ALC-Administrative Rules
Video
Transcript
39 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 7, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members, we're going to be...
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 5
4:00
All right, folks, we're going to go ahead and get started. We have no reports on item B. We
Speaker 7
4:10
have no reports from the executive subcommittee this month, so we'll proceed to the next item on the agenda, which is letters submitted pursuant to Act 893 of 2019. Act 893 of 2019 allowed agencies to submit a letter of legislative council to the Legislative Council when the only change to the rule
is the replacement of the term regulation with the term rule and after the agency has filed and updated the rule with the Secretary of State's office on or before January 1st of 2020. You'll note that we have two letters in your packet, one from APERS and one from the Bank Department. If there's no objection, we'll review these and file those letters. Anyone have any comments? And without objection, this rule is approved.
Item D, will someone from the agency please come forward, introduce yourself for the record and present your rule. Wes, that's you. yes
Speaker 14
5:39
sir west war from the arkansas department of agriculture and the the first rule that we have
is uh it's a rule through our livestock and poultry commission for the disbursement of state funds for fairs and livestock shows so this this is a rule that we've had in place for for several years now but what prompted the change was during this past legislative session there was a an increase in the appropriation from 847,200 to 1,046,000 so following from the legislative session we we followed the statutory requirements of getting a committee together to review that
rule and amend it and make changes and to basically following the guidance from the legislature during the session is to allow the normal distribution of those funds for the construction funds with the normal distribution to district and county fairs and then the remaining portion the increase in appropriation amount to be distributed in accordance with a grant process so that that's what this rule encompasses
Chair
Unverified
6:46
Thank you. Without objection, this subcommittee will suspend its rule to consider
Speaker 7
7:12
the plant board's pesticide classification, and the enforcement rule amendments.
If there are no objections, then Director Ward, go ahead and proceed.
Speaker 14
7:24
Yes, sir. So this is two rules through the Arkansas State Plant Board, which is part of the Department of Agriculture. And so one in particular was making some updates and corrections to the dicamba use provisions And the other portion was on the enforcement and just clarifying the definition of egregious to be compliant with what was passed through the legislative session to make that into our rule.
So two portions of that. And we've had House and Senate Ag Committee meetings on both of these rules and met yesterday and also had a public hearing to review these rules last week. And that's what was approved by the board. but happy to answer any additional questions that might be on either of those rules. Members,
Chair
Unverified
8:14
any questions or comments? Again, without
Speaker 21
8:19
objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you.
Speaker 23
8:23
Thank you, sir. With that, we'll move on to D, item 2, the Department of Commerce, the State Insurance Department. good morning mr. chairman
Ryan James
Unverified
8:51
the Ryan James government relations with the Arkansas
insurance department before we present had a question would you like us to take these concurrently or separately because we have two rules before you but they are related
Speaker 28
9:04
let's do them separately please okay thank you sir
Ryan James
Unverified
9:09
there are the controversy you think I don't believe so once again good morning members my name is Ryan James I handle government relations and public information for the state insurance department to my right is Amanda Rose who is our financial regulatory attorney in our legal division
to my left is deputy commissioner Mel Anderson who sits on the relevant NEIC committee handling accreditation and is also to tout him a bit because he won't do it himself a nationally recognized financial regulator by the NAIC winning our highest award last year to start rule eight deals with corporate governance annual disclosure this is fulfilling the tenants of the AID omnibus bill that passed last spring
we are implementing this rule the corporate governance is an NAIC National Association of Insurance Commissioners accreditation standard that will be that needs to be in effect by January 1 we believe it to be non-controversial and to just give perspective on accreditation Arkansas five years ago received a perfect score for state to do that at the NAIC level The importance of accreditation is it allows insurance companies who are domiciled in Arkansas to conduct business in other states without having to go through needless regulatory hurdles through the other states because they trust us to investigate and conduct surveillance and ensure that they're able to conduct business properly.
It also impacts insurance companies who are domiciled in other states. It impacts their ability to come into Arkansas. In other words, if Arkansas loses its accreditation, we become one out of 55 other jurisdictions that can't do business. But I hand it over to Ms. Rose for details on Rule 8. as mr. James indicated
Speaker 33
11:19
this is in response to the corporate governance
annual disclosure act that was passed in the regular session this year it is a new standard but it doesn't require insurance companies to meet a heavy burden it's asking questions about how your board of directors is set up how you identify and assess your risk it's information that companies should already have we had a couple of public comments that we resolved and other than that this has been a non-controversial act and rule if you have any specific questions i'll be happy to try to
Speaker 35
11:56
answer them for you sure has anyone taken advantage
Speaker 36
12:02
of these changes not currently not yet okay
Speaker 38
12:08
members any questions or comments and then without
Ryan James
Unverified
12:13
objection this rule is reviewed and approved and you may move on to the next one thank you mr. chairman rule 25 is a rule that's been in existence with the Arkansas Insurance Department for at least two decades we are amending this rule to conform with an adjustment to the
NEIC model regulation on this issue it adds a section a new section to the rule and renumbers subsequent sections below that it only affects businesses that conduct at least half a billion dollars worth of business so this is not an encumbrance upon small insurers or anything like that but we are here to answer any
Speaker 32
12:46
questions you may have on that as well members any questions I'm seeing none and without objection
Speaker 36
12:54
this rule is reviewed and approved thank you very much
Speaker 41
13:02
thank you committee next item three the department of
Speaker 45
13:31
commerce If you would please introduce yourselves, you may present.
David Smith
Unverified
13:34
Good morning, my name is David Smith, I'm general counsel at the Arkansas Securities Department and I have with me Karen Tierney who is one of our staff attorneys who has worked on these rules. go ahead you may present your rule so the rule amendments that we've made are proposed are brought about by changes that we made in the legislation
much earlier this year and they were the primary changes that we made were in money transmission in the net worth requirement and the surety bond requirement. And both of these changes were in response to an inquiry we had a couple of years ago by an incubator firm from a new firm downtown who they were doing business from Arkansas
but were not licensed in doing business here. They were licensed to do money transmission in other states. And the problem they had was that our net worth and surety bond requirements were really directed toward much larger firms. So what this rule does is provides a tiered implementation of or tiered requirements for net worth and surety bonds so that smaller firms can operate and be licensed here.
And those are the two primary things that we have. There's some cleanup in here, but those are the two main things that we have.
Speaker 50
15:25
any questions? Seeing none, without objection, this rule
Speaker 21
15:27
is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you.
Tj Fowler
Unverified
15:34
Next, we have the Department of Education. If you would please come forward and introduce yourselves and present your rule.
Speaker 57
15:46
Good morning, Lori Freno, General Counsel, Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. Good morning,
Speaker 59
15:55
Courtney Salas-Ford, Deputy General Counsel, Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. We probably need to go
Speaker 7
16:00
through these one at a time, but you can be quick on them, and I don't think there's any controversy there. But we'll do them one at a
Speaker 59
16:10
time, so item A. Item A is the rules governing test security, testing violations, and alleged testing improprieties. Changes to these rules were not as a result of legislation,
but as a result of our attempt to make it a more efficient and quick process when there are allegations made against educators who might have, again, done something to violate testing requirements or break confidentiality. So it's just a way of us to break these alleged violations into different stages and deal with them
Speaker 65
16:41
accordingly. And I'll be happy to take any questions members have any questions on item a
Speaker 51
16:51
I'm seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item B
Speaker 59
16:57
Item B is rules governing class size and teaching load these amendments were the result of changes from act 979 of 2019 to Clarify how certain grades students in those grades are counted towards a teacher's maximum teaching size load kind of clean up from some changes that were made in 2017 and I'll be happy to answer any questions members any questions
Speaker 23
17:22
without objection this rule is approved reviewed and approved item C
Speaker 70
17:29
mr. chair just for the record that was actually item C we just talked about so now could we please go back to item B I'm
Speaker 75
17:40
sorry yeah we just skipped one how did you good morning Jennifer Dedman attorney for the department I have the former rules governing the Public School Choice Act and governing opportunity school choice as a repeal and we've combined them into a single rule governing
public school choice the revisions to the rules were necessary to implement the requirements of acts 171 and 754 of 2019 which substantially amended the law to provide opportunity school choice as an option for students seeking to transfer from a school that's in need of level 5 intensive support or a school that has a rating of F there were changes following the public comments period but none of the changes were substantive and I'm available to take any questions you may have representative Wardlaw thank you mr.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
18:25
chair if you guys could look on page 12 and 13 I don't know if you have the same packet we have but if you look at comment 5 and comment 6 it talks about eligible school one's under a level 5 intent support and one's under an elf rating can you explain and you guys noted there that no change was made but comment
was considered can you explain what those two mean and how they were
Speaker 75
18:53
considered yes there are two ways to use the opportunity school choice act right
now as a as changed by the the new act and you can take advantage of that from to move from a district that is in need of level 5 intensive support or to move from an individual school that has a rating of F to discuss these schools at length that that phrase that you see their school with a rating of F under Arkansas code annotated etc seemed a little clunky so we created a definition calling it an eligible school the commenter pointed out because we've designed eligible district there's no need in that spot to to go ahead and say
it out but in that spot the it seemed necessary for clarification so we did repeat it there thank you
Speaker 38
19:48
members any other questions there are no other questions and without objection this rule is reviewed and approved
Speaker 70
19:55
thank you now we're on d thank you my name again is laurie frino and these are the rules governing the regulatory basis of accounting these rules were amended to incorporate act 867 of 2019
which eliminated the alternative basis as an option for school district financial audits and prior to the passage of act 867 the fact that arkansas even allowed this alternative method of accounting, even though no school districts, to my knowledge, use it. The fact that it allowed, the law allowed it, meant that under federal law, Arkansas school districts could not be considered low-risk auditees. These rules, again, were changed to incorporate
Speaker 57
20:37
Act 867. There were no public comments received, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
Speaker 38
20:49
might have. Members, any questions? If there are no questions and without objection, this rule is
Speaker 59
20:58
reviewed and approved. Item E. The rules governing the Arkansas Educational Support and Accountability Act. Several changes were made to these rules as a result of legislation. Some of the biggest ones being the levels of support that a district will receive if it has either 40 or 50 percent of its student population not testing proficient in their reading.
so that we can make sure we're directing the most amount of support from the division to those school districts that need it. Also, requiring of those districts a literacy plan that addresses how they are going to implement the science of reading and align literacy needs in each of their schools at the district level. and then also directing that ESA which was formerly NSL funding be used to address the gaps in an academic achievement in those schools that are struggling with students in the 40 40
percent or 50 percent of their students not testing proficient in reading and I'd be happy to answer any
Speaker 7
22:00
questions so does that change in funding that does that allow the school greater flexibility in how they use their funds to address that issue of low scores they already have
Speaker 59
22:10
the flexibility to use those funds for those purposes this more or less directs them that if they have that high of a student population that they definitely need to do that so it's not adjusting their flexibility but it's more or less directing them that they have to use it for something that
Speaker 7
22:27
as an option gotcha okay um i don't have a name here
Speaker 92
22:39
seat 74 who's in okay representative lowry thank you mr chair uh there had been a question uh came up in education committee recently that this new uh at least the law that has been incorporated into this rule says that the applicable expenditures that can be made under ESSA will expire at certain at a certain point
maybe in two years is there anything could you give us some clarification about that aspect of it a little
Speaker 59
23:09
bit and I apologize I don't have that law in front of me but yes there is a law that said that the allowable uses for the expenditure of ESA formerly NSL funds the list that is provided in law will expire i believe in 2021 the anticipation being that new laws might be passed in the 2020 legislative session and rules be promulgated prior to that expiration
Speaker 58
23:35
but that's not part of this rule no it is not in this rule it is in
Speaker 92
23:42
the esa rules that will be coming before this body is it your understanding that if there is not a clarification of what the necessary expenditures could be that that just opens it up for anything being able to spend that money for any category without any
Speaker 59
23:57
restrictions or limitations in law there would be nothing to impose upon a school district okay all
Speaker 98
24:02
right thank you very much thank you mr. chair
Speaker 38
24:05
members any other questions seeing none then without objection this rule is reviewed
Speaker 60
24:17
and approved thank you move on to item 5 the department of energy and
Speaker 12
24:35
environment and if you would gentlemen please introduce yourselves and you may
Speaker 99
24:37
present your rule. Good morning. Michael Burpay, the Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality. I'm here this
Speaker 100
24:48
morning for a third-party ruling with Counselors Alan Gates and Jordan Wimpy. I'll let them present their case. Good
Alan Gates
Unverified
24:57
morning. My name is Alan Gates. I'm an
Speaker 102
25:00
attorney with Mitchell Williams and I'm here today on behalf of the third-party petitioner in the rulemaking Vulcan Construction
Speaker 104
25:10
Materials. Good morning. Jordan Wimpey, also an attorney
with Mitchell Williams here in Little Rock and also here on behalf of the
Speaker 102
25:26
third party petitioner, Vulcan Construction Materials. Thank you. And you may present your rule. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vulcan Construction Materials operates a quarry in Lawrence County near Black Rock. That quarry's been in operation for 20, 30 years at least. Several years ago, the quarry received a water discharge permit. The quarry pumps rainwater, stormwater and
groundwater, up out of the pit to keep it dewatered. There's no processing, it's just stormwater. They pump it up out of the pit into an adjacent field. There is an arrangement the quarry has had for a long time with the adjacent landowner who uses that water to fill a cattle pond. That cattle pond then overflows and drains across the pasture to a small creek called Brushy Creek, and then Brushy Creek drains to Stennet Creek, Stennet Creek on to the Spring River.
the permit that Vulcan received several years ago set a limit for minerals specifically sulfate and total dissolved solids basically salts that it the department and everyone knew it could not meet because the permit was based on default ecoregion values there had been no site-specific water quality standards set for Brushy Creek or the unnamed trib the ditch that runs across the pasture. And this rulemaking is designed to set site-specific standards that match what the
streams have been like for 20 or 30 years. And the standards need to be set so that Vulcan can get a revised permit that it can meet. When the original permit was issued, it was understood that Vulcan would need to go through this rulemaking to set the specific standards to match what the stream has always been doing. And a time was allowed, so it has not had to meet that permit, but that time will come
to an end in April. So Vulcan went through the rulemaking process. It conducted biological studies and chemical studies, established that there is a full and vibrant aquatic life use that the stream is is in good shape biologically as a good fishery the only thing that is changed from the default ecoregion values is that the minerals are high because some of the minerals dissolve in the rocks in the quarry there is a another quarry
nearby that has already changed the site specific criteria for most most of the streams it drains to and Vulcan is seeking to do the same thing so it can get a permit that will allow it to stay in business. There was a public hearing. No one attended except the staff convening the hearing, and Mr. Wimpy had to drive up there. And there was only one public comment received.
The one public comment was from the health department, and the health department commented that it was it objected to the removal of the public drinking water designation all water bodies every ditch cattle pond every body of water in arkansas is by default designated as a domestic water supply until and unless that domestic designation is removed the designation is going to be removed by this rule making because the minerals
are high enough that it does not meet the normal drinking water standards. There are drinking water standards for sulfate and dissolved solids that have to do with taste and odor. They don't affect health, but they do affect taste and odor. There's no dispute that the ditch across the pasture is not usable as a drinking water supply, and Brushy Creek is not large enough to be a drinking water supply, and neither have ever been used that way. The concern of the Health Department was that downstream, below Stinnett, in the Spring River, there is a public water supply intake.
And that public water supply is the basis of the Health Department's comment. they commented that they object as a matter of principle to the removal of the designation of drinking water supply in any tributary upstream of a public water supply. We met with the health department and visited with them about this. The impact of this small stormwater discharge out of the quarry pit is less than a tenth of one percent of the water that's received
downstream and the health department i believe has indicated it agrees that there is no reason not to approve this site-specific designation but they remain opposed as prince as a matter of principle and they wanted to state that principle and so that was the only comment received, we
Speaker 110
30:42
would ask that the rulemaking be approved. So we're basically setting a
Speaker 8
30:48
baseline for further testing. How frequently do we test once we've established a baseline? The spring river
Speaker 102
30:57
upstream and downstream of the public water supply is sampled monthly and has been for a long time by the department. There's no regular sampling on the small creeks and streams that are not, this is just a ditch across the pasture in a small creek a pair of creeks so there's really no no regular monitoring there but there was intensive monitoring uh during the study to establish that um this discharge had no meaningful impact
Chair
Unverified
31:25
okay members any questions or comments representative jean you're recognized thank you mr
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
31:32
chairman i was noticing that the northeast
arkansas public water authority i guess is has the uh use of the spring river for public water they have an intake downstream yes what did have they had anything to say about it had no comments and who all do they serve do you know it's um
Speaker 102
31:53
i should know that i'm not i'm i can't answer that right now as i recall it's paragool area but i'm not sure i think it's mainly rural and not a large supply but i i can't speak to that and i think whatever they do serve now they may have plans
to expand because it's a relatively new
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
32:20
water supply okay thank you representative shepherd thank you mr chairman with regard to the testing that you mentioned on the spring river if testing began to reveal any kind of abnormality or increase in sulfates or i guess salts essentially what would happen at that point would would adq revisit
the uses upstream including this or is this something that if that were to occur then that would immediately present problems to the public water
Speaker 102
32:52
intake downstream sampling that will occur regularly is that Vulcan tests monthly at least, and sometimes for some parameters more than monthly, the water it discharges. So whatever it contributes will be regulated by this permit monthly, and there will be an immediate impact. If they saw an increase in the sulfates
or total dissolved solids, they would be in violation of their permit. They'd have to do something about it immediately. As far as changes beyond Vulcan's discharge, there's relatively little regular monitoring in the two small creeks, but there is monthly monitoring in the Spring River. If that monitoring detected some unusual shift out of water quality standards, then the department has a process by which they go back upstream, find out what's going on,
and, if necessary, start imposing limitations on permits. Thank you. Representative Wardlaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
34:04
I stepped out for a second, but have we heard from the health department, or do we have anybody here from the health department to speak? Do we have anyone here from the health department?
Speaker 7
34:20
and if you would please introduce yourself and representative ward law you can ask your question
Speaker 129
34:30
good morning i'm laura shu general counsel with the health department
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
34:34
if you would just kind of explain to us you guys this position on this and how you feel this
Speaker 129
34:41
is a threat to that drinking water supply we are always going to be looking through the lens of protecting the watershed and protecting our drinking water and so we neither oppose nor support this rule
change because mr. Gates and his team has provided us with evidence that the mineral discharge is not
Speaker 132
34:55
affecting the drinking water at this point but obviously if there's any changes then we would we would revisit
Speaker 135
35:11
that thank you senator johnson this is in my district and most likely this water supply takes care of the rural areas of lawrence county since it's in in that black rock area and uh it's you know you said something about
paragold i don't think that district goes over there this would be the rural areas of lawrence county and it's been in place for approximately 30 years and it's just storm runoff that that the probably cows drink that might have a irregular smell or something for for humans but probably makes good bones for the cows and appreciate y'all's efforts thank you members
Speaker 38
35:52
so seeing no further questions and without objection this rule is reviewed and
Tj Fowler
Unverified
35:57
Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have the State Board of Finance. If you all would, please introduce yourselves, and we'll do these one at a time, so
Speaker 141
36:29
we'll go to A first. Thank You Mr. Chairman my name is TJ Fowler I'm Chief Legal Counsel
for the Arkansas Treasury and I'm here on behalf of the State
Speaker 144
36:40
Board of Finance today. I'm Debbie Rogers with DFA. The rule changes the first rule change A is a change to the State Board of Finance's investment policy which governs the State Treasury's investments. The primary intent of this rule change was to ensure of the proper safety, security, and liquidity in the Treasury's short-term portfolio, and the rule change does this by limiting exposure in the corporate debt sector. There are four primary changes to the rule.
The first change, it seeks to clarify the definition of total portfolio as it relates to the Treasury's investment operations. It also requires that all purchases of commercial paper now be, quote, readily marketable, which has to do with the classifications and the secondary marketability of those assets. The third change is that the Treasury can no longer exclude commercial paper with maturities under eight days or investments in the State Treasury Money Management Trust from their limit calculations, 30 percent as an aggregate of commercial paper in the total portfolio
and 5 percent per issue of commercial paper. And the fourth change is that second tier commercial paper, which would be rated A2 or P2 by the standard rating agencies is further limited to reduce that those percentages of the 30% of commercial paper that the Treasury can hold only 5% of that can now be second-tier commercial paper and I'm available for any questions that y'all might have. Senator Rice
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
38:06
you have a question? Thank you Mr. Chair. I believe I've read some on this but have all these been reviewed
Speaker 144
38:13
and approved by the board of finance yes sir senator rice the uh the board of finance has reviewed and approved all these they've gone through the apa process there was a public comment period and a public comment meeting no members of the public uh were at that meeting nor were any public comments received thank you i just i didn't
Speaker 40
38:39
that thank you members seeing no further comments this rule without objection is reviewed and approved We'll move
Speaker 144
38:46
to item B. Ladies and gentlemen, item B is substantially similar to item A. It is in the
state treasury money management trust investment policy. State treasury money management trust is a local government investment pool that the treasury administers. The rules are substantially similar to the investments that the treasury makes with state treasury funds. The rule changes are identical save for one it does not include the change that limited investments in the state Treasury money management trust because obviously it cannot invest in itself members any questions about seeing any questions
Speaker 38
39:23
and without objection this rule is reviewed and approved
Speaker 51
39:29
thank you we'll move into item 7 Department of Human Services Division of Aging
Speaker 22
39:34
and Adult Behavioral Health Services if you
Tj Fowler
Unverified
39:46
would please introduce yourself and you're not going to go through that
Speaker 153
39:51
whole stack are you item 7 through 11 yes go ahead and
present your rule thank you mr. chairman mark white chief of legislative Intergovernmental Affairs for DHS. This first item we have is our rules regarding certification for deaf mental health professionals. You may recall back during the legislative session you all passed act number 644 and that created a number of new standards and requirements for the provision of mental health services to individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired. Part of that act
requires us to establish a certification process to certify mental health professionals who have the appropriate training to provide those services to those who are deaf or hard of hearing. And so the rules before you just establish that certification process and criteria. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Representative Fite, you have
Kerry Ingram
Unverified
40:49
a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. White. Arkansas has received national recognition for passing this. I don't know if you've seen any of those articles, but it's been very exciting. I have had a
couple of concerns brought to me by the deaf community. Mr. Chairman, may I ask someone from the deaf community to come forward and present those? I have with us today Mr. Kerry Ingram. He is the deaf outreach clinician with Youth Bridges and provides mental health services for the School for the Deaf. Sure. Come forward, please, and introduce yourselves. I'm
Speaker 128
41:20
sorry I misspoke that's youth home not youth bridges
Kerry Ingram
Unverified
41:31
yes my name is Kerry Ingram I work for
Speaker 160
41:36
youth home a licensed professional counselor and I provide deaf outreach services to the deaf community and we contract with Arkansas School for the Deaf to provide mental health services in the school as well as outpatient services okay
Speaker 35
41:51
representative did you have a question or
Kerry Ingram
Unverified
41:53
comment? No, Mr. Ingram, if you wouldn't mind, the two concerns that have been brought to me I think you're very familiar with are certification for paraprofessionals and then the second was the rate of reimbursement for certified versus non-certified. Yes. If you
Speaker 160
42:08
could speak to those. Yes, ma'am. So the first concern really has to do with the manual does set a very good standard and just as representative I mentioned this bill that was passed has absolutely set a new set a new standard for mental health services to the deaf community throughout the country people are trying to model our bill right now in New York I'm in communication with people from New York wanting to try to copy this bill to apply to them and
their state and as well as many other states of Arkansas truly made history in passing this bill and the certification manual that's being proposed is a good start but it does not cover really all of the necessary services such as paraprofessional services and the reason why the paraprofessional services are so important and there really needs to be a certification process for them to be included into this is they will provide you know based on what the deaf community
needs they will provide really a lot more hands-on services than licensed clinicians such as myself I'm able to meet with clients once or twice a week at most however a paraprofessional can spend a couple hours a day if needed based on their tier certification and level and they will actually provide more hands-on services and they do the ground you know work and so that's that's really really important to be able to consider having paraprofessionals qbhps be included in this
because they they are really really needed the other concern has to do with at this point there's this if this is it moves forward there's no incentives to encourage other clinicians and providers in the state to obtain the certification. The bill was written specifically to not exclude any provider from providing services to the deaf community. It was designed to encourage providers to get specialized training in providing services so that they're doing things that are
helpful and not harmful. And by creating a certification without any type of incentive such as paying for the training or higher reimbursement rate it's it's not going to make much of a difference at all because no one's going to be motivated to
Speaker 161
44:35
become certified in that and i think that that's really crucial to consider at least looking into that thank you representative
Speaker 7
44:44
did you have any further comments or questions
Speaker 153
44:51
i think your mic is still on As the first issue for certification of paraprofessionals I would have to go back and double-check but my memory is that the bill does not reference that so I don't know that we would have authority to create a certification process for paraprofessionals without additional legislative action but certainly we can take a look at that and see what could be possible there and in terms of the of an enhanced rate that is something that has been discussed and that's something that we are reviewing these rules are just the first step that it was the one
explicit requirement in the act in terms of establishing this and so that's why we're taking this step now but certainly we are looking at
Speaker 7
45:35
that issue of the rates so i'm hearing that we're going to continue that dialogue and there's an opportunity to continue the dialogue i think we need to go ahead and pass this rule today so that we can move forward but if you have any additional questions you can meet with mr white there and they can have that dialogue offline here
Speaker 51
45:54
yes sir members any other questions or comments? And seeing none, this rule is reviewed and
Speaker 153
45:59
approved. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll move to item B. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This rule relates to our Arkansas State Hospital, which is our state's only forensic hospital for individuals who have psychiatric issues and are criminal defendants in session you all passed act 567 which made a couple of changes to the ability of the state hospital to charge individuals for services it
clarified that the state hospital does have the ability to charge but it does create some exceptions so that charges may be weighed for individuals who are unable to pay and so what we've done in the rule is simply taking the language that was put in the statute and add to that to the rule we have to answer any questions members
Speaker 38
46:52
any questions saying no questions then without objection this rule is reviewed and approved and we'll move on to item 8 thank mr. chairman I'm
Speaker 153
47:03
going to ask many individuals from the division of childcare and early childhood education to come and they can provide some additional information on these rules I do want to mention before we get into that there are some changes in this rule related to criminal background checks for child care providers and i just want to let you know that we are working on a new electronic process for fingerprint fingerprint background checks we expect that process to start rolling out in january and so your providers and your communities will start seeing changes in the coming year and i'll allow the division to provide
Chair
Unverified
47:34
some more information on that if you
Speaker 174
47:41
would please introduce yourselves and you may present the rule yes sir good morning everyone i'm ashlyn abney with the department of
Speaker 177
47:50
human services the division of child care and early childhood
Speaker 174
47:55
education kelly hilburn program manager for the child care licensing unit so the rules that we are requesting today are coming about because of act 530 that was passed involving child maltreatment reporting it gives additional language specifying who is a
mandated reporter. It also requires that if anyone coming in contact with children that is a mandated reporter thinks that there's imminent safety concerns to a child, that they are now required to report that to their local law enforcement. Also, because of our Child Development Block Grant Act, we are making some additional rule changes based upon that act. Those involve the criminal background check they also are part of the job training that is required and disaster preparedness
be glad to answer any questions that you all might have
Speaker 23
48:50
members any questions i just have you know about this new fingerprint we're going to do that we've been talking about
Speaker 7
48:57
that for five or ten years now so on a one to ten scale how close are we to getting this done in january 1 i
Speaker 182
49:05
hesitate to give you a number but let me
Speaker 7
49:08
tell you what i please don't hesitate i mean we've been that's what the response was here it said we're ready now when you say you're ready then there's no hesitation that means we're ready so when are you going to be ready january 1
Speaker 174
49:21
we are anticipating that january 15th so what if
Speaker 7
49:25
you're what's the roadblock if you're anticipating it sounds like you're hedging your bet so what's the
Speaker 128
49:30
roadblock out there if there is one we are in
Speaker 174
49:34
the process of testing that process right now representative sullivan and so we don't anticipate there to be any trouble
Speaker 179
49:40
with it okay that's fair enough but i i cannot say that there absolutely will not be something that we won't need to work through okay january 15th is our go date okay gotcha so
Speaker 7
49:53
then i understand you're going to be rolling that same system out
to other venues so we have we're rolling it out first to child care licensed facilities and what do we
Speaker 60
50:02
expect what's our next rollout to what group of people i believe i can i
Speaker 153
50:08
can speak to that as we prove the concept and ensure the system is working as we work with child care facilities our intent is to roll that out to other providers including medicaid providers that we require background checks okay
Speaker 128
50:21
and is will there be a cost to the provider to access us that fingerprint system?
Speaker 174
50:27
That would be the standard fee that we already charge. There's no
Speaker 23
50:31
additional cost to that. Okay. I don't want to take up the committee's time, but
Speaker 7
50:38
I do want to meet with you after we adjourn. We have a provider in my area who two different child care licensing specialists told them to cease and desist immediately. They were a homeschool group. They were told they were not homeschooled, they were childcare, were told to stop serving autistic clients today. They were told that again, and then a few days later, they were told they could go ahead
and provide their service. So I would like to talk with you, because I'm not aware of a policy that gives childcare licensing the authority to close an institution like that. So if you could have that ready for me when we're done here, we'll talk about that. I'll be glad to meet
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
51:26
with you after. Great. Thank you. Representative Vaught has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I've been working a lot with the hotline and DHS and some problems that we've had. You know, was teachers turning in and how many are turning in the same exact maltreatment case?
And so my question is, do your volunteers get any type of education that teaches them what to look for or what what is actually considered maltreatment because it says here that they're going to be mandated reporters also your volunteers yes ma'am
Speaker 174
51:59
I'm with you now yes they would through the loss and seeing specialists that would go out to the facility should be able to answer any questions that a volunteer might have about who is required who is not required to have child maltreatment
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
52:17
really good with this so don't misunderstand what I'm saying but even our teachers say they don't get the the actual education that they need to turn in what they feel because they're going to lose their license if they don't turn it in right so I'm just wanting to make sure that we are doing adequate education for these volunteers if that makes sense what I'm saying yes ma'am
Speaker 174
52:37
it makes perfect sense and I believe that they are however if you've come across anyone that needs additional help but they can contact us we'll be
glad to walk them through that process. No I'm good with
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
52:48
that Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make sure that they are
Speaker 38
52:53
getting some type of education to what Okay
Speaker 7
52:56
Thank you and without no further questions and without objection this rule is reviewed and
Speaker 153
53:00
approved. Thank you. Thank you sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman if I may add one thing. Just to clarify you'd asked about the additional charge for background checks. That's still to be determined on some of the other areas so I don't want to promise that no one will have an additional charge but I know
Speaker 38
53:16
for the child care it will be the same rate as it is currently okay sure next we're on looks like item nine
Speaker 153
53:24
yes sir these next set of rules are from the Division of Children Family Services and I'll allow Ms. Harbour to introduce herself and these are rules that are implementing changes from the legislative session please introduce yourselves and if
Tj Fowler
Unverified
53:38
we'll go through these one at a time. Thank you. Good morning,
Speaker 199
53:42
Kristen Harper. I'm an assistant director with the Division of Children and Family Services. Good morning, I'm Misha
Speaker 176
53:47
Martin. I'm the director of Children and Family Services. We have four
Speaker 199
53:52
rule packets up for review today. As Mr. White mentioned, all of these rules are
associated with acts passed during the 92nd General Assembly regular session. All of these were reviewed last week's Children and Youth Committee as well. The first rule this morning is regarding permanency efforts for children in foster care. This rule packet was filed to establish the protocol for trial home placement of a child with a non-custodial parent per Act 541. It also includes policy changes to reflect per Act 558 that if the court orders supervised visitation the parent must
receive a minimum of four hours per week unless otherwise ordered. Policy has also been updated to align with Act 984 regarding the evidence to be considered when the court authorizes a permanency plan for a child no public comments were received for this packet and I'll be happy to take
Speaker 51
54:46
any questions you may have members any questions I'm saying none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item
Speaker 199
54:53
B thank you the second rule relates to referrals of infants
born with and affected by prenatal drug exposure this rules as is as a result to changes to the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act which then prompted the enactment of Act 598 of the 92nd General Assembly. It allows healthcare providers involved in the delivery and care of infants to call the child abuse hotline when an infant is affected by prenatal drug exposure to any legal drugs. For these a child maltreatment investigation does not occur. However DCFS staff still go out, meet with the family, assess their needs
and develop a corresponding plan of safe care. There are no changes in this packet related to infants and or mothers who test positive for an illegal substance at the time of birth. Those reports typically referred to as your Garrett's law, the response to those reports will remain the same. We did receive a public comment from the Arkansas chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of this rule and encouraging the agency to increase messaging efforts once the rule becomes effective which we intend to do as part of the implementation process i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have you know the science
Speaker 51
56:06
now is really progressing with that and i think to some degree they're able to identify
Speaker 200
56:10
those children before they're born am i correct um that may be correct but as
Speaker 199
56:15
far as this rule is concerned um it has to be at the time of delivery or in the early care of
Speaker 51
56:21
the end okay that was my question members any other questions or comments and seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. We'll go
Speaker 199
56:34
to item C. The third rule in this packet is in regards to subsidized guardianship. As per Act 968, DCFS has amended its
policy to expand the definition of relative to include fictive kin for the purpose of determining subsidized guardianship eligibility. Fictive kin are those people who are not related to the child by blood or marriage, but who play a positive supportive role in the child's life. So for example, a teacher, a pastor or a coach this expanded definition will allow fictive kin to become the legal guardian of children in foster care when reunification or adoption has been ruled out for those children so this should create more permanency options for children in foster care especially for your older
youth and there were no public comments received regarding this rule and again I welcome any
Speaker 51
57:21
questions you may have members any questions and saying now without objection this rule is
Speaker 205
57:28
reviewed and approved. Item D. Our final rule today, the primary
Speaker 199
57:32
focus is to detail the procedural requirements and other considerations as per Act 802 for the secondary reviews of maltreatment reports, administrative closures of child maltreatment investigations, and the new requirement to determine whether an offender poses a risk to a
vulnerable population prior to placement on the child maltreatment central registry. And if not, exempting that person from placement on the central registry due to no risk. In addition to the actions and considerations listed in the rule that front-line staff must make, all administrative closures and exempt no-risk selections must be approved by the DCFS director. Once again, no public comments were received, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Members, any questions? And
Speaker 51
58:14
saying none without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved.
Speaker 207
58:17
Thank you. Thank you. go on to item 10 the department of human
Speaker 153
58:27
services medical services thank you mr chairman this rule is for medicaid what this rule does is it implements act 58 from the session and it adds to the list of tests that must be administered to newborn infants that they'd be tested for spinal spinal muscular atrophy and what we've done is originally we had
a list of the specific conditions for which infants must be tested in the rule what we've done is taken that out and simply referred back to the statute and so as you all change the statute we want to come back and change the rule again if you all choose to add additional conditions to that list in the statute we've received no public comments be happy to answer any questions members any comments or
Speaker 51
59:10
questions and seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved move on to item
Speaker 153
59:18
11. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This final set of rules are from the Division
of Youth Services. I believe Mark Golden from DYS will be coming to the table to explain those changes. I will mention that these are changes that are all simply reflecting changes made in the statute during the session. Members, any
Speaker 36
59:38
questions? Seeing none, without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 148
59:55
Item 12, Department of Labor and Licensing. I shot
Speaker 23
1:00:32
it there. I'm sorry, please introduce yourselves and you may proceed.
Diana Piosky
Unverified
1:00:39
Good morning. My name is Diana Piosky. I am the director of the Department of Labor and Licensing Arkansas appraiser licensing and certification board Brian Hester
Speaker 216
1:00:53
appraisal board member chair of the rules and regs committee Go ahead
Speaker 90
1:01:00
you may present your rule. Okay, I'll try not to cut you off
Diana Piosky
Unverified
1:01:05
like I did the last folks. No worries The proposed revisions that we're looking at today to our rules rules, move the general examination and experience criteria to Section 3. Currently, they're
not all contained in the same section and are difficult to locate, and they're confusing. The primary revisions we're making reduces the requirements to become a licensed or certified appraiser. For a state licensed appraiser credential, these revisions remove the requirement for a college-level education, reduce the number of experience hours required from 2,000 no fewer than 12 months to 1000 and no fewer than six months for a certified residential appraiser credential these revisions include six different options to fulfill the previous requirement for
a bachelor's degree or higher also there is a reduction in the number of experience hours required from 2500 and no fewer than 24 months to 1500 and no fewer than 12 months for a certified general appraiser credential as well as reducing the minimum time limit for the experience hours required there was a little bit of cleanup the number of hours of experience remain the same however they may now be obtained in no fewer than 18 months rather than 30. these changes will meet the minimum appraiser qualification criteria as promulgated by the appraiser qualifications board
of the appraisal foundation as required by ACA 1714-2036C for consistency revisions are made to become a state registered appraiser to use the same format that we use for the licensed and certified folks and we are happy to answer any questions members do you have
Speaker 51
1:02:42
any questions and then seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you item 13 Department of Parks and Heritage and Tourism
Speaker 7
1:03:03
gentlemen if you'd each please introduce yourselves and then we'll separate these into a and b I'm David Bell
Speaker 219
1:03:24
and I'm with the Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism and I'm with policy and legislative affairs. Good morning I'm Jim Andrews I'm general
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:03:34
counsel the Arkansas Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism. Good
Speaker 223
1:03:39
morning I'm Tom Maher federal programs manager for Parks Heritage and Tourism. Good morning
Speaker 224
1:03:45
I'm Scott Kaufman I'm director of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. Thank you if you would we'll start with
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:03:55
item A. Yes sir thank you. Item A is a a rule proposed to establish guidelines for museum hours of operation at the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism. Two of those museums are accredited by the American Alliance
of Museums. They would be the Old Statehouse Museum and the Historic Arkansas Museum. This item is an effort to align with the accreditation standards, establishing minimum hours of operation for those museums, as well as extending to the Director of the Department of Heritage discretion to extend those hours currently those museums are operated daily and so this would be a matter of policy making to establish those hours members
Speaker 36
1:04:36
any questions and seeing none without objection Oh
representative Rye you're going to click on your button
Speaker 227
1:04:44
there your yellow button okay representative rye you're recognized
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:04:54
question um thank you mr chairman at the present time what are the hours yes
sir currently the uh two museums are open daily and their hours are 9 a.m to 5 p.m monday through saturday and sunday hours are 1 p.m to 5 p.m yes sir follow up please sir
go ahead will this just cut back on
the hours no sir not necessarily again it's just a check the box item with the accreditation body American Alliance and Museums to set minimum hours as a matter of policy and to allow the department some
Speaker 226
1:05:37
flexibility to extend those hours thank
Speaker 40
1:05:40
you Mr. Chairman seeing no further questions this item is reviewed and approved
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:05:48
we'll move on to item B yes sir item b is in response to a act 855 of 2019 as codified at arkansas code annotated
19 5 11 50 at sequence this is the establishment of the arkansas major historic rehabilitation tax credit program this program mirrors a smaller dollar program that has been in existence at the Arkansas Heritage, I'm sorry, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for nearly ten years now. Members, any questions? Seeing none without objection
Speaker 51
1:06:24
this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 207
1:06:30
Item 14, the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System. If y'all would
Speaker 45
1:06:51
please introduce yourselves, and you may introduce your rule. Thank
Speaker 233
1:06:55
you, Mr. Chairman. Duncan Baird, I'm the Executive Director of the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System.
Speaker 235
1:07:03
I'm Allison Woods, the Director of Benefits Administration. And
Speaker 233
1:07:11
we're presenting an update to our Rule 214. Rule 214 pertains to the drop provisions of the agency. There was an act that was passed during the 2019 session. It was Act 624. It made clear that an elected official couldn't be prevented from either holding office or taking office due to the drop provisions of the agency. That act updated that section of the law to make that clear.
this rule change simply adds a section to our current drop provisions so that the agency can administratively administer that that new act members anyone have any questions
Speaker 36
1:07:48
and seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed
Speaker 55
1:07:58
the commission for Arkansas public schools and academic facilities and transportation and if you would please
Speaker 68
1:08:11
introduce yourselves and we'll go through these one at a time so we'll
Speaker 56
1:08:16
start with item a Lori Freno general counsel division of
Speaker 238
1:08:23
elementary and secondary education Tim Kaine director of
Speaker 239
1:08:26
facilities and transportation Murray Breton assistant directors facility and
Speaker 70
1:08:33
transportation And the first rule that we have Mr. Chair are the rules governing academic facilities distress program. These were amended to incorporate Act 933 of 2019
concerning actions that may be taken by the Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation upon the Commission classifying a school district as being in facilities distress. Also we made clarifications, updated
Speaker 57
1:08:54
some outdated language and made technical edits and we'd be happy to answer any questions members any questions and seeing none without objection this rule
Speaker 51
1:09:03
is reviewed and approved thank you item B item B these are the rules governing
Speaker 70
1:09:12
the facilities master plan these were amended mainly to incorporate act 933 of 2019 which requires school districts to use the state-funded computerized maintenance management system which most people refer to a school dude in the past this before this the act 933 was passed the scope to which school districts had to use it was not clear but now the law made it clear that they have to track and document reactive and preventive maintenance work enter
preventive maintenance schedules for facility systems and schedule state mandated inspections all in school dude and this is all a state funded system they just have to do the inputting the provisions also were added to these rules based upon recommendations of the Arkansas School Safety Committee that school districts when school districts use temporary door barricades or security lockdown systems that they notify the facilities division that they're using those these rules in no way mandate that those are used it's
just that they have to report them the local school districts do if they're going to use them that remains a local decision and we'd be
Speaker 7
1:10:24
happy to take any questions that you might know is there any evidence that we've saved money by tracking all these maintenance issues and follow-up is there any evidence that we are safer now that we're tracking all
Speaker 238
1:10:42
of this no is an okay answer tim king um not at this time i don't have anything to share um it just became
mandated statewide okay the follow-up then what would be tracking
Speaker 7
1:10:52
that to see what our return on the investment is i mean we're adding a lot of regulation and it takes more time people have to do that so there's a cost associated with that so over the course of time is there a do you have a mechanism set up now to track whether this is beneficial and cost effective that's a good question and
Speaker 7
1:11:21
Okay, well, just get back to me if you would. I mean, we're putting more regulations. We're tracking more things. We hear all the time people are filling out more paperwork. It takes a lot of
Speaker 23
1:11:30
time, and I'd like to see some evidence that it has some benefit to it. Okay. And, Mr. Chair, if I may, one
Speaker 70
1:11:37
thing is, you know, you mentioned paperwork, and that just sparked me. You know, this is something that people can do on their cell phone. You know, as someone is walking to perform a maintenance function, Well, I know, but I can't walk
Speaker 23
1:11:49
and text at the same time, so I know people have to sit down and take time to do this.
And if we're doing it, there needs to be a known benefit. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 238
1:11:59
I don't have any data to show you yet, but I have spoken with a couple of districts, one in particular in Jonesboro, and met with their maintenance staff. And they told me they were saving about two hours a day in time since they could do it on their phones. Who is that in Jonesboro? That's my district. Who
Speaker 227
1:12:17
is that? Jonesboro Public Schools. Okay. I don't want to get off track here.
Speaker 128
1:12:24
I mean, your rule is good. I'm okay with it. I just want to make sure we're following it up. Any
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:12:33
other questions or comments? Senator English? Thank you. I think one of the things, because this was my legislation, one of the things that I think we were really looking at is the requirement that schools keep track of their maintenance and because otherwise you get to the end where people have not maybe in some cases haven't been using the maintenance funds to take care of their schools and all of a sudden they're falling apart
and so this is a mechanism to make the schools track what they're doing and are they keeping up their schools and so you know if they haven't been taking care of the heating and air conditioning and all of a sudden it falls apart well there are maintenance type things that people need to be doing so i think in the long run i think this will save a lot of money but it also will help us to make sure that these schools stay maintained yeah i would agree and i think it's a good rule
Speaker 7
1:13:27
i'm interested in what the outcomes are thank you any other questions
Speaker 51
1:13:33
without objection then this rule is reviewed and approved and item C
Speaker 70
1:13:38
item C mr. chair this is the these are the rules governing the academic facilities partnership program first it was amended to incorporate act 1080 of 2019 which in which a general assembly established a new academic facilities wealth index that will take effect in the 21 23 partnership program cycle also it was
amended to incorporate a change to the maximum project cost factor recommended by the advisory committee on public school academic facilities and that advisory committee was charged in Act 801 of 2017 with analyzing among other things rules governing academic facility facilities programs and it was their recommendation that the maximum cost factor be raised from 175 to 200 dollars per square foot and also it was these rules incorporate the recommendation of
the governor's governor's Arkansas School Safety Commission that allows certain school safety projects to now be included within the be funded as part of academic facilities partnership program there also are three appendices to the partnership program rules and the first are revision we made revisions to the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Manual and that contains basically construction standards and the program of requirements which shows which spaces schools have to have academic spaces. Second, we repealed the
program of requirements that used to be Appendix B and the reason we did that was because it's already included in Appendix A so it was just redundant. And third, we made revisions to the project agreement
Speaker 57
1:15:18
which is the agreement entered into between the division and school districts when partnership program projects have been approved. And we would be happy to answer any questions that any members
Speaker 35
1:15:29
have. I don't see who's in seat 69. Yes, go ahead, Representative Mayberry.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:15:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kane, we've talked about this.
I was really excited, actually, to see Chad Davidson's comments, a facilities consultant in my district on page 79, And my assumption is that maybe you've had a conversation with him regarding the school nurse facilities that I talked about. We have two new buildings that were built in our district and these beautiful nursing facilities, but it was missing one very important component that I thought we had included in rules,
and that is a private area for a school nurse to have discussion with someone. And the reason why I say that this is important, you can imagine a situation where maybe a child or a student has been sexually abused, might be pregnant. I mean, all these different situations, something going on at their home, and we want to make sure that that student feels very comfortable talking to the school nurse. And if you've been in a school nurse office, you know that there's usually a lot of other students in that office at the same time.
And so when these brand-new facilities were built and there's not this private room connected to that, I began asking you some questions. Have you followed up with Chad Davidson, and is that why these comments were then made? And then I guess the next question is, do I need to ask legislators maybe in this next session to spell it out in statute instead of relying on it in
Speaker 238
1:17:08
rules? representative maybury i've not spoken with mr davidson particularly about this i did follow up
with the sheridan school district we found out it was actually done before the law took effect i was in a school down in south arkansas mineral springs that was open brand new this year and they did have a private room in their nursing i specifically looked for that when I went in there but I can I'll be glad to follow up with mr. Davidson on those two particular schools are you
Speaker 245
1:17:40
aware of any of those two new schools
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:17:43
I'm sorry can I have a follow-up yes okay so because we did discuss that maybe it
wasn't in effect when these schools originally were being proposed and all that but moving forward I just want to be very clear because the way I read what he's writing here is that it's not clear in the rules that they're looking at someone right now trying to put together a new school building the way I read what he's written there is that it's not really clear that there
should be a health center consultation room that it's not really spelled out and so I just want to make sure moving forward that it is very clear that this is part of that 360 square feet that's needed and if it's not do we need to do something in this next session
Speaker 254
1:18:37
to clarify that to respond to that we did of course like you mentioned increase the square footage required in the POR
to 360 square foot to accommodate that the facility manual does state now that that there has to be a private room with consultation and whenever the planners are reviewing plans for new schools they check for that specifically to be sure it's there thank you members
Speaker 36
1:19:10
any other questions or comments seeing none and without objection this rule is reviewed
Speaker 51
1:19:17
and approved thank you thank you item 16
Speaker 257
1:19:25
department of transformation oh that's in january okay folks with that we're going to pass over the procurement
Speaker 7
1:19:38
rules because these will go back to Review subcommittee in January And I think that's the end of our
Next we have some rules from the Arkansas State Police that are recommending an expedited process and procedure for occupational licensure As you recall act 820 allows an occupational licensing unit to submit a proposed rules recommending an expedited process for licensure of active duty service members returning military veterans and their spouses instead of automatic licensure. Under the Act when agencies recommend an expedited process the rules have to be reviewed at least 30 days before the public comment period ends
then reviewed and approved after the public comment period ends. This stage is a preliminary review prior to the public hearing our public comment period and only requires review by this subcommittee will someone from the state police please
Speaker 166
1:20:43
come up and introduce yourself for the record
Mary Claire
Unverified
1:20:49
and explain the proposed rule my name is mary claire mclaurin i am the regulatory
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:20:55
counsel for the arkansas state police The two rules that we're submitting for review today are, one, for the rules for licensing and regulation of private investigators, private security agencies, alarm systems companies, polygraph examiners, and voice stress analysis examiners.
The other rule is for the used motor vehicle dealer licensing rules. They're substantially similar rules. Essentially, what we require is that if one of the designated military affiliates in Act 820 seeks expedited processing, they must note that on their application and provide a copy of their active duty orders or their DD-214 so that we can verify their military affiliation. and then their application will be expedited and the reason that we felt that an expedited process
was going to be faster and more convenient for the license potential licensees than automatic licensing is because for both of these divisions our turnaround time and for licensing is generally less than a week as it is and the training required there is no training or hour requirements for to have a used motor vehicle dealer license the training required for most of
our other licenses credentials and commissions is is minimal it's not the sort of situation where if you're a licensed clinical social worker in another state and you're trying to get licensed here you have to go back and do you know hundreds of hours we're talking about less than 40 hours in most cases these people can get to work as soon as they submit their application so there's nothing stopping someone seeking a licensed credential or commission from going to work as
soon as they submit their application and we felt it would actually be more cumbersome to require the division to determine whether or not a license held in another state is substantially equivalent to one of our other 25 licenses than to just go ahead and expedite that licensure process which can be done in a day or two if they turn in everything and I'll be glad to take any
questions and I have brought Lieutenant Michael Moyer here with me because he supervised the PI security section for several years. I mean he's still technically the supervisor although he's not the direct administrator any longer and he has much more of the technical knowledge about each of our 25 licenses credentials and commissions. Okay members do you
Chair
Unverified
1:23:43
have any questions or comments? And seeing
Speaker 51
1:23:47
none this rule is reviewed. Thank you very much.
Speaker 36
1:23:53
Thank you. Members, that concludes our agenda and we are adjourned.
Agenda
A. Call to Order.
C. Letters Submitted Pursuant to Act 893 of 2019.
D. Rules Filed Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 10-3-309.
E. Proposed Rules Recommending Expedited Process and Procedure for Occupational Licensure Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 17-1-106(c), as Amended by Act 820 of 2019.
F. Adjournment.
Documents
Speakers
Speaker 5
Speaker 7
Speaker 14
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 23
Ryan James
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 33
Speaker 35
Speaker 36
Speaker 38
Speaker 32
Speaker 41
Speaker 45
David Smith
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 50
Tj Fowler
Unverified
Speaker 57
Speaker 59
Speaker 65
Speaker 51
Speaker 70
Speaker 75
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 58
Speaker 98
Speaker 60
Speaker 12
Speaker 99
Speaker 100
Alan Gates
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 104
Speaker 110
Speaker 8
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 129
Speaker 132
Speaker 135
Speaker 141
Speaker 144
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 40
Speaker 22
Speaker 153
Kerry Ingram
Unverified
Speaker 128
Speaker 160
Speaker 161
Speaker 174
Speaker 177
Speaker 182
Speaker 179
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 192
Speaker 199
Speaker 176
Speaker 200
Speaker 205
Speaker 207
Diana Piosky
Unverified
Speaker 216
Speaker 90
Speaker 219
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 223
Speaker 224
Speaker 227
Speaker 226
Speaker 233
Speaker 235
Speaker 55
Speaker 68
Speaker 56
Speaker 238
Speaker 239
Speaker 243
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 245
Speaker 254
Speaker 257
Speaker 166
Mary Claire
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified