Code Revision Commission

We will consider that the. Bang of the gavel I I'll call this meeting of the Arkansas code revision commission order first item of business is the approval of the minutes from December fifteenth twenty twenty two meeting. Should have that in your packet of information give me a second take a look at entertain a motion. Senator Breanne makes a motion for approval second president Gazaway any discussion. All in favor ruble minute say aye any opposed. The minutes have been approved. Next on business is consideration of authorized authorization of expense reimbursement for official commission duties by commissioners pursuant to Arkansas Code twenty five sixteen nine oh two I think everybody on the commission is probably returning members but you'll recall that this is something we have to take up at the first meeting of each year so I entertain a motion for the authorization of expense reimbursement. Represent Gazaway the motion center bright with second is there any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Motion passes. Next removed item D. discussion of use of a C. R. C. work product for continuous updating of lexis advance will that be this group Miller you're recognized to present that special thank you Mr Speaker Matthew Miller with the bureau Leslie Metheny's here from Lexus of I get asked like Leslie to join me under the table for this in the next item please do. This is an issue that we we brought to you because we thought we had a problem and I think we got it worked out in the intervening time but I want to talk to you all about what happened during the session we were bureau is getting comments from folks that the Lexus advance online product was being updated in real time with axes they pass so when the General Assembly enacted an act the content would end up online immediately. And that was causing some issues because the law was changing you know later acts would come along it would supplement and without some instances where it wasn't reflected correctly where only half of the act was in there I'd reached out to miss with any at the time whose are Arkansas rap for Lexus and it turned out that they were in fact using are conform dax when our staff works the acts they will put make our initial staff comments on it and we return it to Lexus and it turned out that they were in fact using our initial work product on the final work product as part of the intermediate updates to Lexus which we had concerns with them we felt like the commission should know that the our work product is being used in that way. It created a bottleneck though because apparently there was something where if they use if they didn't use the conform to acts to continually update the couldn't produce the supplements because they were and are locked in the way that they work so we ended up with kind of a. Backlog of not being able to work on the supplements what we were waiting for this commission meeting to discuss the issue with the all and thankfully we got it worked out Mistassini can explain on their end but we found that they came up with a way that they can do their continual updating which they want to do to their product using their own staff using just the axes the General Assembly passes them. They eventually replace that with the event but the official work of the code revision commission when the axe Republic the supplements are published and everything is released to the extent there doing the continuous updating its all their work product done on their end in this clear disclaimers on the website that indicate that that it's not the official product and the version of the Arkansas Code it's on our website on the ark like website is not updated that is only reflective of the law as it existed before the accident become effective. This is informational for you all that the if you use the Lexus advance products it during session you would have seen that it purpose any kind of an intermediary version of the law that wasn't quite in effect yet but I'll let miss mckinny and I appreciate her working with us on this we we kind of went round and round with them during sessions I appreciate them listening to us and coming up with a solution that hopefully satisfactory all as well. Thank you. Thank you I do appreciate the help of the staff and in this issue we started doing continuous updating around the twenty fifteen twenty sixteen time period when we started receiving major complaints from Arkansas law firms that we were not keeping up with west and it is something that law firms are very critical in their desire for it something that we have to do in order to be. competitive in the legal market. But what we do not have to do is use the conform tax. On I don't know to be honest when editorial started making using the conformed acts part of their process and they did make it part of their process and that because the ranch when. Mr Miller called and and raise some concerns because in order to unwind that we had to unwind and entire process that had been built up over years. That was a good thing because what was happening is we were only using the conform backs up to a certain period then we were stopping that and not using all the conform dax and then we were. Going on and in doing the work without them and frankly I think that Mr Mr Miller and the Arkansas staff did Lexus advance a favor by pointing this out to us. So. From now on the system is that they are to use the rock acts only the conform dax will never be used again This did take some time to work out it has been worked out I really appreciate staff's patience with us it was kind of a heated issue internally I ate. It meant that it took more time than I wish it had I appreciate that Stapp was patient with me and unless you have any questions on it. That's really kind of what happened on our end. Any questions from the commission. All right as I understand there's no action be taken on this is just for informational purpose yes Sir as long as everybody satisfied with the way it's going to be done in the future then there's no action required. Right moving on to item the discussion of supply chain issues. A recognized thank you. I'm I'm coming to you with to supply chain issues to date the first one. You may have a copy of the Arkansas Code court rules in front of you it has a different coverage than what you're used to it took coated paper cover. Normally you're used to seeing Alexa tone cover that has kind of a texture to it that feels kinda leather like. This cover. I'm not here to ask you to change to it because I think it's pretty year than the other cover or that it has it does have some advantages over the other one and I'll tell you those on I'm here because it's a supply chain issue. We have for this year manage to buy enough Alexa tones that this is not a issue or issue this year your indexes and your court rules will be in the same material that you're use to be seeing in them this is for future years to be considered the problem is the paper mills have all gradually been bought up in their seats less and less of them and they make less and less of what we need and we don't have suppliers. There's no one to go to to get the Alexa tone and we can't a lot of the times get Alexa turn that we need for your books which means at the last minute if the supplier go sorry we're just not gonna make that likes the time at this time we're stuck with having to hold your books because we can't produce that. The coated paper cover does have the advantage of that unlike the lexicon the book is now totally recyclable elects tone cover is not recyclable it is durable it is not as durable as lex's tone but it is durable ID want to be completely transparent and what I'm saying to you. You replace this book the court rules every year so it's going to last for that the index likewise is replaced every two years so it's going to last for that. My suggestion to you I talked to staff. Ahead of time particularly since we have lexa turn for that year. Is that you don't really I would love it if you take immediate action on it but you don't need to take immediate action on it. you can think about it. The problem is. That when we get hit with the with the fact that there's not going to be like to town at some point. There may not be a conveniently scheduled code commission meeting. And what I would ask is if you could think about and maybe at the next code commission meeting if you could invest the power in staff. To make the decision when it has to be made to switch if it's an emergency. If it comes down to the difference between the books not going on time for the books going on time because we can't get here to say. Can we do this or can we not. It's just a practical business decision we may need to work with staff and they'd of course could work with you behind the scenes we we give them as much time as possible. But I'm just not sure that it's going to be conveniently. Times so that I can fly here give you samples again. And go through this process. Couple questions one is is this material. The closest thing to what we previously had or what we what we're currently using. This is what's available in the industry and how does the price compared it's similar it's it's maybe a little cheaper but not. Announced that it makes a difference in pricing. So hearing that and we know scheduling. We don't have we. Try not to have too many code revision meetings is there a desire maybe to. Intrust staff with the ability to make that decision or to approve that obviously with with alerting us to that fact should that it should that occur in the interim. All right Senator Tucker motions are second represent Gazaway any discussion. All in favor say aye any opposed motion passes Mr Miller and certainly we're not going to go out on an island and do that will let everybody know you know that Lexus is communicated with us that they're it. A point with no options and we're going to have to pivot to that a solution this will be next fall is when the court rules come out so we should be okay till next fall right right. I understand now that there's a second supply chain issues arisen. Yes so what you tell us about that paper mills are hard and. Unfortunately legal publishing is a very specialized area which means that it's even harder on our current Other issue is for the the cloth that goes over the replacement volumes now we're hoping that we will have this is actually the clock that you use this is. What goes over the Arkansas replacement volumes were hoping that we will have it for this this December when your replacement blinds go out we're hoping it it's supposedly in the works and is going to be made and and all that but in the meantime we have people that want to order some one offs volumes that they have lost or they have need for their new lawyer and I need this volume are in need that volume we don't have any cloth. They sent me two samples that were the only two samples that were possibilities one is not a possibility it's awful. It is and I'll pass these around it's the one that's marked skiver Tax Reds get kids can and you'll see that it is more of a maroon it has black in it it is just awful it does not match at all the other one is says C. five seven five five had to cope P. A. J. A. C. O. it is a much better match it is not a perfect match but it's pretty darn close I'll bring it up to you Mr chairman. What we'd like is. Permission to Tucker to our backlog for customers who want these folks that we can't produce for them right now because we don't have cloth and similar to the issue with the other books if. Staff could be. Given permission to deal with this issue for future replacement volumes. In conjunction of course with consulting with you that would be helpful. Miss Bennet makes the motion Senator Tucker second summer motion to what we just passed to allow staff to. Approve at the point time that we need to utilize that subject to alerting the commission certainly will argue all this will happen faster because we're going to replace some volumes in the fall so would have some books coming out in the winter early next year and if they didn't have the cloth that's the point would have to decide what we're gonna do. Any discussion. All right all in favor say aye any opposed. Motion passes. Just for clarification does that this motion give us permission to do the few one offs that we need to do. If if if we have to yeah. I think that was part of it okay thank you I just wanna make sure thank you all I really appreciate it eight I realize that it seems absurd that you can't bite. Paper. But. You can't buy paper. Thank you thank you for your time thank you for being here. Mr for a move to item F.. Discussion of issues related implementation the protect Arkansas act. identified by the Arkansas syncing Commission. Thank Tony road here and Tony made the request so if you could come down if she would come forward and. Introduce yourself and then We can hear. Her testimony related to. These issues. Tony Ryall and I'm the director of the Arkansas sentencing commission what we've been doing at the department of corrections is having and any issues identified email to one central location messages are pretty technical in nature. And I can get them pulled up. And so the first yes. Page eight and there's a reference on lines twelve through fourteen to a seriousness Fred or table and the sentencing commission of the promulgate a serious seriousness credit they promulgate a sentencing great and there is a corresponding seriousness reference table so I think that could be fixed by just saying provided in the sentencing red or reference table promulgated by the sentencing commission and that is the first of those. And the next is on page twenty lines. Fourteen and fifteen I think there was just the word no left out on accident it talks about accumulating no more than thirty days incarceration incarceration in a county jail and then it says for more than three hundred sixty days. and I think the word no needs to be there this pretty closely mirrors language an existing statute that has to do with intermediate sanctions for probationers and parolees actually before we move forward since we have we have the bill sponsor of the house and Senate sponsor for you get too far down the road or if there's specific questions on these points. Represent Gazaway any comment on these first two lines. Okay first. I couldn't find I wasn't following where the language in the first point was. so if we could go back to that is that Page eight did you say Page J. J. lines twelve through fourteen okay and and what is the issue again their tiny I'm sorry. M. so it references a. Seriousness grad or table promulgated and it's actually a sentencing grid and there's a corresponding table. So okay so would your proposal be to change the word seriousness to sentencing. Yes Sir. And I. And I take it that that's because this there was a seriousness grilled. That the sentencing commission has always promulgated in. In respect to the ranking of offenses That that you guys do as a matter of course but that's not what's being referred to here at so there's this there is a sentencing read and a seriousness reference table but the all of the transfer eligibility determinations have always been based on a line that's located on the sentencing grid. Okay very good so just replace seriousness with sentencing. All right that's all the questions I have. Is that on the table we don't you don't think we need to make any change to that just change the seriousness to sentencing yes I think as long as the change seriousness to sentencing the table I think is broad enough that it covers these areas This referenced is there any serious need is there a seriousness greed that exists anywhere. In Arkansas government does anybody know. I mean I guess my question is are we sure are we confident in this maybe for the bill's sponsors. One is there any seriousness greed that exist anywhere and to is there any reference to a seriousness created elsewhere in the protect act. Or is this the only reference. Okay I think it's gonna search it really quickly I don't know of any other seriousness grants but couldn't say that with any certainty okay. All right and then while he's searching that moving to the second item which was on page twenty. Lines thirteen through nineteen and I believe that you indicated. Your belief is on line fifteen after the war that there should be the work no no more yes Sir okay. Represent Gazaway to comment on that. Okay. I think we're double checking on the seriousness for it she. What what a job find on that it looks like the only other references in actually the leading language this statute concerning the voluntary presented standards of the seriousness grad so if we if we make a change here there's no we're not. There's nothing else that needs to change this is a. One instance that excess and. This was the only other one you said nothing needs to change their county where it talks about that it looks like this would be it what is that what is that Senate say. That you you have that highlight it right now. And that sentence as the typical cases for the offenses listed with within each level of seriousness on a grid so the sentencing grant has a seriousness access and a criminal history after that so that's consistent with what currently exists yes okay represent gas. Yes. Yes on that point I agree I mean there's a. There's a sentencing read and seriousness table is that accurate. Yes Sir okay and that's going to remain even with the protect act. Yes I think that's what the commission's gonna continue to do okay I was a little bit of flexibility in the protect act to move to multiple grades if needed but I don't think that that's the direction they're going yeah and so the point is we're just being consistent. with the sentencing grid and seriousness table. Yes Sir okay I certainly don't see any problem with that. Senator Rapert you're recognized. Hi it was going on the next the next point all right go ahead with the. Just just looking at back to page twenty we've done a previous topic we're good on page twenty. We're gonna add no more. Two line fifteen. No more than three hundred sixty days incarceration. Yes and that's consistent with the other two places that language exists for probation intermediate sanctions fans pearly intermediate sanctions. So if I read the the context of the whole if an offender on post release accumulates no more than thirty in a county regional or no more than three sixty the community supervision officer shall recommend a revocation. So I'm I'm I would think it go the other way we delete no on the other line line fourteen if the accumulate more than thirty in a county or more than three sixty in a. In a other facility then we were. Revoke their parole. So I am. I think that the only reason I saw and sent over was just because it was inconsistent with the other two sections I don't know that it makes a meaningful difference except that I guess it's possible. but there might be a situation where they got to you know thirty three days you know maybe their seven day sanction puts them over about thirty days and they might be more appropriately referred for revocation proceedings at that point in getting to thirty three days maybe being considered the next time okay. Senator Tucker. My question was really the same center rights I mean. And I under I know you know this better than I do because I'm coming at it fresh and you studied it and I want to be consistent but this language I believe was Porter from billet Speaker Shepherd I worked on together back in two thousand seventeen I know lines ten through twelve or in the bill and I am ninety five percent confident this part was to. But the purpose of this section is to say that the what we used to call a parole officer could recommend revocation and it and they would do that once they accumulate a certain amount of time either in a county jail or community correction facility. And if it says no more than thirty days in county jail conceivably the probation officer could go ahead recommend revocation at twelve days which is kind of inconsistent with what the intent was. The I think the point of this section is once you hit a certain number. That number being thirty days for a county jail or three under sixty days for a community correction facility at that point it automatically triggers your parole officer are your community supervision officer now to recommend revocation so. You know I want obviously we're not make incident changes for this committee and and I want the language to be consistent but basically based on what the intent was I would think. That what we should do is what senator Reid suggested which would be rid take them no out of one fourteen rather than add one and line fifteen so. Just for what it's worth all right represent Gazaway you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker so. Obviously there's an inconsistency there and I'm glad that you pointed out. I that was gonna be my question and I think Senator Tucker confirmed it that I think this was ported language. From pre existing statute. And I wonder if that inconsistency exists and the. pre existing statute that this was ported from or if this is something that got messed or somehow altered in the new bill so I think what would be helpful would be due to go back and find the pre existing statute that this language was likely ported from to see what that said versus what this says to see if this was something that was messed or added. In the drafting of the protect act or if this is also inconsistent in the original statutes that was ported from. I think that's one of the first things I would want to know and then as far as the substantive effect of it because it certainly is substantive right and I understand senator Bryant's senator Tucker's point. That. Are you know when when the community supervision officer should recommend the revocation weather says no more or whether it says more than is a big difference and so. We need to find out whether or not you know exactly what was intended in in the original legislation I think before we go changing that because it I think it does have a set certainly has a substantive effect. So that would be my suggestion that we start with the original statutes this language reported from see if the inconsistency existed there whether this was created by the law by the drafting of the protect act and then determine what we think the intent should have been originally and then make the change once we determine those things so that's just those are my thoughts I think I think Senator Tucker is trying to look back at what the language was previously so let's move on to the next time while he's looking at that although. I think I tend to agree it it seems like the only way it really makes sense is to say. More than as opposed to no more but if he can find that language that maybe that'll help to give some assurance that were. We're doing what's consistent with the with what's been the case and what the intent was what from. Okay. Hi. Go back to the go back to the code and look at this section right before that. The there's a statement. About accumulating well it's sorry not this section before the eight maybe the sub. Okay go down to three. Look at the three E. one. Nor more than seven. What's like the language change because the under the. The the one and then maybe E. to it says something the effective Karoli shall not accumulate shall accumulate no more before a recommendation is made. And the the new section says it thank you mutilate. It looks like it should be thank you might more than it has to happen. Right I mean it's the it's the same it's just a different way of approaching. That's that's I think that's exactly right Mr Speaker that the new language starts with if where is the old language said there shall we community no more than and this one says if they accumulate axe and I so I think the meaning is consistent. With what the code was to say. to to remove the notes so if an offender on post release supervision accumulates more than. That's the subsidy quibbling of saying they shall accumulate no more than thirty days in jail or three or sixty days in a Committee corrections okay at present Gazaway. I agree with senator Tucker that it's a different way of saying the same thing which means in this instance it appears to me That the word no should be stricken as opposed added. Any any other discussion on that. Senator Gilmore do you have any your you are the Senate sponsor. Any any comment on this. Thank you for turning Michael Mister Speaker no I I think I think this at I would defer to the attorneys in the room as I'm not one and probably stated it many times through the course of running this bill so I would defer to that I think I think the meaning the intent is is clear and clearly stated but let's be consistent okay. All right Mr Miller and if I could provide just a little context on this that I maybe should have done the beginning to protect Arkansas act had a specific section in it that recognized that errors might occur or maybe something was gonna get messed in the process of drafting this bill and code revision was given specific authority to come in and correct issues that it deems this technical errors so this is an issue where you have a separate of the already on top of the standard of the authority to make revisions and will make a report on these that the process is the Mister shall bring those brings those to the bureau and then I give them the all so you know in the future she does that will replicate this process but will do a report on the ones that she gives you and that we make changes on that will go to council and the governor and I believe the Speaker in the pro tem right Mr Hankins. I can't tell which one I'm approving or not. On the upside the speakers is this the top thing table until. I mean we can we can certainly hold off on it to the next meeting is I think that may be better until we have a better grasp as to what was meeting at. Difference is like this stop in okay. President Gazaway. Thank you Mr nice thank you Mr so when I think I just see clearly what's happened I mean think to maintain the intent. With what the original law wise you would strike the word no. So that it's if an offender on post release supervision accumulates more than thirty days in a county regional jail for more than three hundred sixty days incarceration then the community supervision officers shall recommend revocation that is consistent with the intent of the law as originally stated just set a different way and so I'm by motion would be to just strike the work no in line fourteen which I think clearly makes it consistent with the intent of the original law now if we want to hold off and do that at the next meeting just so everybody has more time to study it but to me I mean I think it's very clear what what happened and what needs to be done to fix it but I'm happy to hold off until the next meeting so everybody has a chance to look at it and think about it more. So why don't for now why don't we hold hold off on taking up that motion just yet let's work through these other items and then kind of see where we're at. Senator Tucker you're recognized last comment on this is I know we mentioned that it may may have been other places in the protect Arkansas act so my thought would be in town if if we addresses at a future meeting if you could look and Matthew if you all could look in the protect Arkansas act and see if that no more than was inadvertently inserted in places other than just Page twenty one fourteen to make sure we're not missing that in another place as well. We could we could certainly do that if if you wanted to and I that be something that is okay we are talking to shall up to because she knows the stuff inside out so she would help us find it as as far as we're certainly fine with whatever you'll do on timing I would just note the publication of the supplements if you wanted in the print version of the supplements when they're printed we would need to do that within the next Kevin month or so. Yeah we're supposed to get on until the end of July is when the last supplements will be coming from the publisher. And I mean short of that we can do we can put it in the ACS we can change the online version at any time we could request to put it towards the end of the schedule yes so there's work arounds on that but that would be your only timing issue is if you if you are concerned with the being in the supplements was making sure that we met publication schedule. Senator Gilmore. Any other any other comments on this one all right let's let's go to the next one will at once we finish looking at each point then we can. Take up what appropriate action we want to hold off on some on the. Okay yes I am okay so the next issue is on page twenty one it looks like it is at the very top and says it may be reduced by the Division of correction for good behavior this again has to do with those intermediate sanctions I think a division of community correction was inadvertently left out of that because these intermediate sanctions to go to facilities operated by the division of community corrections sometimes specifically the ones that they're putting up And Bates full and there is one in Melbourne as well. So are you suggesting that we need that community. I think either add division of correction or division of community correction or change in the state department of corrections I think either way works. Any any comments on that. Represent Gazaway you're recognized. Thank you Mr Speaker for the worth I agree it thank you can be accomplished in either of two ways make a department of correction or you add or. division of community correction because these are going to be the. If the Division a correction or community correction either one may reduce time based on good behavior and we need to be clear about that so either add or division of community correction or just make a department of corrections which encompasses both either way would clear it up but not so for what it's worth I agree with this rail and would suggest to change whatever the committee decides the best way to do it is. Senate center Gilmore yes I agree I think it might just be cleaner and easier all the way around just to put department of corrections is no more compass sing and might cover it also I I would agree with my colleague urgent Gazaway that probably any of those fit but. I would say it's probably more inclusive to just say department corrections. Right. Any other comments on this. All right moving on to the next. Item. Okay I'm I think this is probably the most complicated one the old. Her role revocation statutes were lumped into a pretty long blocks of tax and I think when the drafting was done there was an effort to break them into a more concise sections so that subject matter all went together but on page twenty four when you look at lines twenty two through twenty eight M. there was a reference to preliminary hearing on page twenty five that effectively makes it to where the soon to be post prison transfer board has to do. A preliminary. A revocation hearing even if the preliminary hearing is waived a lot of times in practice both of those are waived So I think that maybe there was more information on that one in the email that was sent. but let me pull up what I have noticed is six. And I think that if he little to read a preliminary hearing is not required if the revocation hearing is held within fourteen days after the arrest and reasonably near the place where the alleged violation occurred or where the offender was arrested so that just says they can waive their preliminary hearing for the parole board can have their full hearing within fourteen days and then up earlier in the code they're able to waive that revocation hearing as well. Yes. I'm so line twenty five so little subdivisions to if. Hold on I'm sorry strike if the so it would then read a preliminary hearing is not required if. I revocation hearing is held within fourteen days after the arrest and reasonably near the place for the alleged violation occurred. You read that one more time yes. I'm sorry. A preliminary hearing is not required if the revocation hearing is held within fourteen days after the arrest and reasonably near the place for the alleged violation occurred or where the offender was arrested. And if it matters in practice it just makes it. So that they either can be given a preliminary hearing because it's going to be more than fourteen days they can what you've got preliminary hearing or the parole board can give them their full hearing within the fourteen days that they have to have that preliminary hearing done I suspect that the fourteen day language was put in there initially to keep people from languishing in county jails waiting But. I think the practice is a lot of times they're getting them to the full revocation hearing within the fourteen days so it would be administratively difficult to do both hearings in the fourteen days. Represent Gazaway. Recognized thank you Mr Speaker so I'm trying to understand this but I see this is as being a real substantive change from what is what we currently have written. we're talking about revocation hearings here. And. Beginning on line twenty two we specifically talk about. The preliminary when the preliminary hearing is not required and that's in the instance that the offender knowingly and intelligently waived her preliminary hearing. Subsection two as written refers to if it's not waived. As was previously mentioned in the previous section as it can only be waived if it's done knowingly and by an intelligently if it's not waive the hearing shall be held within fourteen days of the arrest in other words you got to do it quickly can't let him languish in jail and recently near the place for the alleged violation occurred which all seems to be. To be. Entirely is the process should work in your suggested change seems to all seems to be in line with. lines. Your subsection the one which is about. Are not requiring the hearing which we already state when hearing is not required so why would we go one further clarify that in lines twenty five through twenty eight it seems to me that the only way you don't have a preliminary hearing is if it's knowingly and intelligently waived as provided in the one but if it's not knowingly and intelligently waived in provided in eighty two then the hearing has to be held within fourteen days and near the place where the alleged violation occurred all of that seems entirely reasonable and how the process should operate so why are you why are you suggesting a change I I guess I don't understand and I think because when you say if the preliminary hearing is not waive then the revocation hearing has to be held that eliminates the possibility that they can hold the preliminary hearing give that kind of first bite it release if there's not enough proof it requires them to have the revocation hearing that preliminary hearing earlier in the section exists for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to do a quick review of the evidence against the The offender and then they kind of get time to fax gather on the on the full revocation hearing if necessary and that could be important for the accused as well but it's the it's I think it's just the way it was re ordered kind of because that conflict it might. Be fixable even by just striking revocation and saying preliminary hearing on line twenty six. but it refers to a preliminary hearing and kind of switches gears to a revocation hearing. I'm gonna try I don't know whose first up I'm just going to hit a hit this button C.. Smith Mr Owsley yeah thank you recommend. I wonder if I wonder if the problem. That you're identifying is actually a cross reference problem because if you look in subsection F. line twenty nine. It speaks about a preliminary hearing held under subsection fees. In a in a revocation hearing under subsection C. so according to line thirty revocation hearing is held under subsection C. if you go back up to the language that you identified lines twenty five and twenty six. Meeks about a preliminary if the preliminary hearing is not waive by the offender under subsection C.. Well on line thirty says the revocation hearing is under subsection C. but line twenty six speaks about someone waving the preliminary hearing under subsection C. is there a conflict in the cross reference there. Well I wonder if it I wonder if it's more than just exacerbating I wonder if it's the source because they're they're both referring to your you identified a preliminary hearing and the revocation hearing and there's two separate references here one in line twenty six line thirty there's sort of a cross purposes. And that I take it from the conversation that you had Rep with representative Gazaway that's part of the issue here which represent Gazaway takes to be a substantive change because yeah I deal be moving from a preliminary hearing to revocation hearing and that itself is confused in the bill that. Kreische. Our records thank you for all. Thank you Mr Speaker. Yes that and I think a good point was made there are there seems to be some issues about the not the lettering of the subsections and what refers back to what you got multiple subsections some said referring back to subsection C. for preliminary hearings then you've got in subsection F. preliminary hearing under subsection be. then you got revocations under subsection C. all that gets pretty confusing pretty quickly I don't know if you've worked through you probably have I can work through we're all and all of those fit together but I guess. Bear with me just a second. I think your point is that in line twenty five or we talk about preliminary hearing. Not waived under subsection C. use same to. Indicate that what the language that we need is some language about if it's not waive when the preliminary hearing will be held prior to the revocation hearing and the timing of the revocation hearing. And I understand that. But. That's completely. That would almost require a new substantive. Section. It would you agree. I'm sorry Kevin are texting because we're doing nerdy code things here to try to figure out suggestions on how to fix it we had flag when we went through the supplements and did this originally we had flagged this section as well as having issues and then Tony sent to us separately and I was texting Kevin what are initial suggestion was for revision and I think it was to change seats to the one in line twenty six right Kevin yes and then the chains revocation to preliminary that's correct which then kind of cleaned up the reference issue that Ryan was talking about because then preliminary hearings are reference and be in revocation hearings are referenced in C.. The standard of what substantive and what is not I will always leave to you all I mean you know it's not are never staff's mission to come in here and suggest you do something this thing substantive. I like your suggestion I wonder if instead of it being changed to preliminary hearing if it just said a hearing and that way if it was a combined preliminary and revocation hearing it would be covered. To distract or preliminary altogether. A hearing under subsection I think you might wanna try revocation of separate occasion okay the district revocation there. Tanti. Tanti says okay so you be changing the CD one is the striking the word revocation. Just to go one step further because we have the the context of the whole the whole bill if if a problem hearing is not waived and then subsequently had how long after the preliminary do you go in the revocation hearing. Asked me if the bill kind of reads they don't waive it you're gonna have it and then once you have it you have fourteen days to have the actual hearing. Okay I wanted to double check there's not a time frame on the revocation hearing if there is a preliminary hearing held and I think that's at least partially because at the preliminary hearing if there's no evidence if the if the hearing judge finds that there's not evidence that they've violated their parole then they have the opportunity to release them back to parole and then the parole board has to recall them to have them at a full hearing if that's what they choose to do. Thank you Mr Speaker. So I think I agree with your suggestion that C. should become the one that certainly makes sense. In and on the same line twenty six revocation where we were says revocation hearing that should be preliminary hearing. Consistent with what we're discussing in this subsection the plunder hearing would have to be held within fourteen days is that your suggestion I'm miss Bennet has suggested just striking revocation completely and just saying here a hearing okay okay and not reference preliminary hearing and I think. So one of the questions that I would like answered is. Was this ported language from how revocation hearings are already occurring. And if so how does out of these time periods that we're talking about now. how does compare with what's in existing statute about the time period that these hearings are supposed to be held within. I can tell you that the time frames are all ported over this was just re organized and I think that's maybe where some of the mix up occurred like I said this was all in one really really long statute and it was it's broken down more okay and so to be clear what are the time frames for a preliminary hearing under existing law. It has to be scheduled in seven days and held within fourteen days okay so then clearly the reference to shall be held within fourteen days is referring to a preliminary hearing not a revocation. and then I heard you say earlier just to double check. If there's a preliminary hearing then there is no time frame within which a revocation hearing has to be helped. Not at statute no okay So again I mean to me the. The way to fix this would be to change the reference in line twenty six to And the underlying parole eligibility rights of seventy percent offenses could have to do seventy percent on this enhancement this simplifies it just makes it clear that you serve a hundred percent of the felony with a firearm enhancement but there was no start date put on that so I identified that probably as is done with other parole eligibility sections the old one needed to have an end date on it in this section needed that something out of it said you know for offenses committed on or after one one of twenty four a person convicted is not eligible for early release. Mr Miller what's what's our practice normally with this does it not just for. Is the effective date of the act not just take the place or do we have to we have to state that. Kevin how are we typically handle that. When this section will be published in the supplement they'll be a header in the catch line that says it's effective January one twenty twenty four because that was the effective date of the protect act so they'll be the version of this section before this subsection existed in any twenty twenty four the new section will have subsection G. and so that would be that can be and that that will be handled through publication we don't necessarily have to take action is that correct. Not on the effective date. Any questions on that. Ferguson Gazaway. this route just to be clear I mean are you. I mean I tend to agree with what's been said here that. Given that the effective dates January one twenty twenty four why do we need to include a reference a specific reference there as to the start date because there are certain other provisions that we say start January one twenty twenty five. Everything else January one twenty twenty four this will be included in the everything else is the your recommendation that we add some additional language this as to a start date or or wish or would we be fine to just do as they suggested which is just. Leave it alone so that it all begins on January one twenty twenty four. So the reason I identified it as potentially you know different than other things you do or don't put the effective date on is just because in the current code section if you look at the one it says for an offense committed on or after July two two thousand seven and also this has to do with parole eligibility which is based on the date of offense in the parole eligibility sections the code has tended to leave the existing statute alone if you just leave this alone and then add G. and don't put an effective date that you have you know one that says anything committed on or after July second it follows this more relaxed parole eligibility rule and then you have a conflicting section in G. that says I have to serve the entire time I think it maybe creates a conflict there. So. In the interest of trying to move things along what if we would if we take that similarly and take a look at that and. Bring it back up but are you probably a July meeting we can shoot for that so with that being said. And. Of course I guess my thought would be we can narrow down how many issues are still lingering for July that at least. allows us to hopefully be a little more efficient we coming in July. I'm just make a suggestion of of a motion that I would entertain would be if you're going through these items on page eight would be changing seriousness the sentencing I believe that was the recommendation. Page twenty was the discussion about whether it was no should be in there or not I would say we I would suggest we hold that over if we're gonna come back. Page twenty one I believe the recommendation was to change Division to department of correction. Page twenty four this was the preliminary hearing revocation hearing discussion I would suggest we hold that over. And then Page seventy six was the discussion of the effective date whether it needed to be in the codified language or whether the effective date of the act would takes care that your respective of what's in the code. I'm just throwing that out there is as may be something that we could a motion we can entertain. All right so we have miss Bennet made motion Mister Hankins with the secondary discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Okay motion passes and I would ask that. Tweet staff the sentencing commission and the bill sponsors hopefully folks can talk in the between now and our next meeting and come up with the some consensus on that and appreciate you bringing this to our attention. All right so now we're going to move to. Yeah. Item G.. Discussion of issues related acts five seventy eight five ninety seven concerning ambulance service reimbursement. This is one the skews me that was very low this is one the insurance department brought to us this was one that when we were going through the acts we didn't see just because of the industry specific aspects of it and I believe we also have all the spa all the bill's sponsors here and miss bodices here as well so recognized Thranduil and both can kind of explain what we've got purpose ran. Gil introduces of the commission and then you can make your statements thank you Mr Speaker moneys being threatened general counsel the Arkansas Insurance Department shortly after session ended I received about three or four calls from separate insurance companies asking me to take a look at both of these acts just for so I don't have to keep repeating the numbers Act. Back five seventy eight I'll call the first act act not five ninety seven I'll just call that the second act of the insurance companies called and asked what if I have a ground ambulance activity that qualifies under both acts. Which right of reimbursement do we go by so I looked at it and this is coming from three different insurance companies are the point was you could have an air and ground ambulance activity that would qualify under both walks in so they were asking what we have to pay and so I looked at it and saw give a sort of a brief explanation both acts of the first act is ostensibly deals with both air and ground ambulance reimbursement from when healthcare insurers use transportation network managers okay several insurance companies one in particular uses a third party network manager to administer and conduct prior authorizations for air and ground ambulance get that to the first act is titled the transportation network manager air ambulance are ambulance act in so it's clearly referencing the use of those managers and it isn't dressing in network when the health insurer in the air or ground ambulance service is in network with the health insurance. The second act. Which was signed by the governor the same exact days this first act with ten minutes later addresses all here all all ground ambulance activity and when you read that second act the rate of reimbursement is different from the first act the first actual rate of reimbursement for in network ambulance services is two hundred fifty percent of Medicare rule rates the second act if you have a ground ambulance activity is rated reimbursement equal to local government ambulance rates if there are once if there's not you go to workers comp rates so both action different rates of reimbursement and so the problem is when I looked at mission to the committee testimony from sponsors. The interpretation of a lobbyist interest groups name those providers of their intent was for the first act to only a apply to in network activity in their intent was that the second act to apply only to out of network activity okay so the problem is with the show you the problem that I think is fixable if you look at the second act I believe that is act five ninety seven. And. You go to page three. Matthews pointed up. Under twenty three ninety nine dash sixteen oh two and I read it a one. The minimum allowable reimbursement rate under any health benefit plan issued by health care sure here's the problem this is the problem quote to a participating ground ambulance provider. Close one for an out of network Inspiron so if you could eliminate or remove. The first clause that refers to participate in ground aimless providers that eliminates the issue of of it covering in network rates I think the intent of the sponsors and this body was that the second act was only to apply to an out of network ground ambulance not to both it's so my suggestion is if it's not the Serbs viewed as substandard change is to fix this language to only apply to out of network ground ambulance services so that would be my suggestion. That's all I've got guardianship questions. Any questions. Senator Rapert you're recognized just just for thank you Mr so for just for my clarity. When it goes down to the same paragraph line eight. The rates approved or contracted between the service provider and local government if we struck that and they were still contract in place with that change the game I don't want to destroy I'm not suggesting you strike that okay go up and look at line lines five and six correct yeah I got what you what you recommend striking but if we if we you want to keep lines eight and not sure yet keep those yes if we strike participating ground ambulance yes there was a local contract that included ground ambulances with date with that first act supersede that does contract Mr I don't see that would be accomplished I think all the referring to again offense discretion which local government rate you want to go out I think the intent was I think it's where the local government what has when they picked up the patients and I think that's what was intended so I would keep that language I don't think it conflicts with that. Senator Tucker. You're recognized thank you Mr. I see represent Perry and I just. I see you nodding is miss ransacked fine this consistent with your understanding on the on on these bills. He or any of the bill sponsors yeah. And I mean what Mr SS vying to makes. Perfect sense to me I understand the issue my question for you know the commission is is whether that's a seismic change or not and obviously don't. Don't know I'd be curious for other people's thoughts on that. Is there so I guess all of Mr Randy Mr Miller respond to that. I don't know if it is or not I will tell you that if this commission doesn't want to make these changes the insurance department go ahead take interpretation of what just announced so we're willing to take that interpretation to apply it to the market I've talked to the insurance industry into the ambulance lobbyists I think we're all in agreement as to the interpretation I just made being consistent with what was intended so even if you can't make this change substantially we're going to go ahead and force it just as if it were interpreted the way I make a change in my understanding is that the language would be both both provisions will be codified. And I guess is is the inconsistency. Is it such that you you have to you have to interpret one way the other there's no way to reconcile the two provisions that would that be correct. If a health insurer challenge the department and said we have a grounding was activity we're going with the second act because the way it's written and it's not changed I would have an issue but I have been assured by the insurance industry that they are going to not challenged so I haven't talked to all the carriers but most were major carriers all going to interpret the first active body in that work and to apply the second act out work. Any other questions. Mr Miller recognized when we spoke when we before we spoke to Mister rand are thought have been codified both of the sections I think that's how we had turned it in to Lexus when he made us aware of how he was going to interpret it which was treating is superseding the first one in some instances that was when we suggested bringing it to you all to look at but our initial thought was to just codified both of them but I do think there's the issue with a Mister ranking interpreted into whether that requires the Legislative I guess that's part if if codifying bows and allowing you to interpret it takes care of it I guess just for me at my. I'm always leery of the commission getting too far into changing such language and and your answer to the question about when I ask about what happens if we do codified vote it sounds like there could be an argument out there that that. It should be paid in this certain way and we would be changing that if we were to take action correct and I'm just gonna keep on this for next session and we'll fix it up next next regular session but but yes if if it is able to be handled which that was my understanding was that you all can handle it internally as the insurance department if if you are able to do that I mean for me that seems like the best the best option but if that's the if there is truly a problem with reconciling it I mean we want to know right now but that's just my thought. Senator Tucker you're recognized that's exactly what I was gonna say Mister Speaker I just always in hesitant for the commission to to even for with anything substantive and if you if you think that Mr rand the the interest commission analysts until January of twenty twenty five the legislature can take care of it at that point. I believe we can. Any other discussion president Gazaway. Thank you Mr Speaker I agree. I would you Mr Speaker and and Senator Tucker that that I think that would be the most appropriate way to handle it I guess my real question that I have. Mr Randi is is if someone brought suit. I would say both sections are codified there does appear to be a conflict on its base some of an ambulance provider bring suit or other the appropriate person who doesn't want to pay a certain rate bring suit. How much weight is the insurance commission's interpretation going to have in that instance because. You know this mayor with the. Taking that route may or may not solve the issue so I just. We are given deferential. Interpretation powers by the courts the extent to which eight circuit judge may feel like we're going to far as of any sort of unpredictable circumstances a lot of times just depends on how the judge uses use the argument that's very good question but we are given deferential consideration in our interpretations. Well so I appreciate that and that's good to know but I do tend to agree with the Speaker and Senator Tucker the codified both sections allowing you to interpret it would probably be the best way for us to handle it because it does seem to me to be that any change would be substantive. and that may be the best way for us to stay out of substantive changes at this point so that's just my thought we want to carried over to the day I certainly understand that. Any other discussion. Unless there's a motion otherwise then we'll we'll let that ride for. You know I I would say if. Becomes heightened and let the staff know but it sounds like this is the best way to try and reconcile our desire to do not Delve into substantive. Anything else. Thank you Mr Speaker. Right. Members removed now to. H. conflicts and issues. In twenty twenty three acts and I believe. We were represent long was going to have to leave C. still here we were no let him. That objection or let him come come up first is the he's going to have to leave here. Chris after this meeting that maybe a lot of people want to leave. Mr Miller you're recognized so these are the issues that are staff detected during the codification process as we go through the accent as we develop the supplements we always look for issues where there's either errors or places where things have been superseded a later acted superseded the earlier we have repealed language and then the repeal language got amended and we want to bring this to the commission to look at so that no members are surprised as we go down the road at this point only reduce you to our new co device or Kevin Kuhn who is sitting up there by the Speaker Kevin Benson Henderson who had staffed every member every meeting of the code revision commission that it ever occurred they retired during the session so Kevin took over we're very lucky to have and he's a twenty one year staff member of the commission and he is ready to go. He's gonna he's gonna walk us through this this is intimidating looking report the with prepared but we spent a lot of time thinking how to move through it quickly we're trying to give you a packet that has the tiniest excerpts of the acts that are possible I'll try to use the screen to help us navigate them. And we'll just try to walk you through it that way although we're gonna throw you a curveball right off the bat because we're going to move to D. one so you'll need to jump in your packet to what's mark this is the one and there's blue dividers as you move through the various sections so they'll be a blue tab so on the one so members we're gonna go to the one first and then as was indicated in the packet of information I believe. Most of the conflicts have been divided into broad categories and so my hope is once we get past the one that we can go through those categories and unless somebody wants to take a look there's going to probably be a category to where it's pretty clear that if the change needs to be made it's going to clearly technical there's going to be in there shouldn't be any doubt about it my hope is we can take those up as a batch and let somebody wants to pull something out but we're gonna begin with the one and then we'll come back to look to larger batch documents and you'll notice in the taxes in the packet with highlighted where to look so we've tried to help to take a ride to the places and both the acts are highlighted Kevin's got a little blurb on this one which to be fair is one of the more complicated ones and we're starting with right off the bat that Kevin can kind of give us a little description of it and then representative belongs here for questions yeah. So this issue involves Act numbers three fifty and act number seven forty three. ACT number three fifty amend section seven five six oh one seven five six oh two seven five six oh three and seven five seven oh one concerning paper ballots at number seven forty three also means the same sections but it does not amend seven five seven a one. If you take a look at the two acts if you have those in front of you. Look at the start of the page one of the top of page two a both actual C. that they make very similar changes the seven five six of one with there's some slight differences all right for example like number three fifty on page two line two it has an inclusion of tabulation cost and Act number seven forty three on Page two lines twelve and thirteen it requires water marks on the ballot. If you move along down to seven five six or two you'll notice that they make similar changes but act number seven forty three make some more comprehensive and detailed changes to this section. Sure. You'll notice on seven five six oh two that act number seven forty three makes more comprehensive and detailed changes that's on page two on both of the axe you'll notice that the I. changes by seven forty three going to much greater detail than what's done back number three fifty. If you move into seven five six oh three that's when you'll notice the acts are to significantly differ from one another that'll be page two of Act three fifty and page three of ACT seven forty three. They're both amending in that instance seven five six oh three and the major difference that you'll see there is on the deadline for completing the hand counted paper ballots. On at number three fifty on page two lines thirty four through thirty five it requires that count to be completed within twenty four hours of the close of the polls. Enak number seven forty three requires account to be completed a minimum twenty four hours before the certification deadline. One final difference between the axes that on page three of that number three fifty in a manner it amend seven five seven a one to include language to match it's a requirement on the when the count has to be completed that number seven forty three does not address that section. So what's what's the recommendation of staff. The law provides that if you have to act that amend the same subject matter in there so if we have that were supposed pursuant to try to reconcile and if we determine that we can't reconcile them it is the act that the governor signed the last that prevails no that is a determination that we've tried to leave you know to y'all as to whether we do indeed have irreconcilable lax but you know this is one where we had trouble internally reconciling these two as to what we were going to have a combined and so the so ultimately the recommendation would be. To utilize the language for Max seven forty three because it was the lack the last Act signed and that's consistent with with our interpretation of the past yes Sir that's what the law tells us to do if we don't think we can reconcile. But and you all did have to reconcile but the belief is that. There's no good way to reconcile this point without getting into what would largely be a substantive change as Kevin noted some of the timelines shift and you know there's some different ballot specifics see our our concern is always if we created bill number three in the process of trying to combine them and that was what we were afraid we were doing when we try to reconcile and I believe President long was the primary sponsor was the house sponsor on both are you it do you have anything you wish to say are you in agreement with what staff is proposed. Thank you Mr Speaker armed. Senator Hammer operate by skin remained on the language for the second bill rather than chose not to determine the first bill so basically we just come up with the second one after looking into the matter liberty for with people running actions against really good inside some some particulars that would need to be added to the bill to make sure that the election integrity would be maintained so that was for the primary things we're having quite a bit of detail was in the election integrity part of it. So it is sort of our intention I believe to really go with the second bill it's not the first okay any any questions. And that would mean that to the extent there were changes in the first act that one in the second one we just leave those you know we just ignore those we just go with the second act as it is and don't try to reconcile anything that. As an addressed above and. Right so. Our motion for Senator Tucker. Your second. Represent Gazaway. Mr Hankins you're you're recognized so what happens to the first act. In that in that scenario it's being superseded. Preliminary of of no Boyd and of no effect no effect. Any other discussion. Gazaway. I will say this was somewhat of a controversial issue during the session as I recall and I don't know sitting here what the differences are and what the first bill was and what the second bill was specifically I know you said it's clear from the face that the second bill is much more. comprehensive in has much more detailed language in the first bill. And since you're the sponsor on both. I'm trusting that the second bill is the one that you intended to be the law and which was indeed signed last and all of us here I don't think or under any other sections that that the second bill is the one that will control the to bills on the same subject. And so that being said I agree with the motion. but I want to make sure before we do that that. You as being sponsored both bills are good with the changes that were included in the first bill but not in the second bill not becoming law. Yes corruption Gazaway that's so that was my intention and I believe that also this Senator Hammer is intention. I can't really speak for him but he was in agreement with the changes that I made and he of course will continue to be the Senate sponsor helped to the Senate. Okay thank you. It's been if you're recognized I guess you. There's a lot of people. All right of. Miller Mr Hankinson on combat it is is it documented in it somewhere. So pocket part whatever that is that the first act is in fact super C.. Yes Sir they'll be a note placed at each code section where it was deemed to be superseded by the commission and the language of that first act will be there for the reader to see in the annotation thank you. Senator Tucker enlivens Bennett's comments would you like for all the motion and then we. Take it up at our next meeting okay our. So we'll. The motion to withdraw on Leicester's additional motion will hold that one over to give. The commissioners additional time to look at it With the understand the recommendation is to go with that later acts All right. Since we've done the one we might want to go ahead and do do too that's another election was okay. I don't do too is involving acts number four forty four inex number four sixty. If you want to take a look AT ACT number four forty four first on page nine third line thirty four it amend seven five six fifteen D. to require duplicate copy of a damage paper ballot to be made in the presence of a poll watcher. It also adds on Page ten lines three through six a new D. for required election official under this subdivision do you want to maintain a recorded counted damage ballots to be duplicated in the presence of poll watchers and provide a report to the County Board of election commissioners. Turning back number four sixty on pages one and two you'll also see that it amend seven five sixteen six fifteen the by repealing a substantial portion of this subsection the and putting in new provisions on page one lines thirty two through thirty three your appeals the portion of the that was amended by Act number forty four forty four. Including the reference the election official and it has its own reporting and procedural requirements. The governor signed both act number four forty four four sixty on April fourth but we were able to confirm from the governor's office that act number four forty four was signed after act number four sixty which makes for forty four the last enactment. No one's going to explain how. The last bill later Act later Act signs actually earlier numerically this one this one The funtrivia answer in the future when we talk about these the law provides that the last enactment is actually the one the governor signs last not be acted with the later number specifically distinguishes the one that she signed last so these are approved the same day so we reached out to the governor's office and they in fact had records and they let us know that ACT four forty four was actually the last one she signed that was just reflective of the order they went over there that that was signed last so that we can turn your head around on this one that you look at the earlier act and have to think of it superseding. Four sixty four sixty is also more comprehensive which is kind of hard on this one you know it was easier to digest this one one for sixty was the later one because it was more comprehensive I know Daniel Schultz is anyone's here Daniels here with the state board of election commissioners and I think there's some people from the secretary of state's office here I think they were involved in this one. And they just had some thought so maybe what was intended. I want to come forward and Senator crowd was here you know we've got some people here who worked on this one. You don't have to see state. The initial structure for the state looks Commission up my courage okay. Thank you Mr Speaker Committee at the. I confess I haven't been the. Dealing with this issue for a great amount of time but we did look at it once was brought to our attention and and it's it's my contention that I think perhaps rather than losing all of ACT four sixty that they could be combine that the all of the enacted language could be Under. Without the burning of houses committees groups. to do that for as it in our summation would be to take the Okay so the first the insert and what is in section six. The one ACT. Four forty four yes having about resisting. I think that can be inserted into Page two line to. That's essentially what we had done was we struck the original language and re organized it with more detail at but that would be essentially the restatement of the language that was struck and re enacted in the new formatting is where it is so that language still exist in our bill. and then I think the second. A new language in section six consent we be added as the final paragraph to paragraph five ACT four sixty. So. Take. So for. Four forty four an ad that is. The. Five hundred four sixty and then what was the first the first part you said the first part of the act for forty four provides that will the the existing lines damage ballots in the process of tabulate in the presence of tabulation officials many language and designated poll watchers if any and that it's stuck in many different places in this Act but the this is the four forty four is an act about poll watchers not about ballot application and so that can be rendered in the what is essentially the same place in the new language which is where it says the new language agreed with that in there when duplicating a ballot in the presence of another election official and a designated poultry if any what the Fishel shall this A. B. C. D.. And and I'll say Mister Speaker that the thing we struggled as far as reconciling them was that in four forty four it talks about the election official under subdivision the one in the added language and ACT four sixty repealed the election officials under the one they're no longer there. So when we try to reconcile members where we ran into trouble was with no longer clear if the intent was for the election officials to be there or not. If you're looking for sixty eight line thirty three the reference to the tabulation election officials has been repealed their and for forty four kind of relies on that language in the language that it added. At the end and I are. With great respect and I certainly don't mean to debate but I would submit to you that that language is effectively re enacted on Page two line seventeen through nineteen and then in a different context twenty three twenty three the duplication of damage ballot sort effective ballots counted the central counting facility shall be counted by an election official at the same time and location of ballots with no defects in the second one provides a different circumstance but references election official again so I think the affected the election officials will still be the ones doing it's just redirect. Okay Strauss. Mr just wanna make sure I think that last coming third up but I just wanna make sure I'm understanding so right now there's three proposals on the table the first is that for sixty prevails because repealed language before the other act could come into an amended the other one is that there's an irreconcilable conflict in the last in time in this case is that. The the bill number is smaller and the third is that they're actually not to reconcile that right. That would be my position as. It's of act one twenty four remaining change that references from subdivision do you want to. Question. All right so the the question. If you look at. Subs the subsection for which which the are suggesting should be moved over. Four of subsection five. With the reference to the one should be changed to the to if we were to do that. That is correct thank you I failed to mention that. Senator Tucker. That that's actually the exact common I was gonna make except a I think you should be D. two D. three and the four because you have election officials listed in all three of those. We might just to election officials under this sub section subsection or subdivision or something like that at that point. Now that's the kind of change that we're Larry do on our own but if you all are comfortable with that. You know I can second see an argument. For reconciling them but. Any other questions. Sir. Since we're taking this this up individually isn't is there a motion on this or is this one to hold over. I would. that. Because it isn't. A little more complex that we actually come we know we're gonna be meeting in July anyway hopefully the rest these are gonna be fairly easy and simple not putting everything to July. But on this one where we can actually see what the language would look like okay I mean I have a pretty good idea my head and I think probably the members the commission do what we can see where it'll say an election official under this subsection you know what Matthew just said whatever we can actually see laid out. I think that would make us more because. Anything else. If not we'll hold that over I would also suggest you for going to have to have another meeting is even on the things we take action on I think it be helpful to them after. After that has been made is when we send out material for the next meeting we send that out to the membership as well just so everybody can see what that looks like after we've made those changes. And and I'm not to it's been the history at past meetings of this nature that when changes were made you all would ask sometimes referred to included in a technical corrections bill next session to ratify it so the to the extent the rainy later questions or anything you know you can go back and point to it that we did clean it up in the law the next time so and I would ask that on personally I would ask it on on all of these that we make any change on the staff would note those for a recommendation for a technical corrections bill for the next session so that you'll see those when the bills come through next time and it'll just be a mat will having to catch on to ratify the codification decision made by the code revision all right. Okay thank you so now we're gonna go back to. Think what defines a back to a we intended to start with the easier one so this will get us we had an idea of how to kind of ease into this go ahead and share with this the one of the items that fall into this category tell us generally what these items what what they are and we can look at this Kevin you wanna kind of summarize what we're starting with sure these items under a or manifest reference here's what we feel like there is a reference to a section or some law or official but it needs to be a different reference and the commission has authority under one two three oh three to correct the manifest reference here if it's clear from the context of the law has referred to the wrong. Section thing agency things like that so that's an existing power okay right to. On these as we go through them if if we can briefly touch on each one Kevin would with the this no and then in less somebody. Well somebody wants to pull one out my hope is that we can just at the end of this section say these are items that we want to go ahead and make the changes contract your. I don't may one is involving act number seven fifty six if you look on the back of that fact down that what's called section two it's a do not codify section is actually section three it's mislabeled there's a reference to section twenty one four to eighteen eighty two as set out in section one of this act but if you look right above that you'll see the two is actually in the real section two of the act not section one. Okay. Adam D.. This. This is Marvin Act number six twenty nine. If you would. Turn to the second to last page near the end of that act there appears to be manifest reference heirs and section sixteen and seventeen online's one thirteen and fifteen. These regions these references originally were to the regulatory portion sure. Page. Twenty four. Seventeen. Sixteen seventeen yes Sir. So if you look in section sixteen and seventeen you'll see on lines one thirteen and fifteen there's references the sections of the act. Originally when this bill was introduced these were references to the criminal law portions and the regulatory portions of the act however there is an amendment that came in and added two new sections to the criminal provisions those are now sections for five of the act but they did not change the references and section sixteen and seventeen so that because these references to be off by two sections. There was caught in section eighteen of the act of the when it was a bill it was corrected but was not caught in section sixteen and seventeen. These uncodified sections but they will be noted in the code and section seventeen is a continued effective date section that affects the effective date of the sections. This is Kevin noted there do not codifies what we do is with notice the sections that are tied to the contention effective dates that there was a reference or you know and would note on so that the notes reflected what was intended as the proper effective dates. There's nothing codified to change it's a matter of the code reflecting what the law intended the effective dates to be. The question smart building on. This is item number eight three this is a law enacted for six ninety one section two twenty. At. This also this will also I think the page numbers got off. But if you look. Towards the last. This is near the end of your hand out. On the last page there's a section to twenty. And you'll see that there's references to section sixty six section sixty seven one one member of the Arkansas natural resources commission a reference to section seventy in a reference to one one member of the Arkansas forestry commission. However as with the press the previous act we were just discussing this one had a similar issue where an act an amendment came through and actually deleted sections from the bill and move some provisions around this because the section numbers to be off in the references should be to section sixty four sixty five sixty nine and the reference to one member of the Arkansas forestry commission should be to three and the reference to one member of the Arkansas natural resources commission should be to. If you look at the in the material that was provided on page two in the back of page three when you look at those sections you'll see that those references were obviously wrong. All right. Next item is item number eight four this isn't a call the next number two thirty seven. If you turn to the second to last page in the hand out free for. There's an apparent manifest reference therein section seventy three be online for nineteen you'll notice that in those references there is no reference to section seventy one of the act. Peter back to the second page on line seventeen you'll see that section seventy one transfers the division of child care and early childhood education from the Department of Human Services department of education. The sections relating to that transfer all covered by section seventy three B.. This section seventy one is not this is also in uncodified section but it will be noted in the code. All right. Next item is a number eighty five this is Marvin Act number six of six. If you'll turn to page sixteen you'll see that there's a parent manifest reference here to this section on line six seventeen twenty twenty one and twenty four some of these are highlighted not all of them are. This reference to this section dates back to when this was special language that was not codified. F. makes this section void if the approval process under E.. Is ruled unconstitutional so one point the subsections were self contained section an appropriation act they were not part of the code. But as part of a special language project this approach the appropriation act language was put into the code and you'll see that it's been assigned to eleven ten three ten this is an existing code section that deals with the director the Division workforce services authority to hire staff delegate authority establish a merit system adopt rules is there any personnel standards under certain federal laws. It is not appear to be the intent inac number six oh six the make that code section void if the process under subsection II is rolled on Constitutional. So would change it to just reference the N. F. road if would be to suggest. Next item is item number a six this is involving act number six thirty six. If you return a page five years to be a manifest reference there to subdivision five eighty on lines twenty six and thirty one. These references are inside subdivision eight which is designed to allow the application of interest for prohibiting certain entities from owning agriculture land. The references are two parties individuals or governments referred to in subdivision five a. However if you look back at page four on lines fifteen and sixteen you'll see this subdivision five eighty only refers to citizens or residents not parties or governments. Parties governments and other entities referred to in subdivisions five B. dash E. beginning on line seventeen. You also see further confirmation of that if you look on page five lines twenty lines sixteen through twenty three. You'll see how subdivision a day appears to confirm this by our first each subdivision of five rather than just a subdivision five a. All right and I should say all these we alerted the sponsors of the bills of. I emailed everyone yes Sir survives the longest but the primary sponsor the primary sponsor yes. All right. Thanks items item number eighty seven. This is actually involving to access where one ACT because the manifest reference or any other so the first act if you look at is ACT number three oh seven. On page five there's a reference to five hundred dollars online to. But if you look on That number seven fifty three the other act on page five you'll see that this threshold was changed to two hundred dollars on line one. Sect number three oh seven is merely referencing the amount before that changes made. I remember a eight is involving act number eight forty seven. Eight forty seven appears that manifest reference heirs to axe nineteen ninety one number four eleven in sections one and seven that's on page one line thirty five. Page two lines twelve thirteen and twenty three and at the end of the act Page six line eleven. If you take a look at section one of act number four eleven you'll see how discusses. I'm sorry back number eighty eight forty seven you'll see how discusses how act number four eleven at a reference to Federal Trade Commission regulations to the Arkansas franchise practices act. However act number four eleven did not add that reference you also see in your packet actor after actor rate forty seven we included in ACT seven sixty from nineteen ninety one it is actually the act that added that reference. If you look on page one lines thirty four through thirty six that Act we also included act number four eleven so that you can see that. It amends the franchise practices act on Page three line thirty two but it does not add any reference to the Federal Trade Commission regulation. These are also uncodified sections but they will be noted in the code. And I just hours I spoke to representative Wardlaw about this one and he asked me to relate to everyone that he agreed with the suggestion and he felt like that was consistent and accurate as to what should have been in there. All right that's it the first. Correct yes Sir. Any. Any discussion is there a motion to. Make these recommended changes to these items that staff because references having. Manifesting consistency. Okay Mister Hankins with motion as Bennett with the second any discussion. All only discussions the Speaker recommending actually suppose we got Act sent. Mr. All actually get shot of both the. All those in favor say aye. Any of those. Motion passes all right we'll move to the second this section if you with the. When share with us what this generally covers and then take up each the size sure this section is on miscellaneous heirs this was There was an easy category to put some of these and so this was kind of Arkansas. Your first item under this one is I don't be one. This is involving act number six ninety one. Again I think the page numbers got off on this but if you turn to the front of the last page. And look at line six. You'll see that seventeen thirty one tool for B. the existing subsection B. was omitted without being said our strike through. This subsection concerning the Arkansas state board of a registration for forwarders adopting a seal. But if you look on page three which is the first page under this part to do not codify section the Arkansas state board of registration for borders was abolished. So the question comes up of how to deal with that prior subsection B.. And I think I thought would be to treat it is to just treated is repealed in which case would make a note that it was repealed the commission determined it was repealed just so that they be evidence of what happened that language since it never showed up in the bill. The question. All right. This next item is the item number B. two involving act number seven sixty six. If you look on the second page. On line nine sorry. B. two at number seven sixty six. You'll notice here that on that line nine that he uses end to connect the list of ways that a person commits a criminal offense involving ballot initiatives however the list appears to be independent elements. Not necessarily connected to one another. In that case it could are coming to be changed to or because when you look at the last it's. Very difficult to commit all of these at the same time to commit the offence so it seems like or was intended. Any questions. I notified everyone. I spoke to the members who reached out to me but I notified everyone with the summary of what we're gonna be talking about. Thanks number B. three is involving act number four forty two. If you turn to the back of the last page. I'll try to give more time the firemen. What. You'll notice on in section nine on lines thirteen through fifteen. It appears amid language from B. one concerning what is refunded. It appears that the phrase all money received for an transmission should have been included after refund. You'll also see B. two on that same page line thirty one it appears to belong to the list that's creating a B. one which are exceptions to the refining of the money. So go over that again what the recommendation is. The the option that we were looking at was it appears that the language all money received for transmission was a bit omitted from B. one. And that be to belong to that list that was created in the one on. The exceptions for refunding. So it's just inserting. Of all money received for transmission. In two line thirteen after shall refund yes Sir it appears that there's a missing object of the verb verbal phrase shall re find right now it's it's it shall refund but it doesn't say what upon request. Upon written request of a refund of all money received yes okay and then down there that would be making. Basically. Subsection P. one and two the begins with the refund request not enables a licensee to answer the question. The just yesterday just slide over into that list instead of standing on their own. What those capital. The. The question. State laws. I think the issue is on if you look at B. two it's not clear what the purpose of it is. Other than to be an exception for refunding the money. As set out as B. two it is appears to be an independent phrase that some clear what the application of it would be. The law. I did not actually try to call representative medics on this one and that you I was not able to get a hold of him and I emailed him as well. Only reach out to the primary sponsors of the house bill with medics. Also. It's. Language. Was uniform language in other states did you look at that is this uniformly on uniform Kevin yes I believe so the the amendments are not part of the uniformed. Strauss thank you Mr to make sure I'm I'm following the the second. The recommendation it's on line thirty one the take what is currently B. two and to make it be one cap he sat right that was one of the options that. So follow up on that if that's the case. I guess I'm not following how it's grammatically connected to the leading language on line fifteen. For transmission unless any of the following occurs. ABCD those are all. Exceptions to. The requirements in subsection B. one. But then be what's currently be to a line thirty one doesn't seem to be an exception to the language in lines thirteen fifty fifteen may be misreading that but that's bond in becomes. B. one cat B. seems to be a significant change in so. Just. And I think it was just a thought because B. one specifically talking about refund requests and and in two. As a standalone then it seems like it's missing something. By itself into the refund request is not able the licensee to. You know it's it's missing something but but if you read it in context of the lead in language I think the idea was is. They can identify who sent the money. Then it would make sense you didn't have to provide a refund so you would say listen to the following occurs the refund request is not able to licensee to identify the transaction or the sender's name or address that's why would make sense as an as an exception to actually providing the refined. I don't really see subsection to section. What we what we pull that section else over the July. I can see it both ways which will take some time on that go ahead for now I would say go ahead with the proposed with adding language to the one about what's refunded and then we'll revisit that issued the the two whether to become C. will revisit that okay. And we certainly have no dog in this hunt Jana that we're just. We. You're gonna think the same thing here in a minute because the next with the same act yeah. And it's a similar issue. This is not a member before still involving act number four forty two. If you return to the back of the third page. Section eleven. B. two eight. On line sixteen. Your to be missing the verb is after credit. If you look at the next page on line twenty eight there's a B. subdivision B. six that's an incomplete sentence. One of the thoughts is that this subdivision B. six was intended to be added to subdivision eighty six as a permissible investment. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the letter of credit where it's currently assigned. So if you go back and look on the second page line thirteen that's where it starts and it's a list of permissible investments in it appears that's where B. six should have been places in that list not as B. six and B.. This will. And talk to represent Maddox. Miss basis leave if the thought of moving a provision from one. From one list to another that's pretty against the party scene. I would suggest we hold. Next time. Any other questions or comments. number B. five was involved in the project Arkansas act and think we've already discussed this issue involving sixteen ninety three nineteen oh eight a. So with permission I would just move on from that item. Im number B. six is involving that number seven thirteen. If you look on the back of the last page. Line fourteen. Section six the there appears to be a missing bird before the word center. Any any guidance from the sponsors man that would either be shallow right center Payton called me on this one and he said it was supposed to be may. He said it was supposed to be permissible and that would be the least yes that's the this doesn't airing on the side of is the gentlest of the options. Any questions on that. She. Next item is item number B. seven involving act number eight oh two. If you look on page four lines twenty one through twenty two. In section to see. There's a reference to subdivision a for an appointed member. However if you look at page three in the beginning of page four you'll see that a for does not exist in there's no of pointed member. This language deleted from the bill by an amendment during the session. The language in a the only reasonable yes and represented Eubanks is here on this one and I think Courtney Selous Board is here as well with the Department. So what's the recommendation. One of our thoughts wishes to strike it is distracted so that it reads the first meeting held within thirty days of the effective date back and take out the one. That would yes that was that was an option we were considering because it's just obsolete. Okay the. According to represent you back. He's agreeing as well. The so the recommendation is to describe. One and actually. It would just become C. right or no yeah this becomes C. would read the person being the board director should be held within thirty days of the effective date of this act you wouldn't have a reference to to because this was only two items on the list. Okay and then it would be up to the Department and the co ops to determine how those first meetings got call all right. Question all right. Next item is item number B. eight involving act number five ninety six. If you look on page two. Winds thirty five to thirty six. Indeed for eight. There appears to be a grammatical error the language does not require is inconsistent with the language from compliance it appears the language possibly should have been does not prohibit compliance with this appears consistent with the intent of subsection D. the financial institutions may need to comply with certain federal laws. The conversation anybody else on this one. We did not. I have I mean that's what I would suggest that we try to at least talk to. This represents one Senator Dismang just to make sure that. All right. That July if you all with see you have that conversation this call. Right. Next item is item number B. nine involving act number six eighty eight. If you look on page six lines thirty six three Page seven line one. C. one C. it appears to have a grammatical error the language maybe added appears incorrect it appears that the language should have been may have licensure in the additional fields of body art added. At at contact her I did not speak to her about. No hold. No earlier today thank you C. A. R.. This is sold over. Autumn number be ten involving act number seven oh one. If you look on page two Line one. In a to see I. to be missing bird before specify. The other subdivisions in the list you shall. And I did not hear from him on this one. As to what goes in there. So. The question is on the one. Do we act shall from that. It to a starts with shall to be starts with shall to see doesn't have. The birth of their. If we leave it out doesn't it I mean probably not. Proper grammar but if. Certainly gives the implication that shack but it's mandatory right. And in the context of the statute it kind of feels like it shall the way that it's laid out there You know it would just be up to interpretation of course you don't have to be corrected and you could always tell us to flag it just for a technical corrections bill next time. Yeah Strauss's thing Mister chair if each it to the cafe B. stand C. for each shall then would. Makes sense for the shall come in the leading language on line twenty eight. Here in each of the subdivisions well if you look run a to be a structured differently the the. Verb there is after that phrase after approval by the Arkansas Public Service Commission so it would have broken the having it up there at the top maybe the maybe the idea is just to. Make a few changes to existing tax as possible because I see that the just hours or current or current code and. I would I'd suggest we hold it again to your point not something we necessarily after the and maybe between now and our next meeting we can get clarification as to what that. Whether there was intention for it to be shall. Moving on to item number B. eleven. Okay this is going above two different acts act number seven eighty seven INEC number eight forty one. So we'll start on page one of fact number seven eighty seven in section one you'll see that it creates a new six twenty one one twenty one that require schools to keep exterior doors locked except for transition times and also on page one line thirty six and page two Line one repeals language from twelve thirteen one oh nine the required state police director to require teachers to keep school doors and exits unlock. However if you'll turn to act number eight forty one on page seven. Line twenty four. He repeals twelve thirteen one oh nine in its entirety. And if you skip for the page twenty eight of that act eight forty one on line thirty one is substantially reenacts that section as twenty twenty two ten eleven. With the only change being that is now the state fire marshal's duty to require teachers to keep school doors and exits unlock. And I spoke representative Johnson on this one he called and asked me to speak to you all he said it was not his intent to undo seven eighty seven is bill was dealing more with the fire codes in the fire marshal it wasn't focused on education so he said to the extent Senator English was trying to do something specific he was not trying to undo it he was fine with the jest of six twenty one one twenty being clogged over in the twenty twenty to ten eleven. Which you could perhaps to a simpler version of that by just taking the keep the doors and exits unlocked language language out of twenty twenty two ten eleven. It would be up to the commission but he said it was not his intent to supersede ACT seven eighty seven to the extent it had specific thoughts on the doors being locked or unlocked which one was the last one sign his was the last one so we have you senator I represent Johnson seven US eight eight forty one eight forty one was later on so so the earlier Act took out the requirement that the. Doors and exits be unlocked during school hours it then stated that they should actually be closed and locked except during transition times and in the later ACT. States that it's the state fire marshal's duty to ensure that all doors to have a fire drill once a month and keep all doors and exits unlocked and school hours yes so they're completely inconsistent are completely inconsistent. Yeah I don't think I'm not sure to me this looks like one that we just have both of them have to be codified I don't know how we can I mean for us to weigh in on it seems like we'd be. Thank you a substantive decision. Anybody else any other thoughts. Right. Hi it Mr seems seems to me that if if the latter failed then you go with the latter that rule that the they've been following but then again it it is such a metrically. The. Different set of language I don't I don't know it seems like this section. If it change the same section and change it is the first to change the same section and stated that they would be closed and locked in the second one came behind it and re institute like that seems like that would be an easier decision be made. And and Kevin noted to me when we're looking at these there's a new what's new what's distinction and then because six twenty one one twenty that's created by seven eighty seven is a mandatory instruction all public schools and by public private school shall keep the doors closed and locked when you look at the new twenty twenty two ten eleven this created it's the duty of the fire marshal to require teachers of public and private schools to had to keep all doors unlocked when forces this this new section one twenty is that the department of education or is that something. And Courtney's here This one one that I mentioned that we've talked about prior to this but I do not know who pool and you I don't know who's auditing them on that it's one twenty. One one twenty. It only exists in the army Act right it's not repealed because but it probably was not contemplated because they were right they may be running at the same time right now represent Johnson wouldn't aware of it he said he didn't realize the conflict was in there. It also the second burger Johnson's. Required teachers to be one right. It is also. Like. I will this seems like one we should hold over in less there's unless there's some. Other information out there that makes it clear I really weary kids Senator Tucker is forty I mean this is a it's a it's a very significant issue. And we have. Seemingly. Inconsistent language. This is one and and I agree this is one of the flag as far as things to be addressed if there's an opportunity this would be one I think that would need to be addressed as thank you. And he was hacked user Johnson said he was happy to call in if you wanted to for having another meeting he's happy to participate let's I think we hold over we talk to the sponsors and and probably with the Department well I talked to Senator English as well as and she will participate to okay let's let's just let's hold it over that one that I. That's a tough issue. It's tougher for us to sit here and try to reconcile some. Clearly states that. I remember B. twelve this is Marvin Act number eight fifty. If you look on page three lines eleven and nineteen it appears to me that open enrollment public charter school. Based on the language of the title of the act and if you look on line eight anyone in line thirty one on if to cap a little three it appears that open enrollment public charter schools should have been included in the subdivisions. Any questions there so. It. Hey Kevin that's that was one of the staff thought. We were thinking that because E. one references public school district or open enrollment charter schools that they need to left out and in F. one or F. two it comes up again down there and three were of highlighted at the bottom of the page. It's clear from the way that three read that open enrollment charter schools are included. This act and just gone through and plugged in or open enrollment charter school after each use of public school district so. I mean clearly it looks like to the cut because the funding is for public school district or an open enrollment public charter school and then because it's reference and in three. If that seems to confirm that it should have been more referenced into an effort to that's all right that's how we had whatever out are you Sir are you also saying that the two. The the is there an adjustment that's been made there was that. We felt like it because the one exempts public school districts and open enrollment charter schools from the minimum teacher compensation requirements and any two is designed. To provide a substitute scheduled to be prepared and but it a mess open enrollment charter schools from the subs to schedule. Does the department have an opinion on this. Court and saw support from the department of education college as I didn't have this one to look at both or but. It's kind of a moot point in that open enrollment public charter schools are public schools answer usually if we are using the term public school or public school district it will include them. And so I think what staff is recommending that it's intended that they also be included I think it was just an oversight that and open enrollment public charter schools wasn't wasn't listed all the way through. The reference I mean I know you know I know you said it's but just to be clear. it's not just this is public schools there public school it's a public school district but. That has been interpreted to include a. Open enrollment public charter school with fall under what is considered a public school district yes. I think it's fine either way I think you want to be specific and added that language open enrollment public charter schools I think that's fine but even if you don't have the language they are going to be interpreted to be a public school district yes. We just want to leave that. That's the case we will leave that alone or at least if. At least for into we come back and you lock it and give a chance to make about that. Thank you so that that's the last one in this section yes Sir so. Yes I would entertain a motion to make these changes subject to the ones that we've identified that we would hold over. For future consideration for for for for future. Okay motion second any discussion. All in favor say aye all right any opposed. Motion passes all right so now we've moved to. This section. This is item number C. these will involve acts where there was one ACT repealing this section or subdivision or subsection in another act of committee and staff thought that there was a direct conflict. And it's I'll note here it's been the historical interpretation with the commission that if an early we always say the later Act wins but if the earlier Act repeals the section the repeal has always prevailed if that makes sense because you can't rheostat you can't revive it once it's been repealed so the past interpretation is benefit earlier Act repealed it then the later act did was not interpreted to go back and bring back something the General Assembly already got rid of others as well. That's been more practice thing kind of based on the constitutional principle that you can't revive language without setting it out of winning so to the extent that it was repealed by an earlier act it's not set out as on the language by the way Act right Kevin yes that's right and there's also case law this is the we're inclusion of existing language is not a reenactment of it. Our. That you see that a lot coming up here because that happened quite a bit. I'll never see one involves X. number six ninety one seven ninety four. So the first act will look at is act number six ninety one. It's on the back of your second page. Line twenty one. Section one twenty two it repeals seventeen fifty two oh one. If you turn act number seven ninety four on page nine line ten it amend seven fifty two oh one D. by repealing a phrase. So in this case the later Act theoretically wouldn't have any operation because the earlier acted already repealed what the second act was trying to change. The next item item number C. two involves acts number six ninety one and I enact number five forty five I believe the first act in your packages act number five forty five. On the front of the second page. In section four. Beginning on line seventeen. It's amending fourteen through thirty four eight oh five a one be to update this subdivision it appears this subdivision have gone obsolete and this act was intending to updated so would still be in effect. If you'll turn to act number six ninety one on page thirty six lines thirty four through thirty five it repeals this subdivision. So just to be clear and backing up to the first one we took off that would recommendation is that we treat seventeen fifty two oh one as being completely repealed because we feel the whole of the whole section. There's even though we we later repeal part of it but we're repealing the whole thing is recommendation correct. On this one the recommendation is that irrespective of the amendment of the of subsection B. the later repeal of subsection be without the amended language woods would suffice to repeal that the. Delete that whole subsector that sponsored section but subdivision subdivisions that that was our thought certainly not our decision to make but in of always given deference to the repeals when that popped up all right any questions either of those. All right. Next one is item number C. three involving act number seven seventy eight ACT number seventy six the first act in your packet exact number seven seventy eight. If you go to Page five line thirty five. You'll see that it's repealing sections twenty one five Fortino two twenty one five fourteen oh five two one five fourteen oh nine through twenty one five fourteen thirteen and twenty one five fourteen sixteen essentially if it repeals the entire higher education uniform comments classification of compensation act there's a lot of repealed language in your packet. If you make your way through all that repealed language you'll get to act number seven eighty six. And you'll see on pages fifteen through seventeen it makes a technical correction the change director to commissioner in some of those same sections that repealed by act number seven seventy eight. So in essence the whole set the whole sections repealed the later act only made technical corrections to update the term to commissioner yes that those were not eleven they're not I mean there substantive but they're not. It wasn't new wasn't really new language or new. Ten. Yes any questions on those. All right. Next item the item number C. four. Involving acts number six ninety seven and seven oh four. If you look on the back of your first page back number six ninety seven. Section two lines fourteen through fifteen it's amending eight four one oh four B. two cat G. the injured reference. If you look AT ACT number seven oh four on the back of its first page lines twenty four through twenty five it repeals the subdivision. All right any questions. Okay. Yeah. So before we move on represent neighbors been waiting here and I think she has to go complete without objection let's move to E. to real quick and so that we can have the benefit of her testimony on that. Yeah The Addams imminent under key or involving repeal an amendment where did not happen to be a direct conflict between the acts but they did involve the same subject matter. So item number you too is involving act number two thirty seven an act number one twenty nine. If you look AT ACT number one twenty nine on page one it's amending six eighteen nineteen oh six B. one to add a new exception to the three percent cap on student transfers. However act number two thirty seven. On the back of the second page of that act line thirty one. It repeals the entire subsection B. concerning the cap. Right. So. What what was the staff recommendation on this. Our thoughts were to consider the is superseded it would be noted at this section person may were you have any comments on that. My only concern is is that we know that the learns Act could face some. Court decisions or could be repealed at another point and I just wanna make sure that if anything happens to that that this wall that we did pass that deals with the three percent rule in preschool that it would stay and that's what my concern is if it's just kind of put to the side then it's forgotten about I wanna make sure that if anything happens to the other ACT four I mean no one has a crystal ball I just wanna make it really clear that we don't forget that we did pass this and then if we go back to the old before this this would not include that does that make sense so so the recommendation is basically denoted in the notice in the code yes sorry would be noted that section at that that subdivision was enacted by that act yes. I think. Matthew I mean I think that's been consistent with how we've handled things in the past and it if there are situations where an act. Invalidated or otherwise. For this this act is still out it's still out there in in my mind Kevin concurrently at that point you have to revisit the codification of this section because what you think is repealed isn't back still in fact so would have to go back and consider how it was presented in the code but it's hard to present both ways you will but if we noted or we are I think their business is where we've noted it we're not necessarily I mean we're almost leaving it for other folks to decide at that point correct because if we were saying this this didn't occur we wouldn't even we wouldn't even know it in the in the code correct. That's the that's one of the purposes of noting is an accounting that this act existed in it could be taken to account by agency officials courts others and we. If something is noted I would assume that we have the ability at a later point. If we want to move language from a note back into the actual code section if that would still be within our purview. I mean we've had cases you know after the supplements have been released for we went back and re considered how something would be codified and made changes. Any questions Strauss. The people of. Thank you Mr. So I just want to throw into a distinction here there's that the underlying legal basis to say that a subsequently enacted or the whole idea of saying when you have a statute or act that repeals language another subsequently enacted bill that just amends that language that that amending is trumped by the repeal part of the basis for that legal bases is an ancient rule of statutory construction that the repeal of the repeal doesn't revive the underlying wall so that idea here all illustrated here just for or clarity so if if the idea is that the larger bill here which repeal that language but that trump's the this subsection BT or something from the the amendment. Even if learns which I understand you know there's a initiative process is under way right now referendum process if that process you know succeeds that any in if the court proceedings indicate that the emergency clause is bad. If both of those staying two things occur then learns never goes into effect and what you're wanting to be the case would legally be the case because the idea would be that the underlying law never went into effect. However if the emergency clause is considered to be good. Then the law goes into effect and when that happens any anything else that you know it it it repeal the idea would be and that went to the voter's learns finally did go to the voters even if the Emergency Clause was good and voters rejected it it was still a law for that minimum amount of time which means that there would not be any underlying law that would be provided for that purpose so I just want to put that out there that under the rules of construction. What you're wanting to occur would only be the case if the law was not constitutionally enacted the Supreme Court says that. If it was constitution active then per the reasoning that Matthew is indicating earlier the larger repeal swamps the underlying Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr Speaker what are what does it mean to noted I don't know exactly what that means. It's part of the annotations at the end of the code section were like the amendment notes in the history no yeah there's also a C. R. C. notes and it would be noted there as either a publisher Notre ACRC noted act number you know Bob law contained this section and this is how I read. And so we would say. If if large becomes effective at some point then at the end of that code section six eighteen nineteen oh six they're being ACRC or publisher's note saying. That this other subdivision was passed by a house bill eleven eighty five or you know ACT one twenty nine of the twenty twenty three session but it would be in the code. Yes. Okay. Other questions and this one's kind of tricky because it's an add on to this section this been repealed like you could nonsensical we codify this one provision and it won't make sense because the part about the three percent cap is no longer codified but I mean technically you could put it in there somewhere and then market for legislative correction next time what what if we what we do a combination of this I think we've done this before we actually we noted that we we noted with the specific language so it it's it's all present when you look at the the actual code itself. The the language the entire language of the statute it's just it's just represent makers bill is just one. What maybe one sentence paragraphs few lines. I think we have in the past we have noted something where we've noted it with the language actually appearing to vote but it's just part of the note. and that yeah we were certain we would set out in full yes we have the full text of the subdivision in the note we clearly I don't. It doesn't appear that there's. It didn't practically and and procedurally there's no way really that that the the language that was passed on the cap should be it's it shouldn't appear on the cover really if we stick to the interpretation and the way things are handled through the years represent Mayberry is concerned and it would probably be a concern whether it's this issue another issue is just to make sure that it's it's November it's out there so we can accomplish that with the number itself. It will it will be in there it will be reflected in the full form that she enacted it. You know we don't we don't have a lot of experience with the referendums being approved I can't remember the last time run may remember I can remember the last time we had a referendum actually triggered it the ballot on a statewide actors in some local ones but I don't know about a statewide ACT so you know we would have a question at that point on how are we going to really liked it. Strauss's point really the noting of it. Problem with the that probably relates more to the litigation and it does the rest the referendum process and that could. You know that could be the language in a court order could be somewhat determined to as to those items as well. The the. I'm problem at that the question whether it's substantive legal law is authorized. And. Yeah I decided cases when or right. Any other questions comments. Good with noting. All right. Sure. Your talked a lot of legalese here I make sure I'm understanding it okay so my concern is. That. Let's just say voters say we don't want this. Does the law that we passed. Still. Going to affect or do we have to then we do that I would I would do we have to come back in another session and passed the same bill that we already passed without doesn't make so I would say that that's I would say that that's. That's really outside the purview of what we can speak to is the commission. And and Mr Ousley is has shared. You know a position. And again I don't want to get and I don't want to get into speaking or taking legal positions on something because that that's a that's a matter that's outside the purview of this commission but clearly there could be some issues related to. What happens if if I read referendum were successful it may not be the the concern about whether this becomes the law. That may not be the case. But I don't want to say to me too much to that because that's not that's not what we're here for today. All right. All. You just go through a lot of work to get a bill passed in you you know want to make sure that it stays intact and it was not part of the controversy and so I'm just trying to say you know how to make sure that it stands the best possible chance to. Continue and not have to be brought back up again I think that's I think that's going to be a that's gonna be a question it's. Outside this commission it's private private question to to take up with bill Maher. Separately and in terms of what would happen if that were to occur. Okay. Any other questions or comments. Was that the only one that you have. Our. Thank you for that allowing me to come up a little bit sooner so I can get out thank you. All right is there anybody else that's our reserve eleven you waiting or you just here for the enjoyment of the. One which one which one is it. Your. We know which one that is we can component could move to move to that one without objection will move to that one so you. Will. What's the number Act forty six but as. But the. The. Good for. The fourth people county for. Just refresh everyone's memory items entered the word amendment amendments where staff thought there may be a direct conflict. Item number D. four involves act number four sixteen an act number seven thirty two. If you look on page one of ACT four sixteen. Lines thirty five through thirty six. Page two lines one through three it's a million six seventeen for all to see to cap a little one concerning teacher and administrator license. That number seven thirty two beginning on page seven line sixteen. Is re write in subdivision two C. to cap a including subdivision C. to cap a little one. It appears to add provisions similar provisions concerning licensure an additional license or plans. The governor signed a number for sixteen on March thirty and at seven thirty two on April twelfth. So what's the what's recommendation. This issue is outside the expertise of staff it was just identified as potential conflict. the court need I think Courtney came prepared to talk about this when I spoke representative Johnson about this when he told me whatever Courtney said he agreed with well. According to come forward and. Share with this European. Thank you for any solace for to the department of education and yes we have spoken with representative Johnson and representative Evans regarding the subject matter and our recommendation would be to codify ACT seven thirty two as superseding Act for sixteen. The intent of four sixteen is still accomplished by ACT seven thirty two and so not codifying for sixteen doesn't lose anything that representative Johnson wanted to do. Represent Johnson's okay with us. He he only whatever Cordy all right that. And that in the end it also that's the. The latest act is opting the latest act. Any other any questions or comments. All right since we're here what we think we only lacked the three from okay subsection the. Number D. three involves acts three ninety six and six fifty nine. If you look on the first act is three ninety six on page two lines fifteen through twenty it's amending twenty seven sixteen eight sixteen F. to repeal the date on which approach your promotion urged restricted driving permit expires in places it with the new expiration date. It also adds a new F. to allow the Department finance ministration to revoke these restricted driving permits at the request of a probation officer or parole officer. X. six fifty nine on page one twenty six lines fifteen through sixteen ads poster released to this language that was repealed by act number three ninety six. At number three ninety six was signed by the governor March thirty twenty twenty three INEC number six fifty nine was signed by the governor on April eleventh twenty twenty three. Is a recommendation on. One of the thoughts was that X. six fifty nine is adding language is added to language that was repealed by the earlier act. So it's difficult to reconcile. That. Representative Dalby called me on this one she was it was her preference that heard she's the earlier act on this one it was our preference that the intent of her act not get lost just by the small change in the later at you have to do a little re writing if I remember to capture her intent and the intent of three ninety six but it theoretically could be done the the other problem is that the six fifty nine change it from. Six fifty nine addresses it from the perspective of supervision and the earlier ACT three ninety six. Puts it on that the the duty on the probation or parole officer so one possible thought was that you could add community supervision officer which is what the new name of those officers will be and that's within the spirit back six fifty nine. Senator Tucker. I think that's the written that's the right thing to do for what it's worth. Both of these bills are amending language that I and acted in two thousand seventeen. It was language it was brought to me by Alison Johnson senator Johnson's daughter so small state but anyway I think that an out of this extensively with represent all the and Senator Hickey about house bill twelve away during the session because of the previous legislation I sponsored and of course I had what conversations about Senate bill forty five though not on this issue in particular is represent Gazaway still sent over there the lady where he could speak to it but I think it would capture the intent of four ninety five. to put that language in into F. one on on page two lines line nineteen and just say community supervision officer. And I think that would be a reasonable reconciliation of the issue. To my opinion. Speaking either way we go we're going to either have to add or take away correct. Any questions comments. So the recommendation is to basically use the language from the earlier act with the additional reference the community supervision super. Many supervision officer yes Sir. Any questions. Comments. All right so I think that your of. I'm the. I don't know if we did this earlier but on those on those items and the. Entertain a motion to make those changes as discussed as we discussed Sir Brian. Per second thank you any discussion all in favor say aye opposed motion passes all right so now we'll go back to finish up C. yes Sir where we Adam C. five C. five. These were involving repeals and amendments. C. five involves act number four sixty one ACT number five forty three. If you look on ACT four sixty one on page two line twenty eight it's repealing six thirteen sixteen oh three eight three. And if you also look back at page one it repeals the consolidation lists and six thirteen sixteen oh two. At number five forty three on pages one and two and men's six thirteen sixteen oh eight three eight three to add a new exception to administrative consolidation. I spoke representative Payton about this one if you notice the later act in this case has an emergency clause so this one's a little unique in that the later Act is technically obsolete because center Payton sacked the leads the underlying authorization for it however. Representative McElroy's Act would be in effect up to the ninety first day at which point the repeal would kick in and it would go away that was center patients understanding of what was going to happen he said it was his understanding and expectation that represent McElroy S. law would be in effect for ninety one days. Any comments have. it is. Yeah. Yeah. You. And. Right now I I don't think on emergency clause. So far as we're concerned as of now. The emergency clauses or all valid as they rolled past. Consistent with decades. And if if there's an order otherwise then we would obviously there's a lot of other things we have. And by the time the supplements are published we passed the ninety first day most likely so there's no reason to reflect Mr was. Also. Clause. It only pertains to that's what NO litigation right now it's just as to the. Learn to act right. So. It is all or. Right I mean I think this is that what we're thinking is noting it but understanding that that it alternate will not be published until after the ninety first day but we would still happen note reflecting. Referring back to the existence of this language I mean is this the case would know that it was in effect for ninety days or the no typically would not reflect that it would just be that language from the section that was amending the code but we could easily add a phrase that was in effect from that period of time to the note. Yeah I mean that doesn't that doesn't hurt anything like Ryan said It helps with Rick later research in case somebody utilized for this in the ninety days it existed. Any questions or comments on that. All right. Next item is item number C. six. This body to act that we just recently talked about a thank you senator out of the three Act number three ninety six on page two line seven you'll see that it's repealing twenty seven sixteen eight sixteen B. three. In on page two lines twenty one through twenty three it's an acting that new subdivision have to we've already discussed. If you look AT ACT six fifty nine. On page one twenty five line thirty one it amends twenty seven sixteen eight sixteen B. three to make a technical change. So we would be so we would recommendation to it's the lead sponsor. Because the technical corrections. That can't revive something that's already been struck. Yes. Any questions comments on that okay. Im number C. seven. Bobby next number one sixty one next six ninety one. If you look on page two of Act number one sixty one lines twenty through twenty seven it's repealing seventeen one oh one three oh six J.. And this is not in your packet but it's also enacting a new code section on veterinary technician specialist certification so repealed that subsection on that issue and enacted a whole new code section on it. ACT number six ninety one on page eighty three line thirty two it makes a technical amendment the seventeen one oh one three oh six J.. Okay. Recommendation go with. The repeal the repeal. Any questions or comments on that. All right. number C. eight is involving ex number one sixty three three sixty five. next one sixty three page five line twenty eight it's repealing twenty seventy seven twenty two oh five. And if you go back to page one you'll see it's a repealing the entire healthcare quality and payment policy advisory committee act. That number three sixty five on page forty eight line eleven is amending twenty twenty seven twenty two oh five delete language. And change committee to department. Recommendation go with repeal yes Sir. Any questions or comments on that. All right. This is our last item an item C. this is Adam C. nine. ACT number three sixty five on page forty line fourteen is repealing twenty forty five three oh two. And this is not on your package but in that acted also abolishes this is I prevention council which is created in that section in an act number seventy six on page fourteen line twenty one mins twenty forty five three oh two C. seven the change director to commissioner. Recommendation would feel yes Sir. Any questions or comments. Or is there a motion to make the changes for that section Sir Tucker makes motion. Thank you second any discussion all in favor say aye. He opposed. Motion passes all right so what. We take care of the yes Sir and and. You want is what I have okay the ward. This is going back to where there's a repeal of a stubborn section or part of a section in an amendment but there did not appear to be a direct conflict between that. To access at number seven seventy eight on Page ten line twenty three is repealing twenty one five Fortino for. However if you look AT ACT eight seventy it'll be on the back of your last page in that part of the packet on line twenty it's amending twenty one five fourteen four oh four to add what appears to be a stand alone subsection concerning funding for salary increases and it does not appear to require the rest of the section to be effective. This is not in the packet but ACT seven seventy eight also enacted a new higher education salary section six sixty three three seventeen in the commission determined that it wanted to codify that subsection it could be placed with that material. Recommendations the. The first part feel but leave this section in the later act because it can stand it can stand alone yes because this because this one doesn't depend on what's repeal most going to look at today did depend on what was repeal this one does not so that the earlier act actually created a home we could latch this onto and it would make sense. It's just kind of a catch a catch all provision on higher ed salary things that it to remember. I think it has to be renumber deceit and Kevin. I think you did have to be you yes remember to subsection C.. When we put it into the if you choose to go with six sixty three three seventeen you know going to subsection C.. Any questions or comments on that one. In Peter is the one we just took off the person may very and that's that would be the one discussed noting it in this. This state the three. The three of them on the next seven eighty seven and eight forty one. So if you go to ACT seven eighty seven and you look at page two line to its amending twelve thirteen one oh nine. To add what appears to be a stand alone subsection concerning egress from buildings and compliance with the Arkansas fire prevention code in the Americans with disabilities act it does not appear to require the rest of twelve thirteen one oh nine to be effective. In this is the issue we've looked at before ACT number eight forty one. On the front of the second page five line twenty four it's repealing twelve thirteen one oh nine. And if you turn some pages further down and go to page twenty eight line thirty one and we ought to look at this also worried moved those provisions to a twenty twenty two ten eleven. So it the commission determines that it wanted to keep that subsection it can be codified there with that new language and title twenty. Any questions or comments on that recommendation that we. We leave that language from. Earlier at the. Any questions comments on that. All right so that that brings to the in the motion to make the changes that we. That we've discussed as these three items in the. This is our second. The section any discussion. All in favor say aye. The opposed motion passes. All right so now we're. Yeah. Yes Sir this these are items that there's one item in here. This was just the purpose of this is bringing to the commission's attention as possible legislative correction or other action it is involving to axe Act number one sixty nine if you look at pages one through six of that act it makes a lot of amendments to title three chapter five subject which will and references to ready during product as an authorized product microbrewery restaurants to manufacture store and sell. If you look at the second act that number two oh seven on page one it adds a new provision of thirteen five twelve for a grainy decisional authority to microbrewery restaurants but it does not include a new ready to drink products. So what's the recommendation on this. For randomization and we could mark you could market for legislative correction next session. we just wanted to note it has a kind of stood out when we were doing the supplements that it looked like I mean they're very close in time like the past within days of each other but when you look at that section is only gonna be one place that ready to drink. Products are omitted. This seems like one to just notify the sponsors of this. The side. And I can just communicate number gonna be communicating with representative Maddox anyway on the other ones from earlier so I can just make him aware of it representive ray was here earlier and clearly this from staffs the point this is one. Would be best for us not to. This is not one for us to wait to wait in and to insert that language into it. So yeah I mean that we we we're not gonna take that on our own we wanted to know it for you you know we could you could put it in a technical corrections bill if you wanted to or we could just alert the sponsors and they could tackle it next session. just. I would work the sponsors I think this gives beyond the normal technical corrections were used to running. That's just my opinion. Right so that was that was noted that was the only one and a half yes service is that right so there's no action on no action on yeah. Per staff to notify. Sponsored yes. All right. I get this to Adam G. Richard an actor references to state agencies very similar to manifest reference there's. The first item G. one is involving ex number one sixty one ACT six ninety one. So if you look at acts at numbers one sixty one and pages three three six and I'm sorry there's also another ACT X. seven oh six page five line thirty five they contain references to the veterinary medical examining board. However if you look AT ACT six ninety one. On page five line twenty five it abolishes the veterinary medical examining board and transfers all of its powers and duties including its statutory powers and duties the Arkansas livestock and poultry commission. So our thought was you change those references to the veterinary medical examining board to livestock and poultry is examined were no longer exists because it no longer exists just everything it's been transferred yes Sir. Any questions comments on that. K. and that covers two acts that it happened in two wins that or yes you that thanks six ninety one took care of the references an existing law but of course it could account for acts one sixty one in seven oh six that were working their way through the session. This is last on a non GAAP says Adam G. two. If you look AT ACT number eight hundred on pages twenty five through twenty six the contain references to the Arkansas ABSTRACTERS' board. This is a new section that was an appropriation act. If you look at the second act under that item act number six twenty eight on Page one line thirty one it abolishes the Arkansas ABSTRACTERS' board and transfers all of its powers and duties included in statutory powers and duties to a new board called the state board of appraisers ABSTRACTERS' and home inspectors. This new board is created ACT six twenty eight on page nine line thirty two. With the recommendation to substitute The New yes Sir all right any questions or comments on that. Okay so those are the two the items in G. which would involve. Updating the correct commissioner for reference yes Sir all right motion on that Senator Tucker second representative Brian any discussion all in favor say aye opposed motion passes. This is the last autumn hello number age these are conflicts with ACRC technical correction acts and each technical corrections act has a section that says that there's another actor conflicts with it in the controls of the technical corrections act we have four instances of those in there listed there under item H.. And we can go over if you want to or if you just want to say it so these are these are these are These relate to the bills that myself represent Gazaway center talking Senator Bryant. ran in the commission will recall that we had several meetings much like we've done today and we run legislation with technical corrections all play there is other legislation passed that would. The conflicts with our technical correction but the nature of the technical corrections to defer to the sub to bills that have passed. All right let's anybody wants to. Go through each one of those And entertain a motion to for those changes to be made. The motion the second Tucker any discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed motion passes so just to recap on these of approved a number of things which will be updated code. I would like for us to as the once those rate also to have a summary that goes out to the committee the commission of a number of items that were holding over for our next meeting and then on all these items. Those would be noted for future for drafting a technical corrections bills in the future yes Sir will make sure every change you requested in the political correction bill for ratification and we can go back and build a list of what we held over versus what we approved and just share that with the Commission by email we just send that out it's an update for everyone and that will also include the two items at the beginning the sentencing commission issue and the issue no we at which handle the insurance department so it'll just be the sentencing commission and and we also noted that. On the school. Access that that's something to for us at least legislators in particular pays attention to if there's an opportunity to address that issue. because that was correct conflict Senator Johnson. I want to make sure or or was taken care of dollars. Transaction. Which built which bill are you here for. So that's what. Nine. So if it's a if it's H. two one in which your bill then we're we defer to your bill some that's good yeah yeah the only change that. Have clarified something and Transparency section of the bill we have added from the whole song right I'm going to make sure. He said. I'm okay I guess I can you're good. All right. I don't see my sis Senator Tucker. It I just have to items on already it out here I was. Testing one Senator Davis about this other issue which I mentioned second but I want to add an astron item B. nine if she was good with that language with the staff's suggestion of a center a picture of the staff's suggestion and she's good with that so we. We want to. Move on that Alan take one item off our July agenda okay this. This was. The licensed are displayed in the licensing of body all right. So we're so the recommendation was to add language about the licensure. May have licensure the additional fields of body art added she's she's good with that she thinks. It's consistent with her intense good clarification. motion I so I'm with the resort makes motions are second. The second any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any oppose motion passes all right. The other and this is when she brought to my attention from a constituent of hers is. That I'll an act was passed with a list. And there was an or after the last semi colon. And then when I was codified. It was it was codified within and instead of an old. And her constituents sent her the act which she's for to me and it was an accident two thousand five. So it's been in place while so obviously everything that we discussed today has not been codified yet. And so this one has but it's not like it was got fired from a year to ago spent eighteen years at this point but her constituent Fortner the act in the code and highlighted the wording and clearly in the action two thousand five it said or and then in the code says and so he was wondering if that something that code revision commission can address. We can certainly take a look at it if you Senator it you know it makes me wonder if there's something else out there that you know there were two acts or something happened but yeah let's take a look at it yourself you can send that staff and maybe they can give us report at our next meeting I'll do that. Okay thank you that's it. Senator bright. Thank you I just want clarity back from one of our original bills about an act for for for being signed after I for sixty. So whenever we if we look on any tool and it says notification that that house bill or Senate bill is now ACT that is not a result of a of a governor signatures I just result of staff saying will eventually approved it becomes an act when this Kevin you can tell me if I'm wrong here becomes an act in the Secretary of State processes it and gives it the act number The quirky thing about this statute though is that it uses her signature is the measure though as opposed to getting the at number. So it technically becomes law like if it's has an emergency clause it's effective upon the receipt receipt of that number but for the purposes of this conflict determination we're actually looking at which one she signed last. This under Arkansas code one two two oh seven B. committees dealing with examining the same subject matter to determine the last enactment it points to the one last signed by the governor and I've wondered before if one to two oh seven assumes they're the same thing you know and it's just turned out that sometimes we do have a difference I don't know if it needs to be revisited to the extent that this was kind of hard to relying on them to have records as to which one she signed last so when when with the Secretary of State receive notification today they send them over to the secretary of state and then they process them in a letters issued that has them all in order as to the ones that they approved on that given day. So and then the executive office gets it back thank you may go to the Speaker next. It is a gun member that we get we received a letter from the governor's office. Okay it may go to the governor's office and they tell this house the Senate but you know what we get on in the session and we read them at the beginning of the day. And I feel like the letter comes from the governor's office with notification that. House Bill such and such is now Act whatever but I think you told me that altering the act numbers assigned by the secretary of state rex it is so there's apparently some some. Intervening process go. Because we the bureau gets them from the secretary of state secretary of state. But I'm not sure where they company overseas. It that's a matter of code in that may be worth as you said it may be worth looking at just in terms of. Determining is. Is all that the user is is all that the fission and is it is it makes sense to me with this the first time in twelve years and I think we've got to go in and try to figure out. Literally what time of day one versus the other side and we did it twice because if you notice from both was up here those two he was talking about or sign the same day and in that case the later one had been signed almost immediately after the other. Okay okay I guess because on ACT four four four. It was basically sent back to the legislative body at ten oh nine on April fourth and then four sixty was sent for nineteen so fifteen days later. But the last one signed was the first one receipt I'm just I just wonder where that. It's once the act is assigned and it sent must be sent back to the governor's office for signature we would have to research that process to know exactly. How it happens. But when we could do that right and do you know. I'm going to go. Other. When you get notified via and how about the number of law is. Low. Notification for. Your or within the notice from your or whatever all access. So if I think it would be helpful if you all would take a look at that and at our next meeting we can. Talk about that further about what that actually looks like. And if there's if there's need to consider anything that. Yeah with this is the first time we've had experience with them being different times I mean normally they happened so close in time that it becomes moot but this one yeah we've never done it before. All right. Anything else really these conflicts issues. If not I think we need to talk about title nineteen reclassification. Thank you Kevin yeah I agree I think there is a There is interest in following through that previously approved process of appointing a commission member to the working group title nineteen working group. S. the last meeting to go ahead and get that bill we reached out to the agencies in the executive branch it was the terrible time to be doing it because everything was changing over and several didn't respond I think we have about half of it filled Kevin. We've got responses from the governor's office the attorney general's office and the Arkansas state claims commission we have not received a response from the auditor state treasurer state department Vice ministration Arkansas ethics commission Arkansas legislative audit Arkansas Bar Association so we'll follow up with them one of the places was reserved for a commission member so I don't know if you all want to handle that today or take it up in the next time. The position body interested in being. It's. The title nineteen moment re codification workgroup. We're working to re codification of title nineteen. I'm interested. Okay if that works. Anybody if no one else than. Motion second any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any oppose right congratulations. Hi and then Our first report from the new code provides for sure and I'll just keep this brief I just wanted to report to you all that we have started receiving supplements from Lexus we started working those there's gonna be a total of fifty seven volumes and as of right now we're scheduled to receive all those and have those completed by the end of July. Right. And one thing we were gonna mention one of the replacement volume scheduled for later this year is a top five volume and one of the things that's come out of the protect Arkansas act is that there's about two hundred and fifty pieces of title five that are effective January one twenty twenty twenty four so initially in the supplements they're gonna be dual codified we're we're gonna have an effective until January one in an effective after January one. Technically we're scheduled to do that replacement volume before January one twenty twenty four so would have to do the replacement volume with all of those codified twice which really doesn't make sense so with your permission would like to kind of flip the replacement volume schedule around a little bit and do that one next year so that we would only have to codify the operatives sections so if that's fine with everyone we're going to talk to Lexus and what those around that objection. Okay. All right anything else. Right so we'll look at a another meeting in the near future. Probably would look for maybe council week in July. Okay of bubbles try to get that out in the next few days and hopefully we can resolve these remaining issues. Anything else. Thank you all for your. Diligence and work and graduation to Kevin thank you. He survived his per she makes her being easy on his sleeve corporals here. Are you all set you are concerned about or were they gonna do it. I mean I. Yes good good. If you're. We're adjourn.