Code Revision Commission
Video
Transcript
6 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
at those they're exhibit B in your packet
Speaker 5
0:23
Questions or comments corrections if not is there a motion
to approve the minutes? ok we have a motion by Representativeaaway as our second Senator Bryant
any discussion all in favor of approval of the minute sayy 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 code revisor can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this is something that we adopt every year at the at our first meeting of the year
so'll give everybody a moment to review exhibit C this is just allowing for the reimbursement of members and Iu 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 be we would either get our legislative per diem or the I I would assume that would be the case that's my understanding sir all right is there a motion
OK, motion Senator Bryant, any is there a second 2condre some gasaway any discussion all in favor say I. any opposed motion passes. Next item is consideration of Lexxus pricing and replacement volume proposal and I believe we have two representatives from Lexxis here from Lexisnexis 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
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
2:24
Thank you Mr chair my name is Brianennedy I'm with Lexisnexis and I have with me in my colleague Lily Evans who's also withexxis and she will in the past year I've been working with Kevin and Matthew as a liaison regarding our contract umliy is has stepped up and she will be working with
them going forward as I mentioned before you're incapable hands unbelievable OK I'll continue so I will jump right to the proposal so if you look at exhibit the we propose pricing increases for the replacement volumes the index and the cumulative supplement
the increase is roughly7% and a lot of that that's based off of a lot of factors our cost increases and also the PPI increase the P I increase that's set up by the bureau of Labour statistics it's it's around 11% and we're just asking for a7% increase to help offset some of our increases we've also have several replacement volumes that we
recommend replacing in 2026 and also in 2027 the three in 2026 and and 24 in2027 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 of the actual volume and the intent is to provide a better product for the user so that so so that the product is more user friendly and and current.
if there are any questions I'll be
happy to answer I believe I think what I've talked with staff that s the7% of the approximate7% increases fairly consistent with what past increases have been I guess the last one was what 2 years ago? yes yes sir
any other any other questions we're on exhibit exhibit d representative or Missulex you're recognized for a question.
Speaker 20
5:07
do these prices compare to prices for these volumes for the public these are the
Speaker 20
5:18
pricing as any other have to review I'm not sure if there's a
Speaker 22
5:24
I'm not clear if there's a discount but I'd have to review
the contract to to make sure but there's
Chair
Unverified
5:38
no there's not two sets of pricing Senator Tucker you recognized
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
5:43
for a question nothingthing like sprinting into 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 but I just want to throw something out to y'all and if you have any thoughts or you're gonna 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 judge's abilities to conduct legal research you know and in in both Lexxus and Westlaw and as of right now every circuit has its own separate membership agreement with eitherexis or Westlaw or both and we 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 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 I'm 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 I I we were in a meeting on Tuesday and I said I'm going to be seeing theexxis folks on Thursday so I will bring this up with them at that time so yeah yes we they did something that we would be
Speaker 22
7:03
interested in what what I would have to do is is connect you with our our sales team so since this doesn't have much to do with the printing the print contract that we have here but definitely if you want to discuss further I can I can connect you or get someone to reach out to from our sales team to see what's possible that would be great
I guess a follow up with regard to the replacement volumes. as we can see there are three that you're proposing to replace in26 and4 in27 and then those would be subject to the proposed replacement volume price of46 dollars per volume. So essentially a practitioner someone that has the Arkansas code is going to spend $150 to200 dollars for those replacement volumes.
Could you talk about the just the the analysis as you look at the recommendation of these volumes I I mean I know that for those of us that have been on here for a number of years that you know y'all have talked through like how do you determine which volumes but if you 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 into
Speaker 22
8:47
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 page count analysis for every volume and what we do is we look at the the page of the bound volume and then we look at the page count of the of the of the
supplement and typically we try to keep the supplement less than30% of the entire entire volume if it becomes bigger sometimes we'll have to have a a standalone supplement which isu unwieldy and then also it provides for the it provides it it it causes the user to have to use two different publications in order
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
9:42
to to to find the current law it 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 you know if if a book to
Speaker 22
9:58
be honest many books we we replace every seven years or so 1998 was quite some time ago and these books are ready
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
10:06
to be replaced so those are the two major things that we look at
and then we also work with with revisor's office to determine timing you know if if if we know that something's getting ready some legislation's getting ready to come up in the future and and we want to wait until that's done before we do replacement volume we we communicate with them back and forth so those are some of the things that we look at when we when recommending these replacement volumes. Any other questions you
Speaker 42
10:36
recognize I have another question about these that it's just three
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
10:45
are we talking about on the state contract. I don't know how many people still use hard
Brian Kennedy
Unverified
10:52
copy volumes how many sets are sold to the state or
Speaker 22
10:58
how many sets are I think that the and Mr
Miller in the code revisor can correct me if I'm wrong so as I understand it the proposal here is the 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 the a a different sales team from Lexisnexis amm I correct about that that's that's correct but correct
Speaker 22
11:39
me if I'm wrong Liy I I don't think the the publishing contract
addresses the the sales to the state it's a it's
a separate and Mr Miller do you have, I mean I think that I think that's where as I recall I think several years ago the bureau maybe entered into a new contract or but that's kind of a separate consideration that's outside the purview of of the commission. I'm
Speaker 49
12:06
not aware of the contract outside of us it covers the bureau's books the contract does since we're working with Lexxus on the publication but it doesn't cover the state's books as a whole I think they
purchased just under the standard price unless y'all have a separate sales agreement with them. I'm not aware of
Speaker 22
12:22
yeah they're I think you may be right and and there may be a sales agreement that our sales department is is created but it's outside the purview of the publishing contract. thank you any other questions and
do you care to add anything? I I know y'all have been in conversation on this no sir just
Chair
Unverified
12:47
that this proposal would be approving both the pricing and those replacement volumes. Both things would be on
this item. all right is there a motion to approve the the price and the volumes for replacement for 26 and27? Senator Tucker with the motion is
there a second? Smolixs with the 2. any discussion all in favor say aye. any opposed motion passes
thank you thank you thank you for
being here all right the next next item up is the update on the funds have to get my reading glasses out.pdate
on funds for the codification project and then also our code redvisor can provide a report of any other items he sees fit thank you. Mr chairir this is just an update on
Chair
Unverified
13:44
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 those 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 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 theblR 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 scope 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 moving language from one title to title nine and repealing any kind of
duplicative language what you see a lot of if you look at these funds is it'll 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 initle 19 so we just want to go through and make sure that that's
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:14
only inittle 19. I'd be happy to answer any questions you recognized so as as future assemblies start to create other other funds that's not a
practiceblr will get out of going inside language inside of a of a separate title and then keep it solely initle 19 or will these just backlog again over the next multiple assemblies yes sir
Chair
Unverified
15:34
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
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:58
in Title 19. so that this doesn't happen again but the mean the enabling language of the fund would still be housed inside the appropriate title with that is that would that be a true
Chair
Unverified
16:08
statement or no you may have certain provisions 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 initle 19 if that makes sense
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:24
so it it 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 sayingin it'd be that title unless she talked about the fund then it'll it'll jump toitle 19. that's correct sir yeah the substantive provisions like that
Chair
Unverified
16:55
could 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 places but it would just be the
Speaker 60
17:13
fund that's that where the money is held that would just be created in title nine 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 it's 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 particular
Chair
Unverified
17:46
project I don't believe we found any that appeared obsolete on their face to us but 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
and that that's what I was going to say for the legislators that will that will still be serving next January is that this might be a good opportunity to get with theblr fiscal staff and DaineA 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 correction bill but it might be subject might be ripe for a for legislation to
eliminate the fund if the purpose is obsolete or if it's never received any funding through the years it's just seemed like it's a good opportunity to maybe clean some things up.
Speaker 69
18:43
So thank y'all for your efforts on that.
Speaker 66
18:46
Anything else any other to report on that's all
Speaker 43
18:49
just you're recognized I just want to ask Mr. Cooneney, is there any distinction or anything we should
Speaker 20
18:55
know about on these funds that do not have duplicative language in Title 19 any
Chair
Unverified
19:01
are 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 intoitle 19 and repeal it from that other title if that makes sense right anything
Speaker 36
19:22
else from the code revisor 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 but later this year we will schedule a meeting to do what is everybody's favorite thing to do go through the proposed technical corrections and so we'll look at possibly scheduling that probably in the fall probably like during an ALC week in an in an afternoon where we have plenty of time to go
the dean here and it won't be long but they'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 sure Kevin and Matthew and our staff will let us know but appreciate everybody being here today.thing further? Senator Tucker I would just say
Speaker 72
20:26
I think it would be a good idea if the folks can do what you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:30
were just suggesting Mr Chair about taking a look at some of the things that may be
obsolete now and and so if if that's something that y'all have a bandwidth for then I think it would be worthwhile thing to do that's that's I just wanted
Chair
Unverified
20:46
to chime in with that yeah no we we'd appreciate that we can take any you know, information provided to us that something's obsolete and and work that up into a technical corrections bill and present that to you all for
your review and approval. sounds great right anything else if not the commission is adjourned
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 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