House Public Health, Welfare And Labor Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (3)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1172
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1172”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1190
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…u've passed your bill congratulations next on the agenda is House Bill 1190 by Representative Hammer Representative Hammer are you here…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1197
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1197”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 3, 2026
be placed for special order immediately following 1018 on Thursday. So without objection, we'll set that for special order on Thursday the 14th, and that's 1185. Moving on to the agenda, first up, House Bill 1172 by Representative Fite. Representative Fite, would you like to present your bill? Okay, if you'll join us at the end of the table, you're recognized to present 1172.
Speaker 4
0:30
I would like to introduce Betty Bass. Betty
Representative Ritchie
Unverified
0:35
is the director of the Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Can you hear me? Okay. If you'll state your name and title for the record,
please, you'll be recognized to present. Betty Bass, director for the Speech-Pathology and
Speaker 7
0:49
Audiology Licensing Board. Thank you. And if you all will give us just a moment,
we're having a little bit of problems with the tablet. I don't want everybody to be trying to figure it out while you're presenting.
So if you'll pause with this just a moment, we're going to see if we can get this fixed. It's deja vu all over again. The bill does have an amendment. It's already been engrossed. The amendment's already been engrossed, so we don't have to adopt the amendment. It's in the bill. Let's, I'm sorry, let's pause for just a second, see if we can get the bill pulled up on our tablets.
Members, I think if you try to shut down, that's what we're going to try to do.
bottom left the windows logo click on that click shutdown hit yes and force
the shutdown click yes again this is absolutely the blind leading the blind in case you were wondering but we're gonna we're gonna see if that works and then that will pull up
Speaker 16
2:30
the bill about the same as they are to lead this Committee
reboot by pulling that button on the
left top left to slide it to the
left that should reboot it Senator Laverty is this your first time to the committee welcome first time in 2013 for those of you don't know while we're killing time it's important but while we're killing time senator former senator library is now the head of the
rehab rehab services so congratulations on that I'm sure we'll be seeing you summoned here it's always good
to see a Newton County boy do well
Speaker 32
4:21
you.
pass to press control, alt, delete screen. The
password is agenda 01. in the museum.
For those who don't know, who missed the first
meeting, what we're doing here is we're switching over to paperless, and so we're not printing off bills or amendments. Instead, everything's loaded onto these tablets. I still believe that it's probably going to be a good change long term, but it's going to, like everything else, it's going to take a little bit of adjusting
and getting used to, as most technology does. So that's what we're trying to get squared up.
noted I'll pass it on to the House Management Committee and Representative Gillum
and we do have a fallback Mr. Price has already left to make copies of the bill and is going to be on his way back soon so if nothing else that's our default as soon as he gets back if we haven't made much progress we're going to go ahead and go forward the old passion way
Hey, members, while we're waiting, if I could have your attention, Representative Hammer's not here, but he had some of the responses that DHS, or I'm sorry, from UAMS as to some of the questions that were asked the other day in
committee about accreditation. So if you want some of that information, just contact Mr. Price and he can send it to you.
But it's some of the follow-up info that was requested the
other day. Once you've rebooted, you click on that iris icon on the homepage, double-click that, it
pulls up the agenda again, the moment of truth, Vice Chair Murdoch tells me it still didn't work, so, yeah. Are the others pulling up? Okay, yeah, you're right. Okay. Yeah, members, the other one running today.
Okay, members, if y'all are okay with this, because I don't think this is going to work, but Phil should be back any moment with the bill, I think if we can all agree to allow representative fight to go ahead and present she will explain her bill in a
very thorough way and then as soon as Phil gets here we'll distribute that to the membership so they can read it but I think in the for the sake of time we just need to go ahead and move forward so without objection I'm just going to go ahead
Representative Ritchie
Unverified
9:32
and recognize representative fight to present her bill thank you mr. chairman thank you members this bill was originally enacted in the early 70s it It was updated slightly in the early 90s. Since then, there has been no change in it.
This is to update the language concerning the Board of Examiners in speech-language pathology and audiology. There also have been some educational requirements that have changed in the intervening years. This is to update the educational requirements as well, and I would appreciate a good vote. Do you mind
telling us what education requirements it updates? And I think this is agreed to, is that right? Yes, it
Representative Ritchie
Unverified
10:13
is. I'm going to ask Betty Bass from the Speech-Language
Pathology and Audiology Board to address that.
Speaker 7
10:22
Yep, that'd be great. You're recognized, Ms. Bass. Thank you. All the universities that offer a degree in audiology have gone from requiring a master's degree to a doctorate. There is no longer a master's degree, and our law required the master's degree and an externship after graduation. That externship is now done in the fourth year of the doctorate program, and so we're updating our language to meet what the actual educational requirements are.
Representative Ritchie
Unverified
10:58
I might add that there is a provision
for grandfathering in, correct? Okay. Vice Chair
Speaker 56
11:07
Murdock, you're recognized for a question. Okay. Question of clarity since we haven't gotten the document yet. So this is basically clarifying or making known the requirements for accreditation or for the requirements for this certificate or this endorsement.
Speaker 58
11:28
Yes, sir. We're just matching what the universities are actually doing. Okay,
Speaker 59
11:38
who? It's the Licensing Board for Speech Pathology and Audiology.
Licensing Board. Okay, thank you. Okay, Representative
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
11:49
Meeks, you recognize my question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this may be different because I've got the bill pulled up from the website. But on page 7, line 36, it basically says, concerning a reinstatement of licenses by the Board of Examiners,
you've got struck one year from, and you've got it says no sooner than five years after the date. Why is there such a big difference? I mean, you're going from one year to five years. Is there a
Speaker 7
12:20
reason for that, that big change? well we have found over the years that if someone's license is revoked which I might add is pretty rare okay they are allowed they were allowed to come back with one in one year and reapply for a license the board just felt like that was
too soon if the the deed so to speak was grievous enough to revoke a license that there needed to be more time between the time that they could come back and apply for another license okay so I guess five years is more appropriate than in
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
12:54
those rare instances for them to have enough time yes sir that was the board's feeling okay that's all the
questions have thank you mr. chair thank you representative Meeks could ask you an unrelated question since we've got a
little time here the has there been any movement from the department on the
administrative licensure for speech pathologists is the policy still that that as a speech pathologist you those your years of service don't count towards administrative licensure are you familiar with that issue okay mr. chairman
Representative Ritchie
Unverified
13:29
do you mean administrative licensure in the public schools yes ma'am I really don't know about that I know that there are certain requirements to get the administrators license and I think they would have to go through the same educational courses as anyone else seeking that licensure perhaps some of
the courses could count but I'm not sure if I remember it correctly I think normally there's three years of classroom experience required and I think the issue
has always been that that years just speech pathology doesn't count as years in the classroom essentially so by going into that profession you're blocked out from administrative license licensure which means you know you'd never be able to serve as a principal or superintendent there's just always been a little bit of a rub and I think from people feeling like that should count because you're blocking people out of one of our most critical critically
needed professions so anyway I was just curious if the if y'all are seeing no other questions
there's no sorry yes sir representative Ritchie you're recognized yeah just thank you
Chair
Unverified
14:33
mr. chairman on I'm trying to just understand this a little bit since my since my wife is a speech pathologist I know she didn't want me to screw this up so like on this section where you talk
about the board adopting rules that set forth the scope and restrictions relating to bachelor's level personnel that's not actually you're not actually changing the scope and restrictions what you're doing is just changing the language from this pilot project to the actual board so is that what that means a
Representative Ritchie
Unverified
15:08
bachelor's level person would have to work under the supervision of a master's level program a master's level person okay am
Speaker 7
15:16
I correct that's correct and what you
are saying is correct we just felt it was time to get away from the language that said they referred to the pilot project okay
Chair
Unverified
15:28
it's a is arc show that they good with this or I mean any of those I mean we have we've
Speaker 7
15:33
got no problems with our show or we have a new association for the audiologist as well okay thank you representative Ritchie any other
questions from the committee if not thank you for the
presentation there's nobody signed up to speak for or against the bill what's the pleasure of the committee motion do pass by
representative Wardlaw any discussion on the motion not all in favor say aye any opposed but you've passed your bill congratulations next on the agenda is House Bill 1190 by Representative Hammer Representative Hammer are you here to run your bill 1190 so we'll pass over that
next is 1197 by Representative Davis if you'll join us at the end of the table you are recognized to present 1197 members I think you should be able to pull this one up on your tablet if
if you have a tablet. If not, same thing. Mr. Price is making his way back with the bill. Representative Davis, you're
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
16:39
recognized to present. MR. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, this is a existing law, existing regulation enforced by ADEQ that requires owners and operators of non-municipal wastewater treatment plants to provide financial assurance to the department. The reason for that is should somebody walk away, so to speak, from a wastewater treatment plant that must continue to operate,
the department needs some funds there to put another operator into place or make whatever needed repairs. What this bill does is primarily three things. One, it clarifies who is subject to this regulation. Two, it adds some flexibility for the director to reduce the amount of financial assurance required or to waive the requirement, and three, it just in general adds some additional
mechanisms to make it easier for owner and operators to meet the regulation, to meet the financial assurance requirement, primarily through establishing a trust fund such that if a owner-operator did not have or could not or chose not to provide a instrument of financial assurance such as a letter of credit from a bank, they could elect to pay into a trust fund that's held by ADEQ until their fund was fully funded, and that would satisfy the requirement for
financial assurance. This does not apply to any municipalities. There's actually, I asked ADEQ for a list, and they provided that to me. There's actually 67 treatment plants across the state that this applies to. I think there's approximately three that have been granted waivers over the years. I'll take any questions. Thank you for the presentation.
I had a Up in Dogpatch, which is
a little bit outside my district in Newton County, there was an issue with an abandoned treatment facility that apparently there was some seepage making its way all the way into the Buffalo.
If I recall correctly, that plant had been abandoned and basically there was nobody wanting to take responsibility. I'm assuming that's basically what your bill is intended to address.
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
19:08
this this law was already in effect when that happened at Dogpatch the difference is that Dogpatch is owned by an improvement district and improvement districts are considered a quasi-public entity so they're not subject to this requirement the justification behind that is that as an improvement district
they could assess fees to their members to collect the funds they needed to keep their plant in proper operating order, so to speak. So this law would actually not apply to improvement districts like the one that operated next to Dogbatch. It is intended to keep that from happening in cases where they are privately owned. Gotcha. Okay. Any
other questions for Representative Davis? Representative Womack, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Was I correct
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
19:57
in understanding that a letter of credit from a bank will satisfy this requirement for those operators yes over
the years owners of these systems have tried bonds insurance and other instruments to satisfy the financial assurance requirement and a letter of credit from a bank is the only instrument that they've been able to get and you know for instance if if you need a hundred thousand dollar letter of credit if you have a hundred thousand dollars they'll give you that letter of credit but otherwise you're not going to get it
That's why the trust fund has been established, so that owners could pay into that over time while ADEQ holds
the funds. Thank you, Representative Womack. Any other questions for Representative Davis? If not, thank you for the presentation. Ms. Marks, I see you out there. Would you like
to – you didn't sign up, but maybe a little bit of testimony from you would be good.
Speaker 78
20:57
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, we appreciate very much Representative Davis running this bill for us, and he's explained it perfectly. That's exactly the situation you were talking about. If it was not an improvement district, it would be exactly what this
was designed to address. Great. Okay. I just never like to miss a chance for us to agree, so I just wanted to note it. Vice Chair Murdoch, you're recognized
Speaker 56
21:21
for a question. Just a point of clarity, Representative Davis. You talked about the letter of credit being the assurance piece. Now, I think it also, I read something
about a surety bond that could be used, or what you're saying now, the letter of credit is the only instrument. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, you could still
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
21:42
do a surety bond, it's just in practice what we found is that there's not a market for that. Nobody will give you the surety bond for this purpose. Thank you. Thank
you. Any other questions? If not, there's nobody signed up to speak for against the bill.
So what's the pleasure of the committee? Motion do pass.
Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, Representative Davis. You passed your bill. Next on the agenda, 1215, Representative Westerman. I don't think he intends to run either 1215 or 1256. I'm sorry, 1261 by Representative Altus. passed over, 1038
by Representative Altus. I'm going to ask
him, just FYI, I'm going to ask him to set that for special order. That's dealing with a little thing called fluoride. So if you're in the audience and are here for that, just know that I'm going to ask that and I think he'll accommodate. 1186 by Representative Malone will pass over and 1151 by Representative Douglas. Just so you know, that was that is the prevailing wage bill that we heard last Thursday bill once defeated once goes back on the active agenda defeated twice it is removed so that is that is why that bill is there at any bill that we do not
pass but have a vote on it fails it'll go back on the calendar stays on the calendar it'll stay on the active calendar for three meetings and then after that will be placed on deferred unless the member chooses to remove it Final note, that gets us through the agenda. I would note the two special orders for Thursday again. That is for Representative Nichols' bill and Representative Wrights. So that will be a big day Thursday. Also, for February 20th, there is an event that requires an RSVP.
Check your email from Phil about that. No other business is coming for the committee. We'll stand adjourned until Thursday, 10 a.m. Thank you.
Agenda
HB1172
HB1197
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John Burris Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Representative Ritchie
Unverified
Speaker 7
Speaker 16
Speaker 20
Speaker 17
Speaker 32
Speaker 56
Speaker 58
Speaker 48
Speaker 59
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
Speaker 78