting. I'm
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:48:35
sure there's some very obvious distinction that I'm overlooking here,
but I just have some trouble with it. So what are our options?
Speaker 31
1:48:56
Why don't we just... Leave it as is or recommend
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:49:02
it? Why don't we just move to the next agenda item, and we can think maybe as we discuss this more, we can, there will be, we'll all become enlightened on what to do here.
Speaker 173
1:49:12
We can, at the end, we can come back to the one that the department had on the non-910 conflicts on
Speaker 83
1:49:20
this one. He's got that one. Yes. Let's, we'll, let's remember. I say that to help me. All right, let's move on
Speaker 173
1:49:34
to the next one, which is 12-27-143, Act 106, Section
Speaker 83
1:49:40
1. When you look at that act, it amends 12-27-143 at line 29 on Act 106.
Speaker 152
1:49:47
It did say department. Now it says the director of the Department of Correction can award the service weapon carried by the employee, and it adds the surviving child of the employee as a person who can receive that. And you can see there's some
Speaker 83
1:50:03
more scheme to how that works. When you look over at Act 910, 764, page 284, line 9, it changed department to division. So
Speaker 152
1:50:14
the issue here is the difference between Act 106 giving the power to the director of the department
and Act 910 giving it to the division itself. In other
Speaker 18
1:50:25
words, the director of the division of correction or to the division
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:50:32
itself. Are there two independent people that still exist in
Speaker 338
1:50:39
those roles? There is a director of correction, I believe. It
Speaker 336
1:50:44
should go under the Division of Correction because the language in 910 establishes that the Department of Correction
is something, a different entity than what it was prior to 910. So the Department of Correction, the Secretary of the Department of Correction currently says it should be under the Director of the Division of Correction. The Service Weapon Program and the ACI are both division-specific. So you're saying use
Speaker 247
1:51:14
the Act 106 version, but instead of saying Department of Correction, use Division of Correction?
Speaker 331
1:51:23
Does that make sense? Correct, because Department of Correction is not what it used to be. Department of Correction is now a level higher than division. So you don't want those functions up at the secretary level. We want them down in the division. So they're
Speaker 79
1:51:44
suggesting to look at Act 106 as what
Speaker 83
1:51:47
the core version would be, but where it says department, change it to division, right? Isn't that what we're saying? Okay.
Speaker 145
1:51:53
That's their suggestion. To simply division of correction? Yes.
Speaker 440
1:52:07
Yes. Is this similar to what we just have to do with the previous
Speaker 336
1:52:10
act? Basically, yes. Is there a director of the Department of Correction now, or is it a secretary? Secretary, and I do believe they have replaced the director. Most of the spots were not replaced, but I do believe the Board of Correction made the decision, And because of Amendment 33, they can do that to put a director in the Division of Correction.
Speaker 15
1:52:30
So there's a separate director of the Division of Correction? Yes, she's
Speaker 441
1:52:35
saying that's the case. Secretary at the
Speaker 56
1:52:37
secretary level, and then there's a director of the division at a lower level. You would have a secretary of
Speaker 79
1:52:43
the Department of Correction and a director of the Division of Correction. Right, okay. And the director of
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:52:49
the division is below the secretary? Yes. And this would give that authority at the division level to the director of the division, which would be the equivalent of what is currently the director of the Department of Corrections?
Correct. Okay. So this seems really purely technical
Speaker 325
1:53:06
to me. And 910 changed it from department
Speaker 18
1:53:08
to division. Yeah. So it would be the director of the Division of Corrections now awarding the firearm. I move
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:53:20
that we do that. Okay. All right. Seeing no objection, and with the understanding this is purely technical, our belief it is
Speaker 173
1:53:32
purely technical in nature, this change will be approved. All right. 12-30-210. Let's look. Section 2, line 21. You can see there that it,
Speaker 152
1:53:47
That language used to say the Director of the Department of Correction. We've changed it to the Department of Corrections Industry Division at
Speaker 83
1:53:56
line 21. Now we look over at Act 910, Section 821. There
Speaker 152
1:54:03
we have the original language. You saw where we'd stricken through the Director of the Department of Correction in the last section. Here we have the existing language. We've just changed it to Division instead of Department.
Speaker 368
1:54:17
and thus the conflict. So the Department of Correction says it's the same thing as what we currently just approved. It's a naming convention. It's just really
Speaker 18
1:54:32
a technical error. Is the industry division under the division of correction or under the department of correction? Okay, that was what we were
Speaker 79
1:54:40
trying to sort out. So they're suggesting use the Act 982 version but replace department with division. So Division of Corrections, Industry Division.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:54:49
Good. Okay. That's their suggestion. Okay. So we will be making the change from where the current language in 1230-210 states, Department of Corrections, Industry Division, to Division of Corrections, Industry Division. Correct. Is that the requested
change? Yes, sir. Is there a motion in that regard? I think I move. that we change it to division all
right seeing no objection change will be approved
yes yes meeting will be adjourned for 10 minutes temporarily 10 minutes Thank you.
Unknown speaker
1:56:15
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Unknown speaker
1:58:45
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:05:45
All right, are we ready to get started? So,
what I talked about with the Secretary and with BLR staff during
the break is we're obviously going to run out of time.
And so, because of other meetings that are going to be upcoming that I know several of us have to get to. So what we're going to try and do is take up the handful of items that I believe the governor's office, the secretary, and Representative Davis and BLR believe need to be addressed in this meeting. And then we'll have to look at scheduling another meeting in the upcoming weeks to come back and finish off maybe the items that are not as critical at this point. okay so with that in mind let's uh let's pick the items that we really need to address today
um and i appreciate everybody uh staying with us even though i had to step out but now i'm
back so uh with that let's let's get get back to it uh looking at what's left on the 910
Speaker 83
2:07:10
list i think we can go pretty quick here there's a couple we're
Speaker 152
2:07:13
going to have a couple of act conflicts then we're going to have four straight internal 910 conflicts which we should be able to handle pretty fast. Then we'll have a couple more
Speaker 79
2:07:23
act conflicts and then we'll be in good shape. I'm going to pick them up and put them down. Sounds good.
Speaker 226
2:07:29
15-4-2704-E1 look at Act 327 line section 1 revised E1 to reference the
Speaker 232
2:07:35
Can you jump in? Yeah, jump in. So Act 327 was the cleanup
Speaker 336
2:07:49
bill for the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. It passed first. It was trying to do a couple of things in the next two places.
It was trying to remove the tier system because it's no longer used. And it was also just trying. In the next one, it just says that we're giving the authority to the director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. I just wanted to point out the commission is the agency. The board is the Arkansas Economic Development Council. So there's really no changes. It's just saying the director has it rather than the entire agency.
Where is that at again? That's the second one,
Speaker 83
2:08:40
15-4-2708-E. I think I can get us oriented in 27-04-E-1 faster. I'm sorry. Look at
Speaker 232
2:08:45
page 15. Look at lines 5 through 10. You can
Speaker 83
2:08:50
see there where we repealed language regarding this publication of workforce services, and we replaced it with a written request of the county judge and approval by the executive director of AEDC.
Speaker 232
2:09:02
When you go over to 910 and look at that same language. They made Division of Workforce Services. Page 147 on the second one. Page 147, line 21-22. Isn't that right, Vince? Yes. You can see there
Speaker 83
2:09:24
we kept the publication. That's what we repealed in the other act. And the other act, we
Speaker 152
2:09:30
came up with this new scheme that included the executive director of AEDC, 910 renamed the publication.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:09:38
The bottom line to this is the transformation bill used the
old language, and the only change that was made was transformation changed it from department to division because that was a structural change. But you're telling us that there had been a previous substantive change by specific legislation that didn't make it into the transformation bill? Yes, sir. Because the transformation bill was drafted while that other piece was making its way through.
Yes, and in this case, they
Speaker 326
2:10:05
don't even fit together that well. We've done some merging in the previous ones,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:10:10
but these don't even merge that well. Any questions on that? Okay, if not, without objection, then we'll bring the language forward
Speaker 453
2:10:23
from... 327? 327. Okay, now Amy was speaking on 5-4-2708. and I'm going
Speaker 336
2:10:30
to defer to her. I believe the difference in that one is that in 327, it requires the Arkansas Economic Development Commission to approve research expenditures,
and in 912, we gave it to the director of the Economic Development Commission, which really is the same thing. Just pointing out that...
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:10:53
What's the line and page?
Speaker 85
2:10:59
I don't have that information. Is it page 151 of
Speaker 15
2:11:04
910, I believe it is, and sections 411 and 412, amend 154-2708D. And
Speaker 327
2:11:09
then under the other act, it's on page 33, I believe, beginning, I think, around about line 16.
Speaker 305
2:11:18
Excuse me. Are we starting at Act 327? Right. We're in 327. 327. What's the page and line? 327, Section
Speaker 466
2:11:30
1. It's 14. 15-4-2708. The particular provision that we're looking for is subsection E, which.
Speaker 467
2:11:40
Page 9, line 9, page 34, line 9? Yes. Okay, page 34, line 9. Prescribed by the director.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:11:49
and then it says to show the commission has
Speaker 152
2:11:57
approved page 150 uh act 910 151 line 16 line six is that right
Speaker 463
2:12:10
one no it's it's on day it's a little bit It's farther down,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:12:17
22. 22. Line 22. All right. So what's the suggestion here?
Speaker 359
2:12:23
Really, you could go either way because I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:12:26
think it's the same thing. Here's, I guess, so we, okay,
so we did, it is the same situation we just took up. We changed director from secretary in the transformation bill. In the meantime, there had been a substantive change providing for the commission, not the director, to approve the
Speaker 336
2:12:50
research. Yes. The commission is the agency staff.
The board associated with AEDC is called
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:12:57
a council. It seems in light of what we just did that we should go with the language from that prior act. That was our recommendation. From 327, and that's the recommendation from BLR? Okay. Is there any discussion on that?
I think the prior law that was included in the transformation bill referred to the director of the commission,
and it was previously struck to just read the commission. We'll do
Speaker 79
2:13:37
the 327. Without objection, we'll use the 327 language. Okay. I mean it this time. We can pick up
Speaker 83
2:13:43
some speed on these next four. 19.5.305. This is an internal conflict in Act 9.10. Section 22.60 refers to the State Library
Speaker 152
2:13:50
as being under the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, but Section 10.30 put it directly under the Department of Education.
Speaker 161
2:13:59
It appeared to us it was supposed to be under the Department of Education. Otherwise, we need to change some other stuff. Okay. Can you give us page
Speaker 15
2:14:07
and line? Page 378, on line 22, if you look up above on line 12,
Speaker 85
2:14:13
it talks about 13. Yes, this is all 910. Yes, ma'am. This packet is
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:14:24
two pieces of 910. It's all 910. Okay, so page 378, line 22, and then what's the other reference we need to look at?
Speaker 26
2:14:30
On page 769, line, well, 31 and 32. 31 and 32.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:14:39
Okay, so 378, line 9, that's saying the administrative functions of the state library are transferred to the Department of Education. And then page 769 says the state library school fund account shall be used for state aid to public libraries
and administered by the Arkansas State Library of the Division of Elementary Secondary Education. It was the intent for it to
Speaker 336
2:15:09
be under the Department of Education, not within the division. So, but you're, and I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:15:15
believe Mr. Miller said we need to, if we don't
adopt this change, then we need, there's going to be other inconsistencies that we would have to address. Is that right? About six or seven other sections. If it was
Speaker 167
2:15:30
not under the department, then there would be some other sections, right,
Vince? Yes, about six or seven others. If it is under the department, then it fits
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:15:41
with other sections. I guess my question is, the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education is under the Department of Education. So
Speaker 152
2:15:47
is there really an inconsistency here? I think it's a matter of whether it falls under the department as far as an org chart issue or if
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:15:55
it stands out separate, like alongside the department. Oh, because the second one is just
addressing the, um, administration of the fund, not the actual oversight of the, of the library.
Speaker 331
2:16:08
The library should be on the same level as a division underneath the department. Okay. So, and
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:16:14
I'm getting, the department is indicating that that's, they agree with that view.
Okay. Is there any question or comment or discussion on that? All right. Without objection, then the change will be made, that would be made on lines, page
768, you would have to make a change to that, correct?
Speaker 94
2:16:41
Yes, we'd make it in Section 2260 to change that reference to department instead of
Speaker 305
2:16:47
division. All right. All right, Act 9, let's look at Act 910. The next one is
Speaker 83
2:16:54
Sections 3495, page 1138, line 26, actually line 29. You can see it says Secretary
Speaker 79
2:17:03
of the Department of Finance and Administration. flip over turn the page um 6124 line 18 same section this one says secretary of the department
Speaker 21
2:17:18
of transformation and shared services same subsection yes
Speaker 79
2:17:26
same sub conflicting references the named inconsistency the section got amended twice in the bill and it has two different
Speaker 84
2:17:33
I think Ms. Fetcher has a suggestion. In light of where the policies
Speaker 15
2:17:40
for catastrophic leave and the whole program are under Transformation Shared Services, we think that's
Speaker 18
2:17:44
probably, in fact, the correct one.
Having been having all that employee benefits, I think, and that sort of thing transferred
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:17:54
over. Okay. Any discussion? All right. Without objection. So we're going to go
Speaker 18
2:18:01
with Transformation Shared Service Department on that one, or Secretary
Speaker 173
2:18:08
of the E. Okay. Next one, 21-11-105. If you look at Act
Speaker 83
2:18:14
910, Section 3498, it references the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration.
This is the Employee Suggestion Award Board, and this is saying that the Secretary of DFA is on it. If you turn the page, look at page 61, section 6152, line 16, you can see that it says Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. The same thing as
Speaker 21
2:18:37
the previous one, in fact. The same principle, I
Speaker 18
2:18:46
guess. Okay, so tell me. The employee suggestion system is now, I think, as I understand, within or under the Transformation and Shared Services Department.
Speaker 221
2:18:53
So in this case, it should be the, I don't know what. Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. So
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:19:04
Okay. State personnel directors under that. Any discussion? Without objection, then we'll go with
Speaker 83
2:19:12
the Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. All right. 23-46-202. If you look at Section 579, you'll see that it repeals 23-46-202.
If you turn the page, then you
Speaker 152
2:19:30
will see section 6253 amends that section that had earlier been
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:19:40
repealed. So it looks like it should be repealed. Yes. Because the later amendment
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:19:50
repeal in instances like that Because the other was just a deletion of DF&A.
It was clarifying the placement of the building authority in
910. Okay. Any discussion on that, which we would go with the repeal of 2346-202? Correct. All right. Without objection, the 2346-202
Speaker 83
2:20:19
would be repealed. 25-4-125. Act 792, a short act. The governor shall designate the state broadband manager.
That section got amended again in Act 910. Section 6292, page 2025, line 6 at the top of the page. It's a clarification of the name of the information systems, but the section got amended. So this
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:20:48
was basically the same we've seen in these priors, that change was, it appears that change was changing department to division, was
not a substantive change, it was a structural change, or really it was a title change, but there was a prior change in who, in the designation of the state broadband manager, that did not make it into the transformation bill.
So the recommendation is the governor shall designate the state broadband manager. And that's consistent with what we've done with these prior.
Okay. Is there any discussion on
that? Without objection, then we'll go with the language from 792. All right.
Speaker 83
2:21:38
Let's look at 26-51-201. Act 182, Section 4, repealed subsection E in its entirety, as you see there, Page 4, lines 24 and down, 910, section 3706, which is at the top of page 1206, lines 3 through 7, amends the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:21:58
section that was repealed.
So we would go with the repeal? Yes,
sir. And the language, the repeal in Act 182? Yes, sir. Is there any discussion on that? Without objection, then we'll
go with the repeal in Act 182. We have a couple more to go back to. We did
Speaker 152
2:22:16
make a list on here of just conflicts involving the technical correction bills that the commission sponsored. And as you all will recall, the technical correction bills yield to other substantive changes of bills. We made a list here of those in cases where the technical correction bill changes got swallowed up by another act.
Speaker 167
2:22:34
I can run through those real fast, or they kind of are what they are.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:22:41
Is there any need to, if it's all, I mean, if it's consistent with that understanding, then I would think that we would just adopt them as they are. Okay, Vince, were you comfortable with that? Yes, yes. Okay. All right, that leaves us just two more. Without objection, we'll adopt the language of the acts that conflict with our
technical correction bills. And that leaves us the one that Ms. Freeno.
Speaker 126
2:23:06
Okay. Okay, so we're going back up to 6-15-2701C2, non-Act 910.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:23:31
Act 631 and Act 757.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:23:44
right. So did the department get a chance to look
Speaker 489
2:23:49
at it? Yes, Courtney saw us forward for the department. And we would agree with
Speaker 490
2:23:54
Mr. Henderson's recommendation that you adopt the language from Act 631, even though it was the earlier bill. These were both bills that originated with the department. Act 757 was just a cleanup, a find-and-replace type language.
So Act 631, where we used the district support plan language, is actually what was intended.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:24:17
All right. And so while we normally take the act, the later act,
we have in the past and even today, we have taken the earlier act if the earlier act was more specific on point and the later act appeared to be a
cleanup piece of legislation or was not necessarily directed at the provision in question.
Correct. All right. So with
that, is there any discussion on this? So without objection, we will go with
the language from Act 631 to the extent it conflicts with the later act. Act 757
Speaker 83
2:25:05
Alright And the next one is in the 9-10 Conflict section 12-9-602 How far back is that?
Speaker 173
2:25:15
Page 3 of the summary It's in the middle Kind of in the middle
Speaker 492
2:25:35
of the page This is the Commission on
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:25:40
Law Enforcement Standards vs. Yes. Okay. All right. I'm there. So tell me what the conflict is. The conflict is that when
Speaker 83
2:25:47
you look at page 151, section 8,
which is page 6 of the act and in your packet, you can see there that it says an employing agency in A1, an employing agency shall immediately notify the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. When you go and look at Act 910, which several sections of 910 amended this section, but for instance, if you look at the bottom of page 1886, section 5828, an employing agency shall immediately notify the,
Speaker 152
2:26:18
would replace commission with division of law enforcement standards of training.
But there is still a commission of law enforcement standards and training. It exists. the division is something different, and Amy and
Speaker 79
2:26:33
she's brought some staff from Alita to help explain the intent of the change. So
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:26:42
I guess the first question I would have from Secretary Fetcher, and I guess Representative Davis, would be what's your position on this
Speaker 368
2:26:53
Was this an intended change? This was one that in Act 9-10 we
Speaker 336
2:27:00
were trying to clarify. We were working close with now Secretary Cook to distinguish between the commission and the division, the agency, because historically there's been a lot of confusion around it. So we were just trying to represent in Act
Speaker 403
2:27:15
9-10 what is currently happening, but make that distinguishing factor between the commission and the agency.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:27:22
And so are you asking that, is it your position, the 910 language should control?
Speaker 331
2:27:30
I can't, but if I could make a motion, I would say that you maintain the naming convention from Act 910 and the substantive changes from 151.
Speaker 79
2:27:39
We had discussed using the earlier act, but every place that it said commission, replacing it with division to kind of merge the
Speaker 199
2:27:47
two. Representative Gassaway may have a thought. And just
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:27:51
to muddy the waters, I mean, I think the discussion that we had earlier while you were gone was that, well, what if you intended the commission, meaning the body itself, and since there's a distinction between the commission, which is the body, and the division, which is now includes more than just the body, the commission, you know, are we sure that we're, because I think there's some language that grants or takes away some powers.
Are we sure that we're intending to take it away from the commission and give it to the division? How does the commission, the body, feel about that? And that's kind of the discussion that we had previously. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's something to be aware of. Okay.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:28:35
All right. So does anybody else you want to speak on this? If you'll state your name and then you can
Speaker 496
2:28:42
make your statement on this. Sure. I'm Andy Yarbrough. I'm the attorney for the commission. and the idea was not to take away authority from the commission.
Currently, the way this works, the commission sets the standards. They set minimum standards. They set employment standards. They set training standards, all of those things. But all of that information is maintained by the division. So when we're saying the information is being reported to the division, that's just so the division can maintain and report to the commission if someone is out of compliance, if an officer is out of compliance, or whether or not they meet standards to be employed as an officer.
Speaker 468
2:29:24
So in practice, everything would continue as it has in the past?
Speaker 15
2:29:29
Okay. One of the questions that we had, if you look on page 8, where the language changed in 9-10 to where I think it's a division and its employees who disclose information under the section of municipal liability for such disclosure, does the term division in that case include the commission? I'm sorry.
Page 8, line 8, I think is where he's looking. Page 8, line 8 of the Act, and then if you look, let me see if I can find it here. If you look on page 1888 under Act 910, where the term commission and the term of its members are taken out, so it says it's just a division and its employees, that's line 10 on the last page of this back. 1888, line 10. And the question that we have is, recognizing the commission is separate from the division,
does that pick up the commission in this case? To be honest with you, that's one
Speaker 18
2:30:36
reason why I simply couldn't give a recommendation on which
Speaker 500
2:30:42
way to go with this. Practically speaking, the commission does not
Speaker 496
2:30:47
disseminate information. That's all done by the division. So the commission makes decisions in its meetings as far as decertification and whether or not someone's eligible, but the information is actually distributed by the division. So it may not cover the commission, but practically speaking, the commission doesn't offer that information.
Speaker 311
2:31:09
The division does that on its behalf. Could you put the commission, I think it was proposed, could we put
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
2:31:19
the commission and the division in that language in both
Speaker 152
2:31:27
places, and that would cover that? I think one of the comments on that was that it would give the commission powers that it didn't have in some other
Speaker 311
2:31:36
instances what we do here would mean it could not disclose information
or it would be immune from civil liability if it disclosed it would
Speaker 199
2:31:49
it extend beyond that I think we found
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:31:56
the hardest one though didn't we Can you go back either Mr. Miller or Mr. Henderson and give me one
example. I want to look at the page and the line again, and I want to look at the distinction
Speaker 476
2:32:09
between the two, just so I can try and wrap my mind around at least one example on this.
Speaker 83
2:32:15
If you look at page 6 of the earlier act, 151, look at lines 27 and 28. An employing agency shall immediately notify the Commission of Law Enforcement Standards and Training.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:32:34
And if you look over, now, is Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training the same as Commission small
Speaker 152
2:32:44
c? I believe so. Yes, sir. Throughout their commission is referring to the
Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. If you look over
Speaker 83
2:32:54
at Act 910 at page 1887 up at the top, this is the language we were just looking at. It's 1886 at the bottom and 1887 at the top. An employing an agency shall immediately notify the Division of
Speaker 152
2:33:08
Law Enforcement Standards and Training. And then Vince noted later on the more complicated
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:33:14
language where we amended we replaced commission its members with the term division so so division the intent in
910 was not to make the commission the division it wasn't merely a naming change it was actually an attempt at a substantive
change it's it's drawing a line 910
Speaker 152
2:33:31
had a consistent problem of some agencies like the plant board the commission on law enforcement standards and training that sometimes it referred
Speaker 79
2:33:38
to its voting members and sometimes it referred to a staff function like if it says the plant board will go out and you know check all the crops it doesn't mean the members of the board it meant the people who work for the board but then other times the
board was to vote and consider certain issues this is an attempt to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:33:58
bifurcate that and to differentiate between the commission and what the staff does as a practical matter like in that instance, even though
it says notify the division on a form adopted by the division, as a practical matter, the commission is actually going to continue to be the one
to be notified. I mean, they would have oversight of that. Is that correct?
Speaker 497
2:34:22
They do have oversight, absolutely. They'll continue to be notified in instances where the
Speaker 496
2:34:27
division, its personnel believe that someone is outside of compliance with the standards set by the commission.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:34:34
So if we adopted, if we went ahead with the language of 910, given that it's the later act, and apparently
it was not just a mere name change, it was actually intended to clarify or make a substantive change, what, if any, hardship would or issue would arise if we did
Speaker 496
2:34:53
that? None. It wouldn't affect anything, any of our processes at this point. The agency, the division, currently receives the information. We currently notify the commission anytime there's a problem, so they still would maintain their authority.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:35:07
And the one instance that Mr. Henderson gave was the possibility of the section that says they should not be subject to civil liability, and you're saying as a practical matter that's not likely to come up? It shouldn't, in
Speaker 497
2:35:20
my opinion, because the commission doesn't distribute information. The agency does that on its behalf. Well, the commission doesn't care about
Speaker 311
2:35:28
being exempt from civil liability for that. I mean, I guess that's the
Speaker 476
2:35:33
one place where it could have. And I don't care.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:35:42
Mr. Henderson's pointing out at lines 13 through 16 on page 1888, it says, So it would say the division and its employees shall not be civilly liable for disclosure of information or performing any other duties under the subchapter. I mean, I could see that potentially being a... I think
Speaker 122
2:36:07
that's a pretty big change, but that may be... I mean, I don't know that we...
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:36:13
Is it your position that is the commission part of
Speaker 497
2:36:22
the division? The commission oversees the division. They're the certifying body. We're the administrators of their rules and regulations. I mean, it looks like
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:36:35
to me, if we were to be consistent, that we would adopt the language of 910, it's the later act,
and apparently it was not merely a name change. But, you know, this might be one of those instances where there may be value in going ahead and including in the code the other language with a footnote just because it is, I mean, that is, that could potentially be a significant issue. But I'm not sure how we, I don't know how we can really do anything else other than note it.
Speaker 152
2:37:16
What do you? So we would publish 910 and not make the other substantive changes of 151 but put them in the notes?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:37:28
That's what I'm thinking is consistent with how we've handled these in the past. It's
Speaker 417
2:37:38
a tricky one. You don't think we should
Speaker 498
2:37:41
include the substantive changes that are set forth in the earlier
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:37:45
act? No, we do that, too. Well, because I guess they're making changes as well. I think on the non-conflicting substantive changes of 151, those would go ahead and we would incorporate those as we've done with others.
Does that make sense? I mean, so it would be, so, I mean, based on what I'm hearing, unless somebody has a compelling reason not to, it sounds like, to be consistent with how we've handled this in the past, we would adopt the substantive changes of 151 that do not conflict with 910. We would adopt all the language of 910, and to the extent that we have a conflict with regard to the designation of the commission or the division,
I mean, that's really what the issue is, that we would also have Act 151, we would have that conflicting language would be printed in the code as a footnote so that all would be aware of that potential of that conflict. Does anybody have any further discussion or
a better way of handling it? Vince, do we have this supplement yet? Do we have this one? I don't believe
Speaker 79
2:39:01
so. Okay. I don't have that yet. What if we emailed out a version as it looks, you know,
and what the conformed version would be, and everyone could take a look at it and let us know? Because I think we're talking about a version that we're not looking at here. We're talking about a version that we'd go back
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:39:19
and create in the office. What kind of time frame are we under on this? I mean, is this something we could email out and then come back if we're going to have to take up other matters in
Speaker 173
2:39:28
a few weeks, we could address it at that point? Do you know when we have a schedule? I don't know when we
Speaker 296
2:39:35
would get this one. I don't have a schedule at this point.
I'm not sure when that sub comes up. It's Title 12. Well, we can certainly email it around and let
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:39:47
everyone take a look. Okay, so we would be just emailing that language. We would email around what the conformed language looks like, and we would withhold making any decision on this at this point? I'll leave that
Speaker 79
2:39:58
up to you all. To the extent that we're talking about something we're not looking at, we can craft that up and let everyone take a look. I guess that's the question. I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:40:07
mean, if we take action now, then I don't know that it matters what we look at later.
I mean, if we're going to look at it, it seems like we would withhold judgment. Do we, is this something
Speaker 496
2:40:22
that needs to be addressed right now? I'm not, I'm not sure that it is
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:40:29
or, I mean, I think that's up to the. If we did, if we took up, if we took the language like we just discussed and we did that and then if BLR took that language and then sent it out to us, I guess if
we decided later we didn't like that, would we have the opportunity to revisit the issue?
Speaker 79
2:40:49
I was just throwing that out there as a suggestion. We're fine. We will go back and I think it will end up being kind of a mixture of parts. I think we'll end up taking some of the 151 versions, but not all of them
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:41:08
is what I suspect it will end up looking like. I mean, based on what's been
explained today, I mean, it seems that if we were to take the substantive language of 151 that doesn't conflict, take all the language of 910, and then additionally
we reference as a footnote or otherwise the conflicting language with regard to the labeling of the commission versus the division, it seems to me that's consistent with how we've handled these in the past and would be at kind of the outward edges of our authority as a commission. I mean, based on what I've
heard today. Does anybody have any further discussion or
without objection, can we do that? And then if you'll go ahead and email around the language, then we can
see it. And if we need to revisit it at a later point, we can do that. But you'd
Speaker 79
2:42:03
want us to go on ahead and proceed with the merged version, like send it to Lexis and all of that. If we wanted to change it, we'd change the supplement. We'd go ahead and publish
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:42:10
based on what you're saying now. Yeah. Any other discussion? All right, without objection, then we'll do that.
Speaker 332
2:42:17
That's it. That's all. I can come up with some more if you want
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:42:20
to talk about it. We've got as much as we enjoy talking about commas and other things.
All right, any other anything else? If not, we're adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Approval of the Minutes of December 20, 2018 meeting – Exhibit B
C. Proposal for replacement volumes by Ms. Leslie Metheney, Director, Government Content, LexisNexis Legal and Professional – Exhibit C
D. Codification Conflicts – Exhibit D
E. Other Business
F. Report of the Code Revisor
G. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CODE REVISION COMMISSION (1-4:30PM), Sep 17, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Summary of 2019 Legislative Conflicts for ACRC | Exhibit | 5 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 13
Speaker 15
Speaker 18
Speaker 20
Speaker 21
Speaker 31
Chair
Unverified
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 50
Speaker 62
Speaker 65
Speaker 70
Speaker 56
Speaker 79
Speaker 83
Speaker 26
Speaker 93
Speaker 97
Speaker 98
Speaker 111
Speaker 4
Speaker 126
Speaker 136
Lisa Mabry-Williams
Unverified
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Speaker 144
Speaker 85
Speaker 107
Speaker 148
Speaker 151
Speaker 152
Speaker 161
Speaker 168
Speaker 169
Speaker 167
Speaker 178
Speaker 180
Speaker 186
Speaker 188
Speaker 198
Speaker 202
Speaker 213
Speaker 221
Speaker 104
Speaker 226
Speaker 232
Speaker 243
Speaker 30
Speaker 176
Speaker 155
Speaker 173
Speaker 22
Speaker 54
Speaker 84
Speaker 281
Speaker 231
Speaker 290
Speaker 291
Speaker 131
Speaker 124
Speaker 298
Speaker 308
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 94
Speaker 199
Speaker 222
Speaker 327
Speaker 329
Speaker 264
Speaker 330
Speaker 331
Speaker 252
Speaker 27
Speaker 336
Speaker 340
Speaker 345
Speaker 351
Speaker 358
Speaker 360
Speaker 344
Speaker 359
Speaker 102
Speaker 119
Speaker 274
Speaker 375
Speaker 33
Speaker 382
Speaker 248
Speaker 363
Speaker 387
Speaker 335
Speaker 393
Speaker 311
Speaker 325
Speaker 86
Speaker 278
Speaker 181
Speaker 105
Speaker 366
Speaker 338
Speaker 368
Speaker 417
Speaker 346
Speaker 424
Speaker 429
Speaker 431
Speaker 247
Speaker 145
Speaker 440
Speaker 441
Speaker 448
Speaker 422
Speaker 326
Speaker 453
Speaker 305
Speaker 466
Speaker 467
Speaker 468
Speaker 463
Speaker 400
Speaker 480
Speaker 296
Speaker 489
Speaker 490
Speaker 492
Speaker 403
Speaker 496
Speaker 500
Speaker 476
Speaker 497
Speaker 122
Speaker 498
Speaker 332