State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

They will be house bill thirteen fifty nine for those of you that or in the audience there if you're here to speak for against this bill there's a sign up sheet just out the outside the back door the staff fear will check that she periodically we already have one she to appear but be sure to sign up all also in the event that you fail to sign up I'll give you the opportunity to ask if anyone here that didn't signed up the most speak for against the bill you'll be afforded that opportunity at that time so No further business before we start our agenda so at this point representative Cavenaugh is here if you would just take a seat at the end of the table I understand you have an amendment to your bill is that correct. Go ahead identify yourself for the committee. I representative Frank Kavanagh District thirty. Okay thank you representative at this time though we're going to distribute the Amanda Amendment out to the Committee members shall give us just a second for the committee to be able to have an opportunity to receive the amendment and have an opportunity to review it. Committee members of I'm sure of it plenty of time now to review the amendment. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized to present The Amendment thank you Mr chair thank you committee this amendment just clarifies what the intent of this legislation is and also make sure that there's no misunderstanding about that that the committee can actually have subcommittees that will create committees based on age category a professional specialty to make recommendations to the full licensing board regarding rulemaking disciplinary issues ethical complaints and evaluation of applicants that was one of the misunderstandings about this legislation and so I just wanted to make sure that there was clear intent what it was and to make it even stronger we went in and actually put it in statute so that they would understand that it is part of the statute. It also goes into the psychologist the forum psychologist on the board and this was at the request of the psychologist is that for three of them will be psychologist and one will be a L. P. eight. It then goes in and it allows that skews me social workers will have five members on the board counselors will have five members on the board also and that is what the amendment is. Representative Cavenaugh has presented the amendment. Any questions from committee members concerning the amendment. Same time we have a motion representative Wardlaw to. Dobb the Amendment all in favor say aye. All opposed say no you're amendment has been adopted representative Cavenaugh you're now recognized to present house bill thirteen fifty nine as amended thank you Mr chair and committee again this bill arose out of a mental health work group that we've had been for the last year been working we had many many providers come to us and talk about some issues that they were having with their licensing board and that's really where this arose out of and it also is going to help streamline some of the work at the department of health and so that's really what this bill how it came about being developed one make sure we understand that this bill is very simple it's long. But as long because we repeal a lot a language and then we put some language backing at this bill simply takes for boards and combines them into one that is what the bill actually does it does not change a licensure requirement it does not change standard requirements it is not getting rid of any license it is not adding any license that is nothing that this bill does I know that there is some talk about that's what it does but that is not what it does the bill will go in and it creates the new bill the new board which is going to be called a mental health professional. With the amendment that I have that you been brought it actually will show that what the intent is is that each professional category will have subcommittees that will make recommendations to the baseboards on their issues and that's really. What the bill does I know it looks long it's not that complicated it's just a lot of garbage but I'd be willing take any questions. Committee members you receive the handout. Maybe a few minutes to review the hand that out and then we'll open it up to any questions for committee members. Committee members you're needing more time to review the and that. If not then any questions from committee members for representative Cavenaugh representative cloud you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair representative Cavenaugh can you talk a little bit about stakeholders who have asked for this or who you think will benefit from this and other issues a little bit more about why we're doing this and how we think it will increase or improve services yes we've had as you were part of the work group we had several meetings for about nine months almost a year about how we can improve mental health in Arkansas and one of the concerns that kept coming up to us in these meetings is that are licensure is lower it's harder to get last injures through there was some concern about some of them not actually meeting and not being able to process process last understand that actually came from providers and that's kinda where this emphasis came from and it is just a kind of streamlined the process Department of Health is neutral on this Department of Human Services has said that this will not interfere with any body that feels Medicaid or anything this will have no bearing on it Department of Health also states that they don't see any reason why they should apply any type of licensure because that was one thing I was concerned about and I had them to look at and they said they they not see anyway it was going to really interfere with any type of wire center and those are key things were made because I wanted to make sure first of all that we have the providers out there in this mental health crisis that we have we're not looking to eliminate any licensors we're actually just looking to make it easier to get more licensors. To represent the bank you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair and I appreciate you bringing this bill. The question I had in the and in. I'm trying to discern it was our particular group you mentioned that it was brought to us some people are having trouble with a license or was there present particular subgroup of the of the four committees that maybe had more trouble than the others are did you collect data to that level we didn't really collect date I can just tell you that we had concerns from all four boards so it wasn't just one group I will say one group probably had more complaints and concerns than others but all four did have some issues and concerns that providers that. Quipall all of. Which which group was that that had more concerns social worker board thank you. Representative Wardlaw you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Bring to the handout I would sure represent friend if you brought or not I staff or represent Cavenaugh sorry for that and staff they did you did not bring the handout so I'll reserve those questions for someone else my question though is if the social more was given you are giving this state so much issue with license or not process analyzer. Why why would we combine all of them together and not just re appoint or re yes Sir reevaluate how that board operates if that's the problem and then if you don't mind expand on the other problems from the other boards please yes the it wasn't just a social worker there you have to have the representative back ask you have the most complaints that two of the most complaints that we have we actually had complaints about similar from every board let's you know there was a delay in getting my licensure they are not meeting they thought some providers thought that they were dragging their feet on certain applications for different reasons I mean so there was a big variety of reasons why they they thought that it was happening and we combined all four of them because if we're going to go ahead and do some efficiencies and government and we're having an issue with multiple boards and do similar work it just made sense from that standpoint to be able to combine for boards and make into one and we wanted to make sure that we had representation on the board from all those parties involved. Goodness so if you look through the handout on the fourth paragraph it talks about over the last fifty years of history and it goes through other states that have done this and it talks about this very little savings in very little efficiencies because these four boards have different separate ethical codes describing appropriate professional conduit they have different treatment practices different education different training. So I guess my worry is is by combining them and not addressing each board in our problem that we may be creating a whole nother list of problems and and and like I said I'm reserve some questions River handedness this but this one make sure we're doing this right to address the issues that you're having because we do have a problem in this state and we do need to address that problem well I believe when with the amendment that we made it made it very clear that each one of these professional categories will have the ability to steal over say those things they will be subcommittees of the actual license or board so they will still have that ability to be specialized toward whatever their profession is and it doesn't take that away from them. Okay Mister out a reservist month. Representative Crawford you're recognized for a question. thank you Mr chair and you know mine may have to go to the psychology board too but representative Cavenaugh one of the things that they say in here is that it produces cost savings and it was my understanding that these are self regulated sept funding self funded boards so I'm confused with that and with that do you have a financial impact I do not have a financial impact because what it is that they are fees but where it creates the savings for the actual state is when we're not having to pay all the per diem for all the different board members then we don't have to pay those every time they travel it reduces that but it also streamlined the process and the Department of Health. Thank you. Representative you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair representative Cavenaugh I was just curious do you have any numbers of how many licensors each of these boards produce every single year. If you combine them all together is probably between eight to ten could be a little bit more I'd have to look at it but the psychologist licensed probably I think around two thousand I think social worker a counselor balls are probably around five thousand each and the and the substance abuse counts a substance abuse counselor isn't less than two hundred. And those are the numbers that I remember from the workgroup. Follow up you're recognized So if if the main issue is streamlining the service I'm curious as to the staff currently that would be underneath this board that would be able to manage all these applicants and we are transferring all personnel that currently exist on these boards to the snowboard we are transferring fund balances to this new board and we are transferring appropriation so none of that goes away so the people of that always been handling these licenses will be the ones are handling these licensors thank you. Representative Scott you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman a representative Fran Cavenaugh Cozart of. Quick question. As you know we've received over. Maybe a hundred fifty emails about this bill Is there anyway because I know we share some of the concerns that some of the people have sent us about the bills that you can address some of those concerns. If you haven't already addressed them in your opening but. Second question follow up I know one of the board specifically had a lay out for making sure or ensuring that there's representation for minority groups and other other groups how will we ensure that or is that even addressed in the new make up of what the new board looks like and how do we come to. The yes. it. I'm not sure he's entered the first two questions Jett representative Scott but one question at a time so what what what was your second question do you understand representative Cavenaugh okay go ahead nature and then we'll do a follow the language that you're speaking about was inside the social worker and actually it had to be repealed because it's turned out that that create someone constitutionality that were actually fighting right now and so that language had to be taken out it was also take part already been taken out of the other language for the other boards so that had to be taken out because of the constitutionality problem so that that was why that was taken out and addressing the issues I mean a lot of this is fear and I understand that because it is new it's different and you know the goal here is not to penalize anybody the goal here is to make it easier make it more streamlined because for all the people that we received emails from we also did receive the emails from the other ones that actually did have some concern about the way the boards were actually operating I'll be honest with you during the workgroup and John and I am pretty blatant and honest when it comes to it we had you know providers that were afraid to come forward and say they had issues with the board because of retaliation and so that's just our attempt to address some of these issues and what the amendment just wanted to make sure that the that that the members of the providers fail to comfortable that we were not trying to take away anything was going to interfere with their difference in their standards the difference in their conduct and none of that's being changed and with the US to make sure with the intent of the law and actually put it in the statute they can say that we're not actually doing any of that that they will still have the ability to do that. Jett follow up just one more okay you're recognized one of the board specifically address just representation from different groups and so will there still be a way to ensure that there's representation from different groups whether that's minority groups or other things that we address former selecting please make up snow that is their process for this it's all they can do that in the rules so is this board has ability to make their own rules on certain things and that is something they certainly could address that. Thank you. Representative Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair representative representative Cavenaugh you've. We all recognize that there's problems with the existing system existing boards that we have but can you expand and help to committee understand how combining these problems are going to help solve these problems. But I don't necessarily think that's combining problems to solve the problem I think what it's doing is taken some boards and actually streamline the process requiring to make sure that it's easier to manage that they are meeting when they're supposed to be meeting that they are having these making sure they're doing evaluations in the disciplinary all that being done through one four it is much easier than having to do it through four boards. Thank you representative Cavenaugh thank you Mr. Say no further questions from committee members we have several people signed up to speak. Against the bill and then ushered anybody speak for the bill but we do have several against the bill so this is again if you here signed up to speak against house bill or for house bill thirteen fifty nine G. any reading are you here you would ma'am just devastated into the table. People by yourself and who you represent for the committee. Yes Sir I am Jenny reading I'm a licensed professional counselor and licensed marriage and family therapist and I'm the current president of the Arkansas county association okay your sign up sheet it didn't say what you speak for against the bill so I usually get against the bill Sir as currently written yes speaking against the bill okay should be going against bill you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you Sir thank you committee members thank you chair we just had a few questions and concerns that were submitted by some of the members of our counseling association that we wanted to bring and particularly to representative Cavenaugh and those bringing the bill. So one of the main themes that was submitted to us is especially the emergency clause that was part of the bill and the speed at which this is proposed to move is bringing concerns and it's actually hindering the various disciplines from being able to participate in being able to review and really come together and be a part of this so one of the things that we're doing is maybe just asking for more time that we could get together and really discuss this so one of the issues that we have is the emergency clause part of this so as it's been recognized there are definitely some difficulties in Arkansas for addressing the mental health issues and being able to serve those with mental health issues so we're wondering first of all why a this is proposed to move so quickly. Any questions from committee members. Representative Richmond you're recognized for a question thank you Mr yes ma'am so are you are you saying that if the Emergency Clause was removed. That you be okay with this not the rest thank you that's a great question not we're not sure that's part of what it is that it's proposed to move so quickly. Many people around the state I haven't have said they knew nothing about this before last Monday so we really just need time to look through it looks through the language look at what's being proposed and be able to get together and see what it is that we would like from the professionals that are in the field we would like this to say so that is part of the emergency clause yes Sir follow up Mr you're recognized. How long have you known about this bill since last month US since last Tuesday thank you. I see no further questions from committee members thank you ma'am for your testimony next on the today's agenda to speak against the bill is Joanna Thomas. The club you would just have stated in the table again defy yourself to the committee and who you represent and you're recognized to make statement. good morning committing I'm Joanna Thomas I hold an M. S. W. and a PhD in social work and the past president of the national association of social workers Arkansas chapter and I'm an LCSW licensed certified social worker obviously I'm here to speak against house bill one three five nine I did want to make some clarifying statements before I do the rest of my testimony just confirmed with our licensing board that we have never not met individuals can hold up the process when they don't get their paperwork in on time and meet some of the requirements but our board does meet regularly I also wanted to clarify the numbers of licensed professionals we have four thousand two hundred forty eight social work professionals in the field or a licensed right now counseling has three thousand three hundred and eighty seven I'm not sure about psychologists and it would appear and there's about a hundred and fifty or so SO see it's for the substance abuse counselors. I want to thank representatives fighting Cavenaugh in the mental health task force who work so hard to address our shortage of mental health providers in Arkansas this work is needed and it's necessary our scope of practice for social workers is so much bigger than mental health yes many LCSW is to practice and we provide direct mental health services but they're also LCSW is like me that do not practice in mental health at all I teach social work students provide field supervision right grants for the community mental health centers in courts and work with agencies to evaluate programming and services having written and received over forty million dollars in grants for Arkansas agencies who provide mental health services I understand the need for a professions to work together to provide these services but I also know we already work in teams across professions to ensure our Kansans have access to highly qualified care providers when they receive their treatment we are not as silo does the bill would have people believe I also understand the shortage of mental health providers firsthand I know how hard it can be to hire in our state just like every other state across the country we have a shortage of providers however this bill does not bring mental health providers to the state we don't have a licensure crisis this bill doesn't reduce the cost of getting a license it honestly doesn't solve any of the issues it claims to be solving in the emergency clause this bill should it become law would likely have the opposite effect bottle necking the licensure of more than ten thousand licensed mental health providers in our state. The way this bill is written I is a trained social worker would be able to oversee the practice of psychologists and counsellors bachelor level social workers could regulate the licenses of psychologists with PH dis bachelor FOR social workers don't diagnose they don't provide direct therapeutic intervention it just doesn't make sense. I do not know enough to regulate the licenses of other professions we have different scopes of practice we have different code of ethics we provide different services it would be inappropriate for me to oversee the license of three other professions it would be inappropriate for them to oversee our licensure social work does not belong in the bill. Social work has more licensed professionals and the other professionals listed in this bill as I just talked about it we do not have an appropriate number of board members as this is currently proposed or with the amendments it's unclear as to why or how professions were given board representatives there are good models from other states Texas has legislation that streamlines regulative process sees a licensure but ensures we do not regulate one another it's called the behavioral health Legislative Council it provides administrative support of these professions it's viable it's cost effective it's a model for licensing all behavioral health professionals it leverages administrative and operational economies of scale their shared technology and infrastructure it does not consolidate for licensing boards it is not a rule making entity that imposes licensing and practice regulation for any professional. Because of the regulatory over reach of house bill one three five nine and the potential for bottle necking the licensing process and losing vital mental health providers in our state I'm asking you to vote no on this bill or at least amend the bill to remove social work thank you any get any questions from committee members. Say none thank you for your testimony vote. This is a reminder if you're signed up to speak against this bill. We have numerous numerous folks that are signed up to speak against the bill and the you know if you can keep your comments proof and that way we'll have an opportunity to hear testimony it from as many as we can that are signed up I want to make sure everybody has an opportunity to do that also if you're standing I got a note from the Not sure who it's from but they said the fire safety code may be him violation here so if you're if you're a legislator you can come up and say that one of the empty seats at the table if you're standing and those of you standing probably need to find a seat or else I'll have to issue step out of the room and the. If somebody legislators are in a seat if you would move to the table and make room for a our guest I would appreciate it. What we're doing that the. Patricia. Lashley. Slash the fear in the. You would and again remember what I said I know you've got a lot to say we want to hear it but if you could. You know we did feel keep repeating yourself with the same points at the end of it would be very helpful to the committee as we move forward so you're recognized you identify yourself to the committee and you're recognized. Thank you Committee sharing thank you representatives my name's Patricia Lashley M. and L. P. C. C. S. O. T. point sexual offense treatment provider in the State of Arkansas and and in private practice I believe that the representative for that social work did an incredibly great job as well as Mr generating and bringing the concerns to the board about bill one three five nine one of the biggest considerations that I would ask the members is to take a look at what exactly is going to be the cost cost at the Cassini in trying to make one board a representative Cavenaugh stated that you know the per diem and would be diminished and yet what is that cost and you know if we're going to have seventeen members plus subcommittees wouldn't there be a reimbursements for those individuals the Arkansas counselors licensing board currently has twelve members and a director and they meet once a month the only time that I personally know that there has been any issues in our board having to overcome that licensing restrictions was during that kind of a pandemic and this is a free market issue it is not one specific to the licensing board that code of ethics as well as that coming clean and inefficiencies that could cause a sea could be detrimental for our Kansans including those in all four professions. Thank you thank you any questions from committee members say none thank you for your testimony we appreciated. Also signed up to speak for against the bill is. Leslie I'm sorry Carol Moore is Carol Moore Mr Moore if you would just have stated in the table. Then divide yourself to the Committee. My name and again if you keep your comments as brief as possible we would appreciate it you're recognized. Thank you my name is Carol Moore I'm a licensed clinical social worker I'm not also an LED a see licenses under this subsidies Board as you can say and and those of you and I do talk a lot so I am going to cut I had my tabs so I'm not gonna go there and but as. chair and others I appreciate the time and the patience that you're putting into this and listening to our concerns we I'm not going to restate what has been brought to you with our our representative from an A. S. W. because she spoke very clearly and Related extremely well to our concerns from the social work board I am license under the two boards and have been since nineteen eighty four as a social worker some really old and also many years hundred the substance abuse licensure board and I cannot speak for the boards themselves but I have seen the processes that they that they work under they're not been issues with the substance abuse licensure board in regards to meeting our licensing as was spoken to earlier at times there are issues that come up in questions regarding applications for licensure so that may take an extra month but those are normally and. Handled in a quick fashion in my position on my job and in previous jobs I've worked with all four boards I've supervised people from all four boards as a clinical director for fifteen years for a very large organization that no longer exists but also as a supervisor in corporate compliance it's my job now in my position to ensure that people are functioning under their boards regulations code of conduct and everything else I've made numerous complaints not that I enjoy that at all but numerous complaints to all boards in regards and. With all but one have had no issues with quick responses I would like to speak to at which has not been spoken to the licensing board for substance abuse folks simply because nobody else has spoken to that and trying to put my quite my thoughts together concisely for you all there are a couple of issues a written in this bill on page forty six there is a statement that includes on line three certified alcohol and drug abuse technicians this is a position that has not existed under that board for many many years and if it is referring to the current C. I tease or counselors in training those are all certified under the certification board which is not a part of the substance abuse licensure board so that position does not exist as well as and I'm sorry I'm trying to go through this very quickly and those of you have heard me speak for now my voice always checks because you all make me very nervous on page fifty a line twenty two regarding clinical a registered clinical supervisor the licensure board I do know had removed that and I'm not speaking for the licensure board let me make that very clear I'm speaking in relationship to it and that had been removed from our language for more than one reasons it hindered licensure the number of people that we can license they were extremely qualified as well as the clinical registered clinical supervisors are under the certification board and have nothing to do with the lot social the substance abuse licensure board so therefore our board the board that licensed licenses us their hands were tied in regards to having to fall under some in from you know clarification from a certification but. Or that is not a state governor appointed or state monitored board so that'll that language had also been. Removed Trying to skip as much as I possibly can. So there were some specific questions that have been brought to us in regards to the information in this bill and the writing of the bill and you know we understand the concept as I do as a licensed social worker in a licensed substance abuse provider The questions are the social work board being so varied most of the complaints and I sat on several of the committees that worked on this report that was provided and been very active in that and numerous complaints were made regarding licensure and certain boards but they were all directed toward I did not hear any complaints regarding the substance abuse licensure board or the social work licensure board the social work profession as varied as it is they are not all mental health professionals so therefore it makes absolutely no sense for them to have to be licensed under a mental health professional bill Our questions are. What is the problem if one of the four boards and it ours understanding was that yes there might be complaints against all boards but the number of complaints were not mainly voice against the social work board it was and all and another board which I'm not throwing anybody under the bus because I have great respect for all what is the problem. How does this fix it. What studies what fiscal impact studies have actually taken place what impact studies have actually taken place on the timeliness of licensure and investigations are concerned and that is that with the reduced number there maybe subcommittees under this and I have not found anywhere with this new amendment has been made available so I've not been able to read that but. When you have two representatives from substance abuse and it's such a unique. And important issue that our state and the nation is facing as a whole when you have two people on that board that are related to that and others may not understand the difference in treatment the difference and the people that we serve even though they may be. The eight yes obviously they have mental health issues but it's such a different profession what is the impact what studies have been done to study the impact of how these people we will be approved for licensure how quickly that will occur because we've gone from four meetings per month basically to one meeting per month. With all of this those seeking licensure. And the nature of the impact of the timeliness of investigations complaints that may be made against the board itself or members of those boards I have found all but one board to be very responsive in that in my position and other than that I'm not going to repeat what has already been so eloquently said I certainly appreciate your time we're not here to argue our stomp our feet we're here to express concern that this is being rushed and especially with an emergency clause it does not allow for time for proper. Proper development proper conversation and proper involvement of all parties that are impacted I appreciate you and thank you very much for your time thank you ms more we appreciate each testimony any questions from committee members. Saying none. Let me remind you again those that are here to testify against the bill If you've already heard someone before you that's pretty well covered your point so what you wanted to cover again I emphasize for you to be as brief as possible the committee will hear what you have to say but there are eleven people still signed up to speak against the bill and we're kind of limited on some time because we have other committee meetings here before long but so take advantage of the opportunity at the end of the table be as brief as possible and member there's eleven eleven more to speak at this time I recognize this Leslie chess. Thank you for the opportunity to speak my name is Leslie Cheshire I'm a small business owner in private and in private practice in hot springs Arkansas I'm an LCSW and I have just one point that hasn't haven't heard yet is within the language of the bill there is a full time for sorry I apologize a full time work requirement only for social work and the alcohol and drug abuse counselors it's a it's five years full time to be able to serve on the board and so I'm I guess I'm my question is is with the. The unequal representation on the the initial a recommendation is has been addressed but that part has not and so I wanted just to express that over sixty percent of mental health professionals nationwide or social workers and we have a large state and we're very well trained in doing clinical work and mental health practice so I would challenge that language to only have a five year full time work requirement for social work and for Kate acts outside of that I've never had an issue with this social work licensing board I can reach out to review the executive director and receive a response in minutes or sometimes a little bit longer and how busy she is and outside of that everything else has been eloquently stated by Dr Thomas and everyone else thank you all for your time appreciate your consideration shares thank you for that test more I do have a question for you ma'am sorry represented by a vice chair record macro has a question you're recognized you mention the unequal representation on the board it was equal representation on our board would you be happy with the bill then. not entirely is I'm I'm sorry that's my best response all right thank you Maria thank you Sir. Say no further questions from committee members next on the agenda to speak against the bill is miss Rebecca have an address. Would justify yourself to the committee and the representative you're recognized to your testimony thank you chairman Tosh I'm doctor Rebecca Evans a psychologist in Jonesborough Arkansas and then to member of the board of the Arkansas psychological association Arkansas psychological association representing psychology and psychologists in Arkansas opposes H. B. thirteen fifty nine our opposition arises primarily from serious concerns about the potential for harm to consumers as well as the failure of the bill to visibly improve the efficiency and cost to Arkansas taxpayers psychology is a doctoral level profession as such psychologist receive more education training and supervised experience in other professions and while there is some overlap among all our professions especially in psychotherapy and counseling psychologists also provide unique services such as conducting neuro psychological evaluations to assess brain function serving in specialized medical settings with interventions for evaluating and interventions for adult and pediatric populations evaluating patients were seeking organ transplants to determine if they qualify for that procedure. Specific personality testing approaches such as project assessment and providing specific forensic and court related services. The language of this bill as you've heard would include seventy board members and now with as amended only three of those would be psychologists thus the board's membership what in most instances be asked to evaluate competence and ethical qualities of professional services without adequate knowledge of the practices and standards which should be applied there is a potential for miss judgments that would raise the chances for harm to consumers or to practitioners who may be practicing appropriately but the board would have insufficient ability to make those judgments. The psychology board like all the other boards uses annual licensing fees to pay his expenses so there's no financial justification for board consolidation I believe they also meet often on zoom meetings which may impact the per diem issue. In fact this new structure may conceivably cost more because of the reduced number of doctoral psychologist on the board that would likely be a need for the board to hire consultants for top from time to time to assist when evaluating some of the very specialized areas of practice. There have been other states who have consolidated mental health regulatory bodies and have found unintended consequences including extended times required to complete the licensing process since larger boards may find it more problematic to meet at the frequency of our current psychology board which is monthly. and they would be more time and study to assess issues of practice where there's insufficient familiarity with each other's professions in fact two states Colorado and New Hampshire that have experimented with consolidated boards both reversed this decision and returned to separate psychology licensing boards one of the main reasons for restoring the board in New Hampshire as a separate entity was a series of high profile discipline cases that were mishandled by consolidated board and garnered negative press coverage for the state about the inadequate state of regulation of mental health The New Hampshire. Because of these concerns we ask this committee to consider consider the many potential serious and unnecessary negative negative outcomes of passing the bill we do appreciate the good intent of the legislation but we urge you to revisit the issue in determining how best to protect the health consumers of Arkansas we are also happy to provide more information as needed thank you thank you thank you Dr eleven any questions from committee members say none thank you for your testimony. Thanks to speak against a bill is re back Zimmerman. December men. I'm sorry say that again. Okay we'll hold it for later my apologies I well I'm sorry yep well but we've got enough for this one so I will pass over that. Okay at home Bannon. Right to one but I say now to properly. Represent the just a minute ma'am representive cover you have a question yes Mister chair I was wondering if we can limit debate to twenty full twenty minutes for each side. So if your motion is to limit debate Jan twenty minutes yes that is a non non debatable issue. All in favor of the representative called purge motion to limit debate to twenty minutes for each side all in favor say aye. All opposed to a narrow. Noes have it will continue to we testimony. Ma'am you're recognized unify yourself. for the committee and you're recognized to Your testimony thank you my name is Beth Rockland thank you Mr chair committee members and everybody who's here today. There are a lot of eyeballs so I'm going to take a deep breath okay so as I said my name is Beth Rocklin I recently earned my master's in mental health counselling and I'm currently a graduate student in a PhD counseling psychology program here in Arkansas. The general structure of a psychology PhD program entails for years of classes and then at one year of off campus work dedicated to clinical work and so we call this an internship we are allowed to apply to internship sites in any state as long as the site is accredited by the APA or the American psychological association of note is that oftentimes students internship sites result in job offers in the pursuit of licensure in the same state as the internship site. The proposed bill is very concerning to me and many of my peers as we do not feel comfortable nor compelled to pursue licensure in Arkansas if H. B. thirteen fifty nine passes if this bill passes I do not intend to apply for licensure here or internship and I know that many of my peers feel the same way. Arkansas currently struggles with a shortage of mental health professionals in passing this bill would make that problem worse. Through my time as both a master's student in a doctoral student I can say from first hand experience that the training code of ethics scope of practice in just your exposure to clinical training is starkly different between these two levels. Combining the mental health boards would discourage budding professionals from establishing their roots in seeking licensure in Arkansas in some I encourage you to genuinely take or pleas into consideration as your decision impacts the well being of Arkansans mental health thank you respectfully for your time. Thank you for your testimony any questions from committee members say none again thank you appreciate your time. Thank signed up to speak against the bill is Dr Christopher Todd. Thank god we would just verify yourself the Committee who you represent. Hi Dr Christopher Todd I am assistant counseling professor the rest of Arkansas. God I hate General before the committee members as a motion I'm sorry sure it represented Wardlaw you have motion yes Sir you're recognized I make a motion limit debate five minutes on each side. I have a motion to limit debate to five minutes on each side that say proper motion it's not debatable all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Knows that but we will continue. Thank god you're recognized I'll try not to take that personally. Dr Christopher Todd I am sister professor of counseling the University of Arkansas at little rock I am also the program coordinator for the counseling program I am a licensed or certified rehabilitation counselor a licensed school counselor and I'm license eligible as a clinical mental health provider I got a lot of stuff As has already been sent by my learned colleagues their number of concerns with this bill There we do have a we do have a lack of per Mille health professionals in the state. The issue however is not with getting people through the licensing process the issue is we simply don't pay enough. as you know everyone knows right this this this bill is only going to serve to slow down for the licensure when you it even if you're combining the staff from the all the agencies you're still looking over ten thousand licensors in a year. There's no. There's no provision within the bill to solve this problem. None another issue is of for us as councillors in the language of the bill there's a provision in there that says that people conserving the board as they'll be cities are also lies convulsive XP license eligible. None of the licensed had license eligible. What does that mean there's nothing language that defines what license eligible this as a professor will tell you what means it means that someone could have gone through the educational requirements graduate from program. In taking the National Council exam they are now license eligible I can be licensed does not mean I should be licensed but now I can sit on the board and determine licenses for people who are practicing not to my profession in psychology social work addictions. As my colleagues and social forty said they don't want to. Have control over my license or my colleagues license I don't control over there is either. I know I know a lot about social or does I don't know enough hello with now what psychologists to. I don't go to the school the psychologist I would school be a counselor and accounts for education. I would hope that this committee would look around the room and see all the professionals here that have concerns about this bill. The bill that while we all will be good steward of the taxpayer's money. This is an accomplish. We want to see our mental health providers expand in the state. This bill doesn't do that. This bill simply consolidates boards. It looks good on paper. In actuality doesn't do anything. I would urge you all to vote no. On this bill thank you for your time and consideration thank you any questions from committee members. Say none for judge testimony next speak against the bill is to raise the. Which that scanner gun. Senate pronounce that correctly. No. Help me out it's it's Terry Skinner okay and I am a licensed certified social work in the state of Arkansas a licensed clinical social work in the state of Louisiana and a licensed independent clinical social worker in the state of Washington so I've been through several States certification processes I ate. I am also of when a hand certified DPT therapist on the first native our cans in to be certified not probably doesn't mean a lot to people here but it's developed out of the university of Washington the only way I was accepted into that where the letters behind my name LCSW I don't have a doctorate and social workers don't need a doctorate to practice as we do. the information saying that the federal system it doesn't matter what the letters behind their names are that's not true Medicare an LCSW is who provides the mental health practices I have my own practice about two blocks away from the capitol I don't advertise I specialize in PTSD trauma in personality disorders and eating disorders there's less than fifty therapists in this world trained at my level and I practice here in Arkansas because I love this state I and my children are here. In billing it's very important for insurance companies for the federal system we all go through with called C. A. Q. H. and so all of our licenses are ran through a national database so if you switch up with letters are behind my name that will affect my licensure in other states and in the end what I will do is leave practice here in the state of Arkansas and that's just a decision on malpractice on being able to obtain and keep the status I have with my colleagues that are national I attended you are for graduate school and I chose social work I could have done any graduate school and my peers in the DB tea world there from Harvard and Princeton and Yale and we're all the same and there's no difference from any of these individuals in this room or from you all we all care about the people of the State of Arkansas in in language that legislatures understand I pay a lot of taxes pay pay my own payroll taxes and I pay the state taxes if I move to the state of Washington I don't have to pay income tax and I don't have to move my practice with the virtual practices so in going through with the state of Arkansas licensure it read the band and my licensing board is excellent I literally had to drive down to baton Rouge after six months to get my licensure push through Louisiana the state of Washington I think they took my genetic code to get licensed up there so I have no complaints and I I know it our letters probably don't mean a lot to you all and I ate I hope you never have to use my services I'm an extremely intensive therapist and what I do is is very very important to me and I just ask. With with everything in me please vote no on this thank you any questions from committee members saying none thank you for your testimony yes. Next the signed up to speak against the bill is Morgan. Thank you. Your record that the identify yourself the Committee you're recognized for your testimony thank you chair thank you committee my name is Morgan lamb burger and I'm an LCSW I won't take much of your time I am a social work educator and so I just wanted to speak to the student experience our students I have a really unique experience with our social work licensing board in that the licensing board staff is available to the students they they come to talk to our students into students around the state about the licensing process which means that our students are able to graduate with provisional licenses and immediately upon graduation are able to enter the practice field so this is a really important and like I said special relationship that are licensing board has and I hate to think what added layers of bureaucracy would do to that relationship. Thank you thank you for your testimony questions from committee members saying none again thank you appreciate your time. Thanks recognized to on the agenda to speak against the bill is bill carpenter of. Committee members we still have a clue Mr carpenter for signed up to speak against the bill for your information so much copper into by yourself you're recognized give you testimony. My name is bill carpenter I'm a licensed professional counselor and licensed marriage and family therapist I'm older if you're fifty years old or younger I am old enough to be your dad. I A. entered this field for master's degree when I was fifty nine. My daughter when she was thirty one died of an opioid overdose my former wife when she was fifty one years old died of a fentanyl overdose. The only say those things to try to humanize the reality of where I'm coming from I am against House Bill thirteen fifty nine. I've been living in the gut punch. Since last Tuesday when I heard about it the gut punch oh god what's going to happen. What does this mean for my supervise sees I'm a supervisor of seven L. A. C. L. M. F. T.'s. What happens for them I don't know. One of the provisions in this bill is new. What's on page fifty seven no one is mentioned in this some page fifty seven it requires that L. A. M. F. T.'s of which I am. That the at least five years five five years. Five to become an LED sorry L. M. F. T. of clinical experience in practice of marriage and family therapy that's just one thing. Back to California just like the last person sat. Because in California there were read the consist the restrictive can see stricter of requirements to get licensed it's not that we have a shortage I don't even know compared to other. Populations it's not that we don't we have a shortage instead it get it is so hard to make a living as an associate licensed person. How would you like to be in business many of you are in business. You're selling real estate you're selling cars. In the only way you can be in business if you can sell your car your real estate for cash. That is the case for associate licensed counselors and licensed associate marriage family therapist they have to find a way to private pay or if the happy to be lucky enough to be in a practice that service Medicaid. If they happen to be lucky enough in a practice that serves Medicaid and they've they've that practice has figured out how to get them into the Medicaid system. In seeing clients I have for dinner in two different practices three in one practice one in another practice they're able to take Medicaid these three their client load is four to five sessions a week. Get certified get fully licensed accumulate three thousand hours with that for five hours a week the other one is in a practice that they figured it out from the Medicaid viewpoint she's seeing fifteen to nineteen hours a week. This really different. The challenge for me is not that the I can't imagine I agree with everything that's been said I can't imagine. Holding these all up into one entity that looks exactly like the entity that existed and expect them to handle all of the requests that come in I just can't imagine that. Somewhere my journey I'm almost done. So more my journey somebody said bill don't ever come don't ever bring me a problem bill because reforms are needed. Reforms are needed. I had a supervise the the lost six months of her time. Because she didn't remember she forgot she forgot she first got to submitter six months supervisor evaluation and so did I. And when we realize it six months later and when we file that with the board the board rules these rules these rules forty pages of single spaced rule. These rules. The board has the option to I can only have the right words board has the option to make a decision what they're gonna do about this person and if you take a punitive response. Look at the last twelve months of meeting agenda notes for the Arkansas. I can't even think of my boards name right now I'm just so sad. They lost six months. Got to. I have to look at them I forgot they forgot six months how would you like for six months of your work to go unseen reforms are needed. Reforms are needed so please forgive me. But I do have a recommendation somewhere some along the way I was told don't bring a problem if you don't bring a solution. Create a paid task force of not fully licensed the not fully licensed and their supervisors. From each of the four disciplines include representatives from colleges representing the four disciplines include out of state online colleges include representatives from the four boards. The test research other state licensing program in the very early days many years ago we were a leader. Not anymore. The restrictive can stringent requirements just to get fully license just to get license to begin with home and got. Number two we need to share amongst ourselves we need to share the income Pratt can compare and contrast the Associated license journey. To full licensure that's the ticket that's the bottleneck is what it takes to get fully licensed I can't charge for insurance until I'm fully licensed as an LPC. LMFT. We need to share what the differences are in between us we need to come together and we need to find this really makes sense for the eighty cedar requires six thousand dollars doesn't really make sense I don't know if it does or not I don't know does it make sense for social worker to require four thousand hours doesn't make sense for the the counselor in me three thousand hours. Communicate with therapist at large. Communicate with all of this post updates on each board's website send out email updates to licensee's post on the private Facebook pages dedicated does professionals get consensus seek to understand each other and the challenges of becoming fully licensed the challenge of becoming a license to begin with oh my god and then the fully license what it takes. Remove reduce the roadblock. The Bill trust. This felt like I've carried my body for a week Mr Carter this felt like a trust violation dot copper we we still have a few other people signed up to speak I want to give you as much opportunity as I could but I apologize if we bring the point what we need to allow time for when we're getting short on time and I want to make sure everybody has mastered IT senior question saying none. Thank you Sir yes. Jeff more. Next on the agenda to speak against the bill to the floor privileges to have safety of the table in your recommended by yourself for the committee you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair thank you committee members my name's Jeff Moore I'm a licensed soci counselor licensed associate marriage and family therapist in private practice here in Little Rock Have a unique stance here most of these folks are covered very well the therapeutic and clinical implications of something like this and how it can impact those of us practitioners clinics and just in general the healthcare crisis right that's referred to in in in the bill in the study that led to the bill. I think representative Cavenaugh mentioned just the continuing efficiencies in state government is one portion of this and and obviously they're they're different facets of that right there is a physical fast at which she addressed in terms of of savings per diem for board members and those sorts of things and how those can begin to help the state government whether that's the legislative branch here or the executive branch or you know we're a be more efficient and be more proficient right and being able to serve the constituents of the state because that's kind of what we're all here that's the one thing that binds us I think is that we all care about the people of Arkansas that's been stated so well but by those before me I look like a representative Cavenaugh and and like the the previous governor who pushed forward and and and we we are now and realizing the transformation efficiencies Act of two thousand nineteen I don't want to talk to you specifically about places a licensed associate counselor or licensed associate marriage and family therapist and how this would how how this might impact the ability to provide Excellent care for this the for the the the people the state of Arkansas but I wanted to speak to you from so as someone who's been in state government and has been on the front line of standing up a department and bringing together a disparate groups together under Under a cabinet level secretary and my role was on the executive team for the department of commerce and and I served a dive at the pleasure of the governor and and with the Secretary of commerce for those those years where transformation efficiencies Act of two thousand nineteen was implemented I think that my biggest reservation my greatest concern is that these these efforts and this is someone who was who was in the middle of what we now know was a train wreck of shared services and the efficiencies and the the savings that would that were claimed to be better for the state of Arkansas I'm not saying that there weren't great things that came out of that that bill and that transformation of our state of our state government but there there was a lot of pain and there were a lot of there were a lot of Growing pains would be it would be get to conservative but just to to to look at one word that keeps appearing in this bill is a Polish right abolish the Arkansas board of examiners and counseling abolished the other three and and stand up this other group and then roll these people up under this group but not just roll them up is like this department of commerce rolled up the banking department a department of insurance department waterways and Economic Development Commission but to abolish them. Right I set up stairs here many many many hours with with the the department of banking specifically to to understand their argument of how there needs to be autonomy. That we shouldn't dissolve the walls of the banking department the department of insurance or the Department waterways or work for services but but that these need to remain autonomous and they're very they're number ways I could tell you I won't waste your time and and I know everyone's you know ready to call a put a rap rapper on this but I would say that it was painful. It was a painful process but as someone who was trying to implement the transformation deficiencies Act of two thousand nineteen that was trying to work with the Secretary to stand up the department of commerce and tried to bring together these disparate groups. There was need for autonomy not to abolish them and they fought hard for it. Because they're very distinct although the banking department or to talk to the Director Suzanne of. Marshall or or or director Alan the claim from department of insurance they would say yes commerce there's a commonality there. But they're very distinct ways that they serve the state of of Arkansas and and when you begin to homogenize that when you begin to generalize that you begin to break down the ability of those individual groups to add to adequately and exhaustively Service those particular parts of of state government thanks so much. Thank you Sir any questions from committee members say none have to more signed up to speak against the bill. Margaret. But if the. But over. Because. Margaret the area you okay we are running short on time and I at the you know as you to keep your comments brief but what trying to give everybody an opportunity so got one more after use so you're recognized to for your testimony thank you my name is doctor Dr Margaret put cove I am a licensed psychologist here in Arkansas I'm also licensed in the state of Illinois I have been working for the social security disability administration for the past six years and I'm also in private practice doing forensic work I'll keep it very brief because all the points have already been made by all the eloquent speakers that came before me but I do speak against this bill I believe that this bill will do absolutely nothing to improve mental health services in the state of Arkansas there's many different ways to do that and this bill simply is not one of them for example creation of more doctoral programs or mental health programs internships training postdoctoral fellowships would invite more people into the state to come here and provide mental health services for the people in Arkansas this bill will not do that as far as the Arkansas psychology board and how it operates I personally have never had any issues with that I believe that it is actually one of the simplest boards to get a license when it compares to other states many states require additional exams oral exams or written exams to become licensed in the state and I do not believe Arkansas currently does that so it is actually pretty simple if you have all your requirements to obtain a license. and lastly this plane has also been made into it before me but having a board where disciplines governor cross disciplines is not a great idea even though we are all under the broad umbrella of mental health professionals we all have very different educational requirements we all have very different specializations we work with different populations and we provide very different services just like I would not want to be regulated by a social worker or drug addiction counselor I would not want to regulate them I do not to practice the work that they do and they do not practice the work that I do I believe that each of those professions should regulate itself thank you. Thank you for your testimony questions from committee members say none we have one less person signed up. Mr a doctor Dondero. Many others on the committee have to be another committee meeting here just a little bit so again I'm not going to be able to say what you need to say but just keep that in mind please you're recognized thank you my name is Dr don delay I am a clinical psychologist licensed here in the state of Arkansas since two thousand and four. I also practice and many varied areas with my license I practice therapy with children and adolescents are most vulnerable population in regards to child maltreatment issues trauma grief and loss exposure to domestic violence and inter personal violence as well as high conflict divorce cases I am one of the few psychologists in the State of Arkansas that conducts psychological evaluations and child custody evaluations and domestic relations courts these are highly specific areas of training and I would find it very difficult to bring in other psychologists if they're going to be regulated by other professions who do not have the experience or the expertise to do this work. I I'm very clear that the concerns are about providing services to our citizens this is a very vulnerable population when we're talking about mental health issues regarding both children and adolescents and adults therefore I believe it's very detrimental to ask other professions to be able to regulate my profession as well as I would not want to regulate their professions we all have different ethical codes that we have to abide by I do implore that you research some more on this because my licensure and my ability to obtain professional liability insurance may be impacted by this bill. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony questions from committee members saying none. Say no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill representative Cavenaugh. Kevin are recognized to close with bill as amended thank you Mr chair first of all thank you all for listening to all the testimony of it is important to hear all sides but I just want to clear up the misunderstanding that has been has been spoken. There is no new language that doesn't already exist in their statute we're not adding new requirements for five years we're not adding new requirements for hours before you get your licensure we're not changing the letters behind your name we're not doing any of that. This bill does not address any of that. The language in the bill is what is currently in their statute all we did was transfer it to the new board. Then any new requirements for anybody to be licensed that's not our goal honestly I agree with the gentleman we need to make it easier. But I can't do that in this language this bill this bill is just to combine the boards and so I left the language as it existed talking about the language were things that they don't exist anymore. They may not exist in the board the way they're doing business now but they still exist in the statute and that's why they're there. Wow the Emergency Clause because it coincides with the new fiscal year that will be starting January one twenty twenty three. I want to make sure that we understand how we made the board up the Board originally started out with four members from each field. When that came out I heard from every body on the board. Explain to me why that wasn't fair. And why social worker you know license more so they should have more representation counselors were the same and so then we came up with the idea based upon the what number of last centers that you would have those board seats on the board one thing one person has forgot that we offer got to leave out is that this board is also have one lay person on it so that's why the seventeen board member so we have somebody alive person that will actually be on the board. This is not some this is not a new idea has been floated around for the last year we have been speaking in public meetings about this desire it is not something that just happened this is been a year working. again I just want to say that no new language has been created for licensure the only thing we did was take out the unconstitutional language that appeared in the social work Lasseter because there is no need to put unconstitutional language and and that's all that we did there one thing I want to bring out we talk about rates as this workgroup went on we did raise rates that you get paid get paid through Medicaid we made it easier for providers to bill Medicaid we made available for more people to bill Medicaid so we have been working on these issues as we go forward and we will continue to work on that this is just one step to help streamline the process and I understand all the fears but again I want to say is never our intention to make it harder it is not our intention to make it a bottle neck to get licensure that's why we've verified with the department of health that they saw no need that this was not going to slow down licensure we're not going to mess with anybody's ability to bill anyone we're not changing the the the your your license or were not changing the the letters you stayed behind your name we're not doing any of that and with that I would just ask for a good vote. Committee member representative Cavenaugh has closed. Which the committee represented Bentley you're recognized. I'd like to make a motion to pass I have a motion was as amended as amended okay reprimand recommendation that a motion as amended to any discussion on the motion. Say that you're recognized for discussion on the motion thank you Mr chair I think we've sat here and listened to the impact that people believe this would have in their professional careers. I think we need to listen to that. I think we need to realize. That we are not experts in mental health. But the people we've heard today are. And some of the people have texted me and said that if this was going on per year they didn't know what they were blindsided. So I would ask for a no vote to protect the mental health in Arkansas until we can come up with something everyone agrees with thank you judge Crawford has been on the motion. The motion I have a discussion response to that are now. After that you can. The motion yep speak on the matter on the motion yet I think it's a good I think it's good for mental health moving forward I think it's a good plants for this all to work together to improve mental health in our state that's why I did it do pass thank you judge Bentley has spoken on a motion that would discussion on the motion. None all in favor say aye. Those that fail. About bows to appreciate your. Spec for that. Committee members we still have another item on the agenda The Los to roll out and we need to get another item all special. This section. Committee members and that coming around for next page order it's thirteen oh seven house bill thirteen oh seven take a quick look at that I know we've got some members that need to be a somewhere here in about fifteen minutes. So take a quick look. The second lead that was laid the roads seven. Not met Brandt Smith. Let would you clear that no way back there for me we need to move forward with this other bill too much noise coming from the back of the room. Committee members you should have a hand out in front of you should had time to maybe review it this is our second special order on today's agenda Chas bill thirteen oh seven this is represented Wardlaw read Currently we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill if you are in the room when you're here and and you fail to sign up to speak for against it you know to let staff know at this time if not representative. Thank. Thank you Mr Perot recognized to present your bill I make this very easy I hope thank you Mister chair thank you committee for hearing today I know we're person on time. This bill we've been working on for almost a year now we've met with the. Most of the stakeholders involved in the bill all have came to neutrality at an agreement and we're here and I'll be happy to take any questions basically this bill just says you can't discriminate against a firearm industry the ammunition industry or the fossil fuel industry in Arkansas if you do we want put any state dollars into your business thank you Mr. Questions from committee members. And you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair representative Wardlaw I know that this isn't happening a lot of other states a lot of other states have found it's going to cost the state billions of dollars Indiana said six point seven was the estimated cost Kentucky ten point eight billion Texas five hundred thirty two million have you done similar analysis for what this will do to Arkansas investments and if so what would the what was the outcome of that if you go I think it's a. Remember the exact page number the bill but we exempted the indirect holdings trying to avoid some of that major hit so we worked with our retirement folks to to come to that conclusion so I think we minimize the way that hit we hit Arkansas but we also want to make sure that we're following our beliefs in the state and make sure that we're insuring that nobody's discriminate against the industries that are important to Arkansas. The questions from committee members. None no one signed up to speak for against the bill. Representative was recognized. I'll close my bill and I make a motion do pass represent your laws because with the billions motion but pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. All the five seven graduation bill is passed. Thank you Mister Committee Mister you made to go ahead and knock out the statue bill real quick. The bill house bill thirteen eighty one yes Sir. We are just a few minutes said list there's only a lot testimony for against it we can do it all right we'll start and say that government should be recognized this chair a few years ago we passed the bill in here I was sponsor senator Wallace was the Senate sponsor to redo our statutes in statuary hall in DC we failed to include a an Avenue to get our old statutes home that's all this bill does is bring them home and put some in a cemetery we all agreement no big deal appreciate a good vote. Any questions from committee members. Representative June you're recognized for a question what is a call to bring those statues home. The Committee and you're recognized answer questions Senator. A shame Broadway I'm chairman of the national statuary hall steering committee I got. In the original bill we put that there is no cost to taxpayers it's all about donations and donations will cover this as well. Private funds yeah thank you thank you all included in the contract we have with the artist. It's hard to hold Broadway back I just. The questions from committee members. Say none no one signed up to speak for against the bill just Broadway he's good. And the. Will help wash vote. Okay if. You're missing two of. Is that I make a motion do pass the president gore lost the motion to do pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. I would say no that seven revolution bills Pat Committee thank you committee members thank you committee members. We did have we do have another bill I had someone signed up I don't have for you had to travel was that. She's also okay so we're okay. We're okay anyway so well I knew someone I call their ninety minute very clearly and I didn't want them yeah those I don't know how far they travel more given the opportunity if we need to run it so we'll pass that next week's agenda you can form on that college I know a lot if you go to the meetings to attend we need to be there shall without any further business poll committee this committee meeting is adjourned.