Code Revision Commission

All right I'll call the. Meeting of the Arkansas code revision commission to order. You should have a. Packet. That includes the agenda the minutes and documents for consideration today the first item of business is the approval of the minutes from the September twenty second meeting for. I have a motion by Senator Garner for approval Sir second. Represent Gazaway with the second any discussion. All in favor of approval say aye. Any opposed. The minutes are adopted. Next item is a discussion of contract requirements by the publisher. And yeah. Okay so we have a representative of LexisNexis here and so will. S. that she come forward an appeal introduce yourself and Give us an update on the on the contract that's before us. Intrada. Last year. Any questions. And it's my understand this this amendment was reviewed by the bureau. And that there were no no issues that is that's correct yes. fearing NO questions is there a motion to adopt the amendment. Represent Gazaway with a motion Is there a second. Second. Mister Thompson any discussion. All in favor say aye. Are any opposed. The ayes have it. Thank you very much. Certainly yes we will thank you. Are the next item of business is certain technical corrections proposed bills for the twenty twenty three session I believe these are bills that we had looked at last time but pulled out for. Either further consideration for additional information so I'm gonna Turner Mr Henderson to walk us through those along with Mr Miller and so will begin I guess with the with the exhibit the five yes Sir Henderson could riser of there is one new bill in the in this packet that we. The representative with since last meeting title five the five of Commission asked us to contact sponsor. Of legislation. Of that added into the definition of serious harm to section already and the differences harm in it of we're still waiting to hear back from that sponsor I would. To just to maybe go ahead and have the pair production and and see what happens at that point but still waiting to hear from. Finally a legislator on that one who was of similar Penzo was. Next one is the six title six. The. Question I think came up in section five. The concerning the school council justice criminology in the fact that there to directors what happened is that you will are reorganizing twenty twenty. The took the Department of trouble justice in created instead in its place a school Colchester criminology so rather have a chair of the department they created positions director of the school. And. Even before that happened the chair of the department was the director of the R. so please court program so to update the the name change their of the head of the school we had to make a minor change by spelling out the name of the. Right to the police court program that was the only thing I think that the commission had. One that one has less meeting. The next one is total fifteen. If you look on the first page homeland line twenty six well we're tax incentive I think it's yes highlighted we had initially put in their report rebate or tax credit. In the commission asked us to change it back to tax incentives which is what we've done. In twenty eight if you look at. Section four on page two. There's also twenty exhibit twenty B.. Twenty beers S. the to statutes. Of that involved in in question here. You also assist to check with the with the sponsor on this and we did. The sponsors stated that because we do not codified section and be obsolete as of Jan one twenty twenty three didn't see the need for to be amended. They concern with this is that. While it is true that it. Would kick in Jan one twenty twenty three the reference if you look Alliance requirements in. You see the stricken through language subsection a per subsection B.. If you look at the exhibit D. twenty B. top of the page. Subsection a talks with the Department health shall. You're down towards the bottom of the page. A person climbing abortion and agent or an agent of the person for any portion shall the the concern that we have is that. This could be read to have made. The effective around us these July twentieth twenty twenty one. On on through January one of twenty twenty three. And there's statute limitations issue now we have no idea whether that's happened or not the situation what we think intended journal simply was not for that kicking in children one twenty twenty three. Why we we recommended that to that review be correct. So what what are the what are the proposed changes to walk us through the proposed changes that you were. The the only change is. The reference to twenty to sixteen to two four zero seven Hey. On the page to be injured twenty sixteen press two four seven B.. Which is the one that actually referred to a person's performing abortion if you look at the language in section four do not apply to perform an abortion children one twenty twenty three the health department is the one in this section for any portion it's in subsection B.. That's what we believe that that was actually was intended. That because we do not codified provision and because the delayed effective date was Jan one of twenty twenty three that it didn't seem to be. Necessary to make the the change you want to do not codified provisions still good law just not in code. But the. I feel like since this within kicking HJR one twenty twenty three. That was a this section obsolete. And with that statute for. The next one is on the twenty three all this is Commission asks that the actual lands being appealed be indicated stricken through which is what we've done. On that bill. On the D. twenty four ten twenty four The Commission assist contact teacher retirement system and local police and fire retirement system to make sure that. The in the. Section. That the two. One where the thank you the Bill. Section three and four other. We're repealing some language being obsolete make sure the nine fifteen present future tyrants and the fiscal interests that the appeals would not affect those. This last one to twenty five total twenty five is a new one you've not looked at this this last set Asenath meeting. But. It was language that is actually temporary but that was in fact codified if you look at page four. Lines nine and ten. It states let's of councils repeal a rule rule for sunset after December thirty one. Twenty twenty two this has to of agencies. Provision here of pertaining to milk in cattle production rules. hi I believe that most likely last council meeting will be tomorrow for this year so there's going to be any kind of rules. Peeled most likely happen at the first meeting I have not checked agencies I see on it but in any event at the end of this year. This law will or have any effect in any of them so by the time have the legislative session this would be obsolete. Yes where you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. Mister Henderson I appreciate your explanation on several of these unfortunately I'm just having a hard time following. Some of this specifically. on the bill. That had the provision about. Abortion looks like. It's a public health section of the code. Total twenty. And. So I see at the top ninety third General Assembly third extraordinary session it I mean does that have any relevance no at the time this bill is drafted the system had not kicked over to the next let's of sessions so that's just be something for B. O. R. in the course of the year in this they'll be fictive and so we could review okay I see and then. I take it this is something that you or the bureau is proposing legislation for the upcoming session is that correct that's that's what this bill is yes Sir okay and then. I think I understand you know as I look at section one about continuous glucose monitor your wanting to delete all language related to that because it's no longer relevant or obsolete is that correct yes Sir. And then. Section two is is very clearly text technical correction section four however were you say check was sponsor to see whether the amendment is correct subdivision and whether just the date for the entire section should be repealed as obsolete. So. This particular section. I'm guess I'm trying to figure out. This bill would be technical corrections this proposed bill would be technical corrections the entire or what you believe would be technical corrections to title twenty the entirety of title twenty that need to be made is that right at this point okay and so specifically with regard to section four. And I see it looks like there is some type of Another. Exhibit. The twenty B. this is giving us some idea as to the code sections referenced there yes Sir. And what. What specifically is this about I mean I'm just scanning it okay I apologize for not having paid more attention to this before we got here but it looks like something about a toll free number for pregnant women seeking abortion and other things the. Okay Sir of the section four with Act ninety twenty one says Harman's of twenty sixteen to four three eight which is not in question and 27-67-401 Hey. Do not apply to persons forming portion into Cheney one twenty twenty three. The problem is language do not apply to perform an abortion. Until Jerry one twenty sixteen two four seven subsection a. Doesn't believe directly addressed anything expect to a person performing the abortion is actually addressed to the Department health itself. That's what the the first part is so far L. Chelle formulation services. under section resources and Chris programs to the website or Millstreet materials of partial stellar single toll free number of the departments of the bill maintains your database the lord's nothing in this bill has anything to do with a person performing the abortion. When you look at subsection B. however. Starts out forcing payment for fleet services missing said he asking you for motion a person is performing an abortion or agent person performing the abortion shall in reading that. Seems like it makes more sense respect to that reference. And the provisions in subsection B. round subsection may. One six so you're proposing. Because it only applied because that section only applies to a person performing an abortion. And when you look at twenty sixteen twenty four seven. Subsection B. is is the specific section that applies to a person performing abortion subsection a simply refers to the department that we should be more specific and make and make reference to twenty sixteen twenty four seven B. that's correct yes okay I think I understand it now. This was twenty sixteen twenty four seven B.. That asked the same time as. Section four of Act. I believe so I believe that's ACT ninety. Twenty one. It's an act like this was all in the same act. Yes. As the department of health waiting on any of this. No Sir yes just a check with the sponsor and servant. You're recognized thank you. I guess my concern would be. I understand that section four. clearly says the requirements of this. Do not apply to a person performing abortion until January one twenty twenty three. It does reference the entire statute and. Section Hey is the department of health which I would take would mean that when the statute was passed depending on when it became effective that would have applied at that moment to the department of health is that correct. Yes. And so. I guess is there's some question as to whether or not. Any of the language in twenty sixteen twenty four seven a that says the Department of Health shall could in some way be construed to apply to a person performing an abortion or even can attend generally affect a person performing an abortion. Nothing that I can determined. Bill but. Languages there And that might be a question for the department of the Speaker reference speak to them and we would be happy to. The audit audit services Mister Anderson missing it looks like a typographical error where the rocks at ation just got plugged in but to the extent we want to verify that we can certainly contact them thank you thought I'd be good I I you know we've. We correct a lot of. Hypergraph Claire's which I'm all for but when it gets to an error like this that affects. It it affects the application effective date of different code sections I think it's smart for us to be is be very cautious on the. Any other any other questions on any of. So I would agree specifically with regard to this Proposal I'd like to hear from the department of health before we move forward with any Anything to do with that particular. Proposed change at I did have some questions about some of the other bills we can kind of go through those because typically. In the past I think Mr Speaker I've been the one to carry these in the House anyway so I just want to. Make sure that I'm understanding everything If we start with the five which was the first exhibit that you talked about. that deals with human trafficking and. I did review this. Prior to the meeting today and that I guess my concern is it did appear to me that there were some substantive. Differences between the the stricken definition of serious harm and the proposed definition of serious harm that came from different sections of the code that does those appear to be to me at least to be substantive in nature and I understand that. This is your proposal is that we run a bill in the next legislative session is that right. Yes this is the situation is we would have this one code section with two somewhat different definitions of terms serious harm. Which terms used later on that law which brings into question will. As you're reading interpreting applying that law which definition do you would you use. And we we selected the later one being later act more recent statement let's intent control the prior inconsistent legislation this case the real differences harm. Certainly not understand that. I guess my point is that. If you're not proposing that we make a change today by a vote of the. code revision commission your you're just saying that this should be a proposed piece of legislation to consider. Changing that definition in the upcoming legislative session yes absolutely okay and I do think. This may be beyond the. Discussion for this commission here today but I do think that. We should look carefully at which definition we want two years because there were I think substantive differences between the two definitions that could make You know this certainly could affect. prosecutions going forward and and the way those definitions are applied so. Presented Penzo sponsor the bill is that what you said yes Sir yeah I definitely like to hear from him before we move forward with that and then. It just needs to be reviewed more thoroughly I thank. Those are my comments on that one all right. Questions or comments on that one or any of any of the other. I have more go ahead. So the next Proposal exhibit the fifteen where we talk about tax incentive. I see where you were it appears that the proposal is just to add a tax incentive. that language throughout. This is a. Portion of the code is at least the first. Proposal. My question is it appears in the definition section. In section one that it referred to a rebate or a tax credit which were changed for striking in changing to tax incentives is tax incentive like is it a term of art for a return that has a specific meaning throughout the codes were worse changing something substantive or. Is this is this truly more technical in nature. This is a more technical mac could you pollute fifteen inch four dash two thousand three I think it is. Fifteen dash four dash two thousand three. We're. I have difficulty seeing that small it is. Yes this tax incentive in the nation secondly it is and means a rebate under. Something in a tax credit under. So it both terms yes. Okay I don't. So I don't see any particular problem with that Mister Speaker of the members may have. An opinion on that. Senate. Thank you and and I'm a I'm a see the definition. And the I'd like to look at it and and be absolved of my concern but I know Senator Dismang sponsor piece legislation last session amending this piece of code and there were the risk. A fair amount of debate particularly about rebate or credit at those terms in particular so I just would want to take a look at what Matthew just pulled up and and perhaps visit was Senator Dismang about this time before we move for with the bill Any other questions or comments person Gazaway so on the same bill same Exhibit the fifteen sectional Levin for the remaining portion of the proposal it strikes everything that references the Arkansas alternative energy commission has that Commission been dissolved. Thank you the if the Page eight line eight this section shall expire on September thirtieth twenty seventeen so it's it's gone I see this is taking of the code okay thank you. All right. Other questions. The Speaker. So not with not with regard to that exhibit mood moving on to twenty three. That is looks like we're. Primarily striking an entire section of the code twenty three four four twenty two. As it. Pertains the public service commission is that correct. Yes and what's the purpose of that. You probably are you may have already explained I'm sorry did I get to. Right. Yes. Yes a on page eighteen section seven. Of this act applies to any formal review proved in effect on the formula on before March fifteenth twenty twenty one. and so we've gone past eight. Yes okay. Thank you. This was one representative guess where we also had to axe with very similar language in there was a subsequent act that it kind of superseded this language ACT eight ninety four had come later in the session and it kinda overlaid this language with some subsequent changes. Back talk about this one immediately after the session. As to how to deal with that on the codification and because they were almost the same but there were some to add additions to the subsequent version. An eight ninety four that it superseded at four four and they were sponsored by the same sponsor again they're the same sponsors sponsored both bills look like they had just come along and passed a version later in the session. Thank you. Anything else. So that's all for that one one more. Exhibit D. twenty four. So I think I understand. It's worth we're changing the term system to be more specific to refer to the Arkansas public employees retirement system. That to me seems purely technical no issues there. Section two it looks like there's a. Some change about. How the office of the trustees vacated. Is. To me we want everyone to ensure that that's purely technical then beyond that section three which I know you. You did discuss my note was are there still employees who service began. Before July one nineteen seventy one that are still employed and would be affected by this change and I know that peers you made a note to check with the agency to to determine that. do we know that we know the answer to that and if so how might this affect we we contacted both of systems and they indicated us this would not have an effect on anyone at this time. We speak to section two of if you look. The language that. Is online page of additional line twenty twenty nine delete lines thirty four and thirty five you see what we really do is to simply move that language up at the beginning of that. Thank you we look better yeah. Thank you. It's all. You're recognized what you said thank you for the. That. Total number one That the agency said that they would not have an effect on anyone at this time. Any other questions or comments. That is why. Sixty five that was the serious harm that institution the least restrictive gad would suggest maybe we hold back on that. The fifteenth is. That was the tax incentive language Senator Tucker suggested we do some checking. Senate this mail that in the twenty eight that's the that was the. And Health the effective date and whether it was intended to be subsection a or subsection B.. If. I guess my thought would be that we pull those three. Those are those are three that the legislators here on the committee made we could kind of. Do some further looking at that I mean I don't know that there's a need to have an additional code of code revision meeting we can look into those ourselves but with regard to the other bills I guess I would entertain a motion to go ahead and have these others recommended out is. Part of the technical corrections package code provisions. Motion I represent Gazaway answer second. Second any discussion on that. If not all in favor say aye. Any opposed. Guys have it so we'll pull those three and again I don't see the need to have to come back for another meeting before session I think the. That's something that probably the legislative members I mean ultimately what we end up having to run the bills and. Deal with getting the votes on these and making sure everybody's okay with it so I think we could probably Hammer those things out. All right. And those of these bills that we've approved as part of a package will will also be included with the others that we took up last meeting that we didn't have further questions regarding and then we can circulate those among legislative members hopefully to. to get those passed during session. Right so that brings us to item ET the conflict issue is going to say for you or Mr Miller. I'll try to explain. It's. If it does work together I have a power point I'm not sure that will help a lot but what you have before you are exhibit. You one which is the actual text of the sections that are involved. And then you to is my attempt to try to explain this little bit. It seems like I'm reading it I am because it's kind of kind of difficult to to follow through allies. The hearing the the the net result I'm saying in the our point old Lee is that. There are. These these two acts what was adopted in nineteen seventy three. And the other one of this last session twenty twenty one. The nineteen seventy three ACT basically said that was speak to title seventeen professions occupation businesses. title that. Certain criminal offenses. Can be but don't have to be a bar to licensing. Under title seventeen. If a licensing entity decides that it should bar license based on was to offenses. Then there's subsection says that that agency has six explain in writing why. and it's is fairly broad based a certain offenses but what the they basically mean basically is every offense. What happened since then. Is the option of seventeen dash three dash one or two less restrictions based on criminal well this was a criminal records. We speak to that section. There are certain offenses. That would constitute. An automatic bar. But not a permanent bar old please there's there really isn't a current bar. Unless the agency respective certain violent and sexual offences of would would continue on the situation is. Seventy three one oh two those kinds of fences. The bar can only apply for five years. After completion of incarceration probation whichever is later. The any within that five year period the agency can still wave. The bar so it's. Automakers and set up by the statute but the agency license can still way that. what I believe they've still have to do even though it's automatic bar is go and put in writing why they're forgiving someone can apply since it was already bar stating that's reason why. There are certain offenses. It'll also listed basis sexual and and stand certain Violent offenses. Which in subsection eve that section. Regardless of the conviction date which probation Carson ends. Those are those are barred. However even those can be waived by the agency in certain circumstances. Yeah I know this. So we. At a license agency agency can in almost every instance. Wave or allow licensure. respect to these this call offenses. So the first one sets up the nothing's gonna make bar the later accent so that there's certain offense on make bars but they're not permanent. And that that bar. Even if the agency does nothing is only good for five years after that. It comes off. You're recognized. So are these licensing of the same professions in both sections. It's it's any will open the professional title seventeen okay so implies to all of this so if I'm with reception nursing I thank hand and which is Intel seventeen and one the stunt of seventeen for various reasons. So if I'm the agency. I'm trying to figure out how write this up I take all this into consideration even though I didn't have to take into consideration but I waive it unless I don't I mean if I get that it's technically not a conflict but it's very confusing that's absolutely true okay yes. I would say that. This is. Of a law among others in the code is probably right for someone to look at and and try to work it into we're fits and will battle for sensible this this happens and it's have a lot in the code and statutes were you taken Act this case nineteen seventy three. annals of mended I think last and I want to sing nineteen ninety five years they're about so of and then you have this new law layers on top of that codification the codification or process is trying to work those things out. incidents do pre convocation. Sturch Tucker thank you Mr Speaker. A did you say what what year was that section one or two past. A two thousand nineteen. And as amended in twenty twenty one sorry okay do you have those bill numbers. No I do not have the bill number okay find it pretty quickly but I know I can track it down to. The act number was to the nineteen nine ninety. Hi ninety and it was amended twice three three four times I'm sorry twenty twenty one. Forty four Bills sacks seven forty eight ACT seven sixty two ACT eight twenty six ACT nine hundred. It's it's up on history noted in a seventy one if you at the end of the statute there. It might be good dean for teaching how the legislative process does not always work. Any other questions or comments. So it's it seems like it's it's a little more than a technical correction but it's definitely something that needs to be somehow reconciled. So how would we normally handle that we would send a letter to chairs of committees or just have less to do that members Joe simply could pick it up and and have the bureau work through it to craft legislation to basically. Pull those things together I mean that the. Most obvious thing to do. But okay is that is not a thing this point that we be recommending because I Mark said look seven nine as it would be seventy but look very seventies and and would take a lot more to try and. All those together. Senator Tucker. Represent Gazaway and myself for committed to looking at this issue in the upcoming session so if fifteen answer your colleagues on the faculty want to reach out to us that the visit about a possible resolution on this than what would be all yours. Or. Sounds good. Okay so that takes us to item F. technical corrections from the Arkansas rehabilitation services and the division of services for the blind. Mr Senthil Walker is that we got this request from rebuilt a service line and also rebuilt engine services using and this flight Mr Lyford here is here to thanks goes was explain this. Comported introduce yourself and can explain the these proposed changes to us. Thank you Mr Speaker good afternoon everybody and I appreciate the commission's time does a miss Henderson set up trust life for general counsel for rehabilitation services and the services for the blind so what you see and exhibit F. is a proposal for technical corrections that come see under three Sets of a Thorgy for the commission and the the first of those in the majority of what you'll see is ACT nine ten twenty nineteen clean up the rehabilitation services was at that time in twenty nineteen a part of the Department of Cree Education and that was dissolved there's still of the smattering of statues that refer to a rehab services and the Department of Cree Education so we're asking that those cleaned up as a technical correction like was services for the blind was a part of the Department of Human Services I think there's one statute the store first to DHS and services for the blind the correct reference there now is the department of commerce the the seconds service or do you for these changes is updates to an accurate references to agencies or agency officials that rehab services receives federal funding for the majority of its programming from the US department of education subdivision and for purposes of that finding the head of that agency is referred to as the the commissioner the they're above a few statutes where that title is the director or deputy director and so the technical correction would be to update that to commissioner there are and I discussed this with Mr Miller before the meeting for whatever reason a number of references to Arkansas rehabilitation services as the Arkansas rehabilitation services and so an update there would be to strike that article that's that's not common usage I'm not sure why that is but in any event it it's throughout the code so we would get rid of the the refs of State the in front of rehabilitation services and then finally there's a statute into one cut annotated one dash two one twenty four B. two. which gives the Commissioner of forty to update language about people with disabilities and their future references you'll see an exhibit a have to handicapped people and things of that nature and proposed changes to an individual with a disability some happy to answer any questions that there are some thank you. Any questions or comments. Senator garner. Thank you Mr chairman yeah section twelve word changes from handicapped person to individual disabilities I know a couple session or two ago we made a major change like the language cleanup is anywhere else in the code that you all deal with what we could just do like a. Change across the board with that Miller might surprise ask you could do but you just if you're doing this mod will clean it up everywhere I like to do you know form and I know if that's possible for purposes only part As is in there right and that's probably a center thank you for the question that's probably the coming from you know that that bill for years ago the U. M. that a statute one dash to dash one twenty four I'm not aware of any others in relation to Arkansas rehab service yeah there could be so thank. As we go through the code hazard amendments and we re publish of volumes replacement code if we find something like this if we have if we can do we will correct it and correction if some reason we we can't we would presented integrations bill. Senator Tucker. I mean you're gonna take a look for that language. As we as we go through the code yeah after every session I'm looking at amendments of looking at replacing Vimes looking at legislation spend up to when we find that we we corrected okay we don't we we have the anything comprehensive like that okay I mean I think it's just Senator Garner is appointed Matthew I don't know if you could just someone in your division could just do a search in the code for for that specific language. and maybe we could address. Maybe that maybe the rest of them to take care of it but if not we can address those at the same time we could do that and I I think I think the proposal Mister Walker is asking if you want this to be a commission bill yeah which we've had some standalone bills in the past the kind of tag along with the technical corrections package if you want to look and look for any other references to the term handicapped and just add those to the standalone bill then we're happy to do that we can do that or run run a separate bill you know whatever whatever works best but I I grew Senator Garner we are. Our address that language if it exists in the code and other places as well. It's a I just did a search and is not a long lesson this is searching the whole code right if you see what I'm searching there that's all the references to handicap which some of those are going to be the statute that says avoid that term that I'm getting hit there yes so we're not talking about a huge number of sections so we can certainly do a search and destroy mission to find those in replace of excellent. This is the. The code revisor or euro have any opinion on this proposal as far as it being considered. A technical correction because one of the things of the the as we run ins bills. The the membership kind of trust that we've that it the purely is technical corrections and so we try to be pretty tight on it because if we push the envelope eventually they're not gonna trust this and and then we're not going to have to be able to get things done so is there any concern that anything in here is anything other than. Correction there are a couple things that I need to point out of section twelve. If you look at the subsection B.. we're the Division workforce services in the R. sorry bills the services of being substituted for that. Of the service is not Division commerce department was a subunit over for service division. Nineteen to two thousand nineteen translated Division. In in the twenty percent ninety two oh four to workforce services division. So this would basically change that authorization from division level to a subunit of vision I'm not sure that's important but the one point that out in section thirteen. The same situation words change from division are sorry bill Tatian services. And then fourteen in subsection a couple places well the the the main the main thing is I think the deputy director his now the commission or to rebuild the services of probably accurate of but the Department conditioner for services shifting down to the division that case from the department again I'm not sure how significant that is the one fourth of the House of so it looks like those references. We're references Department it becomes Division words division it becomes rehabilitation. Basically this is what is that. Was that changes made elsewhere code is just getting changed for exists actually and substantive change that does not exist anywhere else. Well I don't think it substantive but I think the answer to your first question is no I believe this the first time these changes would have been made it and I I think it's a technical correction just because of we have services was unique in that it with Act twenty nineteen Act nineteen twenty nineteen not only did it moved to a different department but it also change levels within the department as Mr and as indicated. So setting that aside for a second the statues that you see here and section twelve and and thirteen Yes so twelve and thirteen those references to division did refer at the time to rehabilitation services but when twenty seventy nine two oh eight in twenty seventy nine two oh nine were enacted we have services was a Division of the Department of Human Services so it sounds like this is This was part transformation and I correct. Well it it it this was a a technical correction that was missed in twenty nineteen because I think there is a one to one wherever Division was notice next to we have services that became division of workforce services I I don't think at the time it was clear that division really did referred to recap Services. For your your point is this is something that really this change was really made in twenty nineteen it just the code did not get updated in this particular section that's correct right. The zero or anybody disagree with I mean is there anything that. I think there's kind of a user end of it that we might not fully be able to comment on or understand shorter Mr Henderson just noting that there's a change of affecting these to the extent that there's a reference to a division and then down to the peace that may be totally logical I think is what Mr lot by for saying but we couldn't really comment on that right. What I mean to me again trying to protect the. The good will of the commission with the legislature what if what if we pull those sections out and that something that either. Either the Division either you can work on separately with the division of workforce services and come and get a legislator one of us can help run the ad or help get that done but then we don't have to worry about. Is there this chance that this that this actually turns out to be something substantive and then we've got you know members that never that wall the put a whole lot of stock in these bills that we bring forward I think that would be the safest thing at least from my standpoint right and I have no Jackson there Mister Speaker I mean it's a fairly simple change one way or the other but no need to force it into a technical correction box that doesn't need to be and are. We will go ahead and do the search for the handicapped references though and just take those from this bill and incorporate those with the rest and but again I guess just report to the legislative members of the commission report Legislative okay yes when we got the draft on that day. Right. Any other questions or comments is there a motion to. Adopt that portion of it as a. Technical correction from the code revision commission. Oceans OR second. Senator Garner any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed motion is passed. Thank you. Okay that brings us to item G. title nineteen requalification workgroup Mister Henderson this will be real short of we've got one response from our quest to letting people know about the workgroup. and it's hopefully creation they did explain we're caught not surprisingly in the middle of several of the offices officers transitioning. The other offices we made contact and heard from them back at this point yet but we figure after after the first year when they get in the office of the sort that out all right any other business Mr Speaker are you ready are are we okay to proceed with formally putting together the work group as far as that you're going to wait till this meeting as far as us formally collecting members from them in planning meetings and things any any any objection from the commission for the bureau and the covered visor to proceed with someone or group. Hearing no objection I would say Percy okay. And that's something you report back to assist the next commission or and I know you were you had thoughts on the scope of what the codification should look like and we can certainly report back you know and this is not going to be a short process is not going to be one or two meetings of this group so Dalby point that will be meeting after session historically to deal with conflicts and things like that and we can report back to that point if you want to provide feedback to the workgroup on what scope the convocation should take as far as nature of substance ages and things will certainly communicate that to. Any other business. Not I have the report one last thing we're prepared for a the next session the staff's review sections fully staffed we're. Going to training for some teachers and the temperate proofreaders. We're in pretty good position to work through legislation. Let's get drafted and then codification afterwards of the one last thing I guess he'd mention of I have decided or tire thank you March thirty first. The next year. after about forty five years figure it's probably time to step aside let someone pick up and deal takes care of things like the ricotta cation when it I think session to begin that process you should read codification not driving you to return that what's going on here we can put it off for a little while. Eleven twenty eight because of cation for about thirty so he has that. But not well on behalf of the commission in the legislature we want to thank you for your service I think we all recognize the. Effort and the pride that you put into the Arkansas code and not as an attorney in practice practicing attorney I know I very much appreciate the fact that I think we have a a code that to for the most part when the legislature did get it to a convoluted is is something we can easily reference and and I know that large part of that goes to you so I want to thank you for that thank you of. Thank you. I have to see. The lion's share of the credit goes to my staff those are here now and those who've been with me sometime since nineteen eighty four they're the ones that did all the work. And they're the ones that deserve all the credit thank you. All right any other business for the commission. If not return.