Code Revision Commission (1-4:30PM)
Video
Transcript
7 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
One of the terms that's defined in this sub-chapter is
Speaker 4
0:10
Governing Council, and that is defined as the Director of Architectural Economic Development Commission, the Director of the Division of Higher Ed, and the Director of the Office of Skills Development. However, and that was done in 910, 6-50-703, also amended by 910, states that there is I created the existing workforce training program to be administered by a governing council,
which is that defined term, composed of equal representation from the Division of Higher Ed, the Division of Career and Technical Education, and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. The problem is a second reference to Division of Career and Technical Education that conflicts with the
Speaker 1
0:53
actual definition. It should probably be the Director of the Office of Skills Development, Therefore, there we believe should be the Office of Skills Development. There are two ways of sort of looking at that,
but either the definition needs to be fixed to where instead of Skills Development, it's the Director of the Division of Career and Technical Education conformed
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:37
with 657.03 or the other way around. Okay, so essentially the conflict is governing council in 702 is different than the reference in 703?
Speaker 1
1:48
That's correct. And so what is your recommendation? Our recommendation is to change the term in 6-50-703 to conform with the definition of the fine term of governing council so that it would be the Office of Skills Development in the place of the Division of Career and Technical Education. and mr
Speaker 14
2:21
speaker i'd note that we have the agency folks who would all be implicated by this here i
believe we've got folks from commerce and education here and they uh i know courtney
Speaker 15
2:32
miss salas forwarded weighed in when we talked about this before i don't know if they have any comments but they're all here in the room
Speaker 20
3:03
okay do any of them wish to come to the table Okay, if everybody can mute their
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:09
phone while they're not talking, if you would state your
name and who you represent then you may
Speaker 23
3:18
offer your comments. Yes, Sharice Childers, Director of the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:24
Division of Workforce Services. Okay, and what does the division have an
Speaker 26
3:30
opinion on these proposed changes? Yes, sir, and members of the commission, thank you for the opportunity to address these issues today. During the drafting of the bills for transformation,
the Department of Career Education was dissolved, and within the Department of Career Education, there were numerous entities that went to four different agencies or departments as divisions. And so, in doing that, obviously, we did not catch all of the boards and all the references when making those changes. In this particular case, for item number one, the change to the governing council.
This has to do with the governing council that was set to oversee the existing worker training program that's housed at AEDC. and that was the purpose of of that when it was originally created is my understanding because i wasn't there then but i was at the department of career education when this was still in place and when the office of skills development was created the purpose of that governing council was to oversee those grants and to have representation from the entities that
would or could be involved in that training through the existing worker training program So, the change to the Office of Skills Development in alignment with the language that followed in the bill is correct. That would include the Office of Skills Development in place of the Division of Career and Technical Education. What happened in many circumstances was that because the Department of Career Education
sounded very similar to what had what already existed which was the division of career and technical education there were times in the bill drafting and then also maybe in in a codification where the it was thought that the department of career education was the same thing as the Division of Career and Technical Education. And that is not the case, because Department
of Career Education included numerous entities within that department, including the Division of Career and Technical Education. One question. I'd be glad to answer any
Speaker 28
6:12
questions. One question I have, since we're approaching a month out from session, is there
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
6:18
anything, if we were to handle these by way of a technical correction as opposed to us taking action and of ourselves, would there be any harm done by basically delaying that
and utilizing what I think would be the more conservative approach, which is actually amending the law as opposed to us exercising our ability as the Code Revision Commission to make the change unilaterally? would you like for me to answer that yeah is there any problem with us if we were to just wait take make make the draft let draft the bill and then bring it up in session from a director's
Speaker 26
7:04
perspective I would not have any problems with it just because I expect that we would have we are going to have
Speaker 29
7:11
and find other uh sections that where this is this where this has occurred and we just aren't aware of it yet as you know there were a lot of changes because of the um because of dissolving the department of career education and so i would expect that that we could do that during the session along with numerous others that don't change the intent
but do correct the language because it wasn't corrected in the transformation bill. But I'll ask Charles Lyford, counsel for rehab services, division services for the blind and was counseled for also for Department of Career Education in those capacities. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank
Speaker 35
7:57
you for recognizing me, Charles Lyford. As Dr. Childers said, before Act 910, I was counseled for Department of Career Education, and now represent rehab services and division of services for the blind
within division of workforce services. So short answer to your question is yes. I think anything that's outside the scope that the commission feels is outside their technical correction authority, we can offer as a cleanup bill. And that would apply to the item one here about office of skills development
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
8:30
as well as anything else on this list. Thank you. And this is just me speaking, but
I think in past meetings we certainly understand under the transformation legislation we were given broader authority to make corrections that were given the size and scope of the transformation bill.
But I also think from my recollection of past meetings that generally we felt more comfortable when in doubt to allow it to be brought forward by way of legislation as opposed to us making that change unilaterally. Does anybody online have any questions or comments related to this? and I'm
not sure how I guess if you do just unmute and you can unmute and
Speaker 36
9:22
make your comments at this time I concur in what you said
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
9:32
about referring it for approval. Thank you any other comments If there's no additional comments,
and if anybody has an objection, please speak up, but I would, given the fact that there's only two of us here in the room and some of the challenges of working remotely, I would say without objection,
we would refer this item to be drafted as part of the technical correction package that would come from the Code Revision Commission. Vince Henderson yes
Speaker 4
10:04
we already have a tech correction bill for title six that we can add this to okay and
Speaker 43
10:12
hearing no objection that bill will be drafted okay moving on to the
Speaker 4
10:26
next item item two all right um in 2015 the state board of career education was renamed reorganized
called the career education workforce development board in act 910 that board was transferred department of commerce although we had not by the
Speaker 1
10:45
the session made all the changes throughout the Arkansas Code with respect to name change. We don't usually do that until we come across it and replace the volume or sub or
Speaker 4
10:54
it's been amended. Act 910 also changed the name of the Department of Career Education and the Division of Career and Technical Education and transferred that to the Department of Education.
Throughout Act 910, there are sections that amend the code of the State Board of Career Education. As an example, the problem we'll go ahead and cut down to 6-50-505 considering waiver rules and state State Board of Career Education which by Act 915 would be the
Speaker 1
11:29
Career Education and Workforce Development Board may provide waivers of rules adopted by what is now
Speaker 4
11:38
the Division of Career and Technical Education the obvious problem is we have
Speaker 1
11:47
one entity adopting rules that's in one cabinet department and a different division in a different department granting waivers to those rules well I guess that's certainly a possibility we're not sure that's what was intended particularly in line of the fact that as originally drafted before
Act 910, the rule-creating entity and the entity authorizing waiver of those rules were within the same department. What we've looked at is, if
Speaker 4
12:21
you look at subsection A, we would correct State Board of Career Education to be the State Board of Education, and putting that,
Speaker 42
12:33
and then therefore the Division of Career and Technical Education all within the same department.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
12:44
All right. Any question or comments to that? And we've got, of course, we
have various members from these different agencies and departments. Does anybody wish to speak on this, or is this, If not, then I'll take by their silence that this would be consistent with their desire as to what they believe should happen. And I'm getting a lot of nods, yes. And I guess I would have the same question if we were to include this in technical corrections.
Is there any, is by waiting to deal with this in the session, is there any issue that will be presented by that? If anybody has an issue, speak up. Okay, nobody here is speaking up. Anybody online have any questions or comments related to these proposed changes? And as I understand it, it's to correct, it would be correcting the references to those to the, from the State Board of Career Education and then the Department of Career Education
and would be correcting that to State Board of Education and the Division of Career
and Technical Education. Is that correct? Yes, sir. OK. Any comments from anyone online? All right. Without objection, then we would refer
Speaker 4
14:17
this for drafting of technical correction bill. Item B. Again, contrasting, as I said here, changes made in this particular section, that's 50-205.
Act 910 changed in subdivision B1 to Department of Career Education to the Office of Skills Development, but did not
Speaker 1
14:42
address the reference to the State Board of Career Education in subsection A. We believe
Speaker 58
14:58
that A should probably be the Career Education Workforce Development Board in light
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:14
of Skills Development. Mr. Henderson, if you would refresh my memory, is the Office of Skills Development, does it fall under the Career Education Workforce Development
Board? I believe it's in within that. Is that correct? Okay. I'm getting confirmation that that
is in fact the case. All right any I guess I would have the same same thought that if
if there's no objection to this that we would similarly have legislation drafted for this correction buddy seeing no objection here from the
audience is there anybody online with any questions or comments mr. speaker I would
Speaker 63
16:04
just say that you know at least from my my standpoint it my silence is a cent so okay don't you know I don't don't think that we're not
paying attention I think that you're doing just fine and assuming that uh if we're not speaking up that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
16:19
that uh we're okay with it thank you thank you all right without objection then we'll refer this for drafting and and I'm referring to it as a technical correction I mean I think that it would be subject to the legislature's review I mean it obviously makes there are substantive changes that are made being made but I think we all believe this is to bring it in line with what was intended by the Transformation Act. So just to be clear on the record when we're referring to
these as technical corrections, obviously the legislature will get the opportunity
to study these closely, just as I know we all
Speaker 4
17:00
have. All right. Next item. Item C, 6-52-204, State Apprenticeship Coordination Steering Committee. In this situation, if you look at, I believe it's b1 and c1 it was changed office of skills development by
Speaker 1
17:18
act 910 however the reference
to the department of career education in a4 was not changed we believe that probably should be also the office skills development making sense uh in light of uh what we did six dash what would do 662-205 above as well as internally with this section and this could also be done obviously as 10 correction
Speaker 42
17:44
or part 10 correction bill okay all right again any any objection to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
17:53
that from anyone here in the audience any question any question or comment online all right without objection that'll
be referred over for bill drafting Okay, and then item D,
Speaker 4
18:07
6-51-213 talks about the Director of the Division of Career and Technical Education as Executive Officer of the Board for the purpose of administering the Federal Act and this Act shall by and with advice and consent of the Board, does any assistance as it may be necessary to carry out the proper visions hereof.
The division reference was renamed from the State Department of Career Education and Assigned Department of
Speaker 1
18:33
Education. The board referred to was State Board of Career Education, which was not amended by Act 910. Technically, that board was renamed the Career Education and Workforce Development Board. The problem is that the reference director of
Speaker 4
18:48
the division in the Department of Education is named the executive officer of the board that is in the Department of Commerce.
It has authorized to designate assistance in the Department of Education Division with the vice-consent of the
Speaker 1
19:02
board in the Department of Commerce. and as I asked to whom to whom they responsible the directors required to implement the board's rules if he or she fails refused to carry out the board's rules we don't know what recourse the board would have we think
Speaker 58
19:21
that the board should probably be changed to the State Board of Education all right so similar
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:30
issues what we're seeing elsewhere where these I guess the career education was essentially split in two or certain functions went to one department versus another this would be making a change from State Board of Career Education and changing that reference to the State Board
of Education that would be at 651-213 any comments from the audience here or objection to sending this for drafting okay Ms. Childers you're recognized for comment Thank
Speaker 23
20:08
you, Cherise Childers, Director of Division of Workforce Services.
Speaker 26
20:14
In 651-213, that is correct, however, or 213-A, that is correct, however, in 651-213-C-1 should read the Commissioner of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education instead of the Director of the Division of Career and Technical Education. And then Section C-51-213 should also have Commissioner in place of Director.
The reason for this is when the Department of Career Education existed, I was a non-voting member of the board as the director of the Department of Career Education and in doing so had the ability to, the board had the ability to approve and direct federal and state vocational funds. So in the, in the, currently in the capacity now of the career education and other federal
and state vocational educational funds. That's under the oversight and the direction of the State Board of Education. And so as Commissioner Key is the commissioner of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, and that's the way he's referenced still in the board makeup of the State Board of Education, our recommendation is that this should read the commissioner of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education instead of the director of the Division of Career and Technical Education
because the director of the Division of Career and Technical Education is a staff member and director of that division but is not a member of the State Board of Education. So that individual can provide recommendations and can inform the commissioner but does not have the sole responsibility of directing those funds as the State Board of Education does.
And I'll be glad to give up my seat in case the Department of Education would like to comment on that as well. All right.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:43
Any other comments, any questions? Mr. Henderson, any comment from your perspective? One of the
Speaker 68
22:51
questions I had, is the commissioner of the Division of
Speaker 78
22:56
Elementary and Secondary Education on the State Board of Education as such?
Speaker 26
23:01
Yes. In 611-102B, the commissioner of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education is an ex-officio member of the State Board of Education. Okay, but who's the executive officer of the
Speaker 29
23:15
Department of Education to speak to that, please. Thank you. Courtney Solis Ford, Department of Education.
Speaker 82
23:33
I would concur with Dr. Childers' comments about it being commissioner. to say executive officer I don't know that it actually applies to the commissioner or anyone as she stated he is an ex officio member he's a non-voting member he acts as secretary to the state board of education but only the members themselves I think would constitute as executive officers so I would even go so far as to say replace it replace director
with commissioner but then possibly remove the executive officer of the board language okay any
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:22
other questions or comments question for mr. Henderson is it possible I think we've done this before if we needed to have
a meeting during session is that a possibility certainly okay what I would propose assuming no objection, is that we go ahead and prepare the draft language correcting 651-213A
and additionally work with the department to draft legislation related to C1 and that particularly with regard to C1 that that would be either circulated to the commission in advance
of session or that we, if need be, we can call another commission meeting in session just to see that language actually as drafted. Yes, sir. Any objection online?
All right. Hearing none, then we'll move forward in that regard. Item E.
Speaker 78
25:29
In 651.203, 205, 208, and 209, there's some uncorrected references to
Speaker 4
25:34
the State Board of Pre-Education. In light of subject matter, because correction made in 651.213, we believe the
Speaker 1
25:42
references should probably be corrected to the State Board of Education. So if you
look at 6-51-203A and B. I think you have the yellow marks where those changes were made and 6-51-205 in subsection A as well. And 208 subsection A, 209
Speaker 42
26:12
also in subsection A. All right. Any comment on this?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
26:18
Ms. Childers, you're recognized for comment.
Speaker 26
26:28
Thank you. In several uncorrected references to the State Board of Education in 651-203, 205, 28, and 209 as was mentioned, these references are, I'm sorry, uncorrected references to the State Board of Career Education, I'm not sure that I said that. These references would be incorrect if we reference the State Board of Education in place
of Career Education in this circumstance. The reason is, is that the entity that is a technical institute and is the only technical institute in the state was transferred during transformation to the Arkansas, at that time, Department of Higher Education, now the Division of Higher Education under the Department of Education. So we, as a former director of the Department of Career Education and Legal Counsel,
our recommendation is that this be referenced as the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board. This is because the existing school governed by these statutes, the Northwest Technical Institute in Springdale, was assigned to the Division of Higher Education, as I mentioned. In ACA 2543-505, the Black River Technical College in Pocahontas was the one remaining vocational school, but it was transferred to the division of higher education and I believe that year was in 1993.
So it was operating it was a vocational school and then now it's operating as a technical college under the division of higher education as is the northwest technical institute due to transformation
Speaker 29
28:23
in 2019 mr. Henderson and in light of that I think it might
Speaker 1
28:35
be advisable to have this as a separate bill as well all right any any questions or comments
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
28:45
online all right without objection we'll refer this for drafting and this will mark this as one to be either circulated to the commission again or brought back for further meeting before it's sent out. Mr. Miller? Vince, were you thinking
of being its own bill as opposed to being in the technical correction bill? Okay. Okay. All right. Item
Speaker 26
30:18
All right, any comment to that? Yes, please. Okay, Ms. Childress. Thank you. As far as this recommendation concerning ACA 651-401, we believe that 651-401, 402, 403, and 404 can be repealed. During transformation, we did repeal sections that were specific
to the correspondence courses for plumbers and this should have been repealed at the same time. These statutes originated in 1975 and were last substantively amended in 1999. Training to be a plumber is done through apprenticeships rather than coursework in secondary school. Even the Northwest Technical Institute, even they do not offer a course
or a training program in plumbing. The apprenticeships are administered by the Career Education and Workforce Development Board and the Office of Skills Development and the state-supported community colleges. And this reference, 1738-401, supports that. The Arkansas Department of Health is charged with licensing plumbers. once the job training and
Speaker 29
31:38
exams are completed, and that's in 1738.301. All right, any question or comment?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
31:50
So my thought would be that we refer this for drafting of the change as proposed and that we allow that the department, if there's a desire to repeal legislation, that that could be something that's worked on outside of the commission process. I mean, I would be concerned if we start repealing large chunks of statute that that may be a little pushing the envelope as far as our authority
when we're going beyond reconciling to actually deleting multiple sections. So that would be my suggestion. And so without objection, we'll refer the change to be drafted as we have it here with the understanding that the department may be offering other legislation through the legislative process to eliminate those sections. Mr. Miller. And there'll be language in the technical correction bill that makes it clear if they do
Speaker 15
32:51
their own bill, it will supersede whatever happens in the technical correction bill.
All right. There's no way this can prevail. it would it
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
32:59
always win all right very good without objection then we'll refer
that over for drafting and what okay so what does
Speaker 4
33:12
that leave us with now now to number three okay the secretary fetcher requests revision to 2210 502 and 503 but
Speaker 1
33:21
secretary department transportation service has rulemaking authority regarding public private partnerships rather than the rc i developed commission of building authority division
as you know 910 transferred the building authority division over to department translation shared services and that department position to promote rules for use by all departments for statewide projects this revision makes the duplicative reference unnecessary so the references if you look at 22-10-502a we take out our city non-government commission or the building authority and put in the secretary of the department of transportation and shared services in 221-503 same thing also in the next page on subsection b excuse me a few pages down
Speaker 4
34:07
yeah the very last page very bottom of the last page so the department
Speaker 1
34:16
of transportation shared services and also development finance authority
Speaker 42
34:20
may draw the prominent rules that establish procurement guidelines and requirements that vary depending on
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
34:28
the type of qualifying project okay so that's item three on exhibit c and the with regard to 2210 502 and 221503 that would be a change from the arkansas economic development commission or the building authority
Division to the Secretary of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, and then later on in subsection B, which is, I guess, at the very end of 22.1503, that would be the addition of the Department of Transformation and Shared Services with the deletion of the commission or division and the authority of the Arkansas Development Finance Authority.
The question I have on this is we're making a change, potentially we'd be making a change from commissions or divisions to an individual. And so I'd like some explanation as to why would we go from a commission or from the division to the secretary, would it be more consistent in terms of what we're charged to do to just make a reference to the department as opposed to the secretary? Anybody answer that
question for me? All right. If you'll come to the table and state your name and who
Speaker 107
35:55
you are here representing. This is Mitch Rouse, chief legal counsel for TSS. I think that's just a typo. It should be
Speaker 109
36:01
Department of Transformation and Shared Services instead of the Secretary. Okay. All right. So with that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
36:06
change, basically we would take out Secretary. It would just be the Department of Transformation and Shared Services,
and we would make those two replacements. Is there any further comment here in the room or online? Then without objection, we would refer this over for drafting as inclusion in part of our package of legislation. And I believe that concludes the remaining items we had under item C, which were those items from Act 910. And we'll move to item D, which are technical correction bills,
and that's found at exhibit D in your packet of information. And Mr. Henderson, if you would refresh our memory on this or my memory, these have been drafted based on
Speaker 4
37:09
our previous discussions. Is that correct? In part, but most all of this are matters, items that in going through replacement volume work or going
Speaker 1
37:21
through the preparation of the supplements to the code and advanced code service,
Occasionally a question will come up, and some of our
Speaker 4
37:31
other work that looks like may need to be corrected in the way of tenant correction. We may have the authority to do it on our own, but it's as far as the staff and commission is concerned, but sometimes feel better to go ahead and let it by the General Assembly in the way
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
37:51
of legislation as well. Okay. In the interest of time, what I would suggest is that we take up Exhibit D, that you, if you would, briefly advise us of what these pieces of legislation would do.
For those members here in the room or online, my thought is we would vote on these as a batch. If after hearing or there's discussion on a piece on a particular bill, we can always pull that out of the batch. just let me know, but that way we can hopefully move through without as many interruptions to approve. And, again, if there are any questions or comments, please just speak up and let us know, and we'll be glad to discuss that or even pull the bill out for consideration separately.
Speaker 4
38:38
I was going to say that several of these are really pretty simple, straightforward two- to four-page bills. The first one on Title I, basically clarifying absolute reference, the Arkansas Transportation Commission has been abolished and was transferred over to what is now the Arkansas Department of Transportation. That's essentially all this bill does. It takes out some language referring to some repealed sections as well. I would like to point out right now Section 3.
Every tech correction bill has this language in it that Mr. Miller
Speaker 1
39:17
is referring to, that if legislation is passed that conflicts with tech correction bill, then that legislation would supersede the tech correction. Next one
Speaker 4
39:28
is Title II. What we do here is we clarify a couple of terms, make them singular, livestock and poultry, clarify some language in the way of a
Speaker 1
39:42
term that's used, not really defined, but as described, and break that down.
Correct grammar, rework, reorganize the definition, and clarify some language in respect to the Federal Hog Eradication Fund. make it drafted in terms of what we normally use in describing a fund and its uses. Next one is Title IV.
Speaker 4
40:14
What you can't tell in Section I is that if there are any other defenses
that doesn't conform, doesn't fit in with the introductory language
Speaker 1
40:27
of that section and so we just simply correct that. That's all to Title
Speaker 4
40:35
IV. Title V, we are correcting some references to, first instance, a
Speaker 1
40:44
defined term, and second, correct an error. A nude or partially nude means a state of undress of a person.
It doesn't mean the person in the way that is used later on in the section. make a style change to conform it to general criminal code style section three section four we correct a slight grammatical error clarifies references make a style change and correct grammatical error and clarify application in section five rewriting it
again in line with more typically
Speaker 4
41:26
how criminal statutes are drafted section six clarify reference make clear that the license referred to as license to carry concealed handgun that's all a five six which i think will become substantially larger here but for now we repealed some old language had new language for clarification new reference uh we are also repealing the rural school teachers training departments
that was uh something that the commission asked us to include at last meeting title seven there's simply duplicated language in b1 and b2 title eight we clarify reference make stylistic change uh from city municipality for example The United States Environmental Protection Agency does have regulations, but our division
Speaker 1
42:27
has rules. We also clarify the definition of open burning, and finally correct the reference from the Department of Labor
Speaker 4
42:42
to now the Division of Labor. 9. We are repealing some old language, adding some language for clarification. If you look at the term redisclosed, it should be just disclosed. Section 2, this amend mage to marry section.
It was amended to include the possibility of requirement of consent by guardian to marriage of persons over 17 but under 18. However, there were some places in that statute that talked strictly about a parent or parents and didn't include or incorporate, if you will, the guardian. And so
Speaker 1
43:26
what this does is incorporate into, I think, the right places the requirement for a guardian's consent.
Speaker 42
43:35
We also, as passing, change child to contracting party because that's the term that's
Speaker 78
43:46
also being used. In section three, we're repeating obsolete language as well
Speaker 1
43:51
as in four. And five, we, again, sort of straighten out some language rather than redisclose, just disclose information obtained in the section.
Speaker 4
44:04
Idle 10 we're taking out obsolete references
you see expired reference in section 1 B1 on line 27-28 section 2 also some more obsolete language because that particular provision of the state constitution was repealed section 3 if you look down on page 3 of line 35 that entire section expired on July 1, 2019, and section 4, that section expired on September 30, 2017.
Title 12. Clarify reference, Game and Fish Commission still has regulations and is authorized being a separate
Speaker 1
44:53
constitutional agency does that, so we put that in. And with respect to sexual
Speaker 1
45:05
did was we pulled definitions from one of the sections in that subchapter and put them into the definition section for the entire subchapter.
That's the primary focus of that. And in the process, we're able to rework some language to incorporate those definitions with the present language in the
Speaker 78
45:38
statute. In section three, I want to point this out. The catch line
Speaker 4
45:46
was amended to include fictive kin. so it's on page 8
Speaker 1
45:52
line 8 when the alleged offenders neither family member nor fictive kin are not living in the home with the alleged victim that's the catch line however
Speaker 4
46:02
the language, the text of itself apparently did include or fictive kin and we take that amendment with the catch line that they probably intended fictive kin to be put in there the rest of it is to make sure it's federal, state, or local government entities
in Section 4, 5, and 6, and 7. 8, we believe there's an error. It talked about punitive isolation or solitary confinement in B2A. I'm
Speaker 1
46:40
on Section 8 of the bill on page 9. but it didn't put that in in B2B and it refers to B2A so we believe that that's intended section 9
Speaker 4
47:03
amending 1232-102C it keeps going back and forth talking about inmate or detainee Pregnant inmate or detainee is a general term. And
Speaker 1
47:16
so what we have done is make sure that the references are to pregnant inmate or detainee in each of these instances. Section 10 is very simple.
It said jail or personnel. We believe it's just jail personnel. bill. 11,
Speaker 4
47:39
we made some clarification of criminal offense. It's a class
Speaker 1
47:46
A misdemeanor because there was no specific penalty attached to the offense. And this also sets out the civil forfeiture Title 14, the next bill
Speaker 4
48:06
minor change basically to be consistent with other 2019 legislation one the rest of
Speaker 1
48:17
it if I can get the pages to turn we correct and or do the appropriate or Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Speaker 4
48:49
significant changes made. Title 15, next bill, section 1, clarify a phrase. rather than quasi-established rules with rules promulgated under this subchapter. Section 2, there's application for rebate
is a defined term, so we put that in in A, 1 and 2. Financial incentive agreement also, as you can tell on line 21, page 2. If you look at line 15 of page 2, you see the financial incentive agreement make
Speaker 1
49:25
that consistent. In section 3, it'll be hard for you to see, on page 3, line 2, we're
Speaker 4
49:34
taking out the letter, the word A, because application for rebate is a defined term in the
subchapter. Finally, and this is what I do want to point out for you all to look at, section 4, interfering with the director or his or her agent's criminal penalties, right now any person who shall accept as permitted by law, willfully resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with the director of the Division of Environmental Equality. What we have looking at is changed it to accept as permitted by law a person who knowingly, and I know civil commissioners have difficulties
Speaker 1
50:11
with the change from willfully to some other formal term of culability in the criminal code. I don't know if anyone had any comment on that or thoughts on
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:28
that does anybody have any question or comment the issue that Mr. Henderson is calling to our attention is that the essentially I guess the mental state for this offense would be
changed from willfully to knowingly my recollection is that knowingly is more commonly used uh in uh as we draft statutes now as opposed to willfully that maybe was used in the past but does anybody have any question or comment it's in i think i think
Speaker 120
51:03
that we previously um i made the argument that willfully would not be the same as knowingly but i believe that we i've lost that argument previously so to be consistent i think this would be consistent with what the commission
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
51:17
has previously decided okay thank you thank you for that those comments any other questions or
Speaker 63
51:27
comments matt i do on um let me see it's back early in this in the bill um hold on sorry it was let's see it's and i'm not sure i think my section i've been having a hard time following but But this is the bill to make technical corrections to Title V of the Arkansas Code concerning the criminal code.
And it's the one dealing with concealed carry down. So on the bottom of page three of that, it has a reference of obtaining a license to carry a concealed handgun. and i understand where they're coming from but there is there has been and i think that we actually actually clarified that if you have a license to carry then you can carry either concealed or open that you don't have an obligation to carry concealed either way that's an issue that
Speaker 123
52:25
that i think shouldn't be included in technical corrections bill because of the the potential confusion so i think i think we should strike that change
Speaker 121
52:33
all together and leave it as it was Okay, and that would be
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
52:38
at the bottom of page 3, line 36 Yeah, we'll just take section 6 out Okay, any other comment on that?
Without objection, we'll take out the reference
in section 6 so it'll be left as is I guess that could be something if there's others who want to look into that legislatively, they can. But for purposes of what we would be sending out, we would not be making that change to Section 6. Okay. Any other questions or comments? If not, we'll continue on. We're at, I believe we're now, would be starting Title 16.
Yes, correct? That's correct. Okay,
please proceed, and then as I state at the outset, we will take up all these as a batch, unless there's others that
Speaker 4
53:42
need to be pulled out or talked about. On Title 16, I believe, as I run through this
Speaker 1
53:51
quickly, I think everything we're taking out is obsolete or outdated, getting rid of municipal court-type references and clerk-type references, and now district courts and clerks, and also repealing sections that are obsolete
Speaker 58
54:06
because they refer to the old city courts or just as peace courts.
Speaker 129
54:20
Let's see. I did have a question about, if
Speaker 120
54:28
I may. Okay. about that but not limited to being changed to without limitation in section 12 and there's
another section or area as well that that is that I'm not sure that's the same thing so
Speaker 4
54:59
actually is and in fact our drafting practice the bureau now is to change that over
Speaker 1
55:05
as just a matter of course to without limitation as opposed to but not limited to
Speaker 13
55:10
Mr. Miller just to clarify what Mr. Henderson said we changed our drafting manual probably around 25 2005 or 2006 to use including without limitation instead of including but not limited to we've okay that was based on them being synonymous terms we didn't feel like we were changing anything we felt it you know red cleaner if you look at current bills you'll find it's
using including without limitation exclusively okay thank you
Speaker 120
55:46
for that explanation and i'm sorry i couldn't hear him very well so thank you all right
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
55:55
any other questions related to title 16. Okay, Mr. Henderson, you can proceed.
Speaker 4
56:14
The only one hadn't covered exactly is on page 33, section 20, where
Speaker 1
56:21
we take out the word necessary, adopt necessary rules, necessary to carry out its functions. I got the first necessary. We correct some references made necessary by Act 910 and Section 21. Correct a slight grammatical error change. The one thing I want to ask about
Section 22 has to do with liability concerning
Speaker 4
56:50
cycling activities. If you look on lines 19 and 20 on page 34, a collision with a natural or man-made object, is what it says now. We thought we would change this to artificial, but I want to know if anyone has a different sort of opinion on that. Artificial, obviously, is, better putting it, more parallel with the term natural.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
57:24
i don't know that's man they would be different from page 34 line 19.
this is on title 16. and the the question is the suggested changes from man-made to artificial the thought being that it's a more it's a better comparison to natural which is which is referenced immediately prior to that anybody have any comment all right go ahead and proceed other than
Speaker 4
58:09
correcting error and or we're finished with 16. Senator Bonk. To to to make it conform I won't say parallel exactly but to to make it consistent with the term natural we looked at unnatural but that didn't
Speaker 1
58:41
seem like it made a lot of sense either so we sort of honed in on artificial but I admit that that may
Speaker 5
58:50
or may not be as accurate as man-made or as limited
Speaker 4
59:06
limiting The legislation said man-made, just going through for consistency-type purposes.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
59:14
No. I think the question I would have is, Has that term, just as was previously referenced on the difference between including but not limited to versus without limitation, is that something that stylistically has been applied throughout the code now?
Or is this, I think if it's not been something that has been applied across the board, then I think I would tend to agree with Senator Vaughn. Why are we going down this road of changing a term out just for the sake of changing it? Mr. Miller,
do you know, is that a term that's... Vince, do you know that?
Speaker 68
1:00:15
I doubt there are many references in the code to natural objects or man-made objects either way.
Speaker 14
1:00:32
Does that have a hyphen in it? Yes. That's
Speaker 15
1:00:35
the only time it's used in Title XVI. That reference there. But it's certainly the will
of the commission. I think the intent here was just to get it more, to the extent the term natural is a little more defined. Man-made feels not as precise, but Vince is acknowledging that it's hard to come up with what the precise term is.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:01:06
I'm going to propose this for the sake of moving on and also
consistent with what I think has been generally a conservative approach. I would suggest that
unless there's objection that we not make that change and that may be something that as we move forward there can be further discussion with the bureau or the code revisor as to is that terminology something
that should be corrected across the board ok hearing no objection we'll remove that from that reference or that
Speaker 1
1:01:44
change from the bill package ok please proceed All right, to Title 17, simply correcting some references to division or I could say department, correcting some internal citations to be correct, and clarifying language in
Speaker 4
1:02:03
Section 3 by restructuring that section.
Speaker 58
1:02:08
title 18 this has to do with liens we take out some unnecessary language
Speaker 4
1:02:21
himself or herself we I want to again point this out in A2 the language says that the different providers shall each have a lien on any claim right of action and
Speaker 1
1:02:36
money to which patient entitled because that injury and to cost an attorney's fees incurred enforcing that lien
i don't think this was intended to create a lien for the cost attorney's fees separately and apart from the lien itself so what we've done is we've put in a subsection b D refers to costs
Speaker 42
1:03:05
and attorney's fees incurred enforcing the lien authorized by the chapter.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:03:29
Can you address that again? I'm trying to make sure I understand. 1846-104 talks about the
Speaker 1
1:03:36
extent of lien. On compliance requirements this chapter, the various list of practitioners should have lien for the value of the service rendered or to be rendered and on any claim right of action money to which a patient is entitled to because of that injury and to cost an attorney's fees incurred in enforcing that lien.
For one thing, that seems out of place in two to begin with, but the way this would
Speaker 4
1:04:06
otherwise read, you would have a lien also for the cost of attorney's fees
Speaker 1
1:04:11
for enforcing the lien, which is, I don't think, a typical sort
Speaker 4
1:04:17
of lien. And so what we did was we took that, duplicated the language as far as the particular providers
Speaker 1
1:04:30
and explained that they'd be titled cost and attorney's fees incurred enforcing
Speaker 7
1:04:35
the lien. And is this like a medical lien?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:04:43
Yes. So as I understand it the concern is that because subsection A says that
each provider shall each have a lien and then in two it refers to on any claim right of action or money to which the patient is entitled because of that injury and to cost and attorney's fees incurred in enforcing the lien,
the concern is that does that create an additional lien because of the cost and attorney's fees and by moving it to subsection B, we would be providing for cost and attorney's
fees but no lien related thereto. It takes a tough
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:05:31
attention. I just don't know enough about
Speaker 163
1:05:35
it. How did that phrase get added in legislation recently at line 34, 35?
Speaker 3
1:05:41
I don't actually recall. I'd have to look and
Speaker 163
1:05:46
see. Well, that would be my question. I mean, I agree with the way you have it. I think that's the intent. the question i have is should we should we be rewriting it i guess you know i mean that that would be my question
Speaker 151
1:06:03
i agree with the way you've done it i'm just wondering we should
Speaker 14
1:06:09
be moving mr miller uh it appears last session act 890 inserted and orthotics
press these words i'm gonna those words on the screen there um and it's sort
Speaker 15
1:06:19
of in the first paragraph made a similar change in one and added three it looks like we're looking at two the prior change to this section was in 93 so there wouldn't have been anything made to two you know since 1993 at a minimum looks like this one goes way back because if you if you could look past 1993 it looks like it was in the old stats and folks digest again kind of going
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:06:49
back to my earlier comments what i would propose is that without objection we maybe send this into the batch of bills that are kind of still on our agenda for future for us to look at and that we not include that in the in this package of technical corrections anybody have
any objection or comment to that if
Speaker 4
1:07:13
if i could i'd go ahead and like to take that out then but leave
Speaker 169
1:07:19
The other corrections that are in subsection A. The
Speaker 158
1:07:30
himself, herself? The himself or herself? Yeah, and that to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:07:34
the patient on line 30. Okay, well, in that case, why don't we just not make the change later on? We can flag that for future discussion, and that will be, without objection, and that's the later change that Senator Bond and myself were concerned with.
We won't make that change just as we haven't those other two changes that we've previously
discussed. We'll just cut this one down to A1, which has those type of graph type changes. So just make the changes in A1. Right. All right. Hearing no objection, we'll proceed.
Speaker 4
1:08:10
Title 20, change of reference from the deputy director to the Director of the Division of Workforce Services. That's in 20-69-205.
Speaker 1
1:08:24
Director, correct? That's correct, yes. In Title 21, the next bill, I'll
Speaker 4
1:08:33
just make a small correction, clarify if that's have his or her annual salary adjusted. In Section 2, we're repealing it because it expired December 2016. In Section 3, we're doing some existing terminology,
also taking out some outdated language. The
Speaker 1
1:08:56
term, a legal resident of an adjoining state, if you look on page 2, line 20, it has to do with notary public. the term we looked at for one better program the kind of term of art in this particular instance which is why then on page three line six we inserted the term legal legal resident
joining state to match up with uh what's on line 20 and same thing on page 4, line 4 and same thing on page 4, line 32 and page 5, lines 2 and
Speaker 4
1:09:55
protected cell is cells is a defined term so in section one and two we insert that in section three we repeal section because obsolete by
Speaker 1
1:10:13
its terms the next is as title 26 again this is another situation section one where and on page one line 24 changing willfully to knowingly we change misdemeanor to
violation because under the criminal code without a provision like that it's a violation with that kind of fine we take out some obsolete references this is some dates in section 5 this is expired provision if you look on the bottom page Page 2, line 36, and top page 3, line 1. Next section, we change the terminology of qualified widow and widower to surviving spouse.
Speaker 42
1:11:06
Not only because it's gender neutral, but because it's supposed to be conforming with federal law, and federal law
Speaker 4
1:11:31
is now using surviving spouse throughout. Same thing throughout most of this, just in passing on page 15, 26-51-501, we're taking
Speaker 1
1:11:40
out a defined term or terms that's not used anywhere in the subdivision. Taking out repealed language. Removing, on Section 11, we're removing a substantive definition, a substantive law from the definition, rather, and putting that in Section 12 as a new section. Then we have more obsolete provisions.
Complete references. Correct some empty changes. Boys Club is now the Boys and Girls Club of America. that's 26 last one 27 very quickly we should put in loaded because that's actually terms being used gross loaded wait I just have
Speaker 63
1:12:29
one one commenter thing to point out on the 26 before we move on go ahead center page 16 line 30 or it has a reference there to the widow or widower I don't know if there's any
Speaker 121
1:12:44
other that we missed but if we're going to change it we should probably go ahead and and change that one as well uh yeah well on mine that i'm looking at it's 31 but yeah 31 and 30. oh actually and 33 as well yeah so you
Speaker 63
1:13:06
probably want to search through there make sure we didn't hit anything else all right
Speaker 95
1:13:17
But Title 27, just correcting gross weight,
Speaker 1
1:13:21
gross loaded weight at the beginning of that subdivision D. That's the extent
Speaker 5
1:13:26
of the correction bills this time. Okay. Any questions
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:13:32
or comments? And if not, I'll try
and restate. I believe there are four, basically four principal changes based on our comments that we would have to this set.
And that would be the reference, Senator Ballinger referenced in one of the early bills, the language regarding a license to carry. And then secondly, the change from man-made to artificial. the third was the language moving the attorney's fees and costs related to the medical lien statute and then the fourth was to go ahead and make the change with regard to widow widow and widower throughout that piece of legislation and so with it mr. speaker
Speaker 63
1:14:24
i'm sorry i have one other
question uh that's that's back on title 12 all right if uh if we can go there all right so on on title 12 and i'm not quite there yet but there's a there's a reference when it talks about the the game of fish they include the word regulation there and um i know that we had legislation i think last session that basically moved us from dealing with regulations of the state to rule um now i'm not positive the game and fish was was included in that but if that
Speaker 121
1:15:03
language was specifically taken out with that legislation i'd hate to include it back in with technical correction mr henderson
Speaker 4
1:15:13
i can't recall i'll have to take a look and see the the thing is state game and
Speaker 1
1:15:19
fish commission being an independent constitutional agency uh i think they do and have continue to have what they call regulations but i can check and see about that okay yeah i apologize because i can't
Speaker 63
1:15:34
remember and i do understand game fish a little
a little bit different than every other state agency
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:15:42
mr mr miller and maybe it's that reference there's a reference that adds or regulation i think it
Speaker 4
1:15:58
was early on Yes, section 1. 12-12-324D, subsection D.
Speaker 13
1:16:10
Mike. Act 315 did change regulation to rule. Right. So I would just
Speaker 121
1:16:15
say that unless game and finish, and if they do have a significant reason to
Speaker 63
1:16:20
include regulation, I would say let them have a separate bill to do so. But I would say since we specifically changed that from regulation
Speaker 182
1:16:27
to rule, we probably ought to leave it that way. Okay. Any other
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:16:39
comment or question? All right. So we'll add that to the list that I just mentioned.
Speaker 184
1:16:44
So there's four things here. I do. I have a comment back on
Speaker 189
1:17:15
Title I. Okay. Please proceed. We're on Title I.
I believe the proposal was to change a reference from the Arkansas Transportation Commission to the Arkansas Department of Transportation and I would I would ask that that changed instead to the Arkansas State Highway Commission. The reason being the Arkansas Transportation Commission was abolished and its duties are divided between the State Highway
Commission, Department of Transportation, and 1-3-103 refers to issuing general orders and the publication of them and that would fall under the response of of the State Highway Commission okay and and if you would state your name and who you're with just I can
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:18:14
see it on the screen here but just so everybody that's listening can can hear
Speaker 189
1:18:24
that sure sure this is Trella spark staff attorney for
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:18:29
the Arkansas Highway Commission all right do you would are you suggesting the same change to section two or a similar change I do not have that open, let me look.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:19:44
just for clarification in section one it refers to the respective secretaries
of the public service commission and you would want that to read the arkansas state highway commission is that
correct that's correct all right is there
any question or comment with regard to that Okay, so without objection, we'll include that, those changes. So based on my notes, without objection, we will submit these bills for filing as technical corrections.
However, the changes we have made that would be incorporated or not incorporated, as the case may be, would be this change from the Department of Transportation actually to the State Highway Commission would be deleting the addition of regulations related to game and fish that Senator Ballinger mentioned. Additionally, we would not make the change related to the license to carry that Senator Ballinger mentioned. We would also not make the change
from man-made to artificial. We would not make the change with regard to the attorney's fees and costs related to a medical lien. And we would go ahead and make additional changes to the reference of widow or widower to bring that into consistency with the other parts of that particular piece of legislation. Any comment, objection, question?
If not, without objection, we'll proceed with those pieces of legislation. That brings us to item E, the publisher proposed Arkansas code replacement volumes and price adjustments for the next three years, and that is, Mr. Miller.
Speaker 15
1:21:48
One question real fast before we move on from the technical correction bills. Sponsorship of the
Speaker 16
1:21:55
bills, that's something we can discuss offline
as to whether you want to start them all as Senate bills, all as House bills. Why don't
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:22:05
we, I would say among the legislative members of the commission, why don't we discuss that, and then we'll report back as to how
Speaker 4
1:22:15
to proceed in that regard. All right. Out of me, Mr. Henderson. In your packet is a letter from LexisNexis. There are two aspects of this letter. First has to do with proposed schedule and possible volumes for placements.
want to direct your attention to i think it's
Speaker 1
1:22:37
page three i guess it would be i'm going to deal with the replacement volumes uh and what we're
Speaker 4
1:22:44
going to recommend for the commission to consider and then i'll have a miss metheny with lexus discuss the price adjustment what we're looking at is replacing four volumes in 2021 4a 4b and 5 there'll be four because those be reorganized and split to have an additional volume in 2022 we're looking
at replacing volume 6b volume 21 which will be split into two volumes and then And on the next page, volumes 28A and 28B, which will become three volumes, which I think I did my count correctly, that's six volumes for 2022. They put in a request that we look at volumes to replace 2023.
I spoke with Ms. Matheny about this. I think in light of the fact that in between now and then we'll have two legislative sessions, it may be a little premature
Speaker 1
1:23:52
for us to be trying to figure out exactly what volumes replace at this point in time on that third year. And we'll have some time to look at that next year or the year after. We don't want
Speaker 4
1:24:07
to get caught, quite honestly, behind as we did in 2018. We were fairly aggressive in replacement volumes.
And we got caught working on replacement volumes
Speaker 1
1:24:17
while at the same time working on reviewing bills for the 2019 legislative session. I can explain reason
Speaker 39
1:24:27
or justifications for this if you want me to. And that's a bit
Speaker 197
1:24:33
different than Lexus's recommendation. Obviously, it's a little less. But
Speaker 15
1:24:37
as Vince said, we got a little too aggressive a couple of years ago.
and got caught in kind of a situation right as the session led up where we couldn't get done with the replacement volume.
Speaker 16
1:24:52
So we're trying to be a little more deliberate in our commitments
Speaker 198
1:25:00
on that. Okay. Any questions? Mr. Chairman, if
Speaker 199
1:25:06
I could, I would like to make one comment on that. Okay. This is Leslie Matheny from LexisNexis. Mr. Henderson and I did get a chance to talk this morning, And I do appreciate his position on not identifying the third year of volumes and completely understand.
However, I am going to say that after that conversation, I went back and talked to editorial and talked to various people and looked at the history of Arkansas. And due to the large amount of legislation, it is really incumbent to keep up with the Arkansas code that we average six RVs per year. If we only do 10, it kind of creates a problem where you get behind.
So I understand not wanting to get in a bind, but I would suggest doing one more volume that would have a split such as 24b which would be one volume wouldn't be that much more additional work would be a split would keep the code up and would keep the code from in the future being even more of an
Speaker 201
1:26:24
onerous project for both our
editorial staff and your staff all right any any questions or
Speaker 122
1:26:33
comments Senator bond so we have y'all's recommendation
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:26:39
right and she's my understanding that she's recommending one additional volume be split yes that's correct we have we amended their recommendation and
Speaker 13
1:26:49
she's amending that recommendation. That's all the substitute motions we can have on
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:26:58
replacing the oil. I'm just making sure I had it straight in my head.
Speaker 15
1:27:05
All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can
Speaker 42
1:27:09
I ask Mr. Henderson, 24B, what is that? That's, I believe, the last volume of Title 23,
Speaker 14
1:27:15
Public Utilities and Regulated Industries. I mean, I, may I, Mr. Speaker, I mean, what I said a moment ago we we we out kicked it
Speaker 15
1:27:23
as far as our commitment a couple of years ago in the pre-session year you know and had trouble keeping up obviously I mean this isn't all we do you know there's bill
review there's other duties that we have as far as the statutory review section and we've really tried to learn from what happened that time and that we got over committed and entered session in a kind of a badly burned out place because we had to grind so hard just to finish the replacement volumes and the work was getting backed up so you know certainly the commission's prerogative on what to do that's just where our suggestion came from we're trying to stay flexible so that we're ready to address whatever comes down the road now we we rarely don't get
anything done I mean I think with the bureau we have a long
Speaker 16
1:28:08
history of completing whatever is assigned if it's the commission's will to add a volume here I guarantee you we'll get it
Speaker 199
1:28:16
done and also I'd like to add I think that was a situation where there were 16 volumes over a period of two years and that's a heck of a lot
Speaker 201
1:28:23
that's a little bit different situation than four and eight any other questions or comments what's
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:28:33
the what's the will of the Commission okay Senator Bond moves staff
Speaker 32
1:28:38
recommendation I think we I'm used to the house where we don't need a second I I think in the commission we
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:28:51
do need a second. Is there a second? I'll second it, Mr. Meade. Okay, Senator Ballinger seconds that. Any discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying
aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. We'll go with the staff recommendation.
All right, moving on to item F, the discussion. you the the next part is the price change oh okay yeah the fun part
Speaker 199
1:29:28
henderson yeah leslie you want to go and explain the the the pricing right certainly thank you um the pricing we have kept very very modest um what we are proposing is basically for the replacement volumes a little less than a four
price increase again for the index a little less than a four percent and for the QMSUP it's like 4.1 percent this is in comparison to the producers price index which tells you what the actual industry is is up if you look in the past year the industry is up 10 percent if you actually look in the last two years the industry is up 15% and we didn't want to go there we
wanted to keep you at a modest increase and felt that the 4% range was a fair number okay any
Speaker 122
1:30:30
questions or comments what's will of the committee
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:30:43
I'm fine with the increase sometimes I wonder if I'm the only
Speaker 163
1:30:48
one still buying these books you may still yeah there's three of us maybe I don't know I assume
there has to be some small increase each year they print I don't know if the if our members mr. Henderson has an opinion on the increase but I'm fine with it and I would move approval
Speaker 39
1:31:10
of it as long as... I think the price increases is well in line
Speaker 1
1:31:15
with, and maybe more, you know, even better from our standpoint as part of the cost increases. I want to point out that the pocket part supplement price will not go up until the 2023 supplements, I believe.
Speaker 42
1:31:28
The index placement bottoms go into effect this next
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:31:32
year. All right. We have a motion for the recommendation on the price increase. Is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes.
Speaker 4
1:31:59
All right, now are we ready for item F? Yes, sir. Yes, I'm sorry. This is just a short explanation of GeorgiaVsPublicResource.org. Mr. Anders Gonson with Lexis, been working with, obviously, Lexis and following
Speaker 1
1:32:18
the case closely, and I asked him if he would to give kind of short presentation to the commission on that and what effect, if any, it has on the Arkansas Code of 1987 and annotated.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:32:32
And okay, he's recognized for the presentation. Thank
Speaker 216
1:32:40
you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members. So I will keep this fairly brief, but I certainly will be happy to
Speaker 217
1:32:47
entertain questions towards. So earlier this spring, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Georgia versus the public resource.org, which had to do with the status of the official code of Georgia, the copyright ability of that one uh georgia's copyright was challenged by an entity out in california
i believe that arkansas also joined in with an amicus brief ultimately the the court ruled and it's a the ruling is uh as these things often aren't is particularly straightforward uh long story short i mean the public resource declared victory in terms of the copyright ability of the annotations what what we kind of found in our analysis though is that at this time we don't our estimation is that the ruling of the supreme court not particularly broad application
and one of the reasons why i'm saying that is that georgia the way that they do their codification work and their code work differs from any other state so mechanically the work that we do with the state of georgia is fairly similar to what we do with the state of arkansas one big difference is that there is a section at the beginning somewhere in the code of georgia that says that that explicitly says that the annotations are merged in with the uh with the rest of the legislative tax moreover at the end
of each uh annual legacy cycle next year there is a vote by the full uh legislature to formally adopt the official code of georgia annotated so because they're doing that doing that in a specific way and they specifically adopt the the annotations legislatively the the supreme court kind of ended up with the uh with the conclusion that everything is essentially an edict of government and as such not copyrightable um no other state really does it that way so at this time i mean our point of view
as far as like this next is concerned is that the ruling and its implications until you know as these things go right until it's tried otherwise we kind of feel that the application is limited to georgia i mean it did it did affirm some important principles i mean certainly everybody agrees that the text of the legislation itself or the code is not copyrightable you know that there was a time when when people used to think that that certainly has been clarified not to be the case it also which which was an important point
it was that they affirmed that um unlike works by the federal government that under the copyright act cannot be copyrighted at all there is nothing that precludes prevents a state government entity from copywriting anything as long as it is not a an edict of government certainly you know there there were certain things in the Supreme Court ruling with which I do not agree, and certainly some of the analysis that's not entirely apt. But overall, I mean, we feel that
as much as we were disappointed in the outcome, in some regards, at the end of the day, I mean, we do not at this present time see it as a major threat to sort of the model that is working successfully in Arkansas. That's not to say that we may not come back in a year or at any point in the future and want to have a conversation to see if we need to do any changes to contractual relationship as a result. All right.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:36:25
Any questions? But as I understand, at this point there's no action to be taken, it's just a report on
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:36:37
the status of? That's correct. Yes, sir. Okay. What was the holding in the case, I guess? I'm just behind on that, saying that the Georgia Code can't be sold or copyrighted. I haven't read it. I apologize. The case. Mr.
Speaker 4
1:36:55
Ganton, do you want to answer that question?
Did you hear that, what the exact holding was of Georgia?
Speaker 216
1:37:08
Sorry, we'll see a question there. It helps to hear the audio
Speaker 14
1:37:14
in the room at times. Senator Bond, what happened in the case, and Vince can chime in with me to
Speaker 15
1:37:20
recall the facts. A company basically took the annotated code, put it on a flash drive, and started distributing it for free, which was in violation of the copyright in Georgia.
So that ended up being litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, the party that had made the flash drive. alleged that the code was uncopyrightable because it was in the public domain basically and the court you know generally agreed with them you know as anders said there's he's arguing that it's similar you know that it's different than what we do here some parts of that opinion are similar to what we do here perhaps there's you know more to evolve as it goes on but the issue
there was you know could the party took it basically and the court said that
Speaker 101
1:38:06
that was ultimately permissible because it existed in the public domain i
Speaker 224
1:38:13
have a question i have a question may i speak sure you're recognized i read the opinion and i cannot distinguish it i didn't study it intently but i thought it sounded just like our our situation where we don't have a copyright in the annotations and that um i thought it did apply to arkansas and i wanted
to know if uh vince had studied it and saw ramifications for us down the road um where we would not be able to have exclusive uh copyright in our our annotations and therefore others would be able to contract to you to do annotations. That's kind of
Speaker 68
1:39:03
difficult to to answer in in the because of Georgia case.
Speaker 1
1:39:09
The state of Arkansas owns the copyright to Arkansas Code of 1987 annotated. One of the questions that they're trying to work around resolve was the copyright ability of the annotations. by the state and the court went off on kind of a tangent with that that really doesn't make a lot of sense except maybe to them about the annotations so what that will mean in the future I don't know
The commission may end up having to discuss separating the annotations from the code itself, allowing the publisher to copyright the annotations with a contractual requirement to either pass that copyright on to the state should we, for whatever reason, go away from a publisher or perhaps require them to transfer that over to a new publisher
Speaker 224
1:40:17
in that kind of situation. I know it only applied to the annotations, but it seemed to me you
Speaker 132
1:40:28
could extrapolate that we wouldn't be
Speaker 68
1:40:31
allowed to maintain a copyright in the code either. Well, the statutory,
Speaker 1
1:40:36
the actual statute language, no. I don't know if anyone's argued in a long time about the copywritability of the actual statute language. It really fell mostly on the annotations and how it was, in Georgia's case,
merged with the statute language and adopted as such by
Speaker 44
1:40:53
the Georgia legislature, which is what we do not do here. Yeah, and if
Speaker 144
1:41:00
I could add, if I may, it's hard to raise your hand when you're in a Zoom meeting,
Speaker 216
1:41:05
but if i could just add two quick points um first of
Speaker 217
1:41:12
all i mean this will become clearer at probably the next six to nine months because under the contract we we do continue to register the
copyrights in the uh the piece of the arkansas code that we produce and at some point the copyright office under underlying congress is going to come back to us and the idea is going going to issue the cert or the certificate, or are they going to push back? And how they react is anybody's guess. I mean, speaking from personal experience, I mean, typically the copyright office is running about a year behind on applications from time that we file them till we actually get a certificate back.
And then the other part too is that there's a fair degree of inconsistency depending on who actually looks at the application. So it will be some time. think at some point next year we would have a clearer picture on how the copyright office actually use this because they are the in some ways they're the first first sort of arbiter of all of this i do think as was said that it may be advantageous to look at a model whereby we the publisher obviously we do the annotations today
where we copyright them but where you do a an arrangement such as mr henderson was mentioning or whether we at the same time execute a non-exclusive royalty-free license to the state so that they can use the annotations in perpetuity should somebody else become the publisher in the future um to the
Speaker 14
1:42:46
extent ms brownstein was asking how this affects arkansas you know at a future meeting you may want to the
Speaker 15
1:42:52
attorney general's office might could come in and discuss that. We, as Mr. Ganton referenced, we had joined that suit
and filed an amicus brief, I believe, in Georgia. So, you know, our attorney's general's office is familiar with the case and it's holding and had an interest in it. So at the appropriate time, they might be able to offer insight on that. It's a complicated issue. Again, there's things in common. Our code revision commission is very similar to what they have in Georgia. You know, it's just kind of an unsettled question there as to what the next step would look like if someone pursued it all right any other any other questions or comments
Speaker 4
1:43:29
if not we'll move to item g item g uh we're putting recodification proposals uh what uh what i have uh put in your packet are some proposals not for decision today as commission but to look at these we are looking at doing some recodification finally title 19 being the one probably most necessary
and one that's closer to where we need to be title 19 is public finance we also have as you tell in your packet uh different titles in various states development from title three alcoholic beverages title seven elections and title 16 which is the courts like for y'all to i think you all have that online now
Speaker 1
1:44:35
i think we sent sent that to you
if you would i'd appreciate if you would take a look at those next year sometime after the session may come back and ask the commission to while they've already authorized us to do recodification specifically on Title 19 to set up a plan or program on exactly how to go about doing that one of the things looking at possibly suggesting the commission is for the commission to appoint or have someone volunteer commissioner to chair an ad hoc committee uh bringing the parties together
to look at the draft and try and figure out uh at this point this is this more than 10 corrections let's be substantive to see what and where how we can write a rewrite title 19 to fit in with how state government in this particular case works and now especially especially with public finance One of the things I'm also looking at with Title 19 is the possibility of taking several of the funds that are created statutorily out of the Title 19 and instead authorizing,
say, the Department of Finance Administration to create funds at a certain level by administrative rule with input perhaps from other parts of the executive branch, say the governor, maybe the Board of Finance. As administrative rule, that would be required to go through legislative council, just like the other administrative rule, to get legislative input as well. That would relieve a lot of the pressure of having to create or find places in the code
for each new fund that gets created and give everyone some flexibility, just not on the code but also administratively. So that's just an example, but sometime next year look at perhaps as they're putting together a committee, people look at this, meet and discuss what and where we want to go as far as reworking because we need to do Title
Speaker 42
1:46:41
19. We have subchapters that have run out of numbers. That's what I was about to say.
Speaker 14
1:46:50
Vince can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we've
Speaker 15
1:46:54
recodified since we created the code in 87. So we're still running with the original model. Nineteen is the one certainly that we've completely outgrown from a numbering standpoint. So, you know, it's just something for the commission to look at and think about. It's been said it would be a big project, but Title 19 in particular is getting a bit cluttered with just fund upon fund upon fund being stacked in those subchapters.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:47:22
So it sounds like this is something for us to consider, want it on our radar, something for consideration
at a future meeting yes sir that's correct all right any questions
or comments on that all right now we'll move to other business i'm not aware of any other business uh and then we go to the report the report of the code revisor trying to
Speaker 4
1:47:49
make this short we uh finished up all the replacement volumes uh in a really timely manner despite the uh problems with
Speaker 1
1:47:55
COVID-19 got those I think we're waiting for some of the volumes get back from the publisher but our work is done on that for now I want to point out that we also sent a letter the chair did which were required to under act 910 reporting the changes the commission made as a result of act 910 put
Speaker 42
1:48:20
that in i think it was october's meeting to the council that's all i have all
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:48:30
right i believe that's all that's on our agenda for
today is there any any other business to come before the commission if not then we will be adjourned thank you for your participation You
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Approval of the Minutes of August 18, 2020, meeting – Exhibit B
C. Undecided Act 910 issues remaining from August 18, 2020 meeting – Exhibit C
D. Technical Corrections Bills – Exhibits D
E. Publisher proposed Arkansas Code replacement volumes and price adjustments for next three years – Exhibit E
F. Discussion of United States Supreme Court copyright decision, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., No. 18-1150 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020)
G. Recodification proposals – Exhibits G
H. Other Business
I. Report of Code Revisor
J. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 4
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 15
Speaker 20
Speaker 23
Speaker 26
Speaker 28
Speaker 29
Speaker 35
Speaker 36
Speaker 43
Speaker 42
Speaker 58
Speaker 3
Speaker 63
Speaker 68
Speaker 78
Speaker 82
Speaker 107
Speaker 109
Speaker 120
Speaker 123
Speaker 121
Speaker 129
Speaker 131
Speaker 13
Speaker 5
Speaker 7
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
Speaker 163
Speaker 151
Speaker 169
Speaker 158
Speaker 135
Speaker 95
Speaker 182
Speaker 184
Speaker 189
Speaker 196
Speaker 16
Speaker 39
Speaker 197
Speaker 198
Speaker 199
Speaker 201
Speaker 122
Speaker 101
Speaker 32
Speaker 216
Speaker 217
Speaker 224
Speaker 132
Speaker 44
Speaker 144