►
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
I'm
today,
just
for
information's
sake,
symbol,
42
is
going
to
be
a
move
till
next
week's
agenda.
So
there's
a
slight
technical
change.
We
need
to
make
on
that
bill.
So
before
we
get
started,
are
there
any
guests?
We'd
like
to
recognize
I've
got
a
couple
in
the
back
that
I'd
like
to
recognize
and
then
I'll
see.
B
A
A
A
I'm
here
we
have
a
quorum
and
we're
duly
constituted
to
do
business
for
those
that
just
walked
in.
We
are
not
doing
Senate
Bill
42
today,
we'll
do
that,
possibly
next
week
and
Senator
West
has
requested
for
his
schedule's
sake
to
go
first
and
I've
allowed
him
out
of
our
great
friendship
to
go
first
Senator
west
floor
is
yours.
Thank.
D
You
Mr
chairman,
appreciate
the
opportunity
what
you
have
should
have
before
you
is
Senate
Bill
65.
We
present
this
I
think
this
is
the
third
year
in
a
row
we've
presented
this
bill.
We've
kept
the
same
number
every
year,
Senate
bill
65..
This
started
2020
2021
that
area
as
a
way
to
put
some
teeth
back
into
the
administrative
regs
process.
D
So,
as
chair
of
the
administrative
reg
committee,
we
review
a
lot
of
regulations
and
the
way
the
process
would
work
before
is
we
would
find
those
regs
deficient
if
we
found
a
reg
deficient,
the
government
Governor
would
put
it
into
place
and-
and
nothing
would
really
ever
happen
to
to
go
against
the
cabinet
Administration.
So
we
did
this.
D
What
this
bill
simply
does
is
it
finds
null
and
void
any
regulation
that
went
through
that
process?
It's
an
ex-offices
process,
any
reg
that
was
found
efficient,
and
so,
if
we
pass
this
out
of
committee
and
it
passes
off
the
floor,
then
all
the
regs
preceding
to
that
during
that
that
year
that
were
found
efficient
will
hereby
be
null
and
void.
Okay,
so.
A
D
D
That's
it
in
a
nutshell,
I'm
open
to
any
questions.
Anyone
may
have.
E
Cinderberg
has
a
question,
thank
you,
sir,
and
this
is
I'm
sure,
just
because
I
haven't
been
here
long
enough
to
know
before
this,
when
we
found
a
reg
deficient.
E
D
Nothing
we
would
the
committee
we
would
find
a
reg
deficient
and
we
would
send
a
strongly
worded
letter
to
the
governor
imploring
him.
Not
to
you
know,
go
forward
with
that
regulation
and,
like
I
said
there
was
really
no
teeth
in
the
committee.
You
know
to
to
exercise
our
opinion
on
these
regulations.
D
Another
important
point
that
I
forgot
to
mention
in
this
bill
we're
finding
null
and
void
seven
regulations
and
really
only
two
subject
matter
areas.
So
we
had
one
regulation
we
found
deficient
in
the
interim
and
yesterday
we
found
a
six
regulations
deficient,
but
it
was
really
one
subject
matter
area,
so
we
had
541
regulations
go
through
the
committee
and
only
two
subject
matter
areas
found
efficient.
So
it's
not
like
we're
stopping
the
Governor
from
implementing
his
agenda
or
or
implementing
regs
and
laws.
D
A
D
So
the
subject
matter
of
the
interim
committee
was
a
labor
employer,
employee
relationship,
a
workers,
comp
Reg
and
the
the
ones
we
did
yesterday
basically
deal
with
Medicaid
and
we
can
go
into
a
whole
discussion
on
that
process.
But
I'm
going
to
sum
it
up.
In
30
seconds,
we
had
a
lot
of
savings
from
Senate
bill
50,
which
was
the
PBM
law
championed
by
Max
centralwise,
and
the
cabinet
felt
that
they
just
automatically
were
taking
those
savings
about
38
million
dollars
and
expanding
those
to
vision
and
dental
care
across
the
Commonwealth.
D
We
had
a
lot
of
practitioners
that
have
approached
us
and
said
our
reimbursement
rates
aren't
high
enough
anyway.
So,
even
if
you
put
money
into
this
area,
we
maybe
more
services
won't
be
provided
because
there's
not
enough
providers
and
it
was
a
huge
change
really
that
should
have
been
done
through
we
felt
through
statute
through
involving
the
legislature.
The
total
cost
was
like
89
million.
D
D
I
think
it
was
all
eye
votes
in
one
pass
vote,
so
it
was.
It
was
pretty
clear
so.
F
Thank
you,
Mr
Mr
chairman,
as
a
member
of
the
administrative
regs
committee
that
chairman
West
runs
and
the
former
chairman
of
the
committee,
when
the
committee
on
behalf
of
the
legislature
expresses
its
opinion
that
the
bill
that
the
reg
is
deficient,
the
only
choice
that
the
legislature
has
is
to
pass
a
bill
in
the
next
session.
F
G
I'd
like
to
actually
make
a
comment,
sure
I
worked
in
the
administration
under
Governor
Bevin
and
we
put
forth
many
regulations,
and
it
was
a
fact
that
we
said
well.
If
we
don't
get
them
through,
it's
just
a
little
slap
on
the
hand,
we'll
change
a
word
or
two
and
do
it
anyway.
So
this
isn't
Republican
or
Democrat
it's
it's
doing
what
the
Senate
is
supposed.
The
regulation
review
is
supposed
to
do
actually
review
regulations
so.
D
G
H
A
Vote,
I,
Senate,
Bill
65,
passes
9-0
and
it
passes
with
favorable
expression
and.
A
I
That
Senate
Bill
62
is
a
is
a
privacy
Bill
intended
to
protect
the
privacy
of
donors
to
non-profit
organizations.
There
was
a
decision
back
in
2021
by
the
U.S
Supreme
Court
and
Americans
for
Prosperity
versus
bonta
bonta,
being
the
attorney
general
for
California,
we're
in
the
Supreme
Court
struck
down
reversed
and
remanded
on
a
law
out
of
California
that
compelled
major
donors
of
non-profits
to
be
disclosed
to
the
state,
particularly
to
the
State
Attorney
General.
I
The
ninth
circuit
actually
upheld
that
if
I
understand
correctly,
but
the
U.S
Supreme
Court
threw
it
back
down
and
said
you
can't
do
that.
You
can't
have
your
private
donors
for
whomever
whatever
your
organization
is,
you
can't
be
compelled
to
turn
that
over
to
the
state,
that's
an
abridgement
of
your
First
Amendment
freedom
of
Association.
I
This
bill
codifies
that
ruling
protecting
the
donors
and
supporters
of
non-profit
organizations
here
in
the
Commonwealth
from
that
sort
of
government
reaching.
There
are
some
exceptions
in
carve
outs
where
there
are,
you
know
for
litigation
for
investigations.
The
committee
sub
that
you
have
before
you
makes
a
change
requested
by
the
Legislative
ethics
commission,
which
brought
up
a
very
good
point
yesterday.
I
Shot
me
an
email
and
said
you
know:
non-profits
can
hire
lobbyists
and
if
one
of
us
as
legislators
were
to
donate
to
a
non-profit
in
violation
of
some
ethic
standards
that
we
have,
they
ought
to
be
able
to
identify
that.
For
the
purposes
of
that
investigation,
that's
a
pretty
reasonable
request.
So
the
committee
sub
made
that
change.
I
There
was
also
some
language
in
there
in
the
committee
sub.
After
speaking
with
the
auditor
of
Public
Accounts,
there
was
some
language
that
I
hoped
we
hoped
at
one
point
to
put
in
there,
but
that
would
have
made
the
the
auditor
of
Public
Accounts
run
afoul
of
federal
laws,
but
it
put
that
language
in,
but
that's
the
sub
before
you
and
I'd
ask
for
your
support.
J
A
question
or
comment
just
real
quick.
You
said
there
was
a
Supreme
Court
decision
stating
that
they're
not
required
to
disclose
all
this.
So
why
do
we
need
a
statute.
I
Because
California
that
you
could
go
back
to
1958
in
the
NAACP
versus
Alabama
decision,
the
Supreme
Court
stomped
on
the
state
supreme
court.
At
the
time
thankfully,
and
said
you
can't
force
the
NAACP
to
turn
over
your
membership
roles,
and
yet
you
know
70
years
later,
California
is
trying
to
do
it.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
that
doesn't
that
same
thing
doesn't
happen.
J
I
I
We
think
the
protections
ought
to
be
here
just
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution
to
make
sure
no
one
tries,
whether
through
law
or
through
some
administrative
act
by
executive
order
or
any
other
means
to
go
after
non-profits,
that
that
particular
executive
officer
doesn't
like.
A
Any
other
questions
new
folks.
Okay,
if
there
are
any
further
questions,
the
motion
to
be
in
order
related
to
Senate
Bill
62,
as
amended
by
a
committee
sub,
we
have
a
motion
from
Senator
wheeler.
Is
there
a
second
a
second
from
Senator
storm,
Madam
clerk?
Please
call
the
role.
H
A
A
G
Yes,
Mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
a
pretty
simple
Bill
and
it
only
affects
Louisville
Metro.
Nowhere
else
in
the
State.
It's
about
storage
fees,
now
they're,
collected
by
the
county
clerk
hand
it
to
Fiscal
Court
and
put
into
a
special
fund
until
the
county
clerk
asks
for
the
portions
back
to
use
this
bill
will
lessen
red
tape
by
having
the
county
clerk
put
it
in
a
special
fund,
ending
the
red
tape
of
going
to
Fiscal
Court
and
then
asking
for
it
back
from
Fiscal
Court.
G
The
county
clerk
clerk
will
report
to
Fiscal
Court
and
the
lrc.
So
there's
no
worry
about
them
doing
something
something
wrong
with
the
funds.
The
fiscal
impact
of
Senate
Bill
52
on
Consolidated
local
government
is
expected
to
be
minimally
positive
and
that
doesn't
take
into
account
the
less
of
the
red
tape
and
the
cost
of
administering
going
back
and
forth
from
Fiscal
Court
back
to
the
county
clerk.
That's
simple:
that's
it.