Code Revision Commission
Video
Transcript
1 document
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
2:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Amen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
4:30
meetings along the center down there and others many others very involved with a very a very significant piece of legislation so let's
Speaker 7
4:39
go ahead okay vince henderson code advisor uh before i start i think uh that mr miller's giving you a copy of 25-43-109 that's out of act 910 that uh It talks about correction of technical errors related to transformation of state government.
There's a couple of provisions I want to just read real quickly to the commission so you'll have a little bit better understanding, I think, of what y'all are supposed to do, what y'all quite honestly can or can't do or should think about. A1D, General Assembly finds that if the correct statutory change to remedy an unintentional error is readily apparent and consistent with the intent of this chapter, the unintentional error should be corrected as part of the codification process due to the technical nature of the unintentional error.
B-2, relevant. If the Commission determines that the revision is necessary to one or more sections of the code under subdivision B-1 of this section is technical in nature, germane to the intent of this chapter, and consistent with this chapter's policy and purposes, the commission would make the revisions to the Arkansas
Speaker 9
5:54
Code. I want to point that out. That's supplemental to the commission's authority under 1-2-303.
Speaker 7
6:03
To start off, exhibit C1, and it may not have an indication on the very first one. It's the largest one, the 42-pager. Issues for consideration. Item 1, discussed is Act 910, Section 3474, 19-11-705B. Ms. Fetcher with the Secretary of Department of Transportation and Shared Services has requested this revision to 1911-715.
While we were looking at that, we looked at some other sections and determined that there probably need to be some other corrections made in some of these
Speaker 9
6:48
other sections. This particular sub-chapter 7 concerns ethics in the general state procurement law. The function of state procurement has been transferred over to transportation shared services. These basically constitute internal conflicts within 9-10.
And if you look, I hope yours are maybe marked. I'll go over them just in case. as far as suggested revisions. Yeah. Can everybody online, can
Speaker 14
7:21
good? I guess they are. They're muted. Okay. All right.
Speaker 20
7:38
Well, we'll try and work on the sound. I'm not exactly sure who's in charge of that, but whoever is monitoring this, we may want to check into that.
Speaker 7
7:48
All right, so you're starting on page... Page 1 of Exhibit C1. It may just say Exhibit C. It may not have an exhibit reference on it, but it's the largest one. 19-11-705B, the relevant portion is down on page 2.
Talking about financial interest and a blind trust. The last three lines, you'll notice, it says blind trust has been made to the secretary of the department of and what it is in 910 is secretary of the department of finance administration. And because it's a state person, we think that should be transportation shared services department instead. The next item is 19-11-706A.
The same thing there should be Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. What happened was in 19-10, I mentioned quickly before I go through this, 19-10 changed director to secretary but left Department of Finance Administration in. The next one is 1911-712B, that's at the top of page 3. You'll notice the same thing, Secretary of Department of Transportation and Shared Services.
Same chapter and subchapter, the next one is 19-11-713B, and B you'll see again, Secretary Department of Transportation and Shared Services. On page 4, 19-11-715A, same thing, Secretary of Department of Transportation and Shared Services instead of Finance Administration. Down towards the bottom of page 4, 19-11-716B1, again, the same thing, should be Secretary
department transportation shared services that that includes that part of this uh item
Speaker 20
10:14
anything y'all would like to discuss at this time as we launch into this discussion
Speaker 14
10:21
is there any discussion uh and uh mr henderson how do you want to take these up i guess you stop there okay um
Speaker 45
10:40
it would be nice we at least had a motion to approve the the action i think i guess my question was
Speaker 3
10:47
and we may have some other questions from other members which i wrote my question was why did you stop there oh oh
Speaker 7
10:57
one for example um number two are uh sections that were not amended by 910 but in light of
Speaker 50
11:10
910 probably need to be corrected so just
Speaker 52
11:14
my question is so i mean i understand in fact i may need a further explanation of why we're making the change but it i'm just kind of why wouldn't this be the way that's written
why wouldn't that be suitable you know why couldn't those things go to the department of finance administration would i
Speaker 55
11:37
mean if somebody can kind of explain that that'd be great
Speaker 57
11:42
questions whether the difference between whether this is a good
Speaker 33
11:48
idea to do it or not or whether not that's in there that was just plainly error
Speaker 61
12:00
okay thank you uh senator ballinger i believe we wanted to make the change because the office
Speaker 63
12:07
of State Procurement falls under my department, now the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. So you would kind of be crossing over two lines. It was there at the Department of Finance and Administration because that's who they were under before Act 910. So we just moved it over so the authority stayed
Speaker 55
12:30
the same. And so would it be almost an impossibility for it to to remain under the Department of Finance Administration.
I mean, look, I mean, I think it's probably the smartest thing to do. The question is whether we're moving into something that's
Speaker 63
12:52
substantive rather than something that's technical. The only issue that I may have. Right. I mean, I
Speaker 70
12:58
wouldn't say anything's impossible. It would just take more coordination, and it's more of a sign-off on what the
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
13:08
Office of State Procurement is doing. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think another way to put it would be that since the procurement
moved out of DF&A to transformation, this approval to sign off, if you will, it would be
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
13:20
more appropriately done by the secretary over procurement, not by the secretary over DF&A. Mr. Chair, if I may,
Speaker 55
13:30
I'm not, I mean, I'm definitely not questioning that that makes perfect sense to me the question is whether or not it was and because we all went through this together everybody but jimmy hickey you should be here dealing with this but the question is
Speaker 77
13:46
whether or not it is i'm okay if he doesn't show
Speaker 55
13:53
up really yeah don't tell jimmy but i may be okay with that too but the question is whether or not this is is something not whether it should be or whether that's a better way or place to do it the question is whether or not this committee ought to the
Speaker 52
14:05
one dealing with it or whether it should be part of of cleanup later on and and i don't know that i know
Speaker 80
14:13
the answer to that and i think the language that vince read earlier kind of goes
to the idea that it's up to this
Speaker 84
14:19
commission if you determine that it's a technical error you know that is an oversight and vince can nod with me or disagree then you have the authority to make that change that's a power you wouldn't normally have it was given separate and apart in act 910 just for these 910 issues you know if you decide that it's not a technical error then that standard doesn't apply and we could talk
Speaker 85
14:40
about technical correction bills or sponsoring legislation next session or something like that yeah something
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
14:47
good good point i forgot about but we actually did
include language in act 910 specifically to allow this commission to address these things so that That was in the bill.
Speaker 33
15:25
Yes, yes, yes, that's correct. Matthew, I got a question. Yes, sir. So I
Speaker 106
15:47
guess my two questions would be, and you touched on one, we do have the broadened authority under Act 910.
um it sounds like number one if i'm hearing correctly this relates to procurement and procurement was clearly moved under the department of transformation is that correct that's correct yes sir and then secondly is this with with uh secretary fetcher and representative david would they consider this basically an oversight in drafting and it i mean it sounds like there's
objective evidence it doesn't really make sense to leave it where it's at and it was just an oversight essentially in the drafting of such a large bill which is why that broad language was included would that be correct
Speaker 70
16:41
yes speaker shepherd i would agree that would be correct in speaking with the staff writing the bill i think they would go through and do a word search for director and change it to secretary but they were not always looking at the exact department
as they were drafting it so there were just a
Speaker 33
17:08
few that fell through the cracks like this okay thank you thank you Mr. Ballinger moved to adopt, approve of the changes in the language, is there a second?
Second. Second from the speaker. All those in favor, any
Speaker 113
17:32
case I'm saying aye? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Sorry, thank you. Any opposed by nay? All right, motion period. We'll continue on
Speaker 18
17:46
picking up at the top of page five. It's not really labeled C-1, but it is
Speaker 20
17:52
C-1. It's called Issues for Consideration by the Arkansas Division Commission, and it is the 42-page document.
Speaker 7
18:00
Mr. Henderson, you're recognized. All right. Okay, number two, also as part of Secretary Fetcher's request, I discovered that there are some sections not amended at, not touched by 9-10 at least, but require revision to match the change made in 9-10. And the markup, if you have a good copy of that, indicates suggested revisions. 19-11-242, subdivision 1.
Again, changing to the Department of Transformation Shared Services. Again, this is state procurement, which is now under Transformation Shared Services. Next one, 19-11-264C. which discusses contracts should not be submitted to council or joint budget until it apparently says until the department of finance administration view the contract and we
Speaker 9
19:04
suggest it be department transportation shared services reviewing the contract
Speaker 7
19:08
and finding council budget with recommendation at that point 19-11-269 this is interesting okay the provision about review of information technology plans the way it reads is the office of state procurement shall ensure that all required information is submitted to the office of intergovernmental services
for review of proper planning technical requirements for the the execution of the contract for purchase of information technology. The problem is the Office of Intergovernmental Services is not in the Department of Transportation and Shared Services. It's
Speaker 9
20:01
over in the Department of Commerce, Finance and
Speaker 7
20:04
Administration, even though the Office of State Procurement is in Transformation Shared Services. What needs to be done here is
the removal of the Office of
Speaker 9
20:20
Intergovernmental Services and just submit it to the Department of Transformation Shared Services. That's a little bit
Speaker 7
20:30
bigger bite than some of these others. The next one is section 19-11-271A Again this one here It should be Department of Transportation and Shared Services Secretary rather than DF&A On compliance reporting
The next one at the top of page 7 1911-1006A3 Another situation where it says Department of Finance and Administration should say Transportation and Shared Services. At the bottom of page 8, 19-11-1014A, each report required in the subchapter should be copied to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Shared Services
rather than Secretary of Finance Administration.
Speaker 5
21:30
Section 19-11-1101, C2, and G. Again, this is a little different. In C1A and C2C, it says right
Speaker 7
21:47
now the requesting agency
shall request approval from the chief fiscal officer of the state. And the same thing over all the way on page 11. at the top of page 11. This is what I sort of call a double jump. It probably should not be the chief fiscal officer of the state to begin with. It should have been the director of Department of Finance Administration because this isn't really a fiscal matter. It's an administrative matter and issue.
Speaker 9
22:22
So if, but for 910, we would have gone through this and changed that to director of DF&A. Having done that, then with 910, it would have become the Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. And
Speaker 124
22:35
there's a name change, too, down there on
Speaker 84
22:39
the bottom of that page. The Transformation and Shared Services is replacing DFA. Right. I'm sorry. Thank
Speaker 127
22:46
you. It kind of fits into the Chief Fiscal Officer. Yeah, which
Speaker 9
22:51
again conforms it in line of what should be rather than Chief Fiscal Officer of the state.
Speaker 132
23:00
That's all of item two. All right, with regards to item two,
Speaker 84
23:17
is there any questions or discussion? Vince, can you clarify the recommendation on the Office of Intergovernmental Services? Okay. I want to
Speaker 9
23:24
make sure because it sounded like you may have said
Speaker 7
23:27
something different than was on the paper. That would be correct. Having gotten some more information, it's in C2 actually that we
Speaker 9
23:34
received and determined that rather than just leave it as the Office of Intergovernmental Services because of the nature of that chapter and subchapter at this point, that it probably should not be the Office of Intergovernmental Services.
so it should be in transportation shared services. Which page were
Chair
Unverified
24:03
you just talking about? Page six, I'm sorry, page six. 1911-269 on
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
24:08
page six. Middle of the page, right. All right, Representative Gasly, you're recognized. Someone may have mentioned this and caught it, or maybe there's not anything to catch, maybe this is really what it's supposed to be, but on page nine where there is the suggested change, it says secretary of department of
transportation and shared services is that supposed to be
transformation yes okay i don't know if there needs to be like some oral motion to change that right
yeah it's in two places there yep that's it just
wanted to point that out in case somebody hadn't already he
Speaker 96
24:45
probably did motion just to get out of the way you're on page nine is
Speaker 9
24:51
that correct and 11 as well and g yeah i love autocorrect okay
Speaker 152
24:56
on page nine and 11 uh there are two to the transformation page nine there's two sections that say transportation it should say transformation in the highlighted section and then again on page 11 we want to take up a motion to make that change out a formal motion change out from transportation to transformation i'll make that motion representative gaslight moves that we make that technical correction to our uh documents here is there any discussion on
Speaker 20
25:28
that motion let me get a second second by senator balinger any
Speaker 17
25:32
discussion on that technical motion anybody on the line all those in favor oh candace said uh oh sorry yes
Speaker 158
25:42
i'm sorry i can barely see I'm sorry, and y'all may have already said this, and I can't hear, didn't hear it, but I just want to, is this a recommendation from the Bureau of Legislative Research that these changes are appropriate and
Speaker 161
25:58
in line with the intent of the act? Well, on this, this technical
Speaker 20
26:02
motion that we just took was just to change that, the
word transportation to transformation. Okay. I think they're fine with that. But your question goes to the overall changes, which I'll come back to you in just
Speaker 17
26:18
a second, okay? All right. On the technical transportation transformation, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by now? Aye. All right. That motion carries. Now to your question about whether it's a
Speaker 20
26:35
recommendation of Code Revision Commissioner, BLR.
So, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Milley, I want to discuss that.
Speaker 135
26:42
And, I mean, it's not the place of BLR to necessarily recommend these changes, Ms. Settle. I
Speaker 84
26:48
think it's the will of the commission as to whether you feel like it's a technical correction that fits the standard that Vince gave earlier and is appropriate, consistent with the intent of Act 910 to correct what was viewed as an obvious error to be revised. as far as the structure of it in the code and everything, you know, we've certainly looked at
that. Um, but the suggestions here are consistent with what Ms. Fetcher had noted earlier in the changes that we just made in item number one. In,
Speaker 167
27:22
in the past I have, it has generally come from y'all. I had, it's my recollection as opposed to at the request of someone necessarily. Although I do remember a couple of times that that was the case, and so that's why that stood out to me. And it's a good point
Speaker 169
27:39
because this is different, because Act 910, to the extent that it created this kind of superpower that the commission was given,
it gave the secretaries the right to refer to us issues that they found. So to the extent that Ms. Fetcher and Mr. Ward are coming
Speaker 84
27:54
in today, the act actually envisioned that, that they could bring us issues that they found and submit them to the commission. And the Bureau has that power too under the act. We don't have
Speaker 169
28:04
any to do. I guess that would be what we're doing here because you found these. But we
Speaker 84
28:10
only looked at this in coordination with what Ms. Fetcher had pointed out. And these changes were consistent with the changes
Speaker 9
28:19
making. Yeah, the Bureau has authority under 2543-109. Whenever in our work we find something that we become aware of, require revision. We have authority to make the revision and also notify the commission or bring it to the commission. That's expressly in Act 910. Any other questions or concerns?
Speaker 55
28:51
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may be dealing with this, But the issue on page six, where we have the Office of Intergovernmental Services of the department, that's a change that if we need to take that out, we need
Speaker 52
29:04
to go ahead and do that. And I don't know if it'd be interesting to hear
Speaker 55
29:13
some discussion on that. So page six, under 1911, 269. And
Speaker 84
29:20
if I understand what Vince was saying,
We'd be talking about just striking the Office of the Intergovernmental Services part, right, Vince? And it would just go straight into the Department of Transformation and Shared Services? Yes, that's correct. All
Speaker 96
29:38
right, let's follow up. What's on our page is a little different. I'm going to slightly confuse it. How long did you say? Submitted to the Office of Intergovernmental Services of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. Okay, let me see if I can explain that.
Speaker 7
30:00
In the state procurement law, generally speaking, the Department of Finance Administration was replaced by the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. However, the Office of Intergovernmental Services is in DF&A. That did not get changed. And so to make this kind of correction, you have the Office of Intergovernmental Services, the Department of
Transformation Shared Services, which obviously doesn't fit that way. The only other correction would
Speaker 9
30:38
be a legislative change to either give this over
Speaker 7
30:43
directly to the Department of Transformation Shared Services or to some unit within that department at this point. So my follow-up, why is it on our page this
Speaker 9
30:50
way, I guess? What should it be? If we're
Speaker 20
31:00
going to vote on it, if we're not going to pull it out,
we need to know what we're voting on. With
Speaker 189
31:07
regard to this section, what language do you want
Speaker 55
31:11
in this section? I would just say that my recommendation to the chair is if we're going to change it to the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. So if we're going to make the change that's recommended, we need to also incorporate changing the Office of Intergovernmental Services of the department because that doesn't exist. So if we feel like this is a substantive change altogether, then we wouldn't want to vote for anything that's changed.
But if we're going to change it at all, we need to add, also strike through the language starting at the Office of Intergovernmental, you know, strike through that whole department. because it doesn't exist within Transformation
Speaker 152
31:50
and Shared Services. Any other questions or comments on this section? This is on page 6, section 19, that's 11, that's
Speaker 66
32:00
269. Let me just say that my recommendation, not the office of, but intergovernmental services would be of the department,
Speaker 96
32:17
through. Yeah, I'll go ahead and do that. I'll make a
Speaker 55
32:32
that we strike through the language intergovernmental services of the department.
on the document that we have before us under 1911-269. Do you want
Speaker 152
32:46
to go ahead and strike finance and administration also? Yeah, well, that's
Speaker 194
32:50
already there. So I would say that we just keep that document, or I can go ahead and say that we accept that
Speaker 196
32:57
with both items struck through. Is there a second for that
Speaker 84
33:04
going to read on the record so that way we can just go back and listen? The Office of State Procurement shall ensure that all required information has been submitted
to the Department of Transformation and Shared Services for review of proper planning and technical requirements before the execution of, colon. That's correct. I'm not reading. Senator Bohn. Yeah, that'd
Speaker 33
33:29
be probably the best way to do it. All right. We've had a motion in a second and then clarified the language. Any other discussion? all those in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed by nay motion
Speaker 17
33:44
aye is there a nay there I'm sorry I apologize I need to slow down on calling with a aye I
Speaker 152
34:00
keep forgetting that y'all are online it's a little delayed I apologize I'll try and do better So the motion with regards to section 19-11-269 is passed. We also passed Representative Gasway's technical correction from transportation to transformation,
Speaker 96
34:14
but we need to deal with the other sections. Do we have any more discussion on the other sections discussed up to page 11? Is that correct?
Speaker 207
34:33
Yes, that's correct. Is there a motion to accept
Speaker 77
34:42
those changes? Mr. Chair, if I may, thank you.
Speaker 52
34:47
So I think I followed in the concern under the chief fiscal officer and the leap that it was basically kind of two leaps. Who would be the chief fiscal officer of the state right now? That would be the director, or excuse
Speaker 9
35:02
me, secretary of the Department of Finance Administration. Okay, okay. Okay, so
Speaker 55
35:11
this is the same basic reasoning. It's the procurement, which makes sense. Okay, I'll make a motion that we go ahead and adopt all the other changes.
Speaker 17
35:19
Up to page 11, there has been a motion to adopt the
Speaker 33
35:23
recommended changes. Is there a second? Second? all those in favor
Speaker 215
35:29
signify by saying aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
Speaker 5
35:52
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
Speaker 7
36:00
and the division of public school economic facility and transportation was moved into that department of education however the commission for Arkansas Public School Economic Facilities and Transportation was orphaned it didn't actually technically get
Speaker 5
36:19
moved so we're trying to in effect figure out what to do with that commission
Speaker 7
36:30
If you look at 6-22-114, where the commission is created, down on the middle of page 12, subsection D, it talks about the commission overseeing the operations of the Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation.
the situation where we're not so much making any change at this point in time but we think that at the very least take corrections bill we may need to formally state and put the commission into the department of
Speaker 9
37:08
education because I think that's where we're expected to be I don't think it's intended to be an independent commission outside of of any department.
Speaker 193
37:24
We have questions or concerns on this issue? Senator, I'd
Speaker 135
37:30
note, first of all, the Department of Education is here. Ms.
Speaker 169
37:33
Salas Ford and some of their staff are present if you have questions on this. We dealt with this same type of issue at our
Speaker 135
37:42
September meeting last September. The ABC board got kind of orphaned, as Vince said. the people that it regulated had clearly
Speaker 84
37:50
been transferred, but the board didn't go with them. So the commission at that time decided to just insert the board along with, you know,
the ABC division so that they were all in the same place. So that was a vote that was taken in September. And this would basically, Vince can nod, but I think this is basically the exact
Speaker 174
38:26
same issue. Yes, that's correct. that would be completely inappropriate he's clearly more of a senate type this may be one that we caught
Speaker 174
38:46
caught during the codification process. Not at this point,
Speaker 7
38:58
a section here. in theory we could add a number to the listing in chapter 43 for Department of Education for the
Speaker 9
39:12
commission. But we're a little reticent to do that certainly on our own. I didn't know what
Speaker 45
39:22
the commission wanted to do. But that's why
Speaker 164
39:28
I generally recommend putting this in the way of technical correction. No, it's not. I think Vince
Speaker 228
39:37
inserted that just to show you the intent, that it was probably intended to go into the Department of Education
Speaker 84
39:43
because the folks that they supervise were transferred. Yes. What
Speaker 169
39:56
we do to effectuate the transfer is go and insert a line. and Act 910
Speaker 84
40:01
had a laundry list of folks who got transferred, and you'd go and just insert the, what's their name, Commission for Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation in that list as a new item.
Speaker 161
40:15
So we're not being asked to do anything on page 12? No,
Speaker 228
40:19
sir. That's instructive just to show that there's intent in Act 910. All right,
Speaker 14
40:23
moving on. Yes, Senator Ballinger. so i guess there's
Speaker 55
40:29
what i would have a question about is is there any practical effect of not making this transaction transition now um and waiting until we have a technical corrections bill and then the other thing is that if we do want to add it to a technical corrections bill do we need to make any type of motion here or
Speaker 52
40:46
will that just happen and we'll deal with that next time
Speaker 169
40:53
make a motion and then we would you know go ahead and insert we're working on
Speaker 84
40:59
all those bills right now and we'd go on ahead and draft that up just as i said we would add a line
Speaker 51
41:07
to the trend to the transfer section and insert that and when it came back through with note for y'all
Speaker 2
41:17
meeting so i guess the first part i would i would just want
Speaker 246
41:25
to know from from the department of education whether there's any practical effect in not making
Speaker 249
41:34
this change right now we have someone here from the department i have no problem with that
Speaker 253
41:43
um so to answer your question there is no real effect if it's
if the change is not made now we are continuing to operate as if the commission is under the department of education which is what was done even before the act
Speaker 55
41:58
nine act 910 transformation so okay thank you very much so then i'll move that we add this modification to the technical corrections bill that
Speaker 17
42:11
session is there a second any any discussion on this issue to add it to the technical corrections bill anybody's questions
Speaker 113
42:22
all right we've got a motion and a second all those
Speaker 7
42:43
page 13. Discussing the definition of governing council in 6-50-702, subdivision 6.
The Act 910 changed the names of some of the officers in the council, including the director of the Department of Career Education to the director of the Office of Skills Development. 910 also in another section mending 650-703 subsection a change the name of departments to
the divisions from which representation on the governing council is to come including name change for department care education to the division of career and technical education 6-50-702 makes Director of the Office of Skills Development and Office in the Department of Commerce. 703A instead includes a representative of the Division of Career and Technical Education, which is in the Department of Education. We look at these as internal conflicts within the Act. We believe that 6-50-703 should probably be corrected to conform to the change made in
657026, Office of Skills Development in place of the Division of
Speaker 45
44:06
Office of Skills Development. Let me see if I can find here. If you look down
Speaker 7
44:21
the two sections. So that in six, it should say Director of the Office of Skills Development, and 6-50-702, and 6-50-703, we believe, then it should say the Office of Skills Development
instead of the Division of Career and Technical Education. Trying to
Speaker 17
44:54
pull these together. All right, so could you clarify again what 6-50-703 should read?
Speaker 7
44:59
703, okay. There is hereby created the Arkansas existing workforce training program to administer by governing council composed of equal representation from the Division of Higher Education, the
Division of Career and Technical Education, and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. Six above should be Governing Council means the Director of the Economic Development Commission, the Director of the Division of Higher Education and the Director of the Office of Skills Development I think if I got that Let's see You're thinking
Speaker 80
45:36
Office of Skills Development in both places Yeah And 702 currently reads that, right?
Speaker 9
45:46
Currently reads that way. Yeah. This is one of those where you can, you know, there's a conflict and it's difficult to decide quite
Speaker 63
46:08
honestly which way to go with it. The part that makes this one so confusing is the old, the former Department
Speaker 70
46:13
of Career Education was split into more than one department, and so that's where the confusion came in the, in the
Speaker 63
46:19
original text of Act 910. I do believe that it is supposed to be
Speaker 264
46:25
the Office of Skills Development, as you indicated. And I believe Ms. Salas
Speaker 84
46:31
Ford has some thoughts on this one as well, because she sent me an email today. And
Speaker 253
46:45
I apologize for not introducing myself the first time. Courtney Salas Ford, counsel for the department. Well, in light of Secretary Fetcher's
statement. I don't know if I want to say this, but our thoughts were that the intent was not to remove representation of K-12 career education from the council so that either they would be added into 702 in addition to skills development, not skills development in place of the career education. But of course, that was just our understanding and belief. If we don't want to
question the intent of the sponsor and Secretary Fetcher, so whatever there
Speaker 270
47:29
will be. Currently, it does read career education. And as I understand the
Speaker 253
47:35
proposal, it's to strike career ed and add in skills development. So yes, our recommendation would be to leave in career ed, but add skills development in addition to that. Let's
Speaker 246
47:50
address the 702 right now. Any questions on 702 before we move on?
Speaker 106
48:01
question. Yes, sir. What is the functional equivalent to the former Department of Career Education? Is it the Office of Skill Development, or is that a more specific office that that is even more narrowly focused than what the former department handled? One of y'all.
Speaker 253
48:31
So the former Department of Career Education, as Secretary Fetcher stated, was split. You now have the Division of Career and Technical Education, which deals primarily with K-12 career and technical education issues. and then you have the office of skills development under the department of commerce which deals with workforce technical education matters so very similar in the subject matter more just about i would say the division of career and technical education is the again the k-12 earlier education
piece and office of skills development more as it transitions into the higher ed and adult education types of programs. So to follow
Speaker 106
49:17
up, it sounds like you would almost have to pick one or the other because the department essentially was split in two. Is that correct? It was split in
Speaker 253
49:33
two, so you could either pick one or the other or I think have possibly both.
And that would be our request would be to have both and not eliminate
Speaker 106
49:51
the K-12 representation. I guess my editorial comment would be if we were going to make a change, I think I'd feel more comfortable, I guess, as it's been proposed, and just go with one or the other. I'd be more concerned about actually adding two as opposed to trying to follow who now has that role that was the functional equivalent of what previously previously
Speaker 174
50:20
on 7-2 any other questions are confirmed online i want
Speaker 33
50:25
to tackle this one first It sounds a little more substantive to me than the technical worth picking something. I don't know if it's in the day that's what I've been sponsored.
Speaker 17
51:05
more of a substantive thing. I don't really have any input.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
51:21
but I guess was not aware this was going to be on here. This is not one that I saw previous to the meeting, so I'd have to go back and do a little bit of research and ask some questions about what the intent was. I don't remember off the top of my head. Secretary Fisher may remember in
Speaker 63
51:44
more specificity, but I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I just don't. I do not remember it specifically, and I don't completely understand what the governing council governs to know
Speaker 52
51:52
if it should be an and or an or. I would just have a question of the Department of Education. What is the practical effects of
Speaker 253
52:14
leaving it exactly the way it is for now? If you don't change Section 702 or 703, I think you're left with a conflict. you either have to change one or the other to be in alignment with the other one so I think
you're going to have to make a decision with regards to 702 or 703 or leave it as a conflict as is
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
52:46
commission to hold an item like this to your next meeting so we could look into it and see what the intent was, where it should
go, and then come back with a recommendation if this is technical correction or should be in a bill for the next session. I think it's
Speaker 96
53:08
acceptable. I found the chair that the committee members may have a different view. i'll go ahead and move that
Speaker 66
53:14
we table this till our next meeting this section right here
Speaker 55
53:17
and now we will have a chance to have everybody get on you know it we want to make sure that we make it work the most practical way possible and also not touch something substantive so i i'd move that we table
this until our next meeting this section here section 702 and 703
Speaker 174
53:40
correct yes sir all right Is there a second to that motion? Any second? Representative Gazzle, a second. Any discussion?
Speaker 215
53:48
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed on A? Aye. All right, the motion's here. So we can pass 702, 703, and 1 to page 15.
Speaker 7
54:01
That is correct. Number five, in three code sections, Act 910 changed Director of Department of Ed to Director of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Ed. The reference, I think, probably should be Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Ed per Act 910. Despite that change, we think that actually the correct reference should probably be the Director of the Division of Higher Ed. that's because these three sections appear
Speaker 9
54:33
to be concerning institutions of higher ed and not generally secondary educational institutions yeah I mentioned passing 664-104
Speaker 7
54:45
is probably obsolete in it if you look at 664-104-B2 it says the director of the division of elementary secondary ed which is now the commissioner What it's dealing with is rural school teachers' training departments.
At one time, a long time ago, last century, the four agricultural colleges in Russellville, Jonesboro, Monticello, Magnolia, and what is now University of Central Arkansas, Arkansas State Teachers College, had educational programs, rural teacher training programs. the four agricultural colleges actually started out really as agricultural high schools I think that's how it got into the regular department education they're
not that way anymore and that's why we think to that extent it probably should be the director division of higher ed in 6-66-113 towards the bottom board trustees of state university uh have to make a report report should be incorporated in the report of the we don't think that should go to department ed we probably do the uh director of division of higher ed at this point in time the director of ed being the the uh
Speaker 9
56:10
what you what used to be the director of the uh department now the
Speaker 7
56:18
commissioner of elementary secondary ed and then 6-6-7-114 same excuse me same sort of thing by the report general assembly by uca probably should be now the director
Speaker 45
56:29
of the division of higher ed instead of
Speaker 246
56:38
the commissioner elementary secondary ed that's number five Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 55
56:44
I would say it's probably good to break this into different things, but unless the Department of Education can explain why we still need this, my recommendation would be to move that we strike through all of this language in the cleanup legislation so we essentially move this to the technical corrections legislation and strike through all of 65 or 665 104 unless there is some issue that we have with that
that means no concern or you don't do it okay so so it and and i'm obviously if someone can convince me that that's not a good idea then i'm i'm all in but but if it is obsolete then let's just just strike
Speaker 213
57:30
through the whole thing in our technical corrections legislation okay then i move that we
Speaker 33
57:44
with the technical corrections legislation All those in favor of moving back to the second corrections bill and striking through that direction bill is in the top of the thing I am.
Speaker 7
58:00
Aye. Aye. Aye. Did that include the other
Speaker 140
58:14
two sections as well? Yeah, with their 113 and 114, they deal with the reports
Speaker 289
58:27
15, top of 16. 16. So does all this deal with the same agricultural
schools that we were dealing with before? No, just the first one. So this is an issue
Speaker 51
58:36
of the question of whether it should go to the Department of Education or whether it should go to higher ed. Is that correct? That's correct.
Speaker 55
58:43
So these are substantive. I mean, the changes aren't substantive, but these aren't obsolete code sections that we need to try to fix, correct? Is that right? That's correct. That's what we believe,
Speaker 17
58:57
yes. Okay. All right, so we're discussing, just to be clear for everybody who's listening in, we're at the bottom of page 15, report by Board of Trustees.
Speaker 176
59:05
Then we're on page 16, right? That's correct. All right. Two sections. So would there be anybody here who would object to changing the language to the Director of the
Speaker 289
59:23
Division of Higher Education? would everyone say that's probably appropriate okay so then i would say let's i'll make let's move to change the
Speaker 51
59:35
language on the documents in front of us to correlate with the recommendation of the bureau to include
the director of the division
Speaker 96
59:46
of higher education instead of yeah and the only thing i'm just going
Speaker 80
1:00:01
b would read the report shall be incorporated in the report of the
Speaker 84
1:00:09
director of the
the director of the Division of Higher Education, and shall set forth the financial
Speaker 314
1:00:23
and scholastic condition of Henderson State University.
Speaker 84
1:00:27
Yes, sir, that would be the report shall be incorporated in the report of the director of the
Speaker 33
1:00:38
director of the Division of Higher Education and shall set forth the financial looks like those are just copies of
Speaker 7
1:01:07
State Board of Career Education back in 2015 was renamed Career Education and Workforce Development Board. It takes a while for us to work through the code and references to make name changes when something like this occurs and so we hadn't finished all of that at the time that 910 was adopted which then changed the name of the Department of Career Education to the Division of career and technical education transferred it to the department education as i said they
are scattered throughout 910 there are sections that amend many but not all the code sections refer to the state board of career education many of those references were not correctly addressed those sections that do address it don't necessarily do it in i'll say consistent maybe uniform manner standpoint of how that gets divided up additional layer problem as I said act 315 of 219 also many several code sections that were not amended by 910 and didn't address the name references either so for example if you look on
top of page 17a the highlighted text indicates correct names based on name changes are effectuated to implement 215 and 2019 acts state board of career education now for education workforce development board but should be state board of education may provide waivers of rules adopted by should probably say the Division of Career and Technical Education when waivers are necessary
to accomplish the purposes of subchapters. The situation is the way it is now. The State Board of Career Education may provide waivers of rules adopted by the Department of Career Education. Those two are again separated out into two different departments. The concern we have is Division of Career. As I said, have been placed in Department of Ed, while the Courage of Education and Workforce Development Board is now in the Department of Commerce.
One department issues the rules, a different department issues waivers to those rules. We don't think this was the intended result, but I guess it's possible. It's a pretty unusual situation. That's why for organizational integrity, we suggest correcting the reference to the State Board of Courage of Education Now it should be to the State Board of Education Just as contrast
In B, if you look on the next page Dealing with the State Apprenticeship Coordination Steering Committee The State Apprenticeship Coordination Steering Committee Shall recommend the State To the Career Education Workforce Development Board As it is now A statewide plan for the development of Comprehensive Program Apprenticeship Then B1, the Office of Skills Development shall furnish the Coordination Committee with
Speaker 5
1:04:14
current data. That would put them both in one department.
Speaker 9
1:04:23
And that's how that is in the code right now. Is that the
Speaker 135
1:04:37
end of the second one? Yes, that's the end. Yes. There are several items under this 6. I don't know if you want to take them piece by piece or we can go through all of them. Go through all of them. Go through all of them? Okay.
Speaker 7
1:04:53
In C, towards the middle part of page 18, 652-204, again as amended by 910, change in Subdivision B-1, Department of Career Education, to Office of Skills Development, but did not change the reference in Subdivision A-4 to Department of Career Education. We corrected the reference to the Office of Skills Development, which we believe makes sense in light of the changes made elsewhere in this section and in 6-24-205 that I pointed out above.
if you look on page 19 for the governor shall consult the we believe that should be the office of skills development before making an appointment of the section if you look at b1 which is a correction that was made one person designated by and representing the office of skills development and if you look on down to c1 the member of general public should be appointed by the Office of Skills Development for a term of four years.
We think to fit this all together and four, for example, the governor should be actually consulting with the Office of Skills Development rather than the Department, what was Department of Career Education. In
Speaker 5
1:06:17
D. What page are you on now? Page 19. 6-51-213C1 The Director of the Division of Career and Technical Education
Executive Officer of the Board for the purpose of administering the federal act and this act
Speaker 7
1:06:34
shall bind with advice and consent of the board designated assistance and may be necessary to carry out properly the provisions hereof You'll see that language again if you look on page 20 where we're talking about 6-15-213 and towards the middle of page 21, C1, the Director of the Division of Credit and Technical Education and Executive Officer of the Board. The problem is that the Director of the Department of Education,
I believe, for the purpose of these acts, was the Executive Officer of the Board at one time. and this makes the director of the division the latter one career in technical education as executive officer of the board we think especially in light of the fact that a federal law is involved that that's probably correctly the secretary of the department of education
in that instance and in D where it talks about the Director of the Division of
Speaker 32
1:07:46
Career and Technical Education. If we're going to be talking about the Executive Officer of the Board,
Speaker 46
1:07:52
and the Board is the State Board of Education. I'm going
Speaker 70
1:07:56
to hold you up for a second. Mr. Henderson, Secretary of Education. I just wanted to make a point that when we were going through combining things and working with the different constituencies,
there was a huge push not to put the career board reporting to the Board of Education. There was meetings with the governor, with Representative Davis. I know that they spoke in committee. They felt strongly that the board should not report to another board. so as I understood it the
Speaker 63
1:08:33
intent was not to have them under there however I see what you're saying
with the different departments and the different responsibilities I just wanted to make that point and
Speaker 324
1:08:46
Mr. Chair I know Ms. Salas Ford has comments on this one on D I don't know
Speaker 85
1:08:52
if you want to take that now or finish going through I just know that at some point she's going to have some thoughts
Speaker 135
1:09:07
on 651-213. I believe these are things we caught
as we were going
Speaker 100
1:09:13
through the codification process. Yes, I'm trying
Speaker 280
1:09:30
point with some of these references. Ms. Salis-Ford has
Speaker 33
1:09:35
comments on this one. I believe thank you Courtney solace forward for the
Speaker 253
1:09:47
department um yeah we we agree with secretary
fetcher it's our intent is not to have the workforce or career board report to the secretary but in that section in 651 213 if the change is made as suggested in a to state board of education then in c1 we agree that it should be the secretary of education as an executive officer has the authority to do the things listed there and that's that's and i apologize matthew i forgot
to include this one um on the email i sent you earlier but on 651 208 which is also in d we actually think it should be remain the department of education in d instead of changing it to the division of elementary and secondary education we think that should remain at the department level but those are the only two comments we have so
Speaker 252
1:10:50
the first one was on page 21 and then the second comment i had is on page 23.
Speaker 282
1:11:06
yeah yeah are there questions and concerns about these sections am i hearing there's not an agreement on these changes i
Speaker 164
1:11:18
have not representative davis i've not reviewed them previously but um i
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:11:25
agree with secretary pester
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:11:29
there this is an area that there were some very concerned constituencies
involved so i would definitely want
Speaker 286
1:11:37
to go back and review this before we recommended any made any recommendations to the commission
Speaker 113
1:11:46
that is that is fine and a question you asked just a moment let me
Speaker 135
1:11:55
explain our process as we went through the codification process vince's staff kept a
Speaker 84
1:12:00
list of sections like these you know that clearly this was how we needed to codify them because that's how the law passed but there was
some sort of an issue there and Ms. Fetcher presented a recommendation for this commission which is proper under the statute for us to bring to you and we put ours on the list when Ms. Fetcher brought them so that's why you see kind of this combination of some of the things that we had caught and some of the things that Ms. Fetcher requested. thank
Speaker 55
1:12:32
you mr chair one thing i just want to echo what what miss fetcher the i think any time that we're dealing with something that seems to take the authority of a border commission and put it
under the executive branch that was a really hot hard issue so just so that so the staff and and this this uh this commission knows that that is not i mean we ought to be really hesitant about doing that even if it seems like it's logical because that was something that was was very it was one of the things specifically negotiated to get the bill passed so and we certainly bring this
Speaker 84
1:13:05
today knowing y'all may not approve this you know these are sections where there appears to be an issue though at some core level
Speaker 242
1:13:46
number, which I believe is sevens on page 25.
Speaker 282
1:13:58
Thank you.
all right uh with regard to the changes discussed in item six
Speaker 17
1:14:14
is that what we're talking about yes i think you can say six
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:14:21
and seven six and seven yeah
Speaker 289
1:14:30
six and seven until our next meeting so that we can deal with
Speaker 135
1:14:36
and talk about at that time let me double back with vince on seven seven may be one that was
Speaker 84
1:14:44
within our authority as staff and we went on ahead and made during the qualification process but we put it on here
Speaker 55
1:14:50
for the commission's review because we had a meeting let's i mean
Speaker 52
1:14:54
we ought to talk about what seven is anyway so let's i'll narrow my my motion to just say i move
Speaker 132
1:15:00
that we table item six until our next meeting second second by representative
Speaker 17
1:15:06
gas away any discussion seeing none all those in favor of tabling item six until our next meeting signify by saying aye
Speaker 7
1:15:38
of Career Education and the State Board of Education.
And in the next section, analogous list, but at that time, the State Board of Career Education became the Career Education and Workforce Development Board. We believe the intent was not to duplicate the State Board of Education in subdivision 2 below, but the Career Education and Workforce Development Board was intended to place the State Board of Career Education in 2 and 4 below, thus making them parallel. If you look at 10-3-1602 in the middle of page 25, down in subdivision 2, reviewing policy
issues affecting educational reform on reform number 15 of the year preceding a regular session making recommendations concerning necessary legislative changes proposed by school districts, cooperatives, institutions of higher education, the division of elementary and secondary education, the state board of education, the division of career and technical education, and it says the state board of career education, and we think that it's supposed to be the career education workforce development board, the division of higher education, our higher education coordinating board, the governor's office and private institutions,
And then down in four, reviewing and ensuring coordination between the school districts, co-ops, institutions of higher ed, Division of Elementary and Secondary Ed, the State Board of Education, the Division of Career and Technical Education, the Career Education and Workforce Development Board, instead of the State Board of Career Education, the Division of Higher Ed, the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Governor's Office, and Private institutions and attempting at
Speaker 173
1:17:29
least in in part to to make that parallel
Speaker 136
1:17:36
any questions with regard to item seven the comments
Speaker 193
1:17:43
from the sponsors with regard to this session representative davis you mentioned it I
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
1:17:52
don't have any comments, Mr. Chairman, other than
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:17:58
I'd probably still feel more comfortable passing over this until we can review everything that had to do with education, career education.
Speaker 169
1:18:11
And again, I believe if you look in the code book, we went on ahead and corrected this one. Because, I mean, if you look at how it is in two there, State Board of Education is listed twice. It's in there because it revised the State Board of Career Education to remove career, State Board of Education is in the list twice. Whereas if you look down at four, it had revised the State Board of Career Education to the Career Education and Workforce Development Board. So since the repetition of State Board of Education twice in two seemed like a pretty clear error,
we assumed it was intended to be what was down in
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
1:18:50
four. i think i understand better now and so they don't actually have to take
Speaker 169
1:18:55
action on this it's already been done no we went since we had this opportunity we wanted to go
Speaker 84
1:19:01
on ahead and bring it to your attention since we had so many others that we're talking about career ad but
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:19:07
this one felt like a clear error to us and we went on ahead and corrected
Speaker 215
1:19:16
consistent then we could suggest it for technical correction certainly and that's why
Speaker 360
1:19:21
we wanted to it to your attention mr
Speaker 55
1:19:32
chair i would just have a question what the appropriate motion would be so
if these changes are already done are we just basically ratifying what the changes that were done to make it where it's just to clarify that there's authority to do so i think that would probably be the motion right then okay so then then i move that we ratify the the modification already done with uh with the bureau or
Speaker 186
1:19:56
by the bureau i got a motion from senator valinger i think i may have missed a hand on the board there i can i can just see two people yes there's someone barely saying someone wanted to comment before we take up the motion
Speaker 96
1:20:11
I would second the motion. Thank you. Motion and second. Any discussion?
Speaker 215
1:20:21
Seeing none. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Speaker 6
1:20:27
Aye. Any opposed by nay? Motion carries. Moving on
Speaker 7
1:20:35
to item 8. Two sections in, okay, we're on page 26, towards the top, A. two sections of Act 910 amended 20-27-1507 in an inconsistent manner. It appears to us the intent
was clear that the House happened to be the later section. There are other changes made throughout Sub-Chapter 15 by other parts of Act 910 that the amendment by Section 229-910 was an oversight, not intended. The correct reference should be the Department of Health and not the Division of Higher Ed. If you'll look at 20-27-1507 as amended by 2290, an artist trainer shall be a registered
instructor and a school licensed by the Department of Health, but then in consultation with State board of private education the division of higher ed shall develop standards if you go over to page 27 you'll see uh towards the top where department of health is put in as far as the training approved by the department of health and then in subsection e down a little lower the department of Health again shall adopt an amendment curriculum. 5035 of 910 amends it in this way. An artist
trainer should be registered instructor in the school licensed by the Department of Health. B the department which a second reference would then be referring to the Department of Health shall develop standards on page 28 if you'll go down to subdivision
Speaker 5
1:22:19
c2a the artist trainer shall maintain a training log of the clock hours completed by the artist in training on form approved by the department of health no longer the higher ed
Speaker 9
1:22:32
and then on top of page 29 subsection e the department of health we believe that it was intended to be department health basically throughout not not the division of
Speaker 326
1:22:42
higher ed yes i think what we're getting at is that i
Speaker 84
1:22:46
guess if there was a motion it would be the reference department of health consistently throughout there because there was one other section of act 910 that inserted higher ed in one of those places yeah earlier an earlier section so you've got the rare situation where the same section was amended in the same bill twice
which happened in act 910 some if you remember it was prepared as individual bills originally and presented and then those were all combined so because it was prepared that way there ended up being some duplication of sections and this would be one of those places all
Speaker 186
1:23:22
right any other discussion on item eight questions, concerns, any comments from sponsors on this section?
Speaker 96
1:23:28
If not, is there a motion to the Department
Speaker 17
1:23:37
of Health as opposed to the Department of
Speaker 51
1:23:39
Health? Yeah, but before, I just want to make sure currently tattooing is regulated in the Department of Health, correct? Is that,
Speaker 289
1:23:47
that's correct. Okay. Yes. And I move that we
Speaker 215
1:23:54
make these recommended changes. Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any
Speaker 246
1:24:06
opposed to the day? Motion series moving on to section 9.
Let me jump in there. Is our plan to try and get through all these attachments in this meeting? Is there a plan? It's your plan, sir. It's your plan, sir.
Speaker 263
1:24:21
Oh, it's my point. Yes. Well, let's at
Speaker 344
1:24:25
first assessment we get in. If there's something that we absolutely need to take up the next day, then we may have something to call
Speaker 242
1:24:32
back. So if somebody gets ahead of us, let's keep rolling. If that's what
Speaker 48
1:24:37
we can, we're on to number nine. And as
Speaker 129
1:24:40
I said earlier, we will be meeting again
because we'll have the technical correction bills. So that's not
Speaker 7
1:24:52
take this back up. We will be getting back together. All right, Section 9. Section 9, on page
Speaker 5
1:25:03
29, in 20-77-2509, in A, the governor should have been changed to secretary of
Speaker 7
1:25:10
the department inspector general, as it was in A. If you look on bottom page 30, in E, the governor was not changed, although it was in subsection
A. It would seem unusual that the annual report would be submitted by the Secretary, Department of Insurance, Inspector General, while the quarterly reports would simply go straight to the governor. We think that was an inadvertent error. These are reports
Speaker 12
1:25:45
required to the Medicaid Inspector General. All right, any
Speaker 246
1:25:50
discussion on item 9? Representative Davis, Secretary Thatcher, any clean name?
Speaker 70
1:25:57
I'll just point out that the Medicaid Inspector General is the Secretary of the Department currently. Yeah, that was actually,
Speaker 194
1:26:07
I was Googling it to make sure that I, but that
Speaker 55
1:26:11
is, so the question is, you know, if we ever got to the point where those were two different individuals, then
Speaker 52
1:26:19
it would make sense that it'd go up through the secretary. But as it sits today, it seems like that could be kind of odd that they have an obligation to report to themselves.
Speaker 55
1:26:30
let me say that you know i would say it'd be better to leave it sitting as it is and then deal
Speaker 52
1:26:38
with that later than it would be to make this change and then have the medicaid inspector general reporting to herself or himself i don't even know
Speaker 161
1:26:53
who it is i agree with senator ballinger i don't really understand
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:26:58
language but the way it looks like to me is that it would be reporting to themselves and I can't imagine that
that would be in what the intended result there. Anybody online?
Speaker 192
1:27:12
The committee is to leave it if it is is that what i'm
Speaker 282
1:27:22
hearing any motion to pass that over or we're just going to move
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:27:27
on to item 10. mr chairman if i may for the legislators on the committee i believe i agree with you in where we are today and if i remember right in the discussion of this and in the discussion with the transmission
advisory board there was a lot of discussion around creating this inspector general position but but recognizing we don't really have the funding and mechanisms to flesh that out wholly. Obviously, the Medicaid inspector journal is filling both roles. But if we ever did separate those roles to two different individuals, what would be an indicator? How would the legislature know that this mechanism would need to be changed?
Although it seems redundant to have somebody report to themselves, that person does work for the governor whereas if you had people separate people in those roles in the future and the report was going to the governor i don't know i mean it'd be up to the executive to tell you that that
Speaker 381
1:28:34
would need to be changed yeah maybe what we do is we make a motion to modify this within the within in
Speaker 55
1:28:41
the technical corrections bill to to actually say that you know basically line it out that if it is two different
Speaker 213
1:28:47
people then they report to the um the secretary of the department rather than directly to the governor and instead of doing that here because we need to make bigger changes do that through the technical corrections bill
Speaker 52
1:29:01
and then that will fix it for the future so the legislatures don't
Speaker 196
1:29:09
have have to deal with that yeah yeah let's take it as motion
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:29:15
actually I have some discussion about that I mean I and I tend to agree with Senator Ballinger but
I guess my concern would be I think it'd be the governor's office the office's responsibility to let us know once they realize that there's a problem and that bridge can be crossed when we get there. But I would be hesitant to even make that a technical correction until it becomes truly an issue. And I just don't see it being an issue in controversy that would require a change now. And hopefully the governor's office, if they're monitoring things when it does become an issue,
says we need a bill on this. But until then,
Speaker 135
1:30:01
I would be hesitant to make any changes. But that's just my thought. Yes. And for what it's worth, I ran this
Speaker 84
1:30:08
by Mary Robin Castile, and she had told me they were fine with this change. I mean, our our staff interpretation of this was simply that one place it was changed to secretary and the other it was left unchanged. So we were following the pattern of what was changed. you know to the extent it's left alone or changed in another way that's certainly the will of this
commission the only reason we've suggested the revision this way is because there was only one piece of markup and it was changing governor to secretary of the department of inspector general and i'm happy to withdraw my
Speaker 381
1:30:42
motion the truth is that if the governor wants this
Speaker 55
1:30:45
changed he can let us know during the session and we can have a proposed piece of legislation or add it in with something else so i don't think it's the world is not going to end if we leave it alone so i you know
Speaker 289
1:30:56
and and respect for my colleague i'll just withdraw my motion
Speaker 198
1:31:00
Okay, in 20-78-206-A2A2I, it talks about
Speaker 5
1:31:18
we believe that probably should be the
Speaker 9
1:31:26
Secretary of the Department of Education
Speaker 164
1:31:39
All right. Any discussion on item 10? Is
Speaker 246
1:31:43
the Department of Education going to weigh in on that? Everybody good? Is there a motion on this issue? Move it
Speaker 17
1:31:56
Second. Second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Speaker 7
1:32:11
34, this is where we made some changes, corrections
under authority 1-2-303. In various places, these sections are also rehabilitative services, which was signed by Act 910 Department of Commerce, there is a phrase, the appropriate division of Department of Human Services. That's some language from long ago and far away. The AHS no longer has authority over Arkansas Rehabilitative Services. This was transferred to the Division of Workforce Service and Department of Commerce. While I said, while not perfect, we think that most
instances, Division of Workforce Service should replace Department of Human Services in
Speaker 9
1:32:51
the phrase, except in one instance in 20-79-211A, where I think Department of Commerce happens to be the
Speaker 7
1:33:02
better reference. Also, we replace an orphan in the State Board in 20-79-2074. If you look at 20-79-205 towards the top, the Deputy Director of the, we believe it should be Division of Workforce Services now, rather the appropriate Division of DHS, should provide
the Rehabilitation Services authorized. If you'll look on page 35, 20-39-206 B and C, again towards the bottom, we replaced the appropriate Division of Department of Human Services, Division of Workforce Services, and then
Speaker 9
1:33:38
the second reference is Division, and then in subsection C, again, second reference there is the Division, referring to the Division workforce
Speaker 7
1:33:50
services. In 20-39-207, at the top of page 36, we put in division workforce
services. In 1A, we put in said Department of Human Services, Department of Commerce. on the top of page 37 that code section continues on where we took out and this is the state board to the arkansas change to arkansas rehabilitation services since there's no longer a board like that then on the same page 37 20-79-28b and c2 where we change appropriate division of dhs
to Division of Workforce Services. Second reference in C2, referring to the same Division of Workforce Services. In 20-89-211A, towards the bottom, page 37, situation where we believe it should be the Department of Commerce in this case. Representative Davis, Secretary
Speaker 246
1:34:58
Fetcher, can you comment on any suggests a change? I think the
Speaker 63
1:35:03
divisions and the departments are correct on one on the very first one let me find
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:35:11
it where it says the deputy director 2079 205 yes
Speaker 70
1:35:19
what if there's not a deputy director should it be the director may require technical
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:35:26
correction bill but it really should be director not deputy director We could refer to that. And this is one,
Speaker 135
1:35:31
as Mr. Henderson said at the start, we made these changes because there was a, it was clearly an error. I mean,
Speaker 169
1:35:36
DHS was not the right agency and it was obvious which one was right. We, we did have this opportunity to show it to you though. So we
Speaker 84
1:35:44
just wanted to run it by you. And I think the motion before was to ratify it. We just wanted to, to make it clear with y'all what we've done here.
Speaker 107
1:35:51
here. That would be a new piece that we could refer out
Speaker 84
1:35:58
to the technical correction bill and insert that. Let's make a note of
Speaker 96
1:36:03
that. And then is there any discussion on the other changes? Yes, Senator Bowden. Just
Speaker 55
1:36:09
to be sure that the board referenced a couple of times doesn't exist anymore at all.
Speaker 31
1:36:15
Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Any other questions it depends on
Speaker 16
1:36:23
these items. Anybody online? Yes. Oh, that's you. I think there were a couple that
Speaker 80
1:36:30
Vince didn't reference, but they're the same. I mean, did you do 213
Speaker 391
1:36:35
and 215? No, I don't think gotten quite that far yet, but yet
Speaker 7
1:36:40
I get there, I think. But they're more the same. Yeah, 213, 215 right uh towards top page 38 20-79-213 subsection b again change over from the appropriate division of dhs to the division workforce services on the bottom of page 38 20-79-215
but it goes to the top page 39 again where we insert division
Speaker 33
1:37:18
appropriate division department of human services and that's the end of 11 11.
25-30-104 was amended by Act 910, changed the catch
Speaker 7
1:37:53
line, which generally we wouldn't be terribly concerned about, except it changed it by changing Department of Ed to the Division of Elementary and Secondary Ed.
And then, of course, in the language, it said the State Board of Education shall coordinate their activities. In view of the change made to the section catch line, we think what should have happened with the rest of the section is, in the second version of that, towards the bottom of page 39, the State Board of Education and the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education shall coordinate their activities. it's difficult for one entity to coordinate their activities and so we're trying to figure out how to
Speaker 31
1:38:44
quite honestly coordinate those. Any comments from the
Speaker 17
1:38:54
Department of Education? Questions by sponsors? Questions? Motion? Go ahead,
Speaker 55
1:39:04
that issue as presented creates a problem, right? So, so there, I mean, clearly the intent of the legislation, whenever this was put together, was that there would be some sort of coordination.
So if we leave it the way it's left
Speaker 289
1:39:22
right here, then it essentially doesn't leave anybody for the State Board of Education to coordinate with. Is that
Speaker 7
1:39:28
correct? And that wasn't. Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 9
1:39:30
And the catch line was changed to include two entities, the state board and the division, but the language in the
Speaker 55
1:39:38
actual statute wasn't changed. So essentially what we need to do if we're going to do this here is include the division of elementary and secondary education and the state board of education.
Speaker 289
1:39:48
Is that right? Correct. Yes, sir. okay I see that so so that what we're talking about then is down here at the in the bottom makes sense to me right this is the second version
Speaker 7
1:40:29
Okay, I believe that these have been withdrawn, if I understand, right? Okay, so. The part on 6-4-304, the department
Speaker 338
1:40:38
has asked to withdraw. Right. All right, do we want to try
Speaker 46
1:40:45
and take up C2 and C3? What's the will? We all have
Speaker 169
1:40:50
been working hard. C2 is requests from Ms. Fetcher's office. That's all going to be requests from Ms. Fetcher's office. C-3 is request from the AGRI department.
And I believe Mr. Hodge is here from AGRI
Speaker 17
1:41:07
too. Okay, Mr. Hodge, thank you. Mr. Harrison, do you want to give us a quick rundown? Do we need a quick rundown? Do we want
Speaker 9
1:41:20
to go around the representative of the day? We might as well let Ms. Fitcher do it, although I think we dealt with
Speaker 17
1:41:27
the first one, 19-11-269 already, but. Secretary Pescher, you're recognized on exhibit C2.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:41:36
Thank you. I'm catching up here. This C2, is that not what we did earlier on moving? The first
Speaker 5
1:41:47
one is. That's the 19-11-269 we already dealt with. That's correct. If
Speaker 334
1:41:56
that's where we started. So that one was included in what we
Speaker 17
1:42:02
did before? Yes. That was in the first batch. Number one on Exhibit C2 for anybody following at home in the program has been acted on item two, correct?
Speaker 63
1:42:12
Correct. And so this is, again, just changing Chief Fiscal Officer of the state to the Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. Any discussion on
Speaker 7
1:42:33
item two? If you'll look on the second page, I'm sorry, the pages aren't numbered, but if you look on the second page, you can see subdivision two.
Speaker 45
1:42:42
And subsection C, where the Secretary of Department of Transformation and Shared Services has put in place
Speaker 136
1:42:57
as chief fiscal officer of the state. Is there a second for that motion? Any discussion? All in favor, say aye.
Speaker 164
1:43:12
Okay, this has to do with the building authority division. Ms. Fetcher, I
Speaker 7
1:43:26
believe, has requested revisions to 22-2-102 and 22-2-113 to remove the reference to the building authority division and replace it with the Department of Transportation services. Act 910 moved the building authority division into the Department of Transformation
and Shared Services. If you look at 22-2-102 and subdivision 2, it's on definitions on minimum standards and criteria, and 22-2-113, where it
Speaker 5
1:44:04
talks about the type 3 where a contract next page subdivision 2 the only
thing or concern I have about this I will tell you is
Speaker 7
1:44:25
that uncertain whether by act 910 moving the building authority division under under the department, especially since it was especially amended, did the General Assembly intend on moving this authority, power, duties, however
I'm describing, the building authority division up to the next level, up to the department
Speaker 9
1:44:56
of transportation and shared services? And would that constitute a change in light of our authority here? I just want to point that out. You may not agree or may think that's okay, but I just want to mention that
Speaker 63
1:45:22
say is these are capital improvements,
so really big projects, and we did not want the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:45:27
Division of Building Authority to have the independent authority to make those without working through the Secretary's office. Mr. Chairman,
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:45:39
I would say that that was the intent, was for that authority to move up to the new department level where that authority used to rest. At the old department level where billing authority was a standalone department, now being a division of TSS, you'd want that authority at the top of that department at TSS.
Speaker 52
1:46:00
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say that that is a good idea. The problem is that I think that this gets into an area of kind
Speaker 55
1:46:08
of substantive policy. I mean, you know, if that's what we did when we passed the legislation, I think it would have been smart to do that. I just hate to take that language out here. I mean, I don't know if that was specifically negotiated by anybody, but, you know, somebody working in that department may have talked to somebody, talked them into, you know, doing it this way.
Speaker 52
1:46:32
So, I mean, from my standpoint, I would say I'd hate to make that change in
Speaker 352
1:46:42
this commission. Well, I'm certainly not going to debate the authority of this commission and
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:46:48
what you perceive as substantive or not. I would just say that in this specific example of building authority, we are talking about a state agency, not a board that may have authority outside of the executive branch. So I certainly don't remember in this specific case,
and I don't think that there would be any sort of constituent concern with that because it is just state
Speaker 286
1:47:11
agencies, state employees, no outside board or
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:47:19
commission influence there. Good question. Representative Davis may be able to answer this for me, but does building services still exist within Department of Transformation? Yes. as a I guess a it's a division division below I see uh same personnel
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:47:36
same director says yes I don't keep up with the I imagine it's the same I know the director is still
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:47:47
there as the head of the division and I
understand Senator Ballinger's concern and I agree with him. I just think when you're going levels like that where you go from a specific to a general there's just a little too much room there for what I would think would be substantive
in nature if that was going to be changed maybe that was was negotiated or could have been negotiated or not sure
exactly what happened but I would be hesitant to make that at this point and
Speaker 289
1:48:20
I agree with Senator Ballinger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I mean, I get the fact that it is just basically a division of this agency. So what I would say is you guys could probably develop internal policies
Speaker 55
1:48:34
with how you review these decision-making. I mean, I agree that
it should be something that is maybe treated more seriously than maybe that division should deal
Speaker 289
1:48:43
with by themselves but i would say i'd hate to make that change because we're not a legislative body right now
Speaker 160
1:48:57
i would agree with this previous statements
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:49:15
could i just clarify with senator ballinger's your intent is to pass over not recommend the change of dollars or to put it in a technical correction bill so my
Speaker 55
1:49:30
intent would be to pass over it all together because i hate to even put this in a technical correction bill and sell it as that so probably what would need to happen is if that's what we want to do then go
Speaker 52
1:49:41
ahead and bring a separate piece of legislation or include it in other legislation that can be debated on its merits that'd be my recommendation thank you and and
Speaker 55
1:49:53
idea i'm happy to carry the bill i just think that it ought to be something
Speaker 423
1:50:03
that the the general body has an opportunity to look at appreciate
Speaker 9
1:50:09
the clarification 4 is essentially a similar situation as I believe with number 3 to remove the reference to the building authority division from subsection A3
and to include I think the Department of Transmission shared services the markup 22-9-208. It's the bottom of the page and onto the next page on subdivision A3 where it says procedures provided in subdivision A2 of
Speaker 7
1:50:41
the section should be applicable for specific projects only after review and approval by the chief fiscal officer of the state instead of the building authority
division said the secretary of the department of transportation shared services and legislative council Provide, however, projects undertaken by public institutions to hire an editor-in-law are exempt. Let's go ahead to number 5 also, towards the bottom of that page. 22-10-502, I believe is a similar sort of situation. Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Shared Services, when
Speaker 9
1:51:17
I think it says RSA Economic Development Commission or the Building Authority Division shall promulgate certain rules.
Speaker 424
1:51:22
Ms. Could I make a comment on number five? Mr. Okay, sure, sure.
Speaker 63
1:51:31
Ms. This one just gives the authority of the approval of the Chief Fiscal Officer, currently has the Building Authority Division, and the Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. Since
Speaker 109
1:51:43
the Director of the Building Authority reports to the Secretary, we just felt like
Speaker 96
1:51:54
you could strike it. thank you mr chair so
Speaker 254
1:51:58
the way i would distinguish this from the previous issue
Speaker 52
1:52:02
is we've got two different basically you chief fiscal officer that that is a separate entity or separate secretary and then you also have the department
Speaker 55
1:52:11
of transformation so to me if if you're just reading this kind of in the list that that i think was probably intended i think you could probably say that the the building authority division was probably not intended to be included in this when you have the department transformation to which it's part of is uh is also listed i don't know i mean that's kind of the
Speaker 66
1:52:32
way i would distinguish it to me i
don't have a problem with this one where i did
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:52:39
have a problem with the last one well and on the approval if you if you leave it with the division of building authority in there then you you have two-thirds of the
Speaker 289
1:52:47
approval within one department yeah that which is a great point that's exactly right
Speaker 246
1:52:53
then then you get all the say any other comments or questions on section four we're just telling the four we're not to five here.
Speaker 17
1:53:00
Anybody else? All right is there a motion to approve the court? I move to the court. Is there a second?
Second. Second. All those have any discussion? In favor of the student call
Speaker 131
1:53:11
to say aye. Aye. I can vote by name. Section
Speaker 33
1:53:18
four, that changes through moving on to section five. And thank you Ms.
Speaker 2
1:53:23
Settle. I think you're sticking with us online. we appreciate you
Speaker 5
1:53:30
very much okay uh paragraph five uh religions requested to 22-10-502 and 503
Speaker 7
1:53:37
by the secretary department of transportation shared services to have rulemaking authority regarding public private partnerships rather than the arcs united development commission or the building authority division um the present language i believe if i remember correctly is that the Arkansas Economic Development Commission or the Building Authority Division shall promulgate certain rules. I think
Speaker 9
1:53:58
it was actually OR. And I think that was actually inserted by Act 910 in this situation on 502 and I believe also on 503. We're not sure what the OR means actually,
how that works. But that's how it was put in, I
Speaker 70
1:54:19
believe, in Act 910. There has to be a conflict on this somewhere because Act 910 also moved the P-3 program from the Arkansas Economic Development Commission to the Department of Transformation and Shared Services
Speaker 63
1:54:29
Division of Building Authority. So if it's worded like this, there has
Speaker 70
1:54:34
to be a conflict in another area of the bill. what I like with
Speaker 7
1:54:44
22-10-503 on rules the Arkansas United Development Commission or the Building Authority Division and the Arkansas Development Finance Authority shall jointly promulgate rules to administer this chapter and
Speaker 9
1:54:54
I have no idea how that works from the standpoint of the Administrative Procedure Act let alone as a practical matter how they would get together and
Speaker 17
1:55:09
do that exactly So, any questions or concerns on this section, it would be section five.
Speaker 186
1:55:27
No questions, comments, fair motion? Senator Ballinger, you recommend it.
Speaker 213
1:55:35
So I guess at this point, what is the fix? I
Speaker 256
1:55:42
mean, if we adopt it just as it says here, will that be, does that resolve the conflict and the concerns? It would.
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
1:55:58
Representative Dex, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say to Representative, I mean to
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:56:06
Senator Ballinger, Sorry, old habit. I think if you adopted this, it would certainly be much more closer to the intent. I was also a co-sponsor of the P3 legislation, and I've worked with Secretary Fetcher and Secretary Preston over the years to get that moved out of economic development over to what is now transformation and shared services. And ADF&A, I think, would be a separate issue.
We'd have to take that up separately, but certainly replacing economic development commission with transformation shared services should be done i would consider that a technical correction because that was the intent mr henderson
Speaker 360
1:56:42
i'll cut you off no no that's fine Mr. Miller? No. So, the,
Speaker 242
1:56:48
did they admit that the part of the Development Commission, is it okay with this change, I guess, or does it matter? They're tickled to death.
Speaker 433
1:57:00
They're very supportive. They never wanted the P3 program,
Speaker 434
1:57:04
so. Mr. Porch was here earlier. I think
Speaker 33
1:57:10
me he was good with the change. Yeah. All right. Any motion on section
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:57:17
five? I'll come. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some concern, probably not a big issue at all, but the Department of Transformation and Shared Services is, from what I gather, a huge department that took in a lot of entities.
Is that accurate, or can you
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:57:38
explain that? I would, based on my knowledge of the 16 departments created, TSS would probably be one of the smaller ones. I wouldn't
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:57:46
categorize it as huge. Can you tell me just what's under the umbrella? How many divisions
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:57:53
do you have? We have six divisions. We
Speaker 63
1:57:56
have building authority, employee benefits, the Department of Information Systems, geographic information systems, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Office of State Procurement.
It also has M&R under it, which is a subdivision. Thank
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:58:13
you. That's just my concern. When you go to these big, much bigger umbrellas, I just have some concern that entities that are familiar with doing certain things, I'm not saying that this is the case here, but entities that are familiar with undertaking certain obligations
or responsibilities, that it's now been transferred to this much bigger entity that may or may not farm it out, so to speak, to the smaller entity that's used to doing that sort of thing. I don't know why it wouldn't, but when you start transferring from what had been very specific grants of authority to a much more general or broad grant of authority, There's just some concern in my mind that you're reassigning duties, obligations, responsibilities,
or there's the potential for that, which seems any reassignment would be substantive in nature when you go from those specific grants to a general grant. That's just a comment. I'm not saying that that's accurate, and anyone who's here, please feel free to correct me and
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:59:29
tell me that I'm wrong. I would just like to clarify, Mr. Chairman, if I may. the p3 program is moved that was accomplished in other sections of act 910 the p3 program
is moved from economic development to transformation and shared services this change in this item number five is just changing this reference to match where the program if you will was actually moved to. Does that make sense? So the major change is done. That's in the law. P3 is moved. This is just correcting the reference. So that, yeah, there was a whole section in the bill
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:00:11
that moved the P3 like many of the other agencies and departments and divisions. From the Economic
Development Commission and Building Authority Division. So it doesn't make sense to even have them in code anymore. correct now i understand this is just another one of those
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:00:24
we didn't catch the reference okay i understand so if you accept this change you're not moving anything you're just correcting the reference i think i understand okay thanks
Speaker 158
2:00:47
thank you i i just don't feel like this is a correction only it's my only comment
Speaker 52
2:00:58
thank you mr chair so i i think that the i think you have valid representative gasway has valid policy concerns that i think but in this case maybe that's not really
Speaker 55
2:01:10
i mean the question is what technically is supposed to happen if you don't mind what is the p3 program p3 is uh public
private partnerships okay so um the you
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:01:19
know i don't know germane in this discussion i understand representative gasway's concerns and what he was saying and obviously we debated all those things when we were actually moving things my point to this to this commission is that this change does not move anything it's already moved this is just correcting the reference so
Speaker 55
2:01:41
my question though is you know if you got rid of the arcs economic development commission because it's no
longer under that agency that so it makes sense and all you did was just go to the building authority which of course is a subdivision of the of the shared services you know you'd have still have to make a change to because language wouldn't make perfect sense but you know is what the building authority does
Speaker 289
2:02:07
consistent with the public partner partnership that seems like that may be a bigger picture than just what they do that's
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:02:14
actually why we moved it over there is because public private partnerships are more consistent with what building authority does than what
Speaker 289
2:02:20
economic development does so but is it is what building authority does does it encompass everything that the public part the pv3 so my question is if instead of it going to the department of transformation directly if like we were concerned about before that it went to the division of the of building authority first would that even make sense i don't want to speak for the
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:02:44
secretary i don't think even make much difference if it goes to tss or to building authority i mean building authority is part of tss and the
Speaker 381
2:02:52
only reason why i say that is it may it may seem a lot like a
Speaker 289
2:02:57
substantive change if what we did was just take out the the economic development which
Speaker 52
2:03:03
of course it was removed from them anyway and then left everything else the same way the
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:03:08
the only um nuance that we may want to consider and we don't have it in front of us today unless secretary pitcher just knows off the top of our head but the rules for the p3 system were promulgated after not after act 910 was passed so the rules may reference tss rather than building authority
in which case i would say this should say
Speaker 254
2:03:33
tss not building authority right which ultimately the rules would
Speaker 344
2:03:42
would be promulgated by tss so yeah comment
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:03:46
so to me that sounds a lot more like a technical corrections bill as
opposed to a uh just revision now that
Speaker 242
2:04:01
that's my opinion i don't know if anybody
Speaker 289
2:04:16
have conflicts but with the small numbers
we have of commissioners available is there any reason why we couldn't hold this also until the next meeting. I mean, unless her concerns are alleviated, you know, I'm okay with putting that off if everyone else is okay with putting that off. But if her concerns are alleviated,
Speaker 298
2:04:35
then I'm okay with making a motion to adopt them.
Speaker 131
2:05:08
to pass over to item five at this time and go
Speaker 7
2:05:20
on to item six. Item 6, Concerns 25-4-115, Professional Services Contracts.
Let's see, Secretary recommends or requests moving the authority to enter information technology professional service contracts to the Secretary of Transformation and Shared services from the Director of the Division of Information Systems. 910 did transfer Division of Information Systems to the Transparency Shared Services Department. Also I would point out that 25-4-115 was in fact amended by 910 to change the name
Speaker 9
2:06:00
of the Department of Information
Services to the Division of Information Services and did not make any other further changes,
Speaker 7
2:06:09
believe in that section so if you look at 25-4-115 in subsection a in the event that due to unforeseen circumstances she's asking that be changed the secretary of transformation shared services cannot provide sufficient information technology support to state agencies the secretary is authorized to enter into professional service contracts for necessary information technology support and the department may consolidate information technology needs to
Speaker 9
2:06:36
to satisfy agency requests, and same sort of thing in subsection B1, departments have division, and two, change over to secretary. In this case, transportation and shared services from the chief fiscal officer of the state shall determine that resignations, vacancies, in position of an inability to employ a person of talent skills provided services has necessitated that action. Representative
Speaker 63
2:07:03
say that one thing that Representative Davis and I when we worked with the Bureau, continually said is this has to outlive all of us.
And right now, it's giving the authority to the Division of Information Systems to enter into contracts that do affect other state agencies. With the Division of Information Systems being a complete cost recovery agency, anything that they commit to is going to be paid for by the agencies that use them. And so rather than them having the authority, having a layer of protection over that, if you think it's a substantive change, I would just ask that you send it to technical correction bill.
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
2:07:51
Yeah, I would agree. I mean,
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:07:54
that is kind of to the point or the intent of having the transformation and focus more on the shared services portion of that office is that DIS is a division that provides services shared across all agencies. And I think Secretary Fetcher made a good point that any contract that that division enters into directly affects cost to other state agencies. So it would be intent and preferential to have the department over that division to review those contracts.
Speaker 55
2:08:29
I think my concern is like what we dealt with previously, whereas I think I'm all for this change, but I don't
Speaker 289
2:08:35
even think that this would be a technical correction change because I think it's substantive. And
Speaker 55
2:08:41
once again, I'm happy to carry the legislation, absolutely agree with the policy, your concerns. but i do think that it's now i do believe also in this section that we do have some things that are are technical corrections and a chief fiscal officer of the state obviously same concerns we had before we could take that out but i'd hate
Speaker 52
2:08:58
to make these changes that we'd take it
away from that division when the bill gave it to that division does that make sense
Speaker 294
2:09:03
i understand yeah yeah we we wouldn't disagree with that your your bill we got your name on the list opinion. Sorry,
Speaker 450
2:09:20
I concur with his opinion about it being more of a correction. I mean, being not a correction. I'm sorry.
Speaker 117
2:09:26
I keep pointing like you're in the balcony or something.
Speaker 182
2:09:30
It's in the gallery. We take comments from the gallery now. I apologize. All right, so we're going to pass over Senator
Speaker 33
2:09:38
yeah let's go ahead and make the the technical changes that are that so where
Speaker 55
2:09:44
it says department of unless unless i'm wrong but where it says department of finance administration that just looks like it just got left out off in a couple places and then also the chief fiscal officer does that that make sense to everybody that those just look like they were
Speaker 169
2:10:02
um just one question i noticed it may it changed chief fiscal officer in one place but it's up here in B1. It's in B2B as well. Should all of those chief fiscal officers be changed, Ms. Fetcher? Do you see
Speaker 63
2:10:18
what I'm talking about? Yes, I do see that now. And since it is regular salary appropriations, I would say yes, it needs to change from chief fiscal officer to secretary of
Speaker 109
2:10:31
transformation shared services. And it certainly is not supposed
Speaker 254
2:10:35
be both, the way it was combined in. So
Speaker 169
2:10:40
just to clarify, we'd be changing Chief Fiscal Officer to Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services in B1, B2A, and B2B? It definitely needs to be consistent, and I
Speaker 289
2:10:57
would say that looks like the most reasonable way to handle it. all right we have
Speaker 55
2:11:07
a motion but then we also need to adopt where it deletes the department
of finance administration as well but i'd move that we make those changes while leaving the other things that are questionably substantive senator ballinger can you help
Speaker 157
2:11:20
me spot the where it deletes so in under 25 34 107
Speaker 55
2:11:25
it deletes the department of finance administration under c oh that one is seven that's gonna we're not we're
Speaker 66
2:11:34
not there oh okay so we haven't got i got it i see number seven all right good yep so that that one just the chief fiscal officer
Speaker 169
2:11:50
would be staying that would be staying division
Speaker 174
2:11:58
it's only chief fiscal officer that's changing
Speaker 5
2:12:19
okay chief fiscal In 7, looking at 25-34-107C1.
Speaker 7
2:12:29
changing, taking out DF&A to Department of Transparency and Shared Services. We'll be fixing that when the section comes up for republishing. We
Speaker 45
2:12:39
already have that authority, 1-2-303 to make that kind
Speaker 7
2:12:49
9-10. 25-34-108 in 1-B. Again, we'll fix that when that section comes up for republishing.
Speaker 7
2:13:04
authority one dash yes 303 we don't really need any action
Speaker 80
2:13:10
unless you want to ratify that that's the kind
Speaker 246
2:13:17
of obvious error we could just change that she pointed out yeah y'all can certainly take action but
Speaker 130
2:13:36
provisioned to 25-43-808 Pull back my little sheet here All
Speaker 5
2:13:43
right. In this, I think the Secretary is asking that
Speaker 7
2:13:49
we take out the Chief Fiscal Officer of State and instead put the certification in for the Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. The only question, and this certification, I believe,
Speaker 63
2:14:16
compensation. So class and comp and payroll were left in the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, or they were moved to, but yet the budgeting process is still at DFA. So that's why number one should say the Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, but number two under C would still be the Chief Fiscal Officer
because one is looking at compensation and the other is looking at awarding the compensation, so looking at the budget process
Speaker 7
2:14:47
of it. Yeah, the only question we had concerning that I will say had to do with is this an administrative as opposed to a fiscal function and more to the point, we know how the Department of Health would obviously get its request to the Transformation Shared Services
how does that at that point then get the Chief Fiscal Officer of the state and what is the CFO's approval based on? That may be something perhaps need more legislation, I don't know You can see where it had been the chief fiscal officer of the state initially got the certification and
Speaker 9
2:15:32
the CFO would approve it. The approval from the CFO is still there but I don't know what the CFO's approval would be of.
Speaker 63
2:16:02
role would be to ensure that there was budget,
Speaker 174
2:16:16
the budget was there for the health department to compensate
Speaker 462
2:16:38
No, she's, she's recommending leaving that one. She's
Speaker 324
2:16:51
recommending leaving that second one. The
Speaker 169
2:16:57
Department of Health would certify it to Ms. Fetcher's office for
Speaker 84
2:17:03
ultimate approval by the Chief Fiscal Officer of the state.
Speaker 63
2:17:08
So my department looks at the positions, and DFA looks at the funding. I still feel like
Speaker 167
2:17:24
these are, I'm sorry, Candace, I said all. Yes, you're right now.
Speaker 158
2:17:30
I still just feel like these types of things are not what we're supposed to be doing here.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:18:08
the legislation represent what the
Speaker 70
2:18:11
current process is, with all of these duties being within DFA prior to Act 910. It is a little confusing, and in my opinion, it's
Speaker 63
2:18:23
something that was not changed that should have been changed within the language of the bill.
Speaker 52
2:18:51
is, you know, so we're dealing with eight under 25403-808. And so, one, so the Department of Health shall certify to the Secretary of the Department transformation and shared services chief fiscal officer of the state clearly i mean from my my
Speaker 289
2:19:10
standpoint that's not even even correct here and so to me it looks like i mean that is that's the way it reads currently right that's the way law the code reads can you
Speaker 176
2:19:23
say that one more time yeah so if you look at one the highlighted section i mean there's no and there's no um or there's no nothing connected to you've got two separate i believe that
Speaker 169
2:19:33
they marked that up for us i believe that's their suggested revision i think if you look at it in the code now and
Speaker 84
2:19:39
vince can tell me if i'm wrong it says the department of health shall certify to the chief fiscal officer the
Speaker 254
2:19:44
assignment of duties okay so the fact that was an underline makes me kind of
Speaker 55
2:19:51
wonder so so currently that section the the the secretary of department transformation shared services is not in the code yes sir okay all right well then then i think that we're we are in a situation where there's at least a question of whether
Speaker 33
2:20:10
or not that's actually a substantive change or not moving on we want to try c3 that's all for c2 for right now we want to try and do it
Mr. Hodge, Mr. Hodge may want to come on down because this
Speaker 135
2:20:25
one's a little confusing. You may regret having tackled this in
Speaker 403
2:20:36
a couple of minutes. If we don't see a consensus quick, we're going to
Speaker 471
2:20:42
get out of here. I appreciate the committee's patience. This is simple. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wade Hodge, counsel for the Department of Agriculture. This involves the Red River Compact Commission versus the Red River Commission.
The department believes that it was the intent in Act 910 to actually transfer the Red River Commission under our umbrella and not the Red River Compact Commission. The Red River Compact, of course, is something that was established by Congress and ratified by the Arkansas General Assembly in the 70s, I think. And so the Red River Compact Commission is made up of officials from Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
It's not a state agency. The Red River Commission would properly be under the Agriculture Department. I think that there's some reference in your materials that the Secretary Ward had indicated that he didn't think it was necessary for the Red River Commission to be under there, but that is not his intent. Secretary Ward does believe that it is proper for the Red River Commission to be under us. If you look at the list of agencies that is under the department,
you see the Ouachita River Commission is there. The Red River Commission and the Ouachita River Commission are the same type of entities. And so with the Ouachita River Commission being under us, I think that lends credence to our argument that it is proper for the Red River Commission to be listed there instead of the Red River Compact
Speaker 463
2:22:26
Commission. And that's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 55
2:22:31
so so if you if you look under the well it's on what would be the looks like the fourth page so under section 2538 201 when you go down here to 18 it actually says specifically what code section the red river compact commission was created under and that that was the code section that dealt with the red river compact commission
Speaker 52
2:22:56
and i i get that the that essentially the concern is
that this is something that is a is is bigger than it's basically there's no way for it to be really be regulated by the by the department
Speaker 55
2:23:15
ag right that's correct and so but what i would be a little bit concerned about is even if the intent was to include the red river commission those the boards and commissions and putting them under the authority of any other agency was a hotly contested issue specifically negotiated I would hate to to find out that
that was one of the things that that Senator Hickey you know negotiated in order to let it out a committee right I mean like you know whether it should be or not I mean I think I think boards commission ought to be under some elected authority but from my standpoint some of those things were specifically negotiated and and i wouldn't want to make that change here especially when some of the language specifically references the commission that was created under the code section or the compact that was specifically under that code section but i don't unless
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:24:11
somebody else has a different opinion any other questions i agree with senator ballinger i think this is in my opinion
if you're moving a commission out from under something whether you have the authority or not that would need to have a bill as substantive in nature not not a revision for which this committee was organized and exists so that's just my thought i don't go ahead senator mallinger sorry about that now one
Speaker 444
2:24:39
thing that i i would say is you know
Speaker 55
2:24:46
one thing that you said said was the intent that is actually i guess not exactly what what is being proposed before us though what is being proposed before us is just basically taking out the red river compact commission underneath the legislation right this
Speaker 169
2:25:02
was a direct submission we got from the ag department but mr hodge had emailed me separately this morning telling me that upon further review secretary ward had looked at it and felt like it was more appropriate to include the
Speaker 358
2:25:17
red river commission and there was some confusion as
Speaker 169
2:25:22
to whether the red river commission is already under the natural resources commission i think they ended up deciding it
Speaker 471
2:25:30
was better to have the clarity okay yes and just for a little bit of clarification the the red river commission is really not under the arkansas natural resources commission they're separate the connection there is that the statute used to say that if the Red River Commission members had any reimbursable expenses,
they would apply to the Natural Resources Commission for reimbursement. And, of course, now that would be the Department of Correction that they would, I'm sorry, the Department of Agriculture that they would apply to. So if what was before
Speaker 55
2:26:00
us, just taking the word compact out, if that was all that we were talking about doing. And the code citation in the list that you've noted. Yeah, and the code section. then then that would be I would say that would be something that would be very substantive if we're certain that there really is no state regulatory authority that can be put over the
Red River Compact Commission because it's a formation of compact via multiple states then all of a sudden this does look like more of a legitimate technical correction and I may have may have jumped the gun as long as you're not asking to move the Red River Commission under the department of ag or secretary
Speaker 66
2:26:39
ag then then just taking this entity that we don't really have any authority over out
Speaker 479
2:26:46
then all of a sudden seems more reasonable well as written and as you have in front of you the written materials say that the request was to simply remove the red river
compact commission however there must have been some miscommunication that was not secretary Ward's intent. His intent was to say that the Red River Commission should have been there instead of the Red River Compact Commission. And of course, the department doesn't, we just feel like it needs to be changed, whether you consider it a technical correction you can make or whether it needs to be a separate bill. We're fine either way, but we just need to bring this to someone's attention. so my question is is there
Speaker 289
2:27:29
any like if we left it as it is is there really i mean even though
we know that we can't have any oversight over the the compact is there any reason why we would need to make that change
Speaker 358
2:27:42
here uh i'm not sure if i have the sophistication to know that for certain vince do you know how the compact reads or
Speaker 231
2:27:50
anything there are two commissioners from Arkansas. There are, in fact, I think two commissioners from each state. That's not actually a
Speaker 9
2:27:57
state entity. I think the two, if I remember correctly, are appointed by the governor. I'm trying to remember now. It's been a while since I've looked at the compact commission under the compact. And no, directly speaking, the state doesn't have any real
authority over the commission itself. As you said, it's authorized by Congress as interstate compact is required to be done and approved by those four state legislatures. looking at this what we would have done otherwise once we recognized that it was not intended to be the compact commission but the Red River Commission we'd probably put it in correction bill to correctly identify the agency in this case Red River Commission and correct the reference to the citation and put that in a piece of legislation
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:28:42
especially in line with the fact that the Washtenaw River Commission is already on the list Any other questions or concerns on this issue? I'll
just, my last two cents. It appears like it's no harm, no foul if we leave it in. We don't have authority to do anything over it anyway. We can, with a piece of legislation, and as Senator Ballinger has said many times throughout this meeting, when the time comes, if you want me to carry it, Senator Ballinger to carry it, I think it just needs to be done by a piece of legislation,
not a revision. That's
Speaker 7
2:29:32
more section i believe section 114-18-203 and subsection e it's also from ag i believe. No, there's no longer an Arkansas
Soil and Water Conservation Commission. They want to put the Department of Agriculture in there. I thought that was transferred more correctly speaking to the Natural Resources Commission from Soil and Water. So that's kind of a double jump there from the Natural Resources Commission, which
Speaker 45
2:30:07
I think still exists, and instead would place that as far as appropriate funds,
Speaker 7
2:30:13
the water development fund would be administered
by the Department of Agriculture. Is that actually done or is
Speaker 9
2:30:20
that administered by the Natural Resources Commission? That's one of the questions I
Speaker 479
2:30:25
had because I wasn't sure about how you all handled that. Yeah, of course, just a little clarification. The Soil and Water Conservation Commission was never transferred to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. It was renamed. It became the Natural Resources Commission 10 years ago. So, you know, not sure why there's still a reference in any statute to the soil and water conservation.
Speaker 100
2:30:47
That I can answer. We've never gotten to the point where we had to
Speaker 9
2:30:54
rework that section of the code. It's probably been in
Speaker 479
2:30:58
there probably longer than that. But in any event, under 910, the Natural Resources Commission was transferred under the Department of Agriculture. And this section here, which would indicate that if the Red River Commission members have any reimbursable expenses, they would apply to, as the statute read, the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Well, now should it be the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, because that's what the Soil and Water Conservation Commission is now, or should it be the Department of Agriculture, because we do the administrative work under 9-10 for the commission. So if someone's going to pay their reimbursable expenses, it really would be the department. So is the
Speaker 52
2:31:56
Natural Resource Commission in the Department of Agriculture?
Speaker 213
2:32:00
That's correct. But do they handle any kind of reimbursable expenses? Historically, even though
Speaker 479
2:32:07
the statute said proper application to them, that commission never voted on those expenses. it was always administratively handled by staff, and that's the way it would be handled now. Okay.
Speaker 113
2:32:46
I don't know what was in the background. It's not necessarily a reason for
Speaker 309
2:32:56
it now. I don't know. I don't know if it's a case like this. Some of
Speaker 242
2:33:01
the law members are in this committee to come and come. Except for the legislative body, I don't know. I think it will. Question, another comment?
Speaker 489
2:33:46
Here's the board right here. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 62
2:34:02
hanging in there, Bob. I appreciate it,
Speaker 226
2:34:08
mean, it is. The first thing to go through
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Approval of the Minutes of September 17, 2019 meeting – Exhibit B
C. ACT 910 Issues for THE ARKANSAS CODE REVISION COMMISSION – Exhibit C -The Department Transformation and Shared Services (Exhibit C-2) -The Department of Agriculture (Exhibit C-3)
D. Other Business
E. Report of Code Revisor
F. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CODE REVISION COMMISSION (1-4:30PM), Aug 18, 2020 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 3
Speaker 7
Speaker 9
Speaker 11
Speaker 14
Speaker 20
Speaker 31
Speaker 32
Speaker 33
Speaker 45
Speaker 5
Speaker 50
Speaker 52
Speaker 55
Speaker 57
Speaker 61
Speaker 63
Speaker 70
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 80
Speaker 84
Speaker 85
Speaker 106
Speaker 113
Speaker 18
Speaker 124
Speaker 127
Speaker 132
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 96
Speaker 152
Speaker 17
Speaker 158
Speaker 161
Speaker 135
Speaker 167
Speaker 169
Speaker 189
Speaker 66
Speaker 192
Speaker 193
Speaker 194
Speaker 196
Speaker 195
Speaker 207
Speaker 215
Speaker 174
Speaker 100
Speaker 230
Speaker 164
Speaker 228
Speaker 157
Speaker 51
Speaker 2
Speaker 246
Speaker 249
Speaker 253
Speaker 6
Speaker 35
Speaker 264
Speaker 270
Speaker 272
Speaker 280
Speaker 176
Speaker 213
Speaker 298
Speaker 140
Speaker 304
Speaker 289
Speaker 314
Speaker 46
Speaker 324
Speaker 267
Speaker 252
Speaker 58
Speaker 282
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 286
Speaker 242
Speaker 12
Speaker 344
Speaker 198
Speaker 350
Speaker 91
Speaker 173
Speaker 136
Speaker 138
Speaker 360
Speaker 186
Speaker 326
Speaker 263
Speaker 48
Speaker 129
Speaker 368
Speaker 381
Speaker 131
Speaker 47
Speaker 107
Speaker 16
Speaker 391
Speaker 338
Speaker 334
Speaker 413
Speaker 352
Speaker 160
Speaker 423
Speaker 424
Speaker 109
Speaker 254
Speaker 256
Speaker 433
Speaker 434
Speaker 435
Speaker 448
Speaker 294
Speaker 450
Speaker 117
Speaker 182
Speaker 458
Speaker 130
Speaker 462
Speaker 89
Speaker 403
Speaker 471
Speaker 463
Speaker 444
Speaker 358
Speaker 479
Speaker 231
Speaker 309
Speaker 489
Speaker 105
Speaker 62
Speaker 490
Speaker 226
Speaker 491