Code Revision Commission
Video
Transcript
8 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
Code revision commission will come to order, uh. First item of business is approval of the minutes from the October 17, 2024 meeting. Everyone should have
a copy of those minutes in your packet, I believe it's, uh, exhibit B. We have a motion by Senator Tucker, is there a second? Second Any discussion
All in favor of approval. Say I. I. Any opposed? The
minutes are approved. Next item of business is considerate consideration of authorization of expense reimbursement for official commission duties. Pursuant to Arkansas Code 2516902, uh, information on this is found at exhibit C. I believe this is just the standard protocol at each meeting, but I'll, uh, refer to the code
Speaker 14
6:16
this. Yes, uh, Mr. Chair, this is just a statute that authorizes the members, non-legislative members of
Speaker 16
6:22
a board to get expense reimbursement. It's something that's required for you all to
the first meeting. All right. Any motion do not pass. Legislators, legislators get paid to be here,
Speaker 10
6:43
any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? The motion passes. Next item, item D, discussion of publishing contracts with Lexus. And, uh, I believe
that's Miss Thayer and I'll recognize you to present, uh, the information on the contract.
Speaker 27
7:16
Thayer, Bureau of Legislative Research. Um, I believe that you all have the, uh, Lexus contract. In, in your packets so just a brief bit of background on this, um, in February of 2018, the Code Revision Commission put out an RFP for bids, uh, to do the publishing contract. Lexus was the only response that was received. Uh, we finalized this contract that we're currently under with them, and it was
approved by, uh, the Code Revision Commission and the Legislative council authorized Director Garrity to move forward with it in September of that. year. The contract terminates this year on December 31st. And so it does provide for two renewal terms of up to 7 years each, um, at this point, it's just up to this commission to determine if you want to move forward with, uh, extending this contract. And if so, uh, the bureau would just, uh, require that authorization and then we would take it through the
legislative council for the final approval. I'll take any questions. OK. Were
there any questions? Senator Tucker, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I,
um, any issues with Lexis? I would defer to your code advisor to
Speaker 27
8:35
answer that question. No, no, we haven't had any issues. We've
Speaker 16
8:39
had a good working relationship with them. They've been really responsive to our questions and concerns we've had over things and appreciate their work. OK, good. That's what I
figured, but just asking, and, uh, is there any indication that if we were to open it back up that anyone other than Lexis would apply for the contract. I'm not
Speaker 45
9:00
sure about that. I don't know. OK, all right, thank you,
Mr. Chair. Any other questions? We also have, uh, Mr. Brian Kennedy here from LexisNexis. I don't know if he might have some comments for the commission. Sure.
Speaker 56
9:26
You're welcome to come forward. Just a brief comment that Lexis is um looking forward to
Speaker 53
9:40
working with uh the state of Arkansas going forward and we are in favor of extending the contract.
Speaker 58
9:47
OK, thank you. Any questions? Is there a motion?
Moved it OK, we have a motion to, uh, approve to extend, I guess to exercise the first option, is that, would that be correct, Ms. Thayer, or to the code advisor either one. OK. Is there a second, a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. And he opposed? Motion passes.
Next item, uh, is the discussion of publication options for Title 19 and I believe, uh, Mr. Kennedy may be a part of this discussion as well, so. We'll let you stay at the table. And
you're recognized for uh comments you may have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The um I've, I've met with the
Speaker 64
10:50
editorial on the manufacturing teams, uh, to discuss how we go
Speaker 53
10:59
forward with, with uh Title 19, um, as you know, it, it's um. Totally we did it, it, it be um It recodes and and it replaces the former 19 and we thought about the different options that we could have too, but the one that we came up with that we think that it's gonna be best for the customers is to replace those volumes with hard pound volumes during the supplement season.
How many, how many volumes will it be? It'll be 2 volumes. 19 so it'll be
like a 19A and a 19B. That's correct. Any discussion. Questions for
Speaker 67
11:49
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miller, you recognized, Brian, would that be priced as a supplement or would it be priced as a replacement
Speaker 68
11:55
volume. It's, it Technically it will be, it should be priced as a replacement volume, and I know
that's more than the supplement, um, and I have to I think there may be some leeway, some negotiation where we can do, uh, because we already established our 5 supplements for December. And I know that this is an additional 2, that has not been planned, um. But we are going to have to recoup
Speaker 53
12:26
some of our manufacturing costs for traditional hard bound volumes. So I'm open to discuss
Speaker 68
12:34
with you and Mr. Coon, uh, negotiating those prices, um, and if we need to set them now, I can, I can work on that. But, um It's, it's, we're gonna have to price it as a as a replacement volume. And perhaps discount it. All right. And I guess as far
as the action item, is there anything, any action for the commission to take or is it just simply that
we, uh, that, uh, the commissioner and the code redvisor in Lexus worked towards looking at what those proposals might be and what the cost might be. I would think traditionally this is
Speaker 42
13:15
a decision that's made by the commission on whether, because it would involve having 2 new replacement volumes
Speaker 14
13:20
that are not part of the normal schedule and because there might be some increased cost with that. It's a decision that
Speaker 42
13:25
has been made by the commission and so I guess the question I would have then
if, if we were not to go the route of the two volumes and
basically you would have to do, you would be doing supplements that are essentially books for some period of time, at some point, this has to happen and, and, uh. It seems probably from. The standpoint of convenience and just the, the workability of the, of having
the complete set that it probably makes sense to go ahead and do that
Speaker 56
13:55
now. Yes, you would have to have two standalone supplements following two basically obsolete bound volumes that right, that's a good point. I mean, the, the,
the hard, the hard bound red codebooks for Title 19 right now are essentially obsolete. OK. All right, so, uh, and just for the benefit of our legislative members, uh, or those that are sitting in, that's Title 19 recodification, uh, was the, I think it was 820-page bill that, uh, I had the privilege of caring, I guess the uh. The downside from the press not understanding really what that bill was is that
I, I guess I may have the first bill in history that has its own books that you could
carry around with you you so choose books, 2 books. Any, any questions? Don't leave me. That's true that certainly
Senator Tucker and Senator Bryant, Representative. Uh, gas away, uh, we all divvied up the, uh, the code revision work this go around, so. Senator Bryant, thank you. Uh, at what point would the supplements
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:03
go away and we issue all new books. How often does that happen in the, in the
Speaker 74
15:09
process? Well, it it depends on how much legislation has been passed since the last
Speaker 53
15:17
replacement volume and we do an analysis every year where we see how big the supplement is compared to the uh the bound volume, and then we make the recommendation, so typically on average I would say 5 years, uh, uh, a volume would, would, um, accumulate enough supplement material to to require us to merge them into the bound volume. OK, alright,
thank you. A question that I would have is if we, if we are going to move forward with this,
could you look at maybe delaying some of what would have been. The normal replacement, in other words, kind of move this to the front and push back because obviously this is, this seems to be pressing because this is a replacement of the whole code, the hard bound books are completely obsolete, whereas every other book that's in the code, uh, or in those volumes right now, generally, most of it is still.
Generally good law except for the changes made in the 2025 session.
Speaker 74
16:17
Right, I, I, I need to look at the analysis to see whether or not those volumes supplements are
Speaker 56
16:23
so big that we. Theoretically, yes, we could do that. We could replace 2 that we plan on doing in December with the two that
Speaker 53
16:32
we plan on producing with the supplement. That, that sounds like a good solution. I, I just need to work with, um, I guess, uh, Mr. Coon
to to determine which ones to sub out. OK. All right, any other questions? I guess we would need a, a motion to proceed with. The two volumes I guess subject to LexisNexis and staff coming back to us with the details of what that looks
like, uh. How quickly could that occur in terms of what the cost might be and also what the, what the plan
may be moving forward. If we,
Speaker 56
17:16
if we, um, substitute the books out for 2 and in the future then. Then the price will
Speaker 53
17:22
be the same as the the 5. But if we decided, OK, alright, so, so actually if we move,
basically brought them to the front of the line and pushed back some other revisions. To other hard bound books, the price would stay the same as what
it's always been or close there too. That's, that's correct. OK.
Any further questions? Is there a motion? Senator Bryant Motion to move forward with 2 volumes. Is there a second? Smolnik second. Any discussion? Well, I, I mean, I think the
code adviser recommended a motion, but I would say if the, if the price is identical to what it has been, then I would think this would be final action. Mm
So hopefully the price will be what it has been
Speaker 105
18:27
so we don't have to have another meeting. Yeah. You, you caught me and um. Situation where I think
Speaker 74
18:37
so. I I wasn't sure whether or not the 2025 pricing has been established for the code and for the um. For the replacement volumes yet
Speaker 53
18:45
and I was under the assumption that that would happen at a different.
Meeting, um, and forgive me if, if, um, I don't, I don't have a full grasp of the process for the state, but um I'm not sure if the 2025 pricing has already has
been established. Brian, it was my understanding that we do have the pricing for 2025 and, and I believe
Speaker 14
19:10
later this year, we were scheduled to replace, uh, two volumes, I think 13A and 13B. And
Speaker 108
19:15
with that being the case, that would be the logical ones to substitute.
Speaker 109
19:24
OK. Did you have 7A and 7B on your list as well? I, I don't have my, my list with
Speaker 74
19:31
me, but those are the two that I, I know off the top of my head. And I had, I had 44 December, which is
Speaker 111
19:38
7A7B, 13A, and 13B, yeah, that's kind of ringing a bell. I think there that
Speaker 53
19:42
might be right. So if the pricing for that has already been established, then the 1980 and the 19B will will honor that price. All right. And
if there's any deviation from the that we can always come back and have, uh, have another meeting
if need be to consider any, uh, change to that, but obviously it would be much easier if the pricing stays the same.
Speaker 114
20:03
any further discussion, uh, Mr. Chair, would you want to leave it up to staff to determine which two we're gonna substitute for
assuming that there were 4 future ones, um, uh. I mean, that's fine with me, but I would, uh, I
Speaker 117
20:16
would take feedback from the commission, obviously. OK. All
right. So we have a motion to proceed with the 22 new volumes for 19.
Uh, subject to staff and LexisNexis determining which two volumes to, to take out of the or to delay for a year and that the pricing stays the same. All right. Any further discussion, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right, we're gonna move to item F. This is, uh, 2025 Acts, uh, errors and issues
and just for the um. Benefit of, of those that may be
new to code revision. Staff, uh, goes through the Acts from 2025, looks at the law and tries to identify
Any, um, inconsistencies that may exist, any conflicts that may exist. And then highlights those, uh, uh, as you know as we can all imagine it's a,
a pretty tedious process and, and I think that even continues even continuing forward, but these are the initial ones that they've
identified for us. So we'll go through those again from code revision standpoint, generally, we can make adjustments that are non-substantive that are to basically clarify, uh, Obvious
errors, typos, uh, inconsistencies if, but if it gets into, uh, things that are arguably substantive or could be substantive, then, uh, we've tried to steer clear of that historically, uh, because obviously, uh, we want to make
sure that we aren't doing anything to undermine what is the, the will of the legislature, uh, with regard to these, uh, various acts. And so with that we will uh start through this. I'll
just turn over to the code revisor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also
Speaker 14
22:17
just want to mention too that this report is, these are just the thoughts and suggestions of staff on these various issues and as the commission, you're free to take a different approach or to come up with whatever result or decide these issues, however you would like. Um.
For this part will be in exhibit F. There's page numbers at the top right to help keep track of where we are. I'll use those page numbers to guide us through the exhibit. On page one of the exhibit is the report that's detailing each item that we identified in our review. Following that report, the exhibit is a divide is divided into 5 categories of items labeled A through E. Each item we have a copy of the relevant act or part of an act, and other useful information. I will introduce each item with reference to that label and the page number at the top right.
The page numbers at the bottom or from the individual acts. So they're only going to be useful for that act and so to avoid confusion, I'm gonna use the page number from the exhibit, which is on the top right of each page. So I'll start with the items under item A. Commissioners, these items involve manifest reference errors, historically, you all have used your authority under Arkansas Code 12303D to correct these types of errors. Our first item is item A1, beginning on page 9.
This item concerns Act 205. On page 10, lines 10 through 12, there's an outdated version of 215 110182. The language here does not include an amendment to that subdivision from a 2024 Act. The present law is set out on page 11 of the exhibit. We suggest setting out the subdivision to match the current language of 215111 110182 as the Act did not use markup. Or indicate any intent to change
that before. OK. Yeah. All right, members, if you'll take a look at that. On section for section A unless there's, uh, question, we'll just take up one motion at the end of the section for all 7 if somebody wants to pull something out for a separate vote or, or even consider holding over for another meeting, we can certainly do that, but just, uh, for kind of the ease of inefficiency of, uh, our meeting today. We'll just go through them and then at the end of section A, we'll consider a motion as to all.
OK. Any, any question on? On number one Act 205, Senator Tucker. You're recognized. Thank
The language Kevin on page one. Under item one That's
set off after the colon. Is that the language you're proposing to insert into Yes, sir. That's also for
Speaker 140
25:45
everyone else, that's also on page 11 of your
Speaker 14
25:48
exhibit that shows that shows what the existing law of 215 1101. A2 looks like. In those other subdivisions, CA B and C were
Speaker 114
25:55
not present in the act. So we're gonna take the language on page
11 and replace the highlighted language on page 10 with that one that's the suggestion. OK, thank you.
Speaker 148
26:25
Recog. Yes, yes, ma'am, the, the on page 10, that's the bill and the act as passed by the
Speaker 14
26:33
General Assembly. Which did not reflect what the current law was, and it did not use markup when it did that and that current law is there on page 11. That's from a 2024 A during the fiscal session. Thank you. All right, any, any other questions? All right. If not, item 2.
A A 2 is on page 12. This item concerns Act 214. On page 14 of the exhibit, lines 26 through 27. There's a discrepancy between the words and the numbers of a latitude. The words are 34 degrees, 40 minutes. And the numbers are 34 degrees 46 minutes. And I believe we have, we were supposed to have someone from the GIS office here
Speaker 154
27:23
to speak on this issue, Mr. Chair, OK, if there is,
I'll ask them to come forward and, uh, introduce
yourself to the commission and then. Tell us which
Speaker 156
27:40
is correct. Hi, Jennifer Davis, staff attorney with TSS, um, it should be 46 minutes. With the 34, 46 2nd North thing. So it should be 34, 46. So we would, we
would need to add. A We
would need to add a dash and then 6 in the wording in the actual words.
Uh, to change from 40 to 46. That is correct. OK. All right. Any questions? All right, thank you. And just, just to be clear. That obviously is a manifest error because the words and the numbers don't match, so so there's, there's no way to, there's no way to potentially harmonize the two, so, uh, just for clarity for
everyone that may be watching. All right, any questions on that? Senator Tucker,
and not that I, at the end of the day, I don't think it really matters, but, you know,
in legal documents when I'm preparing legal documents, and you, you, you write out the, the numbers, and then you put them in parentheses. My understanding is that if there's a conflict, what's written out? prevails because it's a lot easier to make a typo on an individual number than it is when you're writing the whole word out. So, you know, we're, we're kind of overruling the written in favor of the, the digit and and and I'm fine with that, but I just, that's my, I, I mean, I.
I, I had the same thought. My my thought would be that code revision has a specific authority with regard to an error that's in the code and that that is what would justify being able to make that
change. But I, I agree, I had the same thought
Speaker 14
29:23
and sure the, the commission has authority to correct, you know, topographical errors, so it's whichever one you determine is an error, and I agree with you
Speaker 16
29:30
in, in contract law, we have looked at that for statutes, and we could not find where there's a general principle, at least in Arkansas. Where that rule's been applied
Speaker 19
29:40
for statutes, um, it is generally applied for other types of
written documents. OK. All right, thank you. All right, any other questions or discussion
Speaker 14
29:54
on item 2. If not, item 3. Idle 3 on page 14, this item concerns Act 309. On page 15 lines 10 through 12, subsection I refers to injuries and individuals sustained or may have sustained in a quote accident disaster or other events.
However, on line 16, the language refers to the date of the motor vehicle accident. It appears that motor vehicle accident should have been accident, disaster, or other event. And I believe we heard from Representative Richardson, the primary sponsor on this one.
Speaker 175
30:24
Matthew. It represented Richardson and I spoke, and
Speaker 176
30:31
he asked me to relay to the commission that motor vehicle accident was just an erroneous reference and that that should have been accident disaster or other events so that they were consistent throughout.
Any questions? Are are we deleting motor vehicle? And we're just gonna, and so it'll just say after the accident disaster rather event,
Speaker 14
30:56
yeah. Yes, we'd be replacing motor vehicle accident with accident disaster or other events. Any other questions?
All right? If not, we'll move on to item 4. Adam
Speaker 109
31:12
May 4 is on page 16. This item concerns Act 392.
Speaker 14
31:19
On page 17, lines 26 through 28. There's an outdated version of 1742 5153. Language here does not include an amendment to the subdivision from a 2019 Act. The present law is set out on page 18 of the exhibit. This is the same issues that we had with A A One where an obsolete version of this subdivision was included in the, uh, in the bill and the act that you all passed.
question I would have is in the drafting process, how does, how does an obsolete act end up being in the. Even in the, I
guess the language of the bill. My guess, we checked for this, and these are
Speaker 176
32:06
just ones that somehow got biased. My guess would be that it came in through a source, you know, somebody gave us a draft or something like that and it was in the draft and then just in the process. Somehow it didn't get corrected. So just, and this is uh this
relates, I guess more to build drafting of the bureau side of things. If a legislator goes to, um, a bill drafter to and just gives like a sight and says I want to alter. Uh, 1742 515. If the bill drafters starting from scratch, I assume that they're that that BLR has an up to-date current version of Arkansas code that starts, that you would start with, but in some instances, a legislator might actually bring up to your point, typed out the,
the, the code section, and they may have used a a, a bad source or an old version, is that right? Yes, sir. And,
Speaker 176
32:59
and we read, we have a very up to-date version of the code that we raft. against and we read to avoid this problem. These are ones where we just unfortunately
Speaker 58
33:09
made a mistake and it's. Alright. Any questions? Is it
if that portion of the bill didn't change the law. Is it really? I, I guess that's the purpose
of the commission is if there's any
lack of clarity, then we make the final decision, um, is that, that, that's why we're doing that is, sir, because the
Speaker 14
33:31
version that was in the act, which, you know, we're under the duty to codify with the obsolete version so we bring
Speaker 114
33:38
that issue to you all to see if you want
to correct that. OK, so that, that answers my question then that the code revisor and your staff, you're obligated to codify what passes in the legislation, whether it's underlined or not. Yes, sir. OK. All right. Thank you.
All right. Any, any further questions or discussion on that? If
Speaker 14
34:04
not, we'll move to item 5. Adam E5 is on page 19. This item concerns Act 435. On page 2. Lines 30 through 33. The section provides that the Department of Health may promulgate rules relating to the certification and regulation of community health workers under this subchapter. However, the community health workers are
regulated and certified under all three subchapters in this chapter, not just subchapter 3. It appears that subchapter should have
Speaker 204
34:43
been chapter. Thank you, as, as I think some folks here know this can be a massive issue in litigation.
Speaker 205
34:48
This sort of cross reference and what Kevin is saying probably makes sense. Uh, but I think in order for the decision.
To be made by the commission about whether that's a substantive change or non-substantive depends on what the other regulations are on the other subchapters because if it were to make sense to say as regulated under the entire chapter, um, then you're sort of going up one level of abstraction, uh, beyond, I mean, there's a reason why it's in this subchapter and you've broken it out into separate subchapters. So I wonder if there's some
Speaker 204
35:22
information for the commissioners on that question. What are the other two subchaps?
Speaker 14
35:28
I think subchapter 2 specifically is on certification. And I don't have the whole statue in front of me,
Speaker 111
35:35
but you've also got definitions and subchapter one, which would also apply throughout the whole chapter. And so just reading as a whole for it to make
Speaker 14
35:45
sense. You know, you wouldn't have rules
Speaker 154
35:48
promulgated under just subchapter 3 on certification when subchapter 2 is dealing with that.
Speaker 204
35:55
Do the other subchapters not also have rulemaking authority
Speaker 14
36:00
in those subchapters. I believe this is the only provision in this chapter that has rulemaking
provisions, yeah. I'll, I'll ask, uh, Mr. Miller to, to get on the laptop and pull
Speaker 14
36:16
it up. It's pretty typical for chapters or subchapters like this they have just one rulemaking provision and this one you had a comprehensive chapter that was enacted. You had the Rulemaking provision put at the end and use subchapters instead of chapter.
Speaker 209
36:35
This HB 1258 Act 435. It brought into being the entirety
Speaker 205
36:42
of the chapter along with all three subchapters. Uh, OK, I think that's a dispositive fact, yeah. That Uh
Speaker 14
37:08
The act number is 435, 1746. Yeah, it's a brand new chapter, Matthew, so it's all in the act, yeah, yeah, it's all brand
new. So I I need just go Yeah. Act 4:35. And also for those I, I think Kevin already mentioned this. If you're looking at the packet, the, what is printed in front of you is the first page and then the relevant pages to it because that was initially when I was looking at this, I was thinking,
oh, it's, we didn't change everything, but then to Kevin's point, apparently
this is a completely new chapter. It is, yes. What is
Speaker 176
37:52
it again Kevin's 435. So subchapter one was general provisions subchapter 2 is certifications. And then subchapter 3 is the one that we're in. That, yeah,
All right, any other questions or
Speaker 227
38:17
discussion on that? If not, we'll move to, I
Speaker 109
38:22
believe we're on number 6. Autum May 6 is on
Speaker 14
38:26
page 21. This item concerns Act 599. On page 22. Lines 22 through 33, the Act expands the existing felony manslaughter offense to include possible non-felony offenses of a violation of the uniform Controlled Substances Act involving actual delivery of a
controlled substance. However, on line 29, it does not change felony to offense. Everywhere else in the act, felony has changed to offense which matches the intent of the act as expressed in the title and subtitle. It appears that
Speaker 154
38:54
felony should have been changed to offense on line 29. Any questions on that one.
Representative Gasway, this was your bill. Did you just do that just
so we would have something to do in code revision. Well, it's probably Senator Gilmore's fault actually. Um But, uh, Ha
Yeah, that appears to be right to me.
I would agree. All right. Any other questions, discussion? If not, we'll move to.
Speaker 109
40:08
Number 7. Adam A7, this is the last item in the A items.
Speaker 14
40:13
This item concern this is on page 23. This item concerns Act 706. On page 23, lines 25 through 26.
Speaker 16
40:19
The Act references the Arkansas pollution Control and Ecology Commission.
I said he a deductible for corrective action by rule. The commission has referenced again on page 24, line 15, as setting a deductible for correction action by rule. However, on page 24, Lines 10 through 12, the language refers to the amount of deductible for corrective action being
Speaker 14
40:43
set by rule of the division. Here that would mean the division of environmental quality. It appears that division was intended to be commissioned.
Can you just walk us through that if there's something more to it, cause this
Speaker 240
41:14
one starts looking. Is there still a division? Is that still in
Speaker 14
41:20
existence? Yes, sir. For us, the conflict was that you had the rule being set by the commission in two places and then in that middle reference there is a reference to the, the, uh, division setting
that amount by rule in these three different. References, do they all
interrelate or could they essentially all stand on their own. They're
Speaker 14
41:45
all amending the same, they're all part of the same uh section, which is 87907. They all use very similar language of deductible, um. Being set for the payment of this corrective action. And so to us they all appeared to be referring to the same. Deductible So you had the initial setting out in there in that subsection A, that's the first one on page 23 of the exhibit and then the
subsequent references on page 24, appeared to be referring back to that and in one instance it used the vision and the last instance that
Speaker 237
42:35
used commission. I'm a little uncomfortable resolving that one.
Speaker 42
42:50
Agreed. Any other, we can pull that one out. Yeah, we could, if there's no action
taken, we'll just, we can just codify this as it appears in
the act. What's the stylistically from a bill drafting standpoint, how would, what, what would be the normal way to draft that. If the deductible is set out previously. And then Would you normally just refer to the deductible, or would you
refer to the deductible and then have the additional language that is somewhat. would be somewhat repetitive of what's already been established. You'll see it
Speaker 176
43:36
be, you know, a repetitive term over and over and over again, you'll probably see more inclination towards dropping the deductible under A1A, which I think is what you're. Meeting. Mr. Chairman, can, can we get
Speaker 254
43:51
the sponsor in here or whoever drafted it to find out what it, I mean, I don't want to. I don't want to codify something that's wrong. But I, I, I agree with Senator Tucker that
that's. Did we get any, uh, did we get any feedback from Representative Gramlich or Senator Boyd. No, I notified each member, each lead sponsor
Speaker 176
44:12
of these bills of the meeting and that it was going on. I heard from some, but not everyone. I don't, unless, unless someone has strong
feeling otherwise, why don't we, uh, just set this one aside and we can. We can deal with it at a, at a later meeting, maybe reach out to the bill sponsors and see if they have any. Specific feedback
on this. Does anybody have it? Alright. With that objection, we'll just pull that one out, yeah, and I'll
Speaker 14
44:39
just mention that we, we are in the process of getting the supplements. So this one will be in front of staff. Um, sometime over the next month, probably. Uh, if that Helps inform the decision on
or. All right, let's, let's set that one aside. Let's,
and if, uh, staff would reach out to the bill sponsors, see if we can get some. Feedback from them, but uh. I, I agree with the same concerns. Rather err on the side of, of. Upholding And making sure we don't overstep our bounds. Any, uh, see, that's number 7, so that's,
so we've gone over 1 through 7, we've pulled 7 from the
batch. Is there a motion to Uh, adopt or to make the changes as recommended in items 13
in items A 1 through 6. Senator Tucker with the motion, is there a second? Represent Gasaway with the 2nd and discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The motion is adopted. Now we'll move to section B.
Uh, grammatical errors and uh I'll
Speaker 219
45:59
refer to the code redvisor. Commissioners, these next items involve grammatical errors. Historically,
Speaker 14
46:04
the commission has used authority under Arkansas Code 12303D to correct these types of errors. Our first item is item B1 on page 26. This item concerns Act 262. On page 27, lines 18 through 28. There appears to be a grammatical error in that cap C
does not grammatically follow the introductory language in 6. The listed items cap A through C are all exceptions to the secure disposal of customer information. However, caps A and B directly relate back to the phrase customer information. But Cap C relates back to the phrase secure disposal. The same issue is present in Act 557, which is on page 29 of your exhibit. It appears the correction is to end the language in 6 with unless.
And move the phrase the cus customer information is to only modifyA A and B. This would create a separate list of Cafe little one, Little Roman 1, and Little Roman 2. There's an example on page 30 of the exhibit to show you how this revision would look.
Speaker 263
47:41
Any questions, comment, Senator Tucker? Gavin, what did you say
Capsy related back to? It appeared to
Speaker 140
47:49
us that CA C related back to the disposal. Where
Speaker 14
47:53
is that? That is in the lead-in language in 6, the secure disposal of customer information. It's a little confusing because it does switch over to targeted disposal instead of secure disposal, but in any event, it appears it's relating back to disposal. Not customer information. And if you just read the list and you
skipped over A and B and you just said, unless the customer information is where target disposal is not reasonable. We're not, uh Excuse me, reasonably feasible. There seems to be something kind of awkward missing there, like
it, it should have said secure disposal again, probably
Speaker 199
48:38
so. Any further question. Comment discussion. Maybe if
Senator Boyd didn't run a 100 plus bills, he would have. All right?
If not, we'll move to item 2. And we'll just proceed with these items under B the same way we did under A if somebody wants to, if we want to pull them out for separate consideration or hold it
over, we can do that, but if not, we'll just vote as a batch at the end. Adam B2 is on page 31.
Speaker 14
49:14
This item concerns Act 501. On page 32, line 34. In page 33, line 2. There is a missing verb for subdivisions 4 and 5. On page 32, lines 1019, and 32. You can see that the items in the list start with shell or shall not. We've heard back from Representative Brown, I believe.
Speaker 269
49:44
She may be here to discuss what was intended with Adams 4 and 5.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
49:53
She she was here. She's OK, there you go. All right, you're recognized. Um Yes, I agree that um. That should be
hall, those that you're correct on those grammatical changes. Um, I had another concern. That involves Representative Shepherd's. Access bill. You know, to where correlates correctly with. 501
There's a misalignment, but that's extra. OK, well, let's take this up first and then this is the this is the end of our batch on B, right? OK, then we'll come back and we can, we can deal with that. OK. Any questions
Chair
Unverified
50:39
or comments on this? Represent Gassway, you're recognized. So what exactly is the proposed change?
I guess I'm, I missed that. Represented Gazaway on page 32 of the
Speaker 14
50:56
exhibit. If you went down to line 34, the change would be the change notified, the shall notify. And if you turn the page to page 33, line 2, the change would be from request to shall request. It
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
51:16
makes it consistent, the language consistent and correct. There's technically a
Speaker 42
51:22
grammatical error with those subdivisions because you have a missing verb. I
see. any further question, comment, discussion. We can't, we can. OK, we'll go back to B1. Matthew,
could you, would you mind pulling it up? I'm not sure if I can
read it from here on that screen, but I, I just want to see. Um, the colon.
Presumably he's on page 27 of that bill. That, that leads into 6 to make. And well, I, I
appreciate the effort. I, in fact, cannot read that, uh.
I'm pulling it up on my phone. OK. Thank you. All right, anything else? OK, so that brings us to the end of, uh,
The grammatical errors under section B, and we
just had two items, uh. Is there a motion to approve those changes as recommended. Representative Gassways are
2. Senator Tucker was 2nd. Any discussion? Not all in favor, say I. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right, now we'll go back. This is not an item that's, uh, listed anywhere that representative uh Brown has
brought it up, so I'll let her address her concern. This is gonna
relate to It's gonna be, it's gonna relate to Act 501 and then
and 341, which 341 is the, what's the access. Access bill. So Representative Brown, I'll let you. explain what your concern is. Well, I'll try to as
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
54:00
best I can. I have it typed up. Um
From Act 340, 341. Shall I just read this? I don't know how else to do it, um, section 34. page 41, line 35 to page 42, line 5. Um Act well. Subsection 628301, Purple Star Schools. If this has to do with
the Purple Star school sections. The This is a proposed revision. Um Change the numbering from 6282 07 to 628301. Um, removed the enumeration lowercase a and just have the statement, a public school district or an open enrollment public charter school that shows a significant commitment to serving students and families connected to the United States
Armed Forces may be designated as a purple star school or Purple Star School District and delete. Uh, paragraph B. Um, from Act 501, Section 2. Page 11, line 4. Change the numbering from 628301 to 628302, Purple Star School Program. Then on page 13, line 20.
Change the numbering from 628302 to 628303, Arkansas Council for Military Children, Purple Star School program duty. And on page 4, line 4. I believe it is currently 628303. Increase the enumeration to 628304, change the enumeration to 304, Division of Elementary
and Secondary Education, Purple Star School program duties. Um, highlighted. I've got highlights on here, resolve a misalignment. Act 501 establishes Title 6, chapter 28, subchapter 3. Purple Star School program, which if Act 3, 40, 341, Section 34 is codified leaves 628207, an orphaned provision.
Resolve by relocating 628207 to 628301. Renumber Act 501 628301 to 302 and subsequently re-index 628302 to 628303. I think this is a little complex to read and make
sense of just reading it out loud, um. Uh, but
resolve the conflict in 628207B. May is in this is the, the critical 1, 628207B.
Uh, May is in conflict. With Act 501 283034, which with shall makes the rulemaking mandatory, resolved by repealing 628207B and striking A. So if I may, staff made me aware of this,
uh this issue had been raised, uh, made me aware of it this morning, uh,
given that the other act was my piece of legislation.
So just for the benefit of the commission and staff can correct me if I'm wrong or Representative Brown can correct me if I'm wrong. Representative Brown's bill set up a purple Star School program that has mandatory requirements if a school is over, has over a certain number of individuals. And there are specific requirements of that program that are set
out in the act. The legislation that I was sponsor of basically just created a designation for a
purple Star school program that A school may opt into. And so, um, There's the issue of her act created some mandatory requirements, the act that I carried, uh, just was simply a designation and allowed the department to promulgate rules related to that designation and so these two bills apparently were working their way through at about the same time.
So my suggestion would be that we hold off on making a change like this cause obviously even to do what Representative Brown was proposing is multiple changes and since we don't have all that information, I think it'd be really difficult for us to even consider it right now, but I would propose that we set this aside. We asked staff to work with the Department of Education to look at it. I, I think it's, I think that staff's initial reaction was that Even though the common thread is
they both use the term purple star school as a term. But then you get into one has mandatory provisions another is just a designation. And so, um, particularly as being one of the sponsors of the legislation, I would propose we set this aside. We ask staff to work with the department, with Representative Brown, and then at our next meeting we can potentially take a look at it and determine if anything needs to happen. Does that work? OK. All right, we'll do that. Thank you, Representative Brown, for bringing that up. And if you'll
share that information with staff, then they can have that and take, take a closer
look. Thank you. All right. OK, so now we're gonna move to the, uh, section C. Of exhibit A, these are other errors and issues and, uh, I'll turn it over to Kevin. Commissioners, these issues
Speaker 219
1:00:26
also involve, uh, issues that historically you've exercised your authority under Arkansas Code Section 12303D to correct.
Speaker 14
1:00:37
Starting off with Adam C1 on page 35. This item concerns Act 197. On page 35, line 33. The connector used is and. However, it appears that the intent of the act is at either condition would invalidate the waiver. Otherwise, if the employee committed another disqualifying offense. He or she would also have to have a break in employment for the waiver to become invalid.
It appears the connector should have been or. Senator Tucker Thank you Mr. Cha. Matthew, any feedback from the sponsors on this one? No, sir. Thank you.
OK, any further questions on that? If not, uh I guess we'll take up, try to handle this the same way we'll just take up a vote at the end unless someone wants to pull pull the proposal out of
Speaker 14
1:02:01
the batch. All right, we're gonna move to item 2. Adam C2 is on page 36. This item concerns Act 350. On page 37. Lines 6 through 13. The subsection sets out when a claim by a pharmacy or pharmacist shall be deemed to be a clean
claim and paid by a pharmacy benefits manager. The subsection sets out two tests for making this determination of a clean claim and the requirement for payment. The first is that the claim is not paid within a specified time. The second is that the claim is contested within a specified time. However, it is unclear why a claim that is contested would be deemed to be a clean claim and required to be paid. When the section also sets out rules for contesting claims before payment is made.
Speaker 109
1:02:48
It appears on page 37, line 8. is contested should be quote is
not contested, right? I of 3 Adam
Speaker 14
1:03:05
C3 is on page 38. This atom concerns Act 461. On page 39. Line 4, the connector used is or. However, it appears the subsection is not intended to
list alternative applications was intended as joint or conjunctive applications.
Speaker 16
1:03:22
So it appears the connector should have been and. And I'm, I'm noticing this is an amendment to the
uniform Limited Liability Company Act. Do we, do we know, um, I mean, I guess it may be readily apparent on its face, but is, is that language something that
actually comes from the Uniform Act. That I do not know. Kevin, do you know that? I'm pretty sure
Unknown speaker
1:03:50
this does not come from the Uniform Act. This is specific to Arkansas.
Anybody have any questions on that? OK. All right, item 4.
Speaker 14
1:04:28
Adam C4 is on page 40. This item concerns Act 7:13. On page 42. Line one You'll see that Guardian is replaced with emergency guardian. However, this section deals with appointments of guardians in general, not emergency guardians, which are appointed under section 2865 to 18.
If you'll turn to page 43, there's a copy of 2865 to 18 from the Act, which shows how it has separate notice provisions for emergency guardians. It appears that the second use of guardian on page 42. Line one Which refers to an exception for temporary gardens. Should have been changed to emergency guardian and not the first use. And I think we've heard back from. Have we heard back from anyone on this one? She and I briefly discussed it
Speaker 67
1:05:24
at one point, um, She didn't specifically ask me to let y'all know. So you're suggesting
that an emergency should be struck. This section
Speaker 206
1:05:42
is for, yes, sir, on page 42 of the exhibit line one. It appears that
Speaker 14
1:05:49
we emergency guarding, we're guarding machines, emergency guardian, that reference to guardian should have been left alone, and
it should have been that second reference to temporary guardian that was changed to emergency guardian. This is the notice provision for guardians in general. There's a whole separate section that deals with emergency guardians, so it wouldn't make sense to use this section for your appointment of an emergency guardian because it doesn't apply to emergency guardians. It applies to guardians in general. So emergency
guardian should become, should. go back to Guardian temporary guardian should be changed to emergency guardian. Yes, sir. OK. Any questions, comments on that?
All right. Even the 5 Adam C5 is on page 44.
Speaker 14
1:06:34
This item concerns Act 796. On page 45. Lines 7 and 8. The name of the board of the division of State Services for the blind is changed to the board of the division of State Services for the Deaf and blind. And on pages 46 and 47.
Lines 36, 1 and 5, a reference to the commissioner and a reference to the division are changed accordingly. However, the boards and the division's powers and duties are not expanded to include services for individuals who are deaf. In the creation section for the division itself was not changed. It appears the names of the board, the commissioner, and the division should all have remained as board of the Division of State Services for the blind and the vision of state services for the blind.
Any questions on that one? You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Was
Speaker 254
1:07:52
there any feedback from the bill sponsors on that one? No, sir. Oh Mr. Chairman, so are, are these different entities? All together I, I believe the board
Speaker 111
1:08:00
acts as a sort of a supervised entity over the division or the division does administrative services for the board, but yes, you've got
Speaker 14
1:08:08
the board of the division of Services for the blind in the division of state services for the blind.
Speaker 240
1:08:17
And so where does death come in? I mean, the, this legislation can bind the
Speaker 14
1:08:22
Arkansas schools for the blind and deaf and went throughout the and by doing that it went throughout
Speaker 111
1:08:28
the code and updated references. To, to say blind to be deaf and blind. We think it possibly mistakenly
Speaker 14
1:08:38
did that in this section because the powers and duties of the board and the division were not changed at all, and they only concern services for the blind. So it appeared to us this may have just been an accidental change in the names of these entities since they don't actually perform
Speaker 223
1:08:59
services for deaf people. Mr. Owsley, you recognize. So the title here to transfer the Arkansas school for the blind and the Arkansas School for the Deaf.
Speaker 205
1:09:11
To the Arkansas school for the deaf and blind. Does the remainder of this act effect that
Speaker 14
1:09:19
change? Yes, it goes through and makes change, makes changes throughout the code where those two schools are referenced
Speaker 205
1:09:26
to combine them. So it, it combines the schools, but it doesn't combine. They supervisory boards. Yes, it does. There is
Speaker 14
1:09:33
just one supervisory board. This is a whole different type of state entity here. This is a state entity that provides state services for the blind. I
believe they're underneath the Department of Commerce. They're
Speaker 111
1:09:44
not actually part of the school for the blind or the school for the deaf or the combined
school. So There's a the reason this, if you look on, um, Page 46 of the exhibit on line 6. That's why this section, we believe this
Speaker 14
1:10:02
section was included. You had a reference to the Arkansas school for the blind in there. And you can see how that one's being correctly updated to be the Arkansas
School for the Deaf and blind, which they now would be. But there was no, there did not appear to be any intent to change the actual name of that board of division of State Services for the blind. Is there a corresponding
Speaker 321
1:10:27
similar board for The deaf. I'm not aware of one. And that board, the board
of the division of State Services for the blind that exists in the Department of Commerce. I believe it does.
I I would I would suggest if we've already pulled a few out,
maybe we should pull this out, check with, with the department and with the bill sponsors just to see, I mean, I guess it's conceivable that maybe there was a thought that we're gonna
create, we're gonna make this board more.
Speaker 167
1:11:08
cover A broader area, but maybe didn't assign additional duties. I don't, I don't want to leave a gap. In rulemaking or.
Speaker 240
1:11:18
In the duties and I mean if you've got two different boards that. I don't know enough about it to say, so I, I think a little bit more
Speaker 111
1:11:26
information if it, if it helps the, the, the commission, generally when this kind of change is made, the act will
Speaker 14
1:11:31
also go through and change those references throughout the code, but they were not done. These were the only instances where that board and that division change were were changed. We're right here in this section 19. But so if it did intend to change the name of it, it did not do it in other places of the code.
But, but one important factor is where it's actually, it looks like where it's actually named
in code, they actually made the change, which is on. Page 45. So then it's a question, did they, was it an error to change the name or did it just not fully implement the change throughout the code. So. Senator Tucker. No, I just, it's basically what you said, Mr.
Chair, but I just think we need someone with
some independent now the bill sponsors, plus someone from the
agency with knowledge of, of this division.
Speaker 327
1:12:23
Uh, who can Educate us. All right, with, with
that objection, we'll pull that one out of the batch and we
Speaker 329
1:12:31
can gather some more information for our next meeting. Adam 6,
Speaker 14
1:12:37
Adam C6 is on page 48. This item concerns Acts 798. On page 48 lines 28 through 30. There are confusing uses of at the discretion may also shall, the use of may also doesn't
Speaker 16
1:12:52
appear to make sense as there is no prior duty listed, power duty listed, and the use of shall doesn't appear to make sense for the language at the
Speaker 42
1:12:59
discretion. We don't have any suggestions here. We just, we're bringing this one to the attention of the
commission and I believe, was this the one that, uh, Uh, there were some suggestion that maybe we pass over it. I reached out to Representative McAlin and she was. OK with us passing over it so we could gather some more information. So we'll
Speaker 14
1:13:22
objection, we'll pull that out of the back. All right, item 7. Adam C7 is on page 51. This item concerns Act 800. On pages 52 through 53. There was an engrossing error with
Speaker 16
1:13:40
House Amendment number one. The HB 1672. The language on page 52, lines 8 through 29. It was intended to replace the language
Speaker 14
1:13:50
on page 53, lines 21 through 29.
However, when the amendment was engrossed, it was engrossed into the wrong page. This calls the duplication of subsection and subdivision designations. As a result, it appears that the new language that's on page 52. Lines 8 through 29 should replace the new language that's on page 53, lines 21 through 29. And corresponding updates to designations and references should be made. You will find the proposed revision of this section on page 55 of the exhibit.
If there if there was something that was incorrectly
Speaker 332
1:14:48
inserted, was there something that was incorrectly deleted or is it just a question of where it,
Speaker 14
1:14:53
where it's to be inserted. Yeah, there there was material that was incorrectly deleted, but it just happened to be repealed language. You can see it there how on page 52. Beginning with line 30. You've got a hanging too that's being struck through without the prior language being there. The way this engrossman error worked, it just happened to fit right underneath the catch line. And so that's probably why I
wasn't, it wasn't caught. It appeared to be A normal section at that point, but that language was supposed to be engrossed on the subsequent page. Covering up the existing A and B1. It was just simply engrossed on the wrong page of the bill. All right. So just,
just to follow up to make sure I'm clear on, I had the same question. That means that the language that was inadvertently replaced
was not changing, was not new language or Language that would be stricken. It, it was just
Unchanged language in the bill? Yeah, it
Speaker 111
1:15:51
The, the bill started off with strike through. And then
Speaker 42
1:15:55
it started with its new language, which is on page 53. That's how it was originally introduced. So,
so my question is, is there other language that should be struck? That's not being struck. Technically, there is language
Speaker 16
1:16:09
that's missing from the section. When you look at the overall 10 of the section though I We would consider that language repealed by just the way that
section works with that language intending to be repealed by the way it was originally introduced. If the engrossment error had not occurred, that language would have still been there with strike through, um, and so the effect
of it is it will still be stricken from code. That was the thought of staff is that
Speaker 16
1:16:33
we would still consider that language stricken from code, and it would start with just the A that you see there on page 52. OK. Thank you. In
y'all's research, are, are we very confident that's just an engrossing error.
Yes, sir. OK. Any questions, Mr.
Speaker 223
1:16:58
Owsley, you recognize that hanging to that you talked about Kevin, on page 52, line 30. What was that appended to? I don't have the original bill in front of me.
Speaker 14
1:17:11
I, I believe, I, I believe it would have been the existing provisions of that section and they
Speaker 42
1:17:16
were stricken through. And then when it was
engrossed, this new language was engrossed on top of that stricken through language. So if, uh, if we could pull it up, maybe we
Speaker 205
1:17:29
could take a look at it. So something like strike through lines, blah blah blah blah blah, and replaced with, and that's why you had it right under the catch line with A. And it it just I think it just, it's a little odd to us not having looked into it like you have to have that hanging piece there and then a bunch of stricken lines and then an A. It is, it is,
Speaker 14
1:17:47
it is very unusual looking. If you go back and piece it together, if it would
have been engrossed on the right page, you would have had the strike
Speaker 42
1:17:55
through as it was supposed to be in the original bill and then the new language. This new language you see here on page 52 was intended to replace the Lu language
Speaker 14
1:18:05
that was in the bill. Instead, it engrossed on the wrong page, so it was inserted in the middle of the
Speaker 67
1:18:12
strike through. And I've got it here on the screen. This is the language that would have been in their instructor.
Speaker 176
1:18:17
You can see the C2 starting line 36 there, that's where it's picking back up. That's that hanging too.
Speaker 14
1:18:24
Normally when something like this happens, it would have created some very weird result where the new language was on top of multiple sections. It just so happened. The fall underneath the catch line and appeared to be correct after it was engrossed, even though it wasn't. Representative Gassway, you recognize. OK, so
you guys aren't denying that this was an engross, just an engrossing error that now requires a renumbering and lettering. Yes, sir. This, this was a clear engrossing area.
Speaker 42
1:18:49
It was simply the wrong page. If you go back and look at the instructions of
Speaker 14
1:18:54
the amendment. It was engrossed on page, this page 26 of the act that should have been on
Speaker 42
1:18:59
the next page. And then the amendment instructions were correct. It just got engrossed onto the wrong page. OK.
Speaker 92
1:19:12
All right, any Yeah, so you recognized. Thank you. So on page
52 of the exhibit. Lines 8 through 29. Was all of that
What was reinserted into the wrong place. Yes, sir. That was from the amendment. OK, so what is that replacing on?
Speaker 111
1:19:37
Page 53 of the exhibit. If you go by the instructions in the, um, amendment, it should have replaced on page
we still, we're still gonna have a problem. Because
if you on page 52 of the exhibit, you have some uh sections A, B, and C.
And then If you just replace lines 21 through 29 on, on page 53 of
the exhibit. Then you're gonna have a a subdivision B2 still hanging there underneath what will now be a subsection C, and then another subsection C, yes
sir, if you look on page
Speaker 14
1:20:17
55 to address those errors, we were just suggesting that we redesignate those remaining subsections as they should have been. For whatever reason, the
amendment didn't address that it was going to have multiple subsections with the same subsection number. And so we corrected those designations there on page 55. To reflect a new C1 and 2, D1 and 2, E and F. So what's now subdivision
B2 on page 53 of the exhibit line 30 that will become a subdivision C2. Yes, sir. Yes
sir. And is that flow properly? Yes, it does. It does. It does. There was also a reference, I believe,
to The board that needed to be changed to the secretary because it wouldn't have made. I think the existing language of two. There's an
Speaker 14
1:21:16
internal reference, I believe also in subsection C that need to be updated to reflect. Where the appeal was actually filed.
Speaker 355
1:21:35
It's on page 27 line 3 or 53 line 30, Kevin. So the same one we were just talking about. It's a separate issue in the amendment, Senator Tucker, that you're picking
Speaker 16
1:21:57
up on that the, just the designation numbers were off. And that's a, that's an authority that staff has exercised generally on its own to redesignate subsections, but the, the amendment did not fix
Speaker 355
1:22:05
that itself. No, it did not. The amendment didn't fix the redesignations, but
Speaker 176
1:22:10
it did include the sea that's on. Now I'm getting lost in it. Page 52. Yes,
Speaker 345
1:22:19
the language that we're supposed to plug in had a C. Yeah. And it left the two.
Speaker 176
1:22:36
And the seed that's left there deals with filing a written notice of appeal, which is what the two relates to,
Speaker 206
1:22:44
OK. Yeah. The, the sea had the written notice of appeal being filed with the Secretary of the Department of Education.
Speaker 319
1:22:49
So then we corrected that under the new two to be the secretary versus the board. OK, thank you. were questions.
Speaker 365
1:23:18
think it's, yeah, that's that's all I have. Oh sorry, I'm just getting ahead of us.
Speaker 180
1:23:30
OK, so that's it for. For C. Yes, sir. OK, so just to And 65 and C6.
OK, we have a motion by Senator
Tucker. 2nd. Any discussion? All in favor
Speaker 363
1:23:45
say aye. Any opposed? All right, we'll move to D. Commissioners, these next items involve a situation in which
Speaker 219
1:23:55
one act has repealed a provision and another act has amended that same provision. Historically, the commission has treated the repealing Act as controlling regardless of whether it was the later act. This is because of Arkansas
Constitution Article 5, Section 23, which requires a
Speaker 14
1:24:14
law to be re-enacted, not merely amended to be revived. So starting with Adam D1 on page 57, if you'll look on page 58, line 5. Identical Acts 3:40 and 341, Section 12 amended 6:15, 1004 B2C. However, on page 60, Lines 26 through 31.
Act 304, section 1, repealed 6:15, 10:04 B2C. We get, uh, any feedback from
the department on this? No, sir. Any discussion? Representative Gazaway, you
recognize. So which one passed last? OK. All right. Well. Do your, do your answer your question, wherever you guys away, I don't know, um,
Speaker 14
1:25:33
we can find out though. I mean, wouldn't that be the That Historically, the commission on repealers has ignored which act was last and gone with the repealer because of that constitutional provision that to
reenact, you have to have intent to reenact language, not merely amended. And so historically, the commission has treated the repealing Act as controlling, regardless of whether it was the earlier act or not. I see.
Interesting. Shepherd's bill. We're, we're striking your language there, Mr. Chair. Can we
not to answer Representative Gazaway's question, can we not just look at
the act numbers to determine which one was at least signed last, right? I mean, the It seems to me that
The repealer was first because it's at 304. Uh, Representative Shepherd's bill was Act 341, so it would have been later without looking
Speaker 14
1:26:24
at the acts, I'd hate to speak. A lot of these were signed in big batches, and they may have been signed on the same day. We would need to check with the governor's office on which particular one was signed last. Now, We may be able to pull up one of the acts here and see what they say, um, but traditionally, you all have just gone with the repealer Act regardless of what the act number was or which one was signed last. Right, I, I understand. I
Unknown speaker
1:26:48
understand. I just thought it was maybe a shortcut way to get
Yeah. Yeah. All right, we have somebody from the department here if you'll introduce yourself and
Speaker 375
1:27:24
then you can give us your comments. Good afternoon. I'm Sharon Strong. I'm the executive director
Speaker 376
1:27:29
of the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery. These, um, so Act 429 was our bill that we, um, Ran in the session to modify some accounting methods that we use. And part of this abolished, um, our shortfall account. And then the access bill, one of the things that it did was
modify or change the Arkansas concurrent Challenge scholarship to become, um, Uh The act to become the axis. Scholarship and in these particular So Section 88 of the Access bill is striking basically everything that, um, talks about the
Arkansas concurrent Challenge scholarship because it's not called that anymore. It's not, it's called something else now. And then in our bill that we ran, um, it, Removed Section 2, yeah, it modified that. So Basically, if. You repeal. 685401, that's fine.
OK, and I think that's item 2, which is kind of a similar issue to
Speaker 376
1:28:58
what to what we'll be coming up on those items. Oh, that was item 2. OK, sorry, I'm just looking at the email from Mr. Kuon. So on So on section 99, then if we repeal section 99. That's fine as well, because basically, it's, it's kind of the same thing. So section 99. was
repealed in our bill, but amended in the Act says, and It's because we're trying, we're, we're not, we don't have the shortfall account anymore, but what the access bill was talking about is utilizing that under certain circumstances, only for this concurrent challenge scholarship, but Neither one exists anymore. Concurrent challenge scholarship doesn't exist anymore in, and the shortfall doesn't exist anymore. Any questions on
Speaker 209
1:29:54
just want to be clear on that. We jumped ahead to item 2 there and if I can just
Speaker 205
1:30:00
summarize what I'm hearing. Kevin's gonna tell us that the tradition has been repealers trump all, and you're saying that It's OK that it's repealed as a practical matter because the underlying stuff is gone anyway. That's what I'm
Chair
Unverified
1:30:15
saying. Yeah. Yeah. OK, purpose of gas where
you're recognized. And that specific to 6:15, 1004.
That statute that's mentioned in her testimony
relates to the next item
too, so we. which is relates to. 23 115802, and just from looking at it, it looks like an access, we renamed some, we renamed the scholarship. this and so it was changed in the bill because it referenced that scholarship. It renamed it and then the the scholarship lottery had a bill to eliminate
that eliminated that reference altogether when it related to the shortfall
reserve trust account. OK. For, for purposes of D2, that's fine with me. I was just on the one where it appealed, appeared to me the issue was 6:15, 1004, which related to continuing education and professional development for teachers.
Yeah, so we'll go back to D one. And uh. So it right, it does relate to 6:15. 1004.
Speaker 14
1:31:30
This is a common occurrence if you look at what the Access Act was doing. It was updating language, referring to AP courses, and so it was making that technical change throughout the code and then of course you had substantive acts
Speaker 353
1:31:42
that were coming through and repealing provisions. That's what happened here on Adam
D1. And I can confirm that's that's what that's what that change was cause we broadened. The, uh, The
Weighted credit beyond just AP classes to include concurrent credit and other, uh, there were like 4 or 5 different things that we broadened it to include and so it looks like that was just another area where the, uh, Where we were essentially changing a reference. you recognize.
OK apparently. I don't understand. Maybe there's I don't know that there's any,
uh, proposed language. I, I'm just not able to read the two together, but it looks like to me, Representative Andrews' bill completely. Repeals the requirement for continuing education, Representative Shepherd's bill on 615-1004. Just deletes part of the language related to that, but keeps it in place. They both both were signed on the same day. I, I'm just what
Speaker 111
1:32:57
exactly is the difficulty from the codification standpoint Representative
Gazaway is, is, it's impossible for us to codify both an amendment and a repealer to
Speaker 108
1:33:08
a subdivision. So that's why our suggestion here, going with the commission's traditional practice
would be to treat that subdivision C as repealed. And so just on that language in the access bill. Under 1,04. We changed, we were basically changing the reference. Previously throughout the code, AP classes for the classes that
were considered for weighted credit and so since we expanded it, we began using accelerated learning course as one of those, so we changed the term. Made the change there and then Representative Andrew's bill eliminated the entirety of the section that had the term in it.
The rowser you recognize. Kevin, could you
Speaker 204
1:33:53
speak a little bit? You'd shared this, uh,
Speaker 205
1:33:57
the provision provision of the Constitution about repeals and reviving repealed laws. What
is what would be required. This is germane to the rest of the items in this little subsection. What would be required for Something that had been repealed. To be revived.
Speaker 14
1:34:16
I think you would need to see some kind of intent to revive the language. There, there are some Supreme Court opinions that have looked at where language had been merely amended and they've said that they won't presume anything beyond what that act is doing, and so they won't presume that it's actually reenacting old language that was carried over.
Um, the only thing it would be considered as reenacting or enacting would be the actual mandatory type language. So from our viewpoint in a codification viewpoint, You know, we want to see there's some kind of intent to reenact the language that's a decision for the commission
Speaker 113
1:34:51
to look at, of course, you know, that's this is staff thoughts and our suggestion. I mean, I think it
Speaker 317
1:34:57
would be relevant if the repeal was Earlier in time To the revive.
Speaker 205
1:35:02
Like if, if there were several weeks or even
months between the repeal and the reviving or they arguably reviving, you know, statute. Act and that's why that would
Speaker 14
1:35:14
be relevant yeah, that's why we're always gonna bring these kind of issues to the commission for y'all's consideration, just historically within the context of a single session, the commission has Consider the repealing act as controlling. With without some kind of
Speaker 42
1:35:28
evidence that the, you know, the language was being re-enacted.
Speaker 150
1:35:37
Any further questions or comments? All right, we'll move, we've already taken
up item 2. Anybody have any questions further question on item 2, Representative Gassway, you recognized, I just can't get
away from item one, so I just, the proposal is, is to Let that language stand as repealed. Yes sir on item one. Yes, sir. OK, very good. And we've, we've dealt with item 2, any
further comment or question on item 2.
Speaker 219
1:36:08
All right, if not, we'll move to item
Speaker 14
1:36:16
3. Adam D3 is on page 66. If you look on pages 66 through 68. You'll see where Acts 3:53, sections 1 and 2. Amended 685402 and 685405. In Act 429, section 2 amended 685404. However, if you turn to page 70. Line 13.
You'll see where identical Acts 3:40 and 341. Section 88, repealed.
So So it to To summarize here. It appears that The First to Bills or acts, make changes to the. Arkansas concurrent Challenge scholarship program. And then the access. Bill or act, eliminated. The program altogether. Yes, sir.
Anybody have any questions on that?
Speaker 14
1:37:57
Not, we'll move to item 4. Adam D4 is on page 71. On page 71, Act 360 section 1, amended 614, 111 E1B to provide that the one week filing period for school board elections begin. Begins at 12 noon, however, on page 73. lines 20 through 21.
Act 503, section 12. Repealed E1AB enacted new language concerning the filing period. So what's the Analysis here. We would consider this where the, this one that later act
actually repealed it. It's the, uh, also the later act,
Speaker 42
1:38:51
but it repealed that language and enacted all new language
Speaker 223
1:38:56
to replace it. Drowsy. It seems like the two are harmonious. Act 360 The only addition, the only relevant addition here, beginning at noon. Then, Act 503, it also has, beginning at noon, which
Appears to actually, I guess I'm, I'm looking at the stuff that's already in code. I'm not sure that's
Speaker 14
1:39:26
really a change. Yeah, the first one is just. You know, more of a technical type thing inserting that time period for the existing filing period. The second act though does a complete revision of that changes what the entire filing period
Speaker 108
1:39:38
is, but it does keep that language of the beginning. 12 noon. Well, it would,
right, it would have, it would be different periods because.
Well, we could look. I don't know if they are essentially the same, but one is. It's what a one week period beginning at 12 noon and ending at 12 noon 90 days before a school election. So it's like you have to count back from 90 days before. Whereas the other is, it does begin at 12 noon, but it's the first day of party filing. And I don't know, they may be one
and the same. I'm not sure it's just this one's another
Speaker 14
1:40:17
one where it'd be impossible for staff to codify both of these
because the first one's amending existing language. The second one is repealing existing language and replacing it with new language. So which, which
it would be what? Act 503, which is on page 72 is what I'm assuming it's also the
Speaker 42
1:40:34
later act in this instance, but it would not only be the later act, it was actually also repealing language and, and, uh, enacting new language. Tucker, you
Speaker 34
1:40:46
got questions. I was just gonna say that I think I'm
I'm a more uneasy about the fact that Act 503 is not really a straight repeal. It's kind of a partial repeal appeal, repeal a new language, but it's clear to me, As Kevin just said, That
Act 503 was later than Act 360, so, uh, that gives me comfort. Representative Gazaway. So is the proposal
that Act 503 stand as the law in this particular issue. Yes, sir. OK Any other questions or comments?
Speaker 14
1:41:28
All right, uh, we'll move to 5. Adam D5 is on page 74. If you look on page 75, line 2, Act 405, Section 2, amended 614111K2. However, on page 78. Lines 4 through 5. Act 503, section 14, repealed 614111 K2.
Speaker 16
1:42:07
Any questions on that one? If not, we'll move to 6. Adam D6 is on page 79. On page 81. Lines 15 through
Speaker 14
1:42:29
17. Act 500, section 2, amended 39221 A3 Cay, Little Roman 2. However, on page 83.
At the bottom of the page to the top of page 84 Act 421, Section 3, repealed 3922183, Cappy Little Roman 2. So the proposal is. That the repealing Act would control. Act 421 and the subdivision would be considered repealed. And in
this instance, it's likely the the the repealer
passed first. But this gets into that day. partial amendment does not reenact what was already repealed. Yes,
sir. Any questions on that? All right, D7.
Speaker 16
1:43:43
D7 is on page, beginning on page 85. On page 86. Act 500, Section 2, amended 39221 A1 and A2 cap C. However, if you turn to pages 88 through 89. Acts 7:62 section 12, repealed
Speaker 22
1:44:31
Any questions on this one? question. So is is this
another situation where you had an amendment and then a repeal? It seems to be the trend and these are all the all these items are ones
Speaker 111
1:44:44
where there's been an amendatory act and then a repealing act. And, and it's generally the proposal on
all of these that the repealing Act will control. Yes, sir. OK Thank you. All right. Move on to
Speaker 16
1:45:04
D8 The 8 is on page 90. If you look on page 91, Line 6, Act 662, section 34, amended 92730315B
Speaker 14
1:45:19
to amend the definition of delinquent juvenile to reference the offense of capital rape. However, if you look at the top of page 93, Acts 7:55 section 1 made several
revisions to the subdivision, including repealing the language to which capital rape was being added. Heaven and here would be
Speaker 355
1:45:54
thinking 7:55 is the one we caughtify, right? Yes. And I'm thinking in this
Speaker 14
1:46:06
instance it's probably the later act also based on that number difference. Mr.
Speaker 209
1:46:20
a question for the, for discussion that people are, have the appetite for it as we approached 5. That provision
Speaker 205
1:46:26
of the Constitution, which is up on the screen there, no law shall be revived. I'm just going to do. No law shall be revived.
By reference to its title only. That's not the issue in any one of these things. Nobody's claiming that that's happened. And so then the counterpoint of that follows the semicolon, but so much thereof as is revived. shall be reenacted and published at length. I think that's the key part for purposes of the constitutional analysis. None of these things are trying to reenact anything, it doesn't seem like by reference to a title, all of them.
Re, they, they do what it says there, re-enact and publish at length if what is meant by that is have the language re-upped. So it seems like um. If, if the, if the approach is always that the repealer trumps, then that can create sort of a, a perverse incentive in the legislative process where if you see somebody has a bill that gets passed that you don't like, then later you just strike that whole section and add in what you want, even if it's not all
that different. The point is you can You can always trump, uh, if you, if you lose a vote early on, if the idea is the repealer always wins. Because of that provision up there, it
Speaker 209
1:47:56
seems like we're, we're giving that clause.
Speaker 205
1:47:59
Way more weight than maybe it needs to be given in some of these, like this one we're looking at right here on 8, it's the last in time that's gonna control. That's the typical sort
of rule and that makes sense, but ones where the repealer comes First and then later, you have an arguable revival. I wonder if that's something that needs to be
Speaker 223
1:48:22
reconsidered. I think some of the, you know, not
Speaker 111
1:48:25
to contradict what you're saying, uh, Mr. Owsley. Some of that is also from Supreme Court opinions that construe that provision in the way they've treated
Speaker 42
1:48:33
non-amendatory language. There's been Supreme Court cases that have talked about that. When you say non-amendatory language, what do you mean?
Language that actually wasn't being changed by the, uh, amendatory act. So let's say you had a B1 and a B2, and
Speaker 14
1:48:50
the act has both of them within it and it only amended B2. The court is not considered that B1 as being re-enacted. It's just considered not a mandatory language that's carried over. And that's, that's been one of the reasons why the commission has taken that approach in the past. So if
Speaker 154
1:49:05
you go back to You know, I, I think if, if
Speaker 205
1:49:15
there's, if there's a conflict, a genuine conflict between the act and the codification. The act controls so that what we do here, if we get down the road 10 years and, uh, and enterprising and and ingenious lawyer realizes, wait a minute, if you look at the section such and such of the act, it's a disjunctive. It's an or, not an and, and that's beneficial to my client. That's gonna be the argument, and they're gonna, they're gonna argue that that's the appropriate reading of the statute, not the codification. Um, so if you go back to, so
what we're talking about here is the codification, but If this, this is 1874 and our Constitution and as you know, Kevin and as others, others know here, we haven't always done this strike through an underlying language. In fact, that's pretty recent. Typically how it was done before is was it this nightmare of just. Just rewriting the entire section with no underlines, no strike-throughs, and my understanding has always been that that those underlines and strike throughs are an aid to the legislators.
Um, otherwise, all those early acts would be invalid. So If, if all you had to do to revive is just right down the language that you want to be revived, then it wouldn't be even relevant, let alone dispositive to say, well, it's not underlined. In the in
Speaker 413
1:50:31
the alleged revival, right? You're correct, there is no constitutional
Speaker 111
1:50:37
requirement for markup. It is used primarily as an aid for legislators. I think also the courts have looked at it as a As, uh, assisting them and in determining what the intent of
Speaker 14
1:50:47
the act was too. Versus did you add new language? Did you amend language, things like that. Yeah, well, I don't
Speaker 205
1:50:54
think what I'm saying is relevant here to D8 because it's the last in time, but I do, I, it's sort of a caution to the, the idea that whatever is the repealer always wins. I'm
Speaker 224
1:51:04
not sure that's the right approach. Well, and I guess. I, and I hear
what you're saying to me. The Well, one, it's, it's a combination of, of what the Constitution says and then how
it's been interpreted by case law, which, I mean, I know that's been
brought up periodically throughout. Uh, my time on code revision. But It seems that the repealer language
is actually more protective because the issue that would arise is. The issue that we really are having to deal with is language that has been struck. Which That seems to be operative language in in a bill that's proposed.
At least in my experience that you're striking language. If someone could slip in language to strike something, it's still, it's in the bill, it's still there to be voted on. On the other hand, if you were to allow Simply putting The what was existing language in. Without noting
it as being new language, then that would create
an even greater problem. That's, that's OK. But, um, but I think it seems like so far that the vast majority of these related to like renaming they're renaming items that were deleted as part of a larger bill, but it's, it's obviously a, a fair point and something we should
pay attention to. All right. Anything else on this one? What are we up
Speaker 14
1:52:42
to now? 9. Adam D9 begins on page 94.
If you look on page 97, Act 762, section 12. Amended 39221 B1 cap A. However, on page 100, 500, Section 2, repealed 39221 B1 A. So we have a section that
was previously repealed that then
was subsequently amended in this case. Yes, sir. Any questions on this one? Rip some gas away you Mr. Chair, I don't have a question on this one, but I do want to go back if you, if we could. To DA because that does deal with capital rape. And I just want to make sure that Yeah, Not missing something here is to. What exactly is a proposal for D8?
Speaker 14
1:53:58
On out of D8, their proposal would be to codify that subdivision, what used to be B and is now C is as presented there in Act 755. Yes, page 9 at top
of page 93. And that reminds me, and maybe Representative Gasway knows this. Does
the Does the language committed an offense which later results in extended juvenile jurisdiction designation, does that?
Is that essentially cover the same. And
I would think the rape and the other and that was already alluded, that was alluded to. It's,
Speaker 14
1:54:40
it's broader language than that prior language which listed specific offenses that would subject you to extended juvenile jurisdiction to just committed an offense which results in that jurisdiction. All right. That's right. OK. So the point is
your proposal would be to codify. The act that
number one is last in time, which would be 7:55 as it relates to capital rape involving a juvenile as defining it. Well, actually, in terms of what a juvenile is subject to any offense, uh yeah, the broader definition that
is found in 755 as opposed to the specific definitions found in 662. That's the proposal. Mr. Owsley, do you have any thoughts on that? OK.
Speaker 425
1:55:31
All right, that's all. Thanks. All right, so we've dealt with
Speaker 98
1:55:35
DA. We've I think we dealt with D9 unless somebody has a question on that. Yeah, I, I do. I'm a little uncomfortable with this one. Because
it's clear that The repeal came first and You know, I think Mister.
Owsley is, you know, raises a a thoughtful point. And maybe this
is a bad way to analyze these But so far as I'm concerned, If a, if the repeal bill is striking a whole section or a long subsection or something along those lines. It's, it's more, it carries more weight to me. Then if there's a repeal of discrete language. And in this case, It's, it's really just a repeal
of that one subdivision. B1 cape in, and then that came before.
A pretty substantive edit. Of that
same subdivision, so. I'm, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this one. We want
to pull it out and Maybe look at it. Yeah, and,
and, and maybe ask. The bill's sponsors.
take our time on that. I mean, practically I do worry. From the standpoint of. That section. Well, I mean, that you could argue it both ways because. That what apparently was passed last shows a slight change, but in essence, this would potentially be reinserting about a whole section that is
otherwise to anybody looking at it appears to would give the
Speaker 321
1:57:47
impression that it is the existing or would be existing
Speaker 317
1:57:51
law. Yeah, this may be sorry this this may
Speaker 204
1:57:53
be just something that. It's a codification question. It's not a question of what's the law. Because I, I, I, Kevin may tell me there's cases saw that
Speaker 205
1:58:04
says what, what I'm getting ready to say is wrong, and I'll accept that. My sense is that this is really a severance analysis. You're really assessing whether
the if the later in time like you have here where you have an earlier repeal and then you have a subsequent arguable revival. The question is, as Senator Tucker's pointing out, if, if, if the, the early repeal is piecemeal as opposed to wholesale. Well then there were some indication that even in the earlier bill, there was something that was supposed to remain. And so the subsequent bill, you know, say revives more of that. It's really a question of the degree to which those things can fit, which is a question of Reading the law harmoniously,
uh, and really we're asking a different question here, which is what do Kevin and his people put in the
Speaker 204
1:58:51
code. Because as you said, you can't codify both. I mean, maybe you could. I don't, I don't know this, we
have, we have in the past on a fair few occasions we have, uh, maybe
created a footnote or even put the language to reference. I, I know that. recollection is we've done that 2 or 3 times over the past 10 years. Yes, sir, and, and in these instances right here,
Speaker 14
1:59:17
there will be an ACRC note that indicates what happened. That this section was amended by one Act. It was that subdivision was repealed by another and it's being set out as determined by the commission. So there will be a note there to that effect. Back in the 90s, I think there was a time where the commission was setting out sections as amended by different
Speaker 111
1:59:34
acts. It was, from what I understood, from what I understand was universally hated by the bar because it was hard to figure out what the
Speaker 14
1:59:42
law was. You had duplicate sections, one as amended by Act, you know, 100, and then the next section,
which is the same number as amended by Act 150. Um, I think that's
Speaker 319
1:59:52
part of the reason the commission got away from that practice. Well,
Speaker 413
1:59:56
for what it's worth, I think it's better to have full disclosure on that and it would be better to
Speaker 204
2:00:02
have sections that are nearly duplicative. than To have it such that, you know,
Speaker 205
2:00:06
like I, I, I've found these things over the years that haven't been, this is, uh, that they haven't been noted in in these comments. That's why you're what you say about adding the, the, uh, the comment I
think is really important, um, because a lot of times cases are won and lost off of what we're talking about here because the law gets obscured. In the codification, sometimes that's not the goal, obviously that goal is reverse, but sometimes I get maybe in situations like this where it's impossible to codify both, that, that can happen. In my time with the commission,
Speaker 42
2:00:36
we've always put an ACRC note whenever we've made some kind of resolution that
Speaker 14
2:00:40
one act superseded another, there's always going to be a note there that indicates what the other act was and what it did.
All right. Do you want to pull out D9 and then. Consider Emotion on D1 through D8. Is
there a motion to that effect? That's yeah, that's my motion from Senator Tucker,
is there a second? Bryant, any discussion? Discussion. So
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:01:13
is staff going to look at How the striking language moves back and forth, or do they need to visit with?
Like the intent to make sure that they are run parallel. I think we'll
Speaker 176
2:01:27
need some clearification from y'all. This is one that definitely before the supplements are published, would need to come back to this and get it resolved because we're gonna have to publish it one way or the other, um, some of these that we've done that we've passed over earlier don't have that same urgency. We could come back and address the conflict later, but this one we don't know how to publish it. Um, and we're happy to gather whatever information you'd like for us to, we can, you know, we
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:01:54
can talk to the sponsors as a sponsor of one of them, I'd say the acts weren't necessarily
attempting to be in conflict. I think we're after the same outcomes, and Mr. David Potter over at Beverage Control was very um. Involved in, in understanding and being supportive of the outcome. So that would be my, my advice as one of the sponsors is just, uh, seek Mr. Potter. We'll touch base with him. Historically
Speaker 250
2:02:15
the challenge of these types of conflicts have been you've got two ships rowing different ways and they just
Speaker 176
2:02:20
happened to cross paths, you know, it's normally a lot more cut and dried if we were trying
to reach different goals, but a lot of times it's just kind of collateral damage. In the process. I think
I just had, I think I just had 9 was, was there any others that we were gonna hold? It OK, I think that's it. Just, all right. Any other comment, discussion?
So we're, uh, it would be to approve changes to D1 through D8. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Speaker 13
2:03:05
All right, motion passes, so we have 4 items under E,
before we move on to, um, I got a text message. With a comment from Alison Hatfield, who's chief of staff at Commerce
on C5 if we want to take another look at it. That'll be fine. Go back to C5.
Uh, that what Ms. Setfield wrote was, we agree with the code of revisions assessment that I'm seeing online. I think the verbiage is trying to merge the boards from the deaf school and the blind school, but it incorrectly references the board associated with the division of Blind Services. This board is not at issue with this merger. So I don't know if
the commission wants more information than just that in order to address this, but I just wanted to, to
pass it along while we were still all here. What's the
Is it, does that fall under the the department of, is that under
that division is in the Department of Commerce is what Kevin had said. Anybody,
do we want to take that up or? Hold
Speaker 254
2:04:24
off. Are we under any time pressure on that one? We've got, we're working on
Speaker 111
2:04:31
the supplements they're supposed to start arriving today. They'll be going into mid-July, so we've got about a month to have a resolution, um,
Speaker 240
2:04:52
That would affect the publication, so. If we can, if we can get back in a timely fashion, I'd say just, just wait a little bit. All right, we'll, we'll
continue to hold that one. All right I'm good with that just passing it along. Thank you. All
Speaker 106
2:05:13
right, we have 4 items under E. no. OK. Did we not vote on D? We did. OK. OK.
Speaker 219
2:05:22
Sorry. OK. OK. Thank you, thank you. The next out you you next items are, uh, out of me conflicts involving the amendment of revision. Commissioners, these next items
Speaker 14
2:05:40
involve a situation and one in which one act has amended a provision and another act has amended that same provision in what appears to be a conflicting manner. Historically, the commission has followed Arkansas Code Section 12207B in these situations.
Which provides that all acts should be
Speaker 16
2:05:55
given effect unless irreconcilable. And if the Xs are irreconcilable, the last enactment
Speaker 108
2:06:04
prevails. So moving on to Adam E1. This is on page 102. If you look on pages 102
Speaker 14
2:06:13
and 103, Act 288, Section 1. Repealed a list of agencies in 226601 A1 A. And added these agencies at 22660182.
However, if you look on page 105 Act 944 section 19, amended section 226601A1 A to include the Arkansas Development of Finance Authority among the list of agencies repealed by Act 288. Though the language amended by Act 944 was repealed back 288. Similar language was re-enacted at 226601A2 back 288. As a result, we included this item in the list of potential amendment conflicts, not repeals.
And if the commission wish to reconcile these two acts,
Speaker 108
2:07:00
the proposed reconciliation would be to add the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to the
list in A2. All right, I see we have The bill sponsors of
these conflicting acts here with us. Any comments from. Representative Ray, Representative Beatty. You're recognized.
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, on
Act 288, you can see we struck through that. that we struck through that language there and just basically recreated that language in a list, um, so we weren't really altering that, um, Act 944 just added, add on to there. So I think the, it's what it sounded like the recommendation that you made was to just list that as K onto the end of that list. I think that makes perfect sense.
And I was just gonna echo those same comments and say I would agree with
Speaker 10
2:08:03
the recommendation. OK, so that would be, that would be. Adding K, which would be ADA, is
that the, that's the proposal so that would be pulling the, the language in green from 105 and moving it over.
All right. Any, any further comments or questions on that? Yeah, I would just add that when, when I was
putting this, this bill to get 280 Act 288
together. The reason that we moved, we struck that language and reordered it in a list. It was strictly just for ease of
readability. So All right. capable, uh, we'll move on, we'll I guess Hopefully be able to batch these at, at the end. OK. OK. E2,
Speaker 108
2:08:51
E2 is on page 106. If you look on page 107, Act 326, section 1.
Speaker 14
2:09:02
Amended 240 106 B2A A and B to provide for rulemaking by the Department of Agriculture. However If you look on page 109, Acts 703, section 25, amended B2AA to provide for rulemaking by the Arkansas Board of Animal Health, not the Department of Agriculture. If you find these acts irreconcilable, the later act was Act 703. It was signed by the governor on. March 18th and the other act was
signed on April 16th. So the proposal is. The proposal is that the uh language
Speaker 301
2:09:40
should be the Arkansas Board of Animal Health, which is
from the later act. Then do we leave the lang the new language. That's on page 107 that
Speaker 227
2:09:52
creates or that. That lays out the penalty. Yes, that would also include a corresponding change to be rules
Speaker 14
2:10:02
of the board, they're on line 14 to make that consistent. With the later
act. OK, so basically we would
be using, we'd be using the language in On, uh,
from Act 326 except. That we would substitute. Arkansas Board of Animal Health, we would. We would, uh, replace, sorry, we replaced department with the Arkansas Board of Animal Health in those two places, sir.
Any questions on that? All right. Moving along, E3. E3
Speaker 16
2:10:47
is on page 110. On page 111, Act 384, Section 2, amended 2013 1102B.
Speaker 14
2:10:53
To repeal the language of the Department of Health from a reference to the division of Emergency Medical Services. However,
On page 113 Act 863, Section 25, amended that same subsection to repeal the reference to the division of Emergency
Speaker 219
2:11:11
Services. We included this item on the list of amendment conflicts because of both acts are codified, then no entity will be listed to conduct a criminal background checks. However, that would also create a grammatical error and other types of
Speaker 14
2:11:25
errors, which you all have the authority under section 12303 to correct. All right, so is the proposal to utilize the language from the
later act that's on page 113. That would be the suggestion, so it'd be Department of Health. Any questions
on that? Looks like the, the deletion of the Department of Health was likely because it was not, it was probably a technical correction.
It was not like which it was necessary. That's right.
And Justin Boyd, he may set a record for most bills in front
of code revision. All right. Any further questions or comments on that? If not,
Speaker 14
2:12:26
we'll move to E4. Adam E4 on page 114. This is our last item. On
Speaker 16
2:12:31
pages 114 and 115 Act 391, Section 1, amended 2381203C.
However, on pages 116 and 117, Act 958, Section 1, also amended 2381203C. With language that
Speaker 14
2:12:46
is similar, but appears to contain some irreconcilable differences such as the time period for making a payment and the basis for calculating the applicable rate of interest. If you find these acts irreconcilable, the later act was Act 958. These are respectively signed on March 25th and April 21st by the governor. All right. Any
questions on that? So the recommendation is to
go with the later act. Any questions or comments on that? OK, I don't believe we pulled anything out of the batch
from E. So is there a motion to adopt E134 recommendations. Recommended changes. Represent gasaway with the motion as their second, Senator Tucker. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Final item on the
agenda is, uh, hopefully a brief report from the code revisor. He tells me it can wait till the next meeting. That's what I like to efficiency, but no, is there anything that we need to be aware of? Nothing substantive. OK.
All right, is there anything else from the commission? Appreciate everybody's effort in, uh, wading through these things, but as we can see these, these are potentially very significant issues that we're taking up. And so I appreciate your time and if nothing further, the commission is adjourned.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Approval of the Minutes of October 17, 2024, meeting – Exhibit B
C. Consideration of authorization of expense reimbursement for official Commission duties by Commissioners pursuant to § 25-16-902 – Exhibit C
D. Discussion of Publishing Contract with Lexis – Exhibit D - Ms. Jill Thayer, Chief Legal Counsel, Bureau of Legislative Research - Mr. Brian Kennedy, Head of Government Relations and Content Acquisition, LexisNexis
E. Discussion of Publication Options for Title 19 – Exhibit E - Mr. Brian Kennedy, Head of Government Relations and Content Acquisition, LexisNexis
F. 2025 Act Errors and Issues – Exhibit F
G. Report of Code Revisor
H. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 14
Speaker 16
Speaker 18
Speaker 21
Speaker 10
Speaker 25
Speaker 27
Senator Clarke Tucker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 45
Speaker 56
Speaker 53
Speaker 58
Speaker 64
Speaker 67
Speaker 68
Speaker 42
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 74
Speaker 97
Speaker 105
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 109
Speaker 111
Speaker 114
Speaker 117
Speaker 137
Speaker 140
Speaker 148
Speaker 154
Speaker 156
Speaker 19
Speaker 175
Speaker 176
Speaker 204
Speaker 205
Speaker 209
Speaker 222
Speaker 227
Speaker 240
Speaker 237
Speaker 250
Speaker 254
Speaker 219
Speaker 263
Speaker 199
Speaker 269
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 206
Speaker 223
Speaker 321
Speaker 167
Speaker 327
Speaker 329
Speaker 332
Speaker 92
Speaker 353
Speaker 355
Speaker 345
Speaker 319
Speaker 365
Speaker 180
Speaker 363
Speaker 375
Speaker 376
Speaker 235
Speaker 113
Speaker 317
Speaker 150
Speaker 34
Speaker 22
Speaker 412
Speaker 413
Speaker 224
Speaker 425
Speaker 98
Speaker 432
Speaker 106
Representative David Ray Chair
Unverified
Speaker 301