House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee Part 2
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB2136
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2136”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1881
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1881”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1882
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1882”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1808
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1808”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2141
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2141”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB902
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB902”
|
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 5, 2026
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
0:00
Committee, if you will recall, 1882 was one that we had attempted to run the other day as non-controversial. I believe Representative Letting has done some work on it. I don't know that it's necessary to completely re-present the bill. Maybe if you had hit the highlights of it, and we'll let the committee then see if they have any questions. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. This was a
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
0:25
bill that we tried to run Tuesday, and we ended up with a little bit of unexpected opposition.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
0:32
And for that, I both apologize and accept part of the blame. But DHS does now support the bill, and I believe Ms. Jones is here in the room if we need to confirm that. I believe the governor has also expressed his support for the bill. All we're trying to do here is remove the resource test off of T, Transitional Employment Assistance. There's a $3,000 asset cap. So if I'm a father of a small family and I lose my job, but I've been doing the right thing by saving up and I've got about $5,000 in the bank, I wouldn't qualify for this very low level of assistance. I'd have to spend down my savings in order to qualify.
And then while receiving this assistance, I wouldn't be able to begin accruing the savings. That would basically leave me with two options. Either I eventually, hopefully, find a job and I'm essentially starting from scratch, or the two-year clock on this assistance runs out and I'm left with essentially nothing. So it's just we feel it's an antiquated qualification, and we're just looking to
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:22
strike it. Thank you. MS. Representative Penarch, you have a question?
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:30
MS. Yes, I did. I'm glad that you all clarified that, because I did have a little bit of a problem there
on that. But there's no – in other words, there's no fiscal impact to the passage of this
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:43
bill? MR. There could be negligible impact. The other states that have done this haven't really seen any increase. Some states have actually seen cost savings due to the administrative savings. They don't have
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:55
to have people researching the assets of applicants. MS. That's what I'm pointing toward, but before there was some question with regard to that, but now I think that you all cleared that up, the original questions I had on it.
So you feel sure that if there is any impact, it's nominal or not at all? Yes, correct. Okay. Thank you. Representative Wagner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
2:26
Blading, this sounded like the same thing. Did you change anything about the bill? No. The bill is the exact same as it was
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
2:36
Tuesday. Thank you. Chair. Committee, any other questions?
Speaker 18
2:39
Representative Wardlaw. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I get the
Speaker 23
2:50
food out of my mouth, I'll make a motion
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
2:54
to do pass. Seeing no further questions, I'll accept that motion. Do pass. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for the bill? If not, the question before the committee is the approval do pass of House Bill 1882. All in favor indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Mr. Letting, you have passed your bill. Thank you. I believe that
Representative Hyde is ready to present his bill, and you have two bills to present, is that correct? Three bills to present. Okay. So House Bill 2136, is that going to be your first bill? I tell you what, why don't
you just sit down and tell us which bill you want to
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
3:49
talk about first. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I sure appreciate your efforts and Home
Care Association, I think, for our lunch. As you can tell, I always appreciate a meal. Members, I've got Mary Beth Bowman, who handles CDBG funds, 2141. 2141. I understand, Mr. Hyde, you have an amendment to this bill?
Speaker 30
4:14
Yes, ma'am. All right, and that's being handed
out as we speak, so if you'll just wait. Or maybe you go ahead and introduce your guest.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
4:26
I think it's fairly simple. Hopefully, I've got a pretty good example, and so maybe I'll proceed with the explanation if you all would like. And I'll give you the simple example, or the simplest one I can, is Mr. Wardlaw may have grown up in a neighborhood in North Little Rock that has seen its better days, and he's gone on to perfect his profession and has a nice home that his family is raised in. And eventually his parents may have passed and willed that home to him, and that neighborhood has become kind of run down.
and is now eligible for one of several federal programs like a HUD program that might help with rehabilitation and allow someone like Ms. Bowman's organization to come in and purchase those dilapidated or abandoned homes and remodel and renovate them, put them on the market, and try and get new people in the neighborhood to revitalize those neighborhoods. The problem that Mr. Wardlaw would have with participating is his home wouldn't qualify because it's in relatively good shape. He'd have to let it sit for maybe a year before it came rundown or a public nuisance and got condemned perhaps,
and then it would be eligible for him to sell it at current fair market value using these federal funds. This change in the definition or addition to the definition will allow him to voluntarily participate or offer this home to the entity that's acquiring that property for the renovation as long as federal funds are available. Is that close to the accurate? Okay. Thank you, Representative Hyde.
Are there any questions from the committee at this time?
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
6:14
Representative Malone, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hyde, I just want to make clear, it's subdivisions, correct? Just subdivisions? Subdivisions, and the reason I'm asking is because I'm sure you know I work on a former Army base that had barracks, that some of them are extremely dilapidated, but yet they were occupied at one point, and I just want to make sure that that doesn't mean we're going
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
6:41
to have to clean them all up. No, and this is just a permissive program for someone who wanted to participate in a subdivision,
you know, in a residential area that qualifies for those federal funds, and there's federal funds available, it would allow you to do that. But it's actually better for the community organization because they can acquire that house and spend less money remodeling it and fixing it up, getting it ready for resale for a new family to come into that neighborhood than if he lets it sit there and become dilapidated. And then they acquire it and have to remodel and renovate it after it's leaked for months and those kind
of things. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Malone. Next, I'd like to ask the committee for a motion on the amendment.
We need to adopt the amendment first. Representative. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay. The amendment has passed. Are there any other questions, Representative Pinar, that you recognize? This is a
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
7:37
good example of a bill that is made better by this amendment, and I appreciate
it, Representative Hyde. Just one question, sir. So where it says a home or residential property that is unoccupied, and I assume in this case
since you don't have an and there, it's or, or what does that mean? It's just it can be unoccupied and then you've got the other two in violation of city safety standard and located in area eligible. So does it have to meet all three of those criteria?
Yes, it does. And I
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
8:17
noticed the same thing you're noticing, but I was assured this is a bill that Mr. Geiger, and it's not his bill, but Mr. Geiger and the governor's office has worked on and Marty Garrity across the street has worked on as well as our city attorney to try and craft this legal language.
So it's my understanding, Representative Penartz, that the bar is all three of them to get over. Okay. Well, that's what I want
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
8:43
to know, because you might have an unoccupied residence that's still quite habitable and quite well-preserved. That was the problem with the original draft. Okay. Thank you, sir. Motion, when
appropriate. Thank you, Representative Penartz. Are there
any other questions from the committee at this time?
Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to speak for the bill,
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
9:15
against the bill? Representative Hyde, would you like to close for your bill? Members, this is just a bill that will be helpful in rehabilitating those neighborhoods, and I would appreciate a
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
9:25
good vote. Thank you. Representative Penarche, you recognize for your motion?
Mr. Chair, do pass as amended. Okay. There's a motion for do pass as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Ayes have it.
Congratulations, Representative Hyde. Your bill is
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
9:41
passed. I should have the Secretary of State's office here somewhere. There
they are. How about 1808, and we'll let
them go eat lunch, too. Okay. Committee, next item on the agenda is House Bill
1808. Representative Hyde, you may present your bill when you're
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
10:04
ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, 1808 provides an exemption or an exclusion, I guess, for elevators in one situation specifically here on the Capitol complex,
and I'm going to ask Mr. Boyd from the Secretary of State's office to offer explanation for
that. State your name and who you're with for
Kelly Boyd
Unverified
10:25
the record. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kelly Boyd. I'm the Director of Governmental Affairs for the Secretary of State's office, And this bill addresses an issue with an elevator that is of sufficient age, but it's difficult to obtain the necessary parts. There's nothing wrong with the elevator. It works fine. We just need this variance to provide us to continue to provide all of our other services in this building.
Thank you for that. Are there any questions from the committee at this time? I do see a question. Representative Penartz, you are recognized. Just one question. You will have sufficient
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
10:57
maintenance of that elevator so that at any point
in the future it does become unsafe. It will be not available for use. I won't be maintaining it. Representative Penartz, that is correct.
We have sufficient maintenance. Okay, that's all I need to know. Thank you. Motion as appropriate. Thank you, Representative
Penartz. Are there any other questions from the committee at this time? Is there anyone here in the audience who would
like to speak for the bill, against the bill? Representative Hyde, would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Mr.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
11:35
Chairman. Members, I would just appreciate a good vote, and I'm sure the Secretary of State would as
well. Thank you. Representative Penards, you are recognized with your motion. Motion do pass. All in favor say
aye. Aye. Those who oppose, ayes have it.
Congratulations, Representative Hyde. Your bill is
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
11:58
passed. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I'm just a regular puppy mill of legislation today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee, for those
votes. HB 2136 is my last. Okay. You may present your bill
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
12:11
when you're ready. House bill 2136. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HB 2136, I've got the attorney from the health department here who can help answer questions.
But this is an effort that has been kind of brewing for quite a few years, I think as much as eight or ten from the folks in my home area that brought it up to me. And it provides, through the health department, a training and registration program, so to speak, for people who operate public pools to make sure that they know how to apply chemicals correctly and apply those chemicals so that the water is in the safe levels before they're allowed to be used by the public.
We've all seen the blonde-headed girl with the green hair. And I'd be glad to take any questions, and the health department will try and answer those for you. Thank you, Representative Hyde. Are there any questions from the
committee at this time? Does anyone here in the audience like to speak for the bill,
against the bill? Representative Hyde, would you like to close for your bill? We'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Is there a motion from the committee, or what is the pleasure of the committee?
I have a new pass from representative Wagner
all in favor say aye those opposed I's have it congratulations representative Hyde your bill is passed thank you
mr. chairman thank you committee committee I think we'll start going down the list and see how many we
can get where I know still have some time left today Representative Carter, Senator Teague, Representative McLean, Representative Rice, Representative
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
14:02
Wilkins, Senator Crumbly, Representative Johnston, Representative Letting. Okay, take your place at the end of the table, and we'll be looking at 1881. Representative Letting, you have an amendment up here. Do you want us to pass it out?
Yes, please. All right. So if you will, go ahead and have your guest introduce herself for the record while we're passing it
Denise Oxley
Unverified
14:42
out. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Denise Oxley. I'm general counsel for the Arkansas Department of Labor. Welcome, Ms. Oxley. Thank
Speaker 83
14:47
you. I'm always glad to have you here. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Yes, 1881. We're still getting the amendment. Okay.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
15:03
House Bill 1881, we're seeking to create a civil penalty for failure to pay wages. This actually is a very common occurrence here in Arkansas. I waited tables for several years in college, one of the rowdier places I worked down on Dixon Street. Waiters were actually made to cover the tab if a table of people walked on their tab, which is wrong. I also worked for a small film company in Fayetteville a number of years ago who still owe me about $7,000. So I bring that up.
This isn't a personal vendetta by any means. It's just to illustrate that this does happen and is fairly common. Representative Leading,
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
15:40
we have an amendment first. Let's go ahead and take care of that amendment. Why don't we? Okay. All right. Committee, we have a motion do pass on the amendment. Any questions on the motion? All in favor of amending the amendment to House Bill 1881, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Your amendment has passed, and you may go ahead and proceed in discussing your bill.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
16:04
Thank you, Madam Chair. I got a little ahead of myself there. In fiscal year
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
16:10
2010, there were 425 wage claims in the state of Arkansas, but unfortunately only about $53,000 in total back wages were recovered for workers. All we're trying to do here is if wages are not paid, employers will be required to pay a civil penalty to the former employee or the Department of Labor in an amount equal to the total wages due or a minimum of $100 in addition to the wages due. It's a very minor thing.
We did get together small business owners, the Department of Labor, and some other concerned parties. I think we've addressed pretty much everyone's concerns. Some of those concerns were addressed in the amendments we just adopted. And with that, we'll take questions. Representative
Hyde, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Letting, so you shopped this around. This has been to the state chamber, and have those folks looked at it, and they approved this bill? They have.
I don't know if they necessarily approved this bill, but it is my understanding that
Speaker 27
17:17
they are not opposed to the bill. Okay. I guess
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
17:20
I'm a little confused. What happens now if somebody doesn't pay their employee? They call the Department of Labor, don't they? I may be asking, I mean, either one of you
Denise Oxley
Unverified
17:33
can answer this. If I may, please. The current statute that deals with payment upon termination is over 70 years old.
It has a lot of restrictions in it. It only applies to corporate employers and railroads, oddly enough. An employee has to make written demand for wages in order to obtain any penalty, and the penalty then is up to 60 days wages. That's rarely recovered. If an employee is not paid wages now upon termination, an employer can – if the employee is not fired, if the employee resigns, even gives two weeks notice, an employer can indefinitely hold their wages until they're sued or the Department of Labor demands wages or whatever
and there's absolutely no penalty at all against the employer. So this just changes the current statute to set out the time period in which the employer has to pay the wages before a penalty kicks in, which would be twice the wages on the last paycheck or $100, whichever is greater. Currently an employee has several options. It's the file a wage claim with the Department of Labor, go to small claims court, or see a private attorney. Okay.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
18:41
Well, I'm not sure I see what's wrong with those options, but is there a provision in here that waives that timing and everything? If the employee is holding company property, they have a company computer, phone, I mean, any kind of things of value, is all this – Yeah, there is a section – There's
a dispute. What's – you know, how is it resolved? I mean, is there – The dispute is
Denise Oxley
Unverified
19:07
– there is Section 2 of the bill specifically deals with deductions from wages so that an employer knows exactly what they have to pay for and basically have
have taken care of all that on the front end and the employee has signed written authorization that they understand their wages, that these things may be deducted from their wages, then that is perfectly permissible without a
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
19:29
penalty. Okay. So now, so what this would change then is when you hire someone, you've got to make sure that you have a document in their employee file that says if when they leave, they leave with any company property that it
will be deducted from their last check.
Denise Oxley
Unverified
19:47
Is that what you're telling me? I'm telling you that, yes, there would have to be written authorization or it would have to be, you know, certainly any court order, anything required, authorized by state or federal law, but there would have to be written authorization to make a deduction from
an employee's last paycheck, yes. Representative
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
20:14
Penarich, you're recognized. Okay, let me, I'm not quite sure I understand this bill, but let me ask a couple more questions
because if, now if an employer owes an ex-employee wages, they should pay them. Now, if except those wages can be due within seven days, but if they have used leave that they didn't accrue, then that could be deducted from their wages, right?
If they had vacation time that they had not earned or had accrued, that could be deducted from their wages. Is that
Speaker 93
21:02
correct? an employer just would not owe that. Most employers.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
21:05
No, no. Listen to what I said. Okay. You have an employee who leaves employment, gave two weeks notice, whatever. They had wages X amount of dollars due. So if that employee had used vacation time that they had not yet
accrued, then that time that they got off and which it has a dollar figure connected with it, that money, let's see, could be subtracted from their wages because that was something that they weren't really entitled to. Their employer, you just let them have leave or vacation time because they thought they were going to be an employee and cover that, that they could accrue that time. So my question to you, do you understand the scenario?
Yes, ma'am. All right. In my opinion, it is lawful for that employer or should be lawful for that employer to deduct whatever Y amount, X minus Y, that the vacation that that employee took that they didn't actually accrue. Now my question is, does this amendment or does this bill allow them to do that? If there is written
Denise Oxley
Unverified
22:19
authorization from the employee so that the employee understands that that's what the policy is. Well, I wonder if they don't agree.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
22:26
I wonder if they don't agree to that. If the employee does
Denise Oxley
Unverified
22:33
not agree? Yeah. They think, no, that's my money. You owe it to me. Well, that's what disputes are always about, but this would – it doesn't prevent the employer from proceeding for any debt. For example, it's the same with a loan to the employee, the employer that's an unwritten loan that is a verbal agreement between an employer and employee, and the The employee, if there's nothing in writing, then the employer just simply cannot deduct
it under this bill from the last paycheck. It would be the same in the situation you did unless there's written authorization. Now, if it's in the employer's policy and the employee signed off on it at beginning of employment, yes, they could still make that deduction. Okay.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
23:11
And that's done – I mean, I came from an organization where that's done on a regular basis. You allowed them to take leave and they suddenly left, and then they owe that to the company And the policies and procedures did have them sign off that they were aware of the policies
and procedures. Now. MS. And that's taken care of. MS. Okay. Second thing. I am concerned there's nothing to force that small business, often let's say a small business employer who has five or six people, and they only pay once a month, not every week or every other week. Does this wording that you're using here, if they pay once a month, the person left,
let's say, on the 5th or 10th, and they don't pay until the 30th or the last working day of the month, then are they going to be
Denise Oxley
Unverified
24:09
in violation under this law? No, Representative Panaris. That's what the amendment
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:12
took care of. So they… Show me there in the language that it says that that small business person who pays once a month
Speaker 90
24:20
would not be? It would be for the payday for the pay period
Denise Oxley
Unverified
24:24
worked. The next regularly scheduled payday for the pay period worked after the employee leaves employment. Okay.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
24:29
So if they left on the 7th or 10th
and the normal pay period is the last working day of
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:34
the month, that small employer is going to
Denise Oxley
Unverified
24:37
be okay? Yes, ma'am. Although there is a completely other statute that has nothing to do with this bill under state law that generally requires most employers to pay
Speaker 98
24:44
semi-monthly anyway, except for a certain example. I don't know about that.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:48
I worked for years, and we paid them once a month. Yes, ma'am. I worked for 25 years, and we were only paid
Denise Oxley
Unverified
24:58
once a month. It doesn't cover every employer, but there is a totally separate statute out there that
deals with that issue in terms of how frequently an employee has to be paid. Okay. This just deals with payment upon termination, but it would take care of that situation. That employer would not be in penalty
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
25:17
or in violation. Because we're talking about small businesses here, I'm a little concerned. I mean, don't get me wrong, if you owe somebody some wages and they don't have any of your company property and they have an accrued leave or something where they, you know, I'm
fine, let's pay them, they do the money. But I want to make sure that we're not doing anything that disallows that employer from operating a standard operating procedure. Okay. Yes, ma'am.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
25:52
Okay. Thank you. Representative Wagner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. If this bill were to pass, how do you plan to get the information out to all employers of this new regulation or?
Denise Oxley
Unverified
26:04
Madam, we'll do that the same way we can. We have newsletters that go out. We have folks that have requested to be notified that are on our mailing list and things of that nature. We also work closely to make sure we notify all the major organizations like the Human Resource Managers Association, the Hospitality Association, the State Chamber, even the Municipal League and folks so that they get the information so that they can disseminate it to their members.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
26:36
So you do not consider that to be a fiscal impact because you're using your ordinary sources? We're
Denise Oxley
Unverified
26:43
using our existing means and methods of communicating to get the word out, whether it's this bill or even our regulatory actions or anything else. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee,
any other questions? It's the pleasure of the committee.
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
27:08
Representative Lamkin, you're recognized. Madam Chairman, I make a motion do pass. As amended. As amended, yes, ma'am. We have a motion do pass as amended on House Bill 1881. Anyone in the audience wishes to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience wish to speak for the bill? Yes, sir, if you will come to the end of the table and speak for the bill.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, our guest has given us a handout of taking a look at it, and I'm just going to ask staff to hand it out, please. Sir, if you will, introduce yourself for the
Fernando Garcia
Unverified
28:22
record and the organization you represent. Thank you for the time for allowing me to speak. My name is Fernando Garcia. I'm a worker organizer and campaign coordinator for the Northwest Arkansas Workers' Justice Center.
We're an interfaith nonprofit organization that helps with issues related to employment. We are a membership-based organization, and most of our membership are low-wage workers, living paycheck to paycheck. Now, let me tell you a story about one of the workers that came into our center. Oscar, and this is on the sheet that's being handed out. Oscar, along with 13 of his coworkers, came to the workers' center because he hadn't been paid for a job he did for a local painting company.
Altogether, they were owed close to $30,000. We noticed at the worker meetings that we were having with the 14 workers that everybody was worried. They were behind on bills. They were behind on rent, on car payments. But we noticed that Oscar was especially worried. the meeting, we went up to him and asked him if there was something wrong, what was happening. He told us that his youngest daughter was taken to the emergency room. She was all right,
but the doctor did prescribe some medication to her, and he was left with the decision of what to do, whether to pay rent or buy medication for his child, just because an ethical employer decided not to pay. We do have support from small businesses on this, and I've talked to small businesses, and they even said this is unfair for us, that we're playing by the rules. I own restaurant A, and we're paying minimum wage. We're playing
by the rules, and then restaurant B down the road is not. So it does create a fair playing field. So it does not just affect the workers directly and their families directly, but it affects the whole community. just like in the case of Oscar many times they're pushed into tough situations that no hardworking family should be going to if the work has been done they deserve to be paid now under the current law there's actually not much penalty done to these unethical employers to these wage thieves
and I think by creating a penalty it's going to make them think twice about stealing those wages now there's times where we've called up employers asking them about the situation and they just say, I have the money, but I'm not going to pay them. Do whatever you want because they know that there's no penalties out there. Also, low-income families spend the majority of their earnings on basic necessities, food, clothing, and housing.
These expenditures circulate through local economies supporting businesses and jobs. Wage step robs local communities of these spendings, which ultimately limits economic growth. Every time wages are stolen, the employer is also affecting the state budget by not reporting taxes. Discrimination wage debt will not only benefit communities but also benefit the state. Now, I have some statistics of what we see at the Workers' Center. And what we saw – and this is just in one city, the city of Fayetteville,
because we're also working on a local campaign there. For the total amount of cases in 2009 that we got that we saw at the workers' center, and there's many more cases out there, we saw $132,000 owed for that year. And that's not counting the $90,000 that the workers' center was able to recover for the workers. So this is an epidemic that is going across the – and this is not unique to Arkansas. but it's not unique to Northwest Arkansas or Fayetteville.
This is happening everywhere. We're part of a network of 27 worker centers across the country, and they're all seeing this problem, that workers are not being paid for the work that they're doing. There's also the case of a gentleman named Michael Baker, who is a homeless person who did some work for – back then he was so-called a friend who was going to get him back on his feet, get him back on the right track.
And this person just completely took advantage of Mr. Baker, saying that he was a vulnerable worker. Mr. Baker was owed close to $5,000. So this is something that is affecting our community. It's affecting our state. and it affects everybody, not just the workers. So if anybody has any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Pastor Woods, you're recognized. I just want to say thank you
for coming in. I know she has Springdale on here, so we're obviously from the same area.
And, you know, I've gotten calls about certain cases that are just like you're describing. And I think regardless if the person is here, you know, if they're, you know, a citizen or not, if you've done the job, I think it's the right thing to do. That person should be paid. And I don't think it's right to deny somebody pay for the work they've done.
So I appreciate what you're doing. I really do. So thank you for coming.
Seeing no further questions from the committee, thank you, sir, very much for being here. We
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
33:55
appreciate your time. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak against the bill? Anyone want to speak for the bill? Representative Letting, are you closed for your bill or would you like to take your place at the end of the table? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
34:20
There being no opposition here today, I do understand there's still some concerns maybe on the committee. So,
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
34:24
with your permission, I'd like to pull the bill and see if we can address those concerns and bring
it back next week. Committee, that's up to the pleasure of the committee.
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
34:36
We have a motion to allow Representative Redding to pull the bill down. All in favor indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Representative Redding will see you again, I'm sure. I'll be
back. All right. Alright, continuing on our list
Representative Nichols, Representative Westerman Representative Meeks Representative Allen, Representative Bell Representative Hubbard, Representative Klemmer Representative Wardlaw, Representative Klemmer Representative Hyde, Representative Nichols Thank you. I just didn't get it marked out. Representative Nichols, Representative Stubblefield, Representative Powers,
Senator Key, Senator Luker, Representative Hall, Representative Murdoch, Burdock, Senator Jeffress, Senator Malone, Senator Bledsoe, Senator Dismang, Senator
Burnett, and I'm going to present, if
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
36:09
I may, Senate Bill 902 for Senator Malone, and Representative Lovell, would you preside, please?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to let my
guest introduce himself for the record.
John Kirtley
Unverified
37:07
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is John Kirtley. I'm the Assistant Director of the Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy. If I may quickly describe, this bill actually does three specific things. It lines up dates of expiration so that pharmacists do not have endorsements on their license that last longer than their license itself. It becomes a procedural quandary for us. also it helps to define instead of saying that someone is insane that they are physically or mentally incompetent to practice pharmacy to such an extent
as to endanger the public the third thing it does is to show that the Board of Pharmacy may discipline all license
types under the same protocol are there
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
38:01
any questions from the committee representative panarch thank you mr. chair yes I'm I wondered online on page 1 line 28 and 29 why are you deleting
nursing home consultant pharmacy permits at this point in the
John Kirtley
Unverified
38:24
bill in that area the bill it referred to specifically how they would be renewed in a specific time period and that language is, that specific permit is being added back in the section that would have it expire along with
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
38:39
the actual pharmacist license. Could you point me
John Kirtley
Unverified
38:43
in that direction? Yes, ma'am. That is on page 2, line 3.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
38:48
Okay, so are you not requiring them to have a two-year permit, or what are you doing there? First odd-numbered year following the date of it, what are you doing, making them go on a yearly basis?
Speaker 123
39:05
No, ma'am. It would still be a biannual basis. Currently, their actual pharmacist
John Kirtley
Unverified
39:10
license itself expires on December 31st of the odd-numbered year. Right now, if I have a pharmacist license and a consultant license, my pharmacist license would expire December 31st this year.
But unfortunately, because of the way it's worded right now, my consultant license would expire December 31st next year. So even if I did not renew my pharmacist license, I would have a permit that said I had a consultant license, even though it wouldn't really
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
39:39
be valid. Okay, how does that connect to page 2, line 30, where you've again struck nursing home consultant, pharma's permits? What are you doing? Because any time you start striking some language, I get a little thing that goes off.
Speaker 128
39:54
Yes, ma'am, I understand. We have the exact same alarm. On that section also, it points out
John Kirtley
Unverified
40:00
that it would expire December 31st of the first even-numbered year following the date of issuance, issuance, so we are moving that to the odd-numbered year to line up with the pharmacist license. So when our board went from annual permits to biannual permits, which has been about nine years ago, I believe now, they had some permits that had to be renewed at the end of that year and then other permits that were bumped to the next year to kick off the biannual process.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
40:31
All right, just one last question
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
40:38
here. On page 3, line 3, are you telling me that you want the additional option of suspension rather than just revoking a person's
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
40:53
existing license? Yes, ma'am. Oftentimes,
John Kirtley
Unverified
40:56
we have up to the ability of revoking a permit.
There are some offenses where the pharmacy board has in the past under regulations and through the hearing process Decided to suspend a license for a period of time. It's helping to better define that in the statute in this specific area Well, but you already have that ability.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
41:16
Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. You just want to
clarify it in the statute. Yes, ma'am Okay, I think my meters back down in the green. Thank you. Yes, ma'am
Are there any other questions from the committee?
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or
against the bill? I'm still on a question. Representative Hyde, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
41:49
you, Mr. Chairman. Has the Pharmacists Association, they've reviewed this. I don't see them in the audience, but are they fully endorsed and support this
Speaker 123
41:57
piece of legislation? We haven't asked them to endorse it, but they have complained several
John Kirtley
Unverified
42:02
times in the past about having multiple renewals. Right now, as a pharmacist, they have members that have struggled with having three different renewal times for different permits with the board.
When we've discussed it informally, they've absolutely been in favor of being able to renew everything at one time in one sitting rather than the confusion of having three renewal periods. But Mark Reilly hasn't
Speaker 134
42:23
read this and said, yeah, that's great. that fixes our problem they have to us personally
John Kirtley
Unverified
42:27
their board has not met on it so I could not mark Riley mark Riley and Scott pace have both looked at it and are in favor said this is a good bill
yes sir thank you mr. Ward thanks mr.
chair also on page three where are you so
Speaker 135
42:45
paragraph four where you struck the insane part there now the court is still going to help to make that decision on whether or not that that person is physical or mentally capable of continuing to practice that. Yes, sir.
John Kirtley
Unverified
43:01
If there was a hearing before the board, we have found over decades it's very difficult to have a diagnosis of insanity from what we were told from our medical colleagues.
However, we have had notification in the past that someone is either mentally or physically unable to safely practice, therefore putting the public at risk. So we've been told there's no medical definition that is really usable by the board for insane, but there is for this specific language, which would help greatly. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Any further questions from the committee? I've got a motion to do pass from Representative Hyde.
All in favor, second five by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign. Congratulations, Madam Chair. You have passed Senator Malone's bill.
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
44:21
Thank you again to Nancy very much for lunch. It was very, very good. We appreciate it.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1882
HB2141
HB1808
HB2136
HB1881
SB902
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 23
Representative Linda S. Tyler Chair
Unverified
Speaker 30
Representative Jon Woods Chair
Unverified
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
Kelly Boyd
Unverified
Denise Oxley
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 27
Speaker 93
Speaker 90
Speaker 98
Fernando Garcia
Unverified
Speaker 116
Speaker 117
Representative Buddy Lovell Chair
Unverified
John Kirtley
Unverified
Speaker 123
Speaker 128
Speaker 134
Speaker 135