►
From YouTube: Interim Joint Committee on State Government (9-21-21)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Thank
you
for
everyone
coming
this
afternoon.
This
is
the
the
fifth
meeting
of
the
interim
joint
committee
on
state
government
and
we've
got
a
got
a
nice
agenda
here
today.
So,
madam
clerk,
if
you
would
call
the
roll
please.
E
B
B
B
B
B
A
We
have
two
days
or
two
groups
of
me
minutes
that
we
need
to
approve
the
august
26
and
september
1
meetings.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
those
minutes?
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
wheeler.
Second,
from
senator
alvarado,
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye,
okay,
hi
minutes
are
approved
all
right.
Our
first
item
on
our
agenda
is
an
overview
of
legislative
immunity
and
legislative
privilege,
and
today
we
have
an
expert
with
us
online.
A
His
name
is
james
f,
ted
booth,
and
you
were
given
his
presentation
when
you
walked
in
the
room
today.
That'll
help
you
follow
him
and
mr
booth
is
a
joint.
She
is
involved
with
he's
a
general
counsel
for
peer
in
mississippi,
so
he
has
studied
this
issue
and
is
going
to
give
us
a
good
overview
of
legislative
immunity
and
privilege.
Mr
booth,
are
you
there.
F
You,
sir,
as
the
chairman
said,
I
am
with
the
joint
legislative
committee
on
performance,
evaluation
and
expenditure
review
in
the
state
of
mississippi
otherwise
known
as
the
peer
committee.
We
are
the
audit
evaluation
and
investigative
committee
for
the
mississippi
legislature
we're
a
joint
committee.
We
have
seven
house
members
and
seven
senate
members.
F
I
have
been
an
employee
of
the
peer
committee
for
37
years,
so
I've
been
doing
this
work
for
a
long
time
and
for
23
and
a
half
of
those
years
I've
been
the
joint
committee's
general
counsel.
Also
during
that
period
of
time
I
have
been
the
staff
counsel
for
the
joint
reapportionment
committee,
so
I
work
on
redistricting.
In
fact,
I'm
going
into
my
third
redistricting
as
we
speak,
glutton
for
punishment,
you
might
say,
but
it's
exciting
work
and
one
thing
about
redistricting
work
over
the
years
that
I've
been
doing
it.
F
You
come
into
contact
with
issues
that
we
could
result
in
our
having
to
invoke
or
attempt
to
invoke
legislative
privilege
in
federal
litigation,
as
those
of
you
who
are
familiar
with
redistricting
law
know
that
over
the
years
the
courts
have
developed
certain
doctrines
associated
with
racial
gerrymandering
and
some
state
courts
have
developed
some
doctrines
related
to
partisan
gerrymandering
that
require
that
the
courts
inquire
into
purpose
and
motive
for
drawing
districts
certain
ways
and
when,
when
individuals
seek
to
discover
information
about
such
things,
the
possibility
for
invoking
legislative
privilege
arises
now.
F
Also,
in
conjunction
with
my
work
for
peer,
I
have
dealt
with
lots
of
issues
regarding
confidentiality,
whether
it's
confidential
information
held
by
state
agencies
or
whether
someone
in
the
public
or
an
interest
group
is
attempting
to
access
or
again
gain
access
to
information
that
we
have
here.
Confidentiality
is
a
second
cousin
of
legislative
privilege
if
you
will
they're
very
different
and
we'll
be
talking
about
the
differences
as
we
proceed
in
this
presentation.
F
So
what
we're
going
to
try
to
do
in
this
presentation
is
cover
the
subjects,
the
questions,
what
is
legislative
privilege
and
what
is
legislative
immunity,
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
sources
of
privilege
and
immunity,
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
availability
of
these
in
federal
court,
because
once
you
go
into
a
federal
forum,
things
differ
considerably
and
then
we're
going
to
go
over
some
general
conclusions
about
legislative
privilege
and
immunity.
Now,
what
are
legislative,
privilege
and
immunity?
F
They're
related
doctrines,
legislative
privilege
simply
is
an
evidentiary
rule
which,
when
it's
successfully
invoked,
is
going
to
protect
a
member
of
the
legislator
or
a
staff
member
from
having
to
testify
in
a
civil
action
or
surrender
documents
when,
when
sought
through
discovery
or
subpoena
legislative
immunity,
on
the
other
hand,
shields
legislators
from
being
civilly
liable
in
certain
instances.
Now
these
are
related
document
doctrines
and
in
fact
they
in
many
places
they
trace
their
source
to
the
same
constitutional
provision.
F
Now
before
we
get
into
privilege
details
on
privilege,
we
need
to
talk
about
what
is
a
privilege.
Well,
it's
an
evidentiary
rule,
as
I
said,
with
respect
to
legislative
privilege
which
protects
a
person
from
having
to
surrender
documents
or
appear
for
discovery
or
to
testify
on
a
trial.
F
Any
one
of
you
who
is
a
lawyer
knows
something
about
privileges
and
even
if
you're,
not
you've,
probably
seen
police
procedurals
dealing
with
priest,
penitent
privileges
and
attorney-client
privileges,
so
you
have
a
good
feel
for
what
a
privilege
is
once
a
privilege
can
be
successfully
invoked.
Certain
types
of
testimony
are
just
off
the
table.
Now.
Privileges
are
not
really
favored
by
our
courts.
F
In
my
state,
for
example,
when
you
examine
the
mississippi
rules
of
evidence
which
were
promulgated
by
the
mississippi
supreme
court
in
mississippi,
our
court
has
the
exclusive
authority
to
declare
rules
of
procedure
and
rules
of
evidence.
The
court
says
the
privileges
that
exist
in
this
state
are
those
that
are
in
our
constitution
and
those
that
are
specifically
in
the
rules
and
the
rules
only
name,
four
privileges,
attorney
client,
interspousal,
privilege,
priest,
penitent,
privilege
and
then
the
physician
patient
privilege.
F
That's
it.
Why
are
courts
like
this
when
it
comes
to
privilege?
Well,
anytime,
somebody
successfully
invokes
a
privilege
they
are
holding
outside
of
the
litigation
evidence
that
may
be
relevant
and
may
be
probative
and
courts
generally
would
like
to
go,
have
before
them
all
relevant
in
information,
so
that
they
can
make
a
decision
and
search
for
what
is
the
truth
in
this
particular
matter
before
them
so
courts.
F
As
I
say,
if
you
can
tell
from
our
in
mississippi,
they
don't
really
like
privileges,
and
I
don't
think
we're
too
different
from
a
lot
of
other
states
on
that
particular
point.
But
and
privileges
can
be
either
absolute
or
qualified,
and
the
concept
of
qualified
privilege
becomes
rather
important
when
we
start
talking
about
federal
court.
Now,
what
are
the
sources
of
legislative
privilege
in
your
state
s
in
43
other
states?
F
It's
the
constitution.
You
all
have
a
speech
and
debate
speech
or
debate
clause
in
your
constitution,
which
protects
you
from
having
to
testify
on
matters
regarding
things
that
go
on
in
the
session,
and
it
also
protects
you
from
being
arrested
during
the
session.
It's
just
called
a
speech
or
debates
clause.
It's
modeled
on
the
one
in
the
u.s
constitution,
seven
states,
including
my
state,
have
no
speech
or
debate
clause
in
these
states.
F
You're
only
going
to
be
able
to
raise
a
privilege.
Well,
I
should
say
the
the
way
to
raise
a
privilege
in
our
state
is
to
invoke
the
tripartite
system
of
government
and
argue
that
legislative
privilege
inheres
in
that
sort
of
system
of
government.
That's
how
they've
done
it
in
florida.
That's
how
they've
done
it
in
california,
two
states
that
have
no
speech
or
debate
clause.
Now
there
are
some
problems
with
this
approach
as
we
will.
F
We
will
talk
about
a
little
later
when
we
talk
about
qualified
privilege,
but
in
these
states
you
really
don't
have
quite
a
strong
argument.
In
some
places,
common
law
may
actually
be
the
source
of
a
privilege
and
in
federal
court
the
courts
have
said
the
source
of
legislative
privilege
is
federal,
common
law,
and
once
again
we
will
talk
a
little
more
about
that
in
a
little
while
now
we
need
to
distinguish
privilege
from
a
couple
of
other
idea
concepts.
F
One
of
them
is
confidentiality,
I'm
sure
the
kentucky
statutes
are
like
the
mississippi
code
in
1972,
they're,
probably
full
of
all
kinds
of
code
sections
dealing
with
confidential
information.
It
may
you
may
have
a
code
section
that
makes
police
investigative
reports
confidential.
You
probably
have
something
that
enforce
an
effect
that
protects
student
records,
health
information,
a
variety
of
different
things
are
going
to
be
held
confidential.
F
Now
what
that
means
is
the
person
in
possession
of
those
documents
is
under
a
duty
to
protect
them,
not
release
them,
particularly,
and
if
a
person
comes
in
and
makes
a
public
records
request,
you
have
a
defense
to
not
releasing
them.
However,
confidentiality
in
general
does
not
shield
you
from
the
process
of
the
court.
If
all
you
have
is
a
confidentiality
statute
and
the
court's
issue
compulsory
process
for
you
to
appear
and
bring
your
documents
generally
speaking,
that
confidentiality
statute
is
not
going
to
shield
you.
Why?
F
Because
most
courts
have
said
a
confidentiality
statute
does
not
create
a
privilege.
Privilege
is
a
much
stronger
concept
as
to
say
it's
there
to
protect
the
documents
from
any
kind
of
disclosure
in
court
or
any
kind
of
administrative
proceeding.
So
a
confidentiality
statute
does
not
necessarily
create
a
privilege
and
because
courts
take
a
kind
of
a
dim
view
of
the
creation
of
privilege.
If
somebody
raises
the
argument
that
a
confidentiality
statute
creates
a
privilege,
the
courts
are
going
to
look
closely
to
determine
d.
F
Is
there
anything
in
the
text
of
the
statute,
creating
the
confidentiality
of
a
document,
any
evidence
to
support
the
proposition
that
the
legislature
intended
to
create
a
privilege
and,
more
often
than
not
they're
going
to
say
no
to
that
sort
of
thing
now
privilege,
distinguished
from
legislative
immunity,
as
we
said,
privilege
protects
you
from
testifying
and
releasing
documents.
Immunity
protects
you
from
being
a
party
and
potentially
liable.
F
Now
legislative
immunity
in
general,
as
I
say,
protects
you
from
suit
your
speech
or
debate
clause
and
your
constitution
would
provide
you
with
some
protection
from
being
a
party
in
mississippi.
Our
legislators
have
to
rely
on
a
provision
of
our
tort
claims
act
that
we
adopted
several
decades
ago
to
as
a
source
of
immunity.
Immunity
tends
to
be
absolute
and
not
qualified.
F
F
When
someone
is
suing
you
for
something
that
you
did
arising
out
of
your
carrying
out
your
legislative
responsibilities,
the
key
is
going
to
be.
Are
they
suing
you
over
something
that
falls
within
the
course
and
scope
of
your
legislative
responsibility?
Immunity
is
also
recognized
in
federal
courts.
F
There
is
a
very
important
case,
tinney
against
brendhov,
that
was
pa
that
was
rendered
by
the
us
supreme
court
in
1951,
which
is
the
federal
source
for
state
legislative
immunity
and
federal
proceedings.
Briefly,
senator
tenney
chaired
a
tenney
committee,
as
it
was
called
in
the
california
senate,
which
was
investigating
on
american
activities
back
in
the
late
40s
and
brown
hobb
was
somebody
who
was
subpoenaed
by
the
tenney
committee.
F
Randhoff
brought
suit
under
the
forerunner
of
42
usc
1983,
deprivations
of
civil
rights
under
color
of
law
and
sought
damages
against
tinney.
Well,
it
went
all
the
way
to
the
supreme
court
and
justice
frankfurter
writing
for
the
majority
held
that
tinny
and
other
legislators
who
were
parties
were
immune
in
federal
court
and
justice.
Frankfurter
probably
did
the
best
job
of
anyone.
I
can
think
of
laying
out
the
reasons
why
legislative
immunity
is
important
and
he
said
when
people
are
members
of
the
legislature
carrying
out
functions
that
are
essential
to
the
legislative
process.
F
Conducting
hearings,
collecting
evidence,
considering
drafting
legislation,
considering
legislation
in
committee,
bringing
legislation
to
the
floor
and
floor
debate
they're
carrying
out
those
essential
functions
of
an
arm
of
the
democratic
government,
and
the
last
thing
we
want
them
to
have
to
do
is
face
lawsuits
for
engaging
in
activities
that
someone
may
find
offensive
for
some
reason.
Why
do
we
care
about
that?
Because
if
they
have
to
face
lawsuits,
it
could
place
a
chill
on
your
willingness
to
step
forward
and
perform
the
legislative
functions?
The
way
people
in
your
state
expect
you
to
perform
those
functions.
F
So
tinney
is
a
great
source
document
generally
for
understanding
the
policy
behind
legislative
immunity
and
why
we
have
it
now.
What
is
the
source
of
this
justice
frankfurter
told
us
that
something
called
federal
common
law
is
the
source
of
this.
Now
those
of
you
who
are
lawyers
might
see
the
date
on
this
and
smr
1951.
You
might
remember
that,
13
years
earlier,
in
a
famous
case,
called
erie
railroad
against
tompkins,
the
supreme
court
categorically
stated
there
was
no
such
thing
as
federal
common
law,
well,
justice,
frankfurter
rediscovered,
federal
common
law.
F
This
case
is
a
strong
case.
It
is
cited
often
whenever
the
subject
of
immunity
and
privilege
comes
up
in
the
course
in
scope
of
federal
litigation.
So
it's
a
and
it's
an
interesting
case
now
with
respect
to
legislative
privilege,
its
scope
and
application.
I've
got
a
few
general
statements
to
make
these
are
not
jurisdiction.
F
Specific,
I
think,
on
whenever
you're
thinking
about
a
privilege
issue
in
your
state,
you
really
need
to
consult
with
a
legislative
council
on
this
particular
subject
to
determine
just
how
the
privileged
use
of
the
privilege
would
play
out
in
the
state
of
kentucky.
Now,
with
that
caveat,
I'm
going
to
proceed
and
give
you
some
general
principles
that
I
have
defined
from
doing
research
from
all
jurisdictions.
F
One
a
privilege
has
if
it's
going
to
be
invoked,
it
has
to
be
invoked
by
the
individual
member.
There
were
some
cases
coming
out
of
texas
a
few
years
ago
when
the
attorney
general
and
the
governor
and
legislators
were
parties
to
some
redistricting
litigation
and
the
attorney
general
and
the
governor
tried
to
invoke
legislative
privilege
for
all
the
legislators
and
the
court
said.
No,
that's
the
privileged
person
of
the
legislator.
If
the
legislator,
for
some
reason,
doesn't
want
to
invoke
the
privilege,
you
can't
invoke
it
for
that
legislator.
F
Now
the
privilege
can
apply
to
staff
as
well
as
members.
You
all
have
close
confidential
working
relationships
with
your
staff.
Those
are
important
to
carry
out
your
functions
and
your
staff
may
be
able
to
claim
privilege
in
any
litigation
that
might
arise
out
of
some
legislative
acts
that
you
have
carried
out.
So
I
would
say
this
is
very
important
for
you
to
consult
with
your
house
counsel
on
this
particular
subject
to
see
how
far
you
can
go
in
your
state
on
this
now
in
some
states.
F
The
privilege,
unlike
immunity,
may
not
be
absolute
in
florida,
for
example,
where
they
had
to
conclude
that
privilege
was
a
product,
something
that
inhered
in
the
structure
of
government
in
florida
from
the
tripartite
system
of
government.
They
also
said
this
had
to
be
balanced
against
a
strong
policy
in
florida
about
openness
of
records
and
government.
F
So
there
was
some
balancing
that
had
to
be
done
and
the
florida
courts
ultimately
concluded
that
certain
activities
of
the
legislature,
particularly
those
related
to
conducting
hearings
and
drafting
legislation
and
introducing
legislation
and
floor
action,
would
be
covered
by
privilege,
but
not
others
actions
and
that's
not
an
unusual
position
to
take
by
the
courts,
but
but
nonetheless,
sometimes
privileges
are
balanced
and
some
are
qualified
and
balanced
and
sometimes
they're
absolute
once
again.
Consult
with
your
house
counsel
on
that
now.
Another
interesting
thing
privilege
can
be
waived
through
inconsistent,
behavior,
delay
or
policy.
F
One
should
look
at
the
your
public
records
law
in
kentucky
and
find
out
how
it
is
it
is
crafted.
I
believe,
you've
had
some
litigation
on
this
point
in
your
state.
F
Once
again,
this
there's
case
law
follows
two
different
streams
in
federal
court
and,
as
you
might
imagine,
one
of
them
says
the
privilege
is
absolute
and
one
of
them
says
the
privilege
is
qualified,
a
distinguishing
factor
that
a
judge
pointed
out
about
four
or
five
years
ago
and
some
redistricting
litigation
coming
out
of
virginia
that
I've
never
seen
anywhere
else.
But
it's
a
good
rule
of
thumb.
F
The
judges
argued
that,
when
the
subject
matter
deals
with
private
rights,
for
example,
the
chances
are
greater
that
the
legislative
privilege
will
be
treated
as
absolute
when
it
deals
with
things
that
address
important
public
policy.
Issues
such
as
redistricting
expect
the
privilege
to
be
balanced.
The
need
for
the
privilege
to
not
place
a
chill
on
the
legislative
process
has
to
be
balanced
against
very
important
federal
policies
regarding
safeguards
against
racial
gerrymandering
and
things
like
that.
F
What
sort
of
private
interests
might
be
the
sorts
that
would
be
a
result
in
a
conclusion
that
something
is
absolutely
privileged.
I've
read
a
case
one
time
on
this
particular
subject.
One
immediately
comes
to
mind,
one
that
dealt
with
a
challenge
to
a
municipal
ordinance
in
a
beach
community
that
borrowed
mopeds,
and
somebody
wanted
called
in
the
city
council
and
wanted
to
obtain
discovery
of
the
city
council
on
why
they
passed
this
kind
of
ordinance.
F
This
is
the
sort
of
private
interest
in
case
where
an
absolute
position
on
privilege
might
be
accepted,
but
the
kind
of
things
that
I
deal
with,
particularly
in
redistricting,
I
don't
expect
any
court
to
ever.
Tell
me
that
my
privilege
is
absolute
now.
So
once
again,
it
is
important
to
remember
that
these
policies,
or
the
or
I
should
say
privileges
in
federal
court,
may
end
up
being
subject
to
balancing
now,
there's
some
real
things
related
to
privilege.
F
There
are
a
few
federal
circuits
out
there
that
haven't
made
much
case
law
on
the
subject
of
privilege.
I've
noticed
that
in
the
eighth
circuit
they
don't
do
much,
but
several
of
the
districts
have
struck
out
on
their
own
and
have
said
that
the
deliberative
process,
privilege,
which
is
a
qualified
privilege
that
is
discussed
fully
in
various
treatises
on
the
federal
rules
of
evidence,
can
apply
to
of
the
legislative
process.
F
Once
again,
it's
available
to
deal
with
issues
that
directly
grow
out
of
deliberation:
they're,
conducting
hearings,
drafting
legislation,
committee
action
and
floor
action,
so
in
places
where
you
haven't
had
a
well-developed
law
of
legislative
privilege,
you
might
be
able
to
use
the
the
deliberative
process
privilege
also
under
the
federal
rules
of
civil
procedure.
There's
the
work
product
rule
under
frcp
rule
26,
which
can
provide
some
considerable
protection
for
legal
materials
that
a
committee
may
have
developed.
Now.
Here's
some
general
conclusions
that
I've
drawn
over
studying
privilege
for
a
long
long
time.
F
F
The
critical
question
then
becomes
what
is
the
source
of
the
of
the
privilege
in
case
places
like
kentucky
where
you
have
a
speech
or
debate
clause
you're
going
to
have
a
pretty
strong
argument
regarding
the
the
absolute
character
of
your
privilege,
if
it's
a
common
law
privilege,
maybe
not
so
much
and
in
places
like
my
state,
where
we
have
to
argue
that
it's
something
that
adheres
in
a
tripartite
system
of
government
might
not
be
that
strong.
Remember.
F
As
I
said
a
minute
ago,
the
way
you
craft
your
open
records
law
that
could
easily
defeat
a
claim
of
privilege
and
remember
that,
once
again,
generally
speaking,
privileged
arguments
work
best
when
you're
trying
to
protect
members
from
having
to
testify
or
surrender
documents
regarding
the
early,
the
stages
of
drafting,
conducting
hearings,
committee
processes
and
floor
action
on
the
subject
of
legislation
or
resolutions
that
you
may
be
passing
well
at
this
point.
That
takes
us
through
this
very
general
overview
of
privilege.
If
there
are
any
questions,
I'll
be
happy
to
entertain
them,.
A
This
subject
has
been
one
that
has
been
brought
up
by
drafted
legislation
that
that
david
mead
represent
mead
had
filed
last
year,
and
I
thought
it
was
important
for
us
to
get
a
grasp
on
it,
especially
us
non-lawyers
in
the
in
the
room.
So
are
there
any
questions
for
mr
booth,
mr
booth,
your
knowledge
is
very
well
very,
very
well
in
this.
In
this
area
and
representative,
graham,
has
a
question
for
you.
B
Sir,
thank
you,
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
so
it
was
kind
of
hard
following
you
a
little
bit
for
those
of
us
who
are
the
chairman
is
correct,
but
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
last
statement
that
you
made.
If
I
can
sure
you
said
that,
maybe
we
would
be
able
to
invoke
privilege
with
our
open
records
law.
F
I
would
say
that
you
need
to
carefully
look
at
your
open
records
law.
You
could
craft
an
open
records
law
in
broad
enough
terms
that
it
might
actually
defeat
a
claim
privilege,
for
example,
if
you
are,
if,
if
your
open
records
law
says
that
all
materials
associated
with
the
preparation
and
drafting
and
consideration
of
the
legislation
are
available,
must
be
made
available
to
the
public
and
must
be
released
upon
a
request,
it's
going
to
be
hard
for
you
to
invoke
legislative
privilege.
F
F
Now,
with
the
peer
committee,
since
we're
an
audit
and
evaluation
and
investigating
committee,
certain
things
have
to
be
public
final
reports
that
are
voted
out
by
the
committee
are
released
and
made
available
to
anyone
on
demand.
In
fact,
we
post
them
on
the
website,
but
all
those
other
files
that
we
keep
work
paper
files
interview,
notes
that
kind
of
stuff
is
protected
from
public
disclosure.
I
F
I
Good,
that's
good
and
it
is
a
can
be
a
complicated
set
of
rules
to
follow.
I
We
have
something:
that's
happened
here
in
kentucky
that
I
think
most
of
our
our
committee
members
are
familiar
with
the
attorney
general
has
issued
some
recent
opinions
related
to
the
use
of
cell
phones
and
what
is
discoverable
or
what
is
subject
to
our
open
records,
and
we
heard
some
things
out
in
salt
lake
city
related
to
this
issue
and
the
the
general
advice
is,
you
know,
treat
everything
as
potentially
discoverable,
but.
J
I
F
Yes,
in
fact,
we
have
in
several
ncsl
panel
discussions
over
the
years
we
have
counseled
people
to
exercise,
quote
unquote,
good
email
hygiene,
and
that
would
also
be
extended
to
text
records
that
you
might
have
out
there.
F
You
just
really
need
to
be
very,
very
careful
in
what
you
put
into
a
text
or
an
email,
because,
as
I
said
in
redistricting
cases,
there
is
a
very,
very,
very
good
chance
in
federal
court
that
the
court
will
pierce
the
privilege
and
say
the
strong
public
policy
need
for
having
this
information
before
the
court
outweighs
any
any
policy
behind
legislative
privilege.
So
I
would
say,
be
careful
of
what
you
put
in
your
emails
and
your
texts
and
anything
else
that
could
be
recoverable.
I
All
right,
thank
you
for
that
and
and
that
kind
of
gets
into
the
work
product
privilege
too,
and
we
know
that
that
you
would
present
it
that
staff
can
call
upon
the
work
product
privilege,
but
they
also
in
this
case
or
this
scenario,
where
it's
a
federal
court
involved.
That
means
the
staff
could
also
be
a
subject
to
the
to
the
open
records
request
or
to
the
discoverable
items.
Is
that
true.
F
That's
that
is
true.
Think
of
it.
This
way,
the
a
staffs,
the
privilege
that
a
staff
has
flows
from
the
privilege
that
the
legislators
have.
I
can't
imagine
a
situation
where
a
staff
person's
claim
of
privilege
would
be
stronger
than
a
member's.
So
if
you're
in
federal
court
and
the
courts
have
decided
that
when
they
strike
the
balance
in
a
redistricting
case,
the
member
is
going
to
have
to
release
his
records,
I
don't
think
the
staff
is
going
to
be
protected
more
than
the
member
will
be
anything's
possible,
but
I
don't
think
that's
probable.
A
You're
welcome.
We
will
move
on
to
our
second
part
of
the
agenda,
which
is
related
to
the
future
of
remote
working
in
state
government
and
commissioner,
mary
elizabeth
bailey,
I
believe,
is
online
with
us.
Miss
bailey.
A
I've
invited
miss
bailey
to
share
with
us
where
state
government
is
at
on
remote
working,
and
at
this
point
I
continue
to
be
concerned
about
the
customer
service
standpoint
of
state
government
and
whether
remote
working
is
a
positive
or
a
negative
for
our
constituents,
and
ms
bailey
is
here
to
present.
Maybe
some
findings
miss
bailey.
The
floor
is
yours,.
H
Okay,
fantastic
good
deal
good
deal.
Well.
Thank
you
all
so
much
for
inviting
us
to
attend
today
and
present
on
this
subject.
We
are
you
know
in
in
the
midst
of
of
this
new
work
model.
H
As
far
as
giving
agencies,
let
me
forward
here
choices
for
options
for
their
positions,
and
and
what
I
want
to
do
today
is
just
explain
what
the
options
are,
that
agencies
have
as
far
as
setting
up
positions
for
work
schedules
and
as
you
are
aware-
and
I
previously
testified
to
this
as
well-
but
on
july,
6
agencies
were
told
to.
H
Sorry
I
had
the
issue
there
with
my
screen.
Okay,
agencies
were
given
options
for
employees
and
positions
within
the
executive
branch,
and
those
three
options
are
that
employees
can
be
100
in
an
office
or
a
building.
H
Now
these
options
going
forward
are
to
be
reviewed
quarterly
by
agencies.
So
the
presentation,
as
far
as
the
data
that
I'm
going
to
show
you
today
and
the
explanation
is
based
upon
the
numbers
and
what
we
look
like
on
july,
the
6th.
We
are
going
to
be
re-evaluating
this
again
in
october,
and
so
I'll
move
forward
here.
H
The
first
option,
as
far
as
work
schedules
that
we
have
work
options,
is
the
100
in
executive
branch
building
your
office
right
now
we
have
50
of
the
executive
branch
is
working
five
days
a
week
or
full
time,
I
should
say
in
our
buildings
or
offices,
or
maybe
they
are
physicians
like
correctional
officers
or
highway
technicians
with
transportation,
or
they
are
inspectors
of
that
nature.
Those
are
a
lot
of
the
employees
that
fall
into
these
categories.
H
The
positions
that
fall
in
this
category
are
public
facing,
which
means
that
they
are
not
eligible
to
to
telecommute
or
their
job.
Duties
cannot
be
performed
remotely
or
you
know,
we've
had
employees
that
had
performance
issues
and
therefore,
if
they
had
scored
in
the
previous
two
lowest
categories,
with
our
performance,
evaluation
system
or
they're
on
a
performance
improvement
plan,
they
are
not
eligible
for
a
telco
meeting,
because
telecommuting
is
not
a
right,
it
is
a
benefit
that
we
offer
to
our
workforce,
and
so,
therefore,
those
employees
are
not
eligible
to
tell
you.
H
They
want
to
come
in
every
day,
for
you
know
whatever
reason
by
their
own
choice,
and
so
that
is
something
that
we
are
considering
as
well,
when
we
get
a
request
from
an
employee
and
they
would
like
to
work
in
an
office
or
building
that
we
are
taking
that
into
consideration,
even
though
these
employees
are
100
in
an
office
or
building,
and
they
still
have
the
ability
to
have
flexible
work
schedules
or
compressed
work
schedule
based
upon
you
know
as
long
as
if
that
is
something
that
the
agency
offers,
so
they
can
still,
like,
I
said
flex
their
work
day
or
compress
their
schedules
within
the
week.
H
The
next
option
that
agencies
have
when
they
are
looking
at
positions
is
a
hybrid
approach
for
telecommuting.
Right
now,
37
of
around
37
of
the
executive
branch
is
on
a
hybrid
work
schedule,
and
that
means
that
they
telecommute
anywhere
from
one
to
four
days
a
week
that
from
a
remote
workstation-
and
one
thing
to
note,
is
that
telecommuting
is
not
new.
It
was
created
over
22
years
ago.
It
is
authorized
in
regulation
both
for
classified
and
unclassified
employees.
H
It
is
not
something
that
was
just
created
by
the
pandemic,
but
it
was
something
obviously
that
we
had
the
ability
to
authorize
and
to
increase
that
during
the
pandemic
in
order
to
keep
our
employees
safe,
and
we
did
that,
but
it
was
not
something
that
was
just
created
in
in
response
to
the
pandemic.
Many
agencies,
many
employees
and
physicians,
were
telecommuting
well
prior
to
the
pandemic
and
will
continue
to
do
so.
H
However,
you
know
with
the
pandemic,
we
did
take
a
closer
review
of
telecommuting
in
general
across
the
executive
branch,
and
we
did
create
several
things.
One
thing
we
did
create
was
an
executive
branch
telecommuting
policy.
This
sets
forth
the
policy
and
in
the
procedures
for
the
ability
to
telecommute
agencies
can
all
agencies
must
adhere
to
the
baseline
of
what
the
policy
requires.
The
agencies
can
also
add
additional
agency,
specific
information
to
this
policy.
H
In
addition
to
this,
we
have
training
that
all
supervisors
and
employees
must
complete
prior
to
telecommuting,
and
so
that
they're,
you
know
very
especially
supervisors.
It's
very
different
to
manage
an
employee
that
works
remotely
versus
one
that
works
in
a
brick
and
mortar
building.
It
doesn't
mean
that
it's
not
successful.
It
just
does
take
a
little
more
accommodations
as
far
as
when
ensuring
that
you
are
communicating
with
that
employee
and
res
in
ensuring
that
they
are
being
productive
and
accountable,
and
that
there
is
still,
you
know,
an
open
line
of
communication
there.
H
We
also
have
a
terms
in
the
conditions
agreement
that
is
signed
by
an
employee,
the
employees
and
the
manager.
When
they
do,
you
know,
go
on
a
telecommuting
schedule.
We
have
a
safety
checklist
that
we
ensure
that
the
employees
surroundings
are
of
a
safe
nature
and
we
have
the
ability
in
the
telecommuting
regulation
to
that
the
agency
can
visit
the
employees
remote
work
site
at
any
moment
without
with
or
without
notice.
H
So
that
is
something
you
know
to
ensure
that
that
it
is
a
safe
environment
where
the
employee
is
working
and
even
though
the
employee
is
telecommuting,
they
are
still
eligible
for
flexible
work
schedules,
so
they
can
still
work
like.
I
said,
a
flexible
work
schedule
or
compressed
work
schedule.
So
there
are
several
options,
even
though
that
they
are
telecommuting.
H
And
then
our
last
option,
as
far
as
a
work
model
that
agencies
have
is
100
telecommuting
and
right
now
we
have
around
13
of
the
executive
branch,
so
that
is
a
relatively
small
number
that
telecommutes
100
of
the
time,
and
that
means
their
their
full-time
schedule
is
working
remotely
again.
You
know
this
has
been
historically
authorized
in
our
unclassified
unclassified
regulation.
H
The
difference
between
this
and
the
hybrid
schedule
that
I
just
talked
about
is
that
it
does
require
the
approval
of
the
personnel
cabinet
either
the
secretary
or
myself
do
re
review
those
requests
from
an
agency.
If,
if
an
agency
is
wanting
a
function
or
an
organizational
structure
to
telecommute
100
of
the
time,
then
they
must
send
a
request
to
the
personnel
cabinet
for
approval.
H
In
doing
so,
you
know,
in
order
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
position
is
eligible
for
telecommuting.
We
created
a
criteria
document
and
that
just
goes
over
many
things
from
to
help
the
agency
make
a
determination
whether
or
not
this
would
be
a
good
fit
for
this
position,
and
it
it
goes
over.
Things
from
you
know,
is
the
knowledge
that's
required
in
this
position.
Is
it
something
that
you
know
they
would
need
to
be
on
site
to
work
with
other
employees
in
order
to
do
their
job?
H
Is
it
something
that
is
it
public
facing?
Is
there
specialized
equipment
that
they
might
need
that
would
and
prohibit
them
from
working
remotely?
H
Is
it
a
position
that
requires
travel
or
task
scheduling
or
any
type
of
secured
information?
All
of
these
things,
plus
other
factors
go
into.
You
know
the
criteria,
consideration
for
determining
physician
eligibility
for
telecommuting
and
then
again
you
know
we
have
the
policy
that
sets
forth
and
then
the
required
training
and
the
terms
and
conditions
and
the
safety
checklists,
and
even
though
employees,
if
they
are
approved
to
work
100
telecommute,
they
can
still
be
allowed
to
again
do
the
flexible
work
schedules
or
a
compressed
work
week.
H
So
we
have
several
options
that
are
available
now
for
agencies
when
they
are
establishing
positions
or
reviewing
their
workforce.
We
have
you
know
over
the
last
year
and
a
half
we
have,
you
know
evaluated
our
workforce
significantly,
especially
when
it
comes
to
recruitment
and
retention.
H
This
is
a
significant
tool
that
we
are
using
to
try
to
continue
to
be
competitive
with
the
private
sector
and,
as
we've
seen,
there's
plenty
of
major
companies
that
are
telecommuting
and
are
going
to
continue
to
do
that
in
the
future
and
and
there's
not
as
long
as
we
are
continuing
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
citizens
of
the
commonwealth,
which
I
think
that
we
have
proved
and
are
have
been
able
to
do
that
successfully.
H
I
I
do
not
see,
especially
since
this
has
historically
been
authorized,
and
we've
been
doing
this.
I
don't
see
this
changing
in
the
future.
I
think
this
was
something
that
you
know.
These
type
of
options
will
be
something
that
will
be
available
to
agencies
in
the
future.
A
D
D
I
want
to
thank
the
presenters.
I
think
this
was
really
a
good
presentation
and
eye-opening.
For
me,
I
talked
to
a
lot
of
businesses
in
my
district
and
covet
has
brought
a
lot
of
very
negative
things.
Obviously,
but
one
of
the
things
that
has
it
has
brought
is
the
opportunity
for
efficiencies
and
cost
controls.
D
So
what
I
would
like
to
request
from
the
executive
branch
is
in
each
of
our
areas
of
the
budget.
I
know
this
is
a
r
question
as
much
as
it
is
a
state
government
question,
but
we
did.
We
divide
our
budget
into
seven
subcommittees,
I'd
like
for
each
of
those
subcommittees
to
get
a
list
of
all
of
the
employees
who
are
telecommuting,
that
is
in
their
area.
Why?
D
The
the
there
is
no
need
for
them
to
come
to
the
workplace
and
that
and
that
it's
up
it's
a
it's
efficient
for
them
to
work
from
home,
which
is
a
good
thing
also
whether
those
jobs
can
be
reduced,
reducing
the
burden
on
the
taxpayer.
Obviously,
for
for
these
workers,
if
they're,
if
they're
necessarily
great,
if
they're
not,
then
let's
take
a
look
at
this.
D
Since
these
folks
aren't
coming
to
work
in
at
the
workplace
in
frankfurt,
two
out
of
five
is
a
was
a
rather,
it
was
a
very
high
number.
I
thought
it
would
be.
D
You
know
much,
I
thought
it'd
be
in
the
teens,
but
I
think
the
taxpayer
would
be
very
interested
to
know
that
two
out
of
five
executive
branch
employees
are
not
coming
to
the
to
the
office,
and
so
I'd
like
to
the
the
information
that
I've
requested
and
I
think
the
best
way
to
get
it
would
be
perhaps
to
send
it
to
the
subcommittee.
So
they
could,
they
could
use
it
as
part
of
the
budget
proposal
that
we'll
have
in
the
in
the
near
future.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
G
Thank
you,
commissioner.
I've
had
some
complaints
from
people
who
have
tried
to
have
contact
with
various
front-facing
agencies
that
provide
customer
service
to
constituents
and
partially
because
they
can't
reach
people
because
they're
working
from
home.
H
Well,
you
know
any
any
complaint
that
you
have
received.
If
you
can
send
those
to
me,
we
will
definitely
look
into
into
those
our
forward-facing
agencies.
First
of
all,
the
executive
branch
has
not
stopped
working
through
the
pandemic.
We
have
continued
to
work
every
single
day
and
many
of
our
areas
have
worked
even
harder
throughout
the
pandemic.
H
Our
forward-facing
agencies-
they
are
all
as
far
as
public
facing
for
sure
they
are.
They
are
in
the
buildings
they
are,
they
are
working,
they
are
providing
services
to
the
commonwealth.
You
know
to
citizens,
so
I'm
I'm
not
aware
of
any
issue.
So
if
you
can
send
those
to
me
I'll
be
happy
to
look
into
those.
A
G
G
Thank
you,
representative
duplicity,
didn't
say
they
weren't
working,
but
I
think
they're,
especially
if
they're
in
the
customer
service
areas,
and
we
all
know
about
the
debacle
with
unemployment,
insurance,
they're
working
from
home,
and
if
people
are
trying
to
get
in
touch
with
them,
it's
just
not
as
efficient.
We
need
to
get
these
people
back
to
work
in
their
offices.
Thank
you
and
if
I
do
have
any
more
complaints,
I'll
be
certain
to
forward
them
to
you
personally,.
I
Thank
you,
miss
bailey,
for
this
presentation.
My
question
is
on
these
policies.
Are
they
do
they
go?
Are
they
the
same
for
all
employees
and
the
reason
I
ask
the
question:
is
I
live?
I'm
a
border
county.
I
live
a
mile
from
tennessee
a
mile
from
virginia
and
some
employees.
There
have
informed
me
that
there's
one
policy
if
you
are
a
resident
of
kentucky
and
there's
other
policies
if
you
live
out
of
state
and
if
that
is
the
case,
why
so.
H
Employees
that
live
out
of
state,
they
are
required
to
work
in
kentucky.
They
cannot
telecommute
from
from
their
state
if
it's
outside
kentucky,
and
that
is
a
for
various
reasons
for
taxes
for
various
employment
requirements.
That
would
be.
We
would
be
required
to
adhere
to
based
on
that
state
and-
and
they
are
employees
of
the
commonwealth,
so
they
are
required
to
work
in
kentucky.
I
Okay,
but
they
have
not
been-
they
still
aren't
as
of
today,
but
they
will
be
so
that
that
change
has
happened
recently.
That's
not
been
the
blanket
approach
throughout
this
thing,
so
that's
changed
recently.
What
are
the
reasons
for
those
changes.
H
C
Alvarado.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
We
just
heard
a
presentation
on
legislative
privilege
right
before
your
presentation,
and
I
had
a
warning
about
being
careful
what
you
text
and
what
you
email,
I'm
curious.
If
people
are
telecommuting,
are
they
using
government
computers?
Are
they
using
personal
computers
to
do
their
work.
C
H
That
is
something
that
we
can
definitely
remind
employees
of
that
that
information
for
sure.
H
C
That
that
might
be
something
to
put
in
there
I
mean
we
have
employees,
thinking,
hey,
I'm
doing
work
and
I've
got
whatever
they're
researching
on
their
computer
is
suddenly
discoverable
if
there's
a
lawsuit
or
there's
some
issue
within
the
federal
court
system
or
the
state
court
system,
and
it
could
be
discoverable,
particularly
the
executive
branch.
I
think
that's
a
major
concern,
don't
you
I
mean,
I
think
I'm
wondering
if,
if
our
executive
branch
hasn't
taken
that
into
consideration,
that
would
be
something
you
probably
need
to
make
sure
you
take
care
of
for
a
lot
of.
H
Our
employees,
yes,
and
in
the
policy
we
have
a
confidential
and
sensitive
information
section.
We
have
an
equipment
section,
we
have
a
maintenance
section,
we
talk
about
state-owned
equipment,
employee-owned
equipment
and
various
things
like
that,
and
and
I'm
I'm
happy
to
provide
the
policy
to
you
all
for
to
review.
If
you
would,
if
you
would
like
that.
C
That
would
be
great,
I
think,
it'd
be
most
important,
at
least
for
again,
if,
if
folks
are
using
home
devices
to
know
that
any
information
they
have
on
there,
those
can
be
confiscated
and
probably
researched
by
somebody,
and
so
I
think
that's
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
important
something
that's
available,
that
our
employees
know,
because
they
might
think
that
that's
protected.
C
That
would
be
probably
something
good,
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
in
your
terms
and
conditions
agreement
that
you
have
with
state
employees,
but
I
think
that'd
be
worthwhile
knowing
or
if
we're
going
to
have
this
as
being
something
routine,
that
they
can
use
a
government
device
to
do
all
their
work
on
just
because
otherwise
I
think
anything
will
have
to
be
tracked
on
those
personal
devices.
Thank
you,
mr
truman.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Yes,
commissioner,
I
guess
my
question
goes
along
a
little
bit
with
some
of
the
points
that
senator
thayer
made.
J
H
Those
specific
metrics
are
at
the
discretion,
are
tracked
by
each
individual
agency
when
they
look
at
their.
You
know,
work
productivity
and
accountability
on
how
that
is
part
of
the
requirement
from
the
executive
branch
is
that
each
of
the
agencies
are
tracking.
That,
and
so
I
I
would,
that
is
something
that
I
would
have
to
defer
to
each
agency
to
be
able
to
provide
okay.
H
J
A
J
Okay,
so
if,
for
example,
one
of
the
employees
that
is
utilizing
these
privileges
to
to
work
from
home,
is
you
know
not
meeting
performance
standards,
I
mean?
Are
they
being
compelled
to
come
back
into
the
office
environment
to
to
account
for
that.
H
Yes,
yes,
absolutely
and
that's
and
that's
part
of
the
policy
and
and
the
terms
and
conditions.
First
of
all,
you
know
an
agency
can
cancel
the
telecommuting
agreement
at
any
time
for
any
reason
and
definitely
for
a
low
performer
as
soon
as
that
is
something
that
is
realized,
then
that
employee
will
immediately
return
back
to
the
office.
J
Okay,
and
do
you
know
how
often
that
they're,
actually,
I
guess,
measuring
these
performance
standards,
the
individual
agencies.
H
Now,
that's
definitely
that
differs
based
upon
the
agency
or
the
position
and
the
job
classification.
That
is
something
that
I
will
also
be
reviewing
when
we
do
the
review
in
october,
asking
some
general
questions
around
that,
but
it
it
really
just
depends
on
the
specific
job.
Okay,.
J
And
again,
finally,
if
I
might
be
provided
one
more,
mr
chairman
sure,
to
what
extent
are
these
privileges
being
utilized
more
so
in
urban
areas,
because
I
know
coming
from
a
rural
area,
some
of
our
I.t
services
aren't
quite
as
good
as
what
they
have
in
the
more
our
state
are
essentially
the
folks
in
the
urban
areas
allowed
to
utilize
telecommuting,
more
so
than
folks
from
out
in
the
country.
Like
me,.
H
We
probably
have
more
employees
in
urban
areas
that
just
employees
in
general
specifically-
and
I
wouldn't
say
that,
there's
more-
that
that
is
really
going
to
differ
by
agency.
But
if,
if
you
all,
you
know,
if
you
would
like
to
receive
any
type
of
work,
county
information
we'd
be
happy
to
provide
that.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
commissioner.
I
just
a
little
aside
from
representative
nemes's
question
for
all.
H
E
People
that
are
able
to
work
from
home
are.
Are
you
allowing
them
to
opt
out
of
paying
occupational
taxes
in
franklin,
county
and
being
taxed
in
their
local
community?.
H
It's
not
so
much
opt-out
and
occupational
tax
is
paid
based
upon
where
the
employee
works.
So
even
if,
for
those
employees
that
are
working
a
hybrid
model.
F
H
However,
many
days
that
they
are
in
whichever
county,
that
is
how
that
it
is,
it
is
taxed
based
upon
that.
So,
if
they're,
you
know
two
days
in
franklin
county,
then
they'll
they'll
have
two
days
of
the
occupational
tax
in
frankfurt
and
in
three
days
in
in
the
county
in
which
they
are
working
remotely.
E
Follow-Up
please!
Yes,
commissioner,
having
worked
for
state
government
many
years
ago
for
four
years,
I
found
that
a
little
surprising.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
but
the
senator
wheeler
asked
most
of
those
questions,
but
I
would
go
back
to
what
my
the
senator
from
scott
county
said.
I
I
would
like
to
see
people
back
in
their
offices
working
to
resolve
the
issues
and,
from
my
standpoint
I
think
these
issues
can
be
resolved
quickly,
with
people
being
in
the
same
office
to
go
and
contact
those
who
have
the
experts
in
the
question
that
needs
to
be
answered.
B
And
this
is
the
seat
of
state
government
and,
from
our
standpoint,
the
chairman
miller
as
and
we
want
people
to
pay
their
occupational
taxes
wherever
they're
working
we're.
But
we
also
from
my
standpoint
and
from
being
representing
franklin
county.
We
have
lost
income,
but
that's
not
the
issue,
although
it
is
the
issue
for
our
local
government,
the
issue
is
being
proficient
and
efficient
in
providing
the
services
that
our
people
of
the
commonwealth
are
paying
for.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
B
A
G
G
G
If
they
are
consultants,
that's
a
different
deal,
but
employees
should
be
in
their
offices
and
there's
no
reason
with
everything
we
know
about
covid
that
it
cannot
be
managed
appropriately,
especially
in
these
front-facing
jobs
and,
of
course,
the
the
the
other
fact
that
was
brought
up
by
representative
miller
and
representative,
graham
regarding
local
occupational
taxes.
That's
a
really
big
deal
so
representative,
graham
who
I
respect
and
have
worked
well
with
over
the
years.
We
we
don't
often
agree.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
So
much
we've
had
a
lot
of
participation
in
commissioner
bailey.
Thank
you
for
your
comments
and
the
presentation
today.
If
there
are
no
other
things
to
be
brought
before
the
committee,
our
next
meeting
will
be
october.
The
19th.
So
is
there
a
motion
to
adjourn
all
right?
We
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.