House Public Health, Welfare & Labor Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (27)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1405
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1405”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1428
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1428”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1810
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1810”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB437
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB437”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1623
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…doch in the room, House Bill 1604? Representative Thompson, House Bill 1623 Representative Thompson said he is returning in a”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1965
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “asking that we send House Bill 1965 to interim study. And there we go. Okay. Without”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB355
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB355”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB401
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “to run Senate Bill 401? 1.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1444
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…his. All right. Thank you. It's Representative Wright here, House Bill 1444, Representative”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1627
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…tially. Let's see here. Someone put Tuesday there. Lampkin, House Bill 1627, more”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1728
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “than likely on Tuesday. House Bill 1728, Representative Carter. Is anyone here”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1788
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “I'm going to go ahead and skip over House Bill 1788. I don't think Representative Harris”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1789
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…We're going to skip over, or is anyone planning on running House Bill 1789 for Chairman Tyler? House Bill 1808, Representative Hyde is…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1808
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…one planning on running House Bill 1789 for Chairman Tyler? House Bill 1808, Representative Hyde is not here. Senate Bill 386,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1830
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Teague House Bill 1830, Representative McClain”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1840
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Bill 1839, Representative Nichols House Bill 1840, Representative Rice is still in judiciary. Representative…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1855
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ntative Rice is still in judiciary. Representative Wilkins, House Bill 1855. Senate”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1872
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Bill 459, Senator Crumley. House Bill 1872,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1881
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Representative Johnston. Representative Letting, House Bill 1881, skip over. Okay. Okay. House Bill 1882. Skip over. I think…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1882
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…esentative Letting, House Bill 1881, skip over. Okay. Okay. House Bill 1882. Skip over. I think Phil is going to go out in the hallway…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1915
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…is going to run a bill. Tyler, does anyone plan on running House Bill 1915 for Representative Tyler?”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1966
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1966”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2028
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2028”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2139
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2139”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB296
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Senator Johnson Senate Bill 296, Senator”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB386
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…an Tyler? House Bill 1808, Representative Hyde is not here. Senate Bill 386,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB559
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB559”
|
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 4, 2026
Good morning. The chair sees a quorum. The chair sees a quorum and the meeting will be called to order. We do have a couple of special things on the agenda today. We'll get to those first. Representative Hutchinson, is it alright with you if we get to your concurrence in your Senate amendment to the House
bill first? All right. So, Representative Malone, you're recognized.
Yes, Madam Chair, if I may, point of order,
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
0:33
please. Yes, you're recognized for point of order.
Thank you. Before we begin, I just would like to question Senate Bill 437. I believe it violates joint rules number 17 in the scope of practice. I was just wondering if we could get
a ruling on that. Representative Malone, that's an appropriate request. So you're suggesting that –
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:00
Joint House Rule Number 17, as far as the scope of practice goes, they have to be filed within the first 15 days of session. And I'm just questioning the scope of practice in this bill and whether or not
it was filed in the proper time. That is an appropriate point of order. The speaker has to be the one who makes that determination, so I will take that and report that to the speaker in session this afternoon, and he'll make the decision as to whether
or not that, whether this bill, Senate Bill 437, gets referred to rules for a determination of whether or
not this bill violates Joint Rule 17. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, thank you. So, therefore, we will set aside Senate
Bill 437 today, and we will not be running it. All right, Representative Hutchinson, you are recognized for the amendment to House Bill 1428.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
2:03
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Committee members, you are familiar with this bill. We approved it earlier, and it went to the House. The only change that was made on the Senate side was an amendment to put Senator Hutchinson on the bill in case we needed amendments on that side, but it sailed through. But we still need to approve that one amendment that added him as sponsor. So I'd appreciate a good vote. This is the bill we have to finish by March 15th. Thank you.
What's Representative Wagner? Motion. We have a motion. And your motion, ma'am? Do pass to concur and send an amendment. We have a motion do pass to concur and send an amendment to House Bill 1428. All in favor indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Representative Hutchinson, you've managed to get Senator Hutchinson on your bill. Congratulations. Thank you. And you're now recognized to – we have a special order of business for House Bill 1810.
And Representative Hutchinson, you are recognized to present your bill. Thank you
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
3:12
very much, Madam Chairman. I'd first like to say that those who support this bill are in no way trying to discourage children and adults playing soccer. We think it's a wonderful game. It's great because you don't have to be tall or lanky or muscular or particularly strong. You just have to be able to run for 40 minutes without having a heart attack, and you can basically play soccer. So it's a great sport, and we want to encourage it.
But we think that you should be able to enjoy soccer in a safe environment. Since 1979, there have been 36 goal deaths in the United States. These are caused by the soccer goalposts falling. And between 1998 and 2010, there have been over 2,000 injuries. You might notice that the speaker is also a co-sponsor, And he is very much in support of this bill. His nine-year-old granddaughter was injured when a soccer goal fell over on her at Pulaski Heights Elementary.
Marley is his granddaughter's name, and he wants to give full support behind this bill. I have a list of most of the deaths and injuries that have been caused by soccer goals tipping. And unfortunately, the very last entry, January 26, 2011, it happened in Bentonville, Arkansas. A fourth-grade student died after an unsecure soccer goal fell on him at school.
The Bentonville police say Jonathan Nelson 9 was playing outside at Elm Tree Elementary Wednesday afternoon when the soccer goal fell on top of him. And, Madam Chairman, I would appreciate if you would let Nathan Nelson, little Jonathan's father, come. He would like to share what happened that day. Certainly. Mr. Nelson, if
you will take your place at the end of the table, introduce yourself for the record, and we appreciate you being here, sir.
Nathan Nelson
Unverified
5:27
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee. My name is Nathan Nelson, and I'm here from Bentonville, Arkansas. Mr. Nelson, if you will get
close to the mic. It is – thank you very much. Do I need to restate? I think we've
Speaker 22
5:46
got that all right. This is my oldest son, Tyler, and he's holding a picture of Jonathan. This is my wife, Sarah Nelson.
Sorry. That's quite all right. I'm here today because my son Jonathan Nelson is number 36. This is not a number on his football jersey or basketball jersey. He is the 36th child since 1979 to be killed by a soccer ball. Some may ask why we feel this law is necessary to address this issue.
Given the simple fact that an average of one child per year is being killed due to a soccer goal falling on them seems to be reason enough. When our school district and city reacted to the situation the next day, the school district only found six out of 36 goals anchored. And out of the 50 goals in the city of Bentonville, as far as we know right now, none of them were anchored.
This information tells me that the current awareness effort and good faith are not enough. The second point I would like to make is more of a personal one. I'd like you to take a moment and place yourself in my shoes and think about what you would do if you were in my situation.
At approximately 2.30 today, it will be six weeks and one day since my son,
Speaker 26
7:47
Jonathan Nelson, or as I like to call him, Gooby Bear, was at school playing with
Speaker 22
7:53
his friends when an unanchored soccer goal fell on him. It struck him on the forehead above his left eye and hit him with enough force to crush his skull.
Again, I ask you as a parent or grandparent or sibling, knowing that information I just provided, what would you want to see done? The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Soccer Industry Council of America, along with coalition to promote soccer goal safety and many other organizations and agencies have outlined guidelines on installation maintenance and storage for soccer goals and they are obviously ignored there's a simple solution to help make sure that all of our children in Arkansas are safer that solution is
making Jonathan's bill law I thank you for your time mr. mrs. Nelson and Tyler on behalf of the whole committee we are certainly sorry for your loss and we appreciate you being here thank you committee do we have any questions from the committee dr. Gaskell you're recognized I'd like to make a motion to proper time okay seeing no other questions from the committee we have a motion dr. Gaskell your motion is do pass we have a motion do pass
House bill 1810 anyone in the audience wishes to speak against the bill anyone in the audience wishes to speak for the bill if not the question before the committee then is the passage of House bill 1810 all in favor indicate by saying aye no the bill has passed mr. mrs. Nelson and Tyler thank you very much for being here. We appreciate what you're doing for the children who play soccer in
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
9:44
our state. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank
you, committee members. I think we are now ready to hear our regular agenda. House Bill 1405. Is Representative Webb in the room? outside. All right, we'll get her. You're up.
Representative Webb, you're recognized to take your place at the
end of the table. We'll
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
10:50
be hearing House Bill 1405. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. With me I have Theresa Marks, Director of ADEQ, and Carol Beavis from Little Rock Solid Waste District. And this is a bill that would give a permanent funding mechanism for recycling of e-waste.
It would also allow us to move towards a total ban from putting electronic devices into our landfills. We have been collecting e-waste around the state for a number of years without a dedicated revenue stream, and a number of states, I think it's about 22 states, have passed laws that take their collection of e-waste a step further than what we currently have in Arkansas,
although I do want to commend our folks around the states for the job that they have done and particularly there are a number of folks here from Pulaski County who have continued to double and triple the amount of e-waste that they collect from year to year, which is a wonderful thing to divert that from our landfills. This bill would call for, as I said, a permanent revenue source, and we would ask manufacturers
to pay a registration fee and then either come up with a plan of their own to collect these electronics or to pay a per pound fee for them. And if it's okay with the committee, I would like for Director Marks to make some brief comments and then Ms. Beavis. Director Marks, if you will,
introduce yourself for the record, and why don't we go ahead
and get Ms. Beavis to introduce herself for the record,
Theresa Marks
Unverified
12:49
and then we'll proceed. My name is Theresa Marks. I'm the Director
Speaker 44
12:59
of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. I'm Carol Beavis, and I'm the Deputy Director for the
Speaker 23
13:05
Pulaski County Regional Solid Waste Management District. Thank you, Ms. Beavis. Ms. Marks, you're recognized. Thank
Theresa Marks
Unverified
13:09
you, Madam Chairman. I am here today to speak on behalf of this bill. This is a bill that was drafted after a lot of consideration and a lot of negotiations
with various interested parties. Just to give you
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
13:22
a little background, Act 1412 of 2001, the General Assembly authorized the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission to go ahead and issue an e-waste ban on landfills no sooner than 2010, but they did go ahead and authorize them to consider that. In 2007, Act 512 was passed, and Act 512 found that computer and electronic equipment solid waste, and I'm quoting here from the act, are among the fastest growing and most toxic
segments of Arkansas's solid waste stream, and they established the Computer Electronic Equipment Recycling Program. And how we've been funding this program so far deals with the Landfill Post-Closure Trust Fund, which has been established, as you all know, was established back in the early 90s to address problems with old landfills that were having post-closure problems that had been closed out basically in accordance with regulation, but then they've suffered problems
afterwards. That post-closure trust fund caps at $25 million, and in 2007 it was getting fairly close to the cap, and it's a fee that is diverted from people who are depositing waste into the landfills, transports that deposit waste into the landfills. When it capped at $25 million, this act in 2007 allowed that fee to be diverted into a fee for e-waste recycling. So that happened in 2009, and since that time, that fee has been diverting. Now, the fee will not be diverted
forever because when the landfill post-closure trust fund reaches $15 million, which probably won't be in the next two years, but could be shortly thereafter, the fee will be assessed again to the landfill post-closure trust fund. So this is not a steady source of funding for the e-waste program, and that's one of the concerns that we had. The e-waste program has really taken off in Arkansas as much as it can without this steady source of funding.
The districts are very, very committed to keeping e-waste out of the landfills. It's certainly beneficial to all Arkansans that we not fill up our landfills with e-waste where you can have toxic substances that will leach out, and you're also taking up valuable landfill space. And we try to make sure that we don't take up any more landfill space than we absolutely have to. If things can be recycled or put back to beneficial use, that's certainly the way we want to go. So in our efforts to try to figure out a stable source of funding for this e-waste program, we began stakeholder meetings.
And we had basically a year of stakeholder meetings with interested parties. We had not only the solid waste districts there, but we also had Randy Thurman from the Arkansas Environmental Federation was at a lot of those meetings, Representative Webb was. And we came up with this bill, and we tried to do – some states were doing a manufacturer responsibility program where manufacturers created their own programs. Other states were doing a program where the manufacturers paid in to have the manufacturer program set up. We decided to do a hybrid program, trying to accommodate those manufacturers that already had a program in place to take that e-waste,
but also making it available to manufacturers who did not want to deal with having to do a program. They could pay a fee that would allow us to run that program or allow us to give it to the solid waste districts to run that program. So that's what this bill is about. We have tried to accommodate everyone that we could in the processing of the bill. We have hoped that we would be able to address concerns. We feel very committed and very strongly that the e-waste ban needs to be put into place.
So we are hoping that we can go ahead and develop this steady source of funding to go ahead
Speaker 44
17:14
and get that accomplished. I would just like to reiterate what the director has said and what the representative has said, that. We have earnestly been trying to accommodate everyone with this problem of recovery of electronics. Electronics contain lots of lead, mercury, cadmium. These are toxins that we do not want in our landfills. We do not want them on the sides of the road. We do not want
them in our vacant lots. That's why the Municipal League and why the county judges understand the need for this bill is to keep these toxic materials out of our roadways and our vacant lots and out of the landfill. And I'm very passionate about this program. I've been involved in this since its inception. And the state of Arkansas collected 17 million tons of electronics in 2009,
and that's only going to grow. So it is definitely a
Speaker 45
18:12
need that we have to somehow accommodate for our citizens of Arkansas
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
18:19
thank you mr. chair thank you members as director mark said a lot of people have put a lot of hours into crafting this bill over the last year we have met with representatives from a lot of different entities over the last few weeks to try to come to a compromise I have talked to the members on this committee and I hope that this is
something that we will feel worthy of study we appreciate your giving us the opportunity to present this today thank you representative Webb at this time
we do have four legislators that would like to ask some questions with that would that be okay mr. chair that's
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
19:06
fine but oh what I'd like to do is is pull the down I understand
that and well the committee I'm probably just respect the
the committee members at this time though they do have some questions which I do understand represent web so quickly we'll just go through some the requests of the members of the committee represent Smith do you still have a question at
this time no okay represent panards did you
have a question yes sir I was just about to suggest here,
because I'm a little bit leery of levying these type of fees on business that might have an impact, and I don't know how many members of this
public health committee were involved in these discussions, but certainly to me, an interim study in one of our subcommittees is very appropriate, and I'm supportive of that because I'd like to learn more about this. This is the first time, other than having read the bill last night, that I had some – my copy was – last night was redlined, and usually that means I have a lot of questions. So I appreciate, and I'm in agreement with that if that's what the sponsor of the bill
wants to do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Sure.
Thank you, Representative Pinar. Representative Lee, you're recognized with the question? MS. Same thing.
Speaker 63
20:33
I look forward to an interim study. All right.
Speaker 64
20:39
Representative Malone. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm also excited
about an interim study. Okay. Are there any other questions from the committee? Appreciate you coming with the bill, and we'll go ahead and go forward with your request, and thank you for your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
20:56
Thank you, members, and we appreciate your
interest in this. All right. Thank you. It's Representative Wright here, House Bill 1444, Representative
McLean. Let's see here, is anyone here to run Senate Bill 355?
Okay, is Representative Murdoch in the room, House Bill 1604? Representative Thompson, House Bill 1623 Representative Thompson said he is returning in a
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
21:40
few moments and would like to keep it on
the calendar Thank you, Representative
Mayberry. Appreciate that Okay Representative Lampkin, 1627 We're going to do a special order on Tuesday
potentially. Let's see here. Someone put Tuesday there. Lampkin, House Bill 1627, more
than likely on Tuesday. House Bill 1728, Representative Carter. Is anyone here
to run Senate Bill 401? 1.
I'm going to go ahead and skip over House Bill 1788. I don't think Representative Harris
is going to run that today. We're going to skip over, or is anyone planning on running House Bill 1789 for Chairman Tyler? House Bill 1808, Representative Hyde is not here. Senate Bill 386,
Senator Johnson Senate Bill 296, Senator
Teague House Bill 1830, Representative McClain
It's still not in the room, so we'll skip over 1831 House
Bill 1839, Representative Nichols House Bill 1840, Representative Rice is still in judiciary. Representative Wilkins, House Bill 1855. Senate
Bill 459, Senator Crumley. House Bill 1872,
Representative Johnston. Representative Letting, House Bill 1881, skip over. Okay. Okay. House Bill 1882. Skip over. I think Phil is going to go out in the hallway and see if Senator Laverty is going to run a bill. Tyler, does anyone plan on running House Bill 1915 for Representative Tyler?
house bill one nine three five representative summers see I don't see representative Nichols here for either house bill one nine three eight or one nine three nine as anyone here to run or is representative Dale here house bill one nine four three representative letting
house bill one nine six five you You would like to present that.
All right. All right. Representative Letting, you may present your
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
24:50
bill. We can't get out of here that easy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know that I'm going to give us that much work to do because I want to remove the suspense. I am
asking that we send House Bill 1965 to interim study. And there we go. Okay. Without
a – Representative Penards, you recognize? I had some concern about this, I must admit, Representative Letting.
And could you just tell me – I'm in agreement to go to interim study. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to do here. Could
you just tell me in a one sentence what you were trying to do? I know what the
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
25:25
title says. MR. Absolutely. I had some people back in my district who said that they just wanted to have a chance to start a conversation, get the legislators involved, get people on both sides of this issue to talk in a constructive manner. I know this is an issue that raises quite considerable emotion on both sides. I want to make it clear that at this time I'm on neither side.
I just am trying to facilitate some constructive conversation.
Speaker 84
25:47
MS. Well, as always, I agree with you. I'm always engaged in
the debate of public policy and what's best for Arkansas years. So I appreciate your ascending to interim study. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Thank
you. MR. Sure. No problem. Thank you, Representative Penartz. Are there any other questions from the committee at this time? Representative Letting, thanks for that, and then we'll just move forward with the next House bill, House Bill 1-9-6-6. Would you like to run that at this time?
Yes, please. Okay. You're recognized with your bill.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
26:18
Thank you. And now for something completely different. You learn a lot in this job. I've learned everything I ever wanted to know about floating teeth over in the Ag Committee. I've learned far more than I ever wanted to know about fluoride. And last week, I learned quite a bit about burial furniture. Currently in Arkansas law, our law is very clear what happens to remains if they are unearthed in the process of like a construction project. This would include perhaps slave cemeteries, Native American cemeteries, just unmarked
graves where perhaps the markers have been washed away over the years. The law is not clear at all what happens to the items that are buried with the body. The Arkansas Archaeological Survey came to me late last week with this bill. The attorney general in 2007 issued an opinion saying our law needed clarification to clarify what happens to the burial furniture, who has a right to those items if they are unearthed. What we're doing here, we would link the burial furniture to the remains. So the family would have a right to the body and the items buried with the body.
And with that, I'll take questions. Representative Penards, you recognize. I know what furniture means to me. I guess that this would cover something like if they had a bracelet buried with them or something. Anything that was in the past
Speaker 91
27:36
that buried with them? MR. Bracelets, jewelry, clothing, if you buried the person's favorite toy. MS. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
27:44
you, Mr. Chair. MR. Yeah. I suppose if you buried the grandpa's pistol with him, that too would be. MR.
Thank you, Representative Pinar. It's Representative Wilkins. You're
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
27:59
recognized with the question. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bledding, does this, being an old amateur archaeologist, does this have, does this reach the Native American burial furniture, which is really quite valuable, and, you know, there's burial furniture with them that is worth $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 sometimes, on today's market.
So does this deal with that at all, or we have a law against digging, I believe, already in Native American sites. Correct. If a Native American site was unearthed, anything
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
28:34
buried with the body would be, the family would also have the first right to those items. The family. How are you going to find that family? I admit in some instances it could be pretty difficult, but they at least legally have the if the descendants can be found they have the the first right okay thank you sir are there any
other questions from the committee at this time representative Smith you're recognized
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
29:04
thank you mr. chairman representative can you tell me what happens the tribal meant the group you mentioned here they identify that it's American Indian Cherokee Northern Cherokee tribe and then they would be able to determine where the remains would be placed for final resting place that what you're saying? Run that by me one more time, my apologies. That is like, for instance, the Cherokee tribe. They would at some point be able to say that was some of our ancestors, then we
would, this bill would allow them to have the authority to rebury at some other site that individual remain? Is that what you're trying to do? Yes. If they unearth the
body and the items with the body and they can, they have a claim to the body, then they would be able to bury it elsewhere. Do they
fully agree with this bill? Don't you realize that to the American Indian that this is a very sacred thing that, you know, infringing upon their rights? Are they opposed to this bill? I believe they would be
Speaker 105
30:02
in favor of this bill. Have you checked
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
30:05
with them? I have not. Oh, I have a little bit of a reason to ask that since I have some of that lineage in my background. Okay. Also the Choctaw Indian. I think that's something that the tribal interests would have had an opportunity or should have had an opportunity to voice their opposition or support of such a bill. Don't you agree? MR. I agree. I believe I have somebody here in the audience who might be able to answer that. MR. I'd like to
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
30:27
hear from them. MR. I may invite them to the table if they are, in fact, here.
MR. Sure. Just state your name and who you're with, for the record.
Tom Green
Unverified
30:39
Thank you. MR. Turn it on. MR. My name is Tom Green. I'm the director of the
Speaker 110
30:47
Arkansas Archaeological Survey. a unit of the University of Arkansas system. To answer your question, we consult with the Indians on a daily basis. They are really concerned about this because the basic issue developed because the Corps of Engineers has projects on private land. They were going to excavate, and when unmarked Indian graves are in the way, they will excavate those to move them. According to state law, we have to consult with the tribes before any of those
remains removed. But the Corps of Engineers was arguing, well, as other Indian artifacts that are found on private land, they belong to the private landowner. And so our point was not those that are found in the grave. American common law, and this applies to Indian graves as well as anybody else's graves, is the artifacts that are buried with an individual belong to the individual, and the descendants have a right to the custody of those or to the disposition of those artifacts.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
31:43
Right. Then it really is false that that remains belong to the landowner then. Don't you agree? The remains
do not, even under current law. Exactly. Yeah. And has the American Indian tribes that we've noted this morning, have they been contacted about this proposed law? We notified them
Speaker 110
31:59
about this, but there's no objections at all.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
32:03
I know in cases that there have been projects diverted to other areas because of known burial grounds in the past. And, you know, I think we should honor that. Don't you agree?
Speaker 115
32:14
Oh, yeah, I do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, Representative Smith. Are there any other questions from the committee at this time? Is there anyone here in the audience to speak for the bill, against the bill? Representative Lettingham, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. Is there
a motion from the committee? Oh, you gave yourself. All right. All right, the motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. Ayes have it.
Congratulations, Representative Ledney. Your bill is passed. Thank you. At this time, we're going to move on to recognize Senator Laverty. Senator, let's see here. Senate Bill 355 on the front first page. Senator, you are recognized. Present your bill. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 118
33:04
you, Mr. Chairman. Very good to be here before this committee. About 12 years
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
33:10
ago, I chaired this committee, and most of my recollections are fond.
I want to present Senate Bill 355, and basically what this does, it allows the podiatrist to receive the same stipend that the other disciplines receive in reimbursement as a board. They currently receive a stipend of $65. I believe it's $60 or $65. And this will bring them up to the same amount that the other disciplines are listed there on the bill.
Dental examiners, medical board, state medical board, the board of optometry, the Sex Offender Assessment Committee, the Arkansas State Board and Chiropractic Examiners, Community Assistance Commission, the Arkansas State Board of Nursing, and this will add the Arkansas Board of Podiatric Medicine. I hope I pronounced that right. But this will not be state funds. These are funds that the board has. So I appreciate a good vote. I'll try to respond to any questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Laverty. I do have one question from the committee member. Representative Smith, you're recognized.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
34:31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, is there, would you explain to me why that this group has not been upped in their amount
of stipend up to this point, that it would be at a lesser amount than you're proposing today?
Speaker 121
34:46
Was there a reason for that? No doubt there's some reason. Can
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
34:51
oversight maybe? Representative Smith, I don't know the reason, but I would speculate that at given times,
there have been certain boards who earlier they had had stipends where they paid a certain amount. And as they've updated the list, the podiatrists just simply haven't been added. I wish I could be more precise, but I don't know all the history of it. I just know that right now there's a disparity, and this will correct that. And there's no obvious opposition to this
Speaker 122
35:16
bill? No, since it's their funding, it's not
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
35:19
going to have physical impact on the state. Thank you. Thank you, Madam. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Representative Smith. Representative Lovell, you're recognized. Motion. Okay. I will note that. Representative Mayberry, you're
recognized with a question. Thank you, sir. Just a quick clarification for
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
35:40
myself. You say there are no state funds involved. the funds that the board already has, that's correct? Yes, Representative Mayberry,
Speaker 126
35:48
that's my understanding, that these boards reimburse themselves based on the amount
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
35:53
they're allowed to and they use their own funds for. That's what I've been advised of.
Speaker 128
35:59
I was just curious as to where those funds come
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
36:02
from. Well, they, like most organizations, I guess they have various fees and dues and things of that sort that they pay. I'm not sure I know that. But I guess perhaps if, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd ask that you recognize Mr. Mike Mitchell, who could perhaps shed some light on representing Mayberry's question. Sure. Mr. Mitchell, if you'd just
mention your name and who you're with for the record.
Speaker 129
36:31
Thank you. Yes. Mike Mitchell. I am a general counsel to the Arkansas Podiatric Medical Association, and this money does come from license fees, not from tax money. It comes from their own money, and Senator Laverty is absolutely correct. And the reason, somehow they were not categorized with the other boards of the Healing Arts for some reason that was caught last session late, and we were asked to hold off to put them over in the other boards of the Medical Board and all the other boards of the Healing Arts.
And all this does is put them in where they
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
37:09
should have been all along. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, as you know, and many members who have been on public health before, any time you deal with the Article 17 and the disciplines of medical practice, it really gets hairy on this committee, but these things have evolved over time, and I think
Speaker 118
37:29
this is just catching up with the rest. Appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Thank you. Representative Penartz, you're recognized with a question. How and maybe
Senator Laverty, whether Mike could answer this or you, do they have monthly
meetings? Does the board have
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
37:54
monthly meetings? As I recall, Representative Penartz, they have periodic meetings. Whether or not they have them every month, I'm not sure.
I know they have regularly scheduled meetings, and the times I've heard for them over the past many, many years have been during legislative sessions if there was a matter. So I know they meet frequently around legislative sessions if they have any issues on the table,
but I couldn't tell you the frequency of them. Just one other question, Senator, and maybe Mike can answer it if you don't have the information. It appears to me that, really, you're talking about to their own budget from their own fees,
which they've not asked us to raise, and from their fund balance, which is they have a fund balance, really you're talking anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 additional a year, or at least $5,000 additional a year, which they can take care of through their own budget. it's not just board meetings, the difference between $65,000 and $110,000, even if they had a monthly meeting every month, wouldn't be any more than around $5,000.
Speaker 139
39:12
That's true. I haven't calculated it, but that appears to be true. You're much better at that
than I am. Well, you're kind, sir. So wouldn't you agree that the expense here seems and appears to be nominal? I would agree as far as an impact on their budget would thank you motion at the proper time thank you representative Pinar
it's a representative Lee you're recognized okay are there any other questions from the committee at this
time is there anyone here that would like to speak or anyone in the audience that would like to speak for the bill against the bill senator Laverty would you like to close for your bill I've closed mr. okay I believe that Representative Lovell has a motion. Move do pass. I couldn't get him to look up. Okay. Is there a motion for a do pass? All in favor say aye.
Those opposed, ayes have it. Congratulations. Senate Bill 355 has passed. Mr. Laverty, would you like to go
Speaker 117
40:28
to? Yes. Thank you, members. 555, Mr. Chairman.
559. 559. Members, we're going to go to Senate Bill 559 at this time. And Senator Laverty, you are
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
40:39
recognized. Present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, as you're probably aware over the years, we have increased the
requirements of background checks, particularly in the field of health care. Most people are responsible for caring for the senior citizens developmentally disabled. And what's happened is this has been a good move. Sometimes I think we've carried it a little bit far, but nonetheless what we've got is duplication of these background checks that are being done. The process is being duplicated. In other words, we'll have the criminal background check done and cleared for one particular
service but then if the person works in a dual capacity they may have to have another one and there are other examples where we have this duplication this is simply a cleanup bill that actually lets that satisfy the background check for those disciplines and I will try to respond to any questions and I also will invite a friend of mine to come to the microphone at your behest sir are there any questions from
committee members at this time represent penards you
recognize the question this bill in no way if i've read it correctly this bill in no way affects from all the listing affects i noticed you made a deletion on page two I'm not sure what you did there to tell you the truth, but that's why I see that one of
the sections is different. You've included an additional section on both lines, 8 and 9. Can you assure me that in no way are you actually allowing someone who is a felon, in this case most of these are felonies, that they would somehow not be background checked? Well, certainly
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
42:55
I think that's a good question, and to our understanding that that is not the case.
But with the chairman's permission, I'd ask that we recognize Mr. Dusty Maxwell, who is knowledgeable in this regard, and perhaps he can better respond. Representative Penards. Sure. Just state your name
and who you're with for the record. Thank you.
Speaker 153
43:20
Yes, I'm Dusty Maxwell with Pathfinder Incorporated, and I represent the Developmental Disabilities Providers Association today. No, ma'am, what this bill is actually a continuation and verification of the bill that was passed
last session that required the Department of Human Services to consolidate between divisions what are cleanup. There were some discrepancies between one division to the other, and there is, in fact, it improved the system, if you have an agency that has child care services, that has developmentally disabled services, and an intermediate care facility, that one background check will suffice,
one determination to work will suffice. And it in no way cleared a felon from not getting checked. Okay. That was my concern. Thank you
very much, Dusty. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Penards. Are there
any other questions from the committee at this time? Is anyone in the audience here to speak for the bill, against the bill? I'd like to recognize Representative Lovell with a motion.
Speaker 144
44:42
Senator Laverty, this is twice you owe me. Move,
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
44:48
do pass. Well, if you're going to mark my debit charges for all the other things you've done for me off, I'll be pleased with that. So thank you.
I recognize that motion for a due pass. All in favor say aye. Those opposed, ayes have it. Congratulations,
Senator. Your bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members
Speaker 158
45:09
of the committee. We're very grateful.
Thank you. Okay. Okay, and Representative Lampkin, we're going to skip over your bill. Is that correct? Okay, I just want to double-check. We do have Representative Westerman is here to present his bill. Senate Bill 401 is a Senate bill.
Let's see here. Give us just one second here. Top of the second page, I believe.
Yes, Burnett is the lead senator to
revise the Real Estate License Lien Act, just to give everybody a second there to find that. Senate Bill 401, Senator Burnett. Yeah. Representative
Westerman, you're recognized to present the bill. Thank you. Thank you,
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
46:07
Mr. Chairman. The most confusing thing to me about this bill is how it ended up in this committee, but we don't assign them.
We just present them, I guess. But this is a broker lien law amendment. It's already passed the Senate without any opposition. It's supported by the Arkansas Realtors Association, and as far as we know, it has no opposition. Mainly what this bill does is it cleans up language to change the term licensee to broker. You'll see that several times throughout the bill. And that's to make this section of code compliant with another section of code that states that licensees who are not principal brokers cannot sue in their own capacity.
Arkansas law currently allows real estate licensees the ability to file a lien on personal property, either against the proceeds received from the sale of the property or against net rental proceeds from the rental of real estate. One other thing the bill does is it provides 90 days for the broker to file a lien from the date the tenant takes possession in which to file a lien right now. It has to be filed before the tenant takes possession, which is not really practical.
It gives the broker time to file the lien after the tenant takes possession. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are
there any questions from the committee at this time? Representative Penartz, you're recognized. Good morning,
Mr. Westerman. Good morning. We're glad to have you here this morning, even though you don't know how you got here. On page 3, sir, under line 35 and 36, I'll give you a minute to look at it there.
MR. Okay. Could you tell me the rationale –
I mean, what is the difference there, in your opinion between those two lines? Why would one be encumbered and the other not? Representative Penartz,
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
48:23
I believe this has to do with the fact that the lien is only on the sale of real estate. It's not on the real estate itself, but on the sale of real estate. So it does
not encumber real property, just the sale of real property. If you had a real estate broker that had a transaction and the client failed to pay the broker for that transaction, then the lien would not be on the property that was sold, but it would be on the proceeds received from that property that was sold. Okay. That's
what I wondered. I was trying to figure it out because I don't have a lot of expertise in this area, only personal experience in the sense of purchasing property or selling.
And so that is the difference there in terms of the proceeds of the sale. Right. Okay. The proceeds, which
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
49:14
would be personal property. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Penards. Are there
any other questions from the committee? Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to speak for the bill, against the bill? What's the pleasure of the committee? I have
a motion for a due pass from Representative Wagner. All in favor say aye.
Those opposed? Ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Westerman. your bill is passed. Thank you. Thank you.
Let's see. At this time, I will recognize Representative Perry, who's going to run House Bill 1623, which is on the front page, which is Thompson, the act to streamline the process for criminal history checks. So just to give the committee just a moment here to define that bill.
We've been shuffling back and forth a lot in the last few minutes. House Bill 1623, and it's under Tommy Thompson. Representative Perry is going to be running that for Representative Thompson. You can just give us one second, Representative Perry, for one
minute. Okay. You are recognized. Present the bill.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
50:42
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Thompson got pulled over
Steve Harrelson
Unverified
50:47
to transportation and asked me to run this.
This is a non-controversial bill. I've got Mr. Robert Breck with me from the Health Department, and he'll shed some light on it. Thank you, Mr.
Robert Breck
Unverified
51:03
Chairman. My name is Robert Breck, Deputy General Counsel for the Arkansas Department of Health. What this will do, currently all emergency medical services technicians, they all have to have criminal background checks. Unfortunately, when the law was passed in 1999, it was very prescriptive. It requires us to collect the fee and forward that fee to the state police.
And what ends up happening, it's a manual check. Now there's actually a web-based application where you can check these almost immediately. And this will streamline the process, and we should be able to get checks done within minutes instead of two to three weeks. And to answer any questions that you might have. I'd like
to recognize Representative Smith at this time. Thank you. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
51:47
you, Mr. Chair. May I assume that this is a cost-saving venture that you're proposing to the legislature? Well,
Robert Breck
Unverified
51:54
it actually is a cost-saving measure as well.
Well, you know, instead of having people's time actually forwarding or taking the checks and the forms down to the state police and them manually doing it, we'll be able to do that in our offices, and actually the cost of the check will actually be reduced as well for those applicants. So we're not creating a new database. We're tapping into a database that already exists. Is that right? A very good and efficient database. I actually got on their website last night. You can actually do like a mock check to see how the system works, and it's fabulous. most of these checks will be able to be done in minutes.
MR. Is there a substantial cost savings that you could quote today, or would you venture to make that statement? MR. I don't know that it would be a substantial cost savings or that, you know, fewer personnel will be involved, but what will be able to happen is we'll be able to make those determinations for those applicants just about immediately. What's happening now, these applicants may not know their status for two or three weeks, or they may know their status, but we don't. MR. We don't. Okay. Thank you. representative Lee at
this time with a question motion at the proper time okay
noted there any other questions from the committee at this time is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak for the bill
Steve Harrelson
Unverified
53:16
against the bill represent Perry would you
like to close for your bill we're improving efficiency we're closed thank you representative Perry Representative
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
53:27
Lee you're recognized with your motion I move I'm not
do you pass I love it make everybody's hands sweat I have a motion
for I have a motion for a
do pass all in favor say aye those opposed eyes have it congratulations your bill
Speaker 182
53:46
has passed representative Perry would you like to run your other bill 2028? This would be the
second easiest bill. Okay. This one was the first. You may present your bill. House bill 2028. It's on the third page. Let's see here. I'm getting all my notes. Let's see here. To establish consistency in the laws concerning engineers. House bill 2028. Previous
Steve Harrelson
Unverified
54:13
build we were streamlining efficiency here we're actually establishing consistency and I worked with the professional association of surveyors and engineers I've got a Steve Harrelson who's the executive director here with us to help answer any questions being an insurance guy I don't get into the surveying engineer side so just say your name and here you're with for record thank
Speaker 185
54:36
you my name is Steve Harrelson I'm the director of the engineers and Surveyors Board. Thank you. Are there
any questions from the committee at this
time? Representative Panarchi, you're recognized
with question. Yes, thank you Representative Perry and Mr. Harrelson, your name is easy to remember because we have another Mr. Harrelson in the Senate. Could you speak to this, why the need for
this bill. And just the first question is, you're from the association
Speaker 189
55:17
of what? Actually, I'm with the state agency, Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and
Professional Surveyors. So you work for the state? I do. Okay. Can you speak to the issue of whether the association
Speaker 187
55:33
supports this bill? As far as I know, they do. We've notified them back in December. In fact, there are three associations, one that represents professional surveyors, one that represents professional engineers. We also have a companion bill that does something very similar to the surveyor law. We have two sets of laws but one rule, and I'll speak to that in just a minute.
There's also an organization that represents engineering companies. We stayed in real close contact with them. We've asked for comments. We've got none. All the comments, so I don't know of any objections or opposition
Speaker 185
56:09
to this. By your appearance here today, are
you speaking for the bill on behalf of the department? On behalf of our
agency. Yes. That's what I meant. Yes. Okay. Now to the second part of my question, which was could you tell us exactly how this accomplishes
what Representative Perry indicated? Sure. We
Speaker 187
56:33
have two laws. One that is in regard to surveyors and one that is in regard to engineers, but we have one set of rules, and the rules treat engineers and surveyors similarly on a lot of issues. There's a little bit of difference, though, in some of the laws, and what we're doing is trying to make the wording in the two laws read the same, especially on those issues
where the rules treat them the same. There were also, during some rule makings that we did earlier, we had some comments from some bureau attorneys about some things that in our laws that needed to be cleaned up just because they weren't quite consistent possibly with the rules, so we're doing that as well. And then the last thing we're doing is our disciplinary procedures which are in the engineer law are a little bit different from the Administrative Procedures Act that governs us, so we're
We're changing that to make it to where it will be consistent with the
Speaker 185
57:36
Administrative Procedures Act. And we think it's all clean-up
type of work. I think you've answered my question. I appreciate it. Thank you,
sir. Thank you, Representative Perry. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Penard.
Representative Malone, you were recognized with a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
57:58
realize this isn't a change to the
Chair
Unverified
58:01
law or anything, but can you explain to me on page 3, line 29,
why the board needs subpoenaing power and who you subpoena and for what
Speaker 192
58:13
purpose? I'm sorry, what kind of subpoena
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
58:16
power? Yes, it says the board may
Speaker 187
58:21
subpoena a witness. We every now and then, we use it very rarely, but there will be times where we'll have a witness that is involved in a case that may not be quite so willing to appear voluntarily, and so we'll subpoena them.
It's typically for an administrative hearing, a disciplinary hearing, I should. Do all state
Chair
Unverified
58:44
boards have subpoena power? Is that a common? I think some do and some don't. Some
Speaker 197
58:49
do. Okay, thank you. Representative Smith, you're a
recognizable question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have
a motion at the proper time. Okay, noted. Are there any other questions from the committee at this time? Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak for the bill, against the bill?
Representative Penartz, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, I
apologize. My hand wasn't quick enough. I did have there's something in here that exempts these individuals from having continuing education and I just have one simple question if the chair would allow absolutely thank you on page nine minds 10 through 13 page nine lines 10 through 13 where I assume because a professional engineer
you're talking about 65 years of age or older or more than 25 years of experience, why would you exempt any engineer from – I mean, I have a little problem with that. Why would you exempt any engineer from continuing education? I mean, at the point where they are in their a career of 25 years or 65, to me that would be the point at which we would have to make
sure that they most had continuing education because their lack
of exposure to new engineering concepts. MR. This is not a new provision,
Speaker 189
1:00:27
although it is underlined and it appears to be. MS. Well, it is underlined, sir, in the bill, and
Speaker 187
1:00:37
MR. It's actually – it was – the section, if you look, was rearranged pretty heavily by the Bureau attorney.
Well, the question is still valid, regardless if you've struck it in another place in the bill and added it in this particular additional section, as you so indicate on lines 28 and 29 on page 8, that this is to add an additional section. and you've placed this, even if you have struck it in another place, the question is still valid, sir.
Speaker 189
1:01:12
It is still a very valid question. And, again, even though
Speaker 187
1:01:17
it's underlined, it truly is not a new provision.
Speaker 187
1:01:22
then. I would assume when it was put in, it predates me. I've been the director for three years.
I understand that, but are you an engineer? I am. Well, then speak to that. But you have experienced certainly probably more than 25 years. So just speak to the substance of the
Speaker 187
1:01:41
question, if you understand it. Yes, ma'am. There are some other exemptions. I would assume that the provision exempting engineers after a certain time would be in
recognition that a lot of our engineers at a certain age will retire. And we don't have a retired status for engineers, and we'll have a lot of our licensees that are older that choose to retain
their license but don't practice? That's a valid reason and I understand that. What's the other reason where the OR, 25 years of experience and they're still practicing? They're not 65.
Let's say I'm 25 and I became an engineer when I was 25 and I'm now 50 but I'm not 65 and and I'm
Speaker 188
1:02:31
still practicing. It would be both. It
Speaker 189
1:02:33
would be 65 and 25 years of experience. I believe, sir, the language on line
Speaker 188
1:02:44
then we want to change it, because that would be a
Speaker 187
1:02:48
change. The way I had read it is that it would be both. It would say 65 years of age or older with 25 years of experience,
so our interpretation has always been that
Speaker 189
1:02:58
it's both. Is it both, then? Am I misunderstanding? It would be
both. I stand corrected. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your entertainment of the question. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you, buddy. Thank you, Representative Penartz. Are there any other questions? I believe Representative Mayberry.
No. Okay. Okay. Are there any other questions from the committee at this time? Did that spark any questions from the audience? I want to make
sure everybody has got to say. Okay. Representative Smith, you're recognized with a motion. I have a motion to do pass. Okay. We have a motion to do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those who oppose, ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative Perry. Your bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. all right at this
time I'd like to recognize representative Hyde who has a
meeting he has to go to and has asked if he could go next represent high which which bill would you
Speaker 206
1:04:06
like to run at this time mr. chairman this is 2139 house bill 2139 let's
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:04:14
see here and I'm not going to make the mistake of telling you this is really
easy bill I'm not going to throw down the challenge okay this is a
This is Law Concerning Fire Extinguishers, House Bill 2139. I'm going to give the committee just a moment to find this.
I have it on the third page on my agenda, in about the middle of the third page. No, no problem at all. If you don't mind, I'm just going to give the committee just another moment here to find the bill. We've been shuffling back and forth a lot this morning. I'm going to find it myself.
Okay, Representative Hyde, you are recognized to present
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:05:14
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, the bill actually is the section within the code that pertains to fire sprinklers. And what this bill does is it brings a part of the code
up to a current modern level, and it responds to a request or a concern from local fire officials. In other words, it's the fire marshal within each of your cities. I'm going to try and keep this as brief as possible so we can answer any questions that you might have.
I do have the director of the board that oversees this as well as a spokesman for the industry itself who have all been part of drafting this legislation to get to this point where there is no known opposition to this bill. It does some maintenance issues along the way or within the bill, but the primary focus of what motivates this is your local fire marshals within your city
were having concerns over the last couple years about the sprinkler fitters. Some of you all might think of them as plumbers, but they're not plumbers. Don't call them plumbers. They're fitters. And they wanted those fitters to be licensed. So in some municipalities, they began to consider licensing requirements for those fitters. And that was going to result in this patchwork of all these different licenses that would be required by those folks as our sprinkler contractors travel the state.
So it was agreed with the fire marshals and the industry as well as the board that they would develop legislation that would be in parallel with the labor department as well, the apprenticeship portion of the Labor Department to lay down these guidelines and provide for the licensing of fitters. I have to explain that clearly, but, again, I have the director here with me who can answer questions, as well as a representative of the industry, Arkansas Automatic Fire Sprinklers, here locally.
And I will tell you that I worked with several other contractors around the state, including, Mr. Chairman, Dunk Automatic, which is up in your
neck of the woods. Thank you, Representative Hyde. Are there
any questions from the committee at this time? Representative Lee, you're recognized with a
Speaker 63
1:07:44
question. This looks like a good bill, so I'll say that right off the bat. Did you get input from the fire marshals?
Speaker 212
1:07:53
Yes, ma'am. Yes. They were kind of the impetus of this effort. Got it. Okay.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Representative Lee. At this time, I'd like to recognize
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:08:09
Representative Smith with a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hyde, on page three, you're talking about service, and servicing means physically installing portable fire extinguishers, et cetera, et cetera. That's the filling, maintaining, recharging, and whatever. Does this require any new training for these individuals,
or is this just you're talking about fitters is this really applicable or should that be a separate issue portable fire
extinguishers I thought we were talking about the in-house extinguishers like we see in the building here
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:08:38
well it's it's what I told you is this is a a maintenance bill that cleans up several issues for them and that's the only the one substantive issue was the issue of licensing fitters right and and so if you have a question you know this This modernizes whatever else is going on within their industry.
But I'm glad to have the director answer your question if you
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:08:59
have a question on it. Okay. Well, I think that's a good move to put it into one act, if we could, or one piece of legislation. I was just
curious if there's any additional training for those people that fill those portables? Nothing required there? Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sure. Representative Penards, you
recognize the question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, ma'am, I didn't catch your name. Ma'am, if you can
state your name and who you're with for the record.
Speaker 218
1:09:28
Thank you. Nikki Gray. I'm the director of the Fire
Protection Licensing Board. Okay, thank you. On page 6 of the bill, 25 through 27, this is a long list or list of nine things that no person may do any of the following, except as provided no person, et cetera. Explain the deletion of lines 28 or 25, Ms. Gray, if you would please, 25 through 27.
Speaker 218
1:10:04
Explain that deletion. That is there because the way the rest of the Act reads, You have to be a full-time employee of a sprinkler, registered sprinkler company, to be a sprinkler inspector. You can't be an individual that just comes to be licensed that can then go to work for any company or on a contractual basis.
So, if I understand what you've just said, Ms. Gray, if I'm licensed and I'm the only one in my business, business does that preclude me from engaging in
inspecting no ma'am that doesn't preclude you at all and what this says is
Speaker 218
1:10:57
that you have to be a full-time employee of a firm that is registered with the board to hold an
Speaker 219
1:11:06
inspector's license okay so I could be
a one-person firm yes ma'am who has that license yes ma'am I just want to make sure that we're not affecting small business people who may in this kind of business may have a small firm or a two or three person business and so you're assuring me that that's not the case no ma'am okay you can
Speaker 218
1:11:26
be that one person that holds that license that has that company that's registered it just means you can't hold the license without your firm being registered okay that's
that's what I need to know thank you
Miss Gray I appreciate it thank
you Mr. Chair thank you Representative Pinard it's
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:11:44
Representative Wagner, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for summary, could you just go through the guidelines for licensing a fitter, what their training must be, what their fees are, anything else that concerns them? Since you are saying that that is the position we're dealing with actually here. Yes, ma'am, that is correct.
Speaker 218
1:12:08
And to be a fitter, the Department of Labor has a four-year apprenticeship program that you have to complete prior to being a licensed fitter. And so what we've done with this bill is allow that person to hold an apprentice license in the state of Arkansas that coincides with their apprentice program that they get from the Department of Labor. Once they have completed that program Then they will come in and take a summary test
Just like any other licensed individual that we license The license fee will be no less than $100 Our fees range from $30 up to $300 Depending on the type of license that it is At that time they'll take the exam Once they pass the exam, we will issue them a license as a sprinkler fitter registered in the state of Arkansas.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:13:11
And they are apprenticed under whom? The Department of Labor. I mean, under what people? A sprinkler fitter. Another sprinkler fitter? Yes, ma'am. They will work. How did that first one get their license? You would have to ask the department
Speaker 223
1:13:28
later. I mean, that person had to be an apprentice. So
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:13:33
there are already some who are licensed. Yes, ma'am. They were apprentices or not?
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:13:42
Those apprentice programs probably date
back to the 50s. So there's a long line of those fitters and of those journeyman fitters. But there's not been a license required for them in the past. They just went through a program to become a journeyman. And it's what's happened in the construction industry overall and the sprinkler industry, I think specifically for this conversation today, is there's been a straying away from apprenticeship programs or formal training programs,
and people have just kind of done some OJT, and once they got pretty good or as a workload required for a contractor, they might have been using fitters that were good, good, but maybe they weren't completely trained. And so what this is doing is, because this is a life safety issue for a sprinkler system to work properly when it's called upon, so that's what caused, I think, the concern of local fire marshals, is they began to see that some of these fitters didn't have a formal
training process, and so they wanted to certify for their benefit that these folks were capable and fully properly trained. So the board has stepped in and taken the Bureau of Apprenticeship Training and the Department of Labor in Arkansas, which runs the apprenticeship programs or oversees the apprenticeship programs for electricians and plumbers and bricklayers and all the different craft training that we have
Speaker 12
1:15:15
within the state. One other question, please, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:15:19
Are there people in all parts of the state that these fitters can apprentice under so that they don't have to move in order to have an apprenticeship? Yes, ma'am, there are.
Speaker 218
1:15:37
Currently, we have not found a sprinkler company. We also worked with the Fire Sprinkler Association to develop this. They all try to make sure that their employees are enrolled with the Department of Labor and the apprenticeship program.
So, yes, they would be able to work for any sprinkler company. I mean, they're going to have to have. As an apprentice. Yes, ma'am. All
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:16:02
right. And those are all over the
Chair
Unverified
1:16:07
state. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Wagner. Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Forgive me, but
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:16:14
I wanted to ask another question, if I could. On page 8, and I try not to beat this, but you're talking about the hydrostatic testing of these compressed gas cylinders. I presume that's for the portable fire extinguishers.
Am I right? Is that right? Okay. And then you're talking about a certification, certificate, rather, for them. So who's overseeing? Is that certification indicating that they're actually testing the cylinders to be properly? What line are you on? I'm looking here on page 8, lines 4 through 8 I've got highlighted at this point where I first pick it up. You talk about hydrostatic testing. How do we know that that test is accurate for that cylinder that's being refurbished and replenished, I should say?
Is there a way to – I mean, you've got people doing this, and they've got a Class A testing certificate. Who's checking the checkers? Is that done by a U.S. entity that's in the state that's overseeing this? I mean, is there a chance
there could be a weak cylinder refilled and out on the job site? That's where I'm getting. You know,
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:17:22
my answer would have to be, I mean, we're not altering anything in that section, but I understand what you're saying.
It's just a general question about the industry. And I think that the short answer
to your question is, well, there's always a question that you could have a weak cylinder out.
But I know that when I have, in buildings that I own, when I have my fire extinguishers redone annually, I think, part of their test is to, and part of, as I recall it, there's a life span. There's a…
On the cylinder. On the cylinder. Yes, okay. And up to a certain age, they're allowed to just check them, and after a certain age, they retire them.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:18:07
Okay, so there's no chance for a weak one getting back out in the public area. Unless someone just doesn't read the label. Okay, thank you. And I'm sorry I
had to ask that. Thank you, sir. No, no, no, I'm glad. Thank
you. Thank you, Representative Smith. Are there any other questions from the committee at this time? Okay, I do have a motion noted from Representative Perry. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak for the bill, against the bill?
Representative Perry, or Representative Hyde, would you like
to close for your bill? I just like a good vote, members. Representative Perry, you're recognized
with your motion. Motion to pass. I have a motion for do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Ayes
have it. Congratulations, Representative Hyde. Your bill is passed. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members. All right. We are going to
go back down the checklist. Members, if you can just go to that second page.
I believe we made it
all the way down to Westerman's bill. We stopped at Letting, and then Representative Westerman ran his bill. So next is
– oh, I'm sorry, he ran the other bill. I'm sorry. But is Representative
Westerman here for House Bill 1979? 9. David Meeks, Representative Meeks, House Bill 1-9-8-3. House Bill 1-9-8-5, Representative
Viviano. I'm going to flip over to the third page at the very top. Is anyone here
to run chairman Tyler's bill 1023 representative Allen 1 9
8 7 representative Bell 1 9 9 1 representative Hubbard 2 0 0 9 and we ran represent Perry random house bill 2
So, Representative Clemmer, House Bill 2056. Representative Wardlaw, House Bill 2106. Would you like to run that? Can we skip over that for him? Sure. He doesn't have a voice today, that's why. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Malone.
Representative Clemmer, House Bill 2127.
House Bill 2132, Representative Clemmer. Representative Hyde, I believe, has left. So we'll skip. Let's see. 2136. We'll
skip that. And he ran House Bill 2139. House Bill 2141.
We'll skip that. Representative Nichols, House Bill 2152. Representative Stubblefield, House Bill 2159. Representative Viviano is not here. Representative Allen is not here. Representative Wren, House Bill 2186. Is there anyone here to run Representative Patterson's bill, House Bill 2187? Representative Powers, 2212
Senator Malone, 437 Okay, we ran Senator
Laverty's bill Representative Wilkins has left House Bill 1843 Are there any other bills on the agenda that we went over previously that somebody is here to run? Okay, if not We are done for the day. Thank you very much.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB437
HB1428
HB1810
HB1405
HB1965
HB1966
SB355
SB559
SB401
HB1623
HB2028
HB2139
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Linda S. Tyler Chair
Unverified
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Nathan Nelson
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 26
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
Theresa Marks
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 23
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 45
Representative Jon Woods Chair
Unverified
Representative Tracy Pennartz Chair
Unverified
Speaker 63
Speaker 64
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Speaker 84
Speaker 91
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 105
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Tom Green
Unverified
Speaker 110
Speaker 115
Speaker 118
Senator Randy Laverty
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 122
Speaker 126
Speaker 128
Speaker 129
Speaker 139
Speaker 117
Speaker 153
Speaker 144
Speaker 158
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Steve Harrelson
Unverified
Robert Breck
Unverified
Speaker 182
Speaker 185
Speaker 189
Speaker 187
Speaker 192
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 197
Speaker 199
Speaker 201
Speaker 188
Speaker 206
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Speaker 212
Speaker 218
Speaker 219
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
Speaker 223
Speaker 12