Special Language

November 9, 2022

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Meeting to order. Thank you for attending. With that, we’re going to start on item B, and this is the things that we carried over from our last meeting. And Miss Mildred.

 

Hamilton (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good afternoon, members. The first item on the agenda we’re going to discuss is Workforce Services. There was a piece of language that we had discussed last week that dealt with the ability of Department of Workforce Services to utilize up to 200 positions in their growth pool. Apologies first to the subcommittee, because I confused the issue. I confused two pieces of special language, one that had to do with temporary and extra help positions that had nothing to do with the discussion. So Dr. Childers graciously came to the table and clarified the positions we were talking about. At the request of Chair, we were able to request Ms. Kay Barnhill from Department of Finance Administration’s Office of Personnel Development to come and discuss the actual language and how it’s utilized by the agency. So if the Chair is ready for that. We do have a handout that is coming around.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: If you’ll look at the handout, this is the new handout. I think you just been given it. And if we can get Kay, and if Dr. Childers will come down, that way if we have any questions. And if you will, just introduce yourself for the record.

 

Hamilton (BLR): Members, the language that has changed is on the first page. You’ll see it’s page 87. It says Division of Workforce Services, number 3. It’s E1 A, B, 2 and 3. The third item is what was changed. The language said ‘seek approval,’ and it was changed at members’ requests that prior to establishing the new additional fulltime positions, the director shall seek approval by Legislative Council. Now, because approval was added to this language on the second page, which is page 88, you will see that what we call the non-severability language has also been added. So it will be up to the subcommittee to decide whether or not they want to pursue having approval language or if they want to change it to just ‘shall seek.’ Thank you, Ms. Barnhill.

 

Barnhill (OPM): Yes. Kay Barnhill, State Personnel Director, Office of Personnel Management.

 

Childers (DWS): Sharice Childers, Director of the Division of Workforce Services.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank y’all both for being here. I think one of the questions that we had during the last meeting was exactly how these 200 positions were going to be used. And Kay, if you don’t mind, if you can kind of explain to us how that might be working.

 

Barnhill (OPM): Yes, ma’am. This language has been around for several years, and really the first time I think we’ve used it in modern history was back in May of 2020. And I think it was COVID-related, when DWS was faced with so many challenges at that time. Since that time, we have established 62 growth pool out of– 62 positions out of this 200–

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Dr. Childers, can you cut yours off so–

 

Barnhill (OPM): 62 positions have been established out of this growth pool, and they go through the process, they send a request to the Office of Personnel Management, and we treat them just like we do the pool positions that are authorized in the uniform class and compact. They send the position request to us. We ask for supporting documentation as to the duties and responsibilities of those positions, and we analyze those. And they have to have the funding to be able to support them. And then we make a recommendation to the Personnel Committee, who reviews those requests and then presents it to Legislative Council during the interim.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you very much for that explanation. Do any members have any questions about this? Do we understand what we changed, where it says we ‘shall seek’ approval? Okay, do I have a motion? Motion to accept– I guess it’s legislative recommendation. Second? All in favor? Nos? All right, we move ahead. Thank you all so much for being here.

 

Barnhill (OPM): Thank you.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: All right. With that, members, we’re going to move down to the fun part of it. We’re going to start with C, which is going to be the special language for review. We’re going to start first with the Department of Education. And it’s going to be– Katie is going to walk us through this. And so we’re going to be in your week five and the first page is seven.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, members. Katie Walden, Bureau of Legislative Research, Fiscal Division. As Madam Chair stated, the first piece of language with changes for your review today is on page 7 of your special language manual. This is pertaining to the salary of the Commissioner of Education. This is a legislative recommended code amendment. This was previously in special language, but you all recommended for it to be codified. It states that the Secretary of Education shall devote all of their professional time to the Department of Education, that they shall not accept salaries from other sources, they shall not perform consulting work for other entities while they are serving as the Commissioner of Education. So the legislative rec is for this language to be codified.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you, members. Do we have any questions? Do I see a motion? Second? All in favor? Nay? All right, we’ll move ahead. We’re going to jump down to– it’s going to be page 8, week five.

 

Walden (BLR): Yes, ma’am. On page 8, this was previously special language that stated that no state funds shall be used for abortion referral services in public schools. This is listed twice in the Department of Ed’s bills. This one is under the General Education Appropriation bill. And the recommendation is to delete this language as it is already stated in code, and the executive also provides for that.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Any questions? Motion to accept? All in favor? Nays? Okay, we’ll move ahead. We’re going to move down to five, nine.

 

Walden (BLR): Page 9. This language pertains to, if you all remember, the $50 million dollars that was set aside for the School Safety Grant Program. ADE just requests that we remove the portion of the language that talks about the set up of the sub fund as that has already occurred. But they asked for the rest of the language to continue to provide for the school safety grants. And that’s the executive recommendation as well.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Motion? Second? All in favor, aye. Nay? All right. Thank you. Now we’re going to move down to 5, 11.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. Page 11. This was also temporary language that provided for the one-time transfer of the $50 million dollars to the School Safety Grant set aside. As you all know, that transfer has already occurred. So ADE requests for that language to be deleted and the executive recommendation provides for that.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Nay? All right. Thank you so much. Now we’ll move down to education Public School Funds, which will be on page 5, 17.

 

Walden (BLR): The first piece of language under the Public School Fund is a codification recommendation. This was previously special language that stated that the consolidation incentive appropriation funding shall be allocated and spent on eligible districts in accordance with ADE rules. This is just an added kind of requirement. As I said, it was special language, but it is recommended to be codified now, and that’s the legislative recommendation.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? All right, thank you so much. We’re going to move down to 5, 18 now.

 

Walden (BLR): Page 18. This is another legislative recommendation for codification. It states that funds allocated for the education of students in residential or inpatient facilities, as well as juvenile detention centers, all the funding providing for the education of those students shall be in accordance with ADE rules. This was previous special language. It’s recommended to be put into code now, and that’s the recommendation.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed? All right, we’re going to move on down to 5, 22.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 22, this was previously special language, but the legislative recommendation is to add this into the code. This language provides that funding used for teacher retirement shall also be used to pay employer matching costs for all the employees of the Education Service Cooperatives, the vocational centers, Easter Seals of Arkansas, and the Arkansas Correctional School District.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. I have a question. Why are we paying Easter Seals of Arkansas out of this? Do I have anybody from the agency that could answer that? If you can introduce yourself for the record. You’re recognized.

 

Rogers (ADE): Greg Rogers, Department of Education. The history of that goes back as long as we’ve been paying in Public School Funding. I don’t know why we had it in there, but I do know that it’s something that helped out with the Easter Seals. And so we’ve just continued that practice.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Do you know how much that is?

 

Rogers (ADE): No. Because we do it in a total appropriation. It’s an appropriation of the Public School Fund that is for additional benefits that paid for all of those entities together. I could get you the list, because EBD does send it to me broke down by that, but I don’t have it with me today.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Because this really kind of goes with 5, 30, where we talk about the health insurance for these things. But I noticed that when we’re talking about the health insurance, it doesn’t include the Easter Seals of Arkansas. So I’m trying to figure out why we’re paying employee match for something that’s not state agency or even anything related to the state.

 

Rogers (ADE): I don’t have the history of it with me today. Sorry.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: All right. Representative Eubanks, you’re recognized.

 

Rep Eubanks: Madam Chair, can we hold this until we can get that information?

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Well, we don’t really have time to hold it, but what we can do is leave it in special language. That way, we can address it in session, if we’d like to make that motion.

 

Rep Eubanks: So moved.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. All right, thank you so much. Move ahead. That was 5, 28.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 28, this is another legislative recommendation for codification. This language allows that $11.20 from each contribution for health premiums shall be to offset the cost of health insurance premiums for retired members. This was previously special language, but the agency said that it could be put into code. And so that is the legislative recommendation.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Thank you. We’re going to move now to 5, 30, which we kind of just touched on a moment ago.

 

Walden (BLR): Yes, ma’am. Page 30 is a legislative recommendation for code amendment. This language states that of the amounts allocated for public school health insurance that dollars shall be allocated for employees of the Education Service Cooperatives, vocational centers and the Arkansas Correctional School Districts for health insurance costs.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay. Thank you. We’ll move ahead. We’ll be on 5, 31.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 31, this is also a legislative recommendation for code. It was previously special language. The language states that alternative learning environments that operate outside and in excess of the normal school day, so in addition to 6 hours, that they can be paid proportionately for those additional operating hours.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. All right, thank you so much. We’ll move down to 5, 32.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 32, this is the same language that you saw previously for the department. This language is for the Public School Fund. It was previously in special language, and it states that no state funds shall be used for abortion referrals in public schools using Public School Funds. As I stated before, this language is already in Arkansas Code 6-18-703E. And so the recommendation is for this language to be deleted.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Move ahead. All right. We’re going to be on 5, 41. Sorry, 5, 38.

 

Walden (BLR): Yes, ma’am. On page 38 of the manual, this is special language that ADE requested to be changed. This language establishes the criteria for funding for the Enhanced Student Achievement Grants. The existing language still refers to the old National School Lunch, or NSL program. So ADE has just requested for the name to be changed to ESA to refer to the new Enhanced Student Achievement funding. And the executive recommendation provides for this name change.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Nay? All right. Let’s move down to 5, 41 now.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 41 of your manual, this was special language that pertained to the Educator Compensation Reform Sub Fund. Now that this program is over and all school districts are meeting the $36,000 salary minimum, this program has ended. And so ADE has requested that the special language pertaining to the old program be deleted. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? All right. Thank you so much. And we’ll move down to 5, 44.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 44, this was previous temporary special language that was added during the pandemic. You may recall that at that time, several school districts were given universal eligibility for school lunch programs. And so in order to hold those school districts harmless over that period of time, this language allowed for their NSL counts to be held constant for FY 2019 throughout the rest of the pandemic. However, we’re coming out of that now, and schools are beginning to reapply for their school lunch application or the free and reduced lunch applications. And so ADE has requested for this language to be deleted, as it’s no longer needed. The executive recommendation provides for the agency request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? Thank you. We’re going to move to 5, 51 now. 5, 50.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 50, this is for the Division of Career and Technical Education. This is a legislative recommendation for codification. This was previously special language that stated just the requirement that funding given for vocational startup grants shall be given in accordance with rules promulgated by the Division of Career Ed and the Workforce Development Board. So they just recommended for this language to be codified.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Any questions? Motion? Motion, second. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, we’re going to move down to 5, 51.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 51, also pertaining to Career and Technical Ed, this was one time fund transfer language that Career and Technical Ed used to transfer an old balance into their Public School Fund account. That transfer has already occurred. And so the division is asking for that language to be deleted and the executive recommendation provides for that deletion.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do I see any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, aye? Thank you. Let’s move on now down to 5, 52.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 52, this is a legislative recommendation for codification. This was previously special language pertaining to emergency situations, allowing institutions of higher ed to access an extra help pool. It was set up so that any institution that was affected by a disaster or emergency could utilize this extra help pool to help the school during and after the emergency. As I stated before, the recommendation is for this language to be codified. And that’s–

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Do I have any questions? Do I have a motion? Motion, second? All in favor, say aye. All right. No? All right, let’s move ahead. We are going to be on 5, 56. 5, 56.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. Page 56. This is the DHE loans language. This language pertains to the allowance of DHE to take out loans for the payment of financial aid programs. This language is already outlined in Arkansas Code 19-5-506. And so the division has requested for it to be deleted and the executive provides for that request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Thank you. Now we’ll move down to 5, 60.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 60, this language is pertaining to the National Guard Tuition Incentive Program. However, the agency is no longer utilizing this program. And so they are requesting for the language to be deleted and the executive recommendation provides for that request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Nay? All right, thank you. And let’s move down now to 5, 61.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 61, we have another legislative recommendation for codification. This was previous special language pertaining to the Health Education Grants and Loans. It states that the Higher Ed Coordinating Board shall set priorities and numbers of positions for each program and the legislative recommendation is to codify the language in this format.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. All right. Nay? All right, let’s move on down to page 62.

 

Walden (BLR): Page 62. This is also another legislative recommendation for codification. This language pertains to the reporting requirements for the funding allocations of higher education grants as well as projected budget allocations. And as I stated, this was previously special language, but the recommendation is for now to be codified.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Nay? All right. So now we’re going to move down to page 63.

 

Walden (BLR): Page 63, another recommendation for codification. This was previously special language. It stated that any institution that received state funds shall also be subject to Legislative Audit, and the recommendation is for this to be put in code.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? All right, thank you. Now we’re going to move down to page 64.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 64, we have another legislative recommendation for codification. This language states that any increase to an institution that is intended to be for salary increases, that increase shall be used for salary increases at that institution. Again, this was special language that’s now recommended to be codified.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? All right, thank you. We’re going to move down to page 70 now.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 70 in your manual, another codification recommendation. This language was previously in special language, and it sets up the terms for the implementation of the Student Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program. And the recommendation is for all these terms to be codified.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay. All right, thank you so much. We’re going to move down to 5, 72.

 

Walden (BLR): Page 72, another recommendation for codification. This language allows the Division of Higher Ed to receive reimbursement for costs associated with administering lottery scholarships from the lottery. And again, this language is recommended to be codified.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Nay? Thank you. Page 73 now.

 

Walden (BLR): Page 73, another recommendation for codification. This language sets out the terms for the administration of the Critical Needs Minority Scholarship Program. And again, this is recommended to be codified.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Nay? All right. Thank you. Now we’ll move down to page 74.

 

Walden (BLR): Page 74, a recommendation for codification. This allows the Division of Higher Ed to recover administrative fees related to the certification of out of state or non-public and for-profit colleges and universities. This was previously special language, and the recommendation is for this language to be put into code.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay. All right. We’re going to move down to 76 now.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 76, this language was pertaining to the Arkansas Workforce Challenge Scholarship Funds. As you can see further and middle down on the page, this language actually became ineffective at the end of fiscal year 2020. And so the agency requests for the language to be deleted and the executive recommendation provides for that request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. All right. Thank you so much. Move down to page 79.

 

Walden (BLR): Page 79. This is new special language. It’s called to amend expenditures related to Women’s Sport Athletic Programs. This program allows institutions of higher education to expend the amount of funds needed to support their Title IX programs. So this just grants them the authority to fully fund those programs. And the executive recommendation provides for the request for new language.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Nay? Aye? All right, nays? All right, thank you. We’ll move down to 5, 80.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 80, we are now on the Northwest Technical Institute language. They have one piece of language recommended for codification. This language provides for the payment of instructors outside of their normal contract, and it allows them to be paid by private industry. This was previously special language. It’s now recommended to be put into code.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? All right, thank you so much. Now we’re going to move down to page 82.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. So on this one, I’m going to take a second to explain. This language was previously special language, and it allows employees to receive additional payment for duties outside of their normal work contract, such as being a sponsor for a club, doing parent training, adult ed classes. It allowed them to receive stipends. And in the special language, I think the amount– there are two different amounts. The School for the Blind is $3,000. The School for the Deaf is $3,500. Either way, it’s recommended to be put into code. However, you’ll see, under the agency request, under the little B, the agency request is for that item to become $5,000. But then if you look on the right hand side, the executive recommendation still provides for the code amendment, but it provides for the stipend amount to be $3,500.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Is there anybody from the agency that can come down, for the School of the Blind, and explain why they think they need $5,000 versus the $3,500? If you’ll introduce yourself to the record, and you’re recognized.

 

Rogers (ADE): Yes. Greg Rogers, Department of Education. So when they were first looking at, they were looking at labor costs and tried to assign labor costs to it. They were at the $3,000. And I think the deaf school was at a different one. So after they submitted it and going on the executive rec, you’ll see an early one later on, that both of them are at $3,500 now, and that’s what they’re good with.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Does everybody understand? So they’re good with the executive rec at $3,500 instead of the $5,000. So is there any questions? Do I have a motion for executive? Second? All in favor, say aye. Thank you. We’ll move ahead. Now we’re going to be on 5, 83.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 83, still with the School for the Blind, this language pertains to braille and large print textbooks. And it provides that for funding to be provided to the School for the Blind for the purchase and distribution of braille and large print textbooks to school districts statewide. This was previously special language, but they are allowing for it to be added into the code.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? All right, thank you so much. Now we’re going to go down to page 84.

 

Walden (BLR): Under page 84, this language pertains to additional salary and compensation provisions, and it states that no employee shall hold another job without the approval of the School for the Blind superintendent, and if approved, the salary must not exceed the higher of the two positions. This language is already codified. And so the agency request is for this language to be deleted.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, aye. Opposed? All right, we’ll move on. We’re going to be going down now to page 86.

 

Hamilton (BLR): Members, if you’ll give us a minute, there’s a handout for this item. This item deals with a certified master’s degree or bachelor’s degree teachers entering state services language.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Members, you’ll be getting a handout on this. Katie, you’re recognized, if you want to continue.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this piece of language was part of the original batch of legislative recommendations for codification. And so that’s what you’re seeing in your handout. When we received the manual, it appeared that the agency had asked just for the language to continue because it pertains to salaries. And so they felt like they needed an additional layer of discretion, and they wanted to keep that in special language in case it needed to be changed. So that’s what you have before you, is the legislative recommendation. The language states that basically the superintendent can certify that the salary of teachers entering state service as teachers for sensory impaired might be adjusted to a rate of pay closest to, but not less than, the annual salary they would have received from their previous employer. So it allows for a salary adjustment for those employees. So you have before you the legislative recommendation for codification in the handout. The agency has requested for the special language to continue.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Thank you. So the legislative was to do away with it?

 

Walden (BLR): It was to codify the language. Yes, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: But the agency wants to continue it in special language only.

 

Walden (BLR): Yes, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Does everybody understand? Do I have a motion for either one of them? We’re going to leave it in special language or do you want it codified? Special language? Do I have a motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Nay? All right, thank you so much. Now we’re going to move down to page 87.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. Page 87, this is a recommendation for codification pertaining to teacher salary increases. It states that if public schools receive funds from the General Assembly to raise the salaries of teachers employed in public school districts, that the Arkansas School for the Blind and the School for the Deaf shall also be included in those increases. And that’s the recommendation.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? All right. Thank you so much. We’re going to move now down to page 593.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 93, this language is for the Arkansas School for the Deaf. You have already reviewed this language under the School for the Blind, and it also included a recommendation that the language be deleted. And so the recommendation is for deletion and the executive provides for that as well.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay? All right. We’re going to move down to 594.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 594, this is a mirror situation to what you saw with the School for the Blind, where it was that extra duty pay that you already provided for. And so the recommendation– since you already voted on it for the School for the Blind, the recommendation is this language be deleted.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: On 94. I thought this is the one– okay– to $3,500. So we’re–

 

Walden (BLR): Yes, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: We’re deleting it. So we understand. We already took care of it earlier. So motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Okay. Thank you so much. We’re going to move down to page 95.

 

Walden (BLR): On page 95, this is Arkansas School for the Deaf shift differential. The legislative recommendation is for this language to be codified. It states that for the Arkansas School for the Deaf shift work must begin not earlier than 2 p.m. and end no later than 8 a.m. the following day. This is another situation where there’s a disagreement. The agency requests for the language to continue or they’re saying that it’s already in code. The executive provides that the language continue and that the time be changed from 2 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Thank you. So do we have anybody here that can explain the difference between what the agency request is and what the executive is and why we’re changing it from 2:00 to 2:30? And if you’ll come down, and please recognize yourself and you’ll introduce yourself. You’re recognized.

 

Rogers (ADE): Thank you. Greg Rogers, Department of Education. So my understanding is, from the notes that we were going through, is that OPM is trying to make all the staff differentials at the same time. So ours is off by the 2:00, and they wanted it to be at the 2:30.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Do we know why the agency thought it should be deleted, but the executive wanted to leave it?

 

Rogers (ADE): Because it’s already in code under 6-43-320 at the 2:00. But my understanding is that OPM was trying to get all the shift differentials at the same time, which is why they were asking to have it changed to the 2:30.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Representative Tosh, you’re recognized.

 

Rep Tosh: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just curious why we’re even involved in the scheduling of shifts within the department. Shouldn’t that be a department decision as to what hours they work? I mean, I guess I’m just not clear on that, why we’re even addressing this type of language.

 

Rogers (ADE): For the Blind and Deaf schools, since they are state agencies, we had to have– and there are class and compositions. We have to have something that allows either special language or something in code that allows for shift differentials.

 

Rep Tosh: Well, I understand that, but we’ve got a lot of state agencies and we give them the authority and the responsibility to schedule their people at what hours they would work. We don’t try to mandate that. We let them run their agencies and cover those shifts as they deem necessary. So I’m just a little confused here as to why we’re trying to do that with this particular agency. That’s just my question.

 

Rogers (ADE): I really don’t know that we would– I mean, if the General Assembly’s wish was for us to have that control to do that, we would take it and we would work with it. Absolutely.

 

Rep Tosh: Madam Chair, could we– I mean, I really think we need an explanation why we’re involved in the scheduling of an agency and how they schedule their employees. I just don’t really understand this and maybe there’s a great explanation for it. And I appreciate you trying to explain it to me. I guess I’m having a difficult time understanding why, but it seem like that’s a little unusual to me. We don’t do that with other agencies across the state. So why are we doing it here?

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Can we get anybody from OPM over here to answer that? Hold this until the end of the– I’ll tell you what we’ll do, Representative Tosh. We’re going to put a hold on this until we get to the end of the agenda. We’ll come back to it and see if we can get an answer before then.

 

Rep Tosh: That’s great. Great way to approach it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: So we’ll skip over that until the end of the agenda. And page 96 is next, and it has a handout. And Katie, you’re recognized again.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. This handout that we’re seeing is the same as what we saw earlier, or it’s the cleanup measure from that. This language pertains to the certified master or bachelor’s teachers entering state service that allows the superintendent to adjust salaries for more qualified candidates. So in this situation, the legislative recommendation was to delete the language because it was already addressed in with the School for the Blind. They lumped School for the Blind and School for the Deaf together in that code amendment. So the second part, they recommended that the deaf school language be deleted. However, you’ll see in your book, the agency requested for the special language to continue.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. So legislative is asking that we delete it because it’s already in code somewhere else.

 

Walden (BLR): Correct.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Right. And agency wants to continue it, but it’s a duplication of the– would that be correct?

 

Walden (BLR): It would be, but it would remain in the School for the Blind appropriation sections as well.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Do I have any questions? I need a motion for legislative or agency request. Legislative request. Do I have a motion? Motion is seconded. All in favor?Opposed, nay? So we want legislative. All right, let’s move down to page 98.

 

Walden (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. The last piece of language for the School for the Deaf is on page 98. This pertains to the teacher salary increase that just, again, states that anytime a teacher salary increase is provided to public schools, that the School for the Deaf should also be included in that increase. It states here that this was combined with another section. You remember you already reviewed this on page 87 under the School for the Blind, and it includes both the School for the Blind and the School for the Deaf in that codification on page 87. So the recommendation is for page 98 to be deleted.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: All right. Thank you. Any questions? Do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, aye. All in favor? Opposed, nay? All right, thank you. We’re moving on. Thank you Katie so much. We’ll ask for Ms. Walls to come down. We’re going to go into DHS now. So we’re going to be into a new week. So you’ll need to go to week number 6 and we’re going to be on page 5. Week 6, page 5, DHS. And you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. This is special language for DHS. It begins on page 5 and it runs through page 9.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Do you mind pulling that mic just a little closer to you?

 

Walls (BLR): Yes, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you.

 

Walls (BLR): Better? All right. This section covers transfers and reallocations that are utilized by divisions or made between divisions and it lists in detail the transfer authority that’s specific to the department. There are three subsections to this piece that address different aspects. The first one authorizes the department secretary to request fund transfers for the DHS Renovation Fund as authorized in this act, as well under the provisions established in code. The second piece, which is B, authorizes fund transfers within the divisions to provide for the state’s matching share for programs eligible for federal reimbursement. This is mostly for Medicaid. And these transfers are required to be reported quarterly. And the most recent publicly available report is on the November Peer agenda for next week. The third section authorizes reallocations of resources within and between divisions. It provides the department with flexibility to transfer up to four times annually a combined 5% of their total annual appropriations, funding, and positions. There are further restrictions about Medicaid funding, DCFS funding, and the DDS grants to community providers line item. It sets out the process for requests, including requirements for approval from the CFO, the Governor and Arkansas Legislative Council, and the purposes for which these transfers can occur. And these requirements must be satisfied prior to any transfer of this kind occurring. The most recent transfer was done in June, is the first reallocation for fiscal year 2023. They also have a reallocation on November’s Peer agenda next week. You’ll turn to page 7, about halfway, a little more over halfway down the page, the executive recommendation is for the number of reallocations to be reduced from four reallocations per year to two. And that’s it for this one.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. I have a question. What’s the difference between legislative and agency request and executive?

 

Walls (BLR): If you go to page 7, because it’s really hard to see, on page 7— it’s 11 lines from the bottom. If you look there, it’s almost halfway up the page on the right side, and it is at the very end of the line, and they strike through 4 and underline 2. This changes the number of reallocation requests that they can do in a fiscal year.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, thank you. So do we understand we have legislative agency request and executive request? Executive takes down the number of times that they can request reallocation from four to two. So any questions? Do I have a motion for executive rec? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay? Thank you. We’re moving ahead, and we’re going to be on 6, 10. And you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. This next one is a– I’m sorry.

 

Hamilton (BLR): Members, this is going to be a companion piece. There’s, on page 11, a similar piece of language. We’re going to do a handout. This deals with nursing direct care education. There’s a stipend program with Department of Health and a stipend program with Department of Human Services. The language is similar. There’s been a codification suggested to combine the two pieces of language. Ms. Walls is going to go through it, but this is the handout that gives you the language for Department of Health. And you’ll see in your manuals, the Department of Human Services’ request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. And you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Yes, ma’am. Thank you. This section, this legislative recommendation for codification combines two similar pieces for the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services together. It allows for stipends to be paid for nursing students and sets requirements for their employment upon graduation, how many stipends are available, and from which funding sources those stipends may be paid. It also sets forth repayment requirements in the event that their employment commitment is defaulted on. If you look, it has its 6-82-2202, is for the Department of Human Services stipend, which is for everything from registered and licensed practical nurses down to behavioral health aids in the list at the top. And then the Department of Health stipend, which is on page 11, is 6-82-2203, and that one pertains only to advanced practice nurses. And the executive recommendation provides for the codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Do I have any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Motion. Second. All in favor, say aye. Move ahead. Okay. Thank you so much. Executive, right?

 

Walls (BLR): All right, Madam Chair. The next change that we’re going to do is a legislative recommendation for codification. And it’s on page 13, and it runs through page 15. This is for nursing direct care recruitment and retention bonuses. And it allows the department to issue recruitment and retention bonuses to certain types of direct care workers, primarily nurses, in addition to their regular salary. This sets out the total amounts that they can be paid and the amounts and the time periods that they’re paid because they don’t get a lump sum all at once, they get it as they’re employed. And it says that if they do not fulfill their employment obligations for each time period, any remaining payments are forfeited. And the executive recommendation provides for the codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. Thank you. With that, Mildred, if you don’t mind– thank you– if you don’t mind, can you– we’re going to do this 111 because we’ll have to make it right. We’re going to go down, we’re going to be on Department of Health. That’s that handout that you were just given.

 

Hamilton (BLR): Members, as a result of the codification that Lilah just explained, there were differences in DHS’s language, in Department of Health language with regards to the nursing direct care program. Now accepting the codification means that any discrepancies within the program that were adjusted by the agencies to include all of the changes that were different in terms of the stipend amounts, in terms of the types of nurses that would be getting the stipends and the program requirements, those issues were resolved in the codification. So accepting that codification means that this piece of language that you see on page 111 in the handout is going to be deleted of Department of Health appropriation bill. Just want to make sure everybody understands that before we move on.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Does everybody understand? Basically what we just codified took care of this and we’re going to delete it out of the Department of Health. And I will need a motion. Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. All right, thank you so much. And Lilah, we’re going to be back at 618. And you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): If it pleases the Chair, Representative Cavenaugh, I’d like to discuss– 618 is going to be deleted as a result of a codification that I’m going to talk about later. So if it’s okay with you, I’d like to talk about all five of those pieces together in a couple of minutes.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay.

 

Walls (BLR): Okay? All right. So I’m going to be talking about what’s on page 620 for vocational trainees. And this actually encompasses 620, 623 and 624. They’re requesting that these pieces of special language be codified into a single piece. So that would mean that the vocational trainees’ piece will appear as the codified piece and then the extra help– I’m sorry– the job share in State Hospital contingency positions will appear deleted in the bill. And what this allows is, in the first section for vocational trainees, it authorizes the divisions to provide employment opportunities to residents separate from those in regular vocational training. And those positions will be provided by the community mental health center or at the Arkansas State Hospital on a cash account basis. The second piece is job share for nursing classifications. And it allows the division to utilize job sharing for nursing positions for up to 24 hours per week per individual to allow for weekend option shifts that allows the division to use the two people in one position so that they don’t have to request additional positions in order to allow for a weekend option. And then the third piece is on page 20 and 21, and it allows the divisions to request additional contingency positions in the event that a management contract with private providers is discontinued at the Arkansas State Hospital. And the executive provides for the codification of all these things together. So that would mean that 20 would be codified and 23 and 24 would be deleted as a result of the codification, if you choose to codify this.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. So members, just make sure we understand. If we codify 20, what we’re going to be doing is combining 23 and 24 in it. So we will be codifying 20 and deleting 23 and 24. Do I have any questions? Do I have a motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, thank you so much. All right. Lilah, you’re going to go back up to 18 and work your way or are you–?

 

Walls (BLR): I’m going to go actually to page 28. 18 is part of this one as well. This 28 is a legislative recommendation for codification for code amendment. And it codifies 618, 627, 628, 636 and 637 together into a single piece. And this will appear codified here for page 28. And then those other pieces would be deleted as a result of the codification, if you choose to do that. So let me explain what it does. Okay. The first section of it is for timber and hay sales by the division. It allows the division to harvest timber and hay at its facilities to make capital improvements or purchase capital equipment and allows that to be utilized for operations at the Arkansas Health Center. It sets forth accounting, contracting and reporting requirements for these funds. The next piece starts on page 29. It’s extra help limitations. It places annual limitations on extra help positions of the division. They can be paid no more than 85% of maximum annual salary for a comparable full-time position and they are limited to 1,800 hours per year. The next one is going to be on page 29 and it talks about state and federal funds, and there are three pieces that are in subsections that are codified together. And it’s going to allow the department secretary to use state funds to match federal funds available through the Older Americans Act, which is titles three and five, social services block grants or other funds as they become available. Little B is allowing the division to disperse grants and contracts in the same manner as authorized under title three of the Older Americans Act. And section C, it says that federal funding shall be used to conserve or reduce the expenditure of state general revenue, except where it’s prohibited by law. And the executive recommendation provides for the codification of all five of those pieces together in a single place.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Representative Evans, you’re recognized for a question.

 

Rep Evans: Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Walls, on 628, we’re talking about the sales of timber and hay. How big of a project is that? And where is this land that this is being done on?

 

Walls (BLR): Honestly, sir, I know that for the timber piece, it doesn’t happen very frequently because you have to allow for a timber stand to actually grow before you can harvest it. And I’m not certain which one of the facilities this is at.

 

Rep Evans: Someone from the agency know?

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Yes. If you can come down and please introduce yourself for the record. And you’re recognized.

 

Hill (DHS): Good afternoon. Jay Hill with Aging Adult Behavioral Health Services. Senator, do you ask about where the location is? So the Arkansas Health Center is a facility located in just outside of Benton, little town called Haskell. It’s approximately a 500-acre campus. And in 2007, 2008, planted between– and I’m guesstimating, between 80 to 100 acres of open land with pine trees. There was an estimated 20-year wait for those to reach maturity. So we’re not quite there yet. It’d be roughly 2028 before all that timber would be ready for harvesting. But it was just, it was unused land, and it was an opportunity for us to make an investment and plan for capital improvements in the future by using it in a good way.

 

Rep Evans: So up to this point, the agency has not harvested any timber or harvested any hay. This is just something that’s planning for the future?

 

Hill (DHS): We have not in many years. It probably has been 15 to 20 years since we harvested hay on those properties. There are stands of timber that are mature that could be. We’ve not had a need to cut those yet. There are portions of that property that do have some pretty substantial stands of timber on it.

 

Rep Evans: Okay, great. Thank you for the explanation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, just for clarification, if we codify 628, it’s going to combine 618, 627, 636, and 637 all in one. So 618, 627, 636, and 37 will be deleted and rolled into 628. Okay? And do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right. Thank you. With that, we’re going to move down to DHS County Operations, and that’s going to be 6, page 44. Thank you.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. All right. This one is a legislative recommendation for codification for the Division of County Operations for their employees, and it states in the event of a state or federal disaster declaration, the division may exceed the normal limitations on contract and extra help labor. And the executive recommendation provides for the codification of this piece.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: And then we’re going to move down to DHS Developmental Disabilities, which is going to be on page 647. And Ms. Walls, you’re recognized. If you’ll hit your button, I turned you off by mistake.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. On page 47, this is a legislative recommendation for codification involving vocational trainees. This allows the division to provide employment opportunities for residents at human development centers who work at a less than competitive employment level. And the executive recommendation provides for the codification of this piece.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion? A motion. A second? All in favor? Opposed, say nay. Thank you so much. Now we’ll move down to 648, and you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. Page 648, this is timber sales proceeds for capital improvements and equipment for developmental disability services. So it is a similar situation to the one with Behavioral Health Services that we just talked about. This allows the division to harvest timber at its facilities for capital improvements and to purchase capital equipment. And it sets forth accounting, contracting, reporting requirements for those funds. And per the agency, similar language is codified, and this section may be deleted. If you look at the very, very bottom on page 48, it actually says the recommendation. It says that this is codified and it’s good, and it can be deleted. So the executive recommendation provides for the deletion of this piece.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: All right, thank you so much. Just for clarification, we’re going to be deleting this because it’s already been codified. Have a motion. Motion. Second. All in favor say aye. Thank you so much. Let’s move down to 649. And you’re recognized Ms. Walls.

 

Walls (BLR): Yes, ma’am. Thank you. This last piece for DDS is for a legislative recommendation for codification, and it’s a prohibition of closures of human development centers and also discusses funding for human development centers and community providers. This prohibits closures of, or reductions in funding to the human development centers or the IDD community providers, and provides for the continued acceptance of clients for both types of services. And the executive recommendation provides for the codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: All right, thank you. Can I have someone from the agency come down? I have a question. And if you can just introduce yourself for the record, and you’ll be recognized.

 

Weatherton (DHS): Melissa Weatherton, director for Developmental Disability Services.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. My question, and you’re familiar with this, we’ve been working in some mental health issues and working with some developmental issues. Is this going to affect anything that we’re currently kind of working on, how we’ve changed the manual around and things like that? I don’t want to do anything that’s going to create an issue with what we’re trying to accomplish in the next session.

 

Weatherton (DHS): No, ma’am. I don’t think it’s going to cause conflict with what we’ve been working on. But we did have suggested language changes to this particular section. We were not recommending that this be codified as is.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Are you wanting it left in special language? Is that what you’re wanting? Are you actually wanting actual verbiage changes?

 

Weatherton (DHS): We were actually asking for verbiage changes.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, and what changes were that– or are they that you are asking?

 

Weatherton (DHS): So what we had recommended was that starting at the top, where it says 2048-419 with the prohibition language, we had no suggested changes to that language, nor Section A that says, “The Board of Developmental Disability Services shall not close.” We did not have any suggested changes. But from that point forward, we were asking for the language to be removed. The reason being, if you get to B1, it says, the department shall continue to accept clients for whom we’ve determined need therapy in residential at the Human Development Center. That’s actually not the criteria to get into a Human Development Center. And then if you keep going down, it goes into great detail about how we match federal funds. These items are already in our special language in other sections on how you all allocate and appropriate funding to us for these fund sources. So we were saying that those things, like I said, the B1 is just not very accurate, and then the rest is a duplication.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, so just to clarify, you’re okay with A but then you would like us to strike through B1 and everything down through the rest of the language?

 

Weatherton (DHS): Yes, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: And that’s because the definition of B1 is not correct, and then the rest of it is a duplication in other parts of special language?

 

Weatherton (DHS): Yes, exactly.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Do I have any questions? Do we understand what the agency request is? You’re recognized, Representative Eubanks.

 

Rep Eubanks: Thank you, Madam Chair. So the agency request has changed, correct?

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Yes.

 

Rep Eubanks: Okay.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: So the motion would be to accept the recommendation as it appears with the change that we would delete everything from B1 all the way down. Do I have a motion for that? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Thank you.

 

Weatherton (DHS): Thank you.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: You’re welcome. All right. With that, we’re going to move on to– I have no idea at this point– 652, which is DHS Medical Services. And you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. This particular piece of special language is actually in the Medicaid Tobacco Settlement Program Appropriation bill. It is for medical services, though, or it’s just included with medical services, but it would apply to all of those appropriations that we have for Medicaid Tobacco that are included in Medicaid Tobacco Settlement Program. And this requires that separate paying accounts be established and maintained for the Medicaid Tobacco Settlement Program. This is something that has been done since we have had the Tobacco Settlement Proceeds Act. So it is something that they are accustomed to doing, and this will just allow it to continue and be codified instead of appearing a special language. And the executive recommendation provides for codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do you have any questions? Motion? Motion. Second. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Hold on just a moment. Since OPM is here, we’re going to go back, and we’re going to take up page 95. That’s 528. So she can explain to Representative Tosh so he can understand. Kay, if you’ll come down, recognize yourself. Thank you so much for coming back. And if you just introduce yourself and you’ll be recognized.

 

Barnhill (OPM): Kay Barnhill, State Personnel Director, TSS OPM.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you, Representatives Tosh, if you’ll put your speaker on. Your speaker. Yeah.

 

Rep Tosh: Got me now?

 

Rep Cavenaugh: I got you now.

 

Rep Tosh: Okay. I had an opportunity a while ago– Kay came over and we had an opportunity to visit. And she explained to me and was able to thoroughly answer my question. I understand. And they are not scheduling for their shift work. They strictly had to do– and you can correct me if I’m wrong, it had to do with some type of incentive pay for extra hours work at a certain time of the day. But the agency is not scheduling. We’re not trying to put into language and tell them when they can work and when they can’t work. So I’m satisfied with it. If you would like to explain it for the rest of the committee, and maybe I’ve just accomplished that for you. I don’t know, but whatever you need to do.

 

Barnhill (OPM): Okay. In the uniform class and comp act, what we do is we allow for shift differential. So any employees who shift starts at 2:30 or after is eligible for 6% incentive differential if the department so wants to pay it. If their shift starts after 11:00 at night, they’re eligible for 12% incentive differential. And there is also a weekend shift differential. This is used most commonly in residential facilities and 24-hour facilities where they have to make the payment. There’s no requirement of the departments to make that payment, but that is what the practice and the law allows for. If they’re going to make that payment, they put a request in to OPM, we approve it to make sure it meets the criteria and set it up on the HRS system. That’s kind of how shift differential works.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, thank you so much. With that explanation, do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Thank you so much for coming back. Okay, Ms. Walls, if you would like to return. And with that, we’re going to pick up with DHS Medical Services, which is going to be page 60. And you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a legislative recommendation for codification on page 60 regarding pharmaceutical dispensing fee survey. It provides for a pharmaceutical dispensing fee survey no more than two years before making changes to the fee and establishes that only factors relative to cost shall be surveyed in states what those factors shall not include. And it allows that the fees may be increased at any time. And the executive provides for codification of this piece.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do I have any questions? Do I have a motion? A motion. Second? All in favor say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, thank you so much. With that, we’re going to move down to page 64. And Ms. Walls, you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): All right, thank you, Madam Chair. On page 64, this is legislative for recommendation for codification regarding Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment Services for children. It clarifies the Medicaid state plan pertaining to EPSDT services for children and teens on the Medicaid program regarding the types of services the program will provide. It also clarifies in regards to a district court decision that child health management services clinics will be reimbursed for both diagnostic and treatment services for early intervention day treatment. And the executive recommendation provides guides for codification of this piece.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do I have any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Nay? Thank you. We’ll move down to page 67 now.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. This legislative recommendation for codification is regarding personal care program and private care agency participation requirements. This allows that private care agencies be eligible for round-the-clock reimbursement, subject to Medicaid program rules regarding monthly benefit limits and prior authorization requirements. It defines what a private care agency is, and it requires that they be licensed and supervised under the Department of Health’s rules. And the executive recommendation provides for codification of this as well.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do I have any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, thank you so much. All right, Ms. Walls, with that, we’re going to move down to DHS Division of Provider Services and Quality Assurance, which is going to be a page 76. You’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. This one on page 76 is legislative recommendation for codification regarding certification and licensure by the Division of Provider Services and Quality Assurance. It establishes that the division may use funds appropriated for certification or licensure of entities on behalf of any other division of the Department of Human Services. The entities certified or licensed by the Division of Provider Services and Quality Assurance hold their certification or licensure under the authority of the relevant other division of the department, and that certified or licensed entities are bound by the laws, rules, and regulations of the relevant division’s authority. And the executive recommendation provides for the codification of this piece.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do I have any questions? All right. Do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right. Thank you so much. With that, we’re going to move down to DHS Youth Services Division will be on page 77. And Ms. Walls, you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. This piece is a change, and it provides a mechanism to transfer funding of up to $740,000 to pay for the Juvenile Ombudsman program. The executive recommendation that is included here changes the amount that can be transferred. It decreases it from $240,000 to $120,000. And that’s all that I have to say for this particular piece.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, thank you. And, members, if you’ll notice, there’s a difference between what the legislative and agency request is versus the executive request. And the Defender Commission would like to come down and speak to that. So if you would like to come down and recognize yourself, introduce yourself for the record and you’re recognized. We are on page 77.

 

Parish (Defender): Greg Parish, Arkansas Public Defender Commission. This is obviously not a request from the agency. Since the inception of the Ombudsman program in 1999, that part of our agency has gone from eight people to one. And this position is specifically allocated by statute setting forth the duties and rights of the Ombudsman that is found in 16-87-216. What this request also brought to the attention is that the statute mandates that the Ombudsman, of which we have one, also have an assistant Ombudsman, for which we have no position whatsoever. How this works is the moneys come to us from DHS. And if we do not use all of the funds, as we don’t, we always tell DHS what we’re needing and allow them or free them up to use the money in other ways. Some of the obligations of the Ombudsman, just so you will know, I mean, I got a phone call last week. She was trying to enter a facility where juveniles are detained because of some issues that arose there. The statute gives her cart blanche to do so and she was being denied access to inspect the needs of the juvenile. I don’t know where the request comes from or why, but she’s instrumental in protecting kids who are in juvenile custody. And I’ll be glad to take any questions anyone might have.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, members, I just want to try to clarify. I think the way that this has happened is this would have been one of the special languages that we would have batched because it was a date-only change. But when that happened, the executive came back with a different recommendation. Basically, they changed. They’re okay with the date change, but they’ve also reduced the amount of money. So that’s how this came about because it was one that we were going to batch because it was a date change only. And so that’s how this came about. And Representative Springer, you’re recognized for a question.

 

Rep Springer: Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m just trying to understand. So your request is for the $240,000 to be maintained?

 

Parish (Defender): Yes, ma’am.

 

Rep Springer: That’s correct. And then my follow-up question is why is it that you want this to remain in special language rather than become part of the statute?

 

Parish (Defender): Well, it just came to our attention last week of the reduction. What we are seeing at this point now that all the facilities are opening back up, the floodgates have opened for her, for this one person. And we expect it to be this way for the next couple of years. It’s been, hectic is not a good word to use. I would say that.

 

Rep Springer: Okay. And then the answer to my follow-up question, why would you want this to remain in special language and not be become a part of the statute?

 

Parish (Defender): Procedurally, I think it needs to remain here. So there’s no question what the intent is as for where the moneys come from and how they’re to be used. I mean, the statute does not address the funding whatsoever.

 

Rep Springer: Okay, so then I guess my follow-up question and then how does one know about this program? How is it communicated if it’s not part of the statute? How would one know that this is available to them then?

 

Rep Springer: It’s by statute. And I oversee this through the commission, through the public defenders, as well as the private attorneys. The private bar knows about this program and what her role is, not only to inspect facilities, address juveniles’ needs, there’s like 12 or 13 roles that she has that are listed. She also provides testimony throughout the state. For instance, she’s got a 14-year-old charged for the felony that may belong in juvenile court versus adult court. She looks to avenues for treatment. All the public defenders as well as the private bar use her as well for her expertise. I mean, she’s widely known amongst the defense bar here in the state of Arkansas by statute.

 

Rep Springer: Final question, I guess I’m not understanding, what portion that’s here that’s not a part of the statute?

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. I think I might be able to clarify.

 

Rep Springer: Okay, thank you.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: All this is doing is changing the amount. It’s not being codified. We’re just trying to change the amount.

 

Rep Springer: I understand, but I guess that’s my whole problem, is it’s not being codified and it’s not a part of the statute. So it’s going to remain in special language. And so that’s what my question and concern is, is that it’s not a part of the statute. It’s remaining in special language, and who knows about it? How does the public know about something that’s in special language?

 

Rep Cavenaugh: This is not anything to do with the program. This is just with the appropriation of the money.

 

Rep Springer: I understand that. I guess I’m still not understanding that persons are aware that there is this program available and there’s funding to assist them with whatever needs they have. That’s my point. Thank you.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Mr. Speaker, you’re recognized.

 

Speaker Shepherd: I think maybe I’ve gotten some answers that have been texted to me, but my question would be, why is the executive recommendation so much lower? How much has been spent, and how much has been spent in the past?

 

Parish (Defender): I cannot answer why the executive recommendation is lower. I don’t know. It just came to our attention last week. So someone else may be able to answer it.

 

Speaker Shepherd: Maybe DFA maybe could enlighten us. But I think that the expense has been around $77,000 last year. Do you have any idea what you would anticipate spending on this, understanding that things have opened back up? And I know particularly with our juvenile facilities, there’s a lot of needs and issues there.

 

Parish (Defender): I certainly anticipate expending the $120,000. No doubt. And with the statute proclaiming that the Ombudsman should have an assistant as well. Question is, does that funding come out as $240,000 as well because it’s statutory? And we don’t even have that position.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. And DFA, do you think you can come down and answer the speaker’s question? And if you don’t mind, if you’ll introduce yourself and you’re recognized. Thank you so much for coming.

 

Brech (DFA): Yes, Robert Brech, DFA. The reason it was reduced, there hasn’t been an expense over $80,000 that we’re aware of to date. And DHS actually budgeted $77,000 in this. So that’s why it was reduced. They haven’t spent that much in the past.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions? Do I have a motion? Agency rec? So that means it will be the $240,000, just so we all know. So I have a motion for agency rec. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say aye. All right. Nays. We’ll move ahead. Okay. With that, we’re going to move down to 679. And Ms. Walls, you’re recognized.

 

Walls (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a legislative recommendation for codifications on pages 79 and 80. This is another piece about harvesting timber. This allows DYS to harvest timber at its Mansfield facility to make capital improvements and pay for capital projects at that facility. And it sets forth accounting, contracting, and reporting requirements for those funds. And the executive recommendation provides for the codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Members, do I have any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Motion. Second. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Walls. Appreciate it. Now, we’re going to go down to ASU Jonesboro. We’re going to be into week number 7. And Mr. Rice is going to be with us. And our first one is going to be ASU Jonesboro. The page is 78.

 

Hamilton (BLR): All right, members, in your packets, in your binders, you’ll see Special Language Volume 7. But what you should also have is this handout that has about eight separate pieces of language in it. It’s salmon-colored. What we have in this packet are pieces of language that were legislatively recommended to be codified. These are different pieces of language. The institutions of higher ed put together their own special language manual. So the manuals that you have are their requests for what they would like to see in their appropriation bills moving forward. And the eight pieces that you have in this handout are what the legislative recommendations are for codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Members, just want to make sure you understand. What we have in the week seven is what the agency request is that they would like to have. In the special handouts, you have that looks like this is what the legislative would like to have. They will not be the same. Just giving you a heads up. All right, Mr. Rice, you’re recognized and we’re moving down to 78.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. Henry Rice, Bureau of Legislative Research. We’re on page 8. And the current language allows the ASU system to offer bonuses and educational differentials of up to 6% of the employee’s salary for degree attainment. And these aren’t allowed if the education is included as a special requirement or a minimum qualification. The institution request deleting the language and the AHECB, that’s the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board provides for this request. And in the salmon-colored handout on page eight, the legislative recommendation is to codify the language.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, just so we understand the agency and AHEC recommend we delete it. Legislative recommends we codify it. So we need to talk about this and what we’re really– and the agency is here. If you don’t mind, if you’ll come down, introduce yourself for the record and you’re recognized.

 

(Unknown Staff): Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. Members, the reason we wanted to delete this is we want to reconsider this idea and want to do away with this language, and reconsider our policy position in regards to this if we want to do something later. That’s why you don’t want it codified because you’d have to come back and do a bill to repeal it and everything else if we decide to go a different route. So it’s something the institution wants to look at internally and then come back to the General Assembly should we decide if we want to continue it into the future. We have a new chancellor, new leadership. If we want to do something into the future or not, or not do this at all, maybe go a different route. So that’s the reason we want to delete it. We could come back and we decide to continue.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Representative Evans, you’re recognized for question.

 

Rep Evans: Thank you, Madam Chair. So there’s legislative intent here. Who was the legislator that intended this language?

 

(Unknown Staff): We brought the language initially. I don’t know. It was probably a member that sponsored it back in the day. I can’t remember which member it was, but it was at our request.

 

Rep Evans: Certainly. So there’s been no discussion with the member, changing, deleting?

 

(Unknown Staff): It’s been there a long time. I don’t know.

 

Rep Evans: You know how long it’s been?

 

(Unknown Staff): I don’t even know if the member who sponsored it has been here. Oh, yeah, Uvalde Lindsey. So it’s been there a while.

 

Rep Evans: Sorry. Thank you.

 

(Unknown Staff): But I can go call him.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: All right, members. Hold on just a second. Members, if you don’t mind, we’re going to take a small recess until we figure out something, and then we’ll be right back. So we’re going to take a few moments for recess.

[Recess] 

Rep Cavenaugh: Back in from recess. Mr. Anderson is going to explain of how we arrived at our handout. Thank you so much. Mr. Anderson, if you’ll introduce yourself and you’ll be recognized.

 

Anderson (BLR): Thank you, Madam. Chair. Kevin Anderson, Bureau of Legislative Research. During the interim, a lot of special language was codified. A lot of existing special language was codified by your staff. And that’s what you’ll find in this– it’s in this handout right here is the existing language that your staff codified without making any policy changes, just taking existing language and moving it out of special language into code. When we received the manual from the institutions, it had something completely different in there. So we felt obligated to show you what the legislative recommendation was by your staff, and then what the agency request was so that you all could make an informed decision on which way you wanted to go. And the agency is here to say why they wanted something different. And what’s important to point out is, in this, we didn’t make any policy changes. It was actually taking existing language that was special language and putting it into code, whereas these, by the agency, made some changes. So they’re here to explain why they wanted those changes.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Any questions for Mr. Anderson? Seeing none, thank you so much, Mr. Anderson. So does that clarify why there may be a difference? Okay, with that, we’re going to go back, and we’re going to discuss 7– page 8, which is for ASU Jonesboro. ASU Jonesboro has asked for us to delete this, and then, so. Representative Tosh.

 

Rep Tosh: Madam Chair, I’ll have a motion at the proper time.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: It’s the proper time.

 

Rep Tosh: I think we– ASU, I think we need to grant their request to put this off, and not codify it at this time. And in the event they want to come back later and readdress this issue, I think we need to allow them that opportunity to do so.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, I just want to clarify. ASU’s request is we delete the language, not codify it. We’re to delete the language. I want to make sure we understand what we’re going to be doing.

 

Rep Tosh: Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I did misunderstand, but I still move that we delete the language and honor the request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, thank you. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Alright, nays? Thank you so much. And with that, we’re going to move down to 7, 11, which is Arkansas Tech. And Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re on page 11. This language in its current form allows Arkansas Tech to make special allowances up of to $10,000 to coaches who coach more than one sport. And as such allowances, they must be reported annually to joint audit. The legislative recommendation is to codify this section. It also includes another section on page 14, if I may include that as well, if I can go down to page 14.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Yes, sir.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you. So on page 14, this language allows the Arkansas Tech Board of Trustees to reimburse their faculty for tuition fees and educational related expenses who seek additional educational levels. And these requests must meet critical shortage and structural areas, or when academic programs must be restructured. And the legislative recommendation is to delete this current section, and it’s to combine and codify with the language on page 11 that I just went over.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, thank you so much. I guess I have a question, not just for Arkansas Tech, but for the other schools that come, because if you’ve went through this, we have several requests that are very similar. My request is, and I don’t– agency might be able to answer it or BLR or staff. So this will allow them to pay $10,000 extra if a coach coaches more than one sport. What if a teacher or professor actually teaches more than one course subject, do they get extra pay for that? Can somebody come down and answer that so it’s on the record?  Because if somebody hears coaches are getting paid, teachers aren’t, I want to make sure that’s on the record. And if you don’t mind to introduce yourself for the record, and you’re recognized. Yeah. Push it again. It’s red. You’re on. There you go.

 

Bates (ASU): Julie Bates, executive vice president at the ASU System office.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Yes.

 

Bates (ASU): And I would just say that, yes, faculty are paid overload pay for when they have to teach over their assigned amount.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, and how is that pay reconciled? I mean, how much pay do they get if they do one course load? One subject over?

 

Bates (ASU): It would vary by campus.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Can you give me a range?

 

Bates (ASU): I really can’t, ma’am. I can find out for you pretty quickly, though, before we leave.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Yeah, if you could just kind of find out, because we’re asking this. I’d like to know that we’re all good with athletics, but we’re also good with academics. And we wanted to make sure that the academics are getting reimbursed also.

 

Bates (ASU): Yes, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: If you could find that out, I would appreciate it.

 

Bates (ASU): I will find out for you.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. With that, members, I’ll need a motion. Second? All in favor say, aye. Okay, thank you. Now remember, what we just did is we took page 11 and 14 and combined them, and 14 is deleted. Okay? With that we’re going to go down to page 12 and Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair, we’re on page 12. And currently this language outlines the goals and priorities of the Arkansas Tech Institute, which is under the auspice of Arkansas Tech University. And it also has a reporting requirement to ALC or JBC about its funding, programs and services. And the legislative recommendation is for codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do you have any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor say aye. All right, thank you. We’re going to move down. That’s going to take us to Henderson State University, which is going to be on page 17. And Mr. Rice, you’re recognized. I mean 15.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 15. The current language states that the funding for the Community Education Center must be used only for the operation and maintenance of the center and to teach technical and industrial subjects to citizens and employers. The legislative recommendation is for the codification of this section.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, thank you. We’re moving ahead. Now we’re going to jump down to Southern Arkansas State University which is going to be page 17. And you’re recognized, Mr. Rice.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m on page 17. This language states that the SAU Board of Trustees may reimburse tuition, fees, and other educational related expenses for faculty who are seeking additional education levels. This only applies in critical shortage instructional areas. And this also, it’s going to combine page 19. If it’s the will of the committee, if I may go to that page and include that.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Yes, sir.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you. We’re on page 19. In this language, it currently states that the SAU board may make special allowances to its coaches who coach multiple sports up to $10,000. It must be paid from auxiliary income, and they must report these allowances to joint audit annually. And the legislative recommendation is to delete the existing language and codify it with the language on page 17, which we just discussed.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. All right, just for clarification, what this is going to do, this is going to take 17 and 19 and combine them into 17, and 19 will be deleted. So do you have any questions? Motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. Thank you so much. We are moving ahead. We are now going to be on page– U of A. We’re going to be page 726. This is one that’s going to be in our special handout. So you’re going to see a difference. And you’re recognized, Mr. Rice.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. So we’re on page 26 and the current language, as it’s outlined in the handout that also says page 26 at the bottom, the current language allows the Board of Trustees at the University of Arkansas to provide allowances for housing and other unusual expenses for athletic directors, head coaches, assistant coaches coordinators, and head trainers. And these payments must come from athletic event revenue or sources other than state funds, and they cannot exceed $10,000 for athletic directors, associate ADs and head coaches. In other listed positions, they’re limited to $1,000 a year. So the legislative recommendation is to codify this section along with page 29. Actually, excuse me, that should be 28.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: 28, okay.

 

Rice (BLR): Sorry about that. If I can go to 28 real quick and then I’ll jump back up to the institution request. So on page 28, the legislative recommendation, which is basically the current language, it states that the U of A board of trustees may pay the coaches from contracts with vendors of apparel– that’s athletic apparel, shoes, multimedia rights, and other products for consulting and other obligations related to the contract. So the institution request is to delete this second piece of language, not the first part. We’ll get back to that. And the AHECB– that’s Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board– recommendation provides for this request. And the legislative recommendation is for codification of this section and the first. So I’m going to go back and I’m going to talk about the institution request. The AHECB recommendation is to, in essence, codify these two sections. So the institution request, it differs in that it removes the limit of compensation, which is up to one month’s salary, and it replaces the specified positions that I discussed earlier with all employees in the athletic department and those who directly support its operation. So it allows them all to be paid. It also removes the mention of being used for housing allowances for broader use, and the instant– excuse me, the institution request, it requested deletion of the next section, which I’ve just discussed, while the legislative request provides for codification of those two sections.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, you’re recognized for a question.

 

Speaker Shepherd: Yeah, I think it’d be helpful to have the U of A come down just to go over these changes.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: If you don’t mind, if you’ll come down and introduce yourself for the record. And you’re recognized.

 

McCoy (UA): Matt McCoy.

 

Haley (UA): Thank you, Matt. I’m Rebecca Haley, University of Arkansas, Government Relations.

 

McCoy (UA): Matt McCoy, Senior Associate General Counsel for Athletics with the University of Arkansas System General Counsel’s office.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. You’re recognized, Mr. Speaker.

 

Speaker Shepherd: Yeah. So, Mr. McCoy, I think we’ve already heard an explanation of it, but I think just from the U of A’s perspective, you could talk through why the difference between what you’ve asked for versus what BLR had previously marked up.

 

McCoy (UA): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s important to understand what the practical reason for that particular special language had been over the years. And the primary function of that was to ensure that the athletic department was fully self funded, and that it would use its auxiliary income to pay for athletic expenditures, so that it wouldn’t draw on the finite resources of state appropriations or draw from student fees. At the time it was written, those amounts were certainly reasonable. And I will say this, we do agree that these amounts should be codified. But over the years those provisions have not been addressed, and largely a lot of the language in the codification is antiquated. Some of the titles are no longer used, some of the titles have changed to different titles, and I think everyone in here has probably seen that the amounts are substantially larger now. But what it does is, if you keep the $10,000 and $1,000 amounts lower, it limits the amount of ticket revenue, merchandise, apparel funds that you can use to actually pay for that, which then would either do one or two things, put the burden back on using state appropriated dollars, student fees, or utilizing private foundation funds. And one of the things that our current athletic director and current administration wanted to make sure is that we had greater transparency. So we took this as an opportunity, knowing that it was going to be codified. We wanted to make sure that it was something that would not need to be amended every year, or addressed every year, and would stand the test of time of the next 50 years. So we clarified some of that. We simplified the language, combined two of the provisions to make it easier to follow. The other advantage, I think, to codifying is that it makes the funding source transparent. It’s easier to find than finding the special language in the appropriation.

 

Speaker Shepherd: Thank you.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Any other questions?

 

Speaker Shepherd: I have a motion at the appropriate time.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Mr. Speaker, the proper time is now, if you’d like to make a motion.

 

Speaker Shepherd: I would move the agency request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Institution?

 

Speaker Shepherd: Institution request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With that, we have institution request and a second. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. Alright, thank you. We’ll move on. And with that we’re going to go down to the U of A system, and that’s going to be on 731. And this is another one that we will actually have another out of our package. So they’ll be different. Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. So the current special language, it states that Arkansas School for Math, Science and Arts and Structures, residential life staff and mental health professionals who work in the summer months within the summer program, they may be paid no more than one-tenth of their annual salary for each month worked, and the AHECB recommendation provides for the institution request. If you go to the handout which is on page 31. The current language is identical, but the agency, the institution, they refer only to teacher residential mentors being able to receive additional compensation– excuse me, the legislative request recommendation. And the legislative recommendation is for codification. The institution request, it broadens the number of employees who can receive these additional payments– or excuse me, be eligible for the one tenth salary and additional compensation.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, so members, just to clarify, what is currently special language says that it could be teacher or residential mentor only. The institution request has actually broadened that for instructors, member residential staff, life, mental health professionals. So it’s broadened who can get that one tenth extra salary. That is essentially what I see to be the difference. If I’m wrong, somebody let me know. But that’s what I see. And so do I have any questions? Do I have a motion? We’re going to take institution request, yes? Second. All in favor say aye. Okay. All right. We’re moving on.  Alright, thank you. And with that, members, we are going to go down to 732. And Mr. Rice, you’re recognized. Actually, I think maybe we combine 731, 732. So we are going to go down now to U of A Medical Sciences which is going to be on page 743. And you’re recognized, Mr. Rice.

 

Rice (BLR): I think we’re on page 32.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Are we still on 30?  Sorry.

 

Rice (BLR): We’re on 32.  Sorry about that. We’re on page 32 and the current language allows the U of A system to pay one time bonuses or educational differentials of up to 6% for degree attainment for its employees. And this isn’t allowed if the education is included as a special requirement or minimum qualification. AHECB recommendation provides for the institution request for deletion, and the legislative recommendation is for codification. So this is one where the recommendations differ.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you, Mr. Rice. All right, so this is one where we got a difference between what is currently in language versus what the institution had requested. The institution basically has requested that it be deleted. So we need to discuss this and figure out which way we want to go. And if someone from the agency can come down and explain why you’re needing to have it deleted, that would be great. And if you can introduce yourself for the record, and you’re recognized.

 

Rust (UA): Hi. Melissa Rust with the University of Arkansas System. This is the same language that ASU Jonesboro requested be deleted a few moments ago. And essentially, the personnel subcommittee’s report that was adopted this morning in Joint Budget Committee basically approves the recommendation that the coordinating board made to move positions from classified to non-classified status. And based upon that recommendation, there is not a need for this language going forward. And so that’s the basis upon which we requested that the language be deleted.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Do you have any questions, members? Motion institution request? Motion institution request. Second? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you.

 

Rust (UA): Thank you.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Appreciate it. Now we’re going to move down to the U of A Medical Sciences, and it’s going to be on 743. And you’re recognized, Mr. Rice.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. So this piece of language is going to combine about seven or eight sections. So if it’s all right with the chair, I’m going to kind of briefly just go over these so we’re not here all day. So this language, it states the necessity and intent of the General Assembly to aid in developing rural broadband across the state. And the Institute for Digital Health and Innovation at UAMS will manage the application process, promulgate rules, and determine grant funds to applicants. And the limit per grant is $75,000. And ALC or JBC approval is required for grants to be awarded. UAMS must provide a biannual report detailing the fund balance, administrative overhead costs, and grant applications received, and the total of grant funds awarded. And it has to go to the Governor, ALC or JBC, and the Joint Committee on Advanced Communications and Information Technology. And the Treasurer of State will invest the available money in this fund. The money in the fund will carry forward to the next fiscal year. And local entities who receive grants must report to UAMS twice a year about their broadband due diligence studies.

 

Rice (BLR): This, in the manual, there is a cutoff of some of the information on page 48, and that information, what it provides is– it just who the local providers, the local providers who get the federal funds, who they must notify. And that’s the Digital Health and Innovation Institute, the governor, ALC or JBC, the Joint Committee on Advanced Communications and Information Technology. So in the manual, that was cut off, but in the salmon colored manual, you can see there that it’s there. And the local entity that gets federal funds will be awarded an additional $200,000. And the local entities that receive federal funding, they have to report the status of their Broadband Development Program to UAMS within nine months of receiving that money. And lastly, the local entities, they have to provide mapping information to the Arkansas Spatial Data Infrastructure for legal descriptions and digital mapping, and they have to provide broadband mapping information to Arkansas Geographic Information Systems Office. So the legislative recommendation is to delete all these existing sections and combine them all into one for codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do I have any questions? I’ll make sure on page 48 that’s in our handout, this is the stuff that was left off of the page. That’s really all that that is, just so you understand that that’s just a continuation of it, not that it’s different. It’s just a continuation of it. All right, do I have any questions? Motion? Motion to accept institution request. All in favor. Second? All in favor? Aye. Nay? All right, thank you. With that, we’re going to move down to page 52. And you’re recognized, Mr. Rice.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. So on page 52 and this language, it established the–

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Mr. Rice?

 

Rice (BLR): Yes, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Representative Springer, you have a question?

 

Rep Springer: I’m just getting in the queue early.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay.

 

Rep Springer: I have a question.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: All right, if you’ll get back in for me. And Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. So this language, it establishes the adult sickle cell disease program to facilitate the continued development of adult sickle cell disease treatment, preventative care, education, and training for health professionals that utilize UAMS. So this was codified in 2011, so it is in code. So if this was approved as the legislative recommendation– excuse me, the institution request, it would just delete the language. And since it’s in code, it would be there, so it would still have its place.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, just want to make sure, we’re deleting it in special language because it has already been codified?

 

Rice (BLR): If that’s what you choose, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Yes. All right. All right, do I have a motion? Motion. Second? All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. With that, we’re going to move on down to number 754. And this is a handout, in your–

 

Hamilton (BLR): Members, just so you know, it says change on the agenda. And I put that there because it looks different in the manual. This is actually a request to delete.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. So this language, it states that a center for dental education would be established in cooperation with the University of Tennessee Dental School, UAMS and Children’s Hospital. And its purpose is for the continued development of dental education specialties and services for the state. And as Ms. Hamilton said, page 54, it shows the revised institution request. UAMS, they would like to delete the language because it, too, is in code. So since it’s already in statute, there’s not a need for this language according to the institution.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Just for clarification, we have a revised institution request. Which is what your handout, page 54 is for the deletion of the language because it already exists in codification. And if I can have a motion. Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. All right, thank you. We are moving down to page number 757. And Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. Current language states that the UAMS Board of Trustees may make special allowances to doctors, dentists, and professional faculty from receipts from patient care or funds from federal agencies, foundations, and private sponsors in support of research, and that currently, in code, the allowance, it may not exceed– excuse me, in code right now it may not exceed two times that employees authorized salary. What this would do, per the legislative recommendation, it would change that to two and a half times. The legislative recommendation is to codify this language, and it removes the contradiction of how large the special allowances may be.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Do you have any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion to accept institutional request? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Thank you. We’re going to move on now down to page 758. Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. We’re on page 58. The current language allows the Board of Trustees of the U of A to provide special allowances for the use of UAMS leadership for recruitment of faculty and staff members. And after the approval of the President of the Board, the UAMS Chancellor can administer the allowances and ensure that the total doesn’t surpass $150,000 or the total that the Board authorizes. The funding sources may not be state tax dollars or charges to students for educational purposes or others. There’s an annual reporting requirement about the details of the special allowances. And this language, it exists in code, so it’s no longer being requested by the institution. The institution requests for the deletion of the language, and the AHECB recommendation provides for that request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do I have a motion? Second? All in favor, say aye. Thank you. Opposed, nay. All right. Now we’re going to go down to 759, and Mr. Rice, you are recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you. Madam Chair. This language states that funds that may be used for contracting with physician and health related teachers only for students at area health education centers remote from UAMS and with prior approval of the agency head and quarterly reporting to the Legislative Council or Joint Budget. And the legislative recommendation is for codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Do you have any questions? Motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, we’re going to move ahead. Thank you so much. We’re going to be on page 60, and this is in your handout also. So you’ll have page 60, and you’ll have a handout. Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Yes. Thank you, ma’am. So the current language states that all unclassified positions that are employed to provide patient care are eligible for overtime at 1.5 times their annual rate. And in addition, over time, these unclassified patient care employees scheduled to work outside their normal schedules, they may receive up to 24% of their hourly rate paid as a shift differential, and all unclassified positions– excuse me, employees providing patient care are eligible to receive incentive pay up to 1.2 times their base hourly rate. And employees working in these specialty areas can receive up to 10% as a specialty differential. And certain positions are ineligible. And these special allowances may not exceed– at the bottom, it refers to nurses. And they may not receive special allowances that exceed their line item max by more than 20%. So the institution request is similar to the current language, but instead of just those employees who provide patient care being eligible, it allows employees who provide indirect patient care or support patient care. So this broadens the pool of eligible employees for overtime incentive and differentials. And AHECB recommendation provides for the institution request. The legislative request is for codification of the current special language.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Thank you. If someone from UAMS can come down, if they would introduce themselves, and if you would explain to us why you request the change.

 

Davis (UAMS): Andy Davis with UAMS.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: You’re recognized.

 

Davis (UAMS): Madam Chairman, committee, the tweak in the language, the request, is so that we could have the same flexibility with positions such as sanitation, janitorial services, food service, lab techs, people who are necessary and critical to providing good patient care, but some people may not consider as direct patient care. We just wanted to clarify that those staff members would be included as well.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Motion for institution request? Motion for institution request. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. All right, thank you so much. We’re moving ahead. We’re going to go down now to page 67. And Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madame Chair. Current language states that UAMS may expense its cash-funded indigent care appropriation to authorize procedures for the disbursement of its maintenance and general operations and be reimbursed from treasury appropriations and funds following procedures established by the chief fiscal officer of the state. And the legislative recommendation is for codification. This is, I believe, in the handout. It’s not?

 

Rep Cavenaugh: No.

 

Rice (BLR): Okay. The only difference is that there’s an item C. It should be item D.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: So C should be D?

 

Rice (BLR): That’s my understanding. Yeah.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. So we’ll need a motion to change. You want us to do a technical, or you just want us to make– okay. We’ll need to have a motion to where we change the C to a D. Technical correction is all we’re doing. Motion. All in favor, say aye. All right, here we go. Thank you so much. Now we’re going to move down to page 75. And Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 75, this language states that pay differentials may be given to patient care employees whose job requires providing services when there isn’t regularly scheduled staff coverage. Employees may not work over 128 hours a week, and their pay may not exceed that in class and comp its successor or the UAMS Operating Act. And the legislative recommendation is for codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you so much. Do I have any questions? Motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Okay. Nay? Moving ahead. Now, we’re going to go to down to page 77. And you’re recognized, Mr. Rice.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. We’re on page 77. So this language was added in the 2019 session. And this language has UAMS and DHS agreed to determine reimbursements, charges, or fees for the state Olmstead plan, or for state match funds under the Medicaid Disproportionate Share program that could benefit UAMS with prior review of ALC or JBC. The legislative recommendation is to codify the language.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Do you have any questions? Seeing none, motion? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. All right, thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Davis. We are now moving down to you U of A Pine Bluff, and we’re going to be on page 79. And you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, ma’am.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Representative Evans.

 

Rep Evans: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madame Chair, for the purpose of consistency and transparency, and just so that the language is all matching, I would like to see that the request that was made by the U of A on this topic of the special allowances be consistent amongst all the different institutions of higher ed in the state. And I believe the simplest way to do that would be to put that language consistent in the Department of Higher Ed’s bill.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. So are we wanting to not–

 

Rep Evans: So the language that’s written in each of their requests, it was written just a little bit differently.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Yes, sir.

 

Rep Evans: But if we could mirror that to the U of A’s request and make it consistent for all, and that, I believe, that can be handled through the departments, through their bill.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. So for the special language that we’re looking at here, are we wanting to delete that?

 

Rep Evans: Yes.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Did we delete U of A’s?

 

Rep Evans: No. Their language would stay the same, and then we would just have language in the department’s bill that all of the institutions would be the same. Ms. Rust will come to the table to explain that.

 

Rust (UA): Melissa Rust, University of Arkansas System. Representative Evans, I believe the language for the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, they clarified some of the languages. They testified and then requested that that language be codified. So if you’re wanting to do something similar, for instance for the other campuses, I suppose you could do that in ADHE’s appropriation bill if you wish to do that, or do a separate section that would codify that language as well. But at least for the Fayetteville campus, what they requested was to clarify and clean up, make that more transparent, but then to codify it for that campus.

 

Rep Evans: Certainly. We would like to see that for all campuses.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: To clarify, you’re talking about all campuses of U of A.

 

Rep Evans: Of higher ed.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Of higher ed.

 

Rust (UA): Representative Cavenaugh, there are several campuses that have athletic languages. Representative Evans has indicated not all do, but there are some that do. And I presume anyone that has language of that nature, you would like that to mirror the language that the Fayetteville campus received earlier.

 

Rep Evans: Certainly.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. So the special language that’s before us, you’re going to want it to mirror what we passed for U of A.

 

Rep Evans: Yes.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: That is our motion for the UAPB and the UCA.

 

Rep Evans: And ASU.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: And ASU. That’s your motion.

 

Rep Evans: Yes.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Mildred, do you understand? Okay. Four-year, or two year also?

 

Rep Evans: Well, two-year wouldn’t be applicable.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Four-year only. Please introduce yourself for the record.

 

Fuller (ADE): Nick Fuller. Assistant Director of Finance at the Division of Higher Ed. If we’re codifying the language, it might be better just take the one section and put it in broader higher ed code, kind of take out the specifics to the institution, and just allow all institutions of higher ed to be able to do this. So it’d just have one section of code that applies to everyone is the recommendation.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Right. So my question is this. For the U of A Fayetteville that we’ve already passed and codified, do we need to not codify that, if we’re going to put it in a broader– yes. Mr. Anderson, if you can please kind of tell us where we’re at.

 

Anderson (BLR): Yes, ma’am. It would be a duplication to have it. You could have the same language in two different places in code. It would be cleaner if you just expunged that vote and deleted it. But if we put it– Nick is exactly right. If we put it in higher ed, we can say the specific institutions and have it applicable to the four-years, and have the language universal. That’ll work fine.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay, members, if we can have a motion to expunge the vote by which the U of A’s request passed? Motion. Second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. Thank you very much. And then now, Representative Evans, your motion will be–

 

Rep Evans: Motion would be that the department would draft language in their bill using the basis of the U of A’s language to make it across the board for all institutions of higher ed in-state.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Four-year?

 

Rep Evans: Yes.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Four-year. Okay. That’s a motion. Second? All in favor, say aye? Opposed, say nay? All right. Thank you so much. All right. With that, I don’t have a clue where we’re at, so I guess we’re going to go down. So we were on 77. And so we took care of 79 with that one. Correct? And we took care of 85 at the same time because those were the same ones. So when we did that, we took care of 79 and 85. So we’re going to be now on page 82 with UAPB.

 

Rice (BLR): Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m on page 79. The current language allows the UAPB Board of Trustees to employ competent scientists at the Biomedical Research Center at salaries up to 1.5 times the Distinguished Professor line item max. And the next included segments are on page 82 and 83. So we’re on page 82. And this language, it requires any funding calculations by the Division of Higher Education to include 100% matching funds for the 1890 research and extension programs. This is for UAPB. The legislative recommendation is deletion so it can be combined and codified with the language on pages 79. And it’s my understanding that page 83 was dealt with.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Thank you. So for clarification, page 79 is going to be codified. And then page 82 is going to be deleted because it’s going to be combined with 79. And we’ve already dealt with 83. So I’ll need a motion to accept 79 and 82. So moved. All in favor say aye? Opposed, say nay? All right. Thank you so much. And we’ve dealt with 83. I think we dealt for 85, also, when we did that. Okay. Then that’s going to take us down to 87. And Mr. Rice, you’re recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, ma’am. As the Chair stated, we’re on page 87. And the current language states that the UCA Board may reimburse tuition, fees and other educational related expenses of faculty who seek further education. And reimbursement can only occur when the request has been documented to meet critical shortage instructional areas. The legislative recommendation is to delete this section to combine– actually, never mind. We’re not doing any combining. So it would just be to delete this section.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Okay. Do I have any questions? Seeing none, motion? Motion. Second? All in favor? Opposed, nay? Thank you so much. Now we’re going to move down to ASU Beebe, which is going to be on page 91. And there is a handout on this in the salmon package. And you’re recognized, Mr. Rice.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madame Chair. Current language states that ASU Beebe campus would receive the same general revenue reduction as the Heber Springs campus. However, the appropriation sections are no longer separated by campus. And the allocation section, it was removed in fiscal session of 2020. So without a related allocation– without a related allocation section, the institution did not request the language. And the Arkansas Higher Education, according to board recommendation, provides for that request.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you.

 

Rice (BLR): And excuse me, there is a legislative recommendation for codification, which as you stated, I believe is in the handout.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: And if I can get somebody from ASU to come down and explain your request? And if you’ll introduce yourself for the record? And you’re recognized.

 

Welch (ASU): Thank you, Madam Chair. Chuck Welch, president of the Arkansas State University System. So as Henry said, when the ASU Heber Springs campus was originally started, it had its own appropriation that was separate from ASU Beebe. And so there was language that said if the Heber Springs budget was cut, the Beebe budget would be cut. Those appropriations were ultimately consolidated. Therefore, there is no longer a separate ASU Heber Springs appropriation, thus no longer a need to have that particular language in place.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Thank you. Do I have any questions? Seeing none, got a motion for institution request. Second. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay? All right. Thank you so much. With that, we are going to move down to SAC, and it’s going to be on page 95. And Mr. Rice, you are recognized.

 

Rice (BLR): Thank you, Madame Chair. So the current language states that the institution’s board may reimburse its faculty for tuition, fees and educational-related expenses of seeking further education levels to benefit the college. And such reimbursements will only be paid if it meets critical shortage instructional areas. And the legislative recommendation is for codification.

 

Rep Cavenaugh: Any questions? Motion? Second. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say nay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rice. That ends our agenda. And with that, I see no other business, and we are adjourned.