Senate Insurance and Commerce

January 31, 2023  

Sen Hill: Let’s call the meeting to order. Members, we were supposed to actually take pictures today. We’re going to wait until staff is here and do them at a later time whenever we can all get back together. I wouldn’t want to do it without them. I want to start out, and I want to go around the room real fast for open disclosures for everyone. This is Insurance and Commerce. If there’s any disclosures that you want to make that different items that you’re involved in and so I want to start with myself and go to Senator Murdock. I want to just go around the room as far as members of the committee. I’m Ricky Hill. I’m involved in the banking business, farming business, rental property, real estate and so that kind of covers me. I just want to make sure we get everything out there for disclosure.

Sen Murdock: My name is Reginald Murdock. I’m in real estate, construction, development. I guess that’s all. 

Sen Penzo: Real estate, construction, and development as well.

Sen Boyd: Justin Boyd. I’m an Arkansas licensed pharmacist and I own parts of two different pharmacies in Arkansas and then also an LLC that rents to one of those pharmacies.

Sen Hickey: All right. Jimmy Hickey. I’m from southwest Arkansas. All of my stuff is enumerated within our Senate Ethics. Thank you.

Sen Dismang: Jonathan Dismang. Also own, buy and sell rental properties, real estate, and I hope to have an Air BnB at some point. Thanks.

Sen Irvin: Missy Irvin from Northcentral Arkansas, Mountain View. Married to a physician, who– who works for a health system. Other than that, I take care of dogs and cows and horses and kids.

Sen Hill:  Go ahead.

Sen Boyd: After hearing Senator Irvine, that reminds me. I am married to an audiologist who practices audiology in Fort Smith at a clinic. She does not have ownership in the clinic, though.

Sen Hill:  I appreciate everyone for doing that. Just moving right along without objection, we’re going to jump ahead to HB 1147 and let Senator Hester present his bill.

Sen Hester: Thank you, Chairman Hill. Members, House Bill 1147 is something that we discussed last session. There was a lot of work done on a compromise and what this ultimately does is allows a licensed residential contractor to have their people that are employed by them sell their homes without a real estate license. These people can only sell their home of their employer – cannot represent a buyer. Cannot represent anyone else outside of that industry. And one of the most significant caveats to the negotiation was that that real estate contractor or that new home contractor would have a broker represent them as well. To make sure that real estate agents felt that that was very important, to make sure everyone involved was treated fairly. 

So that said, there’s a lot of disclosures in here where they have allow, notify the potential buyer that they have the right to have a real estate agent represent them, should they so choose. Anyway, I’m happy to answer any questions on that. And I will tell you, really the biggest thing that we’re trying to accomplish here, and it’s not limited to this, but just for a little bit of understanding is, if somebody’s going to build an entire subdivision, they have a model home up front, they can have somebody sit up front that shows houses throughout the day and do that without having to be a licensed real estate agent. So that’s really the main focus, but not limited to that. Happy to answer questions.

Sen Hill:  Any questions for the senator? If there’s no questions for him. If there’s anyone here from the audience that signed up to speak against the bill, please step forward. Anyone to speak for the bill? Seeing none. Senator, you can close.

Sen Hester:  Well, hey, as always, when you have a bill that people have worked hard on and compromised to and this is just where we’re at. Not everyone’s happy with it but I believe by far and away the majority of people understand where we got to on a compromise and that’s what we do. I’d appreciate a good vote.

Sen Hill:  What’s the will of the committee?Motion do pass. Second with Senator Hickey. Any discussion? All those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you, Senator. Your bill passed. Senator Dismang, would you take the chair?

Sen Dismang: Chairman Hill, you’re recognized to present Senate Bill 6, is that correct?

Sen Hill: Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator. This is a pretty simple bill that just allows a contractor to have a lifetime license when they reach the age of 65, if they’ve been in the business for 12 years or more. And buy a restricted one-time license, you still have to have your bond and you have to fill out your financial statement when it’s needed by the board. Other than that, it just allows you a one-time fee of $65 to buy a license – a restricted lifetime license. With that I’ll take any questions.

Sen Dismang:  Thank you, Senator. Members, we have any questions on Senate Bill 6? All right. Seeing none. I do not see anybody signed up to speak for or against. Just want to confirm that, anybody would like to speak against the bill? For the bill? All right, seeing none and no questions. Senator Hill, you’re recognized to close for your motion.

Sen Hill: Make a motion to approve.

Sen Dismang: We’ve got a motion do pass. We’ve got a second by Senator Irvin. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed. Motion carries.

Sen Hill: Senator Dees, SB 66.

Sen Dees: Well, good morning, Committee. Senator Dees. This is for Senate Bill 66. This is a protection of children act, bill, that we’re working on. And that’s the intent. The reason for this bill is, we have just about, literally, every other adult-oriented business and industry we regulate with an age verification process. If you try to go and buy cigarettes over a counter, you show an identification. And, unfortunately, we have a growing need in harmful material for children is causing issues with our youth and so the intent of this is to require age verification process for online material, when it’s harmful. 

And so we’ve outlined what is harmful material and we’ve asked for a reasonable age verification process in order to help with the problem that we’re seeing from our children. And so that’s what this bill does. It’s a growing concern with when I look at my children – I’m the father of three young kids and I see technology advancing the way I describe it is like a weapon. And it’s a sword. And it can be used for good and it can be used to cut your own arm off. And so this is a needed measure to make sure that we protect the children and youth inside of our state. So, happy to answer any questions about the bill as well.

Sen Hill: Does the Committee have any questions for Senator Dees? Senator Irvin.

Sen Irvin: Senator Dees, I appreciate the bill and if you can just speak to this. I actually just have a, somebody who looks at these things and she’s a very conservative person and supports this whole idea about it. But one of the concerns brought up was tracking data, or creating some sort of a, and that was just a concern for my constituent who reached out to me that, so if you could speak to that. But the concern would be how this is going to be tracked and then monitored.

Sen Dees: Absolutely. I, too, share that concern and I think all of us should. All of us should be concerned about your identification, your personal information, on any online site. Whether that is Amazon or whether that’s in your Google search. Any online banking. We should always have a level of check and concern when putting any sort of your personal information out onto the internet. And so I can tell you that, in this bill, the way we’ve written it is that it actually brings liable for damages if the websites do leak out any personal information. And so it would be the same type of clause that you would have with other personal information that you do, like, as I said, for online banking. And so there’s protection there. And I would also echo and add that if you do have concerns of any site that you don’t think is reputable or has the ability to not share your data then I would advise you not to go to those websites. And so that’s the intent here. I would tell everyone, you should always be protective of that, but there is, in this bill, we are bringing damages to the publishers if they do leak that personal information.

Sen Irvin: Okay, thank you.

Sen Hill: Any other questions for the senator? Seeing none. I have one signed up to speak for the bill. Mr. Cox?

Cox (FC): Thank you, Chairman Hill and members of the Committee—

Sen Hill: Please identify yourself for the record.

Cox (FC): My name is Jerry Cox. I’m the Executive Director of Family Council and we are based here in Little Rock. So I’ll be very brief in my comments. This is a very good bill. In fact, I didn’t realize how good the bill is until I began to study the issue a little bit more and began to realize that this bill is really on the cutting edge of where we need to be as policymakers. There is law out of California, law out of the United Kingdom that has actually forced Meta and these other entities to change their policies regarding how they post material and how they relate to people that are minors. And so these companies are not going to change their policies for the better unless policymakers pass good legislation like this.

A bill like this just passed in Louisiana and has gone into effect there. And so this is our opportunity, really, to be cutting edge with this type of legislation. And I think we all know the harm that is right there in a teenager’s hands in the form of a cell phone where they can access just about anything. And so this is a good, commonsense measure that I’m really excited about. I told Senator Dees, I said, This is kind of the sleeper bill of the session. This could be one of the best bills that you will pass and I think you will see a really, really good outcome from it. And so I think it’s very well-written. I think it’s very clear in what it does and with that, Mr. Chairman, I would just urge a really good vote on it. It’s a good bill.

Sen Hill: Okay, any questions for Mr. Cox? Senator Irvin.

Sen Irvin: It’s more of a don’t you agree type of a question. But I appreciate everything you said but at the end of the day, if parents give these devices to their teenage children, then it’s the parents’ fault. 

Cox (FC): Yes.

Sen Irvin: I think that we just have to be very, very clear about who are the – where – and I’m for this bill, okay–

Cox (FC): Right, right.

Sen Irvin: –and I will vote for this bill. I’ll make the motion to pass this bill. But I think it’s very important for us to clearly, clearly state that there is a failure happening with parents who are handing devices to their children as early as the age of 4 or 3 or 2. And whether it’s an I-Pad or whether it’s a phone or whatever. And we do not do enough in this government or anywhere to educate parents about the harmful things that are happening with these devices.

Cox (FC): Mm-hmm.

Sen Irvin: And I-I think it’s just very, very important for us to state that publicly because, again, I have seen where there have been children abducted, kidnapped, and almost sold into sex trafficking because parents gave them a device and had no ability – and at some point, government – we can’t fix everything. We just can’t.

Cox (FC): That’s correct.

Sen Irvin: We can pass legislation and we do that, but we cannot fix that. And the parents have to step up and take accountability and do this for themselves and to protect their children, wouldn’t you agree?

Cox (FC): Absolutely, 110%. And when it comes to responsibility, Senator, I-I couldn’t agree any more. I mean, I just do. One thing that I would just add to what you’ve said that makes things maybe better is the fact that after this Louisiana law passed, and it’s only been in effect since the first of January – there’s a website I’m told that’s the largest porn website on earth. And I’m told, by the news articles, have changed their policies now where they now require third-party age identification before they will let somebody on the site. So I think you’ll see good change in that area by passing this law. And I wish little kids didn’t have cell phones. And even if you don’t give your child one, their friend may have one. And it’s just, I agree, it’s a problem. It is a huge problem. But I commend Senator Dees for trying to do something about it, you know, some days you just have to try and he’s doing a really good job. So thank you. But, again, Senator Irvin, I totally agree. If there are no other questions, I’m going to get out of the way.

Sen Hill: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you.

Cox (FC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee.

Sen Hill: Does anyone have any other questions for Senator Dees? If not, what’s the will of the committee? Senator Irvin had a question.

Sen Irvin: [inaudible].

Sen Hill: Yes.

Sen Dees: Yeah, I’ll close. I view this as a responsibility as a parent of three kids myself, just like you mentioned. I also view it as a responsibility as an elected official for the people in my district who have cried for leaders to step up. And to help prevent the smut peddlers and the publishers of websites that prey on our children. And I can tell you, we already have,  it is actually harder to go to an adult beverage website today, from an age verification process, than it is to some of these pornography sites. And that doesn’t make sense to me. And we’re seeing the damages being done. The statistics are coming back. You know, as a believer of Christ and what scripture says, in Philippians, think about whatever is pure, what is holy, what is noble, that’s a driving factor for me. You don’t have to be of that mindset because we also have statistical data that’s showing that children are two times more likely to have relationships that are less fulfilling and end in divorce tied back to their early exposure to pornography and harmful material online. And so I’m not going to sit back and say I didn’t do everything I could to prevent the statistics that we’re seeing in a growing and new changing world of technology. And so that’s why I’m here. That’s what this bill is intended to do. Thank you. Appreciate a good vote.

Sen Hill: Thank you. Motion?Do pass by Senator Irvine. Second is Senator Penzo. All in favor? All opposed same sign. The ayes have it. The bill has passed, Senator Dees. We’re going to skip over SB 94 by Senator Kim Hammer. Senator Wallace, the next several bills are yours.

Sen Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m joined by Mr. Akers. Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 95 we’ve had to pull down – we’ve had a late meeting last night and they’ll be some changes in that bill, but I’m ready to proceed with the other 3.

Sen Hill: Thanks. Senator Hammer – I mean Senator Wallace – is pulling down SB 95. Is that correct?

Sen Wallace:  Yes, sir.

Sen Hill: Okay. So, Senator Wallace, proceed with SB 97.

Sen Wallace:  Sir, this is a bill, is presented by the State Board of Embalmers, Funeral Home Directors, Cemeteries and Burial Services. It’s a little bit a clean-up bill. But it also requires these organizations that have lost their license for whatever reason to surrender their files and their contracts. In the past, they’ve had businesses that have gone out of business, and sometimes because they’re operating in a fashion that’s not accepted by society. And yet they’ve kept those files and they’ve continued to present themselves as a valid organization. So this bill cleans that up. And with that, I’ll let Mr. Akers delve into it.

Akers (AID): Thank you. My name is Robert Akers. I am the Director of the Funeral Services Division & Prepaid Funeral Benefits Division with the Arkansas Insurance Department. To expand a little bit on SB97, that is related to the Prepaid Funeral Benefits Division, which is under the Arkansas Insurance Department. There are 4 major categories that are impacted this time around in the bill. Arkansas Code Annotated 2341-11 has to do with, as Senator Wallace mentioned, revoke prepaid funeral benefits licenses. What we needed to add to the law this time around. We have had some pushback from one or more organizations in the state who have either had their pSenaid license revoked, voluntarily surrendered, or allowed it to lapse. But when we go to take possession of those files, they don’t want to turn loose of those files. And for all of those prepaid licensees who followed the rules and the laws and paid the fees and paid to be licensed, it’s not equitable for someone who’s not going to follow the process to keep that business in house. So that’s the change to 2341-11.

The second change within Bill SB97 has to do with Arkansas Code Annotated 2341-19 which is annual reports. Currently and for the last two and a half decades, the Prepaid Funeral Benefits Division has six regularly recurring reports or filings on an annual basis. We have 4 quarterly reports, 1 annual report, and 1 annual license renewal. And not only from the prepaid licensing standpoint of view, but also internally for staff, it does sometimes create an undo burden as far as pushing paperwork. What the proposal is for 2341-19 is to eliminate the requirement of having a quarterly report submitted to the Department. Anything that’s reported on the quarterly reports can be included on our annual report. So this is an attempt to simplify the reporting process for all of our prepaid funeral benefits licensees by doing away with the quarterly reports. 

The third takeaway from SB97 has to do with Arkansas Code Annotated 2341-22, which is cancellations and transfers. We’ve kind of been, this is a work in progress for the last 10 years or so, but essentially it’s a decision tree. Is it cash-funded, insurance-funded, annuity-funded – if it is, is it revokable versus irrevocable? If it’s either of those, is the cancellation or transfer being sought before death of the current contract beneficiary or after the contract beneficiary. And what we realized is that it was insufficient language currently within ACA 2341-22 that made it clear who has the right to determination final disposition. Arkansas already has a law in the books. It’s the Final disposition Rights of 2009. And essentially we’ve included that in the verbiage of Arkansas Code 2341-22. 

The fourth takeaway from the bill is impacting Arkansas Code Annotated 2341-25, which has to do with the Prepaid Funeral Benefits Recovery Board. The board was created in the 2001 Legislative Session under Act 1043. In the 22 years since that board has been in place, they have met twice. One time in 2001 and again one time in September of 2016. It is not a statutory board. It is an advisory board, only. The Arkansas Insurance Commissioner has the authority under the Arkansas law as it currently exists to review and approve prepaid recovery claims. Since the advisory board does not have statutory authority to either have hearings, revoke licenses, assess penalties, make laws, or anything like that, it’s really not necessary at this point in time. All the administration related to Prepaid Contract Recovery Fund is handled internally by staff at the AID. So the push on 2341-26 is to abolish the Prepaid Recovery Claim Board, which is an advisory board only. We are keeping the Prepaid Contracts Recovery Claim Fund, which is a trust fund to pay for insolvent cases or when you have a funeral home that defaults on or embezzles money and stuff like that. It’s to cover the consumers and make them whole for that. So those are the four major categories under SB97.

Sen Wallace:  Thank you. And, Mr. Chair?

Sen Hill: Yes, sir.

Sen Wallace:  There’s two groups involved here. These bills are presented on behalf of the Arkansas State Board of Funeral Home Directors. The other group involved is the Arkansas Funeral Directors Association. In this particular bill, they are neutral and there is no known opposition to this bill at all. And with that, sir, I stand by for questions.

Sen Hill: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Senator Dismang. Then Senator Hickey.

Sen Dismang:  I’m going to just, since we’re chairing on SB95, 97, 98, whatever these are, I do financial work for a perpetual care cemetery. I don’t see anything in these that provide any benefit to a perpetual care cemetery. Upon its caution, that would be my disclosure. Thank you.

Sen Hill: Thank you. Senator Hickey?

Sen Hickey:  Mine’s just as it relates to the word lapsed. Could you give me a little information? What’s the term in the lapse? Is there a certain time period before something’s considered lapsed? Or does one day mean lapsed? Do we have that defined anywhere?

Akers (AID): Thank you, Senator Hickey. We have been very lean on that. Really, Arkansas Code Annotated 2341-19. On the reporting end and then also the licensing end of things as it falls under Arkansas Code Annotated 1241-10, 111, and 112. Essentially, lapsing would be the– prepaid funeral benefits license is for all prepaid licenses in the State of Arkansas are required to be renewed June 1st of every year. And we typically start receiving apps as early as January. The majority of them get their apps turned in the week before the renewal deadline. We just work with them. So when we refer to a lapse, it’s cases where a prepaid funeral organization intentionally does not renew its prepaid license. And there is a current provision in the law as to their remedy if their license lapsed. They can come back and have a hearing before the Arkansas Insurance Department to determine whether or not the license needs to be implemented. Most of this has to do with revocations. Case in point, we had a–

Sen Hickey: I understand that.

Mr. Akers: Yes, sir.

Sen Hickey:  I appreciate you trying to go a little further. 

Akers (AID): Mm-hmm.

Sen Hickey: My deal is totally the lapse. Are those done online or are they done through the mail or what whenever somebody does the renewal. My thing is is the unintended consequence. We have this thing that just says that it’s lapsed. You know, if under the law somewhere else– if y’all do not receive the renewal, are you required to notify them online or some other way before you would actually consider it lapsed? That’s-that’s why I’m going down that because it does appear like, to me, that within here, do you have a $1,000 per occurrence on those? Per contract? So if somebody’s application gets lost in the mail, I don’t want them to be considered lapsed and them to get charged for all this. So that’s where I’m heading.

Akers (AID): Certainly. I understand. And, trust me, I would prefer not to lapse licenses for prepaid. I’m currently administrating myself, 6 different blocks of prepaid business in the State of Arkansas. And it stretches my schedule very thin so my preference is, is if we can get them on board and get them renewed, let’s do that. Let them do that. Now, while it’s not in the law or the rules, as a courtesy, I try to send out 2 and even 3 notifications via email in advance of deadlines. The deadline for renewals has been in the law for 25 to 30 years. Everybody should know what that is. And then when we get to the deadline date, I target of those licensees that still haven’t submitted their license and, honestly, we’ve had licensees that will submit a renewal application 3 and 4 months after the deadline date. I don’t have the staff to go grab all of their business and administrate it here in Little Rock, so we do work with our licensees on that.

Sen Hickey:  If you get one that comes in – if you don’t mind, Mr. Chair?

Sen Hill:  Go ahead, sir.

Sen Hickey:  If you get one that– are they online or in the mail? Or both?

Akers (AID): Renewal applications have to be received in the mail because it requires notarized signatures on the original documents and also a renewal fee. So we currently do not have a process to do online renewals for the prepaid funeral benefits license. The license is issued to the funeral home or the cemetery.

Sen Hickey:  Let me stop, respectfully.

Akers (AID):  Yes, sir.

Sen Hickey:  Okay. So you received one 3 days after the date. Is that considered lapsed?

Akers (AID):  No sir, it’s not.

Sen Hickey:  Okay. If you’ve received one 9 days after, is it considered lapsed?

Akers (AID):  No sir.

Sen Hickey: Twenty-five days. Is it considered lapsed?

Akers (AID):  It would bother me if they get that far out.

Sen Hickey:  Is that in the law? Or is it solely at your discretion, as to when you consider something lapsed?

Akers (AID): I don’t unilaterally make that decision. If we go that far, then we notify the licensee that it would have to be referred to the legal division for additional follow up. So I can tell you we haven’t had any case where an existing prepaid licensee has allowed its prepaid license to lapse. 

Sen Hickey:  Do you see any problem – and I know this is never fun. If you pulled that down and actually had a definition that maybe said that, if you do not receive it after the time – I don’t care if it’s one day – that you all will actually send out something that says that we must receive it in our office within one week, or something to that nature. Do you have an issue with that?

Akers (AID):  No.

Sen Hickey: Just so that we can treat everybody equally. And I’m not saying that you would but, as we know, laws go on for the next, until somebody amends them. You know, I just don’t to have somebody to ever sit in that position and say well, I don’t like old so-and-so – I know you wouldn’t.

 

But, again, this is not about you. You know, this, I don’t like him, he should have got his deal here within 3 days after, and we consider it lapsed. And now he owes $1,000 fine, per occurrence. So I really would appreciate if we could define what lapsed means a little bit better.

Akers (AID): Thank you.

Sen Hickey: Thank you, sir.

Sen Hill: Any other questions? Senator Irvin – you don’t have one? Okay. Is anybody here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none. Senator, you can close.

Sen Wallace:  Mr. Chair – and I’d like to address Senator Hickey’s point. And I think it is a good point. Sir, these individuals, just like every business, know when they’re due. Our witness made a point that they’ll end up contacting the folks afterwards, before they declare them if I understood you right, before they declare them as lapsed. So they’re actually contacting them again after they have lapsed by the law.

Sen Hickey:  So the law requires you, the law, in writing requires you to do that or is that just your practice?

Akers (AID): No. It’s not within the ACA or the rules. It’s just our practice to do so. And typically it’s email followed up by hard copy letter mailed to the licensee. 

Sen Hickey:  Okay. But you guarantee 60 years from now that that will be done that way?

Akers (AID):  If we’re still pushing paper 60 years from now, I’m in trouble.

Sen Wallace:  And, Mr. Chair, I’d be glad to pull this bill down–  

Sen Hickey:  I’m for it and I agree. Everybody should have it there. My only thing, especially with the only avenue that you have with the notarizations and that makes sense, the fee is enclosed with the mail and things like that. I mean, there needs to be, before somebody is subject to these penalties for a lapse, that there is a date certain or that you send them out an email to some predetermined place that you would do it. Just as abundance of caution. To make sure it’s not truly just an oversight for a few days. So, thank you, sir.

Sen Wallace:  And, Mr. Chair, I think that Senator Hickey’s recommendations will just make it a better bill, so I’d be glad to pull this one down and we’ll make an amendment and we’ll come back.

Sen Hickey: Thank you, Senator. Sorry for the trouble.

Sen Wallace:  That’s okay.

Sen Hill: Thank you. Senator Irvin.

Sen Irvin: Yeah, I would concur with Senator Hickey. A lapse needs to be clearly defined in the law instead of a subjective opinion about what lapse means. And clearly, with your answer, I think it is more of a subjective determination. So I think that would improve your bill.

Sen Wallace:  I’ll be glad to do that.

Sen Hill: Thank you, Senator. SB97 is being pulled down then. Senator Wallace will go to SB98.

Sen Wallace:  Simply put, this is between the funeral homes and it’s going to clarify the percentage payable for a substitute providing funeral home service. They have about 4 different categories and I’m going to let Mr. Akers address those.

Sen Hill: So recognized.

Akers (AID): Thank you, again. SB98, essentially the Arkansas Code Annotated is a high-level framework when it relates to burial associations. Burial associations have been around since 1953, Act 91. We have had an increasing number of disputes between funeral homes where the contract funeral home who is handling the paperwork for the burial association ends up having to pay a substitute-providing funeral home for doing services. The bylaws for each burial association may differ as to how they handle it. But essentially what we want to do with this particular bill is lay down a framework between funeral homes as to how much of the face amount of the certificate gets paid if the family chooses to use a substitute-providing funeral home. These practices have been in practice for decades now, between and among burial associations, but it was never in the Code. And so we do field quite a few requests from the field to clarify. And this bill was an attempt to tell all of the participants in the funeral services industry dealing with burial associations what to expect to get paid.

Sen Wallace:  And to elaborate on that, again this is a—

Sen Hill: Your mic’s not on.

Sen Wallace:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. To elaborate on this, this again is a bill that’s been presented by the Arkansas State Board of Funeral Home Directors and the Arkansas Funeral Directors Association supports this bill.

Sen Hill: Thank you. Any questions for the Senator? Seeing none. Is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? No one has signed up so—Senator Irvin.

Sen Irvin: I’m just trying to find the other page to the bill. Is it just 2 pages? (crosstalk) Yeah, do we not have page 3? Do you have page 3 of the bill?

Sen Hill: Senator Wallace?

Sen Irvin: At the bottom of page 2 it cuts out. There should be another page 3 to this bill.

Sen Wallace:  There is. 

Sen Irvin: But it’s not in our folder.

Sen Wallace: I have a page 2 and a page 3 on Senate Bill 98.

Sen Irvin: Right, but, I’m sorry. We don’t have page 3 in our—

Sen Wallace: Here you go, Senator.

Sen Irvin: I understand. We don’t necessarily carry our– I mean, I have it with me, but I assume that these are all going to be in paper form and complete when we come to the Committee. Do you have another one? If you can just give us a moment.

Sen Hill: Yes. Senator Wallace, while they’re looking over that, is there anything else you want to say?

Sen Wallace: Just that there’s no known opposition. All funeral homes represented are in agreement with this. And I always try to keep the undertakers happy when you get to be my age. [laughter].

Sen Hickey: On page 3—do you mind? And maybe this is right, I’m sorry. On page 3 right there, it says that it’s at the discretion– it’s at the discretion of the licensed servicing funeral home whether or not to retain the disbursed funds or to return the funds. What does that mean? Why would that be at their discretion? Is the estate or family, are they not entitled to these? Are these non-revocable or what?

Akers (ADI): As the burial association bylaws and rules go, they vary among the various burial–  we have 131 burial associations currently in the State of Arkansas. So essentially we had an issue here in the last couple of years where the contract funeral home who administrates the burial association did not perform the at-need services. The at-need service provider gave a credit to the family for actually more than what the burial association certificate was and then when the contract funeral home sent the money to the substitute-providing funeral home, that substitute provider refused to take the funds. Told the family, You go back to the burial association and tell them you want to cancel and get a refund. That, historically, is not the way it should happen. 

So essentially that verbiage being added to the bill on page 3 is an instruction if the family chooses to use a different funeral home at the time of need. They need to accept the funds that are paid to them through the burial association. If the substitute provider doesn’t want to keep the income – if they don’t want to keep the funds – then they can, through their general or their operating account, issue a refund to the family. But, according to the bylaws and the rules existing for the last several decades, the family can’t, after the death, go back to the contract funeral home and say, Hey, listen. I want to cancel my dad’s burial association certificate. Just refund me the premiums that he paid in. So that’s why page 2 and page 3 of this current bill– it is outlining specifically what percentages and whose responsibility it is to pay the certificate proceeds at the time of death.

Sen Hickey: The servicing funeral home is the initial, that’s where the initial contact was. Is that correct?

Akers (AID): No, sir. The contract funeral home is the funeral home that administrates the burial association. And then the families have the right to choose whomever they want to bury their relative. And we’ve had a number of cases where a family would go to a competitor in town. The at-need service provider is also the substitute-providing funeral home. And for decades there’s really been an agreement between and among the burial associations as to what they’re going to accept. For example, if the death occurs within the 25 or 30 mile service area radius of the burial association, then the burial association is not required to pay those funds to the servicing funeral home. It’s all within the burial association bylaws. But, again, we’ve had some issues over the last several years disputing the percentages that the servicing funeral – or the contract funeral home has paid to the substitute provider. So this was an attempt to clarify the percentages in the process.

Sen Hickey: Bear with me. And it is at the– let’s just try to keep it simple, if you don’t mind, because I need simple. I’m a simple person. This is at the discretion of the lapsing servicing funeral home. So we’re talking about the servicing funeral home on whether or not they’re going to either retain the money, they’re going to keep it in their pocket. Or they’re going to return it to the family. That is what you want in this bill?

Akers (AID): I see the benefit in that– and here’s the deal. The servicing funeral home should reflect a credit adjustment on its final bill to show that the consumer was given credit for the burial association certificate face amount. I had a funeral home tell me that, hey, I don’t need the money. And when the burial association sends me the money, I’m just going to void the check and send it back to them. That’s really not the way the process needs to work. The substitute-providing or the servicing funeral home should accept the funds as reimbursement from the contract funeral home. And either deposit those funds into its general or its operating account because it’s already given a credit to the family for the burial certificate. 

Now, if the substitute provider or the at-need servicer wants to be a friendly neighbor, if they really don’t feel like they need the money and after everything is done, if they want to give the family a refund of that money, that’s optional for the servicer.

Sen Hickey: So the family has already been made whole?

Akers (AID): Absolutely.

Sen Hickey: Fair enough. Thank you. That’s what I needed to know. Thank you, sir.

Sen Hill: Senator Irvin?

Sen Irvin: I think that’s one of the things that I was concerned about are the families that have paid for this. I mean, if they’re made whole, is the servicing funeral home charging more than what they had contracted with the burial association and the contracted funeral home? In other words, if the, I mean, in order to avoid competition amongst them. I want to make sure that the consumer is not the one getting harmed in this.

Akers (AID): No, ma’am. The consumer is made whole on the final bill when the servicing funeral home reflects a credit for the full face amount of the burial certificate. Primarily, Act 91, in 1953, a lot of those were issued in denominations of $500 certificates. And so the servicing funeral home will show a credit for the $500. The family is made whole. At a rate of $1.25 a quarter, you’re paying $5.00 in. It takes 100 years to fully fund a $500 burial association certificate. So the family gets value because the majority of burial association membership out there haven’t been in the system for more than 40 or 50 years. So I think the issue that I referenced just a few minutes ago was a case where not only did the servicing funeral home give the family a 125%, 150% value on a burial certificate. But then they turned around and said, No, we’re not going to take the money from the BA. Why don’t you go back to the burial association and cancel the membership and get a refund of the paid-in dues. That is not the way, that’s not the way the process works. But the family does get full value for the burial association certificate on the at-need or the final billing statement from servicer.

Sen Irvin: Okay. Thank you.

Sen Hill: Any other questions? With that, Senator, would you like to close for your bill?

Sen Wallace:  I’m closed.

Sen Hill: What is the wishes of the committee? Motion do pass, Senator Irvin. Second by Senator Boyd. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same sign? The ayes have it. Senator, your bill is passed.

Sen Wallace:  Thank you, sir.

Sen Hill: SB99 again, Senator Wallace.

Sen Wallace: Yes, sir.

Sen Hill: You’re starting to scare me with all these funeral bills.

Sen Wallace: I got to keep these fellows happy. Pretty simple bill. There’s currently a requirement to do a yearly and a semi-annual report. And the State Board would like to make it only a one-year report. Just one time a year. And the funeral home association agrees with that. There’s no known opposition to this. All the funeral homes are in favor of it. It just reduces a mid-year report.

Sen Hill: So basically all this is doing is just changing the date?

Sen Wallace:  Well, it doesn’t change the date. It eliminates one. There’s two reports a year now. One at the end of the year, one mid-year. And it eliminates the mid-year, sir.

Sen Hill: Okay, yes, sir. Senator Boyd.

Sen Boyd:  So this cuts the bureaucracy in half?

Sen Wallace: That is correct.

Sen Boyd:  Thank you, sir.

Sen Wallace:  And Roger, Mr. Akens has a few comments.

Sen Hill: Senator Hickey.

Sen Hickey:  Just one. So is everybody on a calendar year– there’s no benefit– I see the other one was fiscal year, so now we’re moving it to the calendar year. Is everybody on a calendar year or was this originally put in on a semi-annual basis so that we could pick up people that were on a fiscal year and a calendar year?  

Akens (AID): I am not sure of the genesis of the semi-annual reporting requirement for burial associations. I just picked up the burial associations in July of 2018, after the 2017 session. It is a paperwork simplification for the burial associations. Essentially the mid-year report is due for the months’ activity of January through June. That is due to the Department by September 15th and then we have a July through December which is due in March. 

Essentially what we’re trying to do is get uniformity among the various funeral serviced, you know– prepaid has an annual report. We’re doing aways with quarterly reports, hopefully. Perpetual care cemeteries is an annual report. And this is a—

Sen Hickey:  I’m sorry, I appreciate– my only thing, if that’s– if it’s just something that we could check into. I just want to make sure that what we were trying to do was not to get basically the year-end at the close of business for each one of those. And that’s why we used a fiscal year and a calendar year before. Back umpteen years ago whenever all this was put in. If that’s not the case and it’s, and if it is just a calendar year the way you have it, I’m fine. I just want to make sure that we’ve thought it all the way through and Senator Wallace, if he figures it out between now and when he presents it on the floor, then that will be great.

Akens (AID): Yes, sir. It is a calendar year and it’s just doing away with one of two Senorts.

Sen Hickey:  Thank you, sir.

Sen Hill: Any other questions? So what’s the will of the committee? Do pass, Senator Boyd.

Sen Boyd:  He needs to close the bill.

Sen Hill: He did.

Sen Boyd:  Oh, he did.

Sen Hill: Second by Senator Irvin. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, same sign. The ayes have it. Senator, SB98 has passed– or, 99. Excuse me. 

Sen Wallace:That’s a dying business. I’m glad that we’re done with this bill. 

Sen Hill: Thank you for doing that with Senator Wallace. SB111, Senator Irvin. Please recognize yourself for the record.

Sen Irvin: Thank you, Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. 

Smith: Derek Smith with the Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard Law Firm, representing the ACLI.

Sen Hill: Go ahead, Senator Irvin.

Sen Irvin: Thank you, members. Senate Bill 111 I have before you creates a new benefit of family leave insurance. And as you’ll see through this section, it’s setting this up to allow an insurer license to transact accident and health or life insurance business in the state to issue an insurance policy covering the risk of family leave. It outlines that this is a new benefit and follows the same procedures as other insurance benefits that would be regulated within the State of Arkansas and through legislation and promulgation of rules. I’ll let Mr. Smith explain a little bit more. To me, I feel like this is a good benefit to encourage family leave and help people plan for taking family leave so they can be with their children.

Smith:  Mr. Chair, Committee. I think Senator Irvin did a really good job explaining the bill. The American Council of Life Insurers, ACLI, is a national trade association that represents life insurers throughout the country. In Arkansas there are 247 member companies representing about 94% of the life insurance premium. What this bill does, as Senator Irvin explained, provides insurance for the risk of paid family leave from an employer. You think about FMLA which everyone’s familiar with, it provides unpaid leave for an employer to take time away because of an illness for themselves or family member, or for the birth of a child. What this does is allows employers to provide paid leave and it provides insurance coverage to cover that risk. 

When we presented the product to the Insurance Department, they said it’s not currently permitted under any of their lines of authority. So moving with a model bill that NCOIL adopted, we propose this is why we presented it.

Sen Irvin: And I would just follow up to say that I appreciate the language in here dealing with adoption and foster children as well as their own children. I think we need to do more as a state to encourage people to take in foster children and adopt our children. So I appreciate that part of the bill significantly.

Sen Hill: Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Senator Hickey.

Sen Hickey: No, sir.

Sen Hill: No? [laughter] Senator Boyd?

Sen Boyd: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a simple question and it’s going to note my ignorance. So we have to pass a state law to allow insurance to be sold, of a specific type?

Derek Smith:  Yes. So the statute – Arkansas Insurance Code provides lists of lines of insurance that are permitted to be sold in the state. If an insurance product doesn’t fit within that line, it’s not permitted. And this is one that wouldn’t fit.

Sen Boyd:  Thank you.

Sen Hill: Any other questions? Seeing non one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Irvin, you’re free to close.

Sen Irvin: I appreciate Derek – Mr. Smith – bringing this bill. I think that NCOIL is an organization that I think most are familiar with. I appreciate their work on this issue. Appreciate a good vote. Go ahead.

Sen Hill: Motion do pass from Senator Boyd.

Sen Irvin: Second.

Sen Hill: Second by Senator Irvin. All those in favor? All those opposed, same sign. Senator Irvin, SB111 has passed.

Sen Irvin: Thank you.

Sen Hill: Thank you. Now, Senator Irvin, 119.

Sen Irvin: Thank you. Members, Senate Bill 141. What this bill does is–

Sen Hill: Wait a minute, Senator. We’re on SB119.

Sen Irvin: Oh, no. We’re passing over that one.

Sen Hill: Passing over that one, okay.

Sen Irvin: Yep.

Sen Hill:  Senator King is not here. Senator Bryant is not here. So, Senator Irvin, SB141.

Sen Irvin:  Okay, members. Senate Bill 141, what this does is really just says that if you have subscribers in the state and you are a health insurer, then you need to follow the current laws that are on the books in the State of Arkansas. That’s what this bill does, simply put.

Sen Hill: No one is signed up to speak for or against the bill. We have any questions from the Committee? Seeing none, Senator Irvin, you’re free to close.

Sen Irvin: I’ve closed. Motion do pass.

Sen Hill: Motion do pass by Senator Irvin. Second with Senator Boyd. All those in favor say aye? Opposed same sign. The ayes have it. Senator Irvin, SB141 has passed. Senator Irvin, you’re going to do 142?

Sen Irvin: No.

Sen Hill: Okay.

BLR Staff: So we’re at HB1040.

Sen Hill: HB1040. Representative Ray.

Rep Ray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s fair to say Senator Wallace is killing me with all these funeral jokes. [laughter] Okay, sorry for the bad joke. [laughter] House Bill 1040 repeals the Arkansas Legal Insurance Act. This is law that was passed in the 1970s and really hasn’t been updated since then. What it refers to is, what’s called in the Code, legal insurance. But what it really is is our legal plans. Most legal plans today are not insurance, at least in terms of how we typically think of insurance. What they are today is typically a subscriber based, prepaid legal plan. And the way it works is a subscriber will pay a monthly fee for access to a basic set of services that they can access should they need legal assistance with a local law firm. So the things that are typically covered are things like document review, a basic consultation, preparation of a will. Things of that nature. And if they desire services above and beyond what’s covered in their basic service plan, they’ll be able to access those at a pre-negotiated discount rate. A lot of times individuals will purchase these plans similar to how you might purchase a membership to AAA for roadside assistance. Or businesses will purchase these plans and offer them as an employee benefit, to their employees. 

Also under the Act, the sales associates for companies that sell these prepaid legal plans, they have to have a license from the state. But it’s not a license in the way that you or I would think about a license. There’s no education or training requirement. There’s no test that they have to pass or anything like that. The only requirement is that they pay a biannual fee to the state. There’s 33 states that never regulated this area of licensure in the first place and, of those that did, more than half have since repealed their requirement just in the last couple of years. Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, and Nebraska have all repealed or significantly curtailed their restriction, their regulation on that. 

So what the bill does is basically just conform Arkansas Law to regulate this product in the same way that the vast majority of other states do, which is to say not at all. And it eliminates that licensing requirement that basically serves no purpose. There’s no opposition to the bill that I’ve encountered and the Insurance Department has said they don’t have any concerns with the bill.

Sen Hill: Go ahead, Senator Boyd.

Sen Boyd: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So does this bill receive a record for the most pages of stricken language without replacing it with any?

Rep Ray: It might. I ran this bill 2 years ago, but I think my fatal flaw was I had Senator Gilmore on it and so that may have, that may have dimmed its chances of passage. 

Sen Hill: Any other questions? Seeing no other questions. And there’s no one here signed up to speak for or against it. You’re free to close, Representative Ray.

Rep Ray: I’m closed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sen Hill: What’s the will of the Committee? Do pass by Senator Boyd. Second with Senator Penzo. All those in favor of this motion say aye? All opposed, same sign. Congratulations, Senator Ray. HB1040 has passed.

Rep Ray:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee.

Sen Hill: Senator Penzo. Okay, we’re going to pass over SB151. SB169. I do not see Senator Bryant. Is anyone here to run the bill for him? No. SB178, Senator Hammer.

BLR Staff: It has an amendment.

Sen Hill: And it looks like this bill does have an amendment. Senator Hammer, you’re free to present your amendment.

Sen Hammer: Yes, sir. All it does is add Representative Vaught as a co-sponsor to the bill, Mr. Chair.

Sen Hill: Motion to adopt amendment. Second by Senator Hickey. All in favor say aye.  Opposed same sign. Amendment adopted. Go ahead, Senator Hammer.

Sen Hammer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee. What the simply does is it allows for a PCP to be able to establish as what would be referred to as behavioral healthcare manager within their facility and be able to be reimbursed for that position from the insurance companies or through Medicaid. And the reason that brings us to necessity is that through all the meetings that were conducted this past summer through the Mental Health Council that was established on the House end – I sat through the majority of those – is that there’s a gap whenever a PCP recognizes that maybe somebody has an issue and they need to get them into the hands of professional counseling. And so this person would be the navigator for lack of a better term, that would make sure that that individual that presents to the PCP, maybe at a routine visit, routine physical, whatever the case may be – something may surface where the PCP would recognize that, hey, this person needs a little bit of expertise outside of that PCP’s realm that they could utilize this behavioral health care manager to help navigate to make sure that they get connected to the right source. It may be that that primary care physician would want to have a therapist within their office that they would have in house. Or they may want to refer them out. But what this does is makes sure that that connection occurs between the identification that the patient may have issues that would be better handled by a counselor working in conjunction with the PCP. This doesn’t cut the PCP out of the scenario at all. In fact, there is built into the language that there has to be a conduit of information so that the PCP can be working in a team effect with all those to make sure that that mental health of that individual is getting the best quality care and attention needed. And, in a nutshell, that’s what the bill does, Mr. Chair. I’d be glad to take any questions.

Sen Hill: Senator Hickey.

Sen Hickey:  Did we check to see, is there any GR or fiscal impact on this? Or would it all come out of the federal funds or did we look into that just to make sure?

Sen Hammer: The only one it would have an effect on would be Medicaid. I did not get any resistance or pushback from them on this. And they were sitting in the meetings the whole time. I mean, if you feel it’s necessary to get a fiscal impact.

Sen Hickey: I think we had kind of stated that if something did, I mean, as far as passing it out of the Committee since we’re kind of still early, I personally I think we’d be okay with that. But if there is a fiscal impact possibly, that you’d just bring it back on your own before you run it through the floor. Because we would have to factor into RSA, if it’s significant. Sitting here, I’m not sure that there is going to be an impact on State GR or if it would possibly just be the percentage that we have to pick up or what. I’m struggling, trying to figure that out.

Sen Hammer: I don’t know that it would. But, for the peace of the Committee, we are early in the session. That’s why I wanted to get it filed early. I’ll be glad to continue to take questions to the content of the bill and then request a fiscal study if that’s what the Committee wishes.

Sen Hill: Okay. We’ll come back to that after we get finished with questions.

Sen Hammer: Sure.

Sen Hill: Go ahead, Senator Irvin.

Sen Irvin: I just want to echo the same. If you’d look at the docket of bills that affect Medicaid and Medicaid spend, there’s a lot of them. Between this Committee and Public Health Committee, which is of concern to me because if we pass every bill out and then at the end of it we see that we have dramatically increased Medicaid spend, that is going to be an issue when it comes to the state budget in RSA and everything else that we have– that we’re dealing with in reforms across the board. And we really don’t know those numbers yet. I like the idea behind your bill. I’d need to check to see about how logistically it’s going to work. But that would just be my only concern. Because we have so many bills out there affecting Medicaid and requiring more spend that I think it would be prudent for us to really hold these bills and then make a determination towards the end of the session. That’s my advice and I think that would be a consistent statement. Because, from others involved in this, you, you have folks from Medicaid that attended those meetings, but that was before the new administration got into place, perhaps. So, I just would suggest that.

Sen Hammer: May I, Mr. Chair?

Sen Hill: Yes, sir.

Sen Hammer: Thank you. I’ll be glad to do that. I will say this and, Mr. Chair, after I get done answering other questions so that everybody can get the questions answered that they want to beside anything dealing with the fiscal, I would request the fiscal analysis, when I get it back I would like to come back to committee, but I do want to make this observation. Throughout all those committee meetings that were held, the one thing that was identified in this bill is that it could actually generate savings to the Medicaid system. Because a lot of times what happens is, people come in. They see their PCP. And if they can catch them upstream where they could have an issue identified instead of just going back out and living life until the wheels come off and they end up in a psychiatric hospital or something of that nature, I can at least express that the intent and the general opinion was that this may in all likelihood save the system money. Because we’re going to get people treatment sooner than later at a less cost to the system because we’ll be keeping them out of intensive therapy or out of psychiatric. I can’t say that I’m going to be able and come back and prove that, but that was the general discussion throughout all the meetings. And that’s why collaborative care at the PCP level is the most critical stage to insert that so as to help cut the costs downstream. But mainly, just to make sure quality of health is caught sooner than later.

Sen Irvin: I just want to respond to that if I can. I don’t disagree with you at all. In fact, we don’t do enough at the PCP level with trying to allow them to practice medicine based on their training and their residency and their experience. We don’t do enough of it. And so I don’t disagree with you at all. I just want to respect, I just want to respect all the other bills and making sure that we look at it. That’s all. Thank you.

Sen Hammer: And I appreciate that. And I’ll do that, Mr. Chair, and bring it back.

Sen Hill: Okay. So we’re going to pull SB 178 down and we’re going to have a financial study? Feasibility study?

Sen Hammer: I’ll have a feasibility study conducted by Medicaid and by the appropriate channels and would like to come back as soon as I get that, Mr. Chair. Especially if it shows that it’s cost-neutral or potentially cost savings, if that’s agreeable.

Sen Hill: Fiscal impact?

Sen Hammer: Fiscal impact, yes.

Sen Hill: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Senator.

Sen Irvin: Just for benefit, that’s not necessarily a rule that we have in place. I mean, I just want to make sure that we’re clear. That’s not necessarily a rule that we have in place, I don’t believe, on this Committee, or in Public Health, or in the Senate. But I just do think it’s prudent for us as legislatures and just making sure that we’re being very aware of those expenditures and weighing all those factors. I mean, I have bills myself that would be affected by the same issues. But I just think it’s a prudent way to approach our Medicaid.

Sen Hammer: Sure, totally agreeable. 

Sen Hill: Senator Hickey, do you have—

Sen Hickey: Just based on that, it may not be a rule, but leadership of the Senate did send out to all the committees and request that– and I understand that we normally do that through Rev and Tax because those may be most impactful or through Public Health, through all committees, that we try to keep a running track and have the fiscal impact. Because whenever you get to RSA on all of these, at the end of the session, you know, sometimes you’re sitting there and you’re, like, well, we’ve passed up $380 million more dollars’ worth of bills and we have to back into it. So I think that the thought process was is that we’re going to try to stay ahead of the curve on that, within all committees. So, thank you.

Sen Hill: Senator Boyd.

Sen Boyd: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m reiterating what the two senators across from me have said, but also what you said. So what concerns me with the fiscal impact is it might say we’re going to pay pennies, but Senator Hammer might very well be right. Costing pennies here might save us dollars down the road. So when you bring that back, if you feel that way, I would like to have that discussion as well. If it’s just all we’re talking about is it’s going to cost this, and they don’t provide us with, well, we think it’s going to save this. Having some testimony that we believe that, I think, is part of it. Because too many times in Medicaid, I’ve seen where we saved pennies and I know it’s costing us dollars somewhere else. Thank you.

Sen Hammer:  May I, Mr. Chair?

Sen Hill: Yes.

Sen Hammer:  I don’t think she’s in the room. I think weather prohibited her from getting here. I do have one individual that I will bring back that can, that is a professional in the field,  that will be able to speak to your issue and, I think, bring a level of comfort for everybody.

Sen Hill: I appreciate that, Senator Hammer. 

Sen Hammer: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair?

Sen Hill: Yes, sir.

Sen Hammer: Just out of curiosity – if you don’t mind answering – was there anybody signed up to speak for or against the bill? Because if they’re against, I could maybe get them after the meeting. Find out sooner than later. [laughter]

Sen Hill: No, sir. There was not.

Sen Hammer: That’s a good sign, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I’d respectfully like to pull this down. I’ll bring back that fiscal impact.

Sen Hill: Yes, sir.

Sen Hammer: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair?

Sen Hill: Yes.

Sen Hammer: Senate Bill 92, I should be prepared to bring that back next week. Just out of courtesy to the committee, to let you know that we had a pretty good meeting yesterday with a group of people who are going to make some modifications and should have 92 ready for you next week.

Sen Hill: Okay. 

Sen Hammer: Appreciate it. Thank you.

Sen Hill: Seeing no one else here, I want to make one public statement before we leave. I was wrong a while ago with Senator Murdock. I had Senator Dismang come up here and take the Chair a while ago because I thought the majority party had to hold the Chair. So, Senator Murdock, I was wrong. With that being said, we’re adjourned.