Code Revision Commission
Video
Transcript
8 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Code Revision Commission will come to order. 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 Exhibit B. We have a motion by Senator Tucker. Is there a second?
second any discussion all in favor of approval say aye aye
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 information on this is found at exhibit c i believe this is just the
standard protocol each meeting but i'll refer to the code revisor
Speaker 14
6:11
mr chair this is just a statute that authorizes the members non-legislative members of a board to get
Speaker 16
6:17
expense reimbursement it's something that's required for you all to adopt at every
motion do not pass legislators legislators get paid to be here so so we have a
Speaker 21
6:34
motion and a second any discussion all in favor say aye
passes next item item d discussion of publishing contracts with lexus and i believe that's
miss thayer and i'll recognize you to present the information on the contract
Speaker 27
7:09
jill thayer bureau of legislative research
Um, I believe that you all have the, uh, Lexus contract 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. we finalized this contract that we're currently under with them and it was approved by 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 seven years each at this point it's just up to this commission to determine if you want to move forward with extending this contract. And if so, the Bureau would just require that authorization and then we would take it through the Legislative Council for the final approval. I'll take any questions.
Okay. Were there any questions? Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Any issues with Lexus? I would defer to your code revisor to
Speaker 27
8:30
answer that question. No, we haven't had any issues. We've
Speaker 16
8:34
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. Okay, good. That's what I
figured, but just asking. And is there
any indication that if we were to open it back up that anyone other than Lexus would apply for the contract?
Speaker 45
8:54
I'm not sure about that. I don't know. Okay.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. any other questions we also have mr. Brian Kennedy here from Lexis Nexus I don't know if he might
have some comments for the Commission sure you're welcome to come forward.
Speaker 56
9:28
Just a brief comment that Lexus is looking forward to working with the
Speaker 53
9:35
state of Arkansas going forward and we are in favor of extending the contract. Okay thank
Speaker 58
9:42
you any questions is there a motion okay we
have a motion to approve
to extend I guess to exercise the first option is that would that be correct Ms. Thayer or to the code revisor either one. Yes sir. Okay. Is there a second? A second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Next item is the discussion of publication options for title 19 and I believe Mr. Kennedy may be a
of this discussion as well so
we'll let you stay at the table and you're recognized for
Speaker 53
10:50
mr chair the um i've met with an editorial and manufacturing teams uh to discuss That's how we go forward with Title 19. As you know, it totally -- it recodes and it replaces the former 19.
And we thought about the different options that we could do, but the one that we came up with that we think is going to be best for the customers is to replace those volumes with hard-pound volumes during the supplement season. How
many volumes will it be? It will be two volumes. So it will be like a 19A and a 19B?
That's correct. Any discussion or questions for Mr. Kennedy?
Speaker 67
11:43
Mr. Miller, are you recognized? Brian, would that be priced as a supplement or would it
Speaker 68
11:50
be priced as a replacement volume? Technically, it should be priced as a replacement volume, and I know that's more than the supplement. And I have to – I think there may be some leeway, some negotiation where we can do – because we already established our five supplements for December, and I know that this is an additional two that has not been planned.
But we are going to have to recoup some of our
Speaker 53
12:21
manufacturing costs for traditional hardbound volumes. So I'm open to discuss with you and Mr. Kuhn negotiating
Speaker 68
12:30
those prices. And if we need to set them now, I can work on that. But we're going to have to price it 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 revisor and lexus work towards looking at what those proposals might be and what the cost might be i would think traditionally
Speaker 42
13:10
this is a decision that's made by the commission on whether because it would involve
Speaker 14
13:15
having two new replacement volumes that are not part of the normal schedule
and because there might be some increased
Speaker 42
13:20
cost with that it's a decision that 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 then 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 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 now yes
Speaker 56
13:50
you would have to have two standalone
supplements following two basically obsolete bound volumes right that's a good point i
mean the the hard the hard bound red code books for title 19 right now are essentially obsolete correct sir all right so and just for the benefit of our legislative members or those that are sitting in this title 19 recodification was the I think it was 820 page bill that I had the privilege of carrying I guess the the downside from
the press not understanding really what that bill was is that I guess I may have the first bill in history that has its own books
that you could carry around with you should you so choose two books two books any any
questions that's true certainly senator tucker and senator bryant representative gas away we all divvied up the the code revision work this go around so senator bryant thank
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
14:58
you at what point would the supplements go away and
issue all new books how often does that happen in
Speaker 74
15:07
the in the process well it depends on how much legislation has been passed
Speaker 53
15:12
since the last 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 five years uh a volume would would um accumulate enough supplement material to to require us to merge them into the bound volume
okay all right 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 hardbound books are completely obsolete whereas every other book that's in the code or in those volumes right now generally most
of it is still generally good law except for the changes made in the 2025
Speaker 74
16:12
session right i i need to look at that analysis to see whether or not those volumes
Speaker 56
16:18
supplements are so big that we theoretically yes we could do that we could replace two that we plan on doing in december
Speaker 53
16:27
with the two that we plan on producing with the supplement all right that that sounds like a good solution I just need to work with I guess mr. Kuhn to to
determine which ones to sub out okay all right any other questions I guess we would need a motion to proceed with the two volumes I guess subject to Lexis nexus 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
Speaker 56
17:11
if we if we um substitute the books out for two in in the future then then
Speaker 53
17:17
the price will be the same as the the fire but if we decided okay all right so so
move these up and basically brought them to the front of the line and push back some other revisions to other hardbound books the price would stay
the same as what it's always been or close there too that's that's correct okay
any further questions there a motion senator bryant motion to move forward with two volumes is there a second small next second any discussion well i i mean i think
the code revisor recommended a motion but i would say if the if the price is identical to what it is has been then I would think this would be final action
so hopefully the price will be what it has
Speaker 105
18:22
been so we don't have to have another meeting yeah you caught me in a situation where I
Speaker 74
18:32
think so I I wasn't sure whether or not the 2025 pricing has been established for the code and for the for the
Speaker 53
18:40
replacement volumes yet and I was under the assumption that that would happen at a different
meeting and forgive me if if I don't I don't have a full grasp of the process for this state but 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 I believe later this
Speaker 14
19:05
year we were scheduled to replace two volumes, I think 13A and 13B. And
Speaker 108
19:10
with that being the case, that would be the logical ones to substitute.
Speaker 74
19:16
Okay. Did you have 7A and 7B on your list as well? I don't
Speaker 109
19:21
have my list with me, but those were the two that I know off the top of
Speaker 74
19:26
my head. Okay. And I had four for December. Okay. which is 7a 7b 13a and 13b that may yeah that's kind
Speaker 111
19:33
of ringing a bell i think there that might be right so
Speaker 53
19:37
if the pricing for that has already been established then the 19a and the 19b will will honor that price okay all right and
if there's any deviation from 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 yes any further discussion uh
Speaker 114
19:58
mr chair would would you want to leave it up to staff to determine which two we're going to substitute for, assuming that
there were four future ones? I mean, that's fine with me, but I would take feedback from the commission, obviously.
Speaker 117
20:11
I think that's part of Senator Bryant's motion.
Okay. All right. So we have a motion to proceed with the two new volumes for 19,
subject to staff and LexisNexis determining which two volumes 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. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right, we're going to move to item F. This is 2025 acts, errors,
and issues, and just for the benefit of those that may be new to code revision,
Staff goes through the acts from 2025, looks at the law, and tries
to identify any inconsistencies that may exist, any conflicts that may exist, and then highlights those. As we can all imagine, it's a
pretty tedious process, 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 a code revision standpoint, generally we can make adjustments that are non-substantive
that are to basically clarify obvious errors, typos, inconsistencies.
But if it gets into things that are arguably substantive or could be substantive, then we've tried to steer clear of that historically because obviously we want to make sure that we aren't doing anything to undermine what is the will of the legislature with regard to these various acts.
And so with that, we will start through this. I'll just turn it over
Speaker 14
22:12
to the code revisor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also 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 for this part will be an 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 a
report that's detailing each item that we identified in our review following that report, the exhibit is divided into five categories of items labeled A through E. Each item will 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 are from the individual acts, so they're only going to be useful for that act. And so to avoid confusion, I'm going to 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 is an outdated version of 21.5 1101 A2. 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 this subdivision to match the current language of 21.5 1101 A2 as the act did not use markup or indicate any intent to change this subdivision. There are
Speaker 127
24:12
seven items under A. Okay, so we're just the first.
Speaker 130
24:24
is okay. Yeah, then there's B, C, D, and E. Do you want me to keep going
Speaker 131
24:30
with A? I'm just trying to think what's the most efficient thing. If there's no question, if there's no question,
Speaker 128
24:35
if we vote on it, it's a whole, like, take all of
it. you've done that before okay all right members if you'll take a look at that on section for section a unless there's a question we'll just take up one motion at the end of the section for all seven 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 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. Any question on on number one act 205?
Speaker 137
25:15
Senator Tucker, you recognized. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. So 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
25:38
everyone else that's also on page 11 of your exhibit okay it
Speaker 14
25:43
shows that shows what the existing law of 21 5 1101 a 2 looks like in those other subdivisions cap B
Speaker 114
25:50
and cap C were not present in the act so we're gonna take
the language on page 11 and replace the highlighted
language on page 10 yes sir with that line that's the suggestion
Speaker 148
26:23
okay thank yes yes ma'am the the on page 10 that's the bill in the act as passed by the general assembly
Speaker 14
26:29
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 act during the fiscal
Speaker 150
26:45
session thank you all right any any other questions
Speaker 14
26:55
all right if not item two item a2 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
Speaker 154
27:18
the gis office here to speak on this issue mr.
chair okay if there is i'll ask them to come forward and introduce yourself to the commission and
Speaker 156
27:35
then tell us which is correct hi jennifer davis staff attorney with tss it should be 46 minutes with the 34 46 second north
think so it should be 34 46 so
we would we would need
to add a we would need to add a dash and then six in the wording in the actual words to change from 40 to 46 that is correct okay 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 just for clarity for everyone
that may be watching all right any questions on that Senator Tucker? Not that I
can, 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 write out 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 kind of overruling the written in favor of the digit and and I'm fine with that but
I just that's my I mean I I had the same thought my my thought would be that code revision has the 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 agree I had
Speaker 14
29:18
the same thought and code sure the commission has authority to correct you know topographical errors so it's
whichever one you determine is an error
Speaker 16
29:25
and I agree with you in contract law we have looked at that for statutes and we could not find where there is a general
Speaker 19
29:33
principle at least in Arkansas where that rule has been applied for statutes it is generally applied
for other types of written documents okay all right thank you all right any
Speaker 14
29:49
other questions or discussion on item 2 if not item 3 item 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 event 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
Speaker 175
30:19
this one matthew representative richardson and
Speaker 176
30:26
i spoke and he asked me to relate 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 sorry to talk
too much are we deleting motor vehicle and we're just gonna and so it'll just say after the accident disaster rather than that yeah
Speaker 14
30:51
yes we would be replacing motor vehicle accident with accident disaster or other event any other questions
all right if not we'll move on
Speaker 109
31:07
to item four item a4 is on page 16. this item concerns act
Speaker 14
31:12
392. on page 17 lines 26 through 28 there's an outdated version of 17 42 515 3. the language here does not include an amendment to this subdivision from a 2019 act the present law is set out on page 18 of the exhibit this is the the same issues that we had with item A1, where an obsolete version of this subdivision
was included in the bill on the act that you all passed.
A question I would have is, in the drafting process, how does an obsolete act end up being even in the, I guess, the language of
the bill? My guess, we checked for this, and these are just ones
Speaker 176
32:01
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 relates, I guess, more to bill drafting and the Bureau side of things. If a legislator goes to a bill drafter and just gives like a site and says, I want to alter 1742-515, if the bill drafter is starting from scratch, I assume that BLR has an up-to-date current version of the Arkansas Code that you would start with.
But in some instances, a legislator might actually bring up, to your point, typed out the code section, and they may have used a bad source or an old version. Is that right? Yes, sir. And we read. We have a
Speaker 176
32:54
very up-to-date version of the code that we draft against, and we read to avoid this problem. These are ones where we just unfortunately made a mistake, and it
Speaker 58
33:04
slipped out. All right. Any questions? Senator Tucker? Is it
necessary? If that portion of the bill didn't change the law, is it really?
I guess that's the purpose of the commission, is if there's any lack of clarity, then we make the final decision. That's why we're doing it. That is, sir, because the version
Speaker 14
33:26
that was in the act, which we're under the duty to codify, was the obsolete version. So we bring that
Speaker 114
33:33
issue to you all to see if you want to
correct that. Okay, so that answers my question then. The code revisor and your staff, you're obligated to codify what passes in the legislation, whether it's underlined or not. Yes, yes, sir.
Okay, all right, thank you. All right, any further questions or discussion
Speaker 14
33:59
on that? If not, we'll move to item five. Item A-5 is on page 19. This item concerns Act 435. On page 20, 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 sub chapter three it appears that subchapter
Speaker 204
34:38
should have been chapter mr house will you recognize thank you as as i think some folks here
Speaker 205
34:43
know this can be a massive issue in litigation, this sort of cross-reference, and what Kevin is saying probably makes sense. I think in order for the decision to be made by the commission about whether that's a substantive
change or a non-substantive depends on what the other regulations are in the other sub-chapters, because if it were to make sense to say as regulated under the entire chapter, then you're sort of going up one level of abstraction beyond. I mean, there's a reason why it's in this subchapter and you've broken it out into separate
Speaker 204
35:17
subchapters so i wonder if there's some information for the commissioners on that question what are the other two
Speaker 14
35:24
subchapters i think subchapter two specifically is on certification and i don't
Speaker 111
35:29
have the whole statue in front of me but you've also got definitions in subchapter one which would also apply throughout the whole chapter and so just reading as
Speaker 154
35:43
you know you wouldn't have rules promulgated under just sub chapter three on certification when sub
Speaker 204
35:50
chapter two is dealing with that do the other sub chapters not also have rulemaking authority in those
Speaker 14
35:56
sub chapters i believe this is the only provision in this chapter that has rulemaking provisions yeah
i'll ask mr miller to get on the laptop and pull it up
Speaker 14
36:11
so we can take a look It's pretty typical for chapters or sub-chapters like this to have just one rulemaking provision. And this one, you had a comprehensive chapter that was enacted. You had the rulemaking
Speaker 204
36:27
and it used sub-chapter instead of chapter.
Speaker 209
36:30
Okay, so you're saying that this HB 1258 Act 435,
Speaker 205
36:35
It brought into being the entirety of the chapter, along with all three subchapters? Yes, sir. Ah, okay. I think that's a dispositive
Speaker 148
36:55
fact, yeah. All right. The act number is 435. 1746.
Speaker 14
37:05
Yeah, it's a brand-new chapter, Matthew, so it's all in the Act. Yeah, yeah, it's all brand-new. Yeah,
Act 435. And also for those, I think Kevin already mentioned this, if you're looking at the packet, 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, we didn't change everything,
but then to Kevin's point, apparently this is a
completely new chapter. It is, yes. What is it
Speaker 176
37:47
again, Kevin? It's Act 435. So Subchapter 1 was General Provisions. Subchapter 2 is Certifications. And then Subchapter 3 is the one that we're
Speaker 222
37:57
in with the miscellaneous provisions. Yeah,
All right, any other questions or
Speaker 227
38:12
discussion on that? If not, we'll move to,
Speaker 109
38:17
I believe we're on number six. Yes, sir. Item A6 is
Speaker 14
38:21
on 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 an actual delivery of a controlled substance.
However, on line 29, it does not change felony to offense. Everywhere else in the Act, felony is changed to offense, which matches the intent of the Act as expressed in the title and subtitle.
Speaker 154
38:49
It appears that felony should have been changed to offense on line 29. Any questions on
that one? Representative Gassway, 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. But I need just a second to kind of synthesize all this.
Yeah, that appears to be right to
me. I would agree. All right. Any other questions, discussion? If not, we'll move
Speaker 109
40:03
to number seven. Yes. Item A7, this is the last item in the
Speaker 14
40:08
A items. This item concerns, this is on page 23. This item concerns Act 706. On page 23,
Speaker 16
40:14
lines 25 through 26, the act references the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission as setting a deductible for corrective action by rule.
The commission is 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
40:38
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 can you just walk
us through that if there's something more to it because
this one is there still a
Speaker 240
41:09
division is that still in existence yes sir for
Speaker 14
41:15
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 division setting
that amount by rule do the in the these three different references do
they all interrelate or could they essentially all
Speaker 14
41:38
stand on their own they're all amending the same they're all part of the same section which is 87 907 they all use very similar language of deductible being set for the payment of this corrective action and so to us they all appear 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
appear to be referring back to that and in one instance it used division and the last instance it used commission Senator
Speaker 237
42:30
Tucker you have a question on that or discussion I'm
Speaker 246
42:34
a little uncomfortable resolving that one. Agreed.
Speaker 42
42:47
Any other? We can pull that one out. Yeah, if there's no action taken,
we can just codify this as it appears in the
act. What's the stylistically, from a bill drafting standpoint, 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
Speaker 176
43:31
it's going to 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 meaning yeah
Speaker 254
43:44
mr. chairman can can we get the sponsor in here or whoever drafted it find out what
I don't want to codify something that's wrong, but I agree with Senator Tucker. Did we
get any feedback from Representative Gramlich or Senator Boyd? No, I notified each lead sponsor of these bills of
Speaker 176
44:07
the meeting and that it was going on. I heard from some, but not everyone. unless someone has
a strong feeling otherwise why don't we uh just
set this one aside and we can
we can deal with it 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 all right without objection we'll just pull that one out sure yeah and i'll just mention
Speaker 14
44:34
that we we are in the process of getting the supplements so this one will be in front of staff sometime over the next month probably if that helps inform the decision on when we
Speaker 175
44:45
might want to meet again or okay all right let's let's set that one
aside let's and if staff would reach out to the bill sponsors see if we can get some feedback from them but I agree with the same concerns rather err on the side of upholding and making sure we don't overstep our
bounds any see that's number seven so that's so we've gone over one through seven we pulled seven from the
batch is there a motion to adopt or to make the changes as
recommended in items one through in items a one through six senator Tucker with the motion is there a second representative gasway with a second any discussion all in favor say aye any opposed the motion is adopted now we'll move to section b grammatical errors and okay refer to the code revisor commissioners these
Speaker 219
45:54
next items involve grammatical errors historically the commission has used as authority
Speaker 14
45:59
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 Cap 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 caps C relates back to the phrase secure disposal. This 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 customer information is to only modify cap a and cap B this would create a separate list of cap a little one little Roman one and little Roman two there's an example on page 30 of the exhibit to
Speaker 263
47:05
show you how this revision would look any question comment Senator Tucker Kevin what did you say cap C related back
Speaker 140
47:42
to it appeared to us the cap C related back
Speaker 14
47:48
to the disposal where is that that is in the lead-in language in six 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 targeted disposal
is not reasonable or not, excuse me, reasonably feasible, there seems to be something kind of awkward missing there. Right.
Like it should have said secure disposal again.
Speaker 199
48:33
Probably so. Any further question, comment, discussion? Maybe if
Senator Boyd didn't run 100-plus bills, he would have called.
All right. If not, we'll move to item two. and we'll just proceed with these items under b the same way we did under a if somebody wants to we
want to pull them out for separate consideration or hold it over we can do that but
Speaker 14
49:06
if not we'll just vote as a batch at the end item b2 is on page 31 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 10 19 and 32 you can see that the items in the list start with shall or shall not we've heard back
Speaker 109
49:33
from representative brown i believe she may be here to discuss what was intended with
Speaker 269
49:42
items four and five she she was here she's okay there you go all
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
49:48
right you're recognized um yes i agree that that should be shall
that you're correct on those grammatical
changes I had another concern that involves Representative Shepard's access bill to where it correlates correctly with 501 there's a misalignment but that's extra okay let's
is the this is the end of our batch on b right
yes sir okay then we'll come back and we can we can deal with
Chair
Unverified
50:34
that any question yes the intention was shall okay any
questions or comments on this representative gasway you're recognized so what exactly is the proposed change i
guess i'm i missed that on represent gazaway on page 32 of the exhibit
Speaker 14
50:51
if you went down to line 34 the change would be the change notified to shall
notify and if you turn the page to page 33 line 2 the change would be from request to shall
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
51:11
request it makes it consistent the language consistent and
Speaker 42
51:15
correct yeah there's technically a grammatical error with those subdivisions because you have a missing verb
i see all right okay any further question comment discussion all right
we can't we can okay we'll go back to b1 senator tucker but Matthew,
would you mind pulling it up? I'm not sure if I can read it from here on that screen, but I just want to see the colon that presumably is on page 27 of that bill that leads into six to make.
and while i appreciate the effort i in fact cannot read that i'm pulling it up on my phone that's that's better matthew
Okay, thank you. All right, anything else? Okay, so that brings
us to the end of the grammatical errors under Section B. And we just had two items.
Is there a motion to approve those changes as recommended? Representative Gasway, is there
a second? Senator Tucker with a second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right, now we'll go back. This is not an item that's listed anywhere, but Representative Brown has brought it up, so I'll let her address her concern.
This is going to relate to, it's going to relate
to Act 501 and 341, which 341 was the access bill.
So Representative Brown, I'll let you explain what your
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
53:55
concern is. Well, I'll try to as best
I can. I have it typed up. From Act 340, 341, shall I just read this? I don't know how else to do it. Section 34, page 41, line 35, to page 42, line 5.
Act, well, subsection 628-301, Purple Star Schools. This has to do with the Purple Star Schools sections. The, this is a proposed revision. Change the numbering from 628-207 to 628-301. Remove 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 paragraph B.
From Act 501, Section 2, page 11, line 4, change the numbering from 628-301 to 628-302, Purple Star School Program. Then on page 13, line 20, change the numbering from 628-302 to 628-303, Arkansas Council for Military Children Purple Star School Program duties.
And on page 4, line 4, I believe it is currently 628-303, increase the enumeration to 628-304, change the enumeration to 304, Division of Elementary and Secondary Education Purple Star School Program Duties. Highlighted, I've got highlights on here.
Resolve a misalignment. Act 501 establishes Title VI, Chapter 28, Subchapter III, Purple Star School Program, which, if Act 340-341, Section 34 is codified, leaves 628-207, an orphaned provision. Resolve by relocating 628-207 to 628-301. re-number Act 501's 628-301 to 302, and subsequently re-index 628-302 to 628-303.
I think this is a little complex to
read and make sense of, just reading it out loud. But resolve the conflict in 628-207B. May is in, this is the critical one, 628-207B May is in conflict with Act 501's 28-303-4, which, with shall, makes the rulemaking mandatory, resolved by repealing 628-207B and striking A.
So if I may, staff made me aware of this, that this issue had been raised, made
me aware of it this morning, 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 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 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 because 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 ask staff to work with the department of education to look at it 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 particularly as being one of the sponsors of legislation i would propose we set this aside we have 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 okay all right we'll do that thank you representative brown for bringing that up and you'll share that information with staff okay then they can have
that and take take a closer look thank you all right okay so now we're going to move to the uh section c of exhibit f these are other errors and issues and i'll turn it over to
Speaker 219
1:00:21
kevin commissioner commissioners these issues also involve uh issues that historically you've exercised your authority under arkansas code
Speaker 14
1:00:27
section 12303d to correct starting off with item 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 that 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
Speaker 154
1:00:56
become invalid. It appears the connector should have been or.
Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr. Chair. Matthew any feedback from the sponsors on this one no
sir thank you okay any further questions on that if not 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 the batch
Speaker 14
1:01:56
all right we're gonna move to item 2 item 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 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
1:02:43
appears on page 37 line 8 quote is contested should be quote is not
contested any questions comment on those all right
Speaker 14
1:03:00
item 3 item C 3 is on page 38 this item 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, but is intended to list joint or conjunctive applications.
Speaker 16
1:03:20
So it appears the connector should have been and. And I'm
noticing this is an amendment to the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. Do we know, I mean, I guess it may be readily apparent on its face, but is that
language something that actually comes from the Uniform Act? That I do not know. Kevin, do you know that?
Speaker 14
1:03:43
Yeah, I'm pretty sure this language does not come from the Uniform Act. This is specific to Arkansas. Okay.
does anybody have any questions on that one okay all right
Speaker 14
1:04:23
item four item c4 is on page 40 this item concerns act 713 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 28 65 to 18 if
you'll turn to page 43 there's a copy of 28 65 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 1 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
Speaker 67
1:05:18
anyone on this one she and I briefly discussed it at one point she didn't specifically
ask me to let y'all know so you're suggesting
Speaker 206
1:05:37
that an emergency should be struck this section is for yes sir on page 42 the exhibit
Speaker 14
1:05:44
line one it appears that we're emergency guardian where guardian was changed to 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 guardians should become should go back to guardian yes temporary guardian should be
changed to emergency guardian yes sir okay any questions comments on that all right moving to five
Speaker 14
1:06:29
item c5 is on page 44 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 divisions 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 in a division should all remain as board of the division of state services for the blind and division of state services for the blind any questions on that one all right thank you mr. chair was there any
Speaker 254
1:07:38
feedback from the bill sponsors on that one no sir mr. chairman so are these different entities all
Speaker 111
1:07:55
together I believe the board acts as sort of a supervising entity over the division or
Speaker 14
1:08:00
the division does administrative services for the board but yes you've got the board of the Division of Services for the Blind and the Division of State Services for the Blind.
Speaker 240
1:08:12
And is the, so where does deaf come in? I mean, is that a separate? Sure,
Speaker 14
1:08:17
this legislation combined the Arkansas schools for the blind and deaf and went throughout the, and by doing that
Speaker 111
1:08:23
it went throughout the code and updated references to say blind to be deaf and blind. We think it possibly
Speaker 14
1:08:32
mistakenly 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 of the names of these entities since they
Speaker 223
1:08:54
don't actually perform 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 to the
Speaker 205
1:09:07
Arkansas School for the Deaf and Blind. Does the remainder of this act affect that change?
Speaker 14
1:09:13
Yes, it goes through and makes changes throughout the code where those two schools are referenced to
Speaker 205
1:09:21
combine them. So it combines the schools, but it doesn't combine their supervisory boards? Yes, it does. There is just
Speaker 14
1:09:28
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 not actually
Speaker 111
1:09:39
part of the school for the blind or the school for the deaf or the combined school.
So the reason if you look on page 46 of the exhibit on line 6, That's why this section, we believe this section
Speaker 14
1:09:57
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.
Speaker 321
1:10:21
Is there a corresponding 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 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
going to create we're going to make
Speaker 167
1:11:03
this board more cover a broader area but maybe didn't assign additional duties i don't i don't want to leave a gap
Speaker 240
1:11:10
in rule making or in the duties and so i mean if you've got two different boards that i don't know enough about it to say so i think a little bit more
Speaker 111
1:11:21
information if it if it helps the the commission generally when this kind of change
Speaker 14
1:11:26
is made the act will 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 named 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 question did they was it an error to change the name
or did it just not fully implement the change throughout the code yes so senator Tucker no I
just it's basically what you said mr. chair
but I just think we need someone with some independent not the bill sponsors plus someone from the agency with knowledge of of this
Speaker 327
1:12:18
division who can educate us okay all All right,
with that objection, we'll pull that one out of the batch and we
Speaker 329
1:12:26
can gather some more information for our next meeting. Item 6.
Speaker 14
1:12:32
Item C6 is on page 48. This item concerns Act 798. On page 48, lines 28 through 30, there are confusing uses of at the discretion, may also, and shall. The use of may also doesn't appear to make
Speaker 16
1:12:45
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 discretion. We
Speaker 42
1:12:54
don't have any suggestions here. We're just bringing this one to the attention of the
commission. And I believe, was this the one that there was some suggestion that maybe we'd pass over it?
I reached out to Representative Macklin, and she was okay with us passing over it so we could gather some more
information. So without objection, we'll pull that out of the
Speaker 14
1:13:23
batch. all right item seven item c7 is on page 51 this item concerns act 800 on pages 52 through 53 there was an engrossing error with house amendment number
Speaker 16
1:13:35
one to hb 1672 the language on page 52
lines 8 through 29 was intended to replace
Speaker 14
1:13:45
the language on page 53 lines 21 through 29 however when the amendment was engrossed it was engrossed into the wrong page this caused 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 inserted was there something that
Speaker 332
1:14:43
was incorrectly deleted or is it just a question of where it would where it's to be
Speaker 14
1:14:48
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 two that's being struck through without the prior language being there the way this engrossment error worked it just happened to fit right underneath the catch line and so that's probably why it 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 B one. 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 was just unchanged language in the bill yeah
Speaker 111
1:15:46
it the the bill started off with strikethrough and
Speaker 42
1:15:50
then 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
Speaker 16
1:16:04
is language that's missing from the section. When you look at the overall 10 of the section, though, we would consider that language repealed by just the way the 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 strikethrough. Yeah, and
so the effect of it is it will still be stricken from code.
Speaker 16
1:16:28
That was the thought of staff, is that we would still consider that language stricken from code, and it would start
with just the A that you see there on page 52. Okay. Thank you. In y'all's research, are we very
Speaker 223
1:16:53
confident that's just an engrossing error? Yes, sir. Okay. Any questions, Mr. Owls, will you recognize? That hanging two that you talked about, Kevin, on page 52, line 30, what was that appended to?
Speaker 14
1:17:05
I don't have the original bill in front of me. I believe it would have been the existing provisions of that
Speaker 42
1:17:11
section, and they were stricken through. And then when it was engrossed, this new language was engrossed on top of that stricken through language. If we could pull it up, maybe we could take a look
Speaker 205
1:17:24
at it. So something like strikethrough lines, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and replace with, and that's why you had it right under the catch line with A. I think 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.
Speaker 14
1:17:42
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 strikethrough as it was supposed to
Speaker 42
1:17:50
be in the original bill and then the new language this new language you see here on page 52 was intended to replace the new language that was in the bill
Speaker 14
1:18:00
instead it was engrossed on the wrong page so it was inserted in the middle of the strike through and i've got
Speaker 67
1:18:07
it here on the screen this is the language
that would have been in there a strike through you can
Speaker 176
1:18:12
see the c2 starting line 36 there that's where it's picking back up that's that hanging too yeah
Speaker 14
1:18:19
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
Gassaway, you're recognized. Okay, so you guys aren't denying that this was just an engrossing error
that now requires a renumbering and lettering? Yes, sir. This
Speaker 42
1:18:44
was a clear engrossing error. It was simply the wrong page. If you go back
Speaker 14
1:18:49
and look at the instructions of the amendment, it was engrossed on page this page 26 of the act it should
Speaker 42
1:18:54
have been on the next page and then the amendment instructions were correct it just got engrossed onto
Speaker 92
1:19:07
the wrong page okay all right any yeah sorry talk to
be recognized thank you so on page 52 of the exhibit
lines eight through 29 was all of that what was reinserted into the wrong place yes
sir that was from the amendment okay so what is that replacing on page 53 of the exhibit if
Speaker 111
1:19:32
you go by the instructions in the amendment it should have replaced on page 53 lines 21
we're still going to have a problem because
if on page 52 of the exhibit you
have sub 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 going to have a subdivision b2 still hanging there underneath what will now be a subsection c and then another subsection c
yeah yes sir if you
Speaker 14
1:20:12
look on page 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 does that flow properly? Yes, it does.
Speaker 14
1:20:52
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.
Speaker 14
1:21:11
There is an internal reference, I believe, also in subsection C that needed to be updated to reflect where the appeal was actually filed.
Speaker 355
1:21:22
It's on page 27, 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 up on, that just the designation
Speaker 16
1:21:52
numbers were off. and that's a that's an authority that staff has exercised generally on its own to redesignate
subsections but the amendment did not fix that itself no
Speaker 355
1:22:01
it did not the amendment didn't fix the redesignations but it did include
Speaker 176
1:22:05
the c that's on now i'm getting lost in it page 52 yes the language
Speaker 345
1:22:14
that was supposed to plug in had a c yeah and it left the two and the c
Speaker 176
1:22:31
that's left there deals with filing a written notice of appeal which is what the
Speaker 206
1:22:35
two relates to yeah okay yeah the the c had the written notice of appeal being filed with the secretary
Speaker 319
1:22:44
of department of education so then we corrected that under the new two to be the secretary versus the board yeah
Speaker 363
1:22:55
okay thank you any more questions all right we'll move to
Speaker 148
1:23:06
item eight I think that's yeah that's that's all I have for C
Speaker 365
1:23:12
oh sorry I'm getting ahead of okay so that's it for for C
Speaker 180
1:23:25
yes sir okay so I move to follow the staff recommendation with the exception of C-5
and C-6. Right. Okay. We have a motion by Senator
Tucker. Second. Any discussion? All
Speaker 363
1:23:40
in favor, say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? All right. We'll move to D. Commissioners, these next
Speaker 219
1:23:50
items involve a situation in which 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 a later act. This is because of Arkansas Constitution Article 5, Section 23, which requires a law to
Speaker 14
1:24:09
be reenacted, not merely amended, to be revived.
So, starting with item D1 on page 57, if you'll look on page 58, line 5, identical acts 340 and 341, section 12, amended 615-1004, B2, cap C. However, on page 60, lines 26 through 31, act 304, section 1, repealed 615-1004, B2, cap C.
Did we get any feedback from the department on this? No, sir.
Any discussion? Representative Gassaway, you're recognized. So which one passed last?
okay all right well to your answer your question reverend gasway i don't know um we could find
Speaker 14
1:25:28
out though 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 amend it and so historically the commission has
treated the repealing act that's controlling regardless of whether it was the earlier
act or not i see interesting and can we representative shepherds bill yeah we're striking
your language there mr chair um can we not to answer
representative gasaway's question can we not just look at the act numbers to determine which one was at least signed last right i mean And it seems to me that the repealer was
first because it's Act 304, and Representative Shepard's bill was Act 341, so it would have been later.
Speaker 14
1:26:20
Without looking 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, 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 understand. I understand. I just thought
Speaker 131
1:27:02
it was maybe a shortcut way to get an answer
to that question. All right, we have somebody from the department here.
if you'll introduce yourself and then you
Speaker 375
1:27:19
can give us your comments good afternoon i'm sharon strong i'm the
Speaker 376
1:27:24
executive director of the arkansas scholarship lottery these um so act 429 was our bill that we ran in the session to modify some accounting methods that we use and part of this abolished 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 the Access Scholarship.
And in these particular, so Section 88 of the Access Bill is striking basically everything that talks about the Arkansas Concurrent Challenge Scholarship because it's not called that anymore, it's called something else now. And then in our bill that we ran, it removed Section 2, yeah, it modified that.
So basically, if you repeal 685-401, that's fine. Okay, and I think that's item two, which is kind of a similar
issue to what we have. Yes, yes, we'll be coming up on those
Speaker 376
1:28:53
items. Oh, that was item two? Okay, sorry. I'm just looking at the email from Mr. Kuhn. So on Section 99, then, if we repeal Section 99, that's fine as well because basically it's kind of the same thing.
So section 99 was repealed in our bill, but amended in the access, and it's because we're trying, 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, and the shortfall doesn't exist anymore.
Speaker 235
1:29:42
Okay. Any questions on that? That's on item two, Mr. Owsley.
Speaker 209
1:29:48
Yeah, just want to be clear on that. We jumped ahead to item two there, and if I
Speaker 205
1:29:55
can just summarize what I'm hearing. Kevin's going to tell us that the tradition has been repealers trump all, and you're saying that it's okay that it's repealed as a practical matter
Chair
Unverified
1:30:10
because the underlying stuff is gone anyway.
That's what I'm saying. Yeah. okay represent gazaway you're recognized and that's specific to 615 1004 that statute
that's mentioned in d1 actually no her
her testimony relates to the
next item too so we we which is relates to 23-115-802 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 scholarship lottery had a bill to eliminate
that eliminated that reference altogether when it related to the shortfall reserve trust
account right okay for for purposes of d2 that's fine with me i was just on d1 right where it appealed Appeared to me the issue was 615-1004, which related to continuing education and professional
development for teachers. Yeah, so we'll go back to D1. So, right, it does relate to 615-1004.
Speaker 14
1:31:27
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
Speaker 353
1:31:37
then, of course, you had substantive acts that were
coming through and repealing provisions. That's what happened here on item D1. And
I can confirm that's what that change was because we broadened the weighted credit beyond just AP classes to include concurrent credit and other.
there were like four or five different things that we broadened it to include and so it looks like that was just another area where the where we
were essentially changing a reference you recognize okay apparently i don't understand
maybe there's i don't know that there's any uh proposed language i'm just not able to read the two together but it looks like to me representative
andrew's 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 pat both were signed on the same day i'm just what exactly is the the
Speaker 111
1:32:52
difficulty from the codification standpoint representative gazaway is is it's impossible for us to codify both an amendment and a repealer to a subdivision so that's why our suggestion here going with the
Speaker 108
1:33:05
commission's traditional practice would be to treat that subdivision c
as repealed and so just on that language in the access bill under 1004 we changed we were basically changing the reference previously throughout the code AP classes were 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 Andrews bill eliminated the entirety of the section that had the term in
it. Mr. Housley you recognize. Kevin, could
Speaker 204
1:33:48
you speak a little bit? You shared this,
Speaker 205
1:33:52
the provision of the Constitution about repeals and reviving repealed laws. 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
1:34:11
I think you would need to see some kind of intent to revive the language. There are some Supreme Court opinions that have looked at where language has 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. The only thing that would be considered as reenacting or enacting would be the actual amendatory type language. So from our viewpoint, in a codification viewpoint,
You know, we want to see there's some kind of intent to reenact
Speaker 113
1:34:46
the language. But that's a decision for the commission to look at, of course. You know, that's just staff thoughts and our
Speaker 317
1:34:52
suggestion. I mean, I think it would be relevant if the repeal
Speaker 205
1:34:57
was earlier in time to the revive. Like if there were several weeks or even months between the repeal and the reviving or the arguably reviving, you know, statute, act, that would be relevant. Yeah,
Speaker 14
1:35:09
that's why we're always going to bring these kind of issues to the commission for y'all's consideration.
Just historically, when in the context of a single session, the commission has considered the repealing act as
Speaker 42
1:35:23
controlling. Without some kind of evidence that the, you know, the language was being
Speaker 150
1:35:32
reenacted. Any further questions or comments? All right, we'll move.
We've already taken up item two. Anybody have any further question on item two?
Representative Gasway, you recognize. I just can't get away from item one. The proposal is to let that language stand as repealed. Yes, sir. On item one. Yes, sir.
Okay, very good. We've dealt with item two.
Any further comment or question on item two?
Speaker 219
1:36:07
All right. If not, we'll move to item three. item
Speaker 14
1:36:11
d3 is on page 66 if you look on pages 66 through 68 you'll see where acts 353 sections
1 and 2 amended 685 402 and 685 405 and act 429 section 2 amended 685 404 however if you turn to page 70, line 13, you'll see where identical Acts 340 and 341, section 88, repealed that entire subchapter of 685-401 at SEC.
so so it to to summarize here it appears that the first two bills or acts make changes is 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? If not, we'll move
Speaker 14
1:37:52
to item four. Item D-4 is on page 71. On page 71, Act 360, Section 1, amended 614-111E1, Cap B, to provide that the one-week filing period for school board elections begins at 12 noon.
However, on page 73, lines 20-21, Act 503, Section 12, repealed E1, Cap B, 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 also the later act
Speaker 42
1:38:46
but it repealed that language and enacted all new language
Speaker 223
1:38:51
to replace it it seems like the two are harmonious act 360 the only edition only relevant edition here beginning at noon then act 503 it also has beginning at noon which appears to actually I guess I'm looking at the
stuff that's already in code I'm not sure that's even really
Speaker 14
1:39:21
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
1:39:33
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 yeah and I don't know they
may be one in the same i'm not sure it's
Speaker 14
1:40:12
just this one's another 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
Speaker 42
1:40:29
what yeah i'm assuming it's also the later act in this instance but it would not only be the later act it was actually
Speaker 34
1:40:41
also repealing language and re and enacting new language I
was just gonna say that I think I'm I'm
a more uneasy about the fact that Act 503 is not a really a straight repeal it's
kind of a partial repeal appeal repeal and new language but it's clear to me as Kevin just said that Act 503
was later than Act 360 so that gives me comfort. Okay. Representative Gassaway. So is the proposal
that Act 503 stand as the law on this particular issue? Yes sir. Okay. Any other questions
or comments all right now we'll move to five item
Speaker 14
1:41:27
d5 is on page 74 if you look on page 75 line 2
act 405 section 2 amended 614 111 k2 however on page 78 lines 4 through 5 act 503 section 14 repealed 614 111 k2 Any questions on that one?
Speaker 16
1:42:10
If not, we'll move to six. Item D6 is on page 79. On page 81, lines 15 through
Speaker 14
1:42:24
17, Act 500, Section 2, amended 3, 9, 221, A3, Cap E, Little Roman 2. However, on page 83, at the bottom of the page, to the top of page 84, Act 421, Section 3, repealed 3, 9, 221, A3, Cap E, 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 that the repealer passed first but this gets into that a partial amendment does not
reenact what was already repealed yes sir
Speaker 16
1:43:43
d7 d7 is on page beginning on page 85 On page 86, Act 500, Section 2, amended 3-9-221-A1 and A2, Cap C.
However, if you turn to pages 88 through 89, Act 762, Section 12, repealed 3-9-221-A1 and A2,
Speaker 135
1:44:19
Cap C. any questions on this one question you're recognized so
where you had an amendment and then a repeal yes sir this seems to be the trend yes and
Speaker 111
1:44:39
these are All these item D's are ones where there's been an amendatory act and then a
repealing act. Okay. And it's generally the proposal in all of these that the repealing act will control?
Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. Move on to D8.
Speaker 16
1:45:03
D8 is on page 90. If you look on page 91, line 6, Act 662, section 34, amended 927-303-15B to amend
Speaker 14
1:45:14
the definition of delinquent juvenile to reference the offense of capital rape. However, if you look at the top of page 93, Act 755, section 1, made several revisions to the subdivision, including repealing the language to which capital rape was being added.
Speaker 355
1:45:36
Kevin, in here we'd be thinking 755 is the one we codify, right?
Speaker 14
1:46:00
Yes. And I'm thinking in this instance it's probably the later act also based on that number difference.
Speaker 209
1:46:15
discussion if people have the appetite for it as we approach five. That provision of the Constitution,
Speaker 205
1:46:21
which is up on the screen there, no law shall be revived, I'm just going to do dot, dot, dot, no law shall be revived, dot, dot, dot, 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, dot, dot, dot, 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, they do what it says there, reenact and publish at length,
if what is meant by that is have the language re-upped. So it seems like if the approach is always that the repealer trumps, then that can create sort of 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 always trump if you lose a vote early on, if the idea is the repealer always wins.
Speaker 209
1:47:49
Because of that provision up there, it
Speaker 205
1:47:54
seems like we're giving that clause way more weight than maybe it needs to be given. And some of these, like this one we're looking at right here on 8, it's the last in time that's going to 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
Speaker 223
1:48:17
if that's something that needs to be reconsidered.
Speaker 111
1:48:20
I think some of the, you know, not to contradict what you're saying, Mr. Housley, some of that is also from Supreme Court
Speaker 42
1:48:28
opinions that construe that provision and the way they've treated non-amendatory language. There's been Supreme Court cases that
Speaker 415
1:48:36
have talked about that. When you say
Speaker 42
1:48:39
non-amendatory language, what do you mean? Language that actually wasn't being changed by the amendatory act. So let's say you had
Speaker 14
1:48:45
a B-1 and a B-2, and the act has both of them within it, and it only amended B-2.
The court has not considered that B-1 as being reenacted. It's just considered non-amendatory language that's carried over. And that's been one of the reasons why
Speaker 154
1:49:00
the commission has taken that approach in the past. So if
Speaker 205
1:49:10
you go back to, you know, I think 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 an enterprising 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 going to be the argument, and they're going to argue that that's the appropriate reading of the statute, not the codification. So if you go back to, so what we're talking about here is the codification, but if this, this is 1874 in our Constitution, and as you know, Kevin, and as others know here, we haven't always done this strike-through and underline language. In fact, that's pretty recent. Typically, how it was done before was this nightmare of just rewriting the entire section with no underlines, no strikethroughs, and my understanding has always been that those underlines and strikethroughs are an aid to the legislators.
Otherwise, all those early acts would be invalid. So if all you had to do to revive is just write 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
Speaker 413
1:50:26
underlined in the alleged revival, right? You're correct. There
Speaker 111
1:50:32
is no constitutional requirement for markup. It is used primarily as an aid for legislators. I think also the courts have looked at it as assisting them and determining what
Speaker 14
1:50:42
the intent of the act was, too,
versus did you add new language, did you amend language, things
Speaker 205
1:50:49
like that. Yeah. Well, I don't think what I'm saying is relevant here to D8 because it's the last in time, but it's sort of a caution to the idea that whatever is
Speaker 224
1:50:59
the repealer always wins. I'm not sure that's the right approach. Well,
and I guess I hear what you're saying. To me, well, one, it's a combination of what the Constitution says and then how it's been interpreted by case law,
which I know that's been brought up periodically
throughout 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 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 in the bill. It's still there to be voted on. On the other hand, if you were to allow simply putting what was existing language in without noting it as being new language, then
that would create an even greater problem. That's okay. But I
think it seems like so far that the vast majority of these related to renaming
they're renaming items that were deleted as part of a larger bill but it's obviously a fair point and
something we should pay attention to sure all right
Speaker 14
1:52:37
anything else on this one what do we have two now nine nine okay item d9 begins on page 94 if you'll look on page 97 act 762 section 12 amended 3-9-221-B1 Cap A. However, on page 100, act 500, section 2,
repealed 3-9-221-B1 Cap 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?
Representative Gassaway, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, I don't have a question on this one, but I do want to go back, if we could, to D8, because that does deal with capital rate. Okay, and I just want to make sure that I'm
not missing something here as to
Speaker 14
1:53:52
what exactly is a proposal for D8? On item D8, the proposal would be to codify that subdivision, what used to be B and is now C, as presented there in Act 755.
Yes, top of page 93. And that reminds me, and
maybe Representative Gasway knows this, does the language committed an offense which later results in
extended juvenile jurisdiction designation, does
that essentially cover the same capital rape that was alluded to? It's
Speaker 14
1:54:35
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. So the point
is your proposal would be to codify the act that number one is last in time, which would be 755, 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, you got any thoughts on
Speaker 425
1:55:28
that? Okay. All right. That's all. Thanks. All right. So
Speaker 98
1:55:30
we've dealt with D8. We've, I think we dealt with d9 unless somebody has a question on that yeah i do okay senator tucker i'm a
little uncomfortable with this one because it's clear that the repeal came first
and you know i think mr
owsley is you know raises a thoughtful point and maybe this is a bad
way to analyze these but so far as i'm concerned if a bill 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 than 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 cap a 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 at a future meeting yeah and
and maybe ask the bill sponsors okay any comments
to take our time on that i agree with that i mean practically i do worry from the standpoint of that section was repealed Well, I mean, you could argue it both ways because what apparently was passed last shows a slight change. But in essence, this would potentially be reinserting about this whole section that is otherwise to anybody looking at it is appears to would give the impression that
Speaker 321
1:57:42
it's the existing or would be existing law.
Speaker 317
1:57:46
Yeah, this may be sorry. No, go ahead.
Speaker 204
1:57:48
This may be just something that it's a codification question. It's not a question of what's the law, because Kevin may tell me there's case law that
Speaker 205
1:57:59
says 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 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 is pointing out if the early repeal is piecemeal as opposed to wholesale, well then there was some indication that even in the earlier bill there was something that was supposed to remain. And so the subsequent bill, you know, 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. And really we're asking a different question here, which is what do Kevin and his people put in the
Speaker 204
1:58:46
code because as you said you can't codify both i mean maybe you could i don't i don't
know this i think we 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 know that at least my recollection is we've done that two or three times over the past 10 years yes sir
Speaker 14
1:59:10
and in these instances right here 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
Speaker 111
1:59:29
sections as amended by different acts it was from what I understood from what I understand was universally hated by the bar because it was hard
Speaker 14
1:59:37
to figure out what the 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
Speaker 319
1:59:47
think that's part of the reason the commission got away from that practice
Speaker 413
1:59:51
well for what it's worth i think it's better to have full
disclosure on that and it'd be better
Speaker 204
1:59:57
to have sections that are nearly duplicative than to have it such that
Speaker 205
2:00:01
you know like i i've found these things over the years that haven't been this is that they haven't been noted in in these comments that's why you're what you say about adding the the comment I think is really important yes 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 the goal is the reverse but sometimes I get maybe in situations
like this where it's impossible to codify both that that can happen
Speaker 42
2:00:31
yeah in my time with the commission we've always put an acrc
Speaker 14
2:00:35
note whenever we've made some kind of resolution that 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 y'all want to pull out d9 and then consider a motion on d1 through d8 is there
a motion to that effect that's my yeah that's my motion from senator tucker is there a
second second from senator bryant any discussion discussion go ahead
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:01:08
d9 for example 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 need some clarification
Speaker 176
2:01:22
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 going to have to publish it one way or the other. Some of these 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. And we're happy to gather whatever information you'd like for us to. We
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:01:50
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 Bevers Control was very involved in understanding
and being supportive of the outcome. So that would be my advice as one of the sponsors is just seek Mr. Potter. We'll touch base with
Speaker 250
2:02:10
him. Historically, the challenge of these types of conflicts have been you've got two ships rowing different ways and they just happened
Speaker 176
2:02:15
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. Small next, you recognize? Are we holding any in addition to number 9?
I think I just had 9. Was there any others that we were going to hold? Is that it? Okay. I think that's it. All right. Any other comment, discussion? So it would be to approve
changes to D1 through D8. All in favor, say aye. any opposed all right motion
Matt before we move on to E I got a text message with a comment from Allison Hatfield
who's chief of staff at Commerce on C5 if we want
back to c5 that what miss Hatfield wrote was we agree with the code revisions assessment that I'm seeing online I think the verb is just trying to merge
the boards from the deaf school on 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 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
Speaker 254
2:04:20
hold off are we under any time pressure on that one we've got
Speaker 111
2:04:26
we're working on the supplements they're supposed to start arriving today they'll be going into mid-july so we've got about a month
Speaker 108
2:04:33
to have a resolution um that would affect the publication so and it looks like we'll be back for another meeting
Speaker 240
2:04:50
if we can if we can get back in a timely fashion i'd say just just wait a little bit okay all right we'll hold we'll continue to hold that one all right i'm good with
that just passing it along thank you all right we have four items under e we didn't no okay did we not
Speaker 106
2:05:08
vote on d we did we did okay i thought sorry i thought we did okay sorry okay okay thank you thank you
Speaker 219
2:05:23
the next out next items are uh out of me conflicts involving the amendment of revision commissioners these next items involve
Speaker 14
2:05:35
a situation in 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
Speaker 16
2:05:50
should be given effect unless irreconcilable and if the acts are irreconcilable, the last enactment prevails.
Speaker 108
2:05:59
So moving on to item E1, this is on page 102. If you'll look
Speaker 14
2:06:08
on pages 102 and 103, Act 288, Section 1, repealed a list of agencies in 226-601-A1-CAP-A and added these agencies at 226-601-A2. However, if you look on page 105, Act 944, Section 19 amended Section 226-601-A1-CAP-A to include the Arkansas Developmental Finance Authority among the list of agencies repealed by Act 288.
Though the language amended by Act 944 was repealed by Act 288, Similar language was reenacted at 226-601-A2-BAC-288. As a result, we included this item in the list of potential amendment conflicts, not repeals, and if the commission wished to reconcile these two acts, the proposed reconciliation would be to
Speaker 108
2:06:55
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 or representative baity you're recognized sure
thank you mr chairman so um on act 288 you can see we struck through that lit 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 adfa onto there so i think 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
yes sir representative and i was just going to echo those same comments and
Speaker 10
2:07:58
say i would agree with the recommendation okay so that would be that would be adding k
which would be adfa is that that's the proposal yeah so that would be pulling the the language in
green from 105 and moving it over yes 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 288 act 288 together the reason that we moved we struck that
language and reordered it in a list was strictly just for ease of readability so all right okay we'll uh we'll move on we'll i
Speaker 108
2:08:46
guess hopefully be able to batch these at at the end okay okay e2 e2 is on page 106 if you look on page 107 act 326
Speaker 14
2:08:54
section 1 amended 240 106 b2 cap a
and Cap B to provide for rulemaking by the Department of Agriculture. However, if you look on page 109, Act 703, Section 25 amended B2 Cap A 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 language should
Speaker 301
2:09:35
be the arkansas board of animal health which
is from the later act then do we leave the language the new language
Speaker 227
2:09:47
that's on page 107 that creates or that that lays out the penalty yes
Speaker 14
2:09:55
that would also include a corresponding change to be rules of the board there on line 14 to make that consistent with the
later act okay 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 would replace department with the Arkansas Board of Animal Health in those two places. Yes, sir. Any questions on that?
All right. Moving along. E3. E3
Speaker 16
2:10:42
is on page 110. On page 111, Act 384, Section 2, amended 2013-1102B
Speaker 14
2:10:48
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 Services.
Speaker 219
2:11:08
We included this item on the list of amendment conflicts because if both acts are codified, then no entity will be listed to conduct the criminal background checks. However, that would also create a
Speaker 14
2:11:20
grammatical error and other types of errors, which you all would have the authority under Section 12303 to correct. All right,
so it's the proposal to utilize the language from the later act that's on page 113.
Speaker 14
2:11:33
That would be the suggestion. So it would be Department of Health.
Any questions on that? It looks like the deletion of the Department of Health was likely because it was not. It was probably a technical correction. It was not language
that was necessary. That's right. I suggest we go with Representative Lee
Johnson. And Justin Boyd, he may set a record for most bills in front of code revision. I'm going to make sure he knows.
All right. Any further questions or comments on that? If
Speaker 14
2:12:21
not, we'll move to E4. Item E4 on page 114, this
Speaker 16
2:12:26
is our last item. On pages 114 and 115, Act 391, Section 1, amended 2381-203C. However, on pages 116 and 117, Act 958, Section 1, also amended 2381-203C, with language
Speaker 14
2:12:41
that 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 were 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? Yes, sir. Any questions or comments
on that? Okay, I don't believe we pulled anything out of the batch from E,
so is there a motion to adopt E-134
recommendations, recommended changes? Representative Gassaway with the motion. Is there a second? Senator Tucker, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Final item on the agenda is hopefully a brief report from the code revisor. He tells me it can wait until next meeting. That's what I like, efficiency. But, no, is there anything that we need to be aware of? Nothing substantive, no.
Okay. All right, is there anything else from
the commission? I appreciate everybody's effort in wading through these things, but as we can see, 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. Thank you.
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 127
Speaker 128
Speaker 130
Speaker 131
Speaker 137
Speaker 140
Speaker 148
Speaker 150
Speaker 154
Speaker 156
Speaker 19
Speaker 175
Speaker 176
Speaker 204
Speaker 205
Speaker 209
Speaker 222
Speaker 224
Speaker 227
Speaker 240
Speaker 237
Speaker 246
Speaker 250
Speaker 254
Speaker 219
Speaker 263
Speaker 199
Speaker 269
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 273
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 363
Speaker 365
Speaker 180
Speaker 375
Speaker 376
Speaker 235
Speaker 113
Speaker 317
Speaker 34
Speaker 407
Speaker 135
Speaker 22
Speaker 412
Speaker 415
Speaker 413
Speaker 425
Speaker 98
Speaker 427
Speaker 432
Speaker 106
Representative David Ray Chair
Unverified
Speaker 301