Code Revision Commission
Video
Transcript
9 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
0:46
OK. so I received word we're ready to start
I'm gonna Call this meeting of the Arkansas code revision commission to order I understand from staff that we'll need to take roll of those I guess members of the legislature that are attending in person in LittleRock so that I can note them and take care of handling the administrative
matters related to their to their presence so with that all'll if Kevin if you would have those are in in attendance state who they are so that we can have record of that members we'll start over here
Speaker 7
1:32
on my left if you'll announce your name on the record for the meeting Representative Jimmyazaway
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:40
p re s ent ative Representativeen Ferguson Representative Fred Allen
Speaker 20
1:48
Representative Keithrooks start over here Yeah when when you get situated yeah if you'll announce yourself senator Tucker. Clarklark Tucker we've got chair we've got one more p re s ent ative Jesse Mcgruder
Speaker 28
2:26
And I see I see Senator King is there as well
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:35
we're good that's everyone right thank you and Kevin and Matthew if if others show up if you'll just make note of their of their presence. I appreciate everybody making time for this meeting today part of the need as we talked about at our last meeting is there are some supplements that are going to be produced and put
out here in the very near future and so we wanted to try to reconvene and I appreciate staff making the remote options available so that we could get this scheduled sooner than later with that we'll turn to our agenda the first item is the approval of the minutes from June 19th of 2025 their exhibit be in the packet motion to approve
OK that's a motion frompresentative Gazaway right
right is there a second Mr Chair did you get
Speaker 20
3:37
the second Senator Bryant OK Senator Bryant any discussion all those in favor
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:43
indicate by saying aya opposed why don't we why don't we do
this if if I seepresentative Wardlaw just walked in as well and I don't know that we have I don't know that we necessarily have a vice chair but I think it'd be easier if one of the rep if maybe senator Tucker if maybe he could chair the meeting from there in LittleRock and then I can just participate remotely and that might help things to flow a little better yeah
OK OK with that objection I'll assume the role temporarily in your stud Mr Chair. and and and no
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
4:49
and just for the other members senator Tucker I think is the second longest serving or from the senate side is the longest serving member of code revision presently and so that's why I just suggested that he take the chair but with that I'll let Senator Tucker take us forward from there
OK we've got three more legislators here who need to announce themselves Representative Wardlaw would you just
recognize yourself please introduce yourself and representative in it it didn't let me
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
5:31
put my code in I feel weird. it just representativeodla of South Arkansas just interested in what we're changing. Representative
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
5:42
pilkington uhpresentative Pilkington, Johnson Pope County, had some bills that were affected by this so I'm
here because they're my bills and I want to make sure y'all do the right thing you're
very welcome we'd love to have you here Representative bennett good
Speaker 56
5:57
afternoon I'ms representative Denise Senne district 80 thank you thank youpresentative welcome OK with that Next album on our agenda
are the items that were held over from the June 19th meeting and I'm just gonna try Kevin you take the lead Commissioners if you'll look at exhibitc which is in your packet
Speaker 7
6:18
it's going to contain the items that were held over from the June 2025 meeting concerning the 2025 actct airs in conflicts there was an updated version of this exhibit that was emailed to you yesterday for this part of the meeting you will also need supplemental exhibit C1 this supplemental exhibit is also in your packet and was emailed to you yesterday. Similar how we did the last meeting for this exhibit there are page numbers at the top right of the exhibit to help keep track of where we are I will use that page number to
guide us through the exhibit if you look on page one of the exhibit there are brief summaries of the items that were held over Following those summaries there are excerpts from the relevant acts concerning each item that was held over. I will introduce each item with reference to its item number and the page number at the top right so our first item that was held over held over was item A7. Beginning on page two This item concerns actct706.
on page two lines 25 through 26 the act references the Arkansas pollution control and ecology Commission. the commission has referenced again on page three line 15. these are all with respect to setting a deductible However, if you look on page three lines 10 through 12 the language refers to the amount of the deductible for corrective action being set by rule of the division here meaning the division ofnvimental quality. at the last meeting we indicated that staff's initial thoughts were that division should be
commissioned here you all asked us to reach out to the interested parties which we did so we reached out to the department of Energynvironment and I believe they have a
Speaker 10
8:00
representative here today to speak on this please come forward please just identify yourself for the record and
you may proceed Good afternoon I'm Michael Mccalister deputy chief counsel
Speaker 66
8:26
and Environment the department includes both the pollution control and ecology commission and the division ofvimental quality. we noted the same concern that the Committing noted under the applicable
Speaker 67
8:41
law the pollution control and ecology commission is the body that promulgates rules And we noted the apparent
discrepancy in the wording so we would concur with whatever you all want to do I understand that you have a supplemental exhibit and I have read that I I I know Walterright he's a very fine attorney I don't disagree with anything he said so whatever the committee's pleasure is but we agree it is the commission that promulgates rules not the division thank you go ahead
the division does not actually establish rules that's what you're
Speaker 66
9:31
saying that's correct they implement them but the pollution control and ecology commission is the rulemaking authority promulgates thank
Speaker 10
9:40
yes sir there's also a supplemental exhibitc1 for this agenda item. this was
Speaker 7
9:45
provided to us bypresentative Zachgramlich who is a primary sponsor of actct706 and in there there is a memo from the Mitchell Williams firm and if you read through that
the suggestion appears to be that there should be no change made to the reference so just wanted to bring that up to the commission's attention. p re s ent ative gra ha
m ly have a comment on this did you all reach out to him or hear back from him other than the was he did he participate in this memo I'll leave that matthew
Speaker 79
10:29
I spoke to Representative Grahamwich. he asked us to distribute that memo and authorized its release today I'll just give the members a minute to look through it in case you haven't had
that time yet Senator Bryan did you have something just c clarifying the memo basically says leave it as it
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
10:47
is don't make any any changes whatsoever to the existing language as it was passed that's the way we read the memo, sir and is it is it out of the scope of authority if if this body
were to change division page two line 11 to commission just for Ab and see all match or is that beyond the scope
Speaker 7
11:11
of our authority that would fall within your traditional authority under Arkansas code 12303 if you feel like that the reference there to commission
Speaker 91
11:17
excuse me to division is an error you would have the authority to correct that to commission is
Speaker 85
11:23
that the department's position we read it as
Speaker 67
11:32
as somewhat confusing but again I have read the memorandum I don't have any issues with the analysis offered by a Walter Wright the attorney author of that we thought it was a little confusing and maybe it would be clearer if it was changed to commission but I'm not here to advocate for either outcome Mr Wwright's not here today is he? does the code advisor have a position in light of the memo
from Mrright at the Mitchell firm this is one I I defer
Speaker 73
12:09
to you all I think it just comes down to whether you think that that is an erroneous reference when it uses division there and then it would be up to you all to use your authority if you did. But
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:22
I defer to you all Senator Bryant I guess my question would be if if the division as a broad authority were to attempt to circumvent the commission by rule and they had their own internal dialogue where would that flesh
out in the courts if something not that it would ever go that far but
Speaker 67
12:43
I'd have to defer to the agency on that we read the statutory authority as putting rulemaking authority in the commission not in the division the division can petition for a rulemaking which is how it usually happens but the rulemaking authority is clearly vested in the commission under statute
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
13:03
but there was a conflict of personalities or problems between the commission and the division where the division feel like they have the authority and maybe not this administration but subsequent administrations where they feel like they have that authority based on this language to go ahead and circumvent the commission regardless of what other law states can't imagine that they would they'd be a pretty tough road to hoe.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
13:36
you got any thoughts on thispresentative Gasway? Well My thought is that we should make a change when
you look at the language on page two the amount of the deductible incurred by the owner operator before the owner operators eligible to receive payment for correct for corrective action shall be established by a rule by the division that is just simply incorrect. the division cannot establish a rule we've seem to all agree on that
that language is just simply incorrect. it should read the commission and I think we should make a change there. I don't particularly agree with the C1 opinion. I don't think that that can be read together and I would propose that we make the change.'ll'll take that as a question yeah go ahead Yeah I've got a question
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
14:31
for for Matthew or or Kevin. so what we have in front of us are excerpts from the bill and these are
references to when the deductible is set. Have we looked at the other existing sc the preexisting sections of Arkansas code to determine if there are other references to the deductible being set. I mean are these the only three references to the deductible in Arkansas code if so that would seem to I would I would tend to agree withpresentative gazaway we have two references to the commission setting it one reference to the
division the division is subservient to the commission is it would be my understanding and so it would seem that it should be corrected but do we know are there other are there other references to that deductible being set in the law
Speaker 7
15:27
I'm not aware of any uhpresentative Shepard this particular deductible all came in as new language within this act But I'm not aware of any other deductibles that may be in surrounding sections but for this particular section this was
all new language that came in OK so
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:47
let's see I was gonna try and search it real quick just to see this is the petroleum storage tank trust fund is that right Yes sir
and it's the entirety of this is the entirety of this section or this subchapter is this all new language the whole subchapter No sir
Speaker 7
16:28
just in this particular act it's amending a section that's in that subchapter and it's adding language concerning this new deductible so if this is adding
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
16:40
a new deductible then I mean the bill is the bill is essentially the
I mean that's the totality of all references so it kind of I mean it I mean I tend to I always tend to leap towards not making a change but it seems like this doesn't make sense and the I mean I would I would want to hear what the department says but if the division tried to set a deductible I would just I mean I would assume the commission would have a problem with that Mr Mccalister
Speaker 117
17:24
I would assume the same thing I don't have the whole
Speaker 67
17:29
sub chapter in front of me and going off memory is always kind of a not a good idea when you're a lawyer at the table but this whole subchapter deals with the petroleum storage tank trust fund they're the old language of the sub chapter discussed if if an owner operator has a
release that's eligible for coverage under the trust fund they had to expend the first7500 dollars and the statute said to be treated as a deductible this bill changes that number and says that number will be set by a rule promulgated by the commission And I I did
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
18:19
I did a quick search here on the subchapter
looking for other references where the in the same sentence there's a reference to deductible or and either to the commission or the division and it looks like these are the only references So I I I would tend
to agree with I guess the motion that representative Gaway was making. OK well I'm gonna takepresentativeasaway's
comment as motion and I'll take your comments representativepard as a second we got some background noise coming in from someone any other
any other discussion on on that motion all in favor of making the the motion is to is to change the word division on page three line 12 to commission right Representativeaway OK all in favor of that motion? and he opposed and he opposed motion carries
it looks like it's page three
line 11, right that's right page three line 11 division to commission thank you Representative Sheerd. page3 page
Yeah before we move on Representative Barnett would you please identify yourself Representative Barnett you just identify yourself and your mic just say that you're
Speaker 132
19:50
say that you're here yeah Lincoln Barnett district63 thank
Speaker 10
19:53
youpresentative Mr Chair next item is item C5.
this is you'll find this beginning on page four of your exhibit. This item concerns actct796 on page 5 lines7 and
Speaker 7
20:07
8, the name of the board of the division of state services for the blind is changed to the board of the division of stateervices for the deaf and blind and on page sixs and seven of your exhibit lines361 and5 you'll see references to the commissioner and references to the division that were changed accordingly However, as we discussed at the last meeting the boards and the division's powers and duties
were not expanded to include services for individuals who are deaf in the creation section for the division itself was not changed Staff's initial thoughts here were that the board and the division should remain as the board of the division of stateervices for the blind in the division of state services for the blind you all asked us to reach out to the department of commerce so we did that and
Speaker 10
20:48
Mr Jakeinley from the department of commerce is here. Mr Oneley you'll just identify yourself for the record and you may proceed
Speaker 136
21:06
Good afternoon members Jakeinley, director of legislative affairs for the department of commerce yes we received a request from the bureau and we responded our specific issue is with section 19 of actct796 that amends Arkansas code section 2511205. my understanding is that the purpose of actct796 was to merge the operations for the school for the deaf and the school for the blind together this specific provision
of the Arkansas code contains two references to the school those are in subdivision A1 BIE and subdivision B and those two changes we have no issue with those were to bring those references into conformity the issue is with the title of the statute subdivision A subdivisions H2 and H3. what we believe happened here is that
just going through the drafting process there was anytime there was the division of for the blind it was changed to the deaf and blind kind of like emerging the operation for the schools in this case the issue since it's changing the board the commissioner reference and the division itself without changing any of the other statutory sections you have a situation where you have a board and a division with no enumerated powers and no funding there was a desire to completely
merge the division of state services for the blinds that it would encompass the deaf and blind, you would need a much more zealous and invasive approach I believe it would be a couple dozen statutory sections that would need to be amended our opinion is those references that I identified should probably be struck it would not affect the central purpose of the statute and it would help preserve the ongoing functions the division of state services for the blind. thank you sir and was that the recommendation of the code of
advisors essentially that we strike the words deaf and from those four subdivisions that he just identified any questions or discussion from the members of the commission if not I'll entertain a motion just for clarity all the sections that are highlighted the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:28
recommendation would be to remove deaf and from those who would have back to basically
the original language of border division of state services for
the blind with the exception of there's
there's two exceptions there there's there's two references in there to
Speaker 20
23:47
the actual school itself which is has been renamed as Arkansas school for the deaf and blind so those two references would
Speaker 73
23:54
stay the same those are in a one be the little E and then in the subsection B on the next
Speaker 91
24:01
page but all the other references would just go back to being blind not deaf and blind the only note on that is on page
se of the packet the very top line it's it's all new language right there so technically that's not going back to what it was before but it was but
the effect is the same we would still remove the same two words deaf and
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:25
so it would be the commission for the board of division of the blunt state services for the blind make a
Speaker 147
24:35
motion quick question is there is there
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:42
similarly a board of the division of state services for the deaf I don't believe
there is sir any other questions OK you were making a
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
25:00
motion senator ryan Mr Cha make a motion to remove the words deaf and
from page five of the exhibit Linesive and 8.
and page7 of the exhibit lines 1 and5. they're
second to the motion a second
from representative gazaway all in favor and he opposed right the motion carries thank you members
Speaker 10
25:31
Mr Chair, next item is item C6. you'll find this one beginning on page eight of your exhibit.
Speaker 7
25:38
This item concerns Act798. on page 8
Lines 28 through30 they're potentially confusing uses of at the discretion may also and shall the use of may also also also doesn't appear to make sense as there's no prior power or duty listed here in the use of shells seems inconsistent with the use of the language at the discretion folks no one's guy
Speaker 154
26:03
don't this is one that staff did not have any initial thoughts on
Speaker 7
26:07
but we do havepresentative McClendon here the primary sponsor of Act798 to speak on this issue
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
26:15
thank you thank you chairman I appreciate it so yes my biggest concern
was that this it just appears to be like it should have been May and that there's an inconsistency of asking the racing commission given the authority to do the discretion to join the inclusion list and says that they may maintain that self exclusion list and then later it says that if there is a multistate one that they shall join it and I just found some discrepancy there inconsistency and just wanted to bring it before this committee
to see what your thoughts were and see if that needed that shall needed to be changed to
gonna mute until you need me thank youpresentative M any discussion from the
members I would be comfortable I have a couple of thoughts. One is I think anytime we're contemplating changing a shall to
a may. or vice versa that we should be
very hesitant about that because that's a significant change that's likely to be substantive in my view. the other note it's not highlighted but at the start of the line be one line 28 on page eight of of the packet it starts by saying at the discretion and I I'm just noting that that's another Potential inconsistency if the word shall is remains to be
included because you shall do something at your discretion so so anyway I just wanted to mention those couple notes and open the floor for further discussion Senator Bryant ask the question again is it
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
27:59
is that within the purview of our authority to move maze or shells to May and maize the shells if you find that it doesn't change the substance or the
Speaker 73
28:07
meaning of the statute you do have the authority to make changes in word usage I would assume changing a shell to a ma would change the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
28:18
the ass to a the mandate to an ask so can we step down versus stepping up? that's it's really up
Speaker 91
28:26
to you all Senator Bryn is the commission to determine whether it's changing the substance or meaning that's just
Speaker 73
28:32
the language of 12303 says you can exercise your authority as long as you're not changing the substance or meaning of the I would
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
28:43
have I guess that my two comments are I I agree with Senator Tucker and Senator Bryant's comments
I'm I'm I mean I think historically we've been very very leery of making changes that in some cases are going from a may to a shall Senator Tucker points out the discretionary language at the outset of the of B one which would further point towards a may I would have the question of I guess matthew
from a drafting standpoint does the law at the discretion of the director. is that from a drafting standpoint a plot does that only referencing the Next phrase the maintenance of a statewide self exclusion list or does that clause also Likewise give discretion is that
is that would that have been drafted to give the commission discretion to join a multistate list or enter into another agreement I'll let Kevin weigh in here with me too but it's
Speaker 166
30:03
set off by commas if you look it's at the discretion comma the commission may also, which
Speaker 79
30:09
as Kevin noted they also doesn't seem to relate back to anything karma and the commission shall so that being the case I'm not sure how it would be
interpreted. I'll leave it to Kevin it feels a
Speaker 167
30:24
little ambiguous I agree with Matthew it's you know it's
Speaker 59
30:27
it's at least ambiguous I would give it that. it's a good point it's a good point were
you finishedpresentative Shepard? Well I mean I think that as I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
30:41
understand it when this was brought up that maybe there was some discussion of swapping the mayy and the shall but it wouldn't make sense to make the initial mega show when it's
providing its discretionary at the outset and so the I don't know I mean this is this is you know kind of a can of worms but I guess I just have the similar concerns that we've
heard from from both senators Representaza always been let me rep it representative you so I guess the concern I
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
31:15
have and this is somewhat similar to to I think what's already been said
but it would appear to be to be substantive if we make a change because it's going to change the entire Meaning in a way that the the statute opperates but the question that I have is is the way the statute's currently written there is what I would call an apparent absurdity. and what And I don't know if this was just a drafting error I'd like to hear more from the sponsor on this but it was this a drafting error that was the part of the sponsor
or was there an error that occurred in drafting at the bureau. how did this happen and then kind of given all that what is our authority to make a change if there is an apparent absurdity in the statute and or or if there is an error in drafting that occurred Whether that especially if it was on the maybe the on the part of the bureau so those are
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
32:23
appreciate it and I appreciate the discussion and I agree this is kind of a maybe a little bit of a gray area I think my intent is to make sure that
Speaker 175
32:31
we just clear up the language so that there is less ambiguity would be my intent error occurred I think because
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
32:37
we had we went through several Several amendments and it was right at the end of session and I know at one point we actually undid an amendment and brought it back so I think I think it just got a little sloppy there at the end to be perfectly frank and I think that's what has
happened the intent was not to have the commission mandated to join a multistate is self exclusion list my original intent is to have them join the statewide the Arkansas self exclusion list which I understand we can't do right now we may have to come back and do that as an amendment next session but it was not the intent was not to have to join the multistate so the intent essentially would be
show on lines 29 and30 to be
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
33:35
my original intentryant I thinkpresentazlo got got her to answer my question And I don't
I don't know again, I I agree it's my my original thought was if at the discretion They may maintain it was and if you left the shell it'd be and if the commission decided to maintain they shall do it this
way that wouldn't require us to change the mayor or the shell it just insert if the commission adopts or chooses to maintain a statewide exclusion list they shall join it but that goes against obviously the intent of the sponsor. Kevin did you want to addresspresentative Gazaway's question about
an apparent absurdity it similar response to Senator Bryant you do you all do
Speaker 7
34:17
have the authority to correct word usage and so if you feel like there is an error in word usage you can correct it it's
just the overriding principle that applies to that is is if it's you do not think it's making a change to the
Speaker 185
34:40
substance or meaning of the statute. Mr
Speaker 175
34:43
Chair yeah I think there's some hesitancy because I think Ma to showal is kind of the classic substantive change that we think of but in this case that there's
a conflict in the provision with the discretionary language at the beginning so I think that puts a difference slant on this and I will say last meeting we change made several changes that changed and to or or vice versa which is just a substantive as this would be but with this conflict in the provision I I don't see it so much as a
Speaker 186
35:24
substitute change as correcting a conflict
OK just for my part I I have one vote but I I'm very sympathetic to the issue I've certainly drafted language and bills that didn't look exactly the way that I intended for it to but I'm
comfortable removing the word also from line 29. But I I don't I don't think that I'm personally comfortable changing
The maze of the shells on the on behalf of I will vote for that
bill in 2027 if the people of my district send me back but on behalf of the commission I'm very hesitant to do that that's my I think that's
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
36:16
my position. Senator Bryant Mr Chair I think I I would agree if we were to strike the word also and the discretion is that the commission may do it doesn't make them make them have to do the multistate is that correct? like if they if they may maintain a statewide exclusion list they therefore don't also
shall have to join a multinational Is it predicative is it is it incumbent
upon them to enter into a statewide before they go into the next phase of the of the subset A and B. or they mandated to do a and B regardless of their of of littlet be one governor matthew y'all wanna I think we
would typically defer to the agency on those kind of interpretations
Speaker 81
37:05
that's my thought as well. I'd hate to step into the agency shoes and try to answer that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
37:12
that doesn't it depend on whether the discretion applies to that second provision I mean if if the if the law says that somebody shall do something they shall do it and that gets back to the question of whether the discretion applies to the shell. that's my question as well I think this is and I don't want
to cut the discussion off. I think it's a good discussion and I'm interested in it even though that brands me as a language
nerd but but my other thought is I don't think we I don't believe that we should base our decision on the the answer to that question because then we're then we're making a
results oriented decision and and don't don't yeah No I I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:00
I agree with you and I think it's but that gets back that that's to the same thing
about well what asking the commission what would they do the commission has to follow the law right it does and I went back and looked at so there was an amendment it looks like it was a house amendment that changed where may also may also previously was shall and the amendment changed it to May also. it made some other changes later on
andp represent Mclinon what so what was what's what would be your desire Well in a in
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
38:45
a perfect world we'd clear all this up but I think it goes beyond the scope of this committee I think as submitted getting rid of the also is definitely what I think we need to do because I think that's just it's sloppy where it is I would love to see iao moved back to May because I think it gives some consistency but it's also something that we can come back and correct if I
had to assuming I'm back in the legislature next session but ideally we would remove the also and we would change that she to a may and just so it's there's a lot of I guess consistent ambiguity
if I can phrase it that way Fair fair enough any other thoughts
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
39:31
before we proceed senator uhpresentative last question so in order to fix an apparent absurdity and maybe there's some
question as to whether or not there is a and apparent absurdity I think it depends on how you read the at the discretion and how that modifies the other h ing s that come later because there's an at the discretion there's a may and then there's a shall and all of that to me doesn't make sense when you read it all together so I mean my feelings about it are if we make the change that Representative Mccalllin proposes that is that we'll have a substantive effect but is the commission empowered
to make a change for example to ix an apparent absurdity even if it results in a substantive change it's not our intent to make a substantive change it has the effect of making a substantive change because we're fixing the absurdity that can't be reconciled within the language. does this make sense? And I don't know what our I don't know what we're empowered to do in that regard the the
Speaker 7
40:36
way the statute readspresentative gazaway is just it you know if y'all
determine it's your it's up to you all to determine whether you're making a change to the substance or meaning of the statute if you feel like you're making a substance substantive change to the statute then the way the statute reads you would not have the authority to make the change but that's up to your up to your discretion as the commission but you do
Speaker 88
40:59
have the authority to change word usage OK. well my feeling is is that
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
41:04
if we make the change that representative McAlinon proposes it will have a substantive effect
it's not my it would not be my intent to make a substantive change per se. I'm just simply attempting to reconcile the inconsistency that's in the statute at the request of the sponsor. But again I don't know exactly how that how that squares with what our authority is the exact language is shall not change
Speaker 7
41:35
the substance or meaning of the law OK, fair enough the way I take
that is if we believe it's going to have a substantive effect then we're not authorized to do it whether we intend for it to be that way or not this is
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
41:51
how would anybody else have any thoughts on that Thank you I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
41:56
appreciate that yeah I mean it it seems like I mean they can matthew or Kevin can correct me but generally no there is no legislative intent for anyone that can that you can look at with regard to Arkansas law
and we have to take the statute on its face and if we make a change that I mean it's one thing to correct something that can't that can't there's no way like they also there's nothing for also to refer back to right? it doesn't appear to be but then when you get into changing a shell to me then that does have I mean that does appear to have a substantive effect
Speaker 79
42:47
that's just something that we've always referred to this groupon and you know they and they're all different right like we look at them in the context of each individual one so Kevin stated the statute which has a bright line rule but sometimes we look at these and you look at the context and you think oh well it's crystal clear that that's wrong because that won't work and sometimes it's not as clear so I think it's something that we've just looked at on a case by
Speaker 81
43:10
case basis with that overarching principle there and your actions have always depended on that
Speaker 22
43:17
en ry ant oh sorryenator Brown I guess my
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:21
question would be is what what is the recourse? what if motion motion was made we changed it, we step it down into a may or we do with the sponsor request what recourse is that a that a judicial recourse or what outside of just the nervousness about setting precedents what's what's the post effect if you look at the how these things have have
Speaker 73
43:44
gone in the past there's you know not saying
Speaker 7
43:49
this would be the case in this particular instance but there have been lawsuits that have challenged decisions that the commission has made and the court has looked at that and determined whether they thought the commission was properly exercising its authority or not so there has been in the past a judicial route to review
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
44:09
actions by the commission Well Mr Chair, I would make a motion. to remove the word also on page 8
of the packet line 29 and change the word shell to me on line30.
OK before we proceed I'll just I would my other answer to your question Senator Ryant you know setting precedent
and then obviously the judicial recourse that Kevin mentioned it's just that as a commission when we run technical corrections bills it's it's really just our colleagues trusting that we're truly
making corrections that are only technical in nature and you know I'm very protective over that trust that they place in us is that
for so for me that's that's that's
the biggest thing but so with that I any other ask a question is
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
45:01
is this is what we're considering it is are we are these I mean this is not just for purposes of potentially a technical correction this is actually for changing how it will be printed, correct? Yes sir this is how it will be printed in
Speaker 7
45:15
the supplement and on the online version of the code. Yeah so I I don't I don't have
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
45:24
an issue with striking also but because of the fact that we are that we would be making something that is mandatory on the commission taking it back to permissive I would not be in favor of takingout tomay and I just, I mean I understand it's
it's probably an error in terms of how it was drafted but I just I'm concerned we've where do we where do we draw that line and and trying to protect
for better or worse the what is what is passed by
Speaker 209
46:04
the legislature my position is I understand I mean I understand there's difference of
opinion my position is the exact same aspresentative
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
46:16
shepherd's the other one and I tend to agree, with Representative Shepherd and Senator Tucker on this however I guess before we vote my question to staff would be in staff's
opinion is there any way that this can be read in such a way that it is logical The staff believed that if you read the statute as written that there is some logical there's there's logic to it and could be interpreted in such a way to be effective. you're asking me to draw a conclusion and I'm terrible at
Speaker 79
46:55
that because I'm always the person who says we're going
to defer to the agency. I think it depends on how you read the commas. and you know and from there
Speaker 211
47:07
I think you could read it possibly two different ways you know if you want to use the commas and read it as kind of a de facto list then the question becomes what does the shall relate back to But I I think there's an interpretation in there that I'm not comfortable making and would probably have to be a
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
47:25
judicial determination that gives me I guess my point is if it could be red
Logically and consistently the way it is and we make a change to it then that's
I think that's clearly substantive in some an area that we shouldn't road we shouldn't
go down if it cannot in any reading and staff's opinion be read to be logical and have a practical effect then we might should consider making a change but it sounds like staff's not prepared to give that opinion. I have a lot of sympathy for
the sponsor but I tend to agree with uhpresentative Shepherd and Senator Tucker that this is going
to have too much of a substantive effect and it's too much of a gray area so chair
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
48:18
I like a comment and like to amend my motion I think when I going out with staff says if you read this where the commas are placed the director of the commission can choose not to present either Either the may or the shell
and so if I read it like that, I would amend my motion to no longer remove shell to May but only strike the word also in line 29. so we have an amended
motion to strike the word also from line 29 is that is that right senator Bryan is there a second for that motion ndpresentative Gazaway.
any further discussion? all in favor any opposed OK that motion carries right Kevin
Speaker 10
49:11
Commissioners this is our fourth and last holdover item. this is item
Speaker 7
49:16
D9 beginning on page 11 Adam dean involves a provision that was repealed by an earlier act and amended by a later act you'll see that on page 14. that actct762 Section 12 amended39221 B1capa However, if you turn to page 17 you'll see where Act500 section two repealed section39221 B1capa
Staff's initial thoughts were that following the past president of the commission this provision be set out was repealed. However, there was a lot of discussion on that issue at the last meeting and you all asked us to talk to our alcohol beverage control on this and so we reach out to them and we have uhrtie Bjornsen from ABC here. Welcome if you'll
just identify yourself you may proceed I amrty Bjornsen regulatory
Speaker 218
50:14
administrator over alcohol tobacco racing, gaming and marijuana. We looked at both of these bills and I was here for the last code revision commission meeting where you guys discussed that the repealer kind of trumps even if it came last in time I don't see any reason to stray from your analysis that you looked at last time I know the sponsor at leastpresentative Pilkington is here on one of the
bills. I don't believe that it affects the substance and the intent of his bill in any way nor do I think it affects the other bell really in any way they both outlined that a sale from a private club is not a sale for tax purposes. Thank you Representative Pilkington did you want to Offer any commentary
I concur OK so was the consensus that we had reached last time was that Act500 would prevail even though
it was first in time. I can't speak for
Speaker 7
51:19
you all the consensus was to hold the the autum over to speak to the sponsors and to the agency and to get some feedback on that also heard from Senator Irvin and she indicated that she as long as ABC thought they could fully implement her act which I think is the one which is the later one here the Act
Speaker 91
51:36
seven 62 that she was fine with this with whatever resolution OK so well you said Miss
Bjornsen is that we would we would settle with the the bill that was first in time which struck that subsection the repeal yeah yeah would you push your button
Speaker 218
51:58
please it talks about alcohol in pools and that's kind of a dated method by which the private clubs skirted around some of the laws that prevented them from selling alcohol. it was meant to be more of like a social club where people would donate their alcohol in but over time that practice has kind of died out
and there are other parts of the alcohol code that makes it kind of ineffective either way. So I wasn't concerned looking at the interpretation of either bill we can still move forward implementing the law as changed by bothpresentative Pilkington and
Irvi. any comments or questions or discussion from commission members OK not all just to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
52:38
be clear I think this was already said From staff's position that is that is a
I guess a rule of construction that we routinely follow that if a section is deleted that it can it is not revived by a potential amendment to the what was the deleted language later in the
session that has been the prior practice of the commission yes sir. all right
Speaker 7
53:07
thank you that's our internal course of performance.
ok if there's no other questions or mockery of the chair then we I'll entertain
emotion. motion frompresentative Gazaway and the motion
is to have Act500 the the striking of the
provision prevail. see a second forenator Bryant all in favor any opposed the motion carries right I think that takes us down to item d on
Speaker 10
53:46
the agenda Kevin yes sir Commissioners
this item D involves an issue that was raised bypresentative Carolyn Brown,
Speaker 7
53:56
primary sponsor of Act501 at our last meeting We listed this item separately because it was not part of our report at the last meeting for this item you will need both exhibit D and supplemental exhibit D1. if you look on page one of exhibit D you'll see a summary of Acts340341 section34 and actc501 section 10 If you then turn to pages3 and4 of exhibit D.
you will see the purple Star schools provisions created by Acts340341. and on page 7 through 10 of the exhibit you will see the purplear school program provisions created by501. in addition a supplemental exhibit D1 you will find recommendations and thoughts from representative Carolyn Brown Representative Brown had concerns that the acts conflict with one another at the last meeting we were asked to speak to the department of education on this issue and
we have Mr Daniel Shchultz from the department of education here Come
on up Mr if you'll just identify yourself
Speaker 230
55:09
and you may proceed thank you members committee Daniel Schultz Department of Education Council the so your staff did reach out to us my initial review of this just sort of at a cold legal analysis was that I felt they could be read together without a conflict I've subsequently understood
that the the people with greater subject matter expertise believe that That there may be a conflict obviously the mandatory provision is the second to pass so we would consider that we will consider that controlling regardless the mayy wouldn't overcome the shall so if if both are understood to represent the same thing then we we don't have any objection to what the what this body decides on the matter. Thank you Daniel is there a recommendation
from from there we also have a representative
Speaker 7
55:55
for uhpresentative Carolyn Brown was not able to make it but there's a Mr Donerry that's here
Speaker 156
55:59
to speak on her behalf on this issue Colberry if you want to come up you wanna if you'll just
Speaker 232
56:17
identify yourself for the record please Donerry for the military officers association on behalf of Representative Brown the question and and as Mr Schultz had identified is that
the meal could be resolved by the recognition of the fact that fiber one is subsequent the programs that we're talking about here are the recognition programs the schools develop programs under the state guidance and then once they pass certain parameters the Arkansas council for Military Children which is existing we'll recognize them as a purplear school or a purple scar district depending upon the number of schools that have taken that rating
In340341 section34 what we're doing is we actually are establishing a recognition program so that was con d ition al or it was not not mandatory that that program that recognition program need to exist whereas over in501 it is mandatory that the council will establish that recognition program so that's the conflict and then subsequent to that was a determination whether or
not the division would be promulgating rules and one case it was determined that they made promulgate rules whereas in Act501 it was mandatory that so just to resolve the conflict there's a question as to whether or not the two programs are parallel we determine or at least within the functional body we recognize them as being parallel so there
Speaker 234
57:52
was a conflict that's what uhpresentative Brown felt if there's any other questions on that
Speaker 44
58:02
Any questions for Mr Srill to coonel Baring from the members OK thank you all
very much Representative Shepard is the house sponsor of of the of actct341 did you have anything else you'd like to share on it? Yeah well I mean my view of it would be that there is no conflict
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
58:35
house bill 1512 which that became Act341 it does reference purplestar schools and it states that they may be designated and that the division that dei may promulgate rules and that applies to school district or a charter school so it's it's a permissive program that's out and that is
what we as we presented that legislation that's what it what it was presented as then when you look at 1545 which was subsequent bill and subsequently became act 501 that is a mandatory program and they're there's no reference between the two it just so happens that they both are purplear school programs and while they may be generally a you know referring to
the purplesar school program that exists nationwide that to me that would be bringing in information outside the the scope of the of the legislation and outside the scope of Arkansas code and so you know basically the way I read it is under under my bill as district or a a district or a public charter school could apply to be a purple Star school and desi may promulgate rules to do that
under the other bill Each public school with 20 or more Children of military families shall adopt that that that is a that is a that applies only to schools and schools that meet certain criteria and so I think that it can be addressed I thinkEE can handle that they can promulgate rules for districts that want to
opt into that but then they can also follow uhpresentative Brown's law which I'm fully supportive of as to the application to schools that have the requisite number of children of military families and so I I believe they can be reconciled and would be consistent with our practice of generally attempting
to leave legislation alone as it's presented OK thank you Representative
Shepard. Colonelerry, would you mind coming back up? do you
do you have thoughts on representative shepherd's comments he's accurate
Speaker 232
1:01:31
in that regard in that I think in the rulemaking process desi has been able to navigate these parameters so that we're able to bring
effectiveness to to legislation which may be juxtaposed I guess would be a term and in this case here it's not worth to to Representative shepherd's point we don't need to defeat law just for the purposes of what that there may be an interpretation of a conflict so I think that in execution the rulemaking process could probably smooth this out ALc has an opportunity to take a look at that public comment has a chance to to review that as well too so I
think there's there's room to navigate this that and I think that taking a look at the thepresentative shepherd was notding I think in that regard I came across as wanting to see the conflict resolved at the at the statutory level but I think that in the rulemaking process we're able to navigate that OK thank you and I'm all for I'm all for trying to
Speaker 238
1:02:35
address that the statutory level if there needs to be a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:02:39
reconciliation of that but that would that would need to be something done
during a legislative session and and I appreciate certainly his comments and and hope that that the program as presented on
in both bills is is successful and well utilized OK Thank you Colonelury
Any any comments or just questions or discussion from commission members deannan you've been awful quiet today. and you're on mute so you're
Speaker 241
1:03:18
still quiet busted is there any proposed is
a we're just gonna leave that as it is nobody has a motion on that OK that's sounds good just to clarify we'll
Speaker 79
1:03:30
just codify everything right Kevin like it'll all go in the books will be fully
Speaker 203
1:03:35
codified and they cover different sections so there's no
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:03:39
there's no I mean there are different sections in the law so they can be codified there's no need for any kind of reconciliation
Speaker 31
1:03:50
within the language sir they're both assigned a different parts
Yeah OK. thank you members with that we'll move to item on the agenda thank you
Speaker 10
1:04:01
commissioners this is another new item that was not discussed at
Speaker 7
1:04:04
the last meeting the attorney general's office contacted us about an apparent manifest reference error in actct934. you'll find the materials on this and exhibit E on page one there's a summary of the issue on page three line 24, you will see a reference to quote
penalties under section 2657256. However, that section does not contain penalties and you can find a copy of that section on page six of the exhibit The penalties are found in section 2657255 a copy of which you will find on pages4 and5. So staff's initial thoughts on this is that we agree with the attorney general's office that this appears to be a manifest reference error and our suggestion would be to change the reference to 2657255.
some gazaway, I see you're the house sponsor on this bill you have any thoughts on this? should have
Speaker 246
1:05:03
been more prepared if there's any other discussion you can go ahead and
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:05:08
move to that give me just a moment to review it any thoughts from any other members or questions
Unknown speaker
1:05:30
are you looking something upsenator right yeah one moment for Senator Bry
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:06:02
is is the 2657256 is that the the totality of that section or if that subsection that that's
Speaker 7
1:06:09
an that's an excerpt from that section sir just the portion that reflects that it does contain the penalties. he was asking about Sorry
Speaker 91
1:06:18
about that yes 256 that is the complete section for 256. and I just note that it
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:06:24
looks like the reference in there to penalties is only for purposes of saying that
that tobacco control can collect penalties as assessed under 255. Yes sir if
Speaker 98
1:06:39
you go back in time the 2019 255 did contain penalties
Speaker 7
1:06:44
at one point they removed by that act in 2019 the256 and that may have been where the confusion arose thank youpresentative Shepard yeah it does note that in 256
that 255 is the penalty section which I think further clarifies the the manifest reference error here so after review I would agree it does appear that there is a manifest error and
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:07:19
we should correct that reference to 255. I'll take that as a motion senatorryant did you look up what you needed to look up is there a second
second frompresentative shepherd. any other discussion on this? all in favor of the motion and he opposed OK, the motion carries right that takes us to the last item on our agenda Mr. Chair I'll I'll keep this brief just as
Speaker 7
1:07:51
an update we're currently working on the 2025 supplements we expect to have those finished in early August we expect the online version of the code to be updated in mid august in the printed supplements to be shipped in early September
We also wanted to take this opportunity to gauge the commission's interest and staff working on a corrections bill that would deal with state government funds you'll see that issue summarized there in exhibit F. as you go through the code you'll see often where a state treasury fund is created in more than one section over time this has caused confusion. they're often one version of the section will be amended and the other won't it becomes confusing when you want to try to reference that state treasury fund section because which provisions are you going to
reference the one in title nine or the one somewhere else so our idea was to try to you know, create a list of those go through and consolidate those creation sections under title 19 we've reached out to the department of its administration they've indicated they would help us work on that issue and so this was just a chance for us to gauge your interest on and us pursuing that project I'm
I'm supportive of that effort. I think that's a smart thing to do but
Welcome representative gazaway agrees so any other thoughts or comments
from the members of the commission I would I
Speaker 42
1:09:10
would just ask as you work through that that obviously work
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:09:14
with the with thebLrhy affairs side of things on that and also it might be good to loop in
maybe the budget chairs as well just as we look at those at those funds yes sir we can do that that's all I have OK.
withoutout anything further for the commission I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. motion second motion a second all in favor right we are adjourned thank you everybody
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Approval of the Minutes of June 19, 2025, meeting – Exhibit B
C. Items held over from June 19, 2025, meeting concerning 2025 Act Errors and Issues – Exhibit C
D. Acts 340/341 and Act 501 – Exhibit D
E. Act 934 – Exhibit E
F. Report of Code Revisor – Exhibit F
G. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 7
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 28
Speaker 30
Senator Clarke Tucker Chair
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 10
Speaker 64
Speaker 66
Speaker 67
Speaker 65
Speaker 79
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 91
Speaker 85
Speaker 73
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 129
Speaker 132
Speaker 136
Speaker 147
Speaker 154
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 166
Speaker 167
Speaker 59
Speaker 174
Speaker 175
Speaker 177
Speaker 178
Speaker 185
Speaker 186
Speaker 81
Speaker 88
Speaker 22
Speaker 209
Speaker 211
Speaker 218
Speaker 230
Speaker 156
Speaker 232
Speaker 234
Speaker 44
Speaker 238
Speaker 241
Speaker 203
Speaker 31
Speaker 246
Speaker 98
Speaker 42