►
From YouTube: Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary (7-7-22)
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).
B
A
F
A
A
Here,
seeing
that
they
have
a
quorum,
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
motion
to
approve
minutes
from
our
last
meeting
motion
and
second
made
all
those
in
favor.
Please
vote
by
saying,
aye
aye.
Those
opposed
minutes
are
approved.
All
right.
We
do
have
some
guests.
I've
got
one.
My
chairman's
got
another
one.
I
want
to
welcome
judge
joe
hendricks
here
to
my
right
here
over
in
the
crowd.
G
A
There's
still
time
to
change
your
mind,
sir,
all
right,
we
are
going
to
go
out
of
order,
so
yesterday
you
all
got
an
updated
agenda.
You
see
the
third
item
there
at
the
university
of
louisville,
I'm
going
to
call
them
first.
They
were
kind
enough
at
the
very
last
minute
to
provide
a
witness
and
we've
got
dean.
A
Tony
guenzel,
the
dean
of
the
school
of
medicine
there
at
the
university
of
louisville
and
she
was
very
generous
with
her
time
to
appear
remotely
this
morning
and
she's
out
of
the
country
on
vacation,
and
so
I'm
going
to
let
her
speak
first
or
go
through
this.
This
particular
panel
first
have
her
answer
some
questions
here
and
then
we'll
get
on
with
the
rest
of
the
agenda.
A
So
with
that,
that's
where
we'll
start,
I'm
gonna
welcome
you
is
it
dr
ganzel
or
dean
ganzo.
I
don't
know
which
title
you
prefer.
H
A
I
appreciate
you
making
time
because
you
didn't
have
to,
and
I
I
let
university
folks
know
that
it
didn't
have
to
be
somebody
out
of
pocket,
but
I
appreciate
you
doing
that
all
the
same,
I
I
put
you
all
on
the
agenda.
I
put
the
university
on
and
I
appreciate
you
coming
because
of
what
I
heard
in
court
yesterday
and
I
guess
it.
A
It
differs
from
what
my
understanding
was
in
the
past,
and
so
I
know
members
have
questions
and
I've
got
questions
about
the
relationship
that
university
of
louisville
has
with
emw
clinic
contractually
financially,
and
that's
what
I'd
like
to
clear
up,
because
again,
what
I
heard
yesterday
in
court
is
not
consistent
with
what
I
and
other
members
of
this
legislature
have
been
told
by
the
university
and
its
leadership
in
the
past,
and
so
I
guess
I
I
want
you
to
tell
us
what
that
relationship
is.
H
What
that's
about
all
right?
Well,
thank
you.
So
much
for
the
opportunity
to
appear
before
the
committee
this
morning,
we
at
the
university
of
louisville
greatly
appreciate
the
support
of
our
general
assembly
and
really
really
value
your
interest
in
our
programs.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have
for
me
to
do
today,
but
before
I
do
I'd
like
to
provide
a
statement
that
I
hope
maybe
will
clarify
the
university's
policies
and
perhaps
address
some
of
your
concerns.
H
H
We
do
provide
training
or
access
to
training
in
the
provision
of
abortions
as
part
of
our
ob
gyn
residency,
just
as
every
program
in
the
country
does.
This
training
is
conducted
at
a
non-university
facility
and
is
required
of
all
ob
gyn
residency
programs,
including
ours.
At
the
university
of
louisville
and
the
universe
and
those
at
the
university
of
kentucky
since
march
of
2016,
the
university
has
had
a
departmental
support
agreement
with
emw
women's
surgical
center.
H
This
is
not
a
joint
venture
through
this
agreement,
emw
does
provide
us
some
annual
salary
support
for
two
physicians
in
the
uofl
school
of
medicine's
department
of
ob
gyn
and
women's
health,
and
the
contributions
support
the
residency
program
and
allow
residents
to
complete
the
training
requirements
mandated
by
the
by
the
residency
accreditation
program.
If
we
did
not
provide
this
training,
our
ob
gyn
residents
would
have
to
leave
the
state
to
receive
it.
H
Residents
do
have
the
opportunity
to
opt
out
of
participating
in
this
procedural
training,
that's
required
by
the
acgme,
and
they
have
the
option
of
receiving
this
training
through
computer
modules
or
other
offside
alternatives
if
desired.
So
I'm
happy
to
take
your
questions,
and
I
will
answer
those
to
the
best
of
my
ability
and
provide
you
with
any
additional
information
that
you
may
need.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
dean.
I
appreciate
you
coming
such
short
notice.
I
want
to
say
that
I
think
most
people
in
the
general
assembly
were
very
proud
of
uofl,
very
proud
of
the
university
of
louisville
hospital,
and
we
were
happy
to
do
what
we,
what
we
were
told
was
to
give
some
existential
money
for
university
of
louisville
hospital
a
couple
years
ago,
at
the
request
of
president
neely
bendapudi,
I
have
been
a
big
supporter
of
uofl
defender
of
uofl
and
will
remain
so.
F
I
do
have
some
concerns
because
information
I've
been
given
and
the
information
that
you
just
stated
there
is
not
in
line
with
what
testimony
has
been
given
by
dr
bergen,
both
in
in
2018
deposition,
which
I
have
read
and
yesterday
in
court
which
in
which
I
was
present
in
the
courtroom,
both
of
those
times
she
was
under
oath.
She
said
that
in
2018
it
was
a
joint
endeavor
of
uofl
and
emw.
Yesterday
she
said
it
was
a
joint
venture.
I
understand
we
have
a
department
support
agreement.
F
We'll
have
some
follow-up
questions
about
that.
She
also
said
when
she
was
hired.
It
was
her
job
responsibility
and
expectations
and
remains
so
today
that
she
will
perform
abortions
at
emw,
not
just
for
training
purposes,
but
she
will
perform
abortions
as
part
of
the
university
of
louisville's
family
planning
responsibilities.
F
She
also
mentioned
that
she
was
there.
Is
there
now
currently
two
to
three
days
per
week?
That's
her!
That's
her
job
location,
two
to
three
days
per
week.
Many
of
those
days
residents
are
not
present.
She
testified
that
she
performs
between
1200
and
1400
abortions
per
year
as
a
university
employee.
She
has
not.
She
said
an
employee
of
bmw,
she's,
employee
of
the
university
of
louisville.
She
says
she's
paid
by
by
uofl.
F
The
only
time
that
she
receives
payment
from
emw
is
when
she
takes
night
calls
or
weekend
calls,
but
the
two
to
three
days
a
week
that
she's
performing
abortions
she's
doing
it.
On
behalf
of
the
university
of
louisville
on
her
cv,
she
does
not
include
emw
as
an
employer,
because
she
said
she
is
not
employed
by
emw.
She
is
not
a
staff
member
of
bmw,
and
so
these
things
are
in
stark
contrast
to
what
the
university
of
louisville
has
told
us.
F
I
reached
out
to
the
president
of
the
university
of
louisville
a
couple
years
ago
when
these
allegations
came
to
light
and
was
told
that
she
is
misinformed,
that
she
is
not
telling
the
truth
or
or
misunderstands
what
she's
saying
in
the
2018
deposition,
I've
defended
uofl
among
my
colleagues
in
the
public,
based
on
the
information
that
I
was
given.
That
information
is
in
question
now.
So
I
want
to
know
the
two
to
three
days
a
week
that
dr
burgin
is
performing
abortions.
H
She
is,
she
is
not
paid
by
uofl
to
do
abortions.
She
receives
salary
support.
The
department
receives
salary,
support
for
her
to
to
train
residents
in
the
required
mandated
accreditation
standards,
but
she
in
her
job
description
for
the
university
of
with
the
university
of
louisville.
H
F
Would
like
to
request
that,
mr
chairman,
I'm
going
to
ask
these
documents
after
the
in
writing
after
the
meeting,
but
I
would
like
to
request
the
dollars
that
emw
provides
not
only
for
dr
bergen
but
for
the
other
university
of
louisville
physician
who
performs
abortions
an
equal,
a
number
of
abortions
at
the
emw
clinic,
giving
us
about
three
twenty
five
hundred
to
three
thousand
abortions
that
are
performed
by
uofl
employees.
So
if
there's
a
botched
abortion
and
someone
files,
a
lawsuit,
I'd
also
want
to
know.
F
So
so,
if
emw
provides
a
salary
to
university
of
louisville
for
a
salary
supplement,
is
the
taxpayer-funded
pension
in
in
401k
contribution
that
comes
from
uofl?
Is
that
based
off
of
full
employment
status,
because
if
she's
at
emw
two
to
three
days
a
week
and
her
testimony
was
only
some
of
those
days,
university
of
louisville
and
university
of
kentucky
residents
are
president,
but
most
are
present,
but
most
of
those
days
they're
not.
Is
she
classified
as
a
full
term,
a
full
public
employee,
thereby
getting
paid
by
the
taxpayer?
F
I
also
want
the
I'd
like
to
have
the
employment
agreement,
because
her
testimony
yesterday
was
very
clear
in
it,
and
it
was
right
in
line
with
what
she
said
in
2018,
that
she
was
hired
in
2015
and
rema,
and
the
expectations
remain
the
same.
F
She
was
hired
to
perform
abortions
at
the
emw
clinic,
not
a
mention
of
residents
and
so
whether
you're
for
abortion
against
the
board,
whatever
it
doesn't
matter,
we
need
the
facts
here,
because
she's
testifying
now
twice
under
oath,
something
that
is
markedly
different
from
what
the
president
of
the
universities
told
us
and
now
at
the
head
of
the
medical
school
has
told
us,
and
so
the
information
is
diff.
It
differs
and
we
have
to
get
clarification
on
that.
I've
got
a
lot
of
other
questions.
F
Mr
chairman,
I
don't
want
to
monopolize
the
time
if
I
might,
if
we
could
get
our
friend
to
commit
to
respond
to,
you
know
to
written
questions
and
to
also
supply
documents
that
we
request.
C
C
C
So
when
you
all
are
up
here
saying
by
default
that
the
university
of
louisville
should
not
be
training
their
ob
gyn
residents
in
this
regards
the
truth
is,
it
is
a
requirement
for
certification
of
the
program.
That
is
not
a
political
decision.
That
is
a
medical
decision,
because
there
are
times
whether
or
not
you
believe
that
elective
abortion
is
moral
or
amoral
that
we
have
surgeons
who
need
to
have
these
skills.
C
C
C
I'm
not
sure
you
understand
how
physicians
at
the
university
of
louisville
typically
are
paid.
It
is
a
combination
of
support
from
u
of
l
and
then
the
private
practices
that
bring
in
money
so
most
of
her
salary,
and
I
don't
know
what
her
salary
is.
I
don't
know
how
much
is?
U
of
l,
how
much
is
ulp
how
much
is
outside,
but
most
of
her
size.
H
You
know
I
don't
know
exactly
how
her
salary
is
split.
My
understanding
is
that
the
work
assignment
that
involves
her
time
at
emw
that
salary
is
supported
by
emw
through
the
departmental
support
agreement,
but
again
we'll
get
the
we'll
get
the
those
detailed
contracts
for
you
doctor.
A
Senator
berg,
dr
berg,
senator
berg,
whichever
title
you'd
prefer.
A
That's
right,
it's
tricky.
I
thought.
C
Do
have
a
question
what
would
happen
to
the
departmental
accreditation
if
you
didn't
fill
these
requirements
for
your
residencies.
C
H
C
C
F
Go
ahead
represent.
Thank
you.
I
want
to
be
very
clear
about
what
we're
talking
about
here.
My
my
friend
rep,
senator
berg
has,
and
she
is
my
friend
has
senator
I
I
didn't
mean
to
promote
your
representative
senator
my
friend
senator
berg
is
is,
has
has
misstated
some
things
here.
We
are
not
in
any
circumstances.
Talking
about
whether
or
not
uofl
has
a
responsibility
and
uk
for
that
matter.
F
I
know
they
send
their
students
to
the
university
of
louisville
for
this
kind
of
training,
that's
required
that
I'm
told
is
required
for
accreditation.
We're
not
talking
about
that.
What
I'm
talking
about,
and
I
was
defending
uofl
for
years
on
that
basis,
what
I'm
talking
about
is
the
sworn
testimony
from
dr
bergen
twice
now
where
she
says
it's
her
job
responsibility
not
for
residents
not
in
connection
with
residency
program,
but
it's
her
job
responsibility
to
perform
abortions
for
the
university
of
louisville's
family
planning
services,
if
that's
uofl's
position
and
what
they
do.
F
We
need
to
know
about
that
and
the
facts
will
lead
where
they
lead,
but
that's
very
different.
So
we're
not
talking
about
the
training
program
and
trying
to
say
that's
not
it
is
or
is
not
required.
That's
not
what
we're
saying.
So
we
need
to
be
clear
on
that.
What
we're
saying
is
this:
what
I'm
asking
is
this
dr
bergen
testified
that
she
was
hired
to
do
these
things
aside
from
it
apart
from
the
residency
program
and
that
she
does
them
two
to
three
days
a
week.
F
Every
week,
some
of
those
weeks
the
residents
aren't
even
in
school.
She
said
six
to
eight
months
during
school
and
even
when
they're
in
school,
many
of
the
days
they're
not
there,
that's
not
doing
the
work
for
the
training
of
the
residency
program.
It
seems
to
me
it
may
or
may
not
be
appropriate,
but
I
don't
think
the
overwhelming
number
of
well.
I
believe
the
overwhelming
number
of
taxpayers
in
kentucky
do
not
want
their
money
and
their
institutions
and
their
government,
which
is
what
university
of
louisville
is
going
to
toward
performing
abortions.
F
So
if
that's
what
the
university
does
and
if
they
pay
that
you
said
no
university
funds
are
used
for
abortions.
That,
in
my
mind,
is
in
question,
so
I
want
to
know
and
we'll
have
these
follow-up
questions
I
want
to
know
is
any
of
her
time
at
emw.
That
is
not
connected
with
a
resident
paid
for
by
uofl.
If
it
is,
then
there
is
clear
misstatements
here,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
there
were
mistakes
in
2018.
I
was
told
by
the
president's
office
there
was,
and
she
doubled
down
on
them
yesterday.
F
I
not
only
I'm
trying
to
do
this
right
for
the
taxpayers
of
kentucky.
My
integrity
is
in
question
because,
when
my
colleagues
have
come
to
me
in
the
last
two
years
and
said
uofl's
done
this,
I
have
parroted
what
you've
just
said.
That
is
now,
in
my
mind,
wrong,
and
so
my
integrity
is
in
question.
I've
called
out
organizations
who
said
uofl's
done
this
and
I
said
no,
no,
don't
you
say
that
about
my
university
uofl
does
not
do
this.
F
It
seems
to
me
that
I
have
been
wrong
and
so
we're
going
to
get
the
facts
out
straight,
but
to
be
clear
again,
this
is
not
about
contrary
to
what
my
friend
senator
berg
said.
This
is
not
about
undermining
the
training
program
or
questioning
whether
having
abortion
services
in
that
context
are
required.
I
accept
that
they
are.
I
don't
quibble
with
that.
F
What
I'm
saying
is
outside
of
that.
If
the
university
funds
are
used
for
abortion
12
to
1400
a
year,
one
employee,
maybe
the
other
one-
is
well
doing
it.
Two
to
three
days
a
week
at
the
mw
clinic,
that's
something
that
the
taxpayers
ought
to
know
and
the
legislature
should
take
that
into
account
when
we're
talking
about
funding
the
university
and
doing
other
things,
that's
what
I'm
saying
it's
very
different
than
what
senator
berg
represented.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
dean.
A
I
appreciate
your
time
we
might
submit
in
in
writing
questions
to
you
and
and
shannon
there
for
the
university
provide
I'd
like
to
see
if
you
could
provide
those
contractual
agreements
that
you
have
with
emw,
especially
if,
if
not
in
those
contracts,
then,
if,
if
there
are
separate
agreements
that
handle
the
financing
aspect
of
that,
I
agree
with
everything
that
that
representative
nemas
has
just
said,
because
what
we've
heard
today
is
not
consistent
with
what
we
heard
under
sworn
testimony
yesterday
in
court
and
that's
a
problem.
A
H
I
understood
and
I've
not
seen
the
details
of
the
testimony
yesterday
and
I
will
review
that.
But
based
on
what
you're
saying
this
statement
is
inconsistent
with
my
understanding.
Yes,.
A
Ma'am
again,
I
think
it's
in
your
best
interest,
it's
in
our
best
interest
and
certainly
in
the
best
interest
of
taxpayers
that
I
agree
with
representative
nemas,
the
majority
of
whom
probably
don't
want
their
tax
dollars,
going
to
that
to
clear
this
up,
to
understand
exactly
where
the
dollars
are
going
and
who's
getting.
What
and
what
the
relationships
are.
Another
question
was
raised.
A
member
here
shared
a
text
whether
or
not
university
of
louisville's
workers.
Comp
extends
two
activities
at
emw.
The
liability
coverage
question
is
an
open
question
that
you
believe
it
was
emw.
A
Let's
see
what
those
coverage
policies
say
and
if
there
are
limitations
or
restrictions
on
that,
I
I
think
we
need
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
that,
because
it's
been
kicked
around
in
different
ways
and
we
don't
have
a
consistent
answer
from
either
employees
or
administrators
at
the
university,
and
that
needs
to
be
corrected.
So
I
appreciate
it
certainly
thank
you
so
much
for
giving
us
your
time,
especially
when
you're
out
of
state,
I
appreciate
it
and
we'll
let
you
go
have
a
great
day
and
enjoy
the
cornhusker
state.
A
A
A
G
We
are,
we
are
more
great,
more
green,
okay.
Here
we
go
sorry
about
that
all
righty.
Thank
you
very
much
chairman
westerfield,
chairman
massey
and
members
of
the
joint
committee
for
inviting
us
to
testify
before
you
today.
My
name
is
carrie
cole
and
I'm
the
operations
manager
for
the
bail
project
louisville
site.
I
grew
up
in
louisville
and
work
here.
This
is
my
home.
I'm
joined
by
shamika
parish,
wright
our
partnerships
and
advocacy
manager.
G
The
state
of
kentucky
has
been
at
the
forefront
of
critical
reform
to
improve
the
pre-trial
system
when
the
general
assembly
outlawed
the
operation
of
the
for-profit
bail
bonds
industry
in
1976,
kentucky
stood
out
across
the
nation
as
one
of
the
few
states
willing
to
eliminate
a
predatory
industry
that
profited
from
the
poverty
and
desperation
of
kentuckians,
who
can't
afford
bail
recognizing
that
no
one
should
be
earning
money
from
an
individual's
justice
system.
Involvement
kentucky
took
crucial
steps
towards
reforming
the
pre-trial
system
and
minimizing
the
harms
and
inequality
imposed
by
a
cash
bill
system.
G
While
it
may
seem
that
the
services
provided
by
an
organization
like
the
bail
project
are
similar
to
a
bail
bondsman,
we
couldn't
be
more
different.
Our
interventions
differ
significantly,
both
in
our
service
model
and
on
our
reasoning
for
operating
the
bill.
Project
is
a
non-profit
organization
and
our
services
are
100
free
through
our
national
revolving
bail
fund,
which
is
powered
by
individual
donations.
We
pay
bail
for
low-income
individuals
who
are
legally
presumed
innocent
and
whom
a
judge
has
deemed
eligible
for
release
from
jail
contingent
upon
paying
bail
after
release.
G
We
connect
our
clients
to
voluntary
social
services
and
community
resources
as
needed,
and
by
doing
this
we
enable
our
clients
to
return
home
to
their
families
and
their
communities,
while
awaiting
their
court
dates
as
our
clients
resolve
their
cases.
Bail
is
repaid
and
recycled,
so
we're
able
to
help
additional
people
while
the
bail
project
operates
nationally.
G
The
louisville
team
has
provided
court
notifications
and
other
supports
for
over
14
000
court
appearances,
helping
people
get
their
day
in
court.
Freedom
makes
all
the
difference
of
those
whose
cases
have
closed.
Only
10
percent
have
had
to
spend
additional
time
in
jail
as
part
of
their
sentence
through
our
work.
Our
staff
has
gone
into
jails
across
the
state
and
country
and
met
with
thousands
of
people
trapped
by
bail
by
our
estimates.
Our
work
in
kentucky
prevents,
on
average
51
days
of
jail
time
per
person
across
our
nearly
4
000
clients.
G
In
kentucky
this
amounts
to
over
200
000
additional
additional
jail
days
served
by
preventing
the
unnecessary
incarceration
that
results
from
wealth-based
detention.
We
estimate
that
the
bail
project
services
have
saved
kentucky's
taxpayers,
approximately
15.3
million
dollars
since
2018,
by
reducing
the
cost
of
jail
administration
across
the
state.
G
Like
charities
and
faith-based
groups,
we
provide
our
services
free
of
charge
to
help
poor
kentuckians,
who
would
otherwise
remain
incarcerated
simply
because
they
cannot
afford
the
bail
that
the
judge
has
set
as
contingent
for
their
release.
We
intervene
when
individuals,
their
families
and
their
communities
do
not
have
the
necessary
financial
resources
available
to
provide
for
their
loved
ones
released
from
jail.
Our
services,
unlike
the
for-profit
industry,
does
not
profit
off
of
individuals
in
any
way.
G
Additionally,
through
our
model,
we
partner
with
local
social
service
providers
to
offer
voluntary
referrals
to
critical,
post-release
supportive
services
that
are
not
otherwise
available
to
people
when
they
are
released
on
their
own
recognizance
or
when
a
family
member
posts
their
bail.
These
critical
services,
which
are
coordinated
and
facili,
facilitated
by
bail
project
staff,
meet
many
of
the
unmet
needs
that
affect
people
throughout
our
state.
G
G
When
people
are
housing
insecure,
we
work
to
identify
temporary
or
supportive
housing
for
them
where
those
organizations
exist
in
the
community
and
when
people
need
help
finding
a
job
we
provide
them
with
access
to
community-based
services
that
offer
employment
and
education
services
where
possible.
This
holistic
service
model.
This
holistic
service
model
was
something
never
provided
by
the
for-profit
bail
bondsmen.
G
Furthermore,
our
community,
released
with
support
model
is
something
that,
if
provided
by
the
court
or
the
state
itself,
is
generally
small
in
scope
and
less
tailored
the
bail
project
is
one
of
the
few
charitable
organizations
that
exists
here
in
kentucky
to
provide
voluntary
referrals
and
wrap
around
services
to
people
who
are
released
pre-trial
without
our
services.
When
people
are
released
from
jail,
they
are
rarely
able
to
navigate
their
way
to
the
to
social
service
providers.
G
Our
experience
demonstrates
that
simple
measures
like
text
and
phone
call
reminders
about
court
transportation,
assistance
to
and
from
court
and
providing
problem
solving
around
child
care,
for
example,
substantially
improve
appearance
rates.
Sometimes
all
that
is
needed
is
a
conversation
to
talk
through
a
plan
to
get
to
court.
All
of
this
increases
the
likelihood
that
they
will
successfully
navigate
the
pre-trial
period
of
their
case
without
incident
and,
more
importantly,
that
they
will
finally
be
able
to
receive
care
and
support
to
address
some
of
their
lingering
and
persistent
difficulties.
G
All
of
our
services
mean
that
individuals
who
would
otherwise
remain
incarcerated
simply
because
they
cannot
afford
bail,
are
able
to
leave
the
jail
return
to
their
families,
their
children,
their
jobs
and
their
communities.
Taken
together,
we
are
starting
to
see
that
this
decreases
their
likelihood
of
becoming
justice
evolved
again
in
the
future
community
members.
G
G
Again,
we
offer
these
services
charitably
and
completely
free
of
charge,
unlike
bail
bond
companies
who
work
with
anyone
who
can
afford
the
10
premium
to
access
their
services.
We
evaluate
each
referral
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
make
our
decisions
based
on
an
assessment
of
need
and
our
own
ability
to
provide
support
for
our
clients
upon
release.
G
Our
screening
criteria
is
rigorous,
which
makes
us
different
from
the
from
from
for-profit
bail
bonds.
Companies
excuse
me,
or
even
just
a
friend
or
a
family
member
who
wants
to
carry
out
their
legally
permissible
right
to
pay
bail
for
someone.
We
look
at
the
larger
context
of
a
person's
criminal
justice
involvement.
We
administer
an
intake
questionnaire
to
identify
unmet
needs.
We
refer
people
to
services
and
when
necessary,
we
elevate
cases
to
a
higher
level
of
managerial
scrutiny
and
oversight.
G
I
know
I've
been
speaking
in
general
and
wonky
terms
about
our
work,
but
really
at
the
heart
of
the
bail
project
is
our
commitment
to
our
clients,
the
thousands
of
people
who
we've
had
the
honor
of
meeting
and
serving
as
we've
expanded
the
bail
project
across
the
country,
one
of
our
clients
from
louisville
alicia,
who
received
our
bail
assistance,
said
since
my
release.
I
have
started
my
own
construction
company.
G
I've
attended
every
court
date
with
the
help
of
court
reminders
and
transportation
from
the
bail
project,
and
I
am
thankful
for
the
work
that
they
do
personally
as
a
social
worker
by
training.
I
deeply
understand
the
social
challenges
that
your
constituents
face.
Firsthand
I've
worked
with
people
struggling
with
substance,
use
disorders
and
mental
health
illnesses
who
can't
seem
to
find
their
way
to
effective
treatment.
I've
worked
with
single
mothers
and
single
fathers
and
families
throughout
the
state
that
have
struggled
to
find
employment
to
keep
food
on
the
table
and
keep
the
lights
on.
G
I've
worked
with
people
who
have
lost
their
homes
and
couldn't
afford
rent
and
lived
on
the
street.
The
problems
we
face
in
kentucky
we
face
together.
That's
why
I
joined
the
bail
project
and
that's
why
I'm
here
today
the
bail
project's
work
as
a
charitable
bail
organization
provides
an
essential
service,
not
that
dissimilar
from
a
food
pantry
and
kentuckians
cannot
afford
to
lose
access
to
our
services.
While
the
bail
system
exists
in
its
current
form,
we
have
a
crisis
of
mass
incarceration
in
the
state
and
in
the
country.
G
I
Thank
you
carrie.
Thank
you
all
very
much
chairman
westerfield,
chairman
massey
and
members
of
the
joint
committee
for
inviting
me
to
testify
before
the
joint
committee
of
the
kentucky
general
assembly.
My
name
is
shamika
parish,
wright
and
I
am
the
partnerships
and
advocacy
manager
for
the
bail
project.
I
have
lived
and
worked
in
kentucky
for
more
than
20
years.
I
am
a
constituent
I
am
a
louisville
resident.
This
is
my
home.
I
The
issue
of
bail
is
close
to
my
heart
because
I
have
suffered
from
it
personally
when
I
was
18
years
old,
I
was
getting
ready
to
start
college
and
I
got
engaged.
That's
young
love
for
you.
One
night
after
we
had
hosted
a
birthday
party
for
my
brother,
my
den
fiance
became
very
aggressive.
I
was
cleaning
up
while
speaking
with
the
lady
who
lived
in
the
neighborhood.
She
had
brought
some
cleaning
supplies
to
help
me
and
I
offered
her
a
drink
and
thank
her.
He
did
not
like
this.
I
I
I
tried
to
defend
myself
any
way
I
could
grabbing
onto
objects,
as
he
threw
me
around,
and
I
was
yelling
for
help
during
the
commotion,
a
neighbor
called
the
police
and
they
arrived
shortly
after
when
the
police
came,
I
told
them
everything
that
had
happened.
I
even
wrote
it
all
down.
I
had
never
been
arrested
and
I
did
not
realize
that
I
was
signing
my
own
warrant.
I
I
Even
when
he
came
to
court
to
defend
me
and
explain
that
he
had
started
the
altercation.
The
judge
did
not
care
and
set
my
bail
at
ten
thousand
dollars.
I
didn't
have
the
money
and
neither
did
any
of
my
loved
ones.
I
was
charged
with
a
felony
and
was
told
that
I
was
facing
prison
if
I
went
to
trial
and
lost.
I
I
Do
I
plead
guilty
for
a
lesser
offense
and
go
home
to
my
daughter
and
start
college
on
time,
or
do
I
hold
on
to
my
innocent
innocence
and
sit
in
jail
until
I
can
have
a
trial
after
spending
38
days
in
jail?
I
pled
guilty
to
a
lesser
charge.
All
I
wanted
was
to
get
out
to
be
with
my
daughter
and
to
go
home.
I
knew
this
plea
would
give
me
a
criminal
record
and
that
would
follow
me
for
the
rest
of
my
life.
I
I
If
I
had
had
the
money
to
pay
my
bill,
if
there
was
a
charitable
bail
organization
like
the
bail
project
available
to
support
me,
I
could
have
gone
home
worked
with
a
lawyer
fought
my
case,
and
I
could
have
avoided
conviction
I
would
not
have
had.
I
would
not
have
had
a
criminal
record,
but
because
I
was
poor,
I
did
not
get
my
due
process.
I
The
presumption
of
innocence
only
existed
on
paper
cash
bail
rests
on
a
common
misconception
that
the
only
way
to
secure
an
individual's
return
to
jail
is
to
require
collateral
from
them.
When
cash
bail
is
used,
the
vast
majority
of
people
detained
pre-trial
remain
incarcerated
solely
because
they
lack
the
financial
means
to
pay
bail.
Most
kentuckians
cannot
afford
a
thousand
dollar
bail
or
an
emergency
or
a
thousand
dollar
emergency
expense,
let
alone
that
bail
is
on
an
average,
often
set
at
twice
the
amount
that
anyone
can
afford.
I
I
Half
of
the
american
adult
population
have
at
least
one
family
member
who
has
been
incarcerated,
and
here
in
kentucky
people
in
pre-trial
detention
now
make
up
more
than
half
of
the
state's
total
jail
population.
More
than
half
across
the
state.
A
substantial
number
of
kentuckians
people
like
me
remain
incarcerated
because
they
cannot
afford
the
bill
amount
that
is
set
against
them.
I
I
The
human
toll
of
cash
bail
is
catastrophic
levy,
most
almost
exclusively
on
the
poor
and
disproportionately
on
communities
of
color
people
who
are
jail.
Pretrial,
often
wait
months
and
sometimes
years
for
their
cases
to
resolve.
In
the
meantime,
they
can
lose
their
jobs,
their
homes,
their
children
and
critically,
and
critical
community
ties
inside
jail.
People
are
at
risk
for
sexual
violence,
the
deterioration
of
their
mental
and
physical
health
and
the
infliction
of
lasting
trauma.
I
The
average
cost
of
two
kentucky
localities
for
just
one
day
of
incarceration
is
at
least
77
per
person,
an
amount
that
climbs
far
upward.
If
the
person
requires
medical
or
mental
health
services
in
the
fiscal
year
of
2019
the
year
of
the
most
recent
available
data,
the
cost
of
kentucky's
counties
of
incarcerating
only
those
individuals
charged
with
felonies
was
approximately
141
million,
as
we
have
scaled.
Our
program
of
free
belt
assistance
in
the
28
counties
across
the
state
we
have
received
calls
had
many
meetings
from
community
stakeholders
requesting
that
we
expand
our
services
even
further.
I
I
So
if
you
regulate
us
who
will
provide
these
critical
care
coordination
services,
no
other
organization
is
doing
this
across
our
state,
especially
as
a
non-profit.
How
will
you
ensure
that
the
cash
bail
is
set
according
to
someone's
ability
to
pay
and
not
use
as
a
form
of
wealth-based
detention?
Where
do
you
stop?
Can
non-profits
not
pay
bail?
Can
a
church
not
pay
bail?
I
I
It
affects
people
across
our
state
and
we
are
grateful
to
representative
blanton
for
his
willingness
to
be
a
partner
with
us
to
address
and
tackle
the
challenges
faced
by
just
as
involved
people
across
the
state.
The
urgency
of
our
concerns
must
focus
on
the
elimination
of
cash
bill
and
to
reform
and
the
reform
of
the
pre-trial
system
altogether.
I
This
the
previous
legislation
does
not
deal
with
that.
Something
the
bell
project
is
experienced
in
is
developing
a
model
of
robust
pre-trial
services
and
supports
that
can
be
adopted
across
this
country.
The
bell
projects
intervention
is
designed
to
enhance
public
safety
of
the
communities
in
which
we
operate.
We
care
about
public
safety
and
we
do
not
want
to
undermine
it,
and
we
are
doing
that.
We
have
the
experience,
we
know
what
works
and
we
urge
you
to
work
with
us
instead
of
against
us
to
fix
the
problem.
I
A
G
Yeah
absolutely
so,
the
aoc
does
gather
this
data
and
we
always
are
able
to
request
data
from
them
and
during
the
general
assembly
or
during
the
legislative
session
last
session.
The
lrc
also
did
some
data
collection
and
looked
at
costs
and
finance.
I'd
be
glad
to
provide
that
data
to
you,
but.
A
G
Right
and
if
we
could
look
at
actual,
you
know
data.
If
the
state
was
able
to
collect
that
data.
We
would
love
to
provide
that
look
at
it
and
operate
in
that
clarity.
But
we
are
having
to
make
assumptions
because
there
is
a
gap
of
data
collection
within
the
state.
But,
like
I
said,
I'd
be
glad
to
give
you
the
data
that
we
did
pull
that
from
well.
A
I
But
you
are
correct,
but
the
problem
is
there
is
a
problem
accessing
the
data,
so
that
is
accurate
and
that's
why
we
are
here
today
so
that
we
can
work
together.
We
don't
want
to
be
doing
this
five
years
from
now.
We
want
to
work
ourselves
out
of
a
job,
and
we
cannot
do
that
without
meaningful
bail
reform.
What
has
been
proposed
does
not
deal
with
the
data
gaps
and
it
does
not
deal
with
these
other
inequities.
G
So
whenever
we
do
take
a
referral,
we
want
to
look
at
the
full
context,
so
we
want
to
look
at
bail
amount.
We
want
to
look
at
the
current
charge.
We
want
to
look
at
someone's
ability
to
appear
in
court,
their
passability
to
appear
in
court.
So
there's
multiple
factors
that
we
take
into
consideration
before
we
make
that
bailout
so
charge
is
only
one
piece
of
that
and
there's
not.
I
can't
give
you
a
blanket
statement
of
these
are
ones
that
we
won't.
These
are
ones
that
we.
A
G
I
Understanding
that
we
are
a
non-profit
charity
operating
with
limited
funds
of
people
who
donated
so
we
can
get
people
out,
we
most
cases
won't
come
across
our
desks
if
they're,
250,
000
above
or
all
that
we
don't
get
those
kind
of
referrals.
A
I
Referrals
people
go
to
our
website
and
you
know,
because
we've
been
doing
it
now
for
four
and
a
half
years,
more
people
know
about
our
work,
and
so
they
request.
We've
even
had
people
in
elected
positions
who
who
have
reached
out
to
us
we've
even
been
referred:
police
officers,
corrections
officers,
the
children
of
judges
and
lawyers.
I
G
And
I'm
happy
to
answer
that
we
we
have
a
soft
cap
internally
that
we
do
operate
out
of,
but
that
is
dependent
upon
location
need,
and
things
like
that,
like
I
said,
bail
amount
is
one
factor
that
we
do
take
into
consider
in
consideration.
But
I
can't
give
you
a
black
and
white
number
because
we
look
at
everything
at
a
case-by-case
basis,
but.
A
G
A
Appreciate
that
please
do
that,
because
I
I
mean
the
the
bill
that
representative
blanton's
filed
and
that
others
have
worked
on
that
considered
that
have
been
considered
by
both
chambers
that
were
debated
even
in
the
senate.
The
bill,
as
you
all
know,
didn't
come
forward
because
there's
a
there's
some
question
about
where
a
threshold
should
be,
if
you
were
to
set
a
threshold
a
cap,
so
to
speak,
so
the
dress
thresher.
I
I
If
you
have
enough
money,
it
doesn't
matter
what
the
bell
amount
is
you
can
get
out,
but
for
us,
as
a
non-profit
like
I
said,
we
are
responsible
stewards
of
people
who
donate
to
our
organization
to
help
as
many
people
as
work
as
we
can.
I
that's
why
we
wanted
to
be
here,
because
what
is
being
proposed
will
not
stop
that
state
rep
right.
It
will
stop
the
people
who
are
who
are
really
struggling,
who
don't
have
a
grandmother
or
a
grandfather
or
the
education
or
anything
that
would
help
them
get
out
of
jail.
A
You
mentioned
and
you're
right
that
that
if
there
were
prohibitions
in
place
that
would
stop
a
church
group
or
name
some
other
organization.
Whether
or
not
it's
organized
like
the
bell
project
or
not,
are
you
familiar
with
any
that
you?
Could
I'm
not
going
to
ask
you
to
name
it,
but
are
you
aware
of
any
such
organization
in
kentucky
that
isn't
the
bail
project,
but
does
what
you
do?
Churches.
I
A
A
I
A
Right,
that's
right.
I
appreciate
your
your
candor
and
your
response
there.
I
think,
that's,
I
think,
that's
accurate
one
of
my
concerns.
I
don't
disagree
with
the
concern
about
money
bail.
I
don't
disagree
with
the
fact
that
I
think
there's
a
constitutional
issue
there
that
if
you're
poor
any
amount
of
bail
could
could
effectively
mean
you
don't
get
it
you're
not
out.
A
There's
no,
no
means
of
release
short
of
some
sort
of
help
like
this,
but
I
wonder
if
you
share
the
concern
that
as
these
groups
proliferate
and
10
years
ago,
you
didn't
exist
these
groups
weren't
around.
I
wasn't
aware
of
any
that
that
did
this
sort
of
thing,
maybe
there
were
somewhere,
we
weren't
talking
about
it
and
there
are
more
today
than
there
were
a
year
ago
or
two
years
ago.
A
A
I
That's
why
we're
here
it
is
hurting
people
who
don't
get
the
benefit.
The
example
I
gave
about
the
state
representative
that
none
of
this
deals
with
that
none
of
this
deals
with
the
fact
that
somebody
with
money
can
go
out
and
do
anything
they
want
and
more
than
likely
get
out.
But,
as
you
talk
about
as
it
relates
to
money
and
judges,
I
judges
do
have
judicial
discretion.
I
They
have
under
six
other
options
they
can
impose
as
release
conditions
they
if
and
our
system
has
in
place-
that,
if
there's
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
someone
poses
a
threat,
the
judge
has
that
judicial
discretion
to
do
what
they
need
to
do.
The
issue
is
that
more
most
people
that
we
bail
out
over
94
percent
of
people
we
bail
out,
do
not
go
into
prison
more.
They
come
back
to
court,
so
we
we
should
not
legislate
based
off
a
few
one-offs.
Yes,
those
are
tragic.
I.
A
I
A
I
We
will
do
what
we
can
to
do
our
part
and
be
responsible,
but
a
judge
has
the
most
all-seeing
view
of
anybody's
criminal,
legal
history.
We
don't
as
a
non-profit
and
like
I
said,
if
you
were
my
brother
and
I'm
your
sister,
I'm
gonna
bail.
You
out,
I
don't
know
all
your
history,
not
necessarily-
and
I
don't
have
that
at
that
moment-
that
I
pay
your
bail,
but
a
judge
does
so
we
come
in
after
a
judge
has
made
that
decision.
I
C
D
I
Sir,
if
if
someone
wants
to
restrict
their
money
for
kentucky,
they
can,
but
I
don't
we-
I
haven't
never
seen
in
the
four
and
a
half
years
that
somebody
from
texas
says
I
want
to
do
this
just
for
kentucky
most
of
the
people
who
support
our
work
live
within
the
state
or
they
donate
to
a
pot
of
money
that
goes
to
all
of
our
jurisdictions.
We
started
out
as
the
third
state
and
now
we're
in
over
29
different
jurisdictions.
I
So
it's
I'm
I'm
I'm
saying
that
I
said
march
of
dimes
because
I
donate
to
them,
but
they,
but
it's
the
same,
I
can
choose
to
restrict
who
it
goes
to,
or
I
can
you
know,
but
we
don't
use
any
state
or
federal
monies
that
are
that
would
come
from.
You
know,
make
this
confusing
we're
a
non-profit
organization
that
accepts
donations
that
are
that
are
used
to
bail
people
out.
A
I
A
Thank
you,
I'm
not
making
a
value
judgment
today
on
whether
or
not
that's
good
or
bad.
I
think
there
are
members
of
this
committee
that
would
feel
both
ways.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
because
I
didn't
know
you
mentioned
the
success
rate.
I've
got
a
couple
other
questions.
I
want
to
let
some
other
members
go
representative
banna.
H
H
I
Unfortunately,
we
have
seen
people
come
back
through
the
system
for
a
myriad
of
reasons
if
they
have
old,
outstanding,
outstanding
warrants
and
cases,
which
is
why
we
work
with
our
community
partners.
Aclu
all
these
other
groups
who
are
working
to
prevent
that,
because
people
are
going
right
back
to
the
communities
that
got
them
there.
I
Majority
people
don't,
but
some
people
are
caught
in
poverty
due
to
substance,
use
issues
due
to
mental
health
issues
through
the
many
gaps
and
services
that
our
all
of
our
communities
see
and
if
we
have
had
a
successful
experience
with
them,
meaning
their
old
case
they've
come
back
and
they've
did
everything
they
did.
They
honored
the
release
conditions
it
they
are
put
in
queue
to
be
helped.
We
have
had
people
that
we
denied
services
to.
We
talked
about
we've
paid
nearly
4
000
bills.
Well,
we've
actually
made
that
decision
and
over
12
000.
I
three
times
the
amount
that
we
paid
out,
that
we
could
not
say
yes
to
so
there
is
a
decision-making
process,
but
if
a
person
you
know
is,
has
a
traffic
ticket
one
time
or
is
dealing
with
another
issue?
We
go
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
meet
them
where
they
at
we
interview
them
to
see
what
those
issues
are.
I
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
you
all
have
touched
a
little
bit
where
I'm
from
where
I've
the
questions
I
would
lead
to.
But
you
know
I
when
I
saw
you
while
we're
on
the
agenda.
I
did
do
a
little
bit
of
research
and
you
know
I.
D
I
have
some
concern
that
you
all
really
aren't
looking
into
some
of
the
people
that
you
all
are
bailing
out
and
you
know
you
talk
about
success,
but
the
success
that
I've
seen
is
that
now
louisville
is
in
the
top
10
for
homicides
increases
in
the
united
states
of
america.
I
mean
you
know.
I
was
born
there
when
my
dad
was
in
medical
school,
and
you
know
I
have
a
lot
of
affection
towards
louisville
and
yet
what
I've
seen
over
the
last
three
years
there
has
been
been
nothing
short
of
horrific.
D
You
know
I
saw
your
sister
organization
looks
like
across
the
river
in
indiana
and
bailed
out
two
defendants,
a
a
travis
lang
that
was
in
jail
for
stabbing
a
co-worker
and
yet
they
the
bell
project.
You
know
paid
his
bond
and
then
he
goes
out
and
says
he
killed
his
girlfriend
by
stabbing
her
51
times
and
dismember.
D
You
know,
I
think
that
you
know
and
yeah.
Maybe
the
court
should
have
set
a
bond
higher
fifteen
hundred
dollars,
but
you
know
when
you
have
prosecutors
and
judges
in
these
large
metropolitan
areas
being
funded
by
george
soros
and
other
folks
that
have
a
a
goal
of
putting
people
back
out
on
the
streets.
I
mean
this
is
this:
is
a
concern
for
the
safety
of
these
communities
and
and
to
me
you
all
are
exacerbating
an
issue
that
we're
seeing
in
some
of
these
large
cities.
D
G
To
answer
part
of
that,
it's
it's
the
same
as
what
I
said
previously.
We
do
look
at
the
full
scope,
so
we're
looking
at
that
person's
context
within
the
criminal
legal
system,
we're
looking
at
their
bail
amount,
their
current
and
previous
history
we're
looking
at
how
they've
been
able
to
come
to
court.
G
We're
also
speaking
to
them
sitting
face
to
face
like
this,
with
someone
in
jail
and
seeing
what
supportive
services
they
need
and
if
we
can't
meet
that
we're
not
going
to
bail
them
out,
because
we
do
also
care
about
public
safety,
and
that
includes
the
person
that
we're
sitting
across
the
table
from
because
they
are
a
member
of
the
public,
and
so
we
make
these
decisions
holistically.
But
we
want
to
meet
these
folks
where
they're
at
and
when
we
make
those
decisions
we
make
them
with
integrity.
We
confirm
that
they
have
safe
places
to
go.
G
We
confirm
that
there
are
people
that
can
remind
them
for
court
and
that
we
can
reach
them
out.
We
do
a
whole
myriad
of
things,
we're
not
just
swiping
a
card
and
not
looking
at
anything
and
getting
someone
out.
We
do
have
a
process,
and
that
was
a
point
of
us
coming
today
was
to
explain
that
we
do,
and
I
feel
like
we've
done,
that
I'm
happy
to
reiterate
some
of
that
but
shamika.
If
you
want
to
add
to
that
as.
I
We
have
a
problem
all
over
our
country
with
poverty,
with
gaps
and
services
with
we
all
are
surviving
failed
policies,
some
of
us
at
different
levels,
but
we
all
are
surviving
those,
and
so
one
non-profit
that
is
trying
to
do
work
and
meet
people
where
they
are
in
the
middle
of
a
system
where
they're
supposed
to
be
innocent
until
proven
guilty.
At
that
very
moment,
we
are
doing
everything
we
can
we're,
always
readjusting
our
processes
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
community.
I
We
keep
the
community
first,
we
keep
the
people
first,
but,
as
I've
said
before,
we
don't
have
the
all-seeing
eye,
as
a
judge
do
so.
If
that
person
got
out,
if
any
of
us
left
out
and
did
something
a
judge
said
our
bill,
they
get
out.
Are
we
going
back
to
those
judges?
Are
we
going
back
to
their
defense
attorneys?
Are
we
going
back
to
the
jail
that
processes
the
release?
I
Unfortunately,
there's
there's
elements
of
this
that
no
special
non-profit
can
do
anything
about,
and-
and
that
is
something
we
want
to
be
clear
about-
I
do
care
about
the
violence.
I've
lived
through
that
violence
and
I
would
not
have
taken
this
job.
I
wouldn't
be
in
front
of
your
face
if
community
support
with
releases
did
not
work.
I
That
is
how
we
operate,
but,
yes,
people
are
going
back
to
the
very
same
communities
and
neighborhoods
that
they
were
in
before
they
were
incarcerated,
but
we
have
a
system
that's
in
place
that
has
all
kinds
of
avenues
to
deal
with
that,
sir,
we're
not
the
judge,
jury
and
executioner,
we're
meeting
people
who
are
often
poor
and
stuck
pre-trial
and
have
not
been
convicted
and
we're
meeting
them
at
that
level.
So
no
have
we
have
to
operate
as
such,
and
most
of
you
are
lawyers,
and
you
understand
that.
D
I
guess
I
would
just
say
the
the
communities
that
you're
trying
to
help.
They
are
also
at
most
risk
when
these
people
are
let
back
out,
especially
ones
that
have
violent
history,
they're,
typically
going
back
out
into
those
communities.
These
communities
touched
by
poverty
and
they're,
the
ones
that
are
suffering
the
most.
Is
that
not
correct.
I
Do
you
want
me
to
go?
I'm
I'm
I'm
I'm
passionate
about
this,
because
I
live
in
the
communities
that
we're
talking
about
and
most
time
most
times
when
people
are
incarcerated.
Those
communities
are
impacted
by
that
person.
That's
incarcerated,
that
person
might
take
his
grandparents
to
go,
get
medications
or
walk
the
children
to
school.
So
I
see
it
from
a
different
lens
on
the
communities
being
impacted
by
people
who
are
incarcerated.
I
I
also
know
that
we
have
to
work
with
the
police.
We
have
to
work
with
corrections
and
everyone
else.
That
is
a
part
of
the
system
when
somebody
messes
up,
but
ultimately
a
person
is
responsible
for
what
they
do
in
the
community.
Just
like.
We
are
all
responsible
for
being
here
today.
If
somebody
does
something
they
are
to
be
held
responsible
and
we
don't
get
in
the
way
of
that
if
they
are
convicted.
I
That
is
one
thing,
but
if
they
are
held
ours,
our
law
says
that
there
we
need
to
address
them
as
innocent
until
proven
guilty
bail
was
never
meant
to
be
a
punitive
thing
to
hold
people.
It
was
set
up
to
be
a
condition
of
release.
So
once
a
bill
is
set,
someone
higher
than
us
has
already
made
the
decision
that
that
person,
if
they
meet
these
release
conditions,
can
go
out.
We're
not
the
person
making.
That
decision.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
these
are
more
detailed
questions
and
policy
questions.
I'm
really
not
going
to
get
into
whether
cash
bail,
cashless
bail
is
better
or
worse,
but
on
what
your
organization
does
so
you
filter
and
go
identify.
Yes,
we're
going
to
assist
this
individual
who's
been
charged
and
and
supply
bail.
K
K
G
All
right:
well,
I
will
you
know
a
judge
can
set
going
to
treatment
as
a
condition
of
release.
Something
like
that,
and
you
know.
Even
in
those
cases,
it
doesn't
guarantee
that
that
person
is
going
to
go
there.
It
goes
back
to
responsibility
if
someone
elects
that
they
are
ready
to
receive
treatment
or
would
like
to
receive
treatment,
employment
assistance.
Anything
like
that.
G
We
are
going
to
do
our
due
diligence
to
reach
out
to
them
to
provide
those
referrals
in
the
community
and
do
as
much
as
we
can
to
connect
them
to
the
many
many
resources.
I'm
thankful
that
we
have
in
jefferson
county
and
then
also
in
the
28
other
communities
that
we
have
operated
in,
so
where
it's
not
a
written
contractual
agreement,
because
we
you
know,
are
not
social
workers
for
life.
I
No,
it
presents
another
issue,
so
we
want
the
we
will
operate
a
revolving
bell
fund,
so
the
money
that
we
post
for
client
comes
back
in
our
names
so
that
we
can
put
it
in
the
account
and
it
can
be
used
to
get
someone
else
out.
So
one
bill
can
get
up
to
three
people
out
as
it
goes
through
our
revolving
bell
fund,
but
if
we
post
it
in
their
name,
if
the
judge
has
imposed
other
release
conditions
or
other
issues
that
can
complicate
the
money
coming
back
to
the
revolving
bill
fund,.
K
Yeah,
and
so
if
I
understood
your
testimony
earlier
about,
10
percent
fail
in
some
sense,
but
90
succeed
with
the
bail
posting
they
reappear.
Do
what
they're
supposed
to
do?
Don't
have
a
new
charge,
don't
get
revoked
bail
revoked.
Nothing
like
that
about
10
percent
failed,
but
90
percent
succeed.
Is
that
what
I
heard
yeah.
G
I
K
I
Yeah
more
than
90
of
the
time
it
usually
happens,
and
then
what
we've
learned
even
from
commonwealth
attorney
tom
wine,
is
that
our
return
rate
is
better
than
the
administrative
release
rate.
So.
A
I
K
K
I've
looked
at
that
data
from
aoc
and
from
everybody
else,
and
done
criminal
work
for
in
the
federal
estates
for
close
to
24
years
now
on
both
sides
of
the
both
sides
of
the
fence,
so
yeah
and
the
numbers
are
skewed
and
skewy,
depending
on
who
you
ask
for,
but
what
I'm
getting
at
is
this?
I'm
not
sure
what
the
issue
is.
K
K
K
When
you
don't
have
any
part
of
the
reason
people
put
cash
bailout
is
to
have
accountability,
there's
something
they
might
lose
if
they
don't
do
what
they're
supposed
to
do
so
with
a
501
c
3
or
a
church
or
anybody
else
that
just
posts
it
in
their
name.
Then,
if
that
defendant,
does
something
wrong
and
violates
that
bond
condition,
then
it
can
be
taken
as
a
punishment
to
make
sure
everybody
else
follows
the
rules
and
that
person
does
when
the
next
bond
is
set.
K
So
just
post
it
in
the
name
of
the
defendant,
and
you
don't
have
any
issue
at
all.
It
puts
a
little
more
burden
on
your
filtering
process
to
make
sure
who
you're
posting
money
on
actually
will
do
what
they're
supposed
to,
but
it
actually
helped
with
all
of
us
in
the
public
policy
sphere.
It
helps
the
judges,
because
they've
already
set
the
bond
amount,
they've
used
their
best
discretion
and
done
that
they
really
don't.
K
I
can't
recall
a
time
in
my
time
in
my
experience,
but
when
they
say
a
church
can't
post
that
so
and
so
can't
post
it
post
the
bail.
Here's
the
dollar
figure.
Y'all
can
do
that
already.
We
don't
even
have
to
get
into
a
cash's
bill
and
a
bail
discussion
or
anything
else
post
it
in
the
defendant's
name.
There's
great
accountability
for
that.
If
you
offer
services
to
them,
you'll
get
your
money
back
if
they
do
what
they're
supposed
to
you,
get
your
money
back
and
we're
all
better
off
for
it.
C
I
do
not
come
from
from
the
world
of
the
justice
system,
and
when
I
was
elected
and
came
up
here,
I
thought
wow.
Our
health
care
system
needs
a
lot
of
work.
It
has
been
a
major
enlightenment
for
me
to
find
out
that.
Actually,
I
think
our
judicial
system
is
in
worse.
Straits
has
actually
suffered
more
through
covet
and
when
we're
talking
about
average
pre-trial
incarcerations
you're
talking
about
people
that
you're
keeping
in
prison,
they
have
not
yet
had
a
day
in
court.
They
have
not
yet
been
found
guilty.
C
I
was
really
unaware
of
this.
It
is
a
huge
problem.
I
agree
with
you
that,
ideally
we
would
work
you
out
of
a
job
that
the
answer
is
to
figure
out.
How
do
we
reform?
How
do
we
manage
our
bail
system
in
such
a
way
that
it
is
not
entirely
dependent
on
your
income,
which
is
grossly
grossly
unfair?
So
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
your
work.
C
C
D
C
A
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
couple
quick
questions:
do
you
all
have
a
policy
where
you
contact
or
consider
the
victim
in
any
of
these
crimes
before
you
post,
bail,.
G
A
G
I
don't
know
if
I've
ever
been
in
that
situation.
We
work
with
our
public
defenders.
You
know
to
provide
court
reminders
and
court
support
for
our
clients,
but
I've
never
personally
had
a
member
of
law
enforcement
come
knocking
on
my
door
for
one
of
my
clients.
D
D
G
D
D
G
We
have
an
intake
and
needs
assessment
for
for
that
process
when
we
interview
them,
so
we
want
to
gather
contact
information
living
situations
as
well
as
supportive
contacts
mom
friend
girlfriend,
and
that's
also,
where
we
assess
further
any
of
their
identified
needs
to
connect
them
with
voluntary
resources.
When.
G
D
I
How
much
do
you
raise?
Well,
I
don't
have
those
numbers.
It's
ongoing,
like
I
said
anybody
that
donates
online.
It
goes
directly
to
paying
bills,
not
our
operation
costs.
Like
I
said,
we've
invested
we've.
We
pulled
from
a
pot
of
money
to
pay
the
bill.
So
today,
kerry
is
the
operation
manager.
The
team
says
we
need
14
000
to
pay
bills.
We
put
in
that
request
to
our
cfo
and
then
that
money
is
transferred
to
the
account
there's
no
amount
of
money
just
sitting
in
the
account
at
any
given
time.
I
It's
only
request
of
what
we
need
to
pay
those
bills
for
that
day,
any
money
that
is
refunded,
which
is
I
I
appreciate,
representative
petry,
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
people
come
back
back
and
that
the
money
comes
back
into
the
revolving
bail
fund.
When
we
get
those
money's
returned,
we
put
it
right
into
the
account
and
that
it
and
then
that
money
is
taken
out
of
that
account
and
put
back
into
the
pot
of
money.
F
I
No
sir,
that's
not
how
we
operate.
Those
high
profile
cases
come
up
because
there's
all
kinds
of
situations
that
happen
when
you're
dealing
with
people
who
are
struggling
with
poverty.
Those
things
happen
most
of
our
clients,
don't
become
high
profile
cases
every
now
and
again
that
happens,
but
no,
we
don't.
We
don't
exploit
that.
We
don't
exploit
our
clients.
I
We
have
had
clients
that
come
that
have
come
here
with
us
to
testify
about
our
services
and
how
we've
been
able
to
help
them,
but
that
is
on
when
they
identify
that's
what
they
want
to
do
and
to
also
let
you
all
know
that
many
clients
are
appreciative
of
our
work
and
they
consider
coming
back
to
court,
making
sure
that
the
system
works
is
a
way
of
paying
it
forward.
When
I
interview
clients
at
the
jail,
I
can't
tell
you
how
motivated
they
are
when
I
tell
them.
I
I
E
I
A
We've
got
one
last
that
we
can
get
to,
because
I
want
to
have
representative
blanton
be
able
to
to
respond
here
and
speak
senator
neal.
You
get
the
last
question
here
before
representative
blanton
and
while
you're
gearing
up
and
turning
your
mic
on,
does
the
kentucky
branch
of
the
bell
project
file
a
separate
990,
the
irs.
I
A
I
C
A
D
Actually,
I
had
several
long
questions,
mr
chairman,
but
I'm
not
going
to
go
down
that
road
and
it
may
have
been
answered,
but
it
did
pique
my
interest,
which
gets
to
the
crux
of
the
matter.
For
me
did:
did
you
say
that
the
pretrial
release
program's
track
record
of
those
returning
to
court
is
inferior
to
the
returns
of
this
program
in
terms
of
people
coming
back.
I
They're
one
of
our
stakeholders
and
community
partners-
I
wouldn't
call
it
inferior,
but
there
are
clear
there
are
clerical
mistakes
that
are
made.
There
are
issues
with
with
return,
but
the
the
main
point
is
when
I
have
commonwealth
attorney
tom
wine
before
presentation
we're
in
the
same
presentation.
He
gives
his
presentation
and
he
says
that
our
that
the
bail
project
has
a
bigger
return
rate.
I
He
did
help
bring
the
belt
project
to
kentucky,
but
he
noted
that
our
return
rate
was
better
than
the
administrative
release,
meaning
that
the
people
who
get
out,
like
you
said
through
the
court
process,
they
do
come
back
to
court.
Ours
come
back
to
court
more.
D
Okay,
I'm
not
going
to
make
a
do
another
question,
mr
chairman,
but
I
do
want
to
say
to
the
what
I've
heard
here
today
has
been
an
education
for
me,
I'm
very
impressed
by
you
the
way
you've
responded
to
the
questions.
Some
of
these
questions
that
I
wouldn't
answer.
If
I
was
on
the
other
side,
but
most
of
them,
I
would-
and
I
thought
they
were
revealing
for
them
to
ask
the
question
and
for
you
to
respond
to
what
you
have,
and
I
congratulate
you
on
that,
but
also
I
want
to
say
that.
C
D
D
If
we're
looking
at
what
is
happening
that
brings
about
an
overall
good,
then
you
know
we
don't
want
to
throw
out
the
baby
with
the
bad
water,
and
I
think
it's
very
important
for
us
to
understand
that
does
not
mean
that
there
can't
be
a
circumstance
that
we
can
get
our
fingers
around.
It
does
not
undermine
what
I
perceive
as
a
very
positive
piece.
D
We
have
a
system
and
all
systems
have
challenges,
no
matter
what
you
do,
and
even
when
you
try
to
resolve
those
challenges
with
your
best
intentions,
you're
going
to
have
challenges
that
you
have
to
address.
So
I've
picked
up
some
of
the
tone
here
in
some
of
these
questions
kind
of
disconcerting
to
me,
I
didn't
understand
that
I
congratulate
you
on
your
effort
and
hope
that
we
do
have
a
collaborative
relationship.
That's
developed.
I
pledge
myself
to
that.
I
trust
a
number
of
my
colleagues
would
also
do
that
and
keep
up
the
good
work.
L
I
will
try
to
be
as
brief
as
possible,
probably
not
a
good
day
for
me
to
be
on
this
subject
been
going
through
a
lot
the
last
week
and
going
through
a
lot
of
emotions
right
now,
so
I
will
try
to
keep
this
very
brief
work
during
the
session
with
you,
ladies
very
amicable
work,
I
would
say
I
felt
like
I
come
up
with
something
that
was
accomplished
a
little
bit
of
what
we
were
both
trying
to
do,
and
it's
really
not
ural's
organization
that
we've
been
given
the
problem
from
right.
L
We
talked
about
this
there's
other
entities,
you
know
we
we've
heard
very
compelling
stories
and-
and
I'm
with
you,
I
told
you
in
in
my
region
the
state-
it's
not
so
much
the
the
race
issue
but
more
of
the
poverty
issue
of
people
getting
out,
and
so
I
get
that
and
I
get
that
there
needs
to
be
help
for
those
folks,
but
we
also
have
to
find
a
balance
of
protection
for
the
general
population
and
so
in
in
in
doing
so,
I
came
up
with
what
I
thought
was
a
reasonable
cap.
L
If
you
want
to
call
it
so
that
you
always
still
do
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish,
because
we
know
the
the
higher
the
bond
generally,
the
more
severe
the
the
offense
and
so
was
looking
at
trying
to
do
something
there
and
you
are
falling
under
what.
L
Unfortunately,
probably
every
one
of
us
in
this
room
with
something
their
lives
fall
under
laws
are
passed,
rules
or
regulations
are
passed
that
we
abide
by
or
are
forced
to
abide
by,
because
somebody
else
acted
improperly
right
and
these
things
get
passed
and
it
impacts
us
and
sort
of
the
thing
here.
Because,
as
as
we
talk
about
sympathetic
things,
I
could
bring
at
least
three
families
in
here
today.
L
And
so
you
know,
I
I
sought
to
find
a
balance
where
you
could
accomplish
what
you
were
doing
and
that's
to
help
those
that
don't
have
the
financial
means
and
are
a
risk,
because
there's
two
reasons
to
that:
you
have
to
to
arrest
somebody,
that's
committed
crime,
you
put
them
in
and
the
bond
is
set,
and
that
is
one
to
assure
they
show
up
for
court
and
two
to
protect
the
community
right
and
that's
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
so,
but,
unfortunately
I
think
some
of
us
live
in
a
utopia.
L
One
thing
I
will
disagree
respectfully
with
you
on
is
when
you
made
the
comment
about
mass
incarceration
and
how
this
helps
with
it.
It
causes
or
or
is
a
correlation
of
mass
incarceration,
and
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
mass
incarceration
has
nothing
to
do
with
whether
you
all
could
bail
somebody
out
or
whether
you
can't
mass
incarceration
has
to
do
with
the
fact
people
are
committing
crimes
and
they're
getting
caught
committing
crimes.
L
That's
what
causes
mass
incarcerations,
and
I
know
that
there's
been
times
that
I've
taken
people
out
of
communities
and
people
in
that
community.
Thank
me
for
getting
that
individual
out
of
that
community,
because
they're
such
a
menace
they're
so
fearful.
They
live
in
a
state
of
fear
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
some
group
that
they
don't
even
know,
comes
and
pays
their
bail
and
they
go
right
back
into
that
group
into
that
community.
L
That
thought
they
were
getting
some
relief
for
a
little
bit,
so
they
can
maybe
sleep
at
night.
So
we
we
we've
tend
in
this
utopia
world
that
we've
created
and
by
the
way
that's
we're.
It's
not
new.
It's
just
new
to
coming
to
kentucky
we've
seen
it
across
this
nation
take
place
and
what
we're
seeing
from
it
now
is.
L
Okay,
they
commit
crimes,
they
victimize
people.
We
are
forgetting
about
the
victims,
we're
focusing
totally
on
the
criminals
and
we're
forgetting
about
those
people
that
are
hurting
they've
lost,
loved
ones,
they've
lost
property
they've,
you
know,
they've
become
addicted
because
of
it
and
we're
focusing
all
on
them.
So
I
I
tried
to
give
something
that
was
workable
for
everybody
and
apparently
that's
not
I
mean
I
could
have
easily.
L
You
know
if
they're
below
that
5
000
mark
chances
are
they're,
not
that
big
of
a
threat
to
society,
but
yet
they
can't
come
up
with
the
funds.
So,
okay,
let's
set
something
in
place,
so
you
guys
the
ones
I
feel
like
that
is
operating
in
in
in
sincerity
and
trying
to
do
the
right
thing,
so
you
could
still
be
active,
but
yet
those
groups
that
did-
and
I
know
who
I
know-
who
let
the
the
the
attempted
assassin
out
who
got
him
out.
L
I
know
the
group
that
done
that
that
wasn't
you
all,
but
nevertheless,
when
they
do
that
it
forces
us
as
policy
makers
to
set
things
in
place
to
prevent
those
things
from
happening.
So
with
that
being
said,
I've
told
mr
babbage.
I
continue
to
be
willing
to
to
work
on
this
to
come
to
something
that
helps
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish,
but
it
also
helps
protect
the
citizens
of
the
commonwealth.
L
At
the
same
time-
and
I
think
we
can
get
there
together-
I
I
try
to
be
more
like
you
know,
henry
clay,
I
try
to
be
the
great
compromiser
and
work
on
something
we
can
come
together
on
where
we
all
come
out
with
a
little
something
that
is
helpful
to
our
cause
and
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish.
L
But
I
just
warn
all
of
us
whether
you're
on
this
committee,
whether
you're
in
this
room
or
whether
you
are
watching
at
home
on
ket
kentucky,
let's
be
cautious,
let's
not
go
down
this
road
of
getting
under
the
guise
of
feel
good
things
of
making
us
feel
better
about
ourselves,
creating
a
society
where
we
create
more
crimes,
because
when
you
have
more
crimes,
you
have
more
victims,
we
have
more
people
losing
their
lives.
We
have
to
protect
the
citizens
of
this
commonwealth.
That's
part
of
our
responsibility
as
legislators.
To
do
so.
L
With
that,
I
don't
have
any
questions.
Mr
chairman,
I
thank
you
for
for
your
time
and
indulgence.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
ladies
for
being
here.
Thank.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I'd
like
to
thank
these
ladies
for
being
here,
and
I
would
like
to
state
that
I
look
forward
to
working
with
my
good
friend
over
there
trying
to
get
this
mine's
more
of
a
statement.
Since
we've
heard
all
this
stuff,
I
think
we
better
stop
and
talk
think
about
our
constitution
innocent
until
proven
guilty
in
the
42
years.
I've
practiced
I've
seen
just
what
these
ladies
have
talked
about
and
helped
many
person
had
a
guy.
That
was
when
you
plead
self-defense.
D
The
first
thing
is,
though,
the
bonds
are
never
90
of
the
time
are
never
put
in
the
defendant's
name.
It's
some
family
member
or
somebody
else.
That's
not
in
the
family.
It's
not
it's
not
in
the
defendant's
name,
so
the
gentleman
over
there
needs
to.
I
bet
he
gets
the
statistics
on
that,
but
I
went
through
a
fella
that
played
not
guilty
in
a
he
had
four
trials.
He
was
in
the
jail
for
two
years
and
every
time
we'd
get
a
hung,
jury
or
something
happen.
D
D
That's
done
that
in
the
42
years
that
I've
practiced
the
committing
of
crimes
is
one
thing
versus
bonding
is
another,
and
when
you
get
somebody
that's
shoplifting,
because
they've
got
two
different
colored
sock
zones
in
a
store
in
lexington
and
they
get
put
in
jail,
which
happened,
and
it
was
permanent
primarily
because
she
was
from
a
foreign
country.
I
can
go
down
the
list
of
kids,
that's
in
college.
I've
had
to
see
walmart
kmart
kroger's.
I
can
go
down
that
list
for
wrongfully
charging
people,
but
they
were
put
in
jail
and
held
losing
jobs.
D
So
I'll
give
a
book
if
everybody
needs
to
hear
that.
But
if
those
people
had
the
ability
to
got
out
on
bond
immediately
where
they
could
retain
the
attorney
now
I'll
help
them
out,
because
I
come
up
poor
from
a
family
of
11
children
and
my
job
is
42
years
practicing
law
and
I
did
a
couple
years
at
jump.
Press
trip
at
chase
teaching
a
little
bit.
D
A
A
B
Go
ahead
well,
thank
you,
and-
and
my
comment
really
goes
along
really
well
with
what
part
of
what
representative
blanton
said,
and
I'm
I've
been
here
for
these
conversations
up
until
now,
I'm
not
going
to
be
here
next
year.
So
take
this
in
the
spirit
with
which
it's
intended
and
it's
intended
in
a
spirit
of
compromise.
I've
listened
to
both
sides.
Every
time
this
issue
has
been
debated
and
what
I'll
say
is
if
there
is
a
will
of
the
legislature
next
year
to
limit
these
types
of
organizations.
B
What
I
think
I've
heard
a
lot
in
these
conversations
is
and
what
I've
seen
in
the
legislation
is,
I
think,
maybe
we're
taking
the
wrong
approach
here
and
limiting
it
based
on
money.
I
keep
hearing
people
saying
that
they
have,
because
our
system
is
incredibly
flawed,
there's
a
lot
of
flaws
in
perpetuating
a
system
of
cash
bail
and
limiting
the
contribution
of
a
community
bail
organization
based
on
money
as
well,
and
what
having
lived
in
the
community
that
started
ignited
this
issue
a
few
months
ago.
B
The
the
community
bail
organization
would
be
on
notice
of
which
offenses
they
could.
You
know,
participate
in
and
and
help
release
offenders
in
that
situation,
and
then
I
think
we
as
legislators
could
sleep
at
night,
knowing
that
maybe
we're
just
reverting
back
to
our
old
system
in
terms
of
certain
offenses
that
if
you
have
money
you
get
out
and
if
you
don't,
you
have
to
look
toward
other
means,
and
I
think
when,
when
representing
blind
was
talking
about
that
he's
willing
to
continue
working
on
this
issue.
B
A
C
A
E
E
I'm
going
to
begin
by
saying
this
idea
came
to
me
when
I
was
watching
a
movie.
A
movie
gave
me
gave
me
this
start.
There's
a
movie
called.
I
care
a
lot
and
if
you
watch
that
movie
it
talks
about
the
abuses
that
can
occur
with
regard
to
guardianship
in
in
elder
care
situations.
E
So
after
watching
that
movie,
I
said
well,
I'm
going
to
look
at
our
guardianship
statute,
and
so
I
did.
I
went
to
chapter
kr's,
chapter
387
and
started
looking
at
it
and
as
fate
would
have
it
and
his
fate
would
have
it
about
three
or
four
days
after
I
started
looking
at
chapter
387,
I
got
a
call
from
miss
finale
and
several
other
practitioners
and
advocates
and
leaders
in
this
elder
care
area
say
I
want
to
talk
to
you.
E
I
mean
it
was
just
really
coincidental,
so
we
began
meeting
in
september
and
looking
at
the
statute
and
began
revising
it
and
by
the
time
session
began
in
january
22.
I
had
a
bill
that
I
introduced
is
senate
bill
132,
okay
and
that's
the
bill.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
it
before
you,
but
if
you,
if
you
do
that's
the
bill
that
that
I
like
to
see
enacted
that
deals
with
changes
in
our
guardianship
statute
and
there
are
eight-
I
want
to
point
out
to
you.
E
I
realize
that
the
hour
is
late
and
I'm
like
you.
I've
got
other
things.
I've
got
to
be
doing
too,
but
there
are
eight
changes
I
want
to
make
and
then
I'm
going
to
turn
the
floor
over
to
my
esteemed
colleague
here
miss
katie,
fennell
who'll,
take
over
the
rest
of
the
way
the
statue
that
makes
eight
significant
changes
number
one.
E
It
changes
the
term
ward
to
protected
person
and
water
has
become
sort
of
an
outmoded,
has
sort
of
a
negative
connotation
in
our
in
our
world
today
and
what
we're
talking
about
people
who
need
to
be
protected.
Elderly
people,
people
with
young
people
with
disabilities
and
so
to
give
them
some
sort
of
dignity.
We've
changed
the
term
from
ward
to
protected
persons.
That's
the
first
change
number
two.
We
separate
out
the
duties
of
the
attorney,
the
respondent
being
the
person
who
is
the
protected
person.
Okay,
we
we
submit.
E
We
change
out
that
the
response
attorney
has
separate
duties
from
the
duties
of
a
guardian
that
lie
them
now.
Most
of
you
are
familiar
with
what
a
guardian
at
lydon
does
and
and
what
this
new
law
does.
It
keeps
the
guardian,
enlightenment,
but
more
more
as
someone
who's
as
adviser
to
the
court,
as
opposed
to
being
an
attorney
for
the
respondent
or
protected
person,
but
the
protected
person
has
their
own
attorney
and
the
guardian
lied.
Him
is
still
in
the
court
as
someone
as
an
advisor
number
three.
E
If
a
curator
has
been
established
and
I'm
gonna
let
katie
I
I've
obviously
prepared
for
this,
but
I'm
gonna.
Let
kay
talk
about
what
talk
more
about
the
difference
between
a
curator,
a
guardian,
a
conservator,
but
if
a
current
has
been
established
and
that
that
can
be
a
location
for
a
place
of
venue
number
four,
the
current
law
talks
about
next
to
ken
and
again,
you
know
we're
all
you
know
familiar
with
that
term.
E
In
law
school,
you
know
we,
we,
we
were
taught
about
mexican
law
school,
but
again,
I
think
we
need
to
come
to
the
21st
century,
and
so
what
we've
done
here
is
we've
deleted.
Any
reference
to
next
of
can
that's
no
longer
in
this
in
this
proposed
bill.
It
talks
about
you
know
not
contacting
the
spouse,
the
grandchildren,
the
parents
or
curator.
E
Obviously
those
people
who
have
a
close,
familial
or
close
relationship
with
the
protected
person.
Okay,
number:
five:
the
the
new
law
requires
the
establishment
of
what
we
call
an
interdisciplinary
evaluation
report,
an
interdisciplinary
evaluation
report,
chairman
massey,
and
what
that
does
is
it's
com
compiled
by
three
individuals?
E
In
other
words,
if
you
think
about
the
current
eminent
domain
law,
where,
if,
if
a
a
government,
any
entity
or
agency
wants
to
enact
domain,
there's
three
appraisers,
but
we've
taken
that
same
concept
and
apply
it
here,
so
that
again
we
want
to
give
the
court
as
much
familiarity
and
as
much
information
as
knowledge
and
and
knowledge
as
possible
to
make
a
a
thorough
and
hopefully
correct
determination
about
what
to
do
with
this.
E
With
the
person
with
this
protected
person
right
and
so
the
court
will
receive
this
interdisciplinary
evaluation
report
from
three
independent
people
who
recorded
points
to
help
the
court
and
guide
the
court
to
making
a
decision
point
number
six.
We
say
that
this
petition
is
going
to
be
heard
expeditiously
now
now.
Miss
finnell
will
tell
you
that
sometimes
here
in
kentucky.
Unfortunately,
these
matters
drag
on
for
a
year.
Okay
and
senator
carl.
We
want
to
speed
this
up.
You
know
we
want.
E
E
Today
we
give
the
court
flexibility
in
terms
of
what
should
be
the
proper
ultimate
outcome.
With
regard
to
the
person
who
who
is
in
court,
who
is
a
protected
person?
Okay,
we
say
we
state
in
this
legislation
that
if
the
court
wants
thinks
less
restrictive,
alternatives
are
better
a
power
of
attorney
or
curator.
You
know
that
they
can
make
that
decision
as
opposed
to
giving
the
person
a
full.
You
know
court
order
guarding
a
conservator.
In
other
words,
if
a
less
restrictive
alternative
is
better,
then
the
court
can
do
that.
E
E
The
abuses
come
in
where
you
have
this
so-called
emergency,
that's
created
and
again
this
movie
that
point
out
highlight
says,
and
this
emergency
continues
to
go
on
forever,
and
ever
I
mean
the
emergency
can
stand
on,
extend
on
for
a
year
or
more,
and
that's
where
you
get
real
abuse
here.
Sometimes
these
petitions
have
ulterior.
E
You
know
not
so
nice
motives,
so
the
bill
limits
the
emergency
just
60
days
and
if
they
can
establish
the
court,
they
get
a
one-time
extension
for
60
days,
but
after
120
days
this
is
over.
This
is
over
okay
and
and
and
then
you
go
through
the
you
have
to
go
back
and
just
determine.
You
know
again
where
this
person
goes
through
the
normal
process,
where
this
guardianship
can
continue.
Okay,
those
are
my
eight
points
that
that
that
I
think
need
to
be
changed
and
it's
part
of
senate
bill
132.
E
katie,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
you
because
again
you're
the
expert
here-
and
you
know
you
can
tell
the
committee
what
you
think
about
senate
bill
132
and
why
should
become
law
all
right.
J
Good
morning,
everyone
or
probably
good
afternoon
at
this
point,
thank
you
very
much
for
having
me
here
today.
So
my
name
is
katie
fennell.
I
am
one
of
the
partners
at
bluegrass
elder
law
in
lexington,
and
one
of
the
big
questions
is
what
is
elder
law
so
estate
planning,
probate
guardianship
special
needs
planning,
long-term
care
planning,
so
so
this
is
right
up
my
alley.
J
Senator
thomas
wanted
me
to
mention
I'm
a
proud
chase
graduate.
I
also
have
a
legal
master's
in
estate
planning
and
elder
law
bring
on
the
lawyer.
Jokes.
We
get
the
doctorate
first,
then
the
masters
I
know
I'm
in
a
room
of
very
smart
people
and
you're
reading
this
legislation.
Now.
J
And
and
if
you'll
indulge
me,
I
will
be
very
respectful
of
your
time.
I
wanted
to
briefly
kind
of
explain
the
guardianship
process,
because
even
the
attorneys
in
the
room
may
have
never
sat
through
a
guardianship,
so
a
guardianship
hearing
is
confidential,
meaning
only
parties
to
the
case
are
allowed
in
the
courtroom.
J
J
Most
people
go
into
guardianship
out
of
love.
Maybe
somebody
has
dementia.
Somebody
has
some
health
issue.
Maybe
you
have
a
special
needs
child.
I
love
them.
They
need
help.
I
want
to
go
through
this
process,
so
I
can
have
the
power
given
to
me
by
the
court
to
help
them
there's.
Also.
The
predatory
version
of
this
is
that
I
want
to
get
power
over
someone.
I
want
access
to
their
money.
I
want
it
for
control.
J
There
are
two
different
guardianship
types
of
cases:
there's
an
emergency
guardianship
and
a
regular
guardianship.
When
I
think
emergency
guardianship,
I
think
somebody
has
had
a
health
issue
all
of
a
sudden
they're
in
the
hospital.
They
are
not
able
to
make
decisions,
it
is
an
emergency
and
the
process
moves
a
lot
faster
so
that
emergency
guardian
can
help
fix
or
handle
the
emergency.
J
J
The
more
common
type
is
a
regular
guardianship.
I
think
of
I
think
the
easiest
way
to
explain
that
is
maybe
a
special
needs.
Child
is
turning
18
and
all
of
a
sudden.
You
don't
have
that
parental
relationship.
They
are
legally
an
adult,
we're
looking
at
the
guardianship
process
to
help
them
continue
on
past
their
18th
birthday.
So
that's
not
an
emergency.
That's
something!
You
see
coming
a
lot
of
times.
J
J
A
lot
of
what
this
proposed
legislation
does
is
protect
the
rights
of
that
protected
person.
We
talked
earlier
about
guilty
until
or
innocent
until
proven
guilty
we're
talking
about
competent
until
determined
incompetent,
and
that's
where
the
guardian
ad
litem
and
respondents
attorney
comes
in.
When
you
file
a
guardianship
petition,
it
looks
like
a
criminal
charge
on
the
paperwork.
It
is
the
commonwealth
verse
somebody,
the
supposed
protected
person
that
person
should
have
a
right
to
defend
themselves.
J
Maybe
you
know
they.
They
can
have
an
objection,
they
don't
think
they're.
They
should
be
under
guardianship,
they
think
they're,
a
you
know,
should
be
able
to
make
their
own
decisions.
The
court
appoints
a
guardian
ad
litem,
which
is
also
known
as
the
friend
of
the
court,
and
their
job
is
more
like
a
best
interest
attorney
they're.
Looking
at
the
whole
situation
and
they're
reporting
back
to
the
court,
they
are
not
meant
to
be
the
respondents
attorney.
They
are
not
meant
to
defend
that
person,
because
those
might
be
different
situations
if
somebody
files
guardianship.
J
J
J
A
Is
unbelievable
absolutely
and
what
are
you
and
senator
you
mentioned
that
the
gal
role
having
a
different
role,
not
I'm
curious,
where's,
their
legal
duty
to
whom
is
their
legal
duty?
Is
it
to
the
court
that
you're
recommending
or
is
it
to
the
the
respondent
or
the
the
person
to
be
protected
by
the
guardianship.
E
Chairman,
what's
the
philanthropic
question
directly,
the
under
under
the
statute
under
the
the
black
proposed,
the
new
statute
would
have
that
duty.
The
guardian
alliance
duty
would
be
to
the
court.
Their
duty
would
not
be
to
the
to
the
protected
person
and,
of
course,
their
duty
would
not
be
to
the
commonwealth
as
well
their
their
their
their
legal
representation.
If
you
want
to
characterize
it
as
such
would
be
to
the
court.
J
I
A
J
Can
do
it
so
guardian
is
of
the
person
you're
taking
care
of
the
specific
person
medical
decisions.
Conservator
is
over
the
money
a
lot
of
times
it's
the
same
person
curatorship
is
different.
Curatorship
is
voluntary,
it's
usually
heard
through
the
probate
court
and
the
petitioner
says
you
know
what
I'm
no
longer
comfortable
handling
my
finances.
J
I
would
like
my
loved
one
or
whoever
to
do
it.
It
is
uncommon,
we're
generally
yeah
we're
usually
looking
for
the
least
restrictive
option.
No
one
wants
to
go
to
guardianship
court.
In
most
cases,
if
somebody
has
a
solid,
well-drafted
power
of
attorney
document
so
that
they
have
someone
that
can
help
them,
you
don't
have
to
go
to
guardianship.
Court.
J
The
guardian
can
sure,
so
you
know
a
power
of
attorney
can
suggest
to
their
person
that
they
follow
the
medical
advice,
but
they
can't
make
you
yeah,
and
so
we
do
occasionally
have
somebody
with
a
power
of
attorney
that
ends
up
in
guardianship
court.
My
example
just
because
I
deal
with
elderly
is
maybe
dementia,
but
the
combative
dementia,
where
you
you're
at
risk
to
yourself
or
others.
If
you're
not
doing
the
things
you're
told
to
do
or
taking
your
medication,
let's
see
a
big
one.
J
For
me,
I'm
going
to
skip
to
the
end
is
addressing
the
needs
of
the
spouse,
so
we
are
in
a
climate
where
we
have
a
lot
of
second
marriages
and
so
a
lot
of
times.
We
end
up
in
court
because
it
is
the
children
from
the
first
marriage
filing
and
the
spouse
is
the
second
marriage
and
we
find
that
judges
don't
know
where
the
line
is
because
there
isn't
one
regarding
supporting
the
spouse.
So
we
hear
a
lot
well.
That
needs
to
be
determined
in
family
court.
J
J
J
You
know:
24
7
care
a
roof
over
their
head
three
meals
a
day.
They
might
not
be
happy
being
in
the
nursing
home,
but
they
are
being
taken
care
of
I'm
talking
about
the
spouse
at
home,
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
use
the
long-term
care
medicaid
rules
to
preserve
some
assets
for
the
spouse
at
home,
because
if
they
spend
all
of
the
assets
for
the
spouse
in
the
nursing
home,
it
leaves
the
one
at
home
indigent.
So.
A
A
E
Because
it's
time
now
that
we
update
this
guardianship,
law
and
senator
russell,
you
know
how
I
am.
I
believe
that
your
rights
do
not
age
out.
Once
you
get
to
be
65,
70
or
75,
I
mean
you,
don't
lose
your
due
process,
rights
to
protection.
C
E
Liberty,
and,
and
and
this
this
new
statue
or
or
the
the
mended
statute
would
provide
for
that.
A
D
D
J
A
Thank
you,
representative
folks.
I
know
there
were
some
other
questions
on
frankly
on
each
one
of
these
panels
that
that
people
had
that
we
needed
to
cut
loose
so
that
we
could
get
done
two
minutes
late.
So
I
apologize
for
holding
you
over.
I
know
natural
resources
started
a
couple
minutes
ago.