Code Revision Commission

All right i'll call them meeting of the code revision commission to order first i'm a business is consideration of the approval the minutes of july eighteenth twenty twenty three everyone should have a copy of those minutes in your packet. Yeah. The. We have emotion to approve the minutes of gasway with motions are second. The. You'll have to many commissioners who serve second p. The glass second me and jimmy here any discussion all in favor of they are in the opposed minutes are approved we'll go to the item see update on the title nineteen recartification working group and we are turned over to our code revised thank you mister speaker just wanted to update you all on the total nineteen regarding case and working group it had its first meeting on october the twenty fifth. We had a great response from the entities that were embarrassed to participate had a lot of good questions we did a short presentation on the project and what would be involved with that the working group at that meeting decided to form sub groups based on the twelve chapters and the existing top of nineteen. So in her next meeting will work on getting those subgroups formed developed a review process of the day can work through the town on nineteen recording occasion project and then we'll be able to report back to the commission we're looking at trying to have that process down by the end of august of next year and hopefully at that time we would then have a draft the final draft that we could bring back to you that you could then review and vote on on see whether you want to proceed with the recordification of total nineteen. Would I be happy to answer any questions. Just for kind of firm benefit of of those who may not have been at some of our previous meetings so this is basically an effort to record a fire title nineteen and we have a working group that was formed I guess in our last I asked me I believe to me it was yeah a few meetings ago and so we're in our next times can be consideration of adding an additional representative to that recartification working group ultimately the whatever is brought back from that working group will come back to the code revision commission for consideration ultimately I think the intent is essentially. Nine services of changes looking at kind of a structural structure of title nineteen which over time has through the number of pieces of legislation his ground considerably and so it makes sense to take a look at the determines there are better way to to cottify those sections again they intent being that it should be nine substantive largely technical changes if any and if there are things this could generate potential substantive changes but the those would be you know my hope whereas those would be taken up for a separate pieces of legislation separate apart from this recartification process. Any questions about the process itself. All right if not then that'll take us to a next item. Which is a consideration of a request to add a representative to that recording working group and so i'll turn it back over thank you mister speaker an issue that came up around the time of the first meeting was that we heard from the department of transformation and shared services that they would like to participate in the total nineteen recotification working group. This made sense to us there used to be there's the opposite of state requirement in the office of personnel management that used to be under department of finance administration who wasn't matter to be part of the working group those officers were transferred to the department of transformation insured services they have duties under total nineteen so they're working with those statute using him on a daily basis so i've made sense to us the day should be part of that working and but since you all formed the working group that was under your control we submit that to you all to decide how you want to proceed with that. Any discussion or comments related to that. And so you you should have a hand out in kevin is this exactly it's exhibit the but essentially would there be two representatives added there would just be one representative yes okay yes that just shows the different offices that they have those responsibilities that are associated with it but there's currently ten members so this would be an eleventh member. All right any discussion. Okay we have a motion to add a member from tsesses are second second by representative gazaway any discussion all in favor say are any opposed. The motion passes. All right so that brings us to item e. Please commissioners at the last meeting we were asked to compile a list of the contingent sections in the arkansas code. And when I used contingent code section here what I mean is a section or a version of the section that's only effective of a certain contingency as met and in the law with these sections there's generally two different types of contingency that you have one of the contingency based on some of the occurring such as a certification by an official that something has happened or certain laws passed in the other type of contingency you generally have is a future date contingency which says that this section or this part of this section will become effective at a future date. The second table continues to the future date when it's fairly easy to deal with because we know whether we've reached that day or night. It's the first kind of contended c that's dependent upon some event occurring that sometimes can give us trouble on whether that it's actually happened or not one of the things that we've tried to do is is from the drafting perspective is to include language you know require there to be a certification and notice to the commission or legislative council director the bureau things are that nature that helps us out the letters know whether that continuously has been mad. Before I get more into the report though the first thing i'd like to i'm happy to report as we did not find any problems with the codification of these contingent sections if you remember what precipitated as looking into this was he was brought to senator tucker's attention there was a problem section sixteen fifty six one or six which is a statue limitations for medical debt and arkansas we had a situation where the non contingent version of that section which would be the section is actually the law was not appearing in the online version of the code so was misleading about what the law actually was so staff went through and we checked every contingent section and we could find we check both the printed version of it and the online version of it and we didn't find any problems with that and we got the problem with sixteen fifty six one or six corrected so it's now accurate when you look online at that version so that was happy to find that that everything that is supposed to be appearing and laws properly appearing. So getting into the actual contingent sections you we broke these up in the three different exhibits i'll start with the ones that are probably at least interesting to you that would be exhibits e two and eighty three. E two or all the future date contendencies that are not based on the protect arkansas act so these are sections that are not effective yet or there's a version of that section that's not effective yet but they most of them will be effective in january one twenty twenty twenty four I think there's a few that are effective in twenty twenty five so those are all the ones that are not related to the protect arkansas that's an exhibit exhibitive three is a list of all the contingent code sections that are based on the protect arkansas. And you'll see with those that they're all gonna be effective on january one twenty twenty four so there is quite a few of those uhm in a week like I said we checked all those everything was correct for those but that list will be absolute fairly soon and so when we hit january one twenty twenty four those sections will no longer be contingent they will actually be the law in effect at that time. The final exhibit is exhibit e one these are the contingent sections that are based on something other than a date and like I said these are probably the ones you would find most interesting as part of the at least you'll see the sixteen fifty six one or six. That we had an issue with you'll see the light several other ones. Most of these depend on a certification from a state official that something has happened a few weeks on something else we included in their narrative that that explains to you what the continuous on those sections so you could see what what that is on the ones that are dependent on a state official certifying whether that continuously has been met we have reached out to those officials and we have not received responses from all of them we did receive a response on the total eleven entitled twenty six sections. From the division of work or services that that continuously has not been met. On the rehabilitative improvement district one I think that one's in town or twenty six we have not heard from department of financial on that one but on their website they indicate that that contingency has not been met and so we don't believe that those sections are in effect yet and so on the other ones we will just continue touching base with the relevant officials to find out about those continencies and we will be able to update the code when we find out if those have been matter night. And i'd be happy to try to answer any questions thank you mr speaker first of all I just want to say thank you for for doing all that work and I was not easy to find always continued sections in and you'll have to go through the whole code so thank you for that effort and II think everything were in good shape right now I think my my question is more about. Do we have a do you do like a set of like policies moving forward or is it all just based on your personal memory if if if if that question makes sense and if if it's more of the former can we have a policy basically where we just know that if if a lot passes that as a contingency other than a date which he is what you're talking about here that that the policy is when we publish the pocket part we're going to put. The current law and the contention law next to each other so that there's no confusion and and just make cover publication guidelines to make sure that we avoid that's the sort of confusion that that brought this question to our attention this time around I think my response to that would be that would be up to the commission to decide that the general practice has been that we would not necessarily put the existing version in the pocketpart we were just put the contingent version if that's what the amendment was and so you know that I think that's a decision for the commission to make if they would like us to do that we did do that with sixteen fifty six one or six at the last meeting we were asked to put both versions in the supplement so we did that in that the commission wants that to be that the procedure process going forward I don't have any problems with that I think that's a decision for you all to make. So i'm gonna not to down the chair but but I would be curious for other people's opinions on that I think my my preference would be to put both in the pocket part so that the practitioners can see what the current lawyers and what the contingency is in what the law would be if if the contingency occurs to me that's different than just amending a law where you know if you want to see the four code section you need to go to the book and so that's that's sort of my thought but i'm i'm curious for other other fox opinions. In. Mr also you recognized. Thank you mr speaker I think senior tucker is exactly right that this is an issue that maybe once a year when he wants every six months there's some kind of unnecessary dispute that solely related to this kind of a non necessarily contingency day issue but as related to the way something it's been clarified and and I think this kind of problem can be headed off in the future if if the commission goes with with what center tucker is suggesting. The. Would you like that to be a motion sir has been at your recognized sorry I couldn't wait our screen is down so i'm just happened I was just gonna say or at least a note in the you know if the if the previous version is already in the the mind book at least a note that says. See current effective. In the prime you know just something to direct cos if i'm doing legal research enough and the contingent are gone moving out yeah yeah I can talk a little bit about the current practice if you like me so the current practice would be without contingent section in the supplement they would have brackets effective if whatever contingency is you know as met and there is a note there that directs the reader for the you know non contingent version see the bound volume sometimes I just happen to both me in the supplement or the pocket part and so then it'll say you know see their proceeding version so that not you're talking about is there to direct the reader but it's it would not be in the united states of the code that would only be in the annotated versions that have like the publishers note would have that so. Senator tuckers at it is so i'll move yes i'll make that motion in and I think so much my motion is just to go ahead and put the the current section in and the contingent section I mean in the entire arkansas we're talking about seven examples right here so it's not a huge volume that we're adding to the supplement so yeah so my motion is just to go ahead and have the the current section in the contingent section in the park and part and there are always published that way electronically is that is that right yeah yeah electronically they're always going to be okay so yeah that's that's my motion thank you. Mister miller and just to clarify what center tucker was just saying we're talking about the nine day contingencies is when we're published from both or would we do the date contingencies as well. My thought is only for the nine day contingencies. Alright so we have emotions or second. Second reps of gas way any discussion. All in favor say are any opposed. Motion passes that just before we leave this topic a couple questions. With regard to those items on to e two and three that are date contended sees. What's the date has been achieved as then the reference to the date go away or does it depend on how the bill was drafted yeah generally the the date would go away the next time that we had that section in front of us on the on the published version we were then. Only caught a five one version of the section because they at that time there is only one version but you do have to wait until the next cycle okay and so then that leads me to the second. Second question is then with regard to the items listed only one which some of your still checking on it think there was at least one that referenced I thought there was one that the contingency had been met but maybe night. I guess my question would be if if these nine date contingencies are met is that something that. The all wind money turned bring back to code revision to then. I mean once the contingency is mad assuming that there's not like some negative contingency that could make it revert back it seems like that would be something that would be appropriate for code revision to then. Just clean up the the reference altogether their prior practice has been when the contingency has made staff is just resolved that similar to a date contended see where we instruct the publisher to just publish that one version and then we would put a note there explaining that the contingency was made okay and I guess my point would be to the extent that there is something that's clarified that is that in the codification is referencing a date or contingency it's been achieved. And that has been achieved than it seemed like it would be in everybody's interest to them have it eliminated one way the other virtue of technical correction if need be yeah yeah and it's something that weakened generally resolve on our on our own staff without a technical correction okay alright and then that brings us I think that's everything on contingencies then that brings us to item off which is the report from our code advisor just wanted to update you all that we did finish the replacement volumes two c twenty a twenty three b and twenty five eight those were involving total sport twenty twenty three and twenty five volume twenty eight had legislation from the special session that we were able to include with that so was happy to be able to do that lexus has contacted us and we were going to move up the acs there would normally be published in the summer of next year to february that way we can get the rest of the special session legislation published earlier and then the acs after that there will be one in the summer for the fiscal session and then they'll be an option for a third acs if we happen to have another special session. And so that's all I have as far as my report. Alright. That brings us to the end of our account is or any other business to come before the commission. The. If not we may have just set a record for the shortest but it's well earned anybody that was here the last couple of this is a welcome change so if nothing further were german.