Code Revision Commission

Well first off I'd like to welcome we do have some new members here on the code revision commission both somewhat new legislators to the commission and then we have Mister Hankins Mr Thompson and miss Bennet and Bennet will be joining our commission so welcome welcome to code revision. First item of business is the approval of the minutes of the December first twenty twenty meeting and that's founded the. Of your packet and I'll give you a moment take to take a look at that the. Okay we have a second. I'll stick it all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The minutes are approved. Remove into exhibit. see which is our primary item of business. Of the. Conflicts from the recently completed twenty twenty one legislative session and our code revisor. Route. Those issues and we'll try to take him up in a. In an efficient fashion Christmas Benett welcome Senator Tucker. So we just just approve the minutes we're just just now about to move into the conflicts from the. No problem how are you. Yes. All right. Welcome. We just approve the minutes and we were moving to to item C. on the agenda which is our primary item of business this is these are the conflict from the twenty twenty one session and with that I'll turn it over to our code revisor Mister Henderson and he'll lead us through each of these conflicts item by item so that we can consider what appropriate action would be on the chilly side. I'll I'll try to be brief and the. Much as I can the first item has to do with the Arkansas seventy ACT eight point twenty one as drafted it was drafted into title one John provisions Arkansas Code. Reviewing that in light of the fact that would it hasn't mainly is do you responsibilities of of certain public officers employees a state of we would. Transfer this over to title twenty one. Which is style public officers and employees. And I do have a question that I think I know the answer to but just for the benefit of the Commission as we take up these conflicts of it's my understanding and it has been our past practice and and hopefully you can confirm this that is we take up these potential conflicts that the lead sponsors on these bills that have all but alternate become law that they are notified of the fact that the Commission potentially will take up action of each of these is that correct I apologize I should mention that yes yes they have they've been notified of Mr Miller said the director the bureau did that last report and we we will see a when we have senator Hammer here I know that on occasion will have other representative or centers it might show up to to offer input but just for the benefit of the Commission so everybody understands that that we do provide notice to the to the individual legislators to sponsor these bills of the possibility potential. Tucker. That's that's traditionally our practices to to go through them item by item several. I guess it it will probably depend on the specific items with regard to this item of moving it over to the title twenty one we can take that up individually if there's others that relate to the same act then certainly missed. Are there any that is a. Okay status simply moving it into the top twenty. Questions. And in light of the of this act in this and the. The witchcraft is subject matter doesn't really isn't of the main firearms laws that we do have would be entitled five to offenses. In this this really has to do with the Division possibilities certain public officers employees what they can and can't do of you look at. One dash six dash one of five on page five. The following persons can be one point for shall not enforce this for allegiances officers enforcement of the federal statutes order filled agencies. Illegal for employee of the state. Or representing either employee of the municipality or county or the state economical low with all the rights grants assignments so long for service in the state of. In other words it's it's really focused on places certain public officers employees what they can and cannot do. And the. Title twenty one being bullish employees as that's where. me those laws Sullivan that that specifically are located. Any any other questions. I have. Are you are you speaking about the transfer itself or references well. There there would not need to be in this case I'm sorry in your packet have you played one dash to dash three zero three Arkansas Code which lists the authority. Of the Commission. Among other things commission has expressed or to do is to remember the letter we designate. The items in the code not just be doing in fact. This just go to the end of title. Subchapter. Hill I'd have to look and see probably be its own chapter does point an applicant C. might be subchapter in the. John fishing so that about the title been really gotten there yet London. Make sure can begin moving in over to twenty one locate specifically. Work this out of in less unless there's some objection. I'm just thinking trying to be as efficient as possible as we come to each item unless there's significant discussion then I'll just say without objection it it will be approved if you have an objection or want to make a a substitute motion or certainly feel free but that way we're not. Spent a lot of time on motions in seconds for otherwise what might be non controversial item so without objection this item will be moved to title twenty one. Right Mr Henderson the next item has to do with the defined terms serious harm in the human trafficking act. at eleven oh six Page two. You see the bracketing the Trancers harms to find the only problem is the human trafficking act already has definition of service harm it's almost but not quite the same language of the president language is on page two of the you see the five digit eighteen just wanted to definitions following that number eleven. The president law. For by putting it of tends to focus pictures harm you see towards the west liner to commercial sex act or six as plus performance in order to avoid incurring that harm you go back to the language that was adopted this past session the lands for two performances like or not included in that. we have obviously conflict we have to definition to one term to to definitions and the only way to reconcile this ultimately is to assume a figure that this one pass pass session with supersede earlier inconsistent legislation. We also in this particular case puts into corrections bill for next session is confirm that movement. Any questions. It in my correct. Both definitions are under five eighteen one of two yes that's crazy. Is item eleven who the new definition was further down as I'm seventeen correct and so the record. Basically item eleven would go away with or at least that definition would go away and items the the we knew which whichever place eleven with was seventeen. Any questions or discuss. Right without objection that change we made and. The next one we assume we have a series of these less law conflicts the first one. Is between ACT four forty eight and six ten concerning the drawing about order cancel school elections. One pages two and three. Of a ACT. Four forty eight. The bottom page two of. C. language spin and been amended. And then in section three below that. In particular line for teen if you look at the ten days. Language was struck this past session. In four forty eight. You look at the next act. Page two. Fourteen one living K. there. Notices sensually this the same sort of language. Of the problem is that. From the deadlines. Of our different. However. The later ACT six ten also has and effective date clause. On page fifteen is not affected children one twenty twenty two. So the way this would be codified is we would codify the first act thirty speak for forty eight. And would be in effect until January one twenty twenty two at which point then. Later act would would kick in and supersede for forty eight. There's no really in any other way of actually dealing with that. Questions. So as I understand it the later act. What was actually passed and signed or went into effect. Last which normally would control does not have an effective date until twenty twenty two and therefore the previous act that was passed earlier in the session would apply until January twenty twenty two that's correct. Any questions. If not without objection that change will be made and that item will be referred for crafting a. Next regular session. I am for election law conflict I don't know if I can explain this exactly that's not a good sign I know I mean I can explain a displayed in general what what we did what we had to do what I had to in fact take XM fifty six and nine twenty four respect to seven dash four dash one twenty and essentially sort of stitch them together. we're choir to under one dash to actual seven B. also in your packet of. To give effect. To every part of an act that we can except when an irreconcilable conflict which case court and that the later Act controls we have so much of later control situation here as much as we had to figure out how to give effect to all the different parts. Whatever the amending up seven seven four one twenty. The questions and I see Senator Hammer is here and I believe one or both of these. For his pieces legislation. Thank you Mr chairman Kim Hammer stay senate district thirty three my understanding from talking to those that we consulted in the drafting of this bill these bills it doesn't alter the intent of the bills it doesn't do anything to change what the legislation would allow it's just for simplicity inflow that they've been brought together and just as the sponsor the bill I have no issues with what's being done here today and if that helps simplify things as far as how region code that's great and I appreciate the opportunity to share those comments thank you. Also failed to mention it if there is there are any members of the public for the legislators that do have comment. We get to the point of discussion or any questions feel free to get my attention and we certainly will accept those comments. Any any questions of Senator Hammer. Thank you thank you senator. Thank you. That was dangerous since we have a fellow senator here we really could. Have been some questions Senator Tucker whatever or to ask. All right any questions or discussions. So my understanding of the recommendation is that that the two ACT. Three. As we. Okay not allowed. Our our situation is right now we are looking at page proofs of supplements to the code we haven't gotten to title seven which is general election laws yet as with or some way to. If you have an objection to let us know. Reasonably quickly as what if we what if we what we've done on in in the past is if we have the code revisor. Email that out to the commission if there's any if there's any concern with the language we can we can set a meeting to have. Or if there's no if there's no objection within a within a certain. Okay. That's fine. Okay so we'll we'll set that one will we'll pass over that one for now but just for for clarity as far as what the recommendation is for the code provides or it would be to take essentially both acts and combine the language of the two acts and then to come back and clean that up. Session that correct. Correct of I did send out this. Complex issues or report a tip C. one that in this particular case is to axe hi there is look that is in there the actual language I tried to identify my act number I try to keep the market strike to an underlying from the from the two action there's will seek of. Better grasp understanding of what they're doing. All right so we'll we'll pass over this one for now and we'll take a. Right. Right now we're gonna move on and I don't probably another election bill so you'll have the code revisor lay out what the issues are in the. That is what we we can do that. in this one two ACT six four four eight and ten fifty one. Of the minutes seven dash five dash two zero two. Changing publish notice date twenty days before the preferred preference primary election ten days prior general run off school special elections to eight days before the beginning early voting in the presidential primary general primary general election general office school special election. Change the date by which objection was made to the board of election commissioners concerning election official from ten days to seven days after the election notice had been posted. At ten fifty one minutes simply to to basically to allow county party chair his or her spouse or the spouse of poll worker direct elections laws written objection. And the within ten days post list elected officials. And as I stated appears to the use ten days mainly because that was law previous tax for forty eight didn't take into account the change Committed to the act Pitsch. Three of Act. Four forty eight if you look. Section three. It took out on line fourteen near the ten days a million eight days of on line twelve suite ace is cross across the board. At ten fifty one. Also on page three. Section five if you'll look at the bottom on line thirty five. Along with the amendments respective spouses it also within the ten day content calendar days after posting. And as a we we think that's probably C. simply situation where they just picked up the ten days from the previous law. And then plug that in. And then finally if you look at. Top of the next page also did talk about the Section within ten calendar days there as well which we think also. In light of the change by Act four forty was intended to be of. Should be that the subpoena sent sent sent to me so same seven day limit. So any questions. But it looks like looks like practically because the date was moved from the posting was moved from ten days to eight days there could be situations where. There's no objection within the ten day period but the ten day period actually extends into the period of time which the vote is actually being taken correct thank and so you could have poll workers that potentially are objected to timely objected to but today already began working the polls timely standpoint the time frame to do it but election yep or you started having. Concerning any questions on this or is. Good was moving ahead. Alright if but with no objection we will the change will be made and the I will be referred protect. Item six Jack three eighty four and three eighty five. As to a campaign contribution levels to cleaning. One of the fact that the. One of three eighty five came easy four three four obviously signed by the governor Also to. The three eighty five is effective Jan one twenty twenty three words X. ready for. I believe this is effective July twenty eighth of this year so for this particular conflict three eighty four be in effect until Jan one twenty twenty three in which case and three five would kick in. We look. Yes. You can talk. Senator Ricky pull of Mike over close. Okay. C.. I am my recommendation is that probably need to separate bill pro nineteen correction because this is as you can tell pretty substantive I believe this point change that change that back to that. No limit but that's that's that's my opinion commission concerning do what once went to Christian bills. What what what specifically is the conflict. Excellent campaign contribution levels establish by rule the Arkansas ethics commission under subsection of this section production from then this elections hello the does away with women's just sets it what the as a commission set so that as far as a specific a specific dollar amount. So the the issue is the first bill changed it from the for my part number to a formula the second bill still reference the hard number but I mean it seems that my recollection is ins other instances like this you have to bills that we're running. Side by side and that's why in I mean there's it just so happened you were the sponsor of both but but it's not uncommon to have to bills that are running through the house and the Senate in this additional language. I don't know I mean personally I think I can be comfortable that it's not a substantive change to simply say the intent of that second bill was that. You can only take you can only click the receive con. For for one race. Because that I mean it wouldn't certainly wouldn't your intent. It just so happened you're running to. Questions or comments on that. Only the only conflict but. Subsection be under three five it it's fine I mean that's the substance language that you can only. What kind. Three eighty five contains the words exceeds two thousand seven hundred dollars per election. Which is not language that you added that's just language that was existing in code at the time it was filed and that's that's where. Actuation come up in the past we've been able to make that determination. Right. Right the effective date and the fact that the existing statutory language was included. Not been included. As a matter practice the with total aggregate amount and not included the existing language there would be no conflict but because of the way bills are drafted you go ahead and include. An answer paragraph that you're. Ninety nine date this point the situation is low that I thank you everyone in effect for twenty twenty to election is going to be in effect. It's coming after after the end so barring some special election. Of some sort during and in the middle of the twenty twenty three legislative session. At that point Joe simply could either by which the correction bill or some other bill adjust this so the B. one. which says which in the total equity exceeds maximum campaign coverage levels tells by rule there's the ethics commission per election and then we'll take up the rest language with two four year of which is a. Subdivision B. one B. the collected amount collection based on and it would. Yeah I get the total let be plugged in I think one think that's enough. And that's the way I look at is I don't think it was an error I think it was just it was a. It was a product of the fact that the bills were running virtually simultaneously and wanted one thing wanted another represent Gazaway you're recognized. And we're working to get the lights on the green shows that you're recognized but I don't think they're actually on so we're trying to get that figured out where we can live up. I'm not sure we have to look up read the AG's office that offered an opinion on some of this recently but I do know that we had to we had to tailor that recess resolution fairly narrowly so I'm not sure now that you know there may be an Apapa. I mean there's a possibility special session at course there's always a lot of competition to as to what goes on the the actual call but I'm not sure that we would. Okay just to be clear on the date issue you're saying to allow the current the. The previous act that was passed first essentially to allow it to continue in force moving forward and that that. When twenty twenty three rolls around. That the. Aggregate amount would not be reduced back to twenty seven hundred. All right we have a motion with. And I do have one follow up question maybe Senator Tucker knows if we didn't make this change with the ethics commission go ahead and set the amount at the increased amount. Plans with the code. So. I would just rather but yes so the ethics commission will continue to do what they do and set what the maximum contribution is according to what the FTC does which is what they're rule is. But. You know this just makes the code consistent with that which has a candidate I'm more comfortable okay and that was part of my concern is are we gonna have kind of a yo yo effect on what you can and can't receive in the law and the code says one thing in the committee. President Gazaway. You're recognized because I want to make one quick apology I know that it's senator Tucker not senator Clark I don't typically referred to two US senators bothered by Senator first name and so I want to offer a brief apology for that. Duly noted. All right we have a motion and a second and correct me if I'm wrong but. The. In short it is essentially the language and be one A. instead of reverting to two thousand seven hundred it with great we would retain the language. On into twenty twenty three of the maximum contribution level establish by rule the Arkansas ethics commission Xcerra yes and that we would build the change up total and adding amount following aggregate that would be included but then the reference after that we would retain the language from the property. What the way we would we would put that in the code is we we duplicate this section so that the Act ready for language would be consensys is going to be in effect July twenty eight okay of as it stands the infected January one twenty twenty three we would we would in effect merge the two but the only portion of of the three eighty five that would actually going to affect twenty twenty three would be subsection B. subdivision B. that's correct okay all right I think we're on the same page all right we have a motion with a second any further discussion. All in favor say aye. By any opposed yes I have so we'll we will make that change and also that will be referred for a correct. The next regular session. All right Mister Henderson. Carryover funds include campaigns. This is a four different acts. The. Which the not too difficult seven thirty seven on page one. If you notice of appeals the definition and takes care of funds out of almost every provision. At two seventy two. to seventy two. Amends definition carryover funds because that definition repealed we we would treat two seventy two as fact of being an elegy. Start with. At three twenty four and a couple of new subdivisions. Also on page one you'll see that of where it references. Carryover funds. what we would do is treat those references as affected appeal blacks seven thirty seven. The last codified the remainder of the language. So for example. Three I on the first page can't officeholder assessed a fine by the Arkansas Commission under 7-6-218 B. four B. for the use of campaign funds as personal income. Yeah a candidate or officeholder shall not use campaign funds to pay the fine we simply take out the the language center survives intent on repealing but carryover. In an act ten twenty nine. Dealing with the final reports sensually would we would do the same thing which is take out the language that refers carryover funds reports. Thus merging them giving effect to all of them. And we would course have this integration bill to get Johnson to confirm all that in this section. Speaker Shepherd discussed much more progressive and worse looking Any questions or comments on agenda item number eight. So without objection will follow the record. Next one cottage food production operations. At three OO six thank you John Page one. If you see it inserts cottage food production on one line thirty one into the present law. Has emergency clause made effective. Which was March ninth. However at ten forty. Took out the entire definition of cottage food production operation. Page one pill definition references. Appeals or other provisions and an act of the food freedom act. So what we would do is codify ten forty. As a leader Nachman entry thanks through six superseded give me merge clause after six would then be effective until July twenty. And then a ten forty chicken in any event. You want are you look reviewing this everyone just a moment before we move on. Of which one. Well I think three of six was creating an exemption from two to from term food service establishment. For a certain cottage food production operations and I think the Act ten forty the food freedom act was initially doing away with all of that. Two Senate covers cottage food production specific specifically under the terms and difficult at work homemade food drink product as defined also when that new language relationship rations that act. send you updates that these were son in law or or voted on Signed into law of this one the the ten forty was able twenty nine. Neil was March. March ninth was the actress. Somewhere before February eighth that I can tell. So we're for for three nights. Engrossed. Reason I ask is because I have a recall and I also see here that Senator Davis was the lead Senate sponsor of both bills. Yes and so if ACT ten forty was chronologically. Later my much later than three of six in this. You realize what you have not visited. There's there's no real way put this together because at ten forty repealed the definition references in 20-57-201 which is where actress six minutes located this sort of. Or any other questions or comments. Action and will follow the recommendation. Move on to okay finaliza number nine. Last one of these X. four of four and eight ninety four. The both men. Essentially the same sections To a certain extent slightly different ways they cannot be reconciled textually. The we both had the same sponsors. And it's were believe understanding that this actually turned out with the wanted which was acting ninety four later act was the one they want to control. I was the same question I did before which is by the time one for the two. House and Senate sponsor of both bills I expected filed same timing is in times of same sponsors identical. I'm here identical bills. Or. And the second one yeah I was amended March ninth. So they're probably filed right around the same time perhaps in the same day. So companion bills. We we've we've contacted sponsors on on all of these and I confess we also talked with the builder after and so I understand from from bill. Did you hear back from. No. Mr Miller's want to contact them and and he's been out of town. Contact with him but. I spoke to him text him yesterday and he had to meet anybody. Yeah I think that's a fair question have the same. Represent Gazaway. How much is there an actual conflict in language Mr enters. To to the Senate can is pretty you know they're pretty comprehensive and standpoint the two latest. As mentioned that they both have same sponsors They've been notified I haven't heard that they've contacted Mr Miller about anything current budget with these require a change in the technical corrections The thing is that we would simply codify eight ninety four entry for forfeited his B.. We. Okay so have situations were identical companion bills were filed and won gets minutes. Signed law and that's one two two seven was essentially adopted back in ninety. So we would go with the later act. The sponsors were notified they've not appear they've not given any further comment to that not to me all right is there any questions or discussion on that. Taken as a. Thank gree with. It you know it's I think it's really just a courtesy that we try to make sure the sponsors who would be out of the legislature of a hundred thirty five members responsibility to. Most Most inclined to have an opinion on it I think that as a practice I think that those who have had issues generally which. By email but there's no there's no formal rule that says no responses acquiescence. Gazaway thank you Mr Speaker I'm not just for the commission's information I text representative Maddox a photo of the bills and said these are two Bills same sponsors did you intend for the later. Act to be the effective act I'm in the meeting now I need to know and he responded yes Sir very good. All right. Okay so without objection will make that make that change. All right so that's that concludes subsection six of subsection C.. And I know we need to come back to the election bill is there any other business to be taken up. Other than my report will three short why don't let's go ahead and take the code revises report and we'll take a short break and we can look at the proposed language on the election bill and then we can reconvene saw recognized Mister Henderson for his report under this very quickly of last commission meeting in December I mentioned and discussed re codification we have and are looking at five titles to re codify. I'm going to be talking with the military to the bureau and Matt Marty Garrity she me and Matt Miller system director of. What's gonna take you anything waive the staffing and the timing to do this as explained his last mission meeting of title nineteen public finances for this long standpoint of work on the codifying it and it will take I would estimate if we get some cooperation by various parties maybe for maybe as much as four years to get to bill form for introduction to a ricotta five that and I said we've got about four other sort of back behind that in in process since I talked with the. Are you ready ma'am eligible next commission meeting will be talking a little about health we need to go about that process. Also we are in been squashed little bit with the representative from Lexus the publishing company of we're looking at how to deal with the case don't institutions in the annotated Code in light of the spring court decision and publishers dot org B. Georgia. We want to do recommend the commission look at. NO impossible contract modification. Finally One of things I was going to bring up today but I realize we can't there's some type of Christians need to be made in some constitutional amendments. As some of you may be aware the commission has some authority to. Looking at today however the way that's written the Commission in only make those kinds corrections to constituents those parts that were amended by legislation. As you know some of the country's mints can be. Supermajority vote unfortunately. With one minor exception of the corrections that we looked at in the constitution's any amendments or new original language and have not been look at amended by the General Assembly. so commission of having authority to deal with that directly what will probably do is drop nature take traction bill or bills. The Journal simply have you'll take that. Tions Amendment ninety eight the medical. Got some minor but interesting problems to that. That I can report that of like fifty four volumes we have finished up as of this morning fourteen shops so forty to go well who should be finished by the middle of July. So is this the staff years worked very hard and done very good job on the both the bills and the acts as well as now serves of this may be the earliest that we would have gotten the pocket participants out in maybe twenty years. Thank you Mr Henderson and and for the benefit of the new commissioners bill the case that Mister Henderson alluded to relates to. I guess to paraphrase essentially the copy right of various states to their code and so from time to time their developments on that front that we consider and have to consider what position we take but so just. So you'll know that's that it relates back to primarily litigation from Georgia correct yes actually and and so when those issues come up but we usually get input from Lexus nexus. You know what the proper responses from from our standpoint. Anything else Mister Henderson. Yes Sir all right why don't we take five or ten minute break so we can look at the proposed language. Related to item number four the election law conflicts and then we'll reconvene and to consider whether any actions appropriate on that. Commissions in recess. All right I think. Clark if you are you good okay I think that it looks like everybody has has had an option review so what we will quickly come back into session. And. With without objection. We will Correct the code revisor to make the changes in combining the two acts and we will designate that additionally as being one for technical. All right any any other business. Seeing none without objection return.