Arkansas Legislative Council (ALC)

Members will drive you see we're going to start. Members if you were gonna be seat will go and get started with that I'm a recognized representative Bragg for the opening prayer members would stand. If you would please pray with me. Heavenly father we acknowledge your sovereignty we acknowledge your power over creation and we the knowledge your your presence here today we we just thank you for the ability to serve not only our our constituents but to serve you and we just prayed for guidance and wisdom that everything we do will be to your glory in Jesus name we pray amen. Thank you represent Bragg so with that I need a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting. Our motion and a second for over a representative Flippo all those in favor say aye. All opposed us have it so we're going to the presentation of the December revenue report of. Mr Kevin. Thank you Mr chairman Kevin Anderson with the bureau of legislative research we are on item D.. In your packet. This is the Arkansas revenue report for December which compares general revenue tax collections to the previous year for the month of December and year to date. On item D. if you look at page one you can see gross general revenues year to date of three point nine million which is an increase of a hundred ninety five point nine million or five percent over last fiscal year year to date collections. If you go to page two. An item D.. This graph shows how net general revenue actually available for distribution to state agencies institutions and departments and deviates from the forecast. The forecast or projection not the previous year this is the only page that deals with the forecast in those deviations as you can see after six months net available general revenue is above the revised forecast to fifty two point one million dollars. And then on the following pages pages three through five. This shows G. R. tax collection compared to the previous year. As you can see on page three the first column of numbers on page three show this year December twenty one which is fiscal year twenty two as compared to the second year which is in the second column and that percent change the last three columns or in the same format but those are year to date collections. Mister chairman I'm happy to try to answer any questions. Kevin if you would can you explain to me the October revision and where that drop of money was spent or maybe DFA nation come explain that yes Sir well basically what when the four caskets revised if the this we're talking about the graph on page two so let's talk about the definition of revised so that money doesn't disappear it's spent so well the AP these yes Sir it's distributed as Bryant yes Sir and basically the short answer to this is as you can see our collections if you look at September were two hundred forty nine point one million above forecast when the forecast was revised the last revision Hatice basically moved that to surplus so our forecast fully funds are saying now and now has a surplus of two hundred and sixty four point four million in it okay that's what I was asking yes Sir thank you any other questions are committee members. C. N. nine thank you Kevin. With that we'll go to the report of the executive subcommittee co chair rice you're recognized thank Mr thank you subcommittee met on January twelfth reviewed and approved emergency rules the department of commerce and India nine approval of those merger rules was reported to all members of a LC the subcommittee met again Thursday January seventeenth and approval consulting services contract between the bureau and the Siegel group for the purposes of assisting D. B. D. with procurements for a new pharmacy benefits manager and a Medicare advantage then for the public school and state employee health insurance programs in addition Seagle will assist A. L. C. with its upcoming study on diabetes management programs a copy of the contract is attached to the report Mister chairman I move approval or about moving the option of the report. Any questions for the committee. See non all no I have a second I have a second Senator Flippo all those of favour say aye. Oppose ayes have it members with that we're going to move down to hi everyone. It will call for dower colonel Nate Todd. To discuss his request to council. Some members I think what I'm gonna do is I'm going to hear from all three. Of the the two secretaries in the chancellor and then we'll take questions or comments from the members and we'll call which everyone forward you have a question for our it will allow you to make your comment so Colonel if you would introduce yourself to the committee and you're recognized to explain. This push push button one time. Thank god they taught secretary Arkansas the board versions there's thank you for the opportunity to be here. Thank you robin Wardlaw. This is. All. Yes we have to nursing homes the nursing homes that receive Medicare and Medicaid. Read resources reimbursement and we're requesting approval to adopt a policy that would allow us to help our employees that or not thanks needed to submit requests in waivers if in fact they meet the criteria. Thank you colonel if you guys would step aside I'm all glad let Secretary Gillespie come up. Second Glaspie if you and dawn we introduce yourself sort of committee and then you're recognized to present your request. Syndicalists be I'm secretary of the department of Human Services. Dawn Staley deputy director for DHS and Medicaid director we also have our chief counsel here today if there are questions legal questions we are also coming before you of like the department of Veterans Affairs to. Ask for approval to establish a COVID nineteen vaccination policy for DHS employees that are working and health care facilities. Thank you. We could have us chancellor Patterson Dr Patterson. Introduce yourself and you're recognized as president of the yes Sir good morning good morning Mr chairman and members of the Legislative Council my name is campaigners and the chancellor of the university of Arkansas for medical sciences before we have an opportunity to answer questions I'd like to make a few brief comments are request today is straightforward to follow CMS regulations EMS is seeking your approval to implement vaccine mandate that CMS is issued while we believe in the vaccine this is not a mandate that we sought in fact as you know when the mandate was issued we provided comments to you expressing our concerns about the mandate is timeline and its implementation after meeting with you in November I also sent a letter to CMS expressing our concerns at UAMS about the mandate and requesting they grant you M. S. an exemption because of our status as an Arkansas institution they did not reply since mandate was issued multiple lawsuits for fall across country injunctions were issued these cases were taken to the Supreme Court whereby filed for ruling CMS COVID nineteen vaccine mandate was upheld injunctions or issue or set aside and new time when was issued for implementation of vaccine mandate that timeline dictates that we begin vaccinating employees by February fourteenth and have hundred percent of our employees either vaccinated or exempted from the mandate by April fourteenth. Following April fourteenth U. M. US will be subject to service for compliance with federal state and accredited accrediting organizations based on certification or re certification or complaints to be out of compliance could result in corrective action including loss of Medicare Medicaid funding. Reimbursement from Medicare Medicaid is vital to our work at UAMS babies are delivered it's replaced in arteries are cleared at our facilities with reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid wellness visits by seniors OB visits to our high risk pregnancy clinic organ transplantation for end stage liver and renal disease and outpatient therapy visits or reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid we also rely on funding from CMS to support position residencies across our state without CMS reimbursement for the services we cannot provide the care for the people of Arkansas that they deserve. When I spoke with you in November you expressed concern that the mandate if enforced could result in the resignation of UAMS employees we pledged to ensure that employees of a who have strongly held beliefs or medical reasons for not getting the vaccine be given the option of applying for an exemption we have communicated with employees letting them know they can apply for exemptions that coca nineteen vaccine we plan to re communicate that option to where employees if you approve our request. I also want to point out that for many years we have had other vaccine requirements for infectious diseases such as influenza we allow our employees to follow exemptions to those vaccines if they need them we do our best work with them and be respectful I'm happy to say that I'm not aware of any employee resignations because of these requirements that gives me hope that we can managed this just as well without loss of staff. I'm extremely proud of every member team you M. S. and the way in which they have pulled together to serve the people the state of Arkansas in the midst of this crisis they are all important to us and we don't want to lose anyone of them we ask your approval of our request. Thank you here's what I want to. When you in the seat Senator go as a secretary glass being a seat and then colonel Nate Todd and then we'll take questions from the members we have a few questions on the board. Senator Ballinger will start with you. Thank you Mr probably my question probably best for Secretary Gillespie. So Florida has decided as a state that they are not enforcing it and and I realize that they they don't have the ability to decide what the feds do right so we do know that there's ongoing litigation on this but the the the stay was lifted so CMS could before with its emergency rule but Florida has their the regulatory agency has committed not not taking surveys not keeping track not turning in their information to the feds in order to to allow them to continue to operate do we plan on come on I'm working with the with the CMS in order to collect information to provide to CMS as regarding compliance with the the real. We do plan to continue serving our of facilities in the state and if we did not then CMS would send in their own surveyors and do it. Sure but yet so the one one of the if but we know that is a policy the legislature has said said you know that we don't want that to happen now now if we come in here we approve this this thing that's different but then we're going to run into the law that we passed during the extended general session that the deals with the exemptions right and and I know that you guys have made a request under the letter ask you to that the exemptions be recognized and and I appreciate that I hope all the final rule will include that I'm not very helpful that will but but the question is from a policy standpoint in the state of Arkansas we've said these health care workers who've but to the but through the pandemic should not get fired because they have some sort of conviction whether it's religious or from other conviction they should get fired because of it and so what I would hope that agency would do is is recognized that and while we can't stop them from sending their people and that we don't take part of that because frankly they don't have the resources if other states to do the same thing we'd be able to protect people not have them get fired if we said look it's your plan that your agenda it's not our agenda this is not our policy is your policy so you take care of funding it yourself we're not going to do. There are a lot of areas where our state surveys and we have always been in a position here what we felt like it was important that we ourselves provide the oversight of the facilities in this state so therefore in for us to pull out of surveying all of our nursing homes and serving all of our facilities would be turning over a great deal of authority to the federal government to day to day come in and be making the decisions inside all of our facilities as it is right now because of the way we are structured We go into those facilities it is I think those who have facilities here will tell you while we are always careful to make sure that we to maintain the safety of the facilities and that is always paramount we are also able to work with facilities here because we all we know what is going on and were able to keep going back in and be able to help them move through their issues and their problems I think that relationship locally is incredibly important and it's one that we do want to maintain. We also. Are working right now with CMS on how a state has to. what information has to be looked at and what the state has to do and I think that has been important for all of us Both that run facilities as well to understand some of those components so I do believe one of the issues you raised is how is everyone going to be implementing the religious exemption I will tell you at DHS similar to what the chancellor Patterson said we are going to make sure that the process is very easy and understandable for our employees we will be making sure that if an employee for some reason applies and that clearly has not understood what they needed to do we will help them we will provide counseling in order to make sure that we don't have a situation where an employee is seeking an exemption that they legitimately should receive but just didn't know how to properly fill out forms or how to take action we're simplifying forms we're trying to make sure things are very clear and easy from a survey perspective when going and what the surveyors are looking for when they go in is documentation that a policy exist documentation that there is a process but a surveyor is not reviewing the documentation on that type of exemption to put in place their own judgment as to whether or not it should have been granted and so for many reasons I do believe it's important that we here in Arkansas do this ourselves. But I appreciate that in fact I think that this issue would not have been nearly as as an exciting an issue yes if institutions what have we really granted religious exemptions thank you guys I think are committing to doing but my my question is I mean it from my understanding Florida is not they're not cutting off serving all together what they're saying is this information that legislatively they basically said they're not supposed to do they're just not collecting that information so they're still you know making sure that all the other compliances there they're just not collecting information about their vaccine policy and so the question is it white yeah we have till April to be fully fully compliance rate so you know have we looked at what Florida is doing and whether it's something that that we feel like we get away with. Or what are we not interested at all okay I have a look to apply doing and I can certainly take a look at that I I'm I'm happy we're all happy we're happy to do that if that's what you're asking But do recognized when you take it and this is not about like I won't take a look we will take a look at what Florida is doing recognize that when you take on the roles when you take on these roles for the for the government rather than them doing it they can come in and penalize you when you don't do the total work and when you don't provide the information and when you don't meet timeliness so they are one hundred percent funding that operation and Leading the state to it in lieu of it but I will take a look at it thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair with regard to how many religious exemptions have each of you denied you know those numbers right off top your head please or other exemptions for that matter. How many religious exemptions that we do not yes Sir well what we we haven't implemented a code nineteen vaccine mandates so that the we haven't denied anybody but I was a historically if you look at influenza other vaccines that we require to my knowledge on my watch we've never denied a single religious exemption same thing for you Director Glaspie and just we we haven't implemented the policy at okay and Nate we have not had a policy in place but it is your intention to implement one and I guess the question then would be when the surveyors from CMS come in based on what you just answered do they actually look at those forms and if they look at those forms and they say you should not have granted this religious to exemption are you subject to fine or corrective action. It is my understanding that right now what we are being told is to look at the process to ensure that there is a form that there is a process and that the process is followed and that there is a form but that the surveyor is not reviewing the form to determine whether or not the judgment that was made with the appropriate judgment so it'll be totally upon each one of your institutions as to the latitude you use in order to grant the religious exemption or any other exemption option that is available and. Go ahead I was in state will within the law there if there is an EEOC law that actually does come into play so within the law there is latitude yes Sir okay the the second line thought then is this how many do you now currently not have the action needed that you would be subject to lose as employees if they choose not to get vaccinated or to accept or to exercise the exemption option. I made to each one of you stand to lose UAMS has a process we two thousand employees were not fully vaccinated all right. We have to in North Little Rock in approximately fourteen in Fairfield okay and Director Glaspie and of course I'm not going to have my numbers right here in front of me because we are increasing. Almost daily on ours we have really been making a push. To get to a hundred percent compliance and so our facilities right now are sitting. With some of them up in the ninety percent so thank you Mr on figured if I did that somebody would hand it to me Good bye of time so Right now we're we said is I can run through the facilities very fast Arkadelphia is currently at eighty two percent Conway is that seventy seven percent. Jonesborough is that eighty nine percent Warren is that eighty five percent Booneville is that sixty six percent And that's one of our smaller facilities and then let's see I tell you what you've you've given is that eighty two I remember them and excuse me ashes at eighty eight and Health centers at eighty two percent okay thank you you too good giving good steps out so then my question to you is. By this time I think that probably those that run to be vaccinated would have been vaccinated a representative these will probably continue but what is your plan to deal with the labor shortage that each one of your growing experience short of come back to us and asking us for money and even if you had money you can't make two thousand people show up to work so Dr passion I going to ask you what your what your plan for funded two thousand people if you have to let them all go. I Senator hammer and that the that's an excellent question I don't think that the number of people that we're going to do this is going to be two thousand I think it's going to be much closer to zero which is our historical response to the annual vaccine mandate that we have for influenza I if you look across the country at at other hospitals that have implemented mandates Sorvillo cross Arkansas at other hospitals that have implemented mandates the number of employees to elects not to invoke an exemption is is very very small and I think that the US policy for exemption is broad enough that everybody everyone of those two thousand who want to who don't wanna get a vaccine will be able to drive through that are guidance for getting an exemption very easily last question do you have natural immunity as an option is that is that provided to you by CMS is an option because we do have a state law that allows that are is that available to employees to utilize natural immunity if they produce evidence to show that seem like a member CMS made a statement also that said that was allowable so is that in your policy thank you. If someone has a deeply held belief that and natural immunity of precludes their need for getting the vaccine done that is completely income consistent completely consistent with CMS guidance also the EEOC guidance which CMS has endorsed. So they could use it yes thank you. Senator Hendren you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman so a couple questions based on what we've heard and what you all have testified so far so I think the first thing is basically what I'm hearing is an encouragement to. Call their bluff to play chicken with the feds and I guess what I wanna know is where the stakes so with the three of you to say if we if we do that if we follow the advice is and just say. We're not we don't care what the feds say. And they are serious about it how many dollars with each of your agencies have at risk. The department of Veterans Affairs FOR twenty. Twenty one that was approximately four million dollars so for me and for the Veterans Affairs would that mean that you would have to close a home or lay off staff or what. It would not to pose some challenges. But the federal be a supplement both homes one at about eight hundred thousand and one about one point two we can operate in the six months. Six months okay. We we range over the last few years between a hundred thirty five million federal funds towards our facilities to hundred twenty hundred fourteen million it's a significant number every year we would not be able to run our facilities without that money they are funded through so over a hundred billion for DHS and backpacks yes yes Sir we get about six hundred million dollars a year from CMS for reimbursement for clinical services and north of a hundred million dollars a year from the national institutes of health four research contracts so our research programs with all the way we would not be able to support clinical services so over six hundred million yes Sir. Okay so we're talking roughly three quarters of a billion dollars that we're encouraging you all to play chicken with the feds basically if we refuse to comply the other issues that but that has been brought up as well we just won't provide the data and you know we face this over the years and in other industries I know for instance in my industry that we have a state eighty two. And there's been time after time where the feds it said if you don't comply with this the EPA will and as business community we we would far rather work with AD EQ industry than we would with the EPA are we putting ourselves in a similar situation here we refused to comply with the requirements for with record keeping and surveying that then they will say okay then we will come and comply for you. Yes Sir if we if we don't do what they will do it that they do have surveyors that consent and. So basically yes then the feds would come and it rather than have and state regulatory authority over the three groups that we see here that have over three quarters of a million dollars. The fed would likely come and take a scene that controlling regulatory authority and also print potentially cut off the funding. And we actually oversee all of the it's it's far more than just these facilities we as a state of the state overstating Like I said all of the nursing homes in the state we oversee all we oversee all of the facilities that will come under this And and and the final question as I heard the question to to comment that that still under litigation again I always hesitate to try to be a lawyer but my understanding is the Supreme Court ruled on this and I don't like that gets much higher than the Supreme Court with regard to litigation did they make it clear that the feds have the right to do what they are doing. They did they said the feds can have the right to implement this mandate while the court case continues to the normal legal proceedings which of course will take quite some time so the Supreme Court did not We were operating with a the Courts having blocked the implementation of this mandate from the feds but now it's unblocked right thank you. Senator Clark you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Of. I know this doesn't fall under your purview of. But of. The. Isn't Medical marijuana against federal law. Are we are we afraid of them coming in and shut us down. I haven't heard or various agencies worried about that that involved involved in that I move on. Of. Henderson. Many codecs nations as your M. S. given over the last year. Of about a hundred twenty thousand. How many vaccine injuries have been reported to various over that same period. I don't know the number of that I know that we've had zero patients who've been admitted to UAMS for complications the vaccine and zero patients who have died from complications the vaccine interesting of how many cases a mock Karti's her cart not is thrown but side to Pina I'm sure I'm not saying that right have occurred over the last year. Eighty eight U. M. S. yes I'm not sure the number that most of the hi rare cases of myocarditis that have been reported to have been and teen so that would benefit Arkansas children's hospital. Okay so you don't know of any. I've are we've not had any that have been admitted to the hospital you know of any that were reported of errors I don't know the answer to that. What is the policy for identifying and reporting vaccine injuries. we have actually prefer to defer that to to Dr crosses here if you want an answer to that because I don't know the exact mechanism that the with all to do to do that which doctor cross contents that if you wanted an answer. Love to have an answer in the chair thinks it's the proper time. We can do that online or offline however you want to. I think you guys can connect offline the fun okay thank you Mr. All. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. The question what are you what are you doing for your current employees now they to work through this COVID pandemic to keep them from leaving. What have we done well we we've done an awful lot we have used some of our federal funds that we proceed to give bonuses to our employees we are providing them with behavioral health services to get through the stress that they face we're doing everything we can not to overwork employees which is a challenge because the demand for our services exceeds our ability to to provide them we value our employees are proud of the fact that we are the number one employer in the state of Arkansas and we intend to make sure that our employees continue to feel that you I must specialist work and state. Can you up can you explain to me how you can give one religious exemption and not grant another. I'm I'm not aware that we've never not granted religious I know what can you do you know if you can if you can give one religious exemption wouldn't that make it we have to give everyone a religious exemption that applies for one. The the EEOC guidance and our policy is very broad there's no reason why one religious exemption will preclude us from from providing a different religious exemption and your are you saying now that no one on your state no one at UAMS is applied for religious exemption we have four hundred religious exemption applications pending but because we don't have a mandate we we've not process those those exemptions we process exemptions for influenza every year we have many religious exemptions there varying religious exemptions and at least on my watch on and none of those exemptions have been do not. R. one final question to doctor Facetti. You know the definition of blood flow. The definition of what bowl full. Your. I'm not sure what you're referring to serve. That is a term that a staff uses when a lot of them are going to call in sick and not even show up. I was at UAMS about a month ago and there were several it came to be and talk to me about participating in what they called a blue fluids what's a blue flute. And they said that that's where we just don't show up for work. So I think you it might be a good idea to ask around at UAMS and see what's going on is for these up the staff that have of attorney what from what they told me they haven't received a raise and in a long long time. Compared to the high prices that we're paying for travelling nurses. Of the differential between are employed nurses and and traveling traveling nurses is substantial right now on that that's great that that impacts not just you I most impacts every hospital our state on is and it's a it causes all challenges with staffing is it what would you think that would be a good reason to do everything with that on our. The room possible to keep these nurses yes and and keeping nurses includes continue to have CMS funding so that we can support the sellers thank you Mr chairman. Or representative thank you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. So I know you have made the rule you're asking for approval to create the policy. With this policy include a termination of the policy if and when the federal courts decide that it's unconstitutional. I can answer that on our part yes. I'd like to have answers from of the two please. We had the Arkansas department registers heirs earth assessment is the Department of Human Services as a knowledge and expertise we have been coordinated clinical work closely with them and we would seek to a council in that. Scenario. Okay Mr Paterson. that's not something that we consider but there's no reason why that can't be done. Well so there's things that are unconstitutional for the federal government to do that a state can do. And I would like to note I'd like assurances from the three of you that if we approve this policy making that in the policy itself you incorporate the of termination of the policy. When the federal courts determine that the federal government it It cannot constitutionally create this mandate so I would definitely want to see that in the policy if it's approved for you to go forward. So is this threat of sanctions against existing funding or new money that's coming in. Yes It's always it's always new money in that every day we're getting paid so the threat of sanction is against. Against a regular funding flow that's coming in this is how we're all operating we were giving you are are funding that was paid just over the previous years but every year it looks the same or often more yeah and I just wanna be really clear no words. This is. The Biden administration telling us that they will not fund a patient's medical care. If we don't come into compliance on the vaccine mandate is that correct. It is correct that it is Yes okay simple answers just if I guess. Well in. You know it may be cliche the kicking grandma of the nursing home has been threatened before or at least save they've tried to imply that that was the threat and this this seems like it's really the threat no words you have to stop treating those patients or stop trading or shut down completely and stop treating all patients. In other words if if if the federal government is going to sanction. Our health care industry. For not being in compliance that sanctions would only be on the federally funded patients. Would we still be able to continue to take care of other patients. Depending on the finding that a facility had potentially yes recognized that they're doing this under under under authority that they have around our facilities participation in Medicaid and Medicare so Well there are various steps along the way at the end of the day she said the ultimate penalty is to be removed as a Medicaid or Medicare provider. At which point the way that works is you. You are no longer in that program you can no longer file claims and serve Medicaid or Medicare patient okay what is produced three or nine funding so I think I think pragmatically speaking we're we're all really recognize that are. State budget and our institutions are currently dependent on federal funding. I would encourage you to look for ways to break that dependents and become more independent we may have to today knuckle under but in the future. We don't know what other rights or freedoms may be threatened. Through the through the strings attached to this funding. So I'd like to try to keep it clear in our heads. And I definitely want to see in the policy if this is approved today a termination of the policy. When the federal government is no longer in a position to demand it I don't want to the state doing it thank you Mr. Thank you I I was going through my Worke males and as provider I get updates from CMS day it looks like just issued an email that they've issued a final dates the thirty day compliance date looks like somebody February twenty second I'd love for you all to correct me where I'm wrong in the sixty day compliance date is March twenty first can you explain is that the first shot has to be taken on the twenty second second shot would have to be taken in March what is the thirty and sixty day main. I haven't seen that email it just it just came. I started pick up my phone I haven't seen that one of the dates we were working with yesterday were March of February fourteenth and March fourteenth so it sounds it flipped a week it is moved to re assess taxes had an objection to the dates and these are the new dates that were issued okay so if those any dates then yes it's a. Thank you are your employees are supposed to have the first shot by that first date or their exemption or their exemption come place and then the second shot OR. Get the second shot or an exemption by that second day and The. If you're only doing Johnson and Johnson the one shot employees would try to get that by that first date is the way they to have it written thank you my point in pointing that out as we're less than thirty days away from that first date already that's why we we have been and are continuing to hold clinics that are facilities on a weekly basis we are seeing we are seeing employees moving to get for shots so so that's really positive week we are seeing more beginning to do that and moving then on to the second shot but it is also why we would like to be able to get the exemption process out very very quickly if approved our plan is to implement that on Monday the the put the final as a policy put it out and begin taking exemptions Monday and also I'd like to point out to the committee as a provider we received a letter earlier this week from CMS that we would have to have all of our shot record slash exemptions in the personnel files upon a site visit and they are out doing site visits now from CMS looking at those personnel files of providers across the state. So with that I'll go to representative Cavenaugh a representative Smith yeah thank you Mr chair. First of all let me just thank you all for being here I think you're doing the best you can do to answer questions even though my pledge on the hot seat a little bit. I'm almost sixty three years old. And I don't like to be threatened I don't like to be bullied I don't like mandates period I believe in personal responsibility and personal right to choose whether or not to take a vaccine wear a mask whatever and so I know you're in a you're you're in a place that's considered a rock and a hard place I know that but I want to go on record as being one that supports your medical teams your medical staff the employees to make their own personal choice I've made my choice I can live with it. But. I get so many calls and emails from people telling me I've I've I've been a a nurse or even some physicians for more than twenty years then on the front line. And I've just seen too many. Problems with this vaccine and I've chosen not to take it but I'm getting ready to lose my job. Some of those were in a position financially to go start their own practice or separate from hospitals and go out and and work but others are not and I just want you all to know that I recognize the difficulty I'm proud of you for being here in front of all right legislators but I object to forcing a mandate on the people of this great state thank you. Members I've gotten around to all council members want among go to non members for statements are quick question of representative Bentley you're recognized for very quick question thank you I am an alternate thank you Sir what can you guys tell me each of you what accommodations we make for these employees are given a religious exemption or exit just a couple specifics with that answer we allow them to give direct patient care and will they be required to take weekly vaccine. I'm excited with the bank since use me a weekly test a test for the code was or will they be required to take with the test if so who will pay for that and will be allowed to give direct patient care because I I know I'm just looking back and some other industries they give accommodation without accommodation was you get laid off for a year we want some specifics on what those accommodations are going to be for religious freedom thank you. Restart. I can start at this stage what we're looking at an accommodations obviously to be on a case by case basis depending on what the person's situation is because anything about medical exemptions for except for example but the accommodations that are being looked at at this stage are obviously wearing a mask that weekly testing they will continue to provide if you have an exemption you can continue to provide direct patient care and we do need these employees providing direct patient care. So they will not be laid off with an exemption to be specific to your questions yeah I would I would say the same thing for you in Madison represent Bentley I would also say that we provide testing vaccines etcetera through are employed student health service that's all free service for employees so is is not going to cost anybody anything. Our first. For or do the safety. Of those veterans and their families that are in our nursing homes. Some of them have. Cool mobilities. We are very concerned with the safety of our staff members also. We have had testing and mass requirements in the nursing homes. We will continue to bills and again we will seek the counsel of the department of Human Services as we go for. One one quick follow up just how many staff openings all of you have right now that you're. That you're needing staff for that's my final question. I don't have a specific number in front of me but as you know we are we are very much down staff so it would be in the hundreds. So what was the question senator senator Johnson you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman Dr Patterson and possibly a secretary Gillespie of in response to questions from senator Hendren just kind of put a number on this risk I think that I think he said almost three quarters of a billion dollars and I think you said six hundred thousand or I I'm not I'm just I'm trying to pin that actual number down we're and again I know these are estimates but committees Pete that yes so it you M. S. we we received about six hundred million dollars a year in reimbursement from CMS for services rendered on in addition we have other federal contracts that or risk based on this rule including our national institutes of health funding which is over a hundred million dollars sure this basically the support for all the research the concerning you and us. Well I'm just trying to get it get a number because I mean you're asking us more or less to give up. Our constituents first amendment rights in return for a dollar amount to guarantee the programs that serve them. I just want to put a number on how much so we had to risk to stand either stand up to or we have a Hey we have accepted to abrogate our constituents first amendment rights and just trying to get a number so what for the time being we just use six hundred million dollars give or take so thank thank you for your your candor I don't envy your position but I think you know I never I didn't raise my left my right hand my left hand on a Bible to pledge to support and defend CMS I pledged to defend the constitution of the United States in the constitution the state of Arkansas so thank you thank you Mr. Representative Ladyman you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. I have a couple questions of the first one pertains to what senator Johnson was just talking about if I add up the numbers that you all gave its eight hundred thirty four million dollars that we would lose. And I understand the situation that we're in. Thank you know. In my mind the question comes you know what will we sell a state of Arkansas for. What we we sell our freedoms for would we do it for four hundred million. You know we just bacon about pricier. Because I mean this is a very difficult situation. But if you really believe that people should have the freedom to decide this and I understand there's another side to this protecting the general health. But you know we're put a dollar value on that. In my mind that's wrong. so I'll ask you another question on the the federal monitors that would be coming in and looking at our facilities. Will they be looking at the exemptions that you all allow and will they be evaluating your decisions in other words could they reverse an exemption that you give. Is that something they might be doing. As the guidance is coming down now. What the surveyors are to do is to look at the process to ensure that there is a policy in place to look at the process and to ensure that the process was followed that there is documentation in the file but not to review that documentation and enact their own judgment. Is that helpful so your decision on whether to give the exacerbated final decision that's what you think at this point yes in terms of them looking at it yes okay one of the things and this was brought up earlier but if we do lose CMS funding in that would mean that even. Everybody would lose treatment not just that area that is affected by the non vaccinated yes that's true yes if if I could just to to make it To make it very specific looking for example at our human development centers this is aw this is the primary funding for the human development centers and if that if the human development centers could no longer serve Medicaid patients as you know most everyone in a human development center is a made Medicaid patient so it would mean that they could no longer serve those patients we could no longer pay for those centers it It. It the ramifications are quite enormous. In the sense of losing the funding for the centers we do not have alternate funding for the centers to pay the employees to run this facilities and of four when the person people in the centers receive medical treatment outside the center they are going as Medicaid patients. So if a hospital could somehow survive the loss of Medicaid funding. they would not if they saw that patient they could not there's no billing source to pay for that patient's care. So the ramifications are enormous it is it is beyond just the loss of the money okay I would just say there's there's no model that I can conceive of by which you M. S. could continue to operate clinical services absent CMS one. Thank you very much Mister chair like make one more statement I'm done I really cannot believe I'll just take the Jonesborough human development center which I'm very familiar with. I cannot believe that the federal government would put a hundred and ten. Physically and mentally challenged people who some have no relatives. On the street I mean what you're saying I I understand this is not against you or your organization but if you can't pay the employees to take care of those hundred ten. People who can't feed themselves and move around I can't believe our federal government would put a hundred and ten of those people out on the street with no support thank you Mr. Representative back you're recognized for a question our state thank you Mr my question. I guess simple yes or no answers your giving us right of that to to each one of you guys giving the numbers that you've you shared with us as far as like the number of religious exemptions that you have there been filed I'm curious as to why they're not being process right now. Just so we have that work done as opposed to waiting for waiting for something here but not my poor sister the two questions I have for each one uses. It is there an appeal process within the religious exemption process that you guys have set up and if there is will you assure us that if we allow this to go forward that each one of the goals that you have right now that will be filed will be able to be processed in the appeals process if there are pills for those out prior to these dates that the federal government is putting down I mean I I'm really. Concerned that someone could come to get. The last day before so well your religious exemptions not. Then they don't have time have have an appealed and you know the really reporting speaking of that position so to quote the two questions ours didn't do you have an appeal process within what you're setting up right now and will you tell us that everyone will have the opportunity to if I want to follow religious exemption and have their appeal process if that happens from each one thank you and so I can I can speak to that we do have an appeal process not appeal processes is an appeal to to me personally and I already made a commitment that if I deny a religious exemption of you I must employ that I will notified chairs this committee I don't foresee that happening it's never happened with our other vaccine mandates I think the more important issue the and the so real concern is if somebody incorrectly fills out a form or doesn't fill it out completely and the remedy process I think it's even more important than the appeal process and so we are committed to remedying any defective applications so that that the a defective application does not lead to a denial of a appropriate exception. And we will also have an appeals process and to the point you're making about timing if we are able to go forward with this on Monday and start receiving exemptions we are going to make sure that we are able to process them. If for some reason someone and as he said we will be working with people if someone. Fills the form out incorrectly and completely does something that would rather than just the night we will be working with them to try to help them submit an appropriate appeal I mean are appropriate exemption request that fits what they're trying to say but if you had that situation as you said that someone for some reason everything went through and the day before it came out they can read they can file an appeal all someone's. All sums it wants exemption request is awaiting consideration or while they're appeal is awaiting consideration they'll be given automatically an accommodation right so they will not be moved over into the you are you have not met it bucket so um we're very aware of that around the deadlines. Rick Beck we will work with our staff members to accommodate them. My experience that in writing policies you could never cover a hundred percent of the circumstances. Is a human factor in our Arkansas department regional fairs. We value our staff members and I will take every consideration under consideration. Two members here's where we're at we've got quite a few directors of secretaries that need to get out at a certain time of peer agendas what's holding on. We have. Roughly ten more in the queue. I can process through these ten. But we need to get moving before ten fifteen ten twenty so I can get to the pier agenda saying get these folks on to where they have to be so if you want to say your statement we're asking a lot of repetitive questions so your statement let's let's move through this and take a vote with that representative make sure recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman and and I'm I'm not be briefs what about to ask as may seem controversial in the service but I wonder how much of this discussion is almost superfluous and what I mean by that is this you have a high percentage of your employees that are already vaccinated pretty much everybody else is gonna seeking get a religious exemption so that should leave little to no employees who would be in violation of any mandate so. Is yes no. Yes our our goal is zero. And I and I I'm highly confident that we will recycle. And our goal is also zero very well said so by the time we get everyone vaccinated wants to get vaccinated everybody else gets a religious exemption then the rest of this discussion almost becomes and. Meaning I also meaningless but superfluous thank you Mr chairman. President Dotson. Thank you Mr chair at I just want to Restate what I thought I heard doctor Patterson say over here in. You're right there So. The religious exemption if you're going for I mean obviously you don't lose a single employee none of it none of you do But what I believe I heard you say was the deeply held religious belief if someone believes that they have natural immunity that would qualify for the religious exemption is that what I kinda understood you to say you know if if the that's their basis for feeling that they have been conferred immunity then we will accept that the EEOC guidance on religious exemptions is exceptionally broad so that allows for that so that's what I thought I heard you say and I I I'm not I know each has their own policies so I want to but my question is. Confirming from you but also will the other two agencies at a table commit that that is the same interpretation they have as far as granting religious exemptions that natural market immunity would qualify as a deeply held religious beliefs. Our deeply held belief I guess for religious exemption. Sorry that everyone has not come up so I'm actually looking at my chief counsel. because we are taking a very broad view of okay is is is that the ESSEC guide is basically a strongly held deeply held beliefs it is not the word religious income and so Our expectation has been that we would apply it in that way and that we would also not question whether or not someone's belief was We would not be going behind someone to question whether or not they deeply held that belief if that makes sense and are planning to be very clear about that in our policy. Secretary to. And you're maxed out on their. In the effectiveness and efficiency of state government we all seek counsel from DHS we don't have those expertise the department of Veterans Affairs. Our policies will closely. So the Department of Human Services yeah thank you thank you Mr. President have you're recognized for a quick statement are single question thank you Mr chairman. standing. This question here's strictly about the patients that are in going to Knoxville Let's just say that you have Medicare and Medicaid. Would this affect anyone going into the hospital. That was on Medicare would they be required to do these things to censure to federal programs yes Sir it is in this covers both Medicaid and the Medicare program. Senator Ballinger I'm a recognized you for very quick question thank you thank you Mr thank you are recognized once well I appreciate that very much. So one thing that I would with Askin and holds sacred what Leslie I think you're really the proper person here is that you would recognize that that you know as a legislative body we set policy and and the policy is to try to to provide as much flexibility as possible to the individual. To make a choice and would you be willing to the same way that you're coming in here and you're you're you're trying to work to to and I and I get it you are between a rock and a hard place and not an easy spot and I get it. But would you be willing to to try to to work the system also to push back a little bit on the on the federal government that is not doesn't have the same values or the same policy agenda that the we have set in the State of Arkansas so what what I really would like to see is this energy that's not into just complying but energy into trying to find some way to make it where there is a balance in your letter requested to make a modification of the final rule that's the type of thing I want to see real energy and effort are you willing to commit to to doing that we can. I appreciate you pointing out the letter at that we did send CMS about the final rule and we are continuing to talk to them about our concerns and there are is ongoing. A activity between them in the states and we are heavily engaged in that to try to make sure that we are able to as you said push as much as we can around this rule so we we are doing that from all the positions that we can we also supported as you know the attorney general's office in their lawsuit we did provide a test stations that they needed to help to be able to give very particulars around Arkansas and as that court case now moves through the traditional process we will be supporting the AG's office in the other states as they continue in the courts around that so we do not in terms of the court side of this we do not view it is over and we plan to continue on that side working very you know very intensively with them around that piece So I I hope that conveys to you that what we are moving today with your permission to take this first step in action we're doing it I think you've seen all three of us really trying to ensure that we think about our employees as well as our patients as we do it but also as representative Payton said in our policy it will be clear that if this. I have four goes away if this rule goes away we immediately this is over this is being imposed only because of that. It It doctor Patterson you so you have roughly three thousand are unvaccinated right now is that correct about two thousand two thousand so if you end up granting two thousand religious exemption are you okay with that yes okay thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized for the same directions very quick you've already been recognized once before thanks for led to the policies are under development as we speak is that correct just ahead not. What I want to see in the policies I want to see everything that is allowable by CMS to every other population that is going to be applied two years including the community but also the testing and everything else because CMS is created a hole that you guys can drive a truck through and while it I'd be Joe Biden his administration said before so this morning it's not issue and you're sitting before very conservative body that expects you to give every ounce of latitude in order to be able to accommodate what we want including addressing the issue of undue or unreasonable hardship in the policy and not use that as a clause to get out of granting the the policies if somebody is turned down. We have access to the reason why they are turned down for that part of personnel Paul part of the personnel file and we don't have access to it. it's part of their personnel file. They give it to us it's okay. All right and so what I would just we're going along that well can you in. Thanks. Member center for the questions without objection the stands proved thank you guys. With that we'll move on I will take the pier agenda out of order for that I recognize Senator Dismang. Senator is recognized the peer subcommittee vote on Tuesday January twenty fifth subcommittee receive reports reviewed request improve the following items various temporary preparation increases American rescue plan preparation increases in restrict reserve transfer of fund transfer understand at the request in for members on items you seven in a report for the department health department of health is here to answer those questions. Members that there was a. Adams a request for information and personnel the actual items were in the peer agenda so with that I invite the Department health to the table Senator Solomon do you want to start the questions for the apartment health. Senator Solomon you're recognized thank you Mr hold on if you guys would introduce yourself of record and all that senator ask questions when I. Mallory chief of staff Arkansas Department hill. Makes a misstep be all department help. Don Adams deputy director Arkansas department of health. Joe Thompson chief financial officer Department of Health. Senator thank you Mr to your left over here I received a letter this morning that had the response to my questions in there in the letter it said that contact tracing is eighty percent effective are can be up to eighty percent effective if this is what eighty percent effective in hospice and decreasing hospitalizations lookalike I'd hate to see it for war workers the only question is given the outcomes that we do and there was no outcome data specific to Arkansas in your. Response so I assume you don't have any information specific to the effectiveness of contact tracing within our state my question is if this comes up again are we have another spike well we go back to contact tracing at this level. A certain my understanding is that we have put contact tracing aside for right now we cannot predict what the future holds I'm sorry I can't can you pour your mast out of you don't mind or I just can't understand or speak louder. I apologize Multinational entities and we at the state agree that this point missed and the game of pandemic that contact tracing has a diminished utility and return on investment and for that reason we have stopped contact tracing its entirety of the Department health that decision was made under says in a simple question I mean you're saying it's eighty percent effective so if its eighty percent effective and this is what eighty percent effective looks like if it comes back on do you plan to implement this again I I it's hard to predict the future Sir but we are in a fundamentally different position now compared to where we were March twenty twenty we have pharmaceuticals we have vaccines I'm trying to keep us from I'm sorry to interrupt I'm trying to ask a simple question do you plan to do this again if it happens again and if we have another Speicher comes back to you plan given the effectiveness in Arkansas do you plan to do it again I I'm open to ask yes or no at this level of transmission that we currently have no we would not continue to do contact tracing thank you thank you Mr. Thank you. See no further questions of Senator has a motion on the floor. Do we have a a second. I have a second all those in favor say aye. All opposed ayes have it report is adopted. I will tell you guys that if you bring the information when you have requested a subcommittees you won't have to come and answer these questions during council's wood is very good for you guys to have all the information when we have the subcommittees during. With that we'll go Mr rules representatives. So I'm sorry number of Sir Dismang has supplemental thing Mr maneuvers suspension of the rules take up the supplemental agenda with request with a request from you a mess for the A. R. P. appropriation. I have a second I have a second all those in favor say aye opposed ayes have it. You're recognized thank you and representatives of from UAMS or here to present The request and answer any questions you may have of the members from UAMS to table. I see department commerce as well. You guys would introduce yourself a record and you're recognized to present your request. Jim Dotson chief of staff from commerce Michael Carrick UAMS. Yes Sir Dismang I think I'll take the lead on this since it really relates to the Department commerce appropriation ultimately at the the appropriations approved in regular peer agenda provided for reallocation of funds for commerce to be able to use arpa funds to pay for technical review by you at UAMS on broadband grant applications this is just a corresponding appropriation that once we pay UAMS they can then in turn pay their employees and other consultants from the work using arpa fund so it's a compliment Terry as order request. That take any questions. The. See no questions will emotional Florida of second I have a second all those in favor say aye opposed ayes have it request this past. Now that we're finished appear agenda will go to the ministry to rolls representatives you're recognized for the report thank you Mr chairman just to be clear Senator Dismang is through okay. Thank you. The new pay administrative rules subcommittee met on Wednesday January twenty six the subcommittee adopted a report of the executive subcommittee concerning its approval of to emergency rules subcommittee reviewed and filed a letter from the department of energy and environment Arkansas pollution control and ecology Commission pursuant ACT seven oh four twenty twenty one the subcommittee filed the January monthly written agency updates pursuant to act five ninety five of twenty twenty one as mentioned in this report the subcommittee approved certain agencies request to be excluded from the ACT five ninety five reporting requirements the subcommittee also reviewed an agency's rules recommending an expedited process for occupational licensure pursuant to act one thirty five of twenty twenty one and prior to the meeting rules from the Arkansas racing commission were pulled at the request of the agency all other rules were reviewed and approved and I move adoption of the report. As proper motion drive second I have a second all those in favor say aye All opposed Is habit that will go to representative fielding for the terrible pain on. Corrections report thank you Mr chairman the chapel pan a corrections that those and subcommittee met on Wednesday January twenty six of twenty twenty two at two PM and big may be and heard testimony from secretary Stalin raised erected next to paying and Director of ACC Jerry brats are moving off this report. Yes proper motion drive second of second representative makes all those of favour say aye ayes and any knows rise haven't report is adopted with that we'll go to higher ed representive Whitaker. Thank you Mr chair the higher education subcommittee met on Monday January twenty fourth twenty twenty two subcommittee heard testimony from Dr Alan Mantooth about the University of Arkansas national semiconductor fabrication facility am from Dr Alex Berenson about nanotechnology bone regeneration research at the university of Arkansas at little rock center for integrated nanotechnologies sciences on behalf of myself and Senator English I move adoption report. Has proper motion of second all those in favor say aye All opposed us have it that will go back up to representative Cozart for claims thank you Mr chair the plane Review litigation reports oversight committee subcommittee met on Thursday January twenty seven concerning location report oversight subcommittee reviewed one litigation case presented by the university of Arkansas system concerning claims review the subcommittee affirming the rules of the claims commission as to one reassurance of war one negotiated settlement and three awarded claims I move adoption of this report. That's proper motion drive second. I have a second all those in favour say aye All opposed us have it with that we'll move on to the medical marijuana oversight Senator sample. The medical marijuana oversight committee met January twenty seventh at one o'clock in the room the a big mac the subcommittee discussed following items. For in to provide an update regarding software issues affected medical marijuana and dispensaries and cultivation facilities. I move to accept a report. That's proper motion I have a second all those in favor say aye All opposed ayes have it with that we'll move on to the review report representative Bragg. Thank you Mr chairman the review subcommittee met on Tuesday interview methods of finance an alternative delivery construction project discretionary grants and services contracts no items were hailed I move that the option of a report. That's proper motion I have a second all those in favor say aye All opposed ayes have it that would do the personnel reports under us Wallace. Thank you Mr chairman the personnel committee met Wednesday twenty six January at thirteen thirty hours and room a of mac B. the committee reviewed the request reports listed in items one through ten on the port with the exception of item six which was held for review by AOC based on the conversation had during the period port in information provided by the health department. I would be happy to answer any additional questions and I moved to adopt report included in the review of item six. That is to include item six correct yes Sir thank you that's proper motion I've second. Got a second all those in favor say aye All opposed ayes have it but that will move on to lottery oversight senator call will. Thank you Mr Lowery oversight subcommittee met Wednesday January twenty six twenty twenty to the subcommittee heard testimony review the following items one the Department finest ministration office of Arkansas lottery director report turned contract for proposed fiscal year twenty twenty to the annual budget the two we have had a heard update on the Arkansas academic challenge to workforce challenge scholarship programs three we uh heard of the Arkansas division higher education invoice for reimbursement of administrative expenditure report the number four we review of the Arkansas division higher education financial report on administration of the Arkansas academic challenge scholarship program in the report regarding her education grant fund and new proceeds Trust Fund in number five we also heard the approval of the lottery oversights of Committee a report to the R. Arkansas Legislative Council the the final report is attached I move for adoption of this report. Proper motion drive second. I have a second all those of favour say aye All opposed Is have it with that we'll move on to the occupational license report Senator Clark. Senator Clark. It's your turn. Thank you Mr occupational licensing review subcommittee met thirty January twenty seventh to receiver ports on occupational authorizations the Arkansas contractors licensing board of the department of labor and licensed by the Arkansas psychology board the Department of Health the subcommittee adopted in the occupational into the questionnaire for that entities to provide further information about each occupational authorization moving forward and to see how many times we can say occupational the. Of. A move that we accept the report I just forgot I just thought maybe you forgot where that button was on a microphone. Has proper motion drive second. All those in favor say aye All opposed ayes have it members of you move on to the G. to report section we have I don't H. one requires a motion to refer to the Senate interm Committee on Children aging use and House Committee on agents or you have to have a motion and motion have second all those of favour say aye opposed as have it so with that Representive McGrew you have a question on my report. Yes on the rental assistance okay so if you would get DHS to the table to answer those questions. That's item seven. Hey for the membership. You guys would introduce yourself for the record. Good morning of merry Franklin Director of the Division of County operations with the Department of Human Services. Good morning I'm Brett Hayes I'm deputy chief counsel for regulatory securing compliance for DHS. Representive you're recognized asking questions thank you Mr chairman and had also thank you for being here today and I will also say that I've had a lot of concern about this program I'm also very proud that and may be clear that I am I am a landlord I think this program is help to many tenants to be able to pay I got a few questions the first one is that this assistance was received late in January and we hired a third party vendor out of state for my understanding for about nine point eight million dollars for the program and we didn't start getting the money out into June is that correct and how come it took us a long. To get the money out. Representative agreed you are correct that the grant award was received late January of between January we went live with the program may sixteenth. But between January and May we. Developed an emergency procurement we. No accepted bids start to help us run this program this is as you know a large program a hundred and seventy three million dollars were allocated to Arkansas and we needed we do not have the internal capacity to run a program that large and. And get the funds where they were needed very rapidly so we brought in a vendor for that reason who also stood up a portal and operations to cover statewide applications that contract I think it was approved it was finalized of late April and we set a three week go live date and we hit that target for three weeks to have the system set up and be able to start taking these applications and I know that. Seems like a long time but to stand up an operation like that to handle what it needed to handle we did it as quickly as we could. Thank you the next question founder question. I know that as we progressed alone there was a process where it involves the landlord and the tenant and that process required the landlord to sign a document and it was taking generally about three months to get a yes or no with a been funded we just came off of the moratorium objections so quickly went out to the landlords don't apply for this in a call some problems I know pre on getting the money out the and we change the governor allow for the money to be sent directly to the tenants I know there's been a lot of concern about fraud in there I know recently seven on the side then an interview on that I've also to give you just a little bit this is a email that I got that is the tentative planning control for the entire process from start to finish never involve me this is from the landlord a new that he had put a fake email and the landlord does not respond that he gets some money he scanned the system received the check directly to him what you got to check the abandon the unit we learned he was gone inspection when he failed to pay utility bill in the refrigerator diecast inflated the unit there's a little more yeah also puts the application number and the amount of money that was four thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars and eighty cents that the tenant left with I've had a couple of these that the HSE been gracious to help with the help get the lamb or the money that my concern is this is happening I know early on we requested that they would be a two party check with the landlord and the tenant to make sure the money would go where it was supposed to go also understand that it's it's the it. It's a federal law that it has to go to the landlord so my question is are you verifying now that you're I thank that information I was given was about twenty one million dollars that went directly to the tenet I think almost double that to the landlord that twenty one million that went direct to the ten it are you verifying that the landlord gets paid and are you placing it in what happens to someone who doesn't do that. So that the requirements of the program if the landlord applies yes we pay the landlord directly but other than that the payments can go directly to the tenant and as you know they do go directly to the tenant the tenant is required to provide the funds they're owed to the landlord that that is a requirement. However I with the check you know going to the tenants directly we have no way to know whether that occurred but when we become aware that it has occurred we do refer those for additional investigation from our fraud unit but that the tenants who are not following the rules of the program are are violating the rules and when we become aware of this we do refer them for further investigation I will also say that we. You know we want the payments to go to the landlord when there is a landlord involved and we we all we have taken steps and are taking steps to try and involve the landlord three phone calls we have a team inside of DHS that we have had making phone calls when windows ten at last tenant applications come in and there is not a matching landlord application we do attempt to reach those landlords and try to get their cooperation to prevent payments from going directly to tenants if we can't. I understand and I I know that your policy was that you emailed out to the tenant three times within ten days but I have received some of those that I did not get the emails and followed up because the email was not correct so again the question is are you verifying the email to the landlord is correct and are you there are you verifying that the money goes to the landlord. So we we do still that do the emails as you mentioned we we do send a minimum of three emails I'm sorry I'm having a little trouble hearing you could you talk let me pull this closer is better yes ma'am. We we do still do those emails we do three emails within the first ten days of a tenant application to the address that the tenant provided us and in we do a fourth email once that ten days is over. And we make the phone calls so we do all of those things but to answer your questions about do we verify the email addresses are correct we we would have no no way to do that we we would not know what a landlord's email addresses or should be so we're not able to verify that those are correct addresses and and we also do not have a way to ensure that those payments go directly to those landlords. Okay I am concerned you know when we good steward with the taxpayer's money I'm concerned that there's a lot of fraud going out there I know several of us receive phone calls you all receive phone calls gentle seven fifteen phone calls with emails like these it's it's very easy if you don't get the proper email and you're not verifying your P. U. L. that the landlord would never know I've run into several entities that and I'm thinking there's got to be away in today with the technology we have in verifying that were paying nine point eight million to a third party out of state vendors they can't pick up the phone and called the landlord I have never received a call I've called several landlord just morning said if you ever received a call from DHS for this vendor the answer was no. Another thing is could we not send out to the larger landlord changes the housing authorities and the bigger landlord in the community a list of those that have applied or have received funds. And just have them verify would seem to be would be an easy way for us to find out if there's a lot of fraud going on. That is something that we can explore but again I don't know. That is something that we could explore just to see to see if they're aware that those payments were made to them that that is something that we we could look into yes. With me in my concern is that you know this is a great program if the money is going to we're supposed to be it's federally mandated that way it's against the law to do that so I would think that would be a great way for us to check and see so Mr chairman I would wonder if there's a way for us to ask DHS or the other party vendor to create a steady this this quick study of notifying the larger landlords standing in that information and verifying how many of them. Or what percentage you're receiving the money. What we can have staff looking to that we got quite a few questions so let's see where these questions lead us to a representative. Thank you. Senator Clark I see found that button again. Thank you thank you Mr. Of. You said that you there was no way to make sure that the land they paid the landlord. So I guess you're not aware that I talked to people from the bottom all the way up to the governor's office about something that we've all known about as long as I've been in business in essence. The less over forty years about making the check out to both parties. Before ever was done you're not aware of that. Yes Sir we we did consider that but can you not every tenant and landlord lives locally to be able to coordinate and and have signatures. Signed and so we we did not make that change to add the landlord to the checks so fraud is better. We Of course fraud is not better a and I will I will I will make this statement. We are doing. We are trying to balance of course the need for program integrity and we want program integrity want to prevent fraud we are we are balancing that with the need to get the funds out and and help prevent evictions and and and take care of these issues you know to help ensure that both the tenants don't lose their homes as well as the landlords receive those funds in every case where we can do that we we do several things to prevent fraud and reduce fraud but we can't we can't catch it all. The but two party checks with a call most of it and the the little except when you're talking about is a very small exception there's not that many people. That the landlords of State I warned you at every level about fraud channel seven has found fraud are you aware of that. Are you aware. That I was told that calling landlords would take too much time you said your that you call in ward I was told Colin will take too much time. We do call the landlords when a tenant applies in there's no matching landlord application I was told that we send out emails and there was no response because I know represent grew and I both said I would have seen the email. And the in fact I offered I said it I suggested that you all should do this and I did just as justice at one level several different levels I said give me twenty just give me twenty eight random I'll check him out and I can come back and tell you what the problem is. And nobody give me twenty. but we we were anxious to get those checks made out to the tenants not joint checks of the and not for we would I think there was some problem with the federal government of was or not in joint checks. No Sir I'm not the best decision for that decision then is all on us the the decision not to do joint checks is all at the state level then yes Sir we made that decision so ever ever calendar every dollar wasted. Thousands of dollars if not tens or hundreds of thousands against wasted out there is all on us. Is that what you're telling me. The federal government would have allowed us to do two party checks because I was told that that's what we were checking on we didn't know that they would allow us to do that but they would have allowed us to do it and we just didn't do it anyway so all the fraud I hope somebody hope channel seven or somebody tracks all of this because it wasn't that y'all weren't warned thank you Mr. Representative Larry recognized. Thank you Mr chair of a representative group appreciate you bringing this issue Ford first discuss it I will I'll certainly be willing is set so landlord tenant legislation has typically come through insurance and commerce I would be very welcome with Mike Senate co chair would agree with me that we do a hearing on this because I keep my concerning your if I want I want to make sure I heard the figure that before was caught up in excess of twenty million dollars was sent directly to tenants though the federal government. Required that it be sent to landlords is that correct no Sir that that is not okay with clarify for me please the US treasury policy allows for payments to go to tenants directly when the landlords do not apply. When we initially launched this program we were only making payments directly to landlords if they both they and the tenant applied however there were a lot of landlords that were not applying in matching with those tenants to enable us to determine the eligibility and and provide those funds at that point in time we made the decision to go ahead and allow payments to go directly to tenants. when the landlord did not apply but we also began making phone calls trying to do our rates to landlords so that they would know for sure that tenants applied if they had missed the email or the email address was correct so we have made an effort to continue to involve the landlord's beyond what the treasury requires us to do okay but the twenty million was not incorrectly sent to the tenants okay but has the practice been suspended of sending checks directly to tenants no Sir we do still send payments directly to tenants if the landlord does not apply okay in but is there now because we it's been brought to light it whether it's the channel seven seven on your side or other issues that there has been issued a issues of fraud is there now a new mechanism by either the vendor or by DHS to to look into those complaints to investigate and if so have any referrals been made to local prosecutors for the that fraud. Yes they have let me just talk a little bit about what we have been doing related to fraud investigation so you know we are meeting regularly with our vendor to identify cases of potential fraud and that that that have occurred Andy specifically cases that we've already made payments on but we're also looking for those cases where maybe you know flag suspicious application and then you know it would be investigated if we deem that it was inappropriate we obviously wouldn't pay on that application as it relates to fraud investigations currently as I said we've made some referrals to county prosecutors were also working with the federal government on larger cases we're required to report cases of a hundred thousand dollars or more fraud to the department of treasury we've made a letter reports to the treasury as of today so they're allowing us to continue working those cases but we're in direct contact with them we are also in contact with the attorney general's office. Because they are receiving a lot of complaints from landlords and from tenants so we've established that direct line of communication and we're also receiving a lot of complaints that come into our office through our reporting hotlines so um we're working a lot of cases but as the weeks have gone on we're seeing more and more reports of fraud they're coming in from the public okay well thank you for that clarification and thank you Mr. Representative right you're recognized for a question. I guess my question is more directed the chair but give given. The. Given the questions of the race and seriousness of those questions is there a way for this body to compelling audit of this program OR is there a way for this body to compel The. Two party checks to be issued rather than what that what the current practices. I'm not sure if there's a motion I can make to. One of those two. Well I'm not going to take a motion at this time but K. if you don't mind coming to the chair we we can help you craft that motion okay thank you thank you. Mister chair senator hill you're recognized. Thank you thank you Sir I'm in line with the representative ray there I think we've got a motion here that we need to do something whether to hold this to have an audit or something done. Representative right you're recognized for a question. Not. Senator Hammer you're recognized. Thank you can you tell me does the vendor that was reference while go have any responsibility in the Assess of getting the checks out to the landlord or what was it that we got that's worth nine point two million or whatever the value of the contract was to help prevent this. So yes Sir the vendor operates a call center statewide call center to be available and answer questions from both tenants landlords the vendor stood up and eligibility system and an online application portal the vendor has done advertising even paid advertising and community outreach to engage community organizations to engage all all organizations in the community to help make sure that awareness you know is statewide that the program is available the vendor also processes applications and yes they are making the payments they are responsible for the payment process so what liability do they hold or are that they are they at fault in any terms of the contract that would hold them responsible for some of the issues that are being discussed today because it would seem to me that there would've been a filter system built into it where they would have to be somewhat responsible for the verification of those checks going out to the right people so they and their for to answer your first question they're not at fault in the terms of their contract but there are additional things that they do to help us prevent fraud date run an identity check because we are requiring social security numbers as part of the application process here in Arkansas they do an identity check they they check to see that people who are applying or not deceased individuals they they do analytics they're looking for commonalities In applications that could identify potentially identify fraud they they make us aware of those we also okay review certain applications when when they're suspicious and and we have denied many many applications because the information we needed was not of provided or it was very questionable and we were unable to resolve it so we are taking many steps to helping reduce and prevent fraud thank you Mr comma to the chair when it whatever whatever of. Of. Thank you get worked up up there may be included in that a review also the contract to make sure that the vendor who got paid that much money if there's a liability that needs to be assigned to them for failure to execute the contract properly that would be included in the motion that's going to be taken thank you. Representative Ferguson you're recognized for a question and I'm sorry about that earlier that's okay thank you Mr chairman of are you doing any electronic fund transfers for payments. We know we are mailing checks yeah I mean it seems like that would not only it was a lot of expensive mailing but also help with fraud and no as a landlord we receive almost everything with elect tronic fund transfers and if you require the landlord to go online and put in the routing number in their account number the bank's going to verify who the person is I mean how much are we spending on mail sending out checks. So all of that is included in what we are paying the vendor I could not give you a specific dollar amount right right now how much of the vendor has expended toward postage but that is all included in our contract yeah it just seems like the F. T. process would make a lot more sense and and prevent a lot of this fraud with landlord checks and mailing and getting mail back I mean I know that's been a constant problem with DHS in general is mailing out a lot of mail that. Cost a lot and get sent back or re read it thank you so so I have a real issue you guys came here to answer questions on this you knew it because we notified you but you can't tell us what the contract is that you're paying a vendor you don't know what that amount is I mean this is a problem that we've had all week all you directors and the secretaries come to the committees and you always say we'll get you that information you know why your common you know the information needs to be provided have that is ridiculous that we can have a meeting and you answer questions from the committee or we can ask questions on it and you send it to us an email so from now on when you come here you have all the information prevalent to the issue. Yes Sir. Senator Johnson you're recognized. Is there a In whatever you're paying a tenant. Is there a timeline that they have to transfer that money to the landlord in in the in your in your payment or in the request. You you asked when the payment is made directly to the tenant if the tenant has a specific time frame to get the payment to the landlord thank you you have to get his you get to get that rental and and and rears play. There is there is no specific timeline required in the in the treasury guidance I will tell you that if the landlord refuses it when the tenant presents the payment that they are allowed to use that for housing stability if they need to find another apartment or or things like that so if if they if the landlord refuses it they can use that those funds to ensure housing stability. Okay second of all a chair. With the so is this gonna be taxable income on tenants in whenever it's goes to the tenant. I am not certain if the IRS is going to consider this taxable income the IRS might not but the state of Arkansas most likely does consider that income and that can be the time where you you we the state of Arkansas can forward that to the to the landlord is that not correct. Well I. The only way I know of for funds to be recaptured is when there is an overpayment established and that over payment is allowed to be collected through tax intercept. So are you in the process of that Innistrad you want these fraudulent cases. So if if fraud is determined then then yes we would create an overpayment claim an attempt to collect the funds from from the person who had the over payment and and yes that state tax intercept would become part of that process. Thank you. Represented in it you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair I know that this program has been challenging to implement so I like to thank you all for all your work on implementation and also one of my constituents which who is the landlord he has used this program several times with his tenants and he has been pleasantly surprised with the outcome and he said was that a good an easy process to go through how much money is still left in the. For implementation sorry for the from the federal government. We have about. It's around fifty seven million left that can be paid for eligible households. Representative Beatty you're recognized. My my question is I I think just a simple search on on the State DHS site says that this rental relief program funds would go into gross income and and based on that it would be taxable income and and probably one of the reasons why you're obtaining social security numbers and driver's licenses requirement my question is not so much own who the check is made out to but how the funds are utilized because the entire intent of the program was to pay for housing calls rental to the landlord and utilities and one of the questions on the DHS site states do I have to pay these funds back and the answer is no if you utilize these funds in the manner intended to pay the tenants and and pay for utilities so my question is what steps are you doing as an agency to verify that these funds were utilized for the intended purpose and what all it have you done and what steps have you done today to verify the sponsor utilize the way they were supposed to be. So we. What we do is referred. Cases that we become aware of that the tenant did not provide the funds to the landlord what. First of all we try to stop it from happening in the first place we do what we can to prevent the fraud in the application process and involve the landlords but when those checks go directly to tenants we no longer have control of exactly what they do with that money the rules are that they should present any money owed to the landlord to the landlord and offer that payment to the landlord and they can face penalties fraud related penalties if they do not do that but we do not have a widespread mechanism in place at this point to verify that those payments were made to landlords and again if the landlord does not accept the money when it is presented it is allowable for the tenant to use that money for their own housing stability. To obtain housing or get different housing in those things so every time it doesn't go to the landlord does not mean that the tenant has created or committed fraud follows but I mean again that that's noted in your in your handout but my my concern is still that there's no we're just handing out money you're right checks out what they do with it there's nobody verifying this to where the funds were were utilized and that's recoverable money it may not be the hundred thousand dollar and and hit your cap that you have to report but it's still for all and it's and it's your responsibility based on what I'm reading in your own hand out to verify that those funds are utilized for the purposes intended and what I've heard you say today and correct me if I'm wrong as you have done nothing other than referred this to someone else to deal with an issue that you are responsible for. Just to clarify when when director Frank Franklin said that she was referring the case for investigation she is referring those to the DHS fraud unit and we conduct those investigations of follow up how many active fraud investigations do you have pending right now based on those referrals we currently have seventy five seventy five out of out of how many checks to do so now. We have. As of this past Friday made seven thousand eight hundred and ten payments directly to tenants in the dollar amount the dollar amount as of the twenty fourth was twenty three million dollars how well. But I again I'll wait for that motion sense like we need. Flowers you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Of those those were a couple of my questions that that were just ask but I'm wondering out of the checks that you sent in and it sounds like you said that they. the recipients of this assistance has the option to either pay the landlord or use it for stable housing I just want to clarify do we have any way of knowing which one of those things happens when they get the check. We do not and and they should present funds owed to the landlord to the landlord first if the landlord refuses they should then use the funds for housing stability but. Okay we do not have information about. How they use those funds do we know how many landlords have refused the funds. We do not okay thank you we all of our guidance does say that we recommend that they get a receipt for the payments that they may to be prepared to up for audit should the treasury or other audit body want to verify these things thank you welcome. Representative ray you're recognized Mister chairman I have a motion if you'll accept it I will. Mr given the serious and substitute nature's all questions have been raised about this program I move that we recommend that DHS begin issuing two party checks under the rental assistance program fund. And the legislative audit perform an audit of these funds as proper motion drive second I have a second driving's discussion on the motion Senator Clark do you have discussion on the motion. The I appreciate the motion I'm glad that it was made of and it is just a suggestion on the The two party checks correct that is correct because we have absolutely no power correct that's correct to keep the executive branch from throwing away all the money they won't throw away right. That's not correct but we're on this point without legislation that's correct that would be correct thank you. Representative first you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair and yes I just might have a recommendation as part of the audit process are you are you sending ten ninety nines to the landlord we're not take any questions as far as an agent on my might suggest they do that so then if the Landel gets ten nine nine they to get the money that would help in the audit process thanks. See no further discussion all those in favor of the motion say aye. All oppose ayes have it thank you so we move on to item I two. I need a motion for approval on the broadband contract that was held last our motion second autos favor say aye All opposed us have it with that we'll move on a J. one J. one is a motion to refer to the House public Transportation Committee is an I SP a motion second. A second all those in favor say aye. All oppose ayes have it the ISP is been referred and with that we have no further business we stand adjourned.