Occupational Licensure Reform Sustainability Group
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 4
3:00
okay everybody will find a seat we'll get started here in just a minute
Okay. Thank everybody for coming today, and we'll call the meeting to order. Appreciate everybody being here. We have a stand-in for Mr. Brad and I at the AG's office. Would you introduce yourself, please? Lacey Kirchner. Okay. I think it's a great place.
Speaker 12
4:00
and we have a sign-in sheet if anybody hadn't signed in while I
Speaker 4
4:09
have it here at the desk okay first item is to approve the September 22nd 2020 minutes do I hear a motion to approve the minutes please and second all in favor say aye
motion's carried item c is occupational licensing advisory group olag update mr greg crow yeah that'll be fine Mr. Chair, do you have anything to say? I didn't give you that opportunity. Okay, suits me. Okay, you're recognized, Mr. Crow, whenever you get ready.
Speaker 17
5:10
if it's appropriate mr chair i'm going to take this off to talk thank you thank you very much greg crow i'm with the conductors licensing board but in this position i'm a chair of the olag advisory group we've been working diligently this year through covid and everything else to try to uh get you all some information
Speaker 19
5:31
we uh let me find my notes apologize there we go so um we have submitted and always been uh emailed to y'all proposed changes in act
Speaker 17
5:45
90 the criminal background check that the uh olag is recommending again this is a recommendation to y'all y'all can reject it y'all could accept it y'all could modify it you could uh it is our recommendation uh the same thing uh and we also propose some proposed changes on the military Licensing Act 820. I'll be happy to plan on discussing those in a little bit of detail. I'll start, if it's appropriate, with the changes, proposed changes to Act 990. I know you've seen them, but we tried to make that. I want to thank Charles Thompson at the Department of Health for
taking the lead on drafting these changes. He's been dealing with this a lot at the Health Department and all the various licensing entities over there that are dealing with people who have what I call the unforgivable offenses, a list of 12 offenses that you just could not issue a license to. It did not matter if it was 40 years ago or what
Speaker 19
6:38
it was. You simply could not issue a license to, or registration for that matter. So that
Speaker 17
6:46
was the critical issue we were hearing pushback from
was on the unforgivable offenses found at 17-3-102E. So OLAG is suggesting, we think is a relatively easy, relatively uh elegant solution to that problem there's no doubt that those offenses listed in e are much more serious
Speaker 19
7:04
they are the most serious offenses in the criminal code and and certainly they need to be probably treated differently than just some other type of criminal offense but our suggestion is to modify the section um that would the that would allow a person applying
for a license to request a waiver from a board or commission for a license or a registration um even if
Speaker 17
7:29
they have those offenses uh the board of commission will use the same factors that are already listed in the statute the things they are to consider but the difference would be between the 12 offenses listed and the uh and all the rest of the offenses listed would be that the five-year look back which the the regular the first group has a five-year look back cap if it's if there's an offense listed there that the that is a disqualifying of but uh offense it but it's got
a five-year look back. So if the person
Speaker 19
7:57
was convicted 10 years ago, then you couldn't consider it, even though and that's
Speaker 17
8:03
fine. You couldn't consider it. But for the 12, instead of being absolutely positively disqualifying, we would suggest that for those 12, that the look back not count. That you can look back 20 years, 30 years, however whatever far. So if they've ever been convicted of first degree murder... Do you have
Speaker 4
8:21
do you say that you'd sent that in email?
Speaker 19
8:25
Yes, sir. It was a part of Anita's attachment. I do have a copy with me, but I didn't bring
Speaker 17
8:32
a bunch of copies. I apologize for that. If you'll look, Senator, at the major
Speaker 19
8:41
change, it is on page 3 of what Anita sent. E, the underline is what's been changed. It said, due to the serious nature of the offense, the following shall result. and
Speaker 17
8:52
it still says permanent. Maybe we need to take out that word permanent
or disqualification for licensure. But it says, then it says, regardless of the date of conviction or end of incarceration or date of which probation ends, unless a waiver is granted under subsection B. So they've still got the 12 offenses listed. They still get treated differently, but they don't, but
Speaker 19
9:11
not, they're not just completely disqualifying. A board of commission can consider the facts. Again, maybe it was something someone did when they were 17 years old. Well, right now they're waverable, right? Right now they're not waverable. Those 12 are not waverable.
Okay. But this would change it to where they would be possibly
Speaker 4
9:35
waverable. And then there's another section where the 12 are treated in a
Speaker 19
9:39
different way. No, I may be, okay. There's a section that lists 36 offenses, well, 35 and then a catch-all offenses. Those, although they do duplicate themselves, the 12 were included in that 35. I don't know why it was drafted that way, but anybody can figure it out.
It works. But those offenses, other than the 12, so you got 35 minus 12, that's 23 offenses that are listed, are waivable. You have to ask the board to waive, waive the Board of Commission, the licensing entity or registration entity, whatever that is, to waive. And then there's factors listed in B that the board commission entity is supposed to consider. That
Speaker 17
10:21
process seems to be working smoothly. I'm not hearing any pushback from applicants. I'm not hearing any pushback from boards' commissions.
But then the second section, listed in E, says it lists 12 offenses that, as it currently sits, just are not waivable. If you are guilty, and Senator, you may recall that when this was proposed, I came and talked to you about it, But the day he got
Speaker 19
10:47
introduced, an application crossed my desk for a guy who was found guilty, a second-degree murder, back 20 years ago. And he had been a perfect—best we could determine, doing a background—we don't do the full background checks.
We don't have the statutory authority, but we checked the best we could. Been a perfect citizen, got it, got out, learned construction while he was in prison. Now he's got a job. Now he's going out on his own, hiring people. And I did talk you into putting the grandfathering clause in there for someone like him because he was already going to have a license prior to this law going into effect. And I know there's been pushback from several other boards or commissions dealing with people who the offenses were a long time ago.
When you look at the big scheme of things, certainly there are people on here that you wouldn't want to give a license to. There's no two ways about it. This is not a, oh, you get a license automatically. There's absolutely a list of offenses on here, and it certainly depends on the circumstances. But our proposal is to do, because there has been a big pushback from several of the special, like Barber Board, I
Speaker 17
11:55
know it's in one. I don't know, Mr. Secretary, I think, has there been other ones besides the Barber Board speaking
Speaker 19
12:00
up? But I've got several different professions that spoke up that they're having a problem with this with people that,
And if you looked at it, I almost guarantee you would agree this person shouldn't be disqualified. The circumstances are. Should not be disqualified? I'm sorry. Should not be? Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 39
12:20
No, should get a license. I mean, there are lots of
Speaker 4
12:23
people who should. So the pushback is that the statute is too restrictive? Yes, sir. Okay. That wasn't what I was hearing to begin
Speaker 19
12:32
with. That's what I'm hearing. There may be on the other side.
I haven't personally heard, I don't know, Mr. Secretary, if you've heard anything on the other side saying it was not restrictive enough, but all the pushback I've got has been from some boards and commissions that have had individual cases, and certainly not across the board. I've had someone on this list that we told them no because they were on the list, and I'm 99% sure if they could have asked for a waiver, they wouldn't have got one. their circumstances did not justify it well it's still under
Speaker 4
13:08
the ones that are waiverable is still under control of the board when they when they deal with the circumstance I'd like to hear from the AG's office on that because a lot of this background and the bill itself was so would you speak to whatever you'd like to in connection with this thank you So first of
Speaker 47
13:32
all, I want to make a point of clarification, if I may.
The actual first list of offenses, as far as the five-year look back, that only applies for nonviolent and nonsexual offenses. So even these offenses would not have the five-year look back. So if that's the idea is to be able to have them waverable, would it not possibly maybe, and I'm just asking this partly from a standpoint that I helped actually draft some of this language and so I just want to help understand too if the idea is to not have some permanently
disqualified offenses maybe would we want to just consider getting rid of e altogether since these are already
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
14:20
listed in a no and no no I don't support getting I understand that there's that But I just,
Speaker 47
14:31
I'm sorry. I don't mean to, I don't want to say what anybody says. I'm asking based on the suggestion, not on my idea of whether
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
14:40
or not to keep. It's this suggestion is repetitive of what's already there.
If you do it, if the language were to go this way, that's, it's already there. If you don't currently
Speaker 47
14:53
disqualify these 12 offenses, regardless of the date of conviction, they would still require a waiver because of the five-year look-back language. That's the only reason I said if you got rid of E altogether. In that suggestion, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that one.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
15:11
It's just with the way the language is proposed, it's repetitive of what's already in A and C.
Speaker 55
15:18
Is part of the issue the word permanent? Yes, sir. That's because,
Speaker 19
15:23
again, you've got someone who, and again, that may be your intention, and that's fine. We're making a suggestion, and whatever y'all do is what y'all do. But you've got someone who has someone, one of the
Speaker 17
15:35
12, and it may have been something they did literally 30 years ago when they were a teenager, and you look at their life since then and it just doesn't make sense to say you can't have any type of registration,
you can't have any type of license whatsoever at all. And so that was,
Speaker 21
15:54
it was the permanent aspect of it, yes, sir, that was the problem. So has that
Speaker 38
16:00
been interpreted as the word permanent means that the board cannot ever allow a waiver for
Speaker 59
16:10
don't apologize, ma'am, I forgot your name. Lacey. Lacey? Lacey's question.
Speaker 17
16:15
We did look at possibilities eliminating E, but we wanted those 12 to be specific that were being treated different.
I realize some of the, I don't know if I didn't do a deep dive analysis to see if those were the only ones that were violent or sexual. There might be something else in there that wouldn't have the five-year look back. But those 12 certainly are on the list, the most serious 12. and we wanted specifically to make it very clear those were being
Speaker 19
16:44
treated differently than the rest of them on the list. We thought that was an appropriate list of 12. We're trying to deal with those rare,
probably rare circumstances where someone should be wavering. I think
Speaker 17
16:58
if you looked at it as a, if y'all were the group looking at it, you would probably agree that on certain cases, not certainly not all but on certain cases that this person should not be permanently disqualified i understand thank you
Speaker 47
17:14
and mr chair that's all of our thoughts on that matter as far as from the ag's office just the
concern of it being repetitive of what's already in the language was our only concern okay
Speaker 69
17:52
um representative okay some circumstances may be you know different with with someone but my my concern on the list
well my question for it is for these sexual offenses will will there be limitations on on license for them to go and work in certain areas my understanding this is
Speaker 63
18:14
not my area of expertise my understanding is certainly you know there's already some things about like not going
Speaker 17
18:21
on a school grounds and things like that that just apply to all sexual offenders doesn't matter if you have a license don't have a license whatever some licensing boards may have the authority to restrict something like that
I can tell you whether you know that I'm aware of a few cases where a board has issued a license to someone with a sexual offense that said you had to just tell them as a condition of licensure you have to disclose this to all your customers not just be on the sexual offender list But whether that was constitutional, I don't know. I'll leave that up to the AG's office. But most, to be honest with you, I don't believe most boards probably have in their statutes anything specific that would allow that type of thing.
We could maybe throw something into this statute to allow boards to restrict licenses based on the type of events. I certainly, that's reasonable. I would probably turn to the AG's office to draft that language
Speaker 59
19:20
because that's outside my area of expertise, but
Speaker 69
19:26
that certainly makes sense. Well, I'm, yeah, sure, go ahead. True, they don't have, they don't supposed to be in certain areas, schools, daycares, and so on.
My concern with it is with all the restrictions that they have, I think there needs to be some kind of safeguard for the public, that if you have the license and you are a registered sex offender and i believe that that you know people make mistakes and people need jobs but if someone came into my home around my family with that background licensed by the state and i learned it later that that happened i would
have a problem with that so i i would i would suggest that there be uh when it comes to the sexual offenses because once you become a sexual offender at that point there's other sets of laws that don't apply to other felonies that you must abide by yes and i i think that should be a protection put in there dealing specifically with those who are sex offenders i'm just talking and
Speaker 19
20:36
thinking at the same time which is usually a very dangerous thing to do um i would
assume working with the ag's office we could come up with some type of language that that required slash authorized whatever uh boards to to do and
Speaker 17
20:51
off the top of my head my thought is they have to disclose it to you know something like a sexual offender uh if you have a license they're disclosed to your client but um and of course not all i'm assuming not all professions probably come in contact with individuals very much but some of them i don't know i'm just trying to think across them sorry across the spectrum of uh of types of licensed people uh obviously an electrician is
going to be coming into your house a plumber is going to be coming into your house a real estate person is going to be coming into
Speaker 19
21:22
your house uh so probably is a whole lot of the licensed type people um i must i would think we could come up
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
21:37
with some language that would meet those concerns Representative Greg. Oh, thank you. I think my, I just want to kind of clarify my reaction over here, if that's okay. My thing was the difference I see in those two sections is that five-year look back.
And if we eliminated E and moved those up to section, whatever section that was in, A, that would put them in a five-year look back. And I think they should have an unlimited look back. So if there was a way to incorporate it into A, but it still had an unlimited amount of look-back, then I would be fine. So that was my thing, is I don't want the look-back to apply to those particular 12 crimes. So that's all. That's just a comment. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 80
22:19
Director Bissett, Secretary Bissett. Yes. Two comments. First of
Speaker 82
22:24
all, respecting all of the comments that have been made, I think I'm not really in favor of us putting a lot of new legislation out and allowing the board to do more than what the boards are asking to do right now. All they're asking for is the ability to grant a waiver based on individual circumstances.
I think when we look at E, the most contentious part of E is the word permanent. I think if we eliminate the word permanent and find a way to, which is there, the language is there, to allow the board to grant a waiver, whether it's a five-year look back or an indefinite look back, but to give the board an opportunity on a case-by-case basis to look at this person's
history and decide whether or not they should be granted a license, that's what the boards are looking for. Now, in no way does granting them a license supplant regulations that are already in place for, for example, sexual offenders. There's a whole body of legislation that prohibits them from doing this or that. All we're talking about here is giving them a license. Now, once they've got the license, they're still going to have to be subjected
to whatever other prohibitions already exist. So I don't know if I'm in favor of us creating a whole new body of language behind this particular instance. Just giving the board an opportunity to grant a waiver on a case-by-case basis, that's what they're
Speaker 4
24:16
looking for. and and what you're saying would change the reading of it the following shall result in disqualification and that would clear up the confusion with the boards that whether it's
permanent or not and whether they have the authority
Speaker 80
24:30
to do that or not absolutely and leave e as it is we don't eliminate e
Speaker 82
24:35
we keep them i know i understand the duplicity the apparent duplicity here but leave it where it is uh and uh still allow unlimited look back because i mean if we don't allow unlimited look back then i know the boards don't want the unlimited look back they want to try to shrink that but i think you know if someone has a capital murder offense on their
record we should be able to look back indefinitely at their past uh and if the board still wants to grant a waiver i think they should have the ability to grant a waiver but i don't think we should restrict our ability to look back uh into the history of
Speaker 4
25:16
these individuals well when you look at the history of crimes a lot of those are repetitive crimes and if you can't look back beyond the most serious one then you might miss the pattern to begin with
Speaker 47
25:39
I could just one more to address Representative Gray's concern sorry about that I agree on the unlimited look back I just wanted to point out that C actually does specify that unless it's a non-violent or non-sexual offense that five-year look back doesn't apply it is unlimited for offenses that are non-sexual
or for offenses that are sexual or violent so i just wanted to make that clarification so
Speaker 82
26:19
we're looking at one word uh all of the boards that i've i've talked to and i've talked to numerous uh the only issue here uh is one word and that's permanent they're just wanting the ability to on a case-by-case basis uh award a waiver and uh i think you know we shouldn't make
our job any harder than it already is uh just a removal of the word permanent and the granting of them, you know, granting them with the ability to do a waiver will get us where we need
Speaker 15
26:56
to be. Any of the committee? Go ahead, Senator. How
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
27:08
many people have applied for a license with these 12 offenses?
Speaker 17
27:13
And how many people would have been affected? I know that Mr. Secretary Passat probably has some from his. I
Speaker 19
27:22
don't know if he's got the actual numbers or just feedback. I know my board, we've
Speaker 17
27:28
had three, I think, that got disqualified because of this language. And I'm not sure. This law went into effect a year and three
Speaker 19
27:35
months ago or so. So, you know, four months ago, a year and four months ago. Second.
Speaker 82
27:43
One. One issue, if I may, Mr. Chairman, we've created some schools, training sessions in the prisons. It was brought to my attention just last week for barbers. That would make each of those 125 individuals that are now in school learning to be barbers at Tucker and Cummins ineligible. and so that was just brought to my attention and so that's you know that's going to impact
these individuals uh and so we're um just this anecdotal uh evidence representative gray thank you
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
28:30
just one one quick point of clarification to follow up to i'm not sure who who responded to me earlier because i was still reading i'm lisa Lacey, okay. Where it says not convicted for committing a violent or sexual offense, I don't have the statutes for those 12 in front of me.
Like, does arson, is it considered a violent or sexual offense? Or, like, I'm not sure. Like, is kidnapping a violent offense? I just want to make sure that if we did, for whatever reason, move this, that those all 12 are included in that pay. I guess that's kind of what it is. Kidnapping was? Kidnapping is down in these 12. and the exclusions for that five-year look-back are for violent or sexual offense, but I just wanted to make sure that all 12 of those did fall into violent or sexual offense just on the chance that we do move this.
Speaker 77
29:17
So that's just kind of a comment and a question kind of at the same
Speaker 75
29:23
time. Senator. Yeah, thank you. If I might. Go ahead. I had, Representative Gray, I had the same question. I'm
Speaker 17
29:29
just looking at the list. Endangering the welfare of an incompetent. That might be through a sexual act, but it might not be. And it might not be through a violent act. So one of the reasons we wanted just to treat these 12 more serious offenses is make it real clear, these 12 don't have
Speaker 19
29:45
a five-year look back. It's forever. But again, it's up to you all.
Speaker 4
29:49
We're just making suggestions. Is the committee comfortable with just recommending striking that word, or does that still give anybody heartburn? I have
Speaker 102
30:07
a question. So if you're talking about just striking the word permanent and then not putting in this additional language or keeping in the additional language.
Speaker 17
30:20
I don't think it would solve the problem without putting the additional. I do agree the word permanent needs to be struck 100%. It should have been drafted that way. But I think I really want the extra language that makes it real clear that these 12 don't have a five-year look back. There won't be any question that there's an unlimited look back on those
Speaker 40
30:37
12. Okay. That's my recommendation, but y'all do it. No, I'm good on the look back part.
Speaker 102
30:42
I'm just making sure that we're keeping in unless a waiver is granted. And I think that if you have the unless a waiver is granted, you could even keep in the word permanent.
Speaker 84
30:52
We want to keep the waiver in. Yes. And
Speaker 102
30:56
I think maybe that's where I'm getting confused because I think you have to keep the waiver in, and i think that even keeping the word permanent in otherwise you may even get into issues with some of these boards and commissions going well which which disqualification is this because then it's basically the same as the initial 35 i may be
Speaker 17
31:18
missing something but we talked about going back into the original 35 and striking these 12 but we were trying to keep the changes
Speaker 75
31:26
to a minimum. Maybe that wasn't a good idea,
Speaker 19
31:29
another concept. I do agree. And the AG's office can answer why they drafted them with both. But anyway,
Speaker 17
31:37
I would think a reasonable statutory interpretation would be, if you're on the 12, if this change was made with our suggestions, that there is on those 12, regardless of the other language, I think, in C, that there is no, that they're treated differently than just because on the first list but it might be expeditious to modify the original 35 to to delete these
offenses i don't know either way works i think i was
Speaker 102
32:07
just making sure that we were leaving that underlined language in here even if you take out the
Speaker 82
32:20
word permanent i sure would hope so okay can you okay secretary beset yes mr chairman we i i like that we've bifurcated this and that we have them in separate places. I think it's important that we designate that these 12 are being treated differently. I think it's important that we have them there.
I understand the apparent, as I said before, the apparent duplicity, but they are separated for a reason. And they're separated because what we want to do is we want to demonstrate that they, like the others are under the same regulation but if a waiver is granted then we can get them a license that's why i think we need to keep them there keep them separated i think that that sends a message that's what we're trying to communicate or should be i
Speaker 4
33:12
think what i'm seeing from the
committee is that uh this probably just needs to be put in writing for everybody at the next meeting and for a final look at it and I think we're going to have one more meeting possibly for the report to the governor right buddy yeah
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
33:46
this is to the to the secretary you mentioned just a while ago i want to follow up on something about you had 126 individuals who are in barber school right now training are they going to fall under this and just getting false hope before they get out because if they are that's not fair to them they should be trying to beat another skill I'm not, I wasn't being heard.
Speaker 82
34:32
I'm sorry I didn't have a mic on. no uh absolutely if we if we're going to uh do this then we need to inform them out of all fairness that it's an unrealistic unrealistic expectation that they're going to be a barber we need to tell them that and so i i don't want to do that uh or issue that kind of edict unless we if we if we've got relief coming down the line i don't want to do that but if we're if we're to go this direction yes in all fairness yes we should inform them that was really the intent of
Speaker 65
35:08
the legislation to begin with that was what the legislation
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
35:11
said last last year when some of that was presented and passed that it was supposed to be notified to these places that if they were that they would possibly not be able to do that
Speaker 82
35:24
well well they were and so what we what we what we have now though is we have the continuation of some programs even after that legislation and so we need to start cutting some of these things off some of these initiatives off we can't just
we just can't keep having programs started down there that where they're not going to get any relief and that's i think that's the point and that's the point that the uh the senator that brought this to my attention was was making at some point secretary you're going to have to tell them to stop all of these the electrical programs the barber programs the whole set of programs that are now down there they're training these individuals we're going to have to stop that because they're not going to be able to get a license
Speaker 117
36:13
mr awesome thank you mr chair i've got a comment and then one question for mr crow the comment is with regard two conditions there's been times when i thought it would be good to put conditions on a license and when commissioners have wanted to put conditions on a license the one of the most difficult things for a director over an administrative agency is making sure that decisions that are rendered are consistent among the population and that's not only with a
particular commission but that might be a commission that renders a decision today 10 years from now you may have a complete set of different commissioners but the decision for the agency needs to be consistently applied allowing the administrative agency to issue conditions and make that more difficult and with the under the department level i would think that there even needs to be some consistency among boards and commissions at the department level
so that's my comment on that my question greg and uh this is something that we have talked about before last page g and i know you know where i'm going and maybe lacy can help us clear up the intent uh last line does not apply to an individual who holds a valid license on july 24 2019 i think we know the intent of that if they've already got a license their grandfather then
the question is what if they hold a license on july 24 2019 that license expires or lapses and then they come back and they want to reinstate or get a new license does this act apply even though they've held a license before will this they fall under the provisions of this act i'm probably going
Speaker 75
38:16
to punt this well i'll try to answer it best i can then
Speaker 19
38:20
i'm going to ask lacy to that there that's the office of the ag's office my interpretation of this has been
that if you had a valid license on July 24th, 19, then you let it lapse in October of 19 and apply to get it back in November of 19, you had a valid license on July 24th, and you didn't have to go through this process. My agency is not represented by the AG's office, so they may be taking a different position, and I probably better know that. On the other hand, you've got someone whose license lapsed July 1,
uh and then they of 19 and so come july 24th they didn't have a valid license um then they're trying to get it back on october 1 of 19 um and my interpretation of the statute would be to that person it does apply and they would have to go through the process but i will certainly listen to the ag's office and do whatever they tell us we're supposed to be doing What's the leniency
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
39:21
on the expired license? I know everybody, if it goes out on October 1st, there's usually a little bit of leniency there.
Speaker 75
39:29
Every agency is different, is my experience. And the wording is very different.
Speaker 17
39:34
For my agency, for example, if you have an application on file, you get quite a bit of time to get it complete. You never go without a license. We also have a two-year rule where you can, irrespective of this issue,
Speaker 19
39:50
where any time within that two years, you're just renewing it. You did go without a license technically for a while, but you can renew it real simple.
And then the legislature passed an act a few years ago that said even that
Speaker 17
40:07
if you used to have a license, you'd basically get to come back. And so our two-year rule almost doesn't even make sense anymore because, again, you could have gone five years. But different agencies may automatically extend licenses different ways, different language. So I don't think there's any consistency among the statutes on how much time they have. That's my question. So, you
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
40:30
know, if somebody really wanted a license back and they had this issue, what's the legality of it?
If there's no real, I guess, answer to what the leniency are and they're all different, So is there a lawsuit to
Speaker 129
40:50
possibly? I would turn that to the AG's office. Well, I'll be honest
Speaker 47
40:55
with you. A lot of this has been addressed individually per the individual boards and commissions because of the way that their rules and laws are set up.
Each one of them does, as Mr. Crowe said, they define valid in a different way.
So, I mean, unfortunately, there's not an across-the-board answer to that. I mean, because some of my boards I represent, they do have, you know, an extended time. Your license expires July 30th, but you can pay late fees and everything for the next year to renew your license. So there's not an across-the-board answer to that one, unfortunately. And it may be something, too, that possibly we might need to look at adjusting to make it more unified across the board to address that issue.
I know it has come up a couple of different times. I've heard from some of our clients that that has come up as an issue on, well, how do we look at it? And a lot of the times we say we've got to look at how your statute's written and how your rules are written to interpret what you see as a valid license per that board or commission. I do know that
Speaker 17
42:01
the intention of Senator Cooper, I don't want to speak with Senator Cooper, but I talked to, you had this put in after I approached you on this issue.
So I was intimately involved in getting what I call the grandfather clause, but I didn't mean to cause problems. And invariably, we were working quickly. It was toward the end of the
Speaker 19
42:17
session. We were working very quickly. I do know the intention basically was you've got someone who's had a license for 30 years, but they do have, not just on this list, not only just a list of 12 they're just on the list of the 35 uh we're going to have to go back and re-qualify you and make you uh uh make you go through this whole process even though you've had a license for the last 35 years and that was the intention was not to make those people have
to go through the process again now then you get into the then you get into the gray areas where some especially if someone doesn't let their license
Speaker 59
42:51
lapse there won't be a problem but when And
Speaker 82
42:57
when they do let their license lapse is where potential problems arise. Let me talk practical here. Let me give you the instructions I'm giving to people that are calling me. I'm telling them that the July 24th date is clear. It simply says if an individual holds, the individual has to have a valid license on July 24th.
i'm telling the people that are talking to me that if someone has their application in prior to july 24th and it's an administrative reason that they go past the 24th before you grant that license then that individual can get a license that individual applies that's their license lapse and it's after july 24th it's black and white to me there are no extensions uh we're We're looking at this, I'm looking at this as black and white, and it's clear.
It simply says if you don't have a valid license
Speaker 111
43:57
on July 24, 2019, you don't have a license. Now,
Speaker 82
44:04
I would ask for suggestions from this group if I'm being too draconian, but that's the suggestion that i'm giving uh to my people that are calling in and i know it's unfortunate because then you get into a question of notice well did they have notice yes they did
i mean we sent out notices everyone knows uh or or at least the licensees knew about the july 24th date so um but then we do we'll have questions about notice but that's where we're handling it practically so that
Speaker 4
44:40
that puts it pretty much as a as a legal definition uh if they're if something was wrong with their license because of non-payment or something else that license wasn't valid at that time if
Speaker 82
44:53
it's if it's in if it's administrative hold up yeah if their application got in before
the 24th and we are administratively having to deal with it but if
Speaker 4
45:06
they let it lapse if they let it lapse it's gone yeah yeah it's gone that's that's probably a safe approach from the from
Speaker 102
45:17
the legal standpoint on it wouldn't you think okay i have a question on that so let's say they let it lapse under i agree that the way it reads you can't i mean you'd have to then jump through all these hoops again um possibility that all these hoops were jumped through the first time
they got their license. Was there ever any discussion to state, does not apply to an individual who held a valid license, use out the word valid or whatever, take out that word, who held a valid license on or before July 24th, 2019, to deal with those that possibly lapsed for they could have been sick, there could have been reasons that they lapsed, or was there an oaf why that date was put in there because you had a person kind of on the cusp but is there any
concern with putting something in there that says who held a valid license on or before July 24th 2019? I can tell you that when I approached Senator
Speaker 63
46:17
Cooper about this back during the session all I asked for was a
Speaker 17
46:21
grandfathering clause so you didn't go you know getting whether it was this new person that made it come to mind whether it was someone who had a license for 35 years i had i had nothing to do with the draft of the exact language
Speaker 19
46:33
um and i wouldn't have objected if it had been drafted the way you're suggesting also i'll punt that question to the ag's office
if they have an issue with like on or before so if you ever i guess at that point you would interpret it to be if i ever had a medical license uh even though i maybe let it go in uh you know in 17 then uh since i had a medical license in 17 i wouldn't be going through this if i I tried to get
Speaker 63
46:57
it back today. Is that on or before? Is that what, you know, I didn't know if there was any of that.
Speaker 116
47:11
That's why that's similar. No, certainly not with me. Okay. Okay. Specific instance.
Speaker 82
47:27
There was a barber who fell into this circumstance, called the legislator, told the legislator that he had missed the July 24th date. He had a second-degree murder conviction, had been a barber for 20-some years,
a respected member of the community for all that we know from the legislator, and that he found himself in this predicament. and I was asked is there what kind of relief could we offer him there is no relief he knew that he was supposed to get his application in by July 24 he had been informed now
I leave it to you to decide if you want to put additional language in that would cover that kind of circumstance but those are real life situations I'm not arguing for or against but if you know that there is a deadline and we can demonstrate that you've been notified that there was a deadline and you missed the deadline then you've missed the deadline I'm sorry
Speaker 102
48:55
the new language in that July 24th day it's not going to matter anymore
Speaker 75
49:02
I'm not going to say it wouldn't matter you still have to go
Speaker 17
49:06
through the process as it is now so someone who missed it can't even go through the process so this barber who led his license lapse in
Speaker 63
49:15
June he's out and can never get back under this language he didn't just automatically get it back
But there is a road. If you change the language the way we're suggesting, he has a road to redemption. Okay.
Speaker 102
49:29
Right. So we could leave the language in G as is if we add the language in E that would then allow that person who had a license for 20 years to now have a path to licensure. Yes, ma'am. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 4
49:49
so do I hear anything from the committee
on the approach to this Betty do you want to incorporate the suggested language or get with the parties that have been key to this discussion in Agee's office and Secretary Bissett to draft that language maybe for the recommended for the next meeting?
Speaker 145
50:28
So I have a little question. So what we've done, we took the
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
50:32
authority away from a lot of these groups to make those decisions of leniency. Now we're going to give it back? Is that kind of what we're talking? No. We're not going to give them an option If somebody does, has been there 20 years, and they've made a mistake, but we're going to give them that option to judge that differently. You will be giving the
Speaker 75
50:55
board or commission or entity the option of granting a
Speaker 19
51:01
license, while under current language, they do not have an option.
Speaker 4
51:05
There was a lot of reluctance on the part of the boards and commissions, because the language is so unclear. sometimes they didn't know whether they could or not and so they wouldn't wait off into that because they were afraid that they would be exceeding their authority so that was a major approach to this legislation when it was originally being drafted and to give the boards and commissions
clear direction which they did not have before this legislation buddy
Speaker 147
51:54
thank you mr chairman i've one suggestion uh listen to the debate i'm
Speaker 148
52:00
not sure what changes have been suggested in this draft uh was there in in section e striking the word permanent was that was that discussed yes and
it's already stricken in uh section g so that that so so really the only the only suggestion that i've heard is striking the word permanent in section e otherwise the the draft is suitable but you know but again if you know one approach would be for the for the working group to approve this draft and then incorporate this draft into the report to the
governor and then that report would be subject to approval by the committee it's the next meeting so it might be in order to uh for someone to move the uh the document be amended to delete the word permanent in section e let the let the working group approve that motion and then another motion to adopt the draft for inclusion into into a final report yeah we we could vote
Speaker 38
53:30
on that today and to do it that way if uh if anybody wants to make a
Speaker 82
53:35
motion mr chairman mr chairman before we move that uh in addition to the deletion of the word permanent we're talking about including the additional language there that grants the waiver without that language we're it's not possible we need to include that language right but it might but
Speaker 148
53:53
that language is included in the in the draft correct correct right so the only change to the language in
the draft as presented would be deleting that one word which would be an amendment to the to the draft
Speaker 40
54:13
what mr johnson is proposing is yes the additional language would remain the draft would be 100
Speaker 17
54:21
the same well 99 the same striking the word permanent so the addition to the to what we have drafted uh you would strike the word permanent and he
Speaker 117
54:32
okay Mr. Russell just on the other issue as Karen suggested maybe there would be a rationale to change the word holds a license to held a license thank you
Speaker 75
55:13
obviously when g was drafted there was it was a date in the future originally and then
Speaker 155
55:18
it's past tense now and it's now a date in the past so representative gray thank you mr
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
55:31
chair i thought i heard someone just say honor before
held honor before and that completely changes that language in my head because i could have had one in 1970 and that grandfathered me in but i hadn't had it in 30 years so i would suggest not adding or before that's my comment
Speaker 82
56:04
thank you okay we want to make sure that they were good on july 24th okay they were good on july 24th
Speaker 102
56:11
all right but under the new language they still can now go and get a waiver even if they weren't good on july 24th
Speaker 75
56:31
yeah absolutely correct let's get it on paper would you like OLAG to make these changes and bring it back to
Speaker 4
56:37
you yeah why don't you put it on writing and send it to us
Speaker 75
56:41
I'll get it to Anita early next week and then we'll have it in a form
Speaker 38
56:46
to be approved at the December meeting okay just to clarify
Speaker 75
56:54
I think what we're wanting to do on G is change it to who held the valid license is that what I understand
Speaker 38
57:13
Adam C if not uh thank you moving to d i would like
Speaker 75
57:24
to uh on the military i'd like to call up uh don barry please okay mr barry you recognized when
Speaker 4
57:31
you get ready and state your name for the record please don barry with
Speaker 163
57:40
arkansas veterans coalition okay if i could make a few introductory remarks i'm
Speaker 19
57:48
turn over to don because he was the primary author of this but the first and most important change that we realized we
Speaker 17
57:57
needed to make was the substantially equivalent language which was causing all kinds of problems at dod certainly not intended problems i don't think the way any arkansas border commission was interpreting that language was the way dod thought we were interpreting it
Speaker 19
58:10
but to clarify that and make them happy that's one of the main things we were doing don has suggested numerous other changes uh we worked within the committee and we thought they
were good changes um there was some language deleted by act 820 that we thought needed don and i agree both agreed the whole committee agreed to come back and don did an excellent job at his draft of putting the explanations of what they were changing along as you go but at that
Speaker 165
58:41
point i will turn it over to mr barry Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 166
58:44
Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak on behalf of, I use it, the rework amendment again of 17.1.106,
which ironically the change, the substantially equivalent language actually was in the DOD model language that they gave the National Governors Association in 2014 that came to Arkansas that went and gotten in print so that DOD turns around three years later, four years later, and has an issue with substantially equivalent. Well, those are their words. So we're now in the process of resolving that, and I think that this will take this way. The perspective that we had in Arkansas, generally perspective,
was that when we used the term substantially equivalent, we were talking about the scope of practice. And I think we probably had to steer at a gray wall to get people to convince of that. but that was really clearly what we believed was is that we were trying to compare apples to apples and we were not talking about the preparatory steps. So the suggested language there for the first element that we needed to address in amending 17.1.106 in subsection B is language that actually now
and earlier this year, Louisiana adopted similar language. A number of our neighbor states were watching the issues that Arkansas was going through, dealing with substantially equivalent language, and they adopted language that related it to the scope of practice of the occupation. So that's the direction that we were recommending there as the first element to take that. And there are a number of other provisions that I wanted to cover, but I wanted, before I roll off of that one, I wanted to make sure that we were clear as to what the intent was.
I didn't have a direct conversation with Brad and I on this but this was something that we talked about and recognized that while we in Arkansas had a perspective of it what we meant it was being interpreted other places a different way so I think that the new language addresses that and really puts it clear that we're talking about the scope of practice but Mr. Chair if there was any questions on that issue I'd like to be able to address
Speaker 4
1:01:02
them. Okay. Anyone want to speak to it?
Speaker 38
1:01:08
AG's office is on board with the way he
Speaker 166
1:01:16
just stated? We are. Okay. Going forward, SB 564 became Act 820 inadvertently took out some provisions that were permanently, that were in from the 2015 legislation that, again, was DOD initiative to call for a number of provisions, consideration of military training and experience when making their initial licensure,
holding expiration of a license until 180 days after the deployment was complete, and a full or partial credit for continuing
Speaker 166
1:01:59
deployed. Those provisions fell out of the statute. There are a number of our license entities that actually have that language still today in their rules.
So right now we have rules out there that aren't underpinned by statutes. So that's one of the reasons why we brought it back in there. Those provisions are incorporated in the draft in some of the subsequent chapters. There's justification after each one of those insertions so I could explain that. In some cases, language has changed since 2014, and we wrote those provisions a little bit differently. but all of our intent there was to bring those passages back into statute
to assist the boards and commissions who were using those provisions right now. During the passage of the Senate bill, there was never any discussion as to what we were repealing and why we were repealing it. It was always, as we can remember, we were late in the session and we were moving pretty fast at that point in time, and the focus was on the automatic licensure provision at that point in time. Are there any questions on that or what we're intending to add
or the language that's associated with it? Secretary Bissett? Mr. Berry, first
Speaker 82
1:03:26
of all, I commend you for everything that you've done. You've done just a tremendous amount of work, but just a point of clarification here, not a contentious statement at all. When you say active duty as opposed to uniform, what's the distinction there? I mean, we're trying to extend. Sure. Talk to me about that. I wanted to come back to that. If you
Speaker 165
1:03:47
would, that would be my next point that I wanted to talk about.
Again, DOD language came out, was
Speaker 166
1:03:53
seeking the provision for active duty service members and spouses. They also add veterans to that because they always tag the two into there. Actually, the military spouses were the highest priority for them. But it was focused on active duty. DOD's concern was on active duty. The Arkansas Veterans Coalition has, since 2017, sought ways to make sure that we did not leave behind
a number of elements of our uniformed services. When we say active duty military, we leave public health service, we leave NOAA, and we leave the Guard and Reserve behind. And given the orientation of Arkansas towards building our workforce, especially in the case of the Guard and Reserve, the vision that we had in our mind was a guardsman in Colorado and a spouse, a guardsman is an engineer, spouse is a pharmacist, and they would see a job opportunity in Arkansas that we would facilitate their licensure for their provisions to be able to move them into Arkansas and take on to the workforce.
Right now, today, they're not covered by the statute. And they were not covered previously by the statute. By checking at most of our other neighbors and other states, they're stuck in the DOD active duty military perspective. So Arkansas would be unique in addressing this from a uniform service perspective as far as what's the impact to our licensing agencies who are going to be facing a big influx, perhaps.
Again, it only relates to those people who are seeking a license or a new license moving into the states. So this is when you advertise and say that Arkansas is open, this is what you get. And this is an opportunity that we have, again, to showcase how we're different because we're addressing this from a uniform services perspective. It addresses the active duty military, all of the military components, which now includes the Space Force, Public Health Service, NOAA, and the reserve components.
There is the Federal Reserve as well as the National Guard for each state. Did that
Speaker 152
1:06:12
answer your question, sir? Absolutely. Thank you very much. Go ahead.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:06:21
Just to add on what you're saying there, I agree 100% on this. just so the committee here will know the military faces the writing of this information on how they grade our bases you know whether one two three four five how we rank on it these are the
recommendations that they want because arkansas has such a good ranking and this right here will help solidify the bases we have that backs up to my district that i really want
Speaker 166
1:06:55
to keep there As well, not only in your district, but in West Arkansas as well, too, very much so, especially because it's very guard-centric and the mission expansion in Ebbing, Fort Smith, we have seen a significant influx in military families to Arkansas over the last two years
because of the mission change with the 188. So this provision here would be a hand-in-hand in working that to an advantage. the other thing that i we added was a provision military members often have what we call either unaccompanied or remote assignment separate from the family normally speaking the family stays behind where they were stationed and the member goes forward but oftentimes for other reasons
they move forward to the next projected duty station. The way the statute is written, it only covered provisions if the service member was stationed in Arkansas. Well, if they're stationed in some other location in the world, then it wouldn't apply to them. We could eliminate the words stationed in Arkansas, and that would solve that problem, but it's a marketing perspective that if we leave Arkansas in there, but then we put a provision in saying that a spouse can separate it from the family,
or the family and the spouse separated from the service member due to an assignment to a non-duty location is an opportunity. Again, when people pull up this legislation in CSL, they're going to see that Arkansas is very specifically addressing those separate military families. So it's not adding anything more than we would be able to add We just struck a station in the state of Arkansas from it. So from a simplistically standpoint, while the latter is a way to do it,
again, every opportunity we have to showcase ourselves being different than other states works to our advantage. This instance happened to me twice in my career where my family and I were separated and my spouse moved forward to our next projected duty station, one of which happened to be Arkansas. And at that point in time, we did have licensure issues because that was prior to the nursing compact. So these are situations that occur that really do affect military families for real.
The last one I put in there, and really it dovetails perfectly with the announcement yesterday of Home Base Arkansas because we do have a request here in the statute to at least have a website to be able to provide that. This could be the agency's website, but it would be either to be linked to home-based Arkansas or from home-based Arkansas to the website. And I think that this really is something that I didn't want to get too detailed as to what we're suggesting here, but the feedback we get from DOD,
while we are scoring very, very well on occupational licensure for military spouses, they keep coming back to a second element saying, well, where are you on making sure it's very clear. it's very very easy to read statute anyone can pull up in about 10 minutes Arkansas statutes are very well organized BLR does a great job and it's very easy to find stuff it's impossible to find the same language in the individual agency rules
so that's just if you are a barber or if you are an engineer or a pharmacist, it is difficult for you to find your state guidance inside the rules because we're just not organized that way. And this would provide an opportunity for one or two sheet paper to do that. Interestingly enough, the cosmetology section in Department of Health has in fact a two-page talker as to what you need to do if you're military.
and I've talked to Chuck Thompson about it and it's a great provision that they've made unfortunately it was like out of date but the concept was exactly right there it had a two page instruction sheet and it made it very simple and where agencies are able to do that that's great but we ought to leave the agencies to themselves as to how they best do that because we're going to find great examples like cosmetology have come up with an idea that could be applied elsewhere whereas if we stipulate things in statute, that becomes it,
and we really don't have any problems. That's really the extent of the five issues, the number one being we need to fix substantially equivalent. I think this does this. I think this process through your review in the committee gets the greatest potential opportunity to be able to deal with that. Full disclosure, I have talked to certain legislators on your committee with the potential of being able to carry this bill going forward. So if there's any questions, I'd be sure to answer them if you can.
Speaker 117
1:12:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Don, you may have addressed this, but I just want to make sure. Non-resident licenses. So if you have a military spouse who lives in Memphis, and they want to hold a, they have a Memphis-Tennessee real estate license or a license and they want to hold a non-resident in Arkansas. And Greg, you may have addressed this
Speaker 119
1:12:39
or encountered this. Will that person be licensed under reciprocal law or under this act?
Speaker 167
1:12:49
Yes, let me answer this question this way. is the service
Speaker 166
1:12:54
member is stationed in Arkansas, they would have the opportunity to be able to obtain an Arkansas license through this process. There are reciprocity agreements between all of the state agencies and there's processes already in place. So the intent here was to address it for the service members who were stationed in Arkansas. Certainly a service member could be stationed in Arkansas
and live in Memphis, and that's certainly a possibility, but I think the agency rules that are in place might be the best place to do that. I'm not kind of a cop-out, Gary, but I think that the best way to answer that is agency rules will always apply in those
Speaker 171
1:13:37
specific instances where they've addressed the issue. I think the way the statute's written, Gary,
Speaker 19
1:13:44
Don's right, that if you, I don't know if it was intent, but if you You
Speaker 75
1:13:50
don't either live in Arkansas or you've got the separated spouse issue, but let's assume that there are, is it Millington, is that where the base is?
There is Millington, yeah. In Millington, Tennessee, and you're a real estate agent and
Speaker 17
1:14:04
you want to get your license in Arkansas, which won't make perfect sense. I think you, I don't know that this statute would apply to that military spouse because they're not stationed in Arkansas or living in Arkansas. I will say that the bill by Representative Cozart two years ago basically says if you've got a license in any other state, you wouldn't get quite all the benefits the military get, but it still wouldn't take you very long to get a license because of Representative Cozart's bill.
But I don't think the way this is drafted, you would get all the benefits of being a military person. I'll go
Speaker 166
1:14:45
back, and now that I said that I thought we could pull the Arkansas out of there, I think that leaving the Arkansas in there makes sense for this very purpose, and I think that that's a very good reason, because if there's a service member and they're living in a station in Millington, then this doesn't apply to them. One other question.
Speaker 117
1:15:07
I just want to make sure that this would not happen often, but if it does, we want to make sure it's covered. Military spouse, husband is killed in action.
Speaker 119
1:15:19
Will this cover that military spouse if that military spouse moves to Arkansas?
Speaker 166
1:15:27
That's not a provision of the statute. I think that more appropriately we just make her an Arkansan and then it solves that problem because then it's...
Speaker 169
1:15:41
There's no intent to address that in this statute,
Speaker 117
1:15:44
I think. Okay, but if she doesn't fall under this act, she would move to Arkansas having held a license in another state. Let's say she lived in, yeah, wherever, in another state, and husband gets killed, he's in the military, and maybe she has family in Arkansas, and she wants to move to Arkansas. I think it would
Speaker 119
1:16:05
be better if we could license her under this act. It would be a more expedited process.
Speaker 166
1:16:11
If it's the will of the committee and the legislature to do that, then certainly that could be done.
This is just a suggestion based upon the problem that we had at the time. I mean, this is a great idea, Gary. It's another example of things that we can do to show off the things that we're doing better and different here in Arkansas. But I'd leave that to you all to decide how you want to proceed on that. I don't think there's any law that we have on the books right now
Speaker 38
1:16:45
that addresses it. Of course, anything could be done by an individual legislator later on
without necessarily a recommendation from the committee to do that. That doesn't mean it can't be done. But if the committee wants to recommend it, well, have
Speaker 169
1:17:03
at it. Senator, I would like to offer the draft as it
Speaker 166
1:17:08
is to the committee to work with. We may want to amend elements of it that you see that you need to do. This addresses a number of elements that are beyond what the scope of 820 was,
but it does put things back in play, and it does put Arkansas pretty much at the top of the heap as far as licensure, coupled with the automatic licensure provision, which is still in the statute. Going back to a question that you asked during the 990 period of time, you asked, I think, was asked a question as to how many licenses were issued to an individual who had a particular offense. Our statute in the case of 820, Arkansas is the only state that
requires the state agencies to report to BLR to aging children, youth, legislated military affairs annually the number of licenses that they, automatic licenses as well as expedited licenses that they provide. All of DOD's compacts that developed, this licensure compacts that it developed with the council state governments, none of those compacts require states to report the number of licenses that are issued. Arkansas, again, is the only state that has a provision
in statute that requires the agencies to report the number of automatic and expedited licenses issued. So we have a way of tracking the data. Nobody else does. Okay, I don't
Speaker 4
1:18:44
see anything else. So, Bertie, can you massage this into a recommendation for the next meeting? Okay.
Thank you for the presentation. We really appreciate it. and uh um i guess that brings us to other business any okay
Speaker 17
1:19:13
two quick things um one is we were asked last time about previous data on fees and uh and cost and we looked at data we collected almost now three years ago and uh and we
Speaker 19
1:19:26
felt that without a date so we are in the process of recollecting that data uh dr slagle is we're
helping us work on that we will get that
Speaker 17
1:19:36
report to you uh i know karen had asked about that last meeting we will get that to you we just decided that the data we had wasn't good enough and so we're recollecting it and we'll get that to you as soon as we possibly can and we also have developed a retooled a little bit of our self-assessment process i didn't have it prepared in time to get it to i needed to send out to you all but i'll get it on next we'll discuss that next meeting Since we're going to meet again for the final report, I will get this to Anita today or tomorrow.
The concept there is to get to the—I want to thank Secretary Bissette for coming up with the idea, frankly. He was aware of the self-assessment tool we developed two years ago and suggested that we retool it to get to the secretaries to then filter down to their individual agencies underneath them to use to look at themselves and look where their barriers are. Again, that's what we found most effective two years ago. There was some great legislation that came out of this group. Don't get me wrong. But there was also a whole lot of legislation that came from an agency looking at the self-assessment
and saying, well, why do we need this? We don't. Let's change it. Well, that's what we encouraged from day one. Yes, sir. We think that's the most effective because every agency is different. Every profession is different. And what's good for a nurse may not be very good for an electrician and vice versa. uh and so uh but anyway so we are we do have that in final form and i will get it out to y'all i apologize in advance that i didn't get get it
Speaker 63
1:21:06
to anita in time to send out for this meeting
Speaker 4
1:21:10
that's all i have sir okay uh i think we have a couple of dates it's suggested for
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:21:16
buddy i looked at it i know where the house has orientation on the 7th through the 11th so that weeks
completely out right so the only thing that i could really see that we possibly might do you may have some other suggestions but uh do you have any well the 16th is the only day that i've seen it really looks like it would work to get this room or not having some other committees that are actually meeting so
that's on a wednesday at 1 30 and that looks like there's something next door but it's uh highway transportation people it's not any legislators so that's the date that i've seen that will work looks like without conflicting with anything but you guys i'm
Speaker 4
1:22:07
open any comments on uh december 16th see no objection so let's uh wrap that in next meeting
Speaker 4
1:22:23
okay anything else seeing nothing we're adjourned thank you Thank you.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 4
Speaker 12
Speaker 17
Speaker 19
Speaker 39
Speaker 47
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 55
Speaker 21
Speaker 38
Speaker 57
Speaker 59
Speaker 69
Speaker 63
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
Speaker 80
Speaker 82
Speaker 44
Speaker 15
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 75
Speaker 102
Speaker 40
Speaker 84
Speaker 24
Speaker 65
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 129
Speaker 111
Speaker 116
Speaker 101
Speaker 145
Speaker 147
Speaker 148
Speaker 121
Speaker 155
Speaker 108
Speaker 163
Speaker 165
Speaker 166
Speaker 152
Speaker 119
Speaker 167
Speaker 171
Speaker 169