ALC-Administrative Rules
Video
Transcript
21 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.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members, if you'll go ahead and take your seats, we'll get started. Let's call this attention
meeting of the Administrative Rules Subcommittee to order Members, you have two reports from the executive subcommittee in your packet regarding approval of emergency rules, and I need to get a motion to adopt these reports. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries, and those
reports are adopted. Now we'll move on to administrative reports pursuant to Act 1258 of 2015
for the quarter ending December 31st. Would somebody from the Department of Corrections please come forward and introduce yourself and present your report please. Good morning
Solomon Graves
Unverified
8:04
Mr. Chair and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Solomon Graves. I'm the Chief of Staff for the Department of Corrections. For you, you have the second quarter report for the Division of Correction and the Division of Community Correction. The first group of policies I'm going to highlight just for the benefit of the members are new. One of the things we've done post transformation is identify those subject matters that are applicable to the entirety of the department and in order to bring about some standardization
for those areas, we're issuing what are now called secretarial directives. By their name, they have applicability to the entirety of the Department of Corrections. SD1901 is the Secretary's policy on policy, establishes the framework by which she will issue policies and also establishes a framework for how divisions will implement their operational policies. SD 1902 is the Secretary's policy on incident notification procedures.
This policy is intended to ensure the consistent notification of incidents within the department. Secretarial Directive 1904 is the Secretary's policy on equal employment opportunity. This directive was created to ensure that the Department of Corrections as an equal opportunity employer will comply with the non-discrimination provisions of all applicable state and federal laws and regulations regarding equal opportunity employment. Secretarial Directive 1905 is the Secretary's policy on employment.
This directive is intended to ensure that the Department will implement a fair and consistent employment policy. Secretarial Directive 1903 is the Department's policy on employee work schedules and leave. This directive was created to implement the standard work schedule that meets the needs of the Department and the executive expectations set by the governor. SD 1906, employee-involved solicitations. This directive was created to reduce the disruptions and conflicts of interest
caused by solicitations of or by department employees. Data-driven decision-making is Secretary of Directive 1907. This directive was created to instill and promote a culture of data-driven decision-making within the department by improving information sharing and coordination efforts relating to data and application development, the department can better serve its stakeholders. Next is our policies related to the Division of Community Correction.
During this quarter, the Division of Community Correction did not publish any new or revised administrative directives. During the reported quarter, the division repealed Administrative Directive 1813, Administrative Directive 1731, and Administrative Directive 17-8, all of which were repealed following the issuance of a superseding secretarial directive. For the Division of Correction, the Division of Correction issued an amended policy, an
amended division policy on incident notifications. This administrative directive was amended to reflect current procedures relating to the Internal Affairs Division and how they make notification to the state police. It was also amended to reflect changes required by Secretarial Directive 1902. AD 1933 is the division's policy on the release process. This policy was amended to clarify that the unit's institutional release officer must
be notified when an inmate was released with an ADC ID only, instead of a driver's license. AD 1311, Equal Employment Opportunity, was repealed following the issuance of SD 1904. AD 1914 was repealed following the issuance of SD 1905. AD 1618 was repealed following the issuance of Secretarial Directive 1903. Administrative Directive 1637 was repealed pursuant to Secretarial Directive 1903, Administrative
Directive 1652 was repealed following the issuance of Secretarial Directive 1903, Administrative Directive 1718 was repealed following the issuance of Secretarial Directive 1903, Administrative Directive 1921 was repealed following the issuance of Secretarial Directive 1903. Directive 1935, Tuberculosis Screening for Inmates, was amended to reflect changes in Department of Health rules governing when tuberculosis screenings
are required. Administrative Directive 1936, Searches of Inmates, Unit Searches and Control of Contraband, was amended to clarify the procedure for the disposition of contraband seized in one of our correctional facilities in order to provide guidance to staff, an addendum was developed to provide standard operating procedures related to the disposition of contraband. Administrative Directive 1934, the division's
grievance procedure for inmates was amended to alleviate a contradiction on the timelines related to grievance appeal. There was a discrepancy on the dates there. That was the only change in that policy. AD 1371 was repealed as part of the new pay plan. There is no longer an incentive for continuing education. AD 1373 was repealed following the issuance of
Secretarial Directive 1905, as was A.D. 1375. A.D. 1374 was repealed following the issuance of the Department of Corrections Employee Handbook. A.D. 1905 was repealed following the issuance of Secretarial Directive 1906, as was Administrative Directive 1425. Administrative Directive 13138 was repealed. All artifacts that were to be turned over to the Division of
Heritage were done so several years ago. Administrative Directive 2013-179 was repealed following the issuance of SD 1905. AD 13-184 video conferencing training was repealed AD 1426 character first was repealed AD 1937 emergency furlough was amended to create a document specifically addressing the procedures for emergency furloughs in addition to procedures for processing
emergency furloughs AD 1938 inmate classification manual was updated to include language pertaining to the classification of youthful inmates. Updates were also made to the list of administrative directives and administrative regulations appropriate for consideration during the classification process. A.D. 1939 custody classification was amended to provide the increase to the custody scores for inmates with an institutional history of escape.
It was also updated to generalized language regarding the disciplinary rule infractions and to reflect our current facility listing. Mr. Chair that concludes the report for the divisions of correction and community
correction. Thank you Mr. Graves. We have questions
from the committee. Senator Hammer you're recognized.
Thank you Mr. Chair. The various changes that were made driven because of laws that we passed, driven because of federal regulations coming
down, driven because the department
has recognized there's a more efficient way or just updating to keep up with the times? What's the motivation for these, all of
Solomon Graves
Unverified
16:30
the above? The majority of them are going to be keeping up with the times. The one policy change that was directly related to laws passed by the General Assembly related to a piece of legislation that Representative Scott actually shepherded through
which dealt with limitations on placing youthful inmates in segregation. That language was added to our classification policy. Beyond that, the other changes were simply keeping up with the times. Okay. A couple follow-up, Mr. Chair. Go
ahead. Thank you. And we can discuss it
offline, but for my benefit, it would be nice to know what drives each one of these policy changes,
if it's legislation, if it's federal requirement, if it's the department's recommendation,
if there's some way we could just identify in the... We can note that beginning on our third quarter report, the source
of the change. Okay. And then, and don't do that for me if the chairs will allow it, but,
you know, anyway. On SD 1907, data-driven decision-making, that was effective August of 2019. so what about just kind of drill down on that as far as the data-driven decision who controls the
data where are you getting the data from and the purity of the data that you're receiving
Solomon Graves
Unverified
17:59
to make decisions that you are so beginning in 2011 there was a shift in approach within both what was then the Department of Corrections, singular, and the Department of Community Correction to implement evidence-based practices regarding facility operations and
offenders supervision, depending on what side of the fence we were on. Because they were two separate agencies, their approach to data-driven decision-making, implementing evidence-based practices were separate, as would be reasonably expected. One of the priorities for Governor Hutchinson and for Secretary Kelly are that we continuously implement a culture of data-driven decision-making and evidence-based practices, not making decisions simply because we've always done them, but that those are decisions
supported by empirically based evidence. We maintain within the department a unified offender management information system that has data points that begin at the time of conviction and go clear through the time of discharge so as we're looking at what makes sense for employee I'm sorry for offender drug testing policies for instance we're able to look at the data relating to offender drug tests as we're looking at what makes sense regarding restrictive housing policies we're able to rely on the data that we
have within our system comparing that to nationally recognized sources on that particular issue What that policy sets out is issues related to research and planning and continual application development for our EOMIS system will be coordinated through the secretary's office and by policy I'm her designee to kind of coordinate those efforts to make sure that across our entire enterprise and our approximately 6,000 employees we have a single approach to issues relating to research and planning, issues relating to program evaluation.
issues related to application development. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
20:17
Thank you Senator. Representative Dodson you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair and let me get back
up to the top of this here. In your SD 1904 yes sir your updated EEOC policies yes sir it looks like in and I haven't been able to
find it I've been through 115 pages of this so far and I'm not sure exactly what the old repealed language is on it you might be able to tell me which page
Solomon Graves
Unverified
20:52
it's actually on in this so and I don't know if this helps your understanding And the SD1904, there is basically the only thing that is new in that particular policy is the header. What we did with that policy was simply take the existing EEOC policy for the Division
of Correction, and after consulting with our leadership team, which reflects the directors of all of our divisions, we took that division-specific policy, basically changed the header, and and the secretary signed it and issued it as a department-wide policy. So all the language you see there was existing language that previously was only applicable to the Division of Correction. Now we're applying it to the entirety of the department. So
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
21:39
you're talking about the issued by policy number one, the very head, the first paragraph?
Yes, sir. Where the Department of Corrections is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate? Yes, sir. And all of those things that you listed on there, it seems like it's expanded beyond just the equal rights things to include not only age, race, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, genetic orientation. Is that kind of expanded over what it used to be?
Solomon Graves
Unverified
22:18
Those were the protected classes that have been set out in state and federal law. Those aren't department. Those are not all in
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
22:27
state and federal law. So, I mean, it seems like we've discussed these things quite some length before in the legislature. And it seems like this is a major policy addition to include some terms that have been debated and not adopted in statute. Yes, sir. I'm just wondering why the department's going ahead and trying to put that into their rules
without going through a legislative hearing on it.
Solomon Graves
Unverified
22:58
on that. I'd be happy to provide something to the chairs. Again, this has been existing policy for the Division of Correction, as it has always been presented and understood by us, that these are issues that were either contemplated in state or federal law. but I'll follow up with legal and provide something to the chairs explaining the rationale behind that policy.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Co-Chair Gene,
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
23:30
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Graves, on that front page, 1906, the directive to create and reduce the disruption and conflict of interest caused by solicitations and department employees. Yes, sir. Could you explain what y'all did and what was the main problem that y'all have in conflict of interest? Because I think that's something for the public trust, we really need to hone in on state government
is the conflict of interest, whether it's financial or kind of give us an explanation of what you've done on that policy change and what kind of problems were you
Solomon Graves
Unverified
24:13
one of the biggest issues that we've had, this policy addresses things from two vantage points. One is proactive in the fact that if the Department of Corrections has a contractual agreement with Acme Construction,
we're not going to turn around and allow our staff to solicit material support from Acme Construction for the very reason that you said we want to instill the public trust and not create this perception that if you give us this on the back end, we'll give you favorable consideration on contracting on the front end. The other issue that this addresses is just from a facility security standpoint, it's not appropriate for our particular business model
to have individuals coming off the street and soliciting their wares, soliciting their services within our correctional facilities and within our parole and probation offices. So this policy simply says that just that. You're not coming off the street. You're not soliciting. We're not going to allow staff to solicit their coworkers, solicit their subordinates, solicit their peers within our correctional facilities. Also, if you have a particular benefits package,
that your organization provides, you're going to have to go through the Employment Benefits Division, which is the expectation of all of state government, but that we're not just going to allow you to pick up the phone and say, hey, I want to come in and sell your staff this supplemental benefit package that might be junk. We're going to ensure that we're following the guidelines that have been set
Solomon Graves
Unverified
26:05
Were you not doing that before? we were this is has always been the practice within the division of
correction within the division of community correction they also address issues relating to anti-solicitation but the their language was a policy statement was a little bit shorter there was language in their employee manual but it hadn't been built out into a robust administrative directive so we thought it best to just build this out it as a directive that is applicable to the entire department clearly spelling out what the secretary's expectations will be regarding this conduct okay thank you thank you mr. chairman
any other questions from the members seeing none without objection this report will be reviewed and filed thank you sir next is
the parole board if you'll identify yourself the record you are recognized to present
Speaker 50
27:17
your report Brooke Cummings the executive administrator of the Arkansas parole
Speaker 52
27:20
Board. Pertaining to the quarter ending December 31st, 2019, the Parole Board had no new and no revised administrative directives. That concludes our report. Thank you. Any questions from the members?
reviewed and filed. Thank you very much thank you moving on to D rules filed pursuant to Arkansas code
10 3 309 somebody from the Department of Commerce Arkansas Economic Development Commission please come forward and if you'll identify yourself the record you are recognized to present your report Thank
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
28:17
you, Mr. Chairman. Mike Preston, Secretary of Commerce and Executive Director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission.
Speaker 23
28:25
Stephen Porce, Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Commerce. Can I be as quick as
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
28:35
the parole board? Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Chairs, for inviting us today to review these rules. I'll try not to go into great detail. as I know I think it was six weeks maybe eight weeks ago this committee reviewed in great detail these rules with the subsequent follow-up meetings so you guys have had plenty of opportunity to look and review these rules. I do first want to say a big thank you to the legislature for working with
us to get these rules to where they are today. It was a collaborative process between the legislature between the governor's office our broadband office within the Department of Commerce the counties the cities, the internet service providers, specifically a big thank you to Senator Flippo, Senator Davis, and Senator Irvin for y'all's tireless efforts to get us to this point. We couldn't have done it without y'all, and I appreciate your input in getting us to there. And then the state's broadband office, Dr. Nathan Smith, Clint Moore, and Nicholas Aguilacacus, forgive me if I butchered your name,
Nicholas, I'll get there eventually, Judge Porch of our chief legal counsel, and Alicia Curtis, Our legislative affairs director is a collaborative effort, and I appreciate everyone's work. I think everyone knows the reason we're here on broadband. You don't have to go in and belabor the fact that we're 48th out of 50 when it comes to broadband connectivity. And the governor's efforts and his intention to deploy broadband and have a broadband office set up in the Department of Commerce and deploy broadband across the state of Arkansas, specifically in rural Arkansas. Since we met last time and you guys reviewed the rules, we took it back.
We rewrote the rules. We put them out for public comment, and the things that you guys wanted to see changed, we were able to change. In addition to municipalities being able to apply, a county can now apply. Unincorporated communities can now apply via county judge and municipal, multiple communities with one ISP can apply as well. There is no predetermined list of areas or eligibility or communities. We open this up and want everyone to be competitive to come in and bid for this application process.
When I think about doing economic development, I put on my economic development hat, you know, why is broadband important in economic development? And you think about it, a site selection consultant or CEO in New York City or Chicago or London, to them it's just assumed that you have broadband. The fact that we have companies come down here and do site visits and we take them around and we have to then tell them that this area is not served or underserved by broadband, it's kind of embarrassing to us. There's that perception out there that we're barefoot and have no Wi-Fi, and the more that
people see these lists and we're not doing anything about it, that perception becomes a reality. We work tirelessly every day to make sure that we can overcome that perception. This is a step, albeit a small step, we've got a long ways to go. This is a step for us to get in the right direction to help those underserved communities in Arkansas so we're not scraping at the bottom of the barrel at 48th or 49th when it comes to broadband connectivity. This is going to move us up the ladder in our continued partnership with the legislature, our ability to draw down funds from the federal government. It's going to get us there. It's going to continue to propel us.
Doing economic development without broadband in the 21st century would be like doing economic development in the 20th century without roads or without rail. This is what's going to take us into the future, and it's more incumbent now than it is than ever. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say thank you again to the legislature for working with us to getting us to the rules to the point where I think we're all in agreement on it. let's move them forward uh and let's see what we can do to help you know propel arkansas a little bit
further thank you thank you mr secretary is there any questions from the the committee
seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and
approved oh i have one now sorry
Chair
Unverified
32:29
seat 43 who's representative rye you're recognized yes sir mike just thank you mr chairman mike
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
32:35
uh on this on this broadband question for you it's a small question is this done in the form of a
Speaker 62
32:42
grant from federal this is the state program yes it'd be in the form of grant yes
okay but is it channeled to each individual county a county or municipality whoever applies okay follow-up sir please well what i have heard is there not
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
32:59
a lot of red tape in this that's giving the counties a little bit of a problem filling out no sir we've worked with the
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
33:07
counties they're in support of this we've made it a lot
seeing no other questions without objection this rule is reviewed and
approved thank you sir thank y'all next is department of education division of elementary and secondary education
please identify yourself for the record not for the record in your recognized to present your rule. Thank you,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
33:46
Lori Freno, General Counsel, Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. Mary Claire Hyatt, Attorney with the Arkansas
Speaker 73
33:54
Department of Education, Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. The item A, the Division's Rules Governing the Right to Read Act. These are new rules that were promulgated to incorporate the provisions of act 1063 of 2017 which was the right to read act and then changed in by act 83 of 2019 um we did have a public comment hearing received some public
comments no substantive changes were made to the rules as a result of the comments received and we ask um happy to answer any questions any questions from the
members Seeing that, oh, that way I have one. Hang on. Representative Cozart, you're recognized.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
34:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only thing I've seen is a lot of the comments about people that the timeline
is not long enough for some of the people that maybe are on maternity
leave and stuff like that, and there are no exceptions for that timeline. What do they do when they miss that timeline?
Speaker 84
35:28
timeline is tight we do have options where the
training is occurring within that school year so we're building our in within our system with an e-finance where they mark that the teacher is in progress for that year and we note that for their license and by the end of the year they have had to complete their phase one training so they have
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
35:48
to be working towards it well they do get a little extension then
Speaker 84
35:53
basically they're working towards it but yeah and the district is the one who holds the responsibility okay so for licensure um all teachers by a certain time period have to show awareness okay and awareness we have an online professional development piece built that is
accessible for even teachers who are at home. It's about 14 hours in time. So that's something that they can work through for awareness. So to get their license renewed, they have to show awareness. And there is no wiggle room around that. The proficiency is where it's a little bit tighter and the expectation of what we want in our classrooms. Well, I've just seen there was quite
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
36:25
a few concerns on that in there. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank
you, Representative. Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you.
So to that point, can you tell me what the appeal process is if you know because
reading through some of the public comments some of the
concerns are smaller school districts that have maybe a very unique circumstance what's the what's the appeal process specifically for whether the teacher demonstrated proficiency is
Speaker 84
36:52
that what is that kind of what we're talking about well as I understand this there you know
it's all intended that they be trained in certain areas by a certain time and you know all geared toward achieving certain results and everything if the situation occurs in a small rural district where maybe they only have one person that's certified to teach something but something happens where
that person can't get it done by a certain time what again what are the reassurances that there's some working cooperation between y'all and them to give them the time they need in order to
Speaker 84
37:25
do it okay so so we have two levels here we have one level that's about individual teachers and their actual license and then you have a second level where it's about the school district employing a teacher who does not show proficiency and so a school district if they have a teacher in a classroom in K6 that has a teacher
working that doesn't show proficiency they could actually face the standards for accreditation violation but we've built in the leniency part of the school district is ensuring that that teacher is working through the training and that there is a plan in place and it will be completed by the end of
that year okay and all of this is geared toward holding the teacher and the district accountable to be equipped and trained to the standards that are reflected in here, but nothing with regards to the student or the parent of the student. Is
Speaker 84
38:14
that correct? Yeah, this is specific to the teacher's license for awareness
and the school district for employment of a teacher.
All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Senator. Any other questions from the membership? Seeing
none without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved you
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
38:42
may continue thank you mr. chair the next rule set of rules are the rules governing I envision screening there
was a only one substantive change made to this rule very minor and that was to incorporate the provisions of section 38 of act 757 of 2019 which changed the frequency with which there had to be reporting from twice a year to once a year and we did hold we went through public comment and there were no substantive changes made as a result of public comment and if anyone has any questions I'd be happy to ask answer them any questions from the membership
seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and
Speaker 73
39:28
approved thank you may present your last one. The last rule is the division's rules governing public charter schools. If you'll bear with me just a second there's a long list of acts that we incorporated. Act 462, 542, and 742 of 2017 and then act 641, 757, 761, 815, 933, 960, and 990 of 2019.
They did go out for public comment. We had a public comment hearing. No substantive changes were made as a result of the comments received, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, any
questions? Seeing none without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you very much. Next, Department of Education, Division of Higher Education.
Please identify yourself for the record, and
Speaker 105
40:34
you're recognized. Maria Markham, Division of Higher Education. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our role today is the Arkansas Concurrent Challenge Scholarship Program. This is in response to Act 456. We had no public comments received for this rule, but I'm happy to take any questions from the group. Questions from the membership?
Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Next
we have Department of Finance Administration, Arkansas Racing Commission. If you'll identify
yourself for the record, you're recognized to present your rule. Could
you hit your, turn your button on there, sir?
Speaker 112
41:35
Yes, sir. Skip Ebel with Oak Lawn. There were no public comments on any of these rules. We have six rules. Rule number one is 1050. It's a rule that changes the time for an objection for things that happen. For a protest, it doesn't occur during a race, trying to make our rules consistent. It changes to the 24 hours, and there's some other conditions in that.
We also changed the jockey mount fees. This is a rule that the horse owners and the jockeys' guild get together, and they come to the racing commission and say, we have agreed to these mount fees. Those were approved. We also had Rule 12. 2212 involves the entries. And you have to have horses coupled as an entry, except in stakes races, maiden special races, some allowance races. This is a change to get us in line with what's going on nationally.
also rule 22 24 c with entries it deals with identification allows digital identification of horses where they have chips they can be identified in the past they were identified by lip tattoos and we're trying to get it in line with the national practice rule 23 59 again was with protests and that lengthens the rule makes it clear that the shortest time period is 24 hours for things occurring not during the race then we have rule 24 26 this is when a horse is claimed
in the past a horse owner could designate that designate a horse is not eligible for claiming if it hadn't run in 90 days that was shortened to 60 days to allow the owners to make more money to recoup some of the money they have invested in the horse and again there were no public comments on any of these rules and they were in collaboration with oak lawn with the owners and the jockeys guild and other interesting parties thank you sir we have a question from
the membership representative ward law you recognize thank you mr chair
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
43:50
questions for the staff these are the same rules that went through emergency rule a month ago is that correct Yes, that's correct.
Thank you. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you. I'm on Rule 1050A, defining objection. And if I'm
interpreting this right and straightening it out, if I'm not looking at it right, under legal authorization it says as part of its duties, the commission is empowered to grant franchises
and goes through in states everything that you are empowered to do or the commission is empowered to do. I'm just curious, what's the appeal process if somebody disagrees with the commission's position on
Speaker 112
44:31
a matter? There is an appeal process set out in the rules. It's under the administrative appeals procedure, the state of Arkansas, where the commission hears it, and they have findings of fact, conclusions of law, have witnesses. Like we have one this coming Saturday that involves a jockey who disagreed with a fine he was given by the stewards.
But they have hearings before the entire commission, and then they have the right to appeal that to the circuit
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
45:07
court. Okay, very good. Thank you. Speaker Shepard, you have a question. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. just as a matter of clarification and it's
probably in detail in the rule but I don't have that in front of me on the two rule changes related to the objection I think it reads it's 24
hours or prior to the next post time of the next day is it the later of the earlier
you thank you any other questions from the membership Seeing none without objection this these rules are reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next is the Department of Health Center for Health Protection.
If you'll identify yourself for the record you are recognized to
Speaker 129
46:06
present your rule. Thank You Mr. Chair. Members of the committee. I'm Laura Hsu. I'm general counsel for the Department of Health, and we are here to present the rules for the prescription drug monitoring program. We provided some information to the public health committee prior to this meeting, answering several questions that we received in public health. We had a public hearing in September and were able to file our rule with the Bureau in November. We did have a few questions at the public hearing and provided those answers
and agency responses we are here to answer any questions that you may have I have Jamie Turpin who's the administrator of the program with me to answer any specific questions that you may have any questions from the membership seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed
and approved and I guess on to number six and that's yours as well thank you mr. chair we're going to move
Speaker 129
47:08
to the rule for perfusionists I'm going to have Becky Bennett here with me she is a branch chief that oversees health facilities we are implementing all of our licensure requirements for all of our occupational licensure occupations in the Department of Health. Perfusionists are one of them. We had a public hearing in January and we received no public comments. There will be no financial impact on this rule. We are making the changes pursuant to Act 820 of 2019 and
Act 426 and 1011 and Act 990 and we're here to answer any questions that you may have.
Members, any questions? Seeing none without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Next is Department of Human Services, Division of Developmental Disability Service.
Please identify yourself for the record and you
Speaker 136
48:21
are recognized to present your rule. Good morning. Melissa Stone, Division Director for Developmental Disability Services
Speaker 137
48:28
at the Department of Human Services. Tommy Tarpley, Deputy Director of the Division of Developmental Disability Services, Arkansas Department of
Speaker 136
48:42
him back to the audience. we're here to present changes in response to act 874 that passed in the
last session to our appropriation bill in that bill we have a specific appropriation to pay for an autism waiver it had 150 available slots and this will increase by 30 so we'll be able to serve 180 children a year it's It's for children that are diagnosed with autism between the ages of birth and seven. It's a three-year required program that requires a lot of parental involvement.
It's highly effective. We require that children be in the program for three years. I can't say enough good things about it. It really works. We have an agreement with partners for inclusive communities at the University of Arkansas. They actually oversee this waiver for us and train and make sure all of the therapists are highly qualified and monitor progress of the children. So today we're bringing forward the actual autism waiver with the additional slots and some cleanup language, as well as the autism waiver provider manual that outlines all the billable services and codes that the therapists are able to utilize under this program. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Any questions from the membership? seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank
you next we have the Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism Division of Heritage please
identify yourself the record and you are recognized to present your rule
Speaker 147
50:57
planning ralph wilcox with the arkansas historic preservation program part of the
Speaker 143
51:08
division of heritage good morning act 818 of 2019 which is now codified in arkansas code annotated 14134
directed the Department of Arkansas Heritage to promulgate rules necessary to memorialize Washington, Hempstead County, Arkansas as quote birthplace of the Bowie Knife comma Arkansas Heritage Site. In conjunction with RDOT, the Department of Heritage was to confer for the placement of a sign at the Bladesmithing School operated in Washington, Arkansas by the University of Arkansas Community College at Hope Texarkana and at additional locations as determined in conjunction with the Department of Parks and Tourism for additional signs
located in and around Washington, Arkansas. The words Arkansas Heritage Site did not appear anywhere else in the Arkansas Code at the time of the passage of Act 818 and did not appear anywhere in the department's rules. Accordingly, the Act created a new designation for sites significant to Arkansas Heritage quote, Arkansas Heritage Site. Also, the exact location where the Bowie Knife was created in Washington, Arkansas is unknown. The general area is known. So
given all this, to accomplish the directive, the Department of Arkansas Heritage promulgated rules by which a new criterion known as Criterion E for the recognition of geographic areas significant to state heritage could be added to the state register of historic places and also rules by which sites listed in the state register of historic places could be designated as Arkansas heritage sites that be accomplished through the new rules and or through
designation by the General Assembly as was done in the case of Washington Arkansas we did circulate the rules for public comment no comments were received We have
a question. Senator Irvin, you're recognized. Thank
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
53:14
you. Hi. My question is, I know that this school was originally, or it was moved, I believe, from Texas, or there was a school in Texas that moved it over to this area location.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
53:37
is not something I'm familiar with. Okay. And this might be more of a question for the university. My concern is I just want to make sure that this is a school of bladesmithing and we have bladesmiths from all across the state of Arkansas. So I want to make sure that those that were teaching previously still are able to have the opportunity to teach because we have a lot of bladesmiths in Mountain View, Arkansas that are master bladesmiths and that are actually in the Hall of Fame.
One of them was the Forged in Fire champion that actually trained under the Master Bladesmith in Mountain View. And I would just hope that, you know, this being a school of bladesmithing, that all areas in the state of Arkansas, if we find a worthy candidate, could then be an instructor there for a short time. Are you connected in any way to have that type of ability to oversee that area of this, or would that be residing with a different entity?
Speaker 152
54:43
We would probably not. It would probably be something you'd coordinate through the
Speaker 146
54:49
University of Arkansas system. i think the intent at least down in hemstead county was to establish a school down there that would kind of emphasize the that that was the birthplace of the bowie knife but i don't think it was necessary to restrict it to just that
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
55:06
area okay well i'll i'll follow up with university of arkansas systems to make sure that those bladesmiths have the opportunity to come
down there and instruct like they were previously because i don't think that's being done
thank you thank you senator speaker shepherd you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
55:25
recognize for a question thank you mr chairman so as i understand it because of the language
in the bill essentially there was a new designation created an arkansas heritage site what other designations already existed prior to this and how does how does that all interact are we now going to have to change designations for other historic
sites to give them this new designation or is this essentially just to accommodate this whether it was intended or not this this one designation that came about by legislative action Currently, there are properties in
Speaker 147
56:09
the state that are listed on the Arkansas Register of Historic Places. That's one type of designation. There are also properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which is another designation.
And then there are properties, such as Central High School, that are designated National Historic Landmarks, which is another designation. National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks are federal designations. The Arkansas Register was created under state law, so
Speaker 157
56:40
that's a state designation. Arkansas heritage sites are going to be probably
Speaker 147
56:45
a little bit different. Most of the other designations are done under the assumption that there is some kind of tangible or physical remains present.
Because of the way that this was done, designating Washington because of the birthplace of the Bowie Knight, we don't know where that occurred in Washington there are no physical remains so this is going to be a little bit different in that it can accommodate areas that are associated with events or people or items but don't have physical remains left thank
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
57:19
you mr. chairman so it sounds like to me that this really speaks to as you just laid out that this designation came about
because there was no specific location or building or property that could be proven to be the birthplace of the Bowie Knife. Is that right? Correct. And so just to be clear, it sounds as if those locations that are already designated either national historic landmarks or national historic locations or what's the comparable state designation? the state register of historic places so it sounds to me that that those locations that are
already on the state registry there's really no need to then go back and have them designated because actually the requirements for the state registry i'm assuming are are actually elevated compared to this designation because it has to be tied to a specific location building or property would that
Speaker 157
58:21
be correct um that is correct um the the arkansas heritage site designation is is kind
Speaker 147
58:27
of being added to the arkansas register because the way the arkansas register is currently
structured there wasn't a designation for properties where we didn't know where the event or the property was specifically and i guess
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
58:44
questions is I can only imagine that if we have a new designation here that there are locations across the state. I mean, the first oil well that came in in the western side of El Dorado, I'm assuming it's probably on either the National Register or the State Register, but you can imagine that all of us as legislators would probably,
if there was some need to have this new designation, You would see a plethora of bills being filed to have this designation, but it sounds like to me there's no real need to go back and have further designation that this is a new category that was created for those instances when there may be a location or an area that does not meet the other criteria. Would that be correct? That is correct. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question.
would you educate me on how this will impact interfere stay away from like local historic districts for example benton has a historic downtown district and how does this impact what
they do or does it touch it at all um
Speaker 157
59:56
this would not impact uh locally ordinanced historic districts like what
Speaker 147
1:00:01
what benton has this would be a separate uh a separate program a separate
designation so if that individual historic downtown district wanted to designate something
that maybe isn't designated anywhere else in the state and it's within the parameter of their historic district do they still have the authority to do that or how would this law compete with that or would it
Speaker 72
1:00:22
at all this shouldn't compete with that at all okay all right thank you thank you senator any other questions from the
members Seeing none without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you.
Next is Department of Public Safety Crime Victim Reparations Board. If you'll
identify yourself with the record, you're recognized to present your
Chair
Unverified
1:01:11
rule. I'm Jamie Cook, Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Public Safety, and with me today is Ms. Lynette Parham, Administrator for the Crime Victims Reparations Board and
DPS Counsel, Amanda Yarbrough. We would come before you today with some changes to the rules for the Crime Victims Reparations Board. Most of these are due to Act 910 of transformation with the Crime Victims Reparations Board moving from the attorney general's office to the department of public safety as well as act 315 um changing the word regulation to rules uh there's some more minor cleanups if you have any questions i'll be glad to answer them representative dodson you recognize for question
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:01:58
thank you mr chair i noticed as you're going through here and this is probably what you're referring to as minor cleanups but several of these seem to be referencing things that are our changes an earlier version of the rules is the
justification 1999 version of the rules why have we been operating for 20 years I guess what what is what has led to the change I guess overall in these these
things and why are you basing it on a 20 year old version of the
Speaker 170
1:02:37
rules I guess thank you representative Dodson miss Yarbrough may have some more specific answers to this but very generally I can say that when we received the crime victims reparations board to the Department of Public Safety we did a line-by-line review of law and rules from the previous meetings of the reparations board and we found these changes needed to be made okay
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:02:57
so it's it's basically getting them in line their rules in line with their actual
practice correct okay thank you senator hammer you recognize for a question thank you on the basis the answer you just gave representative dots and let me ask you about rule for membership
and officers of the board so what I would take that to say is that you've realigned to act 773 of 1995 have you how has the board been operating and
how does this affect any changes of the makeup of the board or does it it doesn't change
Speaker 176
1:03:39
the makeup of the board at all the board has been operating this way under the rules and under the under state law so we haven't affected the way
the board operates at all So you've been operating that way since 1995 with regards to the board,
or did you have to make changes in order to comply with what the 1995 law said to do?
Speaker 176
1:04:05
It's our understanding that the board has always operated this way under the Attorney General's office. We've consulted with the Attorney General's office in all of these rule changes to make sure we understood exactly how the board operated and making sure we weren't making any negative impact on the way they do business. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any
other questions from the membership? Seeing none without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Okay, our final item on the agenda will be updates by the agencies who have
not completed their rulemaking in accordance with Act 517 of 2019. The agencies have to appear monthly until their final rules are filed with the secretary of state's office so will someone with the agency please come forward introduce yourself and give us an update first is Department of Agriculture Arkansas Bureau of Standards
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:05:11
Wade Hodge general counsel Department of Agriculture as I indicated to you last month. There was a lawsuit filed in federal court and the court did issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Act 501. That matter is set for trial in November of this year so we will be under the injunction until at least that time. Happy to answer questions. Senator Hamer, you recognized. Thank
you. Do you know if the delaying of the rule
that you're talking about is going to have any direct fiscal impact to your budget? It should not. Okay
thank you. Seeing no other questions thank
you sir. Department of Agriculture Veterinary Medical Examining Board is that
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:06:07
you as well? Yes. Okay. Have some progress to report here the public comment period for this rule began last Friday so that will run through the middle of March and then we'll continue the promulgation
process from there. Happy to answer questions. Representative
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:06:26
Dodson you're recognized for a question. Thank You Mr. Chair. On this one what what took so long to
get the public comment started was it did you just not get the rule promulgated get it started as soon as the session ended and we we
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:06:42
did it's just been undergoing the appropriate reviews okay thank you
representative ward law you're recognized thank you mr chairman can you explain to us what that appropriate reviews are and what what what you're referring to there
but we have to send it to the to the governor's office
for a review. Thank you. Senator Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna, and I might ask just for my own benefit, if nothing else, and all of them when they come, if the delaying of the rule is gonna have any impact on their financial request going into the fiscal session,
I'm just curious to know if the delay is gonna cause anything. So I'd ask you the same question, is this gonna have any impact on your request the fiscal session.
No. Thank you. Seeing no other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Department of Commerce. State Insurance Department.
Ryan James
Unverified
1:08:03
Good morning committee, good morning Mr. Chairman. My name is Ryan James. I'm the AID Public Information Officer for the Insurance Department. We're here to discuss rules related to Acts 500, 698, and
Chair
Unverified
1:08:18
823 that were passed in the 2019 session. To begin with, generally speaking, we appeared last month because those three rules were going through the gubernatorial review process as mandated by the executive order that the chairman made mention to last month. I'm happy to say that all
three rules have been released by the governor's office for AID to expose to the public and I'm happy to discuss them. For Act 500 we are proposing rule number 105 and this is regarding prepaid funeral benefit contracts. This is a bill by Representative Kapp and Senator Wallace. It is a one-page rule that puts the language of the Act into rule form. We have tentatively scheduled a public hearing for March the 30th, meaning that public exposure will be
coming up here shortly for the 30-day process. Rule number 112 is related to Act 698 by Senator Raper and Representative Lowry. This implements a new NAIC model on travel insurance. This is a model that AID at the NAIC level fought to bring forward because of the ambiguity in state enforcement of travel insurance regulations. Some states regulated them. Some states overregulated them. Some states ignored it completely. So
it's uncontroversial. It's strongly supported by the industry. It has been released for exposure we have yet to set a hearing date we are working to do that and hopefully have that date at our next opportunity to meet with you Act 823 leads to proposed rule 116 on the creation of the Arkansas Firefighter Cancer Relief Network Trust Fund that's by Senator Dismang it's a companion piece to Crump's Law from Representative Clowney the reason for the rule is there
is no mechanism by which funds collected for this trust fund through charitable donations could be transmitted to the insurance department additionally we're creating a situation where the affiliated firefighter associations would be able to come up with guidelines and how they dispense said said charitable donations and relevant to Senator Hammer's recent question about fiscal impact um this will the delay will not affect our budget requests however because
of the creation of this trust fund we are working with senator dismaying about how to be able to pay out those funds so there may be an appropriation of some sort and we're working with senator dismaying the bill sponsor of 823 to address that and i'm happy to answer any questions Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:11:12
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ryan, you
referenced in your beginning statement that you had got your
rules to the governor's office and they set. Can you tell us when you got
Speaker 192
1:11:28
them to the governor's office and how long they actually sit there? I believe
Chair
Unverified
1:11:34
rule 105 attached to Act 500 was there in the fall. I believe it might have been toward the end of September okay the rule for 112 did not AID did not make the January 1 deadline because the language in the bill said shall issue
rules as necessary and when the staff of this committee sent the letter out to agencies they added it to the list of things that we should have created a rule for which we did
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:12:04
so what we're asking you guys right here under E is to update us on why you didn't make the deadline so you're explaining all the rules but what we want to know is why these rules are delinquent and they didn't make the deadline and we did that last month I
Chair
Unverified
1:12:18
thought this this meeting you're gonna do it every month until we meet the deadline okay well
then to answer that particular question sir the answer is that the AID did not issue a rule by the January 1 deadline for that particular act 698 because of language in the rule that said shall issue necessary rules. But that rule is not waiting in the governor's office, correct? As of last week, no. Thank you. Thank
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:12:40
you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions from the member?
Seeing no others, thank you. Thank you, sir. Next up,
Chair
Unverified
1:13:17
Department of Commerce, Office of Skills Development. Cody Waits, Director, Office of Skills Development, Department of Commerce. Act 179 dealt with revising the funding formula for secondary career centers across the state.
We had conversations with the Department of Education, Division of Career and Technical Education went back and forth on some changes and some revisions that needed to be made the rule before sending to the governor's office we sent that rule to the governor's office as of this morning for review
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:13:48
with that i'll answer any questions representative dockson you're recognized thank you mr chair you just got it to him as of
this morning i mean it's almost the end of february
I mean, how long did it take to get this stuff through all worked out? I mean, it's been, the law's been in effect for six months. Right. Yeah, I mean, it's
Speaker 33
1:14:06
just been a process that's been ongoing. I mean, this Act 179 was heavily debated back and forth for quite a while, and so we wanted to make
Chair
Unverified
1:14:13
sure that the rules that we put in place wouldn't need a revision, you know, in six months from now or a year from now. So we wanted to make sure that we did our due diligence. Sure, it did take a little bit of time, and we do regret that, and we should have been a little more efficient in that manner.
But we feel like the rule that we put in place to the governor's office this morning will be able to not have to go back and revise
it moving forward. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you, sir. Next is Department
Speaker 15
1:15:20
of Corrections, Arkansas Correctional School. I'm Solomon Graves, Chief of Staff of the Department of Corrections.
The dyslexia intervention rules for the
Solomon Graves
Unverified
1:15:26
Correctional School District were out for public comment. Public comment completed on February the 18th. Because that comment period went past the 15th, your rules require that it go to your April agenda. So provided the committee meets in April, it will be before you for consideration at the time. The reason why it was delayed, the rules require,
the research that we had to rely on to develop the dyslexia plan is almost non-existent when it comes to the adult education population. When you stack on top of that, we're looking for a model that we can implement in a correctional setting. It made identifying the supporting research craft our plan a little difficult so that laid out the that's that set out the development of the rule longer than we had projected when we worked with
Senator Elliott to craft this legislation back in the session but public comment has completed no comments were received so it
Speaker 204
1:16:34
will be on the next available committee agenda I don't see any other questions, so thank you, sir.
Next Department of Education, Division of Elementary and
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:17:12
Secondary Education. Lori Freno, General Counsel, Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. We also have progress to report. The three sets of rules under Acts 536, 640, and 843 all have started the public comment process. They're all out for public comment. There has been public comment hearings held on all.
The period will end in early March, which means we hope to get these on our State Board agenda in the month of April, and then they would come before ALC in May. And if anyone has any, oh, and there will be no impact on session requests as a result of these rules. If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Representative Wardlow,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:17:56
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Have these rules been to the governor's office for approval at this moment?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:18:02
Oh, yes. Oh, yes. They have to go to the governor's office for approval before they go out for public comment. Thank
you. Thank you. I don't see any other questions, so thank you. thank
Speaker 105
1:18:30
you next Department of Education Division of Higher Education Maria Markham Division of Higher Education Thank You mr. chair the rules
for act 456 were reviewed today by this committee so we can take that one off the list. The rules for Act 549 were released from the governor's office this week and are scheduled to appear for public comment beginning this weekend. Representative Dodson you're recognized
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:18:57
for a question. Thank You Mr. Chair. On this Act 549 you said they were released this week
from the governor's office for public comment but how long did it take you to get those to them to begin for
Speaker 209
1:19:11
the governor's office to start working on them we have those within just a few months of the end of session they go to our board first for
preliminary approval and then to the governor's office for review thank you I don't see any other questions so thank you very much next up Department of Energy Environment Pollution
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:19:51
Control and Ecology Commission Good morning, Michael Grape, Department of Energy and Environment.
Speaker 213
1:19:55
Michael McAllister, Deputy Chief Counsel, Department of Energy and Environment, appearing
Speaker 215
1:20:00
this morning on behalf of the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. As we reported last month, the Division of Environmental Quality, pursuant to the procedures of the Commission for Rulemaking, had filed a petition to initiate rulemaking pursuant to Act 1067. That's Rule 27. That petition to initiate was approved at the last Pollution Control and Ecology Commission
meeting. it has gone out for public notice it's in the public comment period a public hearing is scheduled for March 9th at the conclusion of public comments the Division of Environmental Quality will prepare the necessary response to comments and then that rule will be coming back for necessary legislative review before final approval by the Commission if all those Proceed as expected. We anticipate the final approval of that rulemaking process
hopefully by the June Commission meeting. So we're on track to finish up if
Speaker 216
1:21:08
there are any questions. Any questions from the members? Seeing
none, thank you. Thank you. Next Department of Finance and Administration, Alcoholic Beverage Control Division. Doralee Chandler, Director of ABC.
Speaker 218
1:21:45
We have before you today is Act 691. This one was submitted to the Governor's office in late or early fall, approved december 2nd by the governor's office has been been submitted and concluded its public comment period and is scheduled to be on we hope the committee's meeting in this next month it will not
Speaker 219
1:22:06
have any impact on our fiscal session any questions from the members
i don't see any so thank you next
department of finance administration director Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Paul Goering, Arkansas Department of Finance
Speaker 222
1:22:42
and Administration. DFA is here to discuss Act 822. Act 822 was a comprehensive tax reform bill of which one provision of that bill related to car washes.
there was a new water usage fee that was implemented by act 822 as well as a sales and use tax exemption as a part of that water usage fee that's paid in lieu of sales tax the water usage fee went into effect in october and during the process of after the enactment of the act we received a lot of questions from the car wash industry we have incorporated all of those comments and thoughts of the car wash industry for purposes of providing our rulemaking.
We regret that the delay in our rulemaking was primarily as a part of gathering as much information about this industry. Our rules have been drafted. They have not yet got to the governor's office, but we expect them to be delivered to the governor's office very soon so that we can start the approval and public comment period and then bring them back to the to the committee. This rule making would not affect DFA for purposes
of the fiscal session. I'm happy I answered any questions. Representative Dodson you
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:23:57
recognize for question. Thank you Mr. Chair. Paul you'd said that this went into
effect October 1 so if there's no rule in place how do you know what you're collecting or if anybody's in compliance with the
Speaker 222
1:24:14
rule that's not actually been written yet. Representative Dotson, we did provide, following the 2019 general session, DFA sent out, as a part of its ordinary notifications to the holders of sales tax permits, the law
changes. And we did, as a part of that notification process, we sent out guidance regarding the new car wash usage fee and how the usage fee would be collected under Act 822, as well as the requirements for electronic reporting of that water usage fee to DFA. We have approximately 100 car wash operators that have signed up to collect the fee, so we did provide us that informal guidance as quickly as possible to the operators of the car washes so they would know
how to collect the fee and report it to DFA. So the guidance that
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:25:07
you sent out, do the rules conflict with that guidance in any way? And if so, will you hold them liable for not complying with the rule when it actually comes out if they complied with the guidelines
Speaker 222
1:25:18
that you sent out earlier? No, the rules will not conflict with the guidance that we already previously provided regarding the water usage fee. The water usage fee has been a subject of some questions that we have received, but many of the questions that we have
we received mostly for legal opinions purposes are with regard to the exemption of sales by car wash operators and the purchases by car wash operators of services and tangible personal property. Okay, thank you. Representative Rye, you recognize for a question? Yes
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:25:59
you know, since the beginning when all this started you know you have two different types you either
have a manual or you have a drive-thru i think the question was the one with the drive-thru possibly could be having to grab more into this thing than the ones that actually were using the manual uh is there going to be any problem you think with that or you think it's going to be
Speaker 222
1:26:26
okay well the as act day 22 provides that the water usage fee applies to operators of a car wash tunnel as well as to operators of automatic car washes they do have a very similar but not
exact fee structure but certainly a lot of the questions that we've we've received regarding the water usage fee are how do i calculate the water usage fee if i don't have a dedicated meter and as a part of our rulemaking we've included some some guidance on for the because we did have a prior meeting in city county local to discuss that issue and we received a lot of valuable input from the car wash industry as well as members of that committee that was very helpful for and so
we have had some discussions to give those guidance to those taxpayers that perhaps didn't have the resources to install a separate dedicated meter for purposes of measuring the water used in the car wash that's subject to the fee oh thank you thank you mr chairman representative collins you recognize for a question thank you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:27:33
um you know with reference to the guidance that you issued if it was at the level of detail that it allowed taxpayers to remit
their taxes what distinguishes that from a rule the the
Speaker 222
1:27:46
informal guidance that we provided was some very basic one-page guidance as to please be aware there's a new car wash water usage fee and then we provide the this exact language of act 822 on how the fee was to be calculated okay
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:28:11
Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you have any idea when these rules will be submitted to the
Speaker 228
1:28:20
governor's office? I hope to have those within the next week to the governor's office. Thank you. I see
no other questions, so thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Next, Department of Health.
Speaker 129
1:28:41
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Laura Shue, General Counsel with the Department of Health. We have three acts that have been designated as delinquent. There will be no financial impact during the fiscal session with regard to these three acts. First, Act 2-16 of 2019 deals with human breast milk banks and standards. And after the legislative session, our experts with the Department of Health, the Center for Health Advancement,
in the public health lab developed proposed milk bank standards utilizing the Bank of North America guidelines. These were promulgated by our Board of Health in August of 2019 and the Board of Health approved those standards. We filed the initial rules with the Secretary of State back in September and we had a public hearing in October and stakeholders appeared. There was a company that expressed concerns about transporting and public health and safety measures
and upon consideration of the public comments that we did receive in writing and at the public hearing the department experts determined that we need to revise our rules and those rules will be the revisions will be substantive and material and a large change to those rules so those will have to go back before the board of health all of our rules that we promulgate must be initiated by the board of health our board meets four times a year our next board meeting is going to be april 23rd so the revisions will be provided to our board at that time and they deal
with infection control and traceability of the products and we will follow the Administrative Procedure Act and have another public comment period after the Board of Health meeting on that first act and I'm happy to take any questions with regard to the second act 708 of 2019 this was the law that concerned certain procedures of improvement districts and the department met with several stakeholders including the
municipal league the association of arkansas counties back in may and drafted the rules to comply with that act the board of health approved the proposed amendments to the rule back in august and we filed our proposed rules dealing with general sanitation on January 31st. They will go before public health, hopefully in March, and be before you in ALC after that. And I'm happy to take any questions with regard to Act 708.
With regard to Act 811 of 2019, this was an act that amended the requirements of personal care service providers, providers, private care agencies, and home health care service agencies, and they had a rural working group pursuant to Act 811. They met five times in the summer of 2019 in July and August and September. The rules were put before the Board of Health in October. They were recently approved and filed with the Bureau and the Secretary of State on February 12th and February 14th.
We have a public comment hearing on March 31st for home health rules and a public comment hearing on April 2nd for private care agency rules, and we will further the promulgation process using the Administrative Procedure Act after that. I'm happy to take any questions. Any questions from the membership?
Seeing none, thank you. next department of health division of health related boards and commissions
Chair
Unverified
1:32:38
board of chiropractic examiners skipped one good morning Matt Gilmore department of health boards and commissions so we've got three the first one is the board of chiropractic medicine they started drafting their rules back in April went through different approval processes through the to the board met with stakeholders they the board approved
those back in September October the Department of Health reviewed them we sent them on for further approval they have now received the further approval and started the promulgation process with a public comment period starting February 9th and there's no fiscal impact to those any questions seeing none thank you that
went the next one is the State Board of Nursing so for
Chair
Unverified
1:33:31
Act 837 this was a DACA rule the Board of Nursing started working on this soon as the session was over I got those to us pretty quickly the Department of health did some other revisions as well with their rules we reviewed those pretty quickly got them to the governor's office they are starting their public comment period actually the 24th of this month so there should be any physical impact of those as well I don't see any questions so you
may continue I guess on the next one okay
Chair
Unverified
1:34:02
and then the last one is for the board of podiatric medicine they started working on these in June and July of this year of last year this is a limitations with the schedule two narcotics they went through their approval process with their board met with stakeholders got those to us back in October we approved those they sought further approval and they are starting their public comment period they've already they're in it now and we and in
March 10th and there shouldn't be any physical impact on
those rules as well Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Matt,
Speaker 237
1:34:44
how long have you been in the Department of Health? About a little over a year.
Okay. So having been through the rule process this time around, do you feel that the time frame that you're expected to get the rules turned around in
from the time we finish the session to the time they get to you, and here you are explaining three, is it long enough
or do we need to look at extending it to be more realistic, or can you guys adjust to live under the
Chair
Unverified
1:35:16
pressure of the time frame that's in the current legislation? We can adjust. We will do as we're directed. I think it's been a good exercise to go through
Speaker 237
1:35:26
the process and a little bit of pressure helps sometimes. Did
the transformation have any bearing on the delay? I haven't heard that mentioned today, but, you know, once the transformation all gets, the dust settled and everything,
did it have anything to do with the delay as far as you as the agency getting it to the governor's office? The
Chair
Unverified
1:35:51
boards that I've worked with and with the department as well, we jumped on it pretty quickly. So, I mean, it was, there was a lot to do, but I think it's worked out appropriately. okay so after the next general session
when you get a new batch of
acts you think that the time frame that we're operating under now should minimize the
Chair
Unverified
1:36:15
list is that fair to say I would say so I think some of these boards have not done rules in a while so this has been a good exercise for them to update their current processes and and be more current with what they're doing and making sure it matches statute anything you want to offer in the way of
suggestion what we could do to improve the process or I will leave that up to y'all to determine thank you thank
Speaker 240
1:36:44
you representative ladyman you're recognized for a question thank you mr. chair on
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:36:49
these boards that mean I've heard a couple people comment that maybe they only meet three or four times a year and they have to approve these rules is Is that a detriment to getting this done on time? I mean, the boards that you deal with, can they be called into, like, a special meeting? I mean, is that a holdup for you, and does there need to be a change in the regulation because of the board's access to the board? Some of these
Chair
Unverified
1:37:15
boards have called emergency meetings, and they can do that conference call. And some of them do only meet two or three times a year.
Most of them meet more often every other month or every couple of months. So they've adjusted. so I think it's I think it's worked out with them the ability to do conference call and things like that I think it's it's gave them some flexibility thank you I
see no other questions so thank you thank you next highway commission
Speaker 244
1:37:58
Gil Rogers with the Arkansas Department of Transportation we had
Speaker 245
1:38:10
originally planned to have the rules these cover the autonomous vehicle pilot program ready for submission through this body by now regrettably due to scheduling conflicts issues in a developing area ever shifting landscapes on research and technology it's just taken a little more time than we had
anticipated commission will meet again in march we will get approval from the commission on proposed rules at that time and go through the promulgation process from the apa representative wardlaw you recognize for a question
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:38:50
thank you mr chair i couldn't help it scheduling conflicts can you describe that for me we
Speaker 246
1:38:59
have numbers of stakeholders involved and it just takes a while in order to schedule meetings it
Speaker 245
1:39:06
takes because we're dealing with state agencies private industry a lot of different entities out there that it just extends the time to make sure that all the proper parties are included. Mr. Chair,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:39:24
can I have a follow-up? So these rules are not even promulgated yet in your agency because of these scheduling conflicts with stakeholders, is that correct? Well, that's part of the issue. The second part of that question, since you guys are constitutionally
autonomy, does that mean these have to go to the governor's office or do you guys send them straight to the Bureau and Secretary of State? These do not go
through the governor's office. So once these scheduling conflicts are resolved you'll be able to get these rules right over. That's correct.
Thank you. Senator Hammer, you recognize for a question. Thank you. In your
answer, I think if I didn't misunderstand you that changes, I took it to mean changes in the
industry, challenges with the adjustments within the industry. Did I take that correctly as part of your answer a while ago yes sir this
Speaker 245
1:40:19
is a developing field determining metrics in order to allow these autonomous vehicles to operate on our roads is updated constantly have other states or any
other state adopted rules in their states that you could model after we're walking a line between
Speaker 245
1:40:43
having very broad and short number of requirements to versus say for instance in California where they have a 64 page rule for their autonomous vehicle pilots but yes we
Speaker 244
1:40:54
are utilizing other states rules as a as a basis for ours so you're not having to reinvent the wheel you're modifying
the wheel to Arkansas that's correct sir okay thank you thank you I
see no other questions so thank you sir. Thank you. Next Department of Parks
Speaker 146
1:41:16
Heritage and Tourism Division of Heritage. David Bell, Policy and Planning. The rule that we were delinquent on is the one that we
just reviewed. Okay, thank you, sir. Last one, Department of Transformation and Shared Services, Office of State
Speaker 256
1:42:03
Transformation and Shared Services. first of all this we apologize for being late to get this to rules we are in the process of getting some stakeholder input on this because the majority this act a lot has the authority
of the state procurement director to make determinations on a material issue on a capital improvement projects. By definition, capital improvement projects aren't part of the Office of State Procurement. So when this became a responsibility of the Department of Transformation Services, we started engaging the Division Building Authority. We also engaged the General Contractors Association because being able to declare a material issue of a contract would have significant impact to the private sector and the construction business, as well as
the university systems, because the university systems are the ones that have the thousands of different capital improvement projects every year. So we've gone through that process. We've gotten some input. We've gotten some language from the universities, and we're ready to probably submit to the governor's office next week. I apologize for this being late. I take the responsibility that I should have been able to find this act when I came on board to the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, but we're moving it along as quickly as possible now that it's on our radar so I think you'll be happy to answer any questions
I see no questions so thank you very much so members that concludes section e let me give you a little bit of information we will be meeting again in March obviously we won't be meeting in April because of the fiscal session depending on how soon we get out of the session hopefully we'll be meeting again in May if that's the case it looks like a number of these in section E will be on the May agenda to actually review and this list then will become substantially
shorter so I appreciate everyone's time being here and sticking with us and your questions with that we are adjourned You
Agenda
A. Call to Order.
B. Reports of the Executive Subcommittee.
C. Reports on Administrative Directives Pursuant to Act 1258 of 2015, for the quarter ending December 31, 2019.
D. Rules Filed Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 10-3-309.
E. Agency Updates on Delinquent Rulemaking under Act 517 of 2019.
F. Adjournment. bhnb
Documents
Speakers
Senator Lance Eads Chair
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer Chair
Unverified
Solomon Graves
Unverified
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 45
Speaker 50
Speaker 52
Speaker 53
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
Speaker 23
Chair
Unverified
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 62
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 73
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 76
Speaker 83
Speaker 84
Speaker 105
Speaker 112
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 125
Speaker 129
Speaker 136
Speaker 137
Speaker 138
Speaker 143
Speaker 146
Speaker 147
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 145
Speaker 152
Speaker 157
Speaker 162
Speaker 72
Speaker 170
Speaker 176
Ryan James
Unverified
Speaker 192
Speaker 33
Speaker 15
Speaker 204
Speaker 209
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 213
Speaker 215
Speaker 216
Speaker 218
Speaker 219
Speaker 222
Speaker 108
Speaker 228
Speaker 233
Speaker 237
Speaker 240
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 244
Speaker 245
Speaker 246
Speaker 255
Speaker 256