Code Revision Commission
Video
Transcript
6 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
a moment to take a look at those. They're Exhibit B in your packet. Any questions or comments,
Speaker 5
0:18
corrections? If not, is there a motion to approve
the minutes? Okay, we have a motion by Representative Gassaway.
Is there a second? Senator Bryant. Any discussion? All in favor of approval of the minutes, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved. Next item is the consideration of authorization of expense reimbursement for official commission duties by commissioners pursuant to Arkansas Code 2516902. That's Exhibit C in your packet, and the code revisor can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is something that we adopt every year at our first meeting of the year.
Yes, sir. So I'll give everybody a moment to review Exhibit C. This is just allowing for the reimbursement of members. I believe, I would imagine that since we're in session today, that the legislative members, there would be no reimbursement for today, that we would either get our legislative per diem or I would assume that would be the case.
That's my understanding, sir. Okay. All right. Is there a motion? Okay. Motion, Senator Bryant. Is there a second? Second. Representative Gassaway, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? motion passes next item is consideration of lexus pricing and replacement volume proposal and i believe we have two representatives from lexus here from lexus nexus here if they'll come forward they're welcome to take a seat and you can introduce yourself to the commission and then
make your presentation related to pricing and replacement thank you mr. chair my
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
2:19
name is Brian Kennedy I'm with Lexus Nexus and I have with me and my colleague Lily Evans who's also with Lexus and she will in the past year I've been working with Kevin and Matthew as a liaison regarding our contract Lily is has stepped up and she will be working with them going
forward as I mentioned before you're in capable hands okay I'll continue so I will jump right to the proposal so if you look at exhibit D we propose pricing increases for the replacement volumes the index and the cumulative supplement The increase is roughly 7%, and that's based off of a lot of factors, our cost increases, and also the PPI increase.
The PPI increase that's set out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it's around 11%, and we're just asking for a 7% increase to help offset some of our increases. We also have several replacement volumes that we recommend replacing in 2026 and also in 2027. The three in 2026 and four in 2027, the criteria that we use to determine which ones that need to be replaced
is based off of the size of the supplement and the age of the actual volume, And the intent is to provide a better product for the user so that the product is more user-friendly and current. If there are any questions, I'd be
happy to answer. I believe, I think what I've talked with staff, that the 7% or the approximate 7% increase
is fairly consistent with what past increases have been I guess the last one was what two years ago yes yes sir any other any other questions we're on exhibit exhibit D representative or miss I'll make sure you're recognized
Speaker 20
5:02
curious. How do these prices compare to prices for these volumes for the public?
Speaker 22
5:10
These are the public prices. Okay. So the
Speaker 20
5:13
state has the same pricing as any other. I have to review. I'm not sure
Speaker 22
5:19
if there's a, I'm not clear if there's a discount, but I'll have to review the contract to make sure. Okay. But there's not two sets of pricing. Senator Tucker,
Chair
Unverified
5:33
you're recognized for a question. Nothing like sprinting into
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
5:38
the room and getting in the queue.
I have a sort of an off-the-wall question, and this may not be the best venue to discuss it, but I just want to throw something out to you all, and if you have any thoughts or you're going to take some more time or talk after the meeting. But I've just been in conversation with Arkansas's administrative office of the courts and our circuit court judges abilities to conduct legal research, you know, in both Lexis and Westlaw. And as of right now, every circuit has its own separate membership agreement with either Lexis or Westlaw or both.
And we're in conversation about potentially, you know, having a contract that would cover the entire state. And if that's something, you know, that y'all would be interested in and, you know, what the pricing might be or what, you know, discounts might be available. And, again, I know I'm just sort of throwing something out at you. And if you want to think about it and get back to me or talk after the meeting, I'm totally good and understand that. But I just – we were in a meeting on Tuesday and I said,
i'm going to be seeing the lexus folks on thursday so i will bring this up with
Speaker 22
6:58
we that is something that we would be interested in what what i would have to do is is connect you with our sales team um since since this doesn't have much to do with the printing the print contract that we have here but um definitely if you want to discuss further i can i can um connect you or get someone to reach out to from our sales team to see uh what's
yeah thank you any other questions just uh i guess a follow-up
with regard to the replacement volumes as we can see there are three that you're proposing to replace in 26 and four in 27 and then those would be subject to the proposed replacement volume price of 46 dollars per volume so essentially a practitioner someone that has the arkansas code is going to spend 150 to 200 dollars for those replacement volumes could you talk about the
just the the analysis as you look at the recommendation of these volumes i mean i know that for those that of us that have been on here for a number of years that you know y'all have talk through like how do you determine which volumes but if I think it'd be helpful if you could talk about how do you arrive at these three volumes is this something that you view as being absolutely necessary some might ask well why do we have to do any can we could we push that off
but I think it'd be helpful for y'all to talk about what goes
Speaker 22
8:42
into that to that consideration Sure. At the end of each legislative session, when the cumulative supplement is created, we have our editorial staff do an analysis to a page count analysis for every volume. And what we do is we look at the page of the bound volume, and then we look at the page count of the supplement. And typically, we try to keep the supplement less than 30% of the entire volume.
If it becomes bigger, sometimes we'll have to have a standalone supplement, which is unwieldy. And then also it provides for the—it provides—it causes the user to have to use two different publications in order to find the
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
9:35
current law. It makes it—it's not as user-friendly as if it was one volume. Also, some of these volumes you see date back to 1998, so that's the second criteria that we look at is the age.
Speaker 22
9:50
You know, if a book, to be honest, many books we replace every seven years or so. 1998 was quite some
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
10:01
time ago, and these books are ready to be replaced. So those are the two major things that we look at. And then we also work with the revisor's office to determine timing. You know, if we know that something's getting ready, some legislation's getting ready to come up in the future, and we want to wait until that's done before we do replacement volume,
we communicate with them back and forth. So those are some of the things that we look at when recommending
Speaker 42
10:31
these replacement volumes. Any other questions? You're recognized. I
Speaker 43
10:35
have another question about these. It's just three volumes, I understand, but how many sets are we talking
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
10:40
about on the state contract? I don't know how many people still use hard copy volumes. How
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
10:47
many sets are sold to the state, or how many sets are?
and the code revisor can correct me if I'm wrong. So as I understand, the proposal here is what will be the advertised price for replacement. The state, such as the Bureau, the Bureau has, I believe, a contract for a certain number of volumes. And so the sale price to whether it's the Bureau or another part of state government,
I believe that's negotiated with maybe a different sales team from LexisNexis. Am I correct about that? That's correct, but
Speaker 22
11:34
correct me if I'm wrong, Lily. I don't think the publishing contract addresses the sales to the state. Yeah, it's a separate. Mr. Miller, do you have, I
mean, I think that's where, as I recall, I think several years ago the Bureau maybe entered into a new contract, but that's kind of a separate consideration that's outside the purview of the commission.
Speaker 49
12:01
I'm not aware of the contract outside of us. covers the bureau's books the contract does since we're working with lexus on the publication but it doesn't cover the state's books as a whole i think they purchase just under the standard price unless y'all have a separate sales agreement with them i'm not aware of yeah there i
Speaker 22
12:17
think you may be right and and there may be a sales agreement that our sales department has created but it's outside the purview of the publishing contract thank you mr chair yep any other questions
and uh you care to add anything i i know y'all have been in
Chair
Unverified
12:41
conversation on this no sir just that this proposal would be approving both the pricing and those replacement volumes both things would be on
this item okay all right is there a motion to approve the uh the price and the volumes for replacement for 26 and 27 senator tucker with the
motion is there a second okay small next with a second any discussion all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes
thank you thank you thank you for
being here all right the next uh next item up is the update on uh the funds i have to get my reading
glasses out update on funds for the codification project and And then also our code revisor can provide a report of any other items he sees fit. Thank you. Mr. Chair, this is just an
Chair
Unverified
13:39
update on the funds codification project that I mentioned at the last meeting.
If you'll take a look at Exhibit E, you'll see a list of state treasury funds there. That's a list that our staff went through and found all the different state treasury funds and where they were created. You'll see a lot of them are created in more than one place. They'll be created somewhere in the Arkansas Code and then also created in Title 19. This project would be us going through and making sure that those funds are only created in Title 19 so they would not be what we call dual codified. As part of this project, you asked us to work with the BLR fiscal
and let the budget chairs know that we were doing this, which we've done. We're also working with DFA, had a meeting with them this week about this. Our plan was to present this as a technical corrections bill in the fall when we consider the other technical correction bills. Just kind of wanted to give you a look at the scope of what would be involved with the number of funds. All the changes would be purely technical. It would just be purely moving language from one title to Title 19 and repealing any kind of duplicative language.
What you see a lot of if you look at these funds is you'll have language that says something like there is created the blah blah blah fund in a certain title and then that's also that language is reproduced in title 19 so we just want to go through and make sure
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:09
that that's only in title 19 i'd be happy to answer any questions senator bryant you recognize so as as future assemblies start to create other other funds a practice blr will get out of going inside language inside of a of a separate title and
then keep it solely in title 19 or will these just backlog again over the next multiple assemblies yes sir
Chair
Unverified
15:29
that many of these problems existed before we had our current review process and so if you go back and look at recent sessions we've not been doing that anymore creating these outside of title 19 so this is kind of a problem that was inherited from past practice and so that's we'd like to get it resolved and yes in the future when we do this we'll make sure that the funds are only created in Title 19 so that this doesn't happen again. But the I mean the enabling
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:54
language of the fund would still be housed inside the appropriate title. Would that be a true statement or? No you may have certain provisions
Chair
Unverified
16:03
of the fund that are more substantive about how the funds are to be used or how someone applies for like a grant program under the fund but the technical language of the creation of that fund would only be in title 19 if that makes sense so it
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:19
does i'm just trying to look at how the the how the uniform code reads if you're creating
legislation and you're creating a new a new commission typically it's all batched into one it creates the members it creates the funding source it creates it basically creates everything So if you did something inside a local government, you'd go inside that title. He's saying it would be that title, unless you talk about the fund, then it will jump to Title 19? That's correct, sir. Yeah, substantive
Chair
Unverified
16:47
provisions like that, sure, they can be where they need to belong, you know, in the Arkansas Code. But the actual creation of that fund would be in Title 19.
That's actually a practice that's been going on for a while. we just got quite a few of these funds out there before that practice started that are codified in two or more
Speaker 60
17:08
places but it would just be the fund that's that where the money is held
that would just be created in title 19 okay all right question as y'all have looked at this are there any of these funds that maybe they're referenced but maybe the enabling legislation or the actual
substantive legislation has been it's expired or is deleted if so are y'all noting that or would that be kind of a separate something that would need to be looked at separately with this
Chair
Unverified
17:41
particular project i don't believe we found any that appeared obsolete on their face to us but um it's my understanding that dfa provides the bureau a list of funds that are obsolete and are not being used and that those can be rolled into a technical corrections bill also as part of this project okay and
that that's what i was going to say for the legislators that will that will
still be serving uh next january is that this might be a good opportunity to get with the blr fiscal staff and dfna to just it's an opportunity to look and see there may be some of these funds that are that could i mean you wouldn't do it in the technical erection bill but it might be subject it might be ripe for legislation to eliminate the fund if the purpose is obsolete or if it's never received any funding through the years. It just seems like it's a good opportunity to maybe clean some things up.
Speaker 69
18:35
So thank you all for your efforts on that.
Speaker 66
18:41
Anything else? Any other to report on? That's all I
Speaker 43
18:44
have, sir. I have a question, Mr. Chair. Sure. You're recognized. I just wanted to ask, Mr. Cooney, is there
Speaker 20
18:50
any distinction or anything we should know about on these funds that do not have duplicative language in title 19 any are
Chair
Unverified
18:57
you talking about the ones that have the na under yes yes ma'am those are ones where that fund is only created in that outside title and is not
created in title 19 so for those funds we would put the creation language into title 19 and repeal it from that other title if
Speaker 36
19:17
that makes sense all right anything else from the code revisor
no sir i think so you can correct me if i'm wrong but at this point there's really no that we don't anticipate further business for the commission in the foreseeable future uh but later this year we will um schedule a meeting to do what is everybody's favorite thing to do uh go through
the proposed technical corrections and so we'll look at possibly scheduling that probably in the fall uh probably like during an ALC week in an afternoon where we have plenty of time to go through that I
Speaker 41
19:54
didn't see the dean here and it won't be long we'll have a different
chairman here too so so just just so everybody knows that's kind of the schedule if anything comes up in the meantime I'm I'm sure Kevin and Matthew and our staff will let us know.
But I appreciate everybody being here today. Anything further?
Speaker 72
20:21
Senator Tucker? I would just say I think it would be a good idea
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:25
if the folks can do what you were just suggesting, Mr. Chair, about taking a look at some of the things that may be obsolete now. And so if that's something that you all have the bandwidth for, then I think it would be a worthwhile thing to do. I just wanted to chime in with
Chair
Unverified
20:41
that. Yeah, no, we would appreciate that. We can take any, you know, information provided us that something's obsolete
and work that up into a technical corrections bill and present that to you all for your
review and approval. Sounds great. All right. Anything else? If not, the commission is adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Approval of the Minutes of July 17, 2025, meeting – Exhibit B
C. Consideration of authorization of expense reimbursement for official Commission duties by Commissioners pursuant to § 25-16-902 – Exhibit C
D. Consideration of Lexis Pricing and Replacement Volume Proposal – Exhibit D
E. Update on Funds Codification Project – Exhibit E
F. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CODE REVISION COMMISSION (1-4:30PM), Apr 9, 2026 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Agenda April 9 2026 | Exhibit | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit B - Minutes of July 17 meeting | Exhibit | 4 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit C - Authorization for Expense Reimbursement | Exhibit | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit D - Lexis Pricing and Replacement Volume Proposal | Exhibit | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit E - Funds Codification Project | Exhibit | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Speaker 5
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 20
Speaker 22
Chair
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 35
Speaker 42
Speaker 43
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 49
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 69
Speaker 66
Speaker 36
Speaker 41
Speaker 72