Code Revision Commission

They were kind of hold over issues from our last meeting we have a few others that have come up and With that I'll turn it over to the I don't have an agenda from I guess it's yes okay good. So we do have a first time business is the approval of the minutes of the June thirteenth twenty twenty three meeting those exhibit being your packet. We have a motion to approve the server second second all those in favor say aye. Any opposed the minutes are approved next item is the continuation discussion of issues related to the implementation of the Precht protect Arkansas act and that were identified by the Arkansas syncing Commission that's exhibit C. and alternatives to the covered visor to refresh your memory on where we're at on this. Sure One of the items held over this was actually item number two that was presented by the sentencing commission enters the discussion of the use of the word no in section sixteen ninety three three oh six D. three Roman two B. and you'll find that on page twenty of your packet under exhibit C.. And I believe we have missed out here from the sentencing commission. All right. You'll state your name your position and you're free to make your comments. At twenty Rall sentencing commission director I don't. M. I. A. I think that and. If I'm recalling correctly that this was held over just because there were some question as to whether it need to be no more than or more than and I'm just going to be honest I don't think for our purposes it matters which one it is but probably more than is more dramatically appropriate If you look after the page twenty in your package you'll see that we included the language of this was copied over from this was existing code section sixteen ninety three three oh six in sixteen ninety three seven twelve. The protect act that this language and it's kind of changed a little bit by making a condition if. Rather than shall accumulate no more than. And I think that when we looked at this previously because the way the language changed we were thinking that no the notice should be deleted from this reference they seem to be the sentiment yes because the point the point being that after a certain period of time then there should be a recommendation they should recommend a revocation of their post release supervision it wouldn't it wouldn't really make sense to say. No war the and because then at some point it would that takes away the option right okay. Is there any questions or discussion on this and I guess that's the change. Would be. To strike no from line fourteen yes Sir. What are represent Gazaway stepped out in Senator Tucker I think they both were involved with this piece of legislation of any comment any discussion. Is there a motion to strike no sooner Bryant's or second I have a second any discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The motion passes so will reflect that no should be stricken and then that will also be something that will refer over for a technical correction yes Sir for the coming session. All right. I think I'm looking at this in the same order as you all and so the next section deals with preliminary hearings and revocation hearings I think we discussed last time that there is kind of a broken reference where subsection C. is referenced but that's that's all rules for preliminary revocation hearings not preliminary hearings I think it's pretty easy to see why this little convoluted but it's effectively and I just want to mention what actual practices because I think even the way it's written in current law is old is a little confusing to be honest I'm so preliminary hearings are really used for if a full revocation hearing can't be done within fourteen days that preliminary hearing is really the opportunity for parole board revocation hearing judges to look at the initial evidence and make sure that they even have substantial proof to hold this person to a full revocation hearing in actuality a lot of people wave both of those hearings and they're the ones that are being seen in full hearings are being seen within about seven days because I know there was some concern last time kind of substantively about the time frame on the revocation hearings but. I think that I am fixing the internal reference and then striking the reference to a. Striking the reference to hearing on line twenty five. Is would would fix things for the parole board's purposes. You said it's strike the word hearing from one twenty five at strike preliminary so that that would make it referred to the revocation hearings. So this gives the set that up so that the offender can if they so choose to knowingly involuntarily I'm wife both their preliminary preliminary hearing into the revocation hearing and sometimes they do that because they have other charges. I don't. So. With the change online twenty five. That that would be if the revocation hearing is not waive. Under subsection C. yes let me double check and read it that way. That's on page twenty four. Yes changing changing preliminary online twenty five to revocation hearing would fix that reference and means that under you want they could waive their preliminary hearing and if they do waive their preliminary hearing or there's not a preliminary hearing and they don't leave the revocation hearing it has to be held within fourteen days. Right. Tucker you're recognized. I was mainly trying to get to catch up which I think I am now once we and so apologies I was out of the room but once we. Finish with this I have a question about C. two which I think I may have already handles. Represent Gazaway you're recognized. Thank you Mr Speaker. I do have one question when we talk about or make the distinction between preliminary hearing in revocation hearing. Why we didn't hold the preliminary hearing prior to the revocation hearings why do we even make the distinction. Between preliminary hearing revocation hearing. because sometimes they do right and it has actually been done in practice in recent history because they've been able to process the revocation hearings with and not statutory time frame but if for example and there were a lot more occasions more people want to revocation hearings than they might have to utilize that preliminary hearing procedure to kind of get through the first obstacle of proof. And like I said like you know I think probably it. Was initially drafted to look like sixteen ninety three seven oh five just when it got re organized I think maybe some of those references got broken. I'm online twenty five change preliminary to revocation. twenty four. And and that would match up with subsection C.. Which is apparently I mean it's referencing the revocation hearing as opposed preliminary hearing yes representative. Senator Tucker you have any other questions the. Can you wave a revocation hearing. Yes you can waiver revocation hearing and that's what's in subsection C. yes okay. Okay. Gazaway you're recognized Mister Speaker but it seems to me is the preliminary hearing would be. Similar to a probable cause hearing in a regular. Criminal case of originally filed case the preliminary hearing would be similar to a probable cause hearing revocation hearing would be like the full hearing. And while I am a little concerned that it I mean there are these several references in here to preliminary hearing. They were then just simply striking and make it making it is if. All the sections only pertain to having a revocation hearing within fourteen days so why are there all the references to seven days and whether or not. You know the preliminary hearing can be waived. Because to me that seems much more like waving probable cause and going directly to a replication of the House. And I see you. I mean it just seems like we're eliminating what would essentially be a probable cause hearing by striking this language in making it operate the way that you want to operate you want to operate. Not trying to be difficult I'm sorry but just as. As a result of this that's kind of how it occurs to me and you can and feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. I would never to. That doesn't be too on on page twenty two I mean it seems to address the timing of the preliminary hearing. Sharks host so subsection B. does kind of set out what happens at the preliminary hearing it says that if it says generally has to be held within seven days and then later on in the statute goes on to say that you can either waive that or they can skip the preliminary hearing and just go to a full revocation hearing and not have to have two separate hearings I'm if they can hear all of the evidence at the revocation hearing within fourteen days then that's you know less less hearings your hearings you know we don't have revocation judges traveling all over the state if they can kind of address those all at once and still the fourteen days at a time frame that you know means that we're not holding individuals forever on you know charges that they might end up not being revoked on. Ferguson Gazaway you're recognized so I understand that and that makes perfect sense which it seems to be the way that this was designed to operate. The issue when you strike preliminary on line eighteen on page twenty two. It would appear to me that you're essentially eliminating the preliminary hearing which is supposed to be under current law scheduled within seven days. Why would we do that I mean are these preliminary hearings is not important. Well I think unless they waive the preliminary hearing they're still entitled to it it's just setting out separate waiver processes and timelines for the preliminary hearing and the revocation hearing just because they're two separate hearing types. What I think that's it's great. I think it's twenty four twenty four. Page twenty four line twenty five. On page twenty two I think it's referencing It's reference in the preliminary hearing. And I think that the operator Ron think it's highlighted just to show similar language yes Sir in a dignified and so. I was looking at page twenty two initially as well but actually what what is proposed here would be due to change preliminary from line twenty five on page twenty four women area to revocation and. And so. In looking at this and I guess this is a question correct me if I'm wrong but the things that would seem to lend itself to making this changes it seems like you either have to change preliminary revocation for you have to change subsections seat in subsection B. because it doesn't make sense to. It's referencing back to see but see details with revocation hearing. And so given that it refers back to see that tends to lend itself to the intent was to deal with the revocation hearing not to mention the fact that the revocation hearing is also referenced on line twenty six and then additionally on top of that we already have similar language to this the bills with preliminary hearings which is the language over on page twenty two subsection B. to that deals with a preliminary hearing right in my in my raw does that. Perfect and in one of the nodes. And I think. This was mentioned to me on what on page twenty three. Down at the bottom not to. Komplett this but just so the commission's where it does it does provide It does provide some parameter for revocation hearing that says which shall be conducted by the board or its designee within a reasonable period after the offenders or rest for service of notice to appear and so that provides kind of a broad standard but then this provision actually narrows it down to a date to certain dates certainly so if they're going through the if they're skipping the preliminary hearings and going straight to revocation hearings that offenders being seen a lot faster than they would outside of the confines because it really puts that hard fourteen a limit on them. What it also I guess the other point That the other thing it seems to support the idea of changing kroner replications. It doesn't really mean waving your preliminary hearing should get you to a revocation hearing faster yes and so I guess if if it's. Well I guess that maybe maybe that's a circuit so. And if the well I guess my point is to be if they don't waive the preliminary hearing. That doesn't if they don't weigh but that's not gonna expediting thing in this case we're we're talking about the revocation if they don't want that then that needs to bring that means that they should be brought up with the. A much. Any other questions. Represent Gazaway you're recognized so that makes sense to me I think my confusion was on page twenty two I had written that we were striking preliminary hearing their first okay if we're not doing that then that then what Mr Speaker just said makes perfect sense so so all we're talking what we would be talking about here is page twenty four of Senate bill four ninety five line twenty five changing the word preliminary. To revocation so that it says if the revocation hearing off what. At. Any other questions for all right we have a motion Is there a second I have any discussion. All favor say aye. Any opposed. All right motion passes. Right one other one other at. And I promise not to bring anything else for a couple. Yes. I was out of the room apologies for that but can you tell me what happened on items but to see to so that was That was. The word no instructions were no excellent at which I think was what I think that's what we talk about sounds great okay thank you all right. All right the last one deals with parole eligibility for felonies with a firearm so effectively what happened in the Act is that a new subsection without it that I believe intent was to eliminate parole eligibility on those currently they fall under this. Hierarchy where it's mostly tied to the parole eligibility of the underlying offense with a couple exceptions like those who were required to serve a hundred percent of their sentence for you know. For all eligibility purposes if they have a prior violent offense in a current violent offense Changing and adding the language to make that kind of continue to be the pattern made this are really complicated parole eligibility section and I think one of the hallmarks of the project Arkansas act is that it really simplifies those rules and. So the proposal that I brought last time was to add in in section II one. And end date for the current parole eligibility statute so it would say for an offense committed on or after July two two thousand seven but prior to January first twenty twenty four and then ask for an offense committed on or after January one twenty twenty four in subsection C. which was the new subsection it without it I think that this clarifies which rule applies when without that language I think there's probably some ambiguity in the law about women which rule applies and historically I think we've seen in the past that when there is ambiguity in parole eligibility law that kind of creates extra litigation confusion for criminal defendants. Okay for the membership we don't have this section he. Are you able to pull that up yes thank you we do have section G. which is I think what you reference adding a the Arkansas start date which is what what date did you propose. For three that's January first twenty twenty four that's when most most provisions of the act are effective and that is on paid the that's on your packet C. Page seventies what's references page seventy six on the very back page. So that would be on or after January first. Yes and then you're the other change will that you're suggesting is it does to subsection any. Okay so. There's he can use them in just one more on that or maybe take that. Side yeah. So right now on the one it already says for an offense committed on or after July second two thousand seven and you would propose to the ad for for an offense committed on or after July July second two thousand seven or before July I mean January first. But prior to I think is what the rest the language looks like in other parts of the code. Are there any. Any questions about this. Represent Gazaway you're recognized. To miss round earlier I just before the meeting as I look through this. And once again I may very well be wrong but sixteen ninety one twenty I think. Is a sentencing statute. Not not a substantive criminal law statute and so the way subsection G. reads which this may be how it's. Referred to in other sections of that statute but it says any person convicted under this section. And. You know I'm not sure you can be convicted so to speak of a sentencing enhancement your sentenced under those enhancements you're convicted of a crime. The this felon using a firearm in the commission of a felony offense is not the standalone crime it's an enhancement after you've been found guilty of a substantive crime like murder or. aggravated assault or whatever it may be the case may be yes I'm just not sure that it's proper to refer to it as like any person convicted under this section it might be more accurate to say any person sentenced under this section is not eligible for early release on parole transfer post release supervision or community correction transfer. For the additional period of confinement and is as opposed to saying for an offense committed because it's not really you're not really. I don't know that you would say that you're committing an offense as much as you are saying that. You know you per per person sentenced under this enhancement would probably be more accurate. That's just my that was kind of my first thought when I when I looked at it but once again I'm free feel free to correct me because I very well might be wrong. What represent Gazaway the end this This Is Your your bill as I recall what about the on the issue of the dates. Do you do you agree with what she with what's been suggested as far as the effective dates of what comply. Does anybody know I mean I guess we can look it up on the other sentencing provisions in Arkansas Code does it does it make this reference to. Can be is it ref refer to as being convicted under that as opposed to being sentenced there's there's instances I believe where it does use convicted and sometimes uses sentenced. A little inconsistent and I am in subsection eighty that's pulled up it does save for an offense committed and then goes on and says any person who sentenced under this subsection but so is actually we have three words to be used. Committed convicted and potentially sentence right. Mr Stroudley you're right this is the actual reason why there's an issue with that because all three of those things you just identified are going to be different dates yes so my understanding so rescinding from that second go back to the question about the date on make sure I understand what's being said there on page seventy six what's what's highlighted there section one twenty five dealing with subsection G. the proposal is to add in. The date January first twenty twenty four right that's the proposal. Doesn't if it isn't there already and effective date section in the act that would make this effective on that date yes yeah the purpose of adding that is what I'm so if you were to look at to general parole eligibility sections and sixteen ninety three six oh one et seq historically things have a privileged bloody rules have been kept in kind of archived. Because the parole eligibility applies based on the date the offense was committed so you could have somebody who you know had multiple charges disposed of that were committed on different dates and they'd have different parole eligibility rules apply I don't know but you know obviously historically why that's been kept but this would be I think similar and would be or what we got in the parole eligibility statute reason a race that is the reason I raise that question is the AG's office just released an opinion specifically about the applicability of parole eligibility on residential burglaries which is a follow on to an opinion that was released last year and the the the the opinion in both of those two cases. Was that the legislature had set the effective date of the commission of a crime of not at sentencing and the whole issue here was about when the crime was committed versus when somebody was sentenced for it. and I think that's why the preliminary statement of for an offense committed on or after it would be tied to the underlying offense that was enhanced and that would mirror the language in existing section II one which has been the subject of a fair amount of I think litigation as to what parole eligibility law applied. D. for an offense occurring. With that fix the problem. If we want to focus on the date of the offense. I think I think that that would. I mean I guess it looks like to me that gives back to those three terms are used and then you've got the question of. Mistrials this point depending on the terms of use for the for the commission of one crime it's because there's a crime was committed on one date they were convicted on another date they were sentenced on the third day properly four in leased to the three right and so that you know we've got that issue I think. Seems like to me initially this was brought up just from the point of trying to clarify. Even before even before you get to that issue just clarifying what what applies it what date and time but now you actually not only do you have the date issue but then what is your standard for each of those different terms are used. And I'm not. I'm not sure what the what the what the answers Mr Ousley and then Mr. Speaker's point you're gonna have marginal cases where the offense was committed thank you for that language were added there that you've got underline. But prior to January one twenty twenty four you're not marginal cases where an offense was committed outside the window but the person was sentenced. Within the window and that strikes me as substantive law change yeah when you're when you're when you're changing the dates. Four whether an offense. Qualifies for work disqualifies somebody from. Thank you this is this a substantive. Thank you a substantive criminal statute a sentencing statute work process that. I can't because those three terms it can be. I can't figure out which which is which. Like them it looks like previous section referred more to a process or procedure. As opposed to. Criminal statute when you use conviction or committed committed committed what that that's that's wrong I can't tell what it is I guess so this enhancement is found in title sixteen in the sentencing section so it's a sentencing enhancement that can basically apply if you commit a felony with a firearm and it's not and an element of the underlying offense. So if you were to commit a rate and used a firearm and and that wasn't one of those underlying offenses or wonder that element of the underlying offense then this could be enhanced fifteen years currently and since two thousand seven the parole eligibility for the enhancement has basically mirrored with a few exceptions the parole eligibility of the underlying offense so if it was rate then it's a seventy percent you would do seven of the ten years if you got a ten year enhancement if it was aggravated assaults and then you would do six of the enhancement prior to this two thousand seven that language is actually added in the two thousand seven legislative session and There were some cases that were disposed of before that language became effective and they were committed. Before that two thousand seven date and and the Division of correction applied that seventy percent on a rate for example and and to the Supreme Court came in and said that the appropriate way to determine not parole eligibility is based on the date the offense was committed. So. Where where does the language committed. Where does that come in. Relative to conviction because you can commit something and not be convicted could not. So that that's what I'm just saying if you use with with different terminology like that you you you could throw off the whole statute it seems to me now maybe over thinking and if I am telling you know allow. I'm I'm maybe being a little speculative here but I think it's just based on the fact that there does have to be an underlying offense that was committed in order for the enhancement to apply and in fact if the underlying offense is overturned and enhancements also thrown out automatically. so I think that's where the committed came from is because we do have to base it on the date that the underlying offense was committed and of course the firearm would have been used in the commission of the offense on that same day arguably. Matthew can you can you go up the top of that section I mean it because it's referencing any person convicted under this section. I just was trying to understand me to represent Gazaway point this is in the sentencing section but it is. Since it's an enhancement maybe that does limit itself to the term convicted because it does have this additional language in sections a and B. right section a. represent guess what you're recognized. Thank you Mr Speaker so this reminds me of you know generally what our intent of what we did under this bill five phasing it in making the changes to parole eligibility for certain offenses January one twenty twenty four parole eligibility for other offenses January one twenty twenty five. I agree with the speakers pointed in a of this section it talks about any person convicted of any offence. classifiable laws the state is a felony employee firearm. At that. That's just generally saying when a person would be eligible for this enhancement get to be convicted of an offense before you're eligible to to be I have to have this enhancement imposed. Which makes sense but if we're talking about. When this would become effective for purposes of. Offenses committed I think it's consistent with what we did in the other parts of the bill and how they affect role eligibility by us saying offenses committed after a certain date and that offense as you said could be murder could be raped it could be any number of crimes that involve the use of a firearm in the commission of the offense and that's why you would start that language out with for an offense committed on or after January one which is consistent with how we changed other. Parole eligibility Los but don't the thing that gives me some pause is the next part any for an offense committed on or after January one twenty twenty four that makes sense. Any person convicted under this section where you can't be convicted under this section. Because this section is in my opinion sentencing statutes in the sixteen hundreds permits in this is in the sixteens title sixteen that's sentencing laws not substantive criminal law which is entitled five. And you can't be convicted under this section you can be sentenced under this section. So the offense part makes sense to me in starting in January one twenty twenty four you know if you commit murder after January one twenty twenty four right after January one twenty twenty four. That's where we know the change in the pro eligibility happens. If you happen to be sentenced under this statute not convicted so my. I mean my suggestion would be that we change the work convicted to sentenced. but otherwise I don't see a problem with it because the intent was. That a. Once this change took effect once this change takes effect like all the other changes either on January one twenty twenty four January one twenty twenty five. A person would not be eligible for parole good time or any reduction in their sentence if the enhancement is imposed. So those are my thoughts on it that's that's that's my suggested change. I'm just gonna throw something out there is I feel like this. This has like multiple layers to it. I mean there seems like there's two issues one is the date which the date that's originally was brought to our attention is trying to clarify the date but then on top of that we have this question of whether of the terms committed convicted and sentenced which even in this section it. One second one part that we would potentially change refers to committed the other part refers to Senate so it's not really apples to apples so to speak. What I'm what I'm we. First up the commission but what I'm wondering about is if we don't take action on this today and and if if represent Gazaway you made sure it was your bill I mean I'm not trying to give additional work but maybe if it maybe that whole. Section needs to be looked at as far as what the terminology is maybe with the AG's office because I am concerned that I realized there needs to be clarity and this makes a big is gonna make a big difference in the way things are handled but I'm me personally I'm just a little leery of trying to make a change today because even the terminology until until we start looking at a candidate that I've been kind of Libya's to that point but I think that's that's the. A valid concerns well. So I'm just going to throw that out there if the commission but the will the commission could control so if we want to go and make a change the expropriate you know I'm I'm certainly open to that. Ferguson Gazaway. I'm fine with the laying it. To for us to consider it further But I will say I mean I do think. That language about convicted or sentenced could be. important because it you know clever defense lawyer could challenge the if someone were sentenced after the effective date they could challenge whether or not the sentence enhancement could be imposed because they say it right you know it's it's not affected because the we don't we use the term convicted and you can't be convicted under this under this section so we need to get the terminology right and I would add that the language that we put in the protect act to allow additional changes with that not allow us to make that change in addition to the others that were considering. The back leads up to the commission to determine what the technical areas that would be resulting from the protect act we have we have greater latitude with regard to the protect act and we do with virtually anything else yes Sir you have a you have some enhanced authority when it comes to the products of so would it would that it said would would you be willing to would you be well I mean I think the AG's office probably should weigh in on this anybody else but if represent Gazaway if you would take the lead on that and maybe we can come back and circulate you know by email. What what the recommendation is expressed considering Vance of kind of come back for a follow up I just I'm I'm leery of this recognizing that I mean even today there's additional issues that come up. Yes I would. All right. Was there some objection to handling it that way you know two out of three is not bad security to have the three issue so but if there's less there's objection then we'll do is we'll deferred that and take a closer look and then come back and try to address any changes need to be made all right. Thank you have a okay so that's all we had on C. search and then Senator Tucker got some time so. Yeah let's do that which one which one are you here on. Okay we're gonna. We're going to objection removed if you have while Senator Tucker is here before he has to leave. So you're recognized to present those those issues related items EMS thank you Mr Speaker I to be me I mentioned at our last meeting this was brought to my attention by Senator Davis and and our staff has done an excellent job of of looking into it. Essentially what the issue is is there was a bill house bill twelve oh nine passed in two thousand five. And if you look on page three line eighteen. The word of the bill that was passed was or. And then if you keep flipping through the packet. You see the. Page copied from the Arkansas the physical copy of the Arkansas code annotated if you flip to the last page sixty seven. It's highlighted there toward the bottom the word there is an so somewhere between the passage of the legislation and the codification of the legislation for got change from order and and Senator Davis had a constituent who's an attorney bring this to her attention I brought to the attention Kevin Matthew they looked into it. They said you know this happened nearly twenty years ago. They cannot reconstruct the logic of why it was changed from or to end. And you know that we have the ability to change it back to the way it was when the bill was passed Matthew if you want to chime in on anything I missed. No I think Senator Tucker stated you know is plainly that the staff member who look at this those many years ago is no longer here we can't reconstruct whatever the logic was behind the decision to make that change but I certainly mean indisputable that it is passed in the form that it was passed and so certainly the commission wants revert to the original pass language. We've got a supplement held since we're doing this process we went ahead and held this one just in case so we can make this change in the supplements when they come out here in a few weeks. Any questions on that and to be clear the order would relate to items one through eight so anyone of one through eight would be a prohibited practice in and of itself. Are any discussion Strouse we recognize. It seems obvious that it should go back to the the way it was originally but I have a question about the way that would be accomplished I don't know how many times I've been researching and I've come across issues just just like this or similar to this and it makes me insane and I can't figure out who did what when will there be any kind of an notation in supplement to indicate that there what that that per however many years I leaves Senator said twenty years that it was codified know how was in and now it's been changed there be any record of that so that people twenty years from now I can recreate that that Pat. Yeah they'll be in a C. Arceneaux there any case the commission made the determination to put that back to or in accordance with the original act. All right any other any other discussions are motion sir Tucker I make a motion to change that back to war all right okay. As a as a mistake or a technical error that was corrected or or we just decided to change it just because I mean that that's I don't I would want someone to question why it was done and I I'd like some clarity put in there that said this was found to be an error this was back. So yeah we can we should I don't see why we couldn't that's like to me this is clearly an error yes we can reflect that in the note the commission determined there was an error in the codification that that's that's. Yeah I'd based on based on the information we have before us today it appears that it was in there all right so we do have a motion Is there a second. Second purpose against any discussion all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes will make that change their Tucker you're recognized president I don't have. Thank you Mr Speaker I had an attorney bring this issue to my attention. See Senator Hammer just walked in this was about a bill that Senator Hammer actually originally passed in twenty twenty one Senator Hammer is very effective passing legislation So here's what happens there was a bill that was introduced in Congress and the bill that was introduced. would change federal law so that medical that could not be recovered until two years after the date had been incurred. And in anticipation of the possibility of that will law passing at the federal level senator Hammer introduced a bill in twenty twenty one that says only its contention legislation in the event that passes. We're going to change our statue limitations and it would have been necessary because right now in in Arkansas our session limitations on the recovery of medical does two years and so if they change the federal law say you couldn't recover for at least two years then it would be impossible for medical debt to be recovered in Arkansas so Senator Hammer is thinking ahead and said okay it will build a condition on the contingency that this federal law passes will change our state Stachel meditations from a limit of two years to a window of after the two year period has expired up until five years that's the bill passed in twenty twenty one. Here's the issue that the attorney brought to my attention if you look on later on that you see in the ballot volume where it's written at the top. That the statue limitations for the recovery of medical that is two years and it's in section sixteen dash fifty six that's one of six subsection B.. If you go back one page where it says supplement at the top. The same subsection sixteen fifty six one of six B. it says that the statue of limitations is five years. And with all due respect to the folks who print the volumes I think nine appointed personal lawyers this point. Look everything up online digitally and the way that it reads if you look at it online it's just that our statue imitations if you just look at the law only it says the statue limitations on the medical that is five years. And then you have to kind of scroll to a different part where it says that it's can that the effectiveness of that subsection is contingent on the passage of the federal law and and the the question at this point and I still I haven't really had a good opportunity to discuss this with Kevin Matthew and so I wanna hear their thoughts and the reason I frankly declined earlier is that I wanted to share their thoughts with the whole commission and not just with me but the point that this attorney raise with me was. That perhaps the law should be should appear in the book the way that it is now with the contingency in the note rather than the other way around because the way it appears right now essentially is that. The future law that will be the law if the contingency happens it reads as though that's the law but then you you kind of have to look elsewhere to see that it's not yet the law that a contingency has to occur before becomes the law and I so I'm I'm assuming that this is a an issue that is. More broadly applicable. Then just this one particular section but as far as this one particular section goes. You know my personal attacks just try to give up a political prognostication many years ago my personal assessment is that contingency is never going to come to pass I don't think that proposed federal laws is going to become law and so while Senator Hammer was being you know prepared when entities that they'll I think there was a greater likelihood that was going to pass and then it but it is now. And anyway I'm rambling but you seem you see my point of the question that I'm raising the issue that I'm spotting so I'd I'd be curious to hear from you know from from Matthew and Kevin and then also from the other members of the commission about this issue. I would just point out that this is been the standard way that we've set out the sections we set out with the bracket in the catch line and and that's intended to catch the reader's attention that this is a contingent reversion of the code section. I checked with the publisher this seems to be the standard practice across states this is how we've done it there's a few sections that we do a little bit differently if the sections really long I think one of those like nineteen six three one I can remember but as an alternate you know it's I think I two hundred and something subdivisions in those kind of instances will set out contingent subsections are subdivisions within a shorter regular type section like this we generally set out this section as contingent. In the catch line in the be a note at the end of this section also that explains what that contingency is but that's really the purpose of those brackets is the catch the reader's attention that you're dealing with a contingent version of the code it's really kind of a a a side effect of him to do a published document were you can instantly updated so if you had a situation where contingency was met. You have no way instantaneously update that printed product issued already actually published the contingent version so I think that's where that practice originated setting out the contingent version it was for that situation where okay the contingencies met we need to have that version of the law published so people would know what it is I guess the side effect is it is it can be somewhat confusing in that you have to check that catchline to make sure that you understand you're looking at a contingent version. So in the in the ballot volume if when the newest update the bound volume of. Or just the latter yes Sir if the at this yeah this situations a little more complicated because you've got the volume has been replaced and so you've got the supplement sitting out there on their own on its own with just a contingent version once that volume was replaced you would have both versions sitting side by side in that's why you have the note in this continued version that refers you to the bound volume but then online like this is this is Lexus the Matthew has a is that correct yes Sir so it doesn't reflect it just reflects the. It doesn't like the current version and that's perhaps problematic and we committee is it we can talk to them it seems like to me is or just a way that you could take. Can you soon that is there. Just take the when doctors take the title and body of this. And add it to the title or body in that or put it underneath that and then you then they have both. Both items and because now I mean I don't even know. We based on that you would have to go in abeyance given is telling you but the the contingency is but then you would have to go into I guess you have to go find the the act. To find the contingency and then if you're recognized the contingency hasn't been met you have to go back and find a. The historic version of this section is that right. Yes Sir and it like Kevin said it works best when there side by side when they're going to Code buddies run there and but it with the ballot volumes it can take ten or fifteen years for us to get to a point that we can do that I will talk about this over making sure here that both the representative I mean the actual law here in represented in the online version so I need to talk about that yeah it in disclosure I believe there is even an error at one point where the brackets were not even on the online version of Lexus's so that's recently been corrected And then we need the actual version that's effective in there also but this is a that's a problem of the online version the published version you've got both versions in their asphalt ones in the supplement ones in the bound volume but it would be easy for us to include both versions in the supplement if that was something the commission want to consider. Yeah I mean I think with the way Matthew just put it is the concern that the lawyer mmhm my constituents press to me and that I share means he's looking at up at lexis nexis that does not reflect what the current laws in Arkansas so he's looking at this up he's looking this up as a practitioner and things all my gracious the specializations now five years it totally changed the nature of what he thought he was dealing with so I mean to me that's a real concern this lead you to assume the contingencies been met because that's all that's there right so that would be my concern and we'll talk to Lexus in the next couple days and make sure that they update the online version to reflect what's in the the ballot vitamin supplement because they have both of them in the ranks this is just wrong how many contention laws we talk about on the books total ballpark. Well with the protect Arkansas act hundreds of sections. I'll give. Senate bill more hard time about that later I won't be able to represent Gazaway hotel Sullivan so but is it protect Arkansas to sign I mean is this something I mean is this a kind of a handful or is it even without project Arkansas's at hundreds of major there's there's quite a few there's quite a few okay even most of them were based on that date but there are quite a few that are based on some contingency of like some federal law being adopted or certification from the Attorney General that something has occurred there's there's quite a few okay so. When you say I don't I'm not trying to create a huge issue or you know for you all but we say we'll talk Alexis about are you talking about across the border just this section I think they need to review their entire code to make sure that all those represented correctly okay and then in my mind that would be our conversation with them is look at this one and what does this mean for the others okay let's make sure we always have a side by side okay and as far as the printed code goes they either are side by side in the bound volume or they're paired through the bound volume in the supplement sensually in a perfect world would be here you have two versions of one of six in their one they had no record at all and then a version that had the bracket indicating the contingency you know it's Kevin indicated though it's this kind of a Goldilocks world right to end up with them in that form. But we could put it in the sub no we can certainly added to the supplement and have a side by side the subculture so you didn't have to go to the ballot okay if there is concern about this one section that can be some of that can be resolved by putting both versions of this amendment yeah so that would be easy for that one section yes and so and so I guess really what I'm getting at it ultimately is but it would. It would hold up the publication of the supplement quite a bit if you over again going to do that for every contingent upon the code. It would take a bit of time to find those and it initially to protect Arkansas act it's just going to be a challenge right off the bat right because we're going to have a whole lot of title five but then the bound volume and in the supplement yeah. Okay so I guess my thought is. And if the if the other members of the commission agree. At least for this one if we can publish on side by side in the supplement and then if there are others that makes sense the all spotted can do before the time of publication great. But don't hold up the public you know the timing of the publication of the supplement and then maybe this is something the office take a look at in the interim before you know that the next publication two years from now and and see if there are others where it may be confusing where you could put both side by side and someone before they're on the bound volume together how's that sound. That's good does it will be something probably that will need to look at post supplement yes because we're almost ready to roll we understand we've sent back almost three fourths of them by this point but we you know we can it be an interim project take a look make a master list of those check and see how the representative something we can report back to you on okay and if you're if it's the prerogative you know if we just come across things we are happy with we can go ahead and talk to Lexus and make changes consistent with this one as we're going along because we do a C. S.'s and things like that like no be subsequent bites that okay is that sound good everybody else. Well considering a motion okay that's a motion that's a motion and a second represent Gazaway any discussion. All in favor say aye any oppose motion passes I think we're in Roberts rules of the way the motion was originally made is does that sound good everybody else. What we're operated under Mason yes I thought if I guess is one point of clarification would you like us to look at all of them all the contingencies even the ones based on just a date occurring or ones where it's some kind of content you like this were like a law has to be passed or certified this those okay all right I actually. Notice. I trust your you just take a look and see. Okay. All right so those would take care of item F. set all you know he has. So we're gonna go back to the item the. I don't know who's going to be one of the House. Exhibit D. and Adam D. or the items that we held over from the last meeting these are items that were discovered by staff as we're working through the act codification process in the supplements. At the beginning of that exhibit you'll see we have a summarized version of the report we're we only included the items that were held over. So the first item that was held over was Adam B. three this was involving act number four forty two section nine that created a new twenty three fifty five six eleven be appears that there is an improper subdividing. If you look at page sixteen under that act under Saddam B. three lines thirty one through thirty five you'll see that subdivision B. two. It appears that it may have been intended to be part of the list that's in B. one. B. one sets out certain exceptions to the requirement for a licensee to refund the money to a center. Be to speak to the inability of the licensee to identify the sender or the transaction issue so it appears to make sense to belong to list of setting out the exceptions to the refunding otherwise it wasn't clear what the purpose of subdivision B. two was. And I think we've heard back from interested parties on this one I spoke representative Matix who connected me with the securities commission this was something they had worked on the securities commission indicated that it should be part of the one. And representative Maddox indicated that he was in agreement with whatever the securities commission said so I know what's on there is a discussion on what the sponsor intended and that was what we were able to learn so what is that the committee. There's actually not a it becomes a there's actually not a beat three in this situation so we would have to remember the entire subsection one through yeah yeah and I look different but it would not be part of a list yeah and it would all tie back to that every licensee shall refund to the sender. Bob what Colin and everything would relate to that yeah. Any questions on this. Strauss. Recognized thank you Mr Speaker so just just for clarity we're talking about Page sixteen lines thirty one through thirty six what's currently be. Two. And the idea would be that that would become B. one Cappy the public can be for five yeah we can be I think it become B. five there were there's no B. three in that subsection so if you combine to with one. The New list will start off with the B. and then you'll have one thirty five. I see okay so just going to get rid of one. Yes yes okay and then you're going to make it so that the leading language on line fifteen co here's with what's currently to cafe and cafe yeah yeah you still have that lead in languages there and to but it would be so you have the ever licensee shall refund for transmission unless any of the following occurs the refund request is not able to enable the licensee to you know that either a or B.. What I guess. You have to move the four down. If you would as part of that will have to move the integration that lists the I would make. Okay. Yes. You're recognized thank you Mr I'm not sure I'm still not sure I'm following substantively. Because. B.. Images. I'm being dense on this. But the one speaks about a requirement to refund money to a center. And then what's currently B. two which is line thirty one following. Speaks about. Things. They're not consequences of the request so what is B. what currently B. one and all the cap cap letters there are. Grounds that would. An exception to or transmission unless any of the following sure. I think the idea is that if the refund request doesn't enable a licensee to identify. Who Senate my name or telephone number number they don't have any account information on the person or they can't identify the transaction. That should be an exception to that duty revised okay got it I'm. I think one of the complications is that that the eighty three the. They're kind of drafted as being part of. A longer list for example it's not a standalone sentence and then we get to that point the standalone Senate come to ride like that might need to be for a technical correction at some point maybe that could be. Restructured it looks a little weird because it's in uniform style mmhm yeah and would probably follow the uniformed style is we adjust the list. Any other questions or discussion on this. Since we've got several does commit without objection would just make that change will take a motion at the end of all the ones that we that we want to include is being changed maybe that'll save a little bit of time all right moving on. The next item that was held over is item number B. four this is involving that same act number four forty two section eleven it immense twenty three fifty five seven oh two. In the first issue is that it appears to me that language from subdivision B. two a. And you'll find that on page twenty two lines fifteen through twenty nine. There appears to be language missing from the if clause in order for to make sense there's nothing actually indicating what must happen with the notice in order for that conditions to be met. One thought that we had was that it appears you could have is before issued to make that make sense I think we've also heard heard some feedback from interested parties a again representative Maddox putting tested this securities commission they made two suggestions they suggested replacing if within the inventor of. Or replacing if with upon. Either one was their suggestion and then they concurred that the what Kevin and I've called hanging six that yes kind of a six that didn't connect anything was intended to tie into that earlier let rise. That's on page twenty three lines twenty eight through thirty is that hang in subdivision B. six AM at the mention it it doesn't appear to belong to anything dealing with that letter of credit but it's more correctly identified with subsection a which is permissible investments. Which is on page twenty one it would plug in on page twenty one right after one fourteen right I haven't yes as set out in B. B. is not structured the same as ace of all the subdivisions at that level and the need to be complete sentences and six is not a complete sentence. But it works as part of the list in a. That is our concern that if for moving we're taking something out of one list. And moving it to another that kind of seems like forget and of one of a substitute. And and this was something we weren't gonna do now on our own obviously but there isn't it doesn't make sense now so something is amiss. But I certainly understand that there is a bit substantive to move it at several pages were having to move it so. Any any thoughts on that yes the first issue on page twenty two per the recommendation is to change if to either in the advanced for upon. Which personally if we were going to change a word I feel more comfortable changing one word for everyone one word as opposed to my word for a phrase but. That would be upon them. What's the will of the Commission. Okay we have a motion to change it to upon we have a second ISRI discussion. All in favor indicate by saying aye aye any opposed we made that will make that change then as to the second question moving. This subsection six from page. Twenty three under sub Strouse Lee you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker the the proposal is to move. Page twenty three lines twenty eight twenty nine thirty to where it would land on page twenty one right after line fourteen. And you have to just the list of but you have to move that and from line six down the line fourteen. To adjust. I did not get an explanation for how this happened. but it's Kevin said if you look at the last on page twenty three for it is in that last of B. one through five those are all complete sentences so this one needs modifying lead in language Drafting error where the the language had they have similar numbers they ended up on the wrong with five in the Act. Ferguson Gazaway you're recognized thank you Mr thank you Mr Speaker so looks to me like that six. Is what you're asking to do is to move it under subsection Hey which currently ends with with five. And that six just got basically put under the wrong subsection six because it's completely illogical where it is and it's perfectly logical under a it's completely illogical under. it's just completely and therefore it's currently under the and so to me I mean I yes to typically moving number subsection like that could could be substantive but here just because of how illogical it currently is and how logical it is in the other place seems to me to be clear what happened I certainly don't have a I don't see a problem with it so this is my opinion that the motion. No. I consider. We have a motion all right we have a motion Is there a second. Any discussion. All in favor say aye. Those. Yes. All right moving on. I remember B. eight VOL the next number five ninety six section one. Create a new four fifty six one of seventy four a that appears to have a grammatical error if you look at page two. One thirty five you'll see this subdivision. If you read it you'll see that has the language does not require which is inconsistent with the language from compliance it appears that the language should have been does not prohibit from complying with. This interpretation appears consistent also with the intent of subsection the that institutions may need to comply with certain federal laws and we've heard back from interested parties on this issue also the last meeting your interested in what representative Lundstrum and senator Dismang thought about this one actually had a telephone conference with them this morning and they agreed that. Representive Lundstrum was fine with it either way that was fine with changing it to does not prohibit from complying with I think in that it Kevin yes Sir and Senator Dismang felt like that was the appropriate changes well so they had no problem with the revision. The discussion. If not. Without objection will make that change will include that in a vote at the end of this package. All right thanks. Next item is our number be ten involving act number seven oh one section one. It's a new twenty three three one seventeen a to see Roman one that's missing numbers if you look at page two. One one you'll see the missing verbal for the word specify if you turn back to page one you'll see that the other subdivisions of this list you shall and we've heard back also from the sponsor on this one. And I'm looking for my paper here Kevin you member center it was responded and told us what he should have been shall. Your so you're suggesting that we added shall see one. The right. That's a recommendation based on the sponsors. It's me here that's got attached to each of the individual subdivisions but sees missing the or there's a grammatical error there and so the issue is how you want to resolve that with the missing Byrd and senator Mickey indicated it was his intent for it shall there. Any discussion on the. All right. That will include that. All right next item is item number five be eleven. At number seven eighty seven section one creates a new six twenty one one twenty one that require schools to keep exterior doors locked and act number eight forty one section forty four create a new twenty twenty two ten eleven that requires the state fire marshal to require teachers at schools to keep all doors and exits I'm locked. We have quite a bit of discussion on this one at the last meeting and what shows recommendation. We were thank you. I don't I don't I mean I'm just going to say this I don't think that we this this is to you all correct me if I'm wrong we have two completely different laws and given the subject matter in the in the nature of this in my opinion we should we should leave this alone and this is something that needs to be addressed by substantive legislation. Everybody okay. Yes Is Senator English just let me know that this wasn't the intent you know it wasn't intended to be confusing representative Johnson said he was fine with using Senator English as a language over and the language is created in his act did you know that may ultimately have to be a legislative correction it's up to you all if you caught up on both ends of being weird because one of them is kind of a direct order the other one tells the fire marshal to enforce it differently yeah but it doesn't necessarily tell the school not to do it like there's going to be murkiness. But having a dual codified will not they don't just directly click right on top of me either right it'll be. And they'll be a cross reference that it section to the right of the other one all right and I see the department is here I see that they're green. This is something we should wait into. All right and let's there's. Sir Brian. I was looking at the staff thoughts. That's we could not codified. Seven eighty seven. And enjoyed codified Act forty eight forty one so what is in essence that would that recognition would take Senator English is bill and put off to the to the side we had put kind of all the ways that you could possibly do it you know one way to be look at it would be to look at them as directly conflict in which case we have to go with the later one. as we mentioned in there you just codify everything in this yeah you can all right is meant to point out you can make the distinction that the first one is a duty that's placed on the schools and the second one is a duty this placed on the state fire marshal. And codify both of them because it is the duties will be placed on the State Farm Marshall. There and and that's a I think I think the intent of of. ACT seven eighty seven was kind of a we want the doors to be locked secure kids but you know the panic bars and even NFPA says you know it's it's it's about egress out which is not considered what is considered unlocked which is what you want progress out so I was kinda hoping we would go with the the staff costs and not to. What a fight it seventy seven and leave eight forty one and affect. But that's just by. And this was this was one we certainly defer to you all on. Regis. We is what is twenty twenty twenty two. Is that say. Is that this is that's the reason the the issue was originally created because you have the title twelve section that with this duty on the state police director right and the letter ACT eight forty one repealed that section reenacted in title twenty and change that did put that duty on the State Farm Marshall. And so that's where the which is the language is still the same down here the issue we're considering today is just this issue of whether they're locked or unlocked. Right how to treat the codification of the two sections. And the and they could have been I mean they say locked and unlocked in the surprise point. The. The distinction is they probably were intended to be unlocked from the inside so that you can leave here in the event of a fire but obviously the other section is designed to be concerned about keeping people out of the schools and keeping or. Any other questions discussion. Senator Tucker you're recognized I was just gonna say. I mean given the point that I think Senator Rapert as senator Bryant raise which I think is very valid point. Is is it possible to read these where they're not really in conflict with each other. Or do they need it doesn't need to be clarified in code that once talking about locked from people coming in from the outside. And the other one is unlocked from the inside of an. I deferred to the Department and the agencies that are involved in this on that interpretation. And I think. Courtney in the final under here if you'll come to the table State your name and position in the department has a position on this. Good afternoon courting solace for chief of staff of the department of education so our initial request would be to codify them both because of the potential for confusion the recommendation of the school safety commission was the language in ACT seven eighty seven and that school districts be required to keep the exterior doors locked as was mentioned to keep people from coming in. My concern with. Doing what was suggested and just codifying ACT eight forty one is that we would be relying on the state fire marshal to make it clear to all school districts that unlocked means locked but able to egress from the inside Knowing that in the past there really hasn't been a lot of communication on that and and that is just going to create confusion. So Morris we defer to you and we'll explain what we need to explain can the Department. Take a position where they're interpreting these two bills and the way that we're discussing right now we're. Seventy seven is locked from the outside and. Whatever the other number is eight eight seventy forty one yeah so we of course would not be have any authority for enforcement or interpretation of ACT eight forty one being in title twenty. And to add that to our facilities inspection facilities and transportation inspections and so we would be focusing on the keeping extort exterior doors locked which also does have the language and B. I have not impeding from building egress and so we would be enforcing that and not. Using section twenty twenty two dash ten eleven or attempting to interfere with the fire marshal's obligations at all. Yeah president Gazaway you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker. Just offering my opinion I really don't have a question other than to say looks like these two can be read together me a minute with a little interpretation from department of ed they're into separate sections of the code once and title six once entitled twelve. it just appears to me to be no reason why these two can't be read together with a little guidance from the department of death we need to pass a rule or something like that any number of ways we can fix this but I would caught up on both. Just my opinion thank you for what is worth. Hankins you're recognized out of five in place a note. Referencing the other with any kind of interpretive tech interpretation no suggestion. something along the lines. Typically in this kind of situation we would just place a cross reference to. You know to the catchline in the subject of the other section and not place any kind of interpretive top language in there it would just be a cross reference that this other section existed. Senator Bryant recognized. Thank you I do not disagree with represent Gazaway is if you're if you're fire marshal use can use NFPA and if it gets specific exceptions for exterior doors being locked from the outside so they do not conflict so I wouldn't have any objection to codify vote actually. Senator Tucker. I'm just offering my concurrence especially with the point she may which I think is an excellent point that subsection B.. Of seventy seven which is the the section that says the doors have to be locked explicitly says a person shall not be impeded from building egress and compliance with the Arkansas fire prevention code so just offer my concurrence that I'm good with both being codified as they are. All right which that that would be what normally would occur here correct I mean we we don't have to take action they're both gonna be codified. So it is unless there's some objection to that will we won't make any change they'll both be codified in the department and the fire marshal they can handle the implementation but probably that something for someone to run some substantive legislation to clarify correct. Any objection. So notice no change to that the both be cut right out of five I'll just remind the commission had on the prior meeting you decided to move that subsection beat to the title twenty provisions of subsection B. will still be in the law that comes from the earlier ACT seven eighty seven it'll just be codified with the title twenty material so just refresh my memory everything that was enacted is being codified yes Sir the only thing we did was move was meant basically moved the location we move this change anything about any about how it operates or what it relates the drive because that same subject matter and at twelve thirteen one oh nine there is repealed by the later act. Remove this subsection B. that title twenty material we're is being re enacted okay. It started off in total twelve but this section of this subsection B. was being attitude was repealed by that later act in so the commission at the last meeting determined that that subsection B. should be codified with the title twenty material it was in in seventy seven it was already in a separate title anyway there is there's a title six provision and then there's the title twelve provision. K. Ferguson Gazaway so I agree thank you respect regardless of the approach con final both moving forward as has been stated can someone whether that's code revision or department of ed. Keep a note for some stub substantive legislation to clarify this in the twenty twenty five session and I can come from code revision package or part department of ed package or whatever it may be but it could use some clarification in the meantime I think interpretation should do just fine and and I would suggest the department handle that because it's going to be there there's. Generally there's kind of a policy consideration are they gonna be locked or they can be unlocked it or they're gonna be locked from the outside and locked from the inside so I would say that something department if you all would keep up with it. It is possible to get that cleared up yes we have noted that also for the reason that we want to address interior doors so we have that on our schedule Okay. Nothing further on that item we're going to move ahead to I think out of twelve I'm B. twelve. This is Marvin Act number eight fifty section one omitted open enrollment public charter schools from six seventeen twenty four three E. two and have to which is a section concerning minimum teacher salaries. If you turn to page three line eleven. You'll see that the phrase open enrollment public charter schools admitted but it is used in subdivision the one right above that and if you look on lines eighteen and nineteen on the same page you'll see was again omitted but it's used in subdivision F. to cap a Roman three refers back to subdivision if to cap a Roman one other words it appears the duty in F. two was intended apply to open enrollment public charter schools also if you look at the title of the act and how does the phrase throughout the section it further appears that these run intentional missions. I spoke to representative Hodges about this he felt like it was just on a mission and his preferences that it be added in there although he understood if the commission decided to leave that for a change in the future but he was happy with having it at. Senator Tucker. Don't show interpreted public school to include open enrollment charter school so. Yes that is our interpretation and how it's defined in several other sections and that's our intent is to imply or interpret it that way thank you I'm I'm good with adding it but I don't think it makes a difference when with the other ultimately. Any other discussion. So unless there's no objection to adding it to those to use sections then we'll we'll take that up in a final vote if you to this package. So now we're moving on to. I'm the one the one. This item was involving act number three fifty which amends section seven five six oh one seven five six oh two seven five six SO three and seven five seven oh one INEC number seven forty three which amends the same sections except for seven five seven oh one concerning paper ballots. I've got a script I can go through here but we have interested parties I think that could speak more clearly to this issue and offer suggestions. Yeah the representative long I spoke to him he was here Senator Hammer was here a moment ago Daniel Schultz from the state board is here linsey Bailey French from a C. is here and I know they have a suggestion on how to reconcile. All rights my wants to make a proposal. You're recognized. Thank you Mr Speaker Lindsay French with the association of Arkansas counties there are three sections of three fifty that I think could be preserved ACT three fifty as not being in direct conflict with ACT seven forty three. if you will look. At X. three fifty on. Section four on page two. Cementing seven dash five dash six oh three three a. And this is regarding account of paper ballots when paper ballots are used at a polling site. count here is distinguishable from a hand account which is referenced in acts seven forty three. Section three. At the top of Page four. Are you following. No okay. It might be easier for me to do it this way if you looked at seven forty three. Section three at the top of Page four. There's a three a that is marked out and it's a new for a. And then there's a B. little I under that. The little I references hand counted paper ballots and that that should be completed a minimum of twenty four hours before the certification deadline. Four seven forty three talks about a deadline for hand counted paper ballots. X. three fifty. In section four talks about the deadline of within twenty four hours of the close of the polls for kind of paper ballots that is not referencing a hand count so. By the. Reference that would be since it's not talking about hand count it would be a machine tabulator we're actually putting those paper ballots in. So I think that that additional language in act three fifty section for. Could still be incorporated there at the end of that for a. And seven forty three before B. little I. To set one deadline for machine tabulating. Count the paper ballots and then another deadline for hand counts. That's the first thing. The other two are sections five and six of ACT three fifty. Which I do not think have any conflicting code sections and ACT seven forty three. So in conclusion I think that section four five and six of three fifty could still be codified. And not be in conflict with the later ACT seven forty three. And I will take any questions. Are there any questions. Tell me again which section your to your site you said four five and six are fine they don't have to be moved over. Or they're not in conflict with seven forty three that right yes I believe that most of ACT three fifty is superseded and directly in conflict with some forty three but sections four five and six are not in direct conflict and I think should be preserved. So. By reading this correctly. Three fifty deals with seventy five. Seven hundred seats in the seven hundreds and seven forty three thousand six hundred is that right. And even though their own identity they're on the same subject. They didn't necessarily. Seven forty three didn't necessarily directly strike or add to what previously existed under three fifty that's correct for sections five and six of three fifty section four three fifty actually amends seven five six oh three. Which is the same section that is amended. In section two of seven forty three. Sorry section three. At seven forty three both acts are amended seven five six oh one seven five six oh two seven five six oh three. Thank you Ferguson Gazaway you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker so. Just trying to understand. The seven five seven hundreds that's been found on. Page three. Of ACT three fifty. There are no problems there's no conflict with those correct the conflicts occur in seven. Five six hundred series right correct and you say they are those are direct conflicts. I have I believe it's not a direct conflict I think it's reconcilable. The deadline that's in section four of three fifty at the bottom of the page to. Is a deadline for a machine tabulation of paper ballots. Where at the top of page for the new language on seven forty three that's referring to a hand counted paper ballots so I think the Clause on the machine count even though the word machine is not used it's insinuated in my opinion and hand account those can co exist. So I guess it's maybe a question. Per staff. But if three fifty three fifty was signed into law first. And on. Section six on six SO three. Three A. K. which becomes for a. It starts with this upon the close of polls eccentric cetera then and and then it adds this language within twenty four hours of the close of polls and with no significant breaks in the counting process that was added correct yes consent. But then it doesn't show up at seven forty three because this was legislation running closely behind hidden so does that language is that is that what we would ask their. I believe that matter that's the proposal is to take that language and to put it into what is now subdivision for cafe. That was being added under the practice of division three cafe so we would add that to for a there's no conflict with that is that correct. Yes okay what else would we at. What else would what else would be carried over between the two a sections five and six which we talked about R. seven five seven oh one which are not we don't read about trying to reconcile those correct so the only thing that we're doing the only thing we would substantively. The I mean I guess it it should of our it should always be the case but we would be confirming the fact it's taking is it just taking that language from lines thirty four thirty five on page two and just making sure that that is codified. In conjunction with what exist on lines two and three Page four. That would be our proposal yes. But actually you. Zero. And I just want to know we didn't do that as staff because it wasn't apparent to us without knowledge of the process that they could be reconciled what we had questions we discussed with Daniel in lands the about how does this work and they explained to us the process of the tabulating the ballots versus the hand counts and how when would continue after right so you know I was just over our skis as far as reconciling those but they came in with an explanation for you all as to how it might work with to be clear and to their recommendation we're codifying we're we're not taking where adding to anything we're just caught we're essentially codifying what was signed into law. Between used in lieu of taxes passing supersede any other that identifies parts it in the right of that we are kind of codependent on. There's there's other significant language in three fifty that is superseded by seven forty three so this would be reconciling that one little part in in from what I understand a proposal would be seven forty three on the irreconcilable as would control. The question at the center hand hammered indicate you're agreeable you agree with you with that. Just a little history make a quick one three fifty was running through we got down to the end we'd or thought a lot of battles about to go over the finish line up represent long over there and I had a discussion with key party to help you get this done and realized that some of this may come about but the strategy was but this is what the bill time get passion represent long came in and it's my understanding I'd work with Lynsey and also with Daniel in their office that this in no way undermines the recommendation No Way undermines what three fifty three fifty was intended and will be preserved to achieve we're just cleaned it up to where represent long bill actually will become probably what I'd say is a superior bill taken three fifty corporation into his and correcting this this issue that the proposal on it so I would be supportive of just for the comfort level of the committee. Represent long are you in agreement about. Substantially of the one point I was kind of concerned about was in the language in section for their. I keep reading it and It sounds to me sir like it could be misinterpreted to be talking about the hand count which that was for the major problems that we try to address with the my bill later was not having a hand count that had to be done in twenty four hours course we would dress over here in the the other bill as giving people basically of. Nine to fourteen days voted to complete the hand count we're just trying to make sure that within twenty four hours the tabulated unofficial vote was turned in so I don't know this is my first rodeo so you'll have to tell me but I was wondering since this sort of unclear there in section four could just not bring section for workers I think section five and six basically. You state the same thing but a little bit more clearly if we're talking about the tabulation of the tabulated vote for the unofficial count. You need to be turning within twenty four hours. So what so what we want to see happen. Well I was wondering if we can. Could not move section for him but just to section five and six because I think they both really much more clear in language about we're dealing with the tabulated unofficial of voted to take place within twenty four hours of the poll closing so state your correct wrong five and six are going to be there because they were not seven forty three did not deal with anything. That was touched by five and six under the previous act right if you take the further step in that section five and six are based on the machine Cale then there's no conflict because you could still meet that deadline with the machine counts. With the later act extended the deadline for the hand count so there would be a conflict if it was just on the hand count but if you assume five six are based on the machine count in the then there is no conflict. The probably the most significant conflict between the two axes where they set the deadline on completing the hand count in the other access it is twenty four hours after the close of the poles in the later one is twenty four hours before certification. And so you can see how you can meet the standards in act three fifty five and six if you had until twenty four hours before certification to complete account you could meet that standard if it was based on that initial machine count. Mr Speaker Accent is my first time to go through this but is it possible to enter in section four of nine thirty three shall. Services continued to count the continue the machine tabulation your committee I basically had two words there to ask to clarify that. This is not the not the hand counterfeit or not but this is machine tabulation seconds are also concerned about just make sure there was no room. Of the way for a judge to come a little later. Find something that's not intended to be there. We'll okay so. If. I'm gonna come back to this section will be section five and six under Senate bill two fifty. That's ACT three fifty those deal with seven five seven oh one and so they add language to that yes those. The subsequent act is not address does not so it seems to me that five and five and six should be left just the way they are. Correct I mean that's because they want change later a provider works that's the way it is now on section what the language this section for. So that leaves the remaining issue of what do you do with the language that was added in section four. ACT Senate bill two fifty which ones ACT three fifty right and and so if we were if we can't I'm gonna be nice to do a side by side comparison but. Sensually the language that's added in line thirty four thirty five that would carry over. Because there's no I mean that language is the subsequent acted silent on that point. That language does not create any issue with the application subsequent act correct. I agree because if that's building just of what it will read for a degree upon the close the polls the poll workers immediately shall certify access list of voters and continue the county completion within twenty four hours close the polls and with no significant breaks in the county process current and that doesn't allude to a hand count or anything else that could be whatever that's that just leads to a county is that correct correct okay so that's that can be added we would simply be added there on page four line three of sixteen eighty six of house bill sixteen eighty seven that's the subsequent act. The house bill is silent on that because this was running session to the previous to the previous act right and so these things happen where you don't know that some something else has been passed. So then. If that's for reading and if that's the introductory paragraph for any they do we move we go ahead and close. Being from the subsequent act which is house bill sixty seven correct. Correct okay. And then. Then we come down to see our C. one. That language is the same to access. Is that correct. That's existing language that's existing law. News. Okay so that should be included. Now the question becomes under. Three fifty. And now we're getting into a hand now this is hand this is related to a hand count and so now the question is under three fifty there's a. so to. That. I guess under under all. Sixteen eighty seven what I'm referring to is a subsequent act that would either be a. so too were at seven three. That language could be added the county the board the County Board of election commissioners shall ensure there's more than one poll worker available to continue that counts that right I actually think that part of section four is superseded by seven forty three. Four right mmhm okay so so is is that the so the extent of what gets moved over included is just lines thirty four thirty five. The front page from the previous act that gets moved over yes correct everything else is either superseded or it's clearly not inconsistent correct. That's what we are okay purposes. Is that. First of all that makes I mean. I don't know if it is I know you and you were asking about not moving over something's or whatever that to me seems like about the extent of what we're able to do here is just trying to reconcile two things. What you may have addressed in this is that uh is forced the numbers of just to have those two words machine tabulation there in section. four where is that where that is not there currently reviewing their line thirty three to end this continue the count to enterprise proposing is continue the machine count purposes given the machine to relation to completion What what line is that what winery which uses the very very end of line thirty three and adding of switching calculation yes Sir yeah so I mean it looks like to me we can't we can't have that because that's exist that's existing language that neither law changes correct correct and if I can I don't think it's necessary really right and that's what I was gonna say you have you would have for a saying continue and complete continue to count to completion within twenty four hours right under that you have a hand count shall be completed so I think that's clearly distinguishable and no one would argue that your hand count would have to be done within twenty four hours because in the law if there are two provisions the more specific is the one you would look at someone you're looking for hand counts you would look to that be little live it says twenty four hours before the certification deadline. What. Yeah those. Within the twenty four hours. Four seven five six. What is. I'm just. I want to look at one and two ahead of it I would. So there's nothing in that section the county that is contemplated they're at least as two The introductory language. That. Represent long concern about. It does not specify the fence a hand count that could be a machine count so it's not. Requiring and to your point later there's a distinction made about a hand count later on in that same section would separate separate that's a separate issue. Correct. Senator Hammer any comment no they'll say I was gonna say is of five understood all the discussion which we're we're back to the recommendation that is being brought forth by Lynsey and by Daniel their respective agencies correct right. Represent wall any questions yes okay so the recommendation is to take lines thirty to take the the language that. On Senate bill two fifty which is ACT three fifty lines thirty four and thirty five and ensure that they are codified in conjunction with house bill sixteen eighty seven which is ACT seven forty three and so that would be codified Page four that would be something along the lines of lines two three in addition. That right. Correct as well as the sections five and six which don't directly come right to which there is that. Any objection to doing that all right so will include that. Thank you Mr chair thank you Committee. All right. One. This was item number D. two VOL the next number four forty four which amended section seven five six fifteen the that number four sixty which also amended section seven five six fifteen the concerning the application of a damage ballot. I think we have Daniel from State Board of Election Commission here to speak on a proposed reconciliation of these two acts all right and and I also spoke to representative Berman but he didn't have any specific thoughts the share with me Senator crawling I played phone tag quite a bit and I did not get the definitive feedback from him and him either but Daniels here with the recommendation he made last me in the recommendation is at the end of your package under item due to. Right you're recognized. Thank you Mr Speaker committee the as was said the act what with what became ACT four sixty was agency legislation there was uh. Conflict due to the re order re ordering of the section by our bill button but in substance there was no conflict between this in our opinion between at number four sixty nine number four forty four and therefore we ask that the to the language of ACT four forty four a fairly modest modifications to existing statute be reconciled an incorporated into the language of ACT four sixty as is represented on the the document that the L. R. staff as provided you. As you will note it's merely a referencing to poll watcher is having access and then a section requiring record keeping which is consistent but in it in addition to the provisions the safeguards that were put in place by the agency legislation. Any questions on. Let me ask you on the. Act four sixty this is the final subsection Eads that carried over. And that's to. That's just beyond we that's beyond what you said. Yes Sir this was only for subsection B.. Gazaway you're recognized so that just two things that I see here one. on the one. In the original bill. This. This is one section seventy one but in the proposed language assistant to. That's correct because the ACT four sixty reorganize the section basically put it in more Broken out more and and what is now a code form what the original ACT four forty four language reference the language that was being referenced as dean of. The book is the one is now due to under four six if the same language it just was re organized and therefore the reference has to be addressed. So basically so basically the subsequent ACT four sixty which is later act everything that was done in that the the to use the two. Which which deleted a lot of the prior language the two things that we are taking from the previous act which were not specifically in conflict were this edition to designated poll watcher as being an additional individual decides to stay out election official and then additionally the language it's under paragraph four from the previous act which was not addressed at all in subsequent act we're just adding that because it was a specifically repealed substance that's correct all except for subsequent previous or flipped because of the issue is because last time now okay yeah but substantively all that is still correct four forty four was actually signed by the governor later than for sixty. In this instance. So so that sucks this is what four sixty which adds all this land. Was actually first that's correct but this reconciliation incorporates all the language for both acts of the not really a problem so I would I would just to refresh my memory on this what is the what's the state of the law with regard. The I mean we've always hung our hat on this it's the subsequent acting Mexican look that's what. In this act the other subsequent act is the one that you think of his earlier it just could not it turns your brain around a little bit. But if I may Mister Speaker at this because we've included all the language from both acts I don't think that's a relevant issue. Strouse we recognized thank you Mr Speaker the the general rule is that in the event of a conflict the later in time controls and I take your point to be calm there's not actually a con. And it's reconcilable away you proposed. Yes that's correct right. Any other questions. Ferguson Gazaway motion. What is without I would take it to you yeah and the and that brings to the end of the year the packaging so I would there is one Mr Speaker there is one additional item this was that there were discovered as we're working the supplements there was an A. C. R. C. technical corrections act that conflicted with another actor so the fact number six eighty eight. this section eighteen repealed a code section and we had a technical corrections act that we through made a minor technical corrections updated that same section. And as we mentioned at the prior meeting here every technical corrections act has a provision in it that says it's superseded by any conflicting other act. The wife I don't we do this before I forget all the items on the there were several items that we took up without objection so that would come back we take a motion on all those do I have a motion for us to formally adopt the changes that we previously that we previously talked about represent Gazaway as may motions are second. Second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed the motion passes so we've made those changes now we're we're to this I guess Liston's item H.. Yes these are the items that were in the prior report under automation this is a supplementary I'm letting the commission know that we did discover another technical corrections act that conflicted with a substantive act of the General Assembly so walk us through what what what that conflict is the conflict was the ACT six eighty eight in section eighteen repealed seventeen twenty six seven oh seven an act number two seventy section one it was changing supervise instructor to sponsor education training. The prior at the dollar repeal that section to repeal the entire subchapter in the technical corrections act also has a section this is any conflict between is the sudden of act of the General Assembly will supersede over the technical corrections act so so basically what happened is we ran tech the technical corrections to change the name on a program in the meantime the hold the law went away SO none of our technical corrections none of it should be caught up yes correct. I have a motion to that effect. Motions are second second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed motion passes all right. So the we've. We're three days which the company and I have so now we're G. yes I'm G. there is a request that the last commission meeting for us to discuss the process of reconcile building you're reconciled built into different acts or two or more action in the same code section or the same subject matter so as part of your package you'll see we included section one to two oh seven and this is the statute that we used to resolve those conflicts you'll see in subsection B. that the first issue is are the acts actually reconcile if they're not we try to give effect to all the acts and harmonize those in codified everything if there is any reconciled bill to between the acts then we move to the next stage which we were just talking about is determining what's the later enactment and under Arkansas law the acting governor signs last is the one that's considered the last Act meant unless it was one of the acts wasn't signed by the governor then it's the one last passed by either house. We did a quick survey of some of the surrounding states and they seem to be about fifty fifty some go with our rule which is that one the governor signs last is considered last Act meant some states go with the one that was last passed by either chamber is the last Act meant some have a different type of rule you know which one would have the later effective date things of that nature but are seems to be in line with how many other states resolve these types of conflicts. Rowsley you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker Kevin you said you were doing some research on how other states. address this issue I'm curious about what your research shows. Regarding the the last clause of B. two. If the governor does not one of the act in the last enactment is the act which was last voted on by by either house my understanding of the constitutional process is there's a deadline in which the governor has the opportunity to sign if you're if he does not sign then at the expiration of that time then it becomes law but this sort of presentence from any question about signature that if it doesn't go into that time frame at all right if it did then we have a question about. The whole issue would be about that that window how other states if you find that yeah I didn't see where any state got into that detailed most of them were worded similar to ours where was the governor signs last in fact I didn't see one that even accounting for the governor not signing for wanting to become a law so that's the situation we're read contemplated a situation and maybe other states haven't. Any other discussion on that. All right if not we'll move on to Code visors for. It's got to items I'd like to bring to your attention the first one is that we're currently working on the supplements we returned forty three supplements to the publisher as of today of a total of fifty seven so hopefully by the end of next week we'll have all those supplements returns we expect those to be published in early September. The next item is you'll see this in your packet this is dealing with a act that amended Amendment fifty one to the Arkansas constitution. We included first may included Arkansas code one two three oh eight and this sets out the commission's authority to resolve a technical issue with an act that's amending the constitution and if you see there in a one it sets out how the commission can make technical amendments to the act itself but it's silent on whether the commission to make any changes to the actual constitutional provision so the issue we have. Is with ACT four forty one which is also in your packet and how it's caused some grammatical issues with amendment fifty one with the amendments that it made to it. If you look at page two of Act number four forty one lines three through eleven and page five lines ten fifteen to see that act number four forty one is adding to the list that already exist in the amendment. The problem is that the act doesn't set out those entire list so the punctuation and the conjunctions and those list will not be updated when those items are added to the list so they're not being properly integrated it's a list of just be tacked on at the end as you can see we under one two three oh eight we do not have authority to actually make any changes to the constitutional provision itself we can make changes to the act that's amending the constitution but in this particular instance that doesn't help you because the problem is created in the provision itself normally with a code section when this happens we have authority to integrate those under one two three oh three but we don't have that authority under one two three oh eight and so on the last page we set out for your benefit to show you how that will look these provisions are incorporated into amendment fifty one and this may be something the commission would want to consider as a technical corrections bill to update in the next session. We have the ability. We have the ability to come in. We. We have the ability to a man. This section the constitution the legislature does. But. The code revision commission does not have the ability to. Make adjustments. To the language that's not in the Act and I'll talk we'll we'll have a conversation among the drafters that we the way we could fix this was to put more language than necessary in the bill I mean we work on putting as little as necessary in this case we need to put more to clean up the minor grammar changes so you would just included the few Senate the few lines ahead of it you would have added some semi colons moved for your whatever yeah we would have to do because of one two three three a lot of times we don't include those minor changes in the bills because we can clean them up later and it helps keep the bill shorter but in this case we needed to put even more and we'll talk about that. But in the the ultimate fix is probably sticking this in a technical corrections bill next time to clean up these grammar changes and then we'll try to keep this in mind as we go forward but we do want to bring to your attention that it reads bad we're we're aware that it does not read well and. But you know why. I would and I would add that I mean I know you're gonna added to the list but. That's it this seems like one there's an option to correct sentencing later it would be better because it relates the constitution. All right. The thing else says it. Thank you thanks everyone Ferguson Gazaway you're recognized what is the amendment to the constitution become effective. So like a regular bill it's like a regular bill yeah it'd be hard to close on this one right yeah I don't I don't recall that acted as emergency clause or as specified effective date if it didn't it would be the obvious one. Does that. Always been a little confused about the processes have to be signed by the governor. The Amendment to the constitution it does it's The Amendment says you can amend the compact that arise in the constitution in the same manner you can amended initiated act is what Amendment fifty one says and you can amend and initiated act with the bill just the same as you can any other law it just requires a two two thousand photos to people adopted. Okay. Anything else. If not we're Jr. The last time yes.