►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Judiciary (3-23-22)
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).
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone
I
want
to
get
started
because
we
do
have
a
full
agenda
today.
I
anticipate
that
many
of
them
will
be
fairly
expedient
but
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
got
started
so
we
could
start
it
in
on
time
and
get
these
bills
through
this
docket.
So
with
that,
madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll
call
the
roll.
A
Here
in
the
room,
and
today
I'll
go
through
the
rules
real
quickly
again,
if
you
have
electronic
devices,
please
put
them
to
silent
or
vibrate
mode,
be
mindful
that
the
technology
can
pick
up
the
signal,
so
be
very
careful
with
that.
Also
when
you're
presenting
make
sure
that
your
green
light
is
on
and
the
mic
is
close
enough
to
you
to
be
heard.
I
will
tell
you
we'll
have
a
lot
of
activity
today
going
in
and
out
of
the
room,
because
we
have
several
members
that
are
testifying
in
other
committees.
A
E
Mr
chair,
ladies
and
gentlemen
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
having
me
today.
I
have
a
pretty
short,
simple,
straightforward
bill
that
would
include
common
carriers
and
delivery
services
as
regards
to
mail
matter.
The
way
we
drafted
our
statute
40
years
ago,
kentucky
specifically
mentioned
united
states
postal
service.
Other
states
wasn't
so
narrow.
The
courts
interpreted
that
to
exclude
some
of
the
amazon
fedex
things
that
we
see
today.
E
Right
now,
we
expect
300
million
online
shoppers,
91
percent
of
the
population
will
have
online
deliveries.
The
crime
has
has
seen
a
huge
uptick
with
with
this
type
of
process
they've
caught
on,
because
we
have
a
loophole
in
our
law.
We
see
crime
syndicates
come
in.
My
area
in
jefferson,
county
in
louisville
has
been
hit
a
little
bit
harder
than
other
places,
but
I
think
most
elected
officials
have
had
victims
in
their
district.
I'm
talking
to
some
of
my
local
law
enforcement,
but
also
with
my
neighborhood
groups.
E
People
catch
them
on
their
their
little
ring
cameras
and
you'll,
see
it
over
and
over
they'll
call
and
say
what
can
I
do
right
now?
It's
listed
as
a
misdemeanor
class
b
misdemeanor
in
there,
and
we
haven't,
got
a
lot
of
response
from
detectives
in
search.
What
we
know
is
that
we
have
had
several
rings.
Some
of
them
will
have
the
package,
the
vans
deliveries
that
will
ping
the
individual
services.
E
Where
they've
been
put
at
what
household
they
get
the
good
stuff
they
put
it
into
where
the
u-haul
truck
or
bring
them
back
to
an
apartment.
They
rent
they
open
up
the
packages
they
find
out
what
they
can
keep.
They
sell
the
stuff
that
is
worth
selling
and
they
go
into
the
next
community
to
raid
because
of
the
way
it's
listed
and
because
this
loophole
they
go
unchecked
and
it's
continued
to
get
worse
and
worse.
I'm
so.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
by
representative
cantrell,
a
second
by
representative
mosher.
I
will
make
one
comment
and
see
if
anyone
has
any
questions,
I
will
say
the
one
thing
that
was
brought
to
my
attention
after
we
received
this
bill.
I
referred
to
it
as
pizza
pirates,
but
basically
it's
the
doordash
type
scenarios
too,
where
people
are
potentially
stealing
food
and
whatnot
off
doorsteps.
We
may
have
to
address
that
in
the
future.
A
F
E
Yes,
representative,
there
is
a
case
directly
on
point
that
was
published
on
march
25th
2021
at
supreme
court
of
kentucky
davis
versus
commonwealth
of
kentucky,
and
they
did
make
a
finding
a
fact.
That
would
be
precedent
that
says
that
the
authorized
depository
means
anywhere
on
or
around
the
recipient's
property,
where
such
a
deposit
is
specifically
directed,
and
so
that
would
include
with
that
intention.
D
G
D
C
D
Chairman
I'm
going
to
be
a
no
today
because
I
typically
don't
vote
yes
on
adding
felonies.
Thank
you.
A
Yes,
there
is
11,
yes,
votes,
one,
no
vote
and
zero
a
pass.
The
same
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression.
The
same
should
pass
on
the
house
floor.
Thank
you
senator
for
bringing
that
bill
forward
and
I'm
sure
we'll
probably
have
some
other
votes
with
it.
But
thank
you
for
your
presentation
today.
Thank.
A
H
A
few
years
ago
had
a
conversation
with
your
predecessor,
chairman
petrie.
We
had
assembled
a
group
to
talk
about
bail
bail
is
something
we've
kicked
around
for
a
number
of
years.
Here.
You've
spent
some
time
on
a
chairman
chairman,
petrie
had
as
well
and
so
have
I
and
the
conversation
took
a
turn,
the
first
half
hour
or
so
the
conversation
with
with
the
usual
stakeholder
groups
in
the
justice
environment,
justice
universe.
H
Everyone
agreed
that
the
population
of
people
were
most
concerned
about
struggle
with
substance,
use
disorders,
behavioral,
health
disorder,
psychological
or
psychiatric
disorders,
or
some
combination
of
those
things,
and
so
you
fast
forward
a
couple
of
years
and
we
have
an
opportunity
starting
last
year
with
the
efforts
from
the
speaker
and
the
senate
president
from
then
justice
cabinet
secretary,
mary,
noble,
to
bring
pew
charitable
trusts
in
pew
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
with
us
and
working
with
a
hundred
or
so
different
stakeholders
and
individuals
that
that
the
chairman
and
I
directed
them
to
and
we
we
came
up
with
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
here.
H
Senate
bill
90
proposes
a
pilot
program
in
no
fewer
than
10
counties,
as
determined
and
picked
by
the
supreme
court
to
establish
a
behavioral
health
intervention
for
our
justice
population
on
the
low
end.
So
this
is
this
only
applies
for
people
who
have
a
class
d
charge.
They've
got
to
be
a
low
risk,
a
low
flight
risk,
a
low
risk
to
public
safety
on
the
pre-trial
services
assessment,
and
there
are
a
number
of
even
in
that
group,
there
are
a
number
of
disqualifying
factors.
H
This
doesn't
cover
any
dui
charges,
nothing
from
439
3401,
which
is
the
violent
offender
85
percent
statute.
If,
if
there
are
ipos
and
dvo's
involved,
those
have
been
excluded,
so
we've
really
narrowed
it
down
quite
a
bit.
H
H
A
qualified
mental
health
professional
and
that
statute
covers
a
whole
lot
of
different
professionals,
but
they
are
to
do
an
assessment
either
in
the
jail
by
telehealth,
which
this
bill
authorizes
or
out
of
custody,
though
it
prioritizes
people
that
are
still
in
pre-trial
confinement,
they
do
an
assessment
to
determine
whether
or
not
they
can
detect
or
see
any
signs
of
of
any
behavioral
health
issue.
I
think
everybody
agrees
that
that's
usually
going
to
be
a
substance.
H
Use
disorder
in
most
cases,
but
it
could
be
something
else,
something
that
pre-trial
services
is
not
equipped
or
skilled,
to
assess
and
find
of
those
people
that
are
assessed
only
those
that
that
have
an
agreement
of
the
parties
can
get
into
this
deferred
prosecution
program.
That's
what
this
bill
creates
in
this
pilot.
If
there's
an
agreement
between
the
prosecution
and
the
defense
to
go
through
this
and
to
participate
in
behavioral
health
care
that,
for
as
long
as
they
are
the
case
is
sort
of
set
on
the
shelf.
H
H
H
It
has
to
last
no
long
no
shorter
than
a
year
unless
it's
by
agreement
of
the
parties
and
the
provider
and
no
longer
than
the
full
length
of
the
sentence
of
the
underlying
charge
that
got
them
in
court
in
the
first
place
and
as
long
as
they're
compliant
as
long
as
they're
doing
what
they're
supposed
to
do
if
they
complete
that
course
of
treatment
whatever
it
is,
their
case
is
dismissed
again.
This
is
by
agreement.
This
is
not
by
court
order.
H
I
would
ask,
and
implore-
and
the
chfs
knows
this
secretary
friedlander
has
been
part
of
this.
This
conversation
too,
and
I
think
they
want
this
too.
As
soon
as
the
federal
government
approves
our
waiver
and
courts
can
order
this
without
fouling
up
medicaid
eligibility
that'd
be
super,
but
since
that
hasn't
happened
yet
this
is
built
so
that
the
parties
have
to
agree.
The
court
is
not
involved
in
the
agreement.
H
They
don't
order
the
treatment
they
can't.
The
court
can
bring
the
case
back
up.
In
fact,
the
bill
specifically
says
that
the
court
can
set
a
review
and
just
keep
an
eye
on
things.
The
bill
requires
that
the
provider
provide
regular
reporting
first
within
14
days
and
then
28
days
and
then
quarterly
thereafter,
just
to
make
sure
that
the
participants
are
doing
well,
but
also
to
collect
data.
H
One
other
important
component
is:
we've
got
some
recovery
housing
language
in
here
we've
got
literally,
I
think,
just
one
line,
one
sentence
that
relates
to
transportation:
I'd
love
to
throw
a
bunch
of
money
at
transportation
and
housing.
Both
we
don't
have
all
that
money
all
at
once
to
throw
it's
worth.
Every
penny,
because
money
we
spend
here
is
money.
We
don't
spend,
locking
them
up
and
paying
for
detention
in
jails
or
what
have
you
and
much
more
effectively
with
this
sort
of
intervention,
but
we
do
have
a
line
in
there
that
allows
for
it.
H
If
there's
an
opportunity
or
funding
available,
but
the
other
key
component
is
the
vocational
component,
so
within
30
days
of
a
participant
being
entered
into
this
diversion
program
or
this
deferred
prosecution
conditional
dismissal
program,
the
workforce
cabinet
needs
to
perform
an
assessment
on
those
participants
to
see
whether
or
not
they
can
benefit
from
further
education,
job
training
or
even
job
placement.
It
even
gives
some
permissive
language
to
allow
them
to
set
up
an
electronic
registry
to
match
potential
second
chance,
employees
with
potential
second
chance
hiring
companies
or
individuals
if
they
so
choose.
H
All
of
this,
I
I've-
I
don't
know
if
I've
said
it
in
front
of
this
committee.
I
know
I've
said
it
in
front
of
mine.
I
know
I've
said
it
on
the
floor
of
the
senate
a
number
of
times.
The
single
biggest
thing
we
can
do
to
prevent
people
from
committing
crime
again
is
making
sure
they've
got
a
job
when
they
get
out
of
custody.
H
H
So
this
is
an
effort
to
do
that.
I'm
happy
to
answer
your
questions,
but
that's
really
the
long
and
short
of
it
motion.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
sub
by
representative
mosher.
It's
our
second
second
second
by
representative
banta,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed.
There
is
none
now
before
we
do
a
motion
on
the
bill.
I
do
want
to
thank
chairman
westerfield
for
a
lot
of
work
on
this,
and
I
want
to
thank
roberta
who's
here.
H
To
my
right,
she
is
fantastic.
H
A
And
so
she
was
pulling
her
hair
out
trying
to
map
this
out
this.
This
idea,
which
I
think
is
a
very
phenomenal
idea-
and
it's
in
the
interest
of
restorative
justice
in
getting
people
to
work,
getting
people
treatment
and
trying
to
keep
them
off
of
our
our
criminal
records
and
trying
to
keep
them
out
of
incarceration
that
we're
all
paying
for,
and
so
I
think
it's
certainly
a
noble
effort.
We're
going
to
do
this
for
for
at
least
10
counties.
A
As
we've
indicated,
the
courts
have
been
on
board
with
us
on
this,
and
I
think
this
is
a
big
step
in
that
direction.
In
fact,
we've
had
a
couple
of
bills,
this
session
that
we've
had
to
amend,
because
we
don't
want
to
be
contrary
to
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here-
and
I
know
that
goes
to
reduction
of
some
felonies.
There
has
been
some
felonies
added
and
I
know
representative
scott
mentioned
it
earlier.
Our
goal
is
not
to
be
more
punitive.
A
Our
goal
is
to
try
to
get
people
the
help
and
assistance
they
really
so
I'm
hoping
that
the
legal
community
will
really
work
with
this
program.
With
that,
that's
my
comments,
but
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
a
motion
on
the
bill.
A
D
You
so
much
chairman
senator.
I
know
it's
not
in
this
bill,
but
you
mentioned
second
chances.
Chairman
massey's
talked
about
getting
people
employed,
getting
them
to
jobs
to
work.
I
know
that
for
years
many
of
us
have
tried
to
move
forward.
Second
chance
legislation
around
banning
the
box.
Is
there
anything
like
that?
Moving
that
you're
aware
of
that
may
pass
this
session.
H
I'm
not
aware
of
anything
like
that.
I
haven't
seen
anything
in
the
senate,
I'm
not
sure
that
I've
seen
anything
filed
over
there,
and
I
know
I
haven't
heard
anybody
talking
about
it,
but
I
think
that's
that's
an
important
step
to
take.
I
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
bringing
this
legislation.
I'm
a
huge
supporter
of
all
the
re-entry
supports
that
we
can.
We
can
put
in
place.
Last
year
I
passed
house
bill
497,
which
introduced
the
concept
of
certificate
of
employability
during
incarceration,
and
so
I
love
this
bill.
I
love
really
taking
those
ideas
and
putting
these
in
some
pilots
that
we
can.
We
can
really
work
out
the
mechanisms
that
that
need
to
be
happening.
I
I
it
was
just
brought
to
my
attention,
not
just
I've.
I've
had
a
few
folks
who've
approached
me
about
digital
kind
of
re-entry,
supports
adding
technology
to
to
help
make
those
connections,
and
it
would
maybe
come
in
the
form
of
reminders
about
appointments,
yeah,
making
those
appointments,
and
I
have
a
couple
of
really
strong
ideas
about
adding
something
like
this
and
I
I
honestly
I
didn't
even
I
knew
about
this
bill.
I
H
Can't
I
can't
speak
for
all
behavioral
health
providers.
I
know
a
handful
of
the
cmhcs
use
that
sort
of
scheduling
and
it's
worked
wonders
and
made
things
more
efficient
and
improved.
I
think
attendance,
yes,.
B
A
J
D
K
D
A
Yes,
with
there
being
13,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes
and
zero
pass
house
or
senate
bill
90,
as
amended
by
the
house
committee,
sub
1
will
pass
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass
on
the
house
floor.
Thank
you
chairman
for
this.
What
I
believe
a
very
phenomenal
bill,
we're
going
to
move
on
next
to
senate
bill
271,
which
is
also
sponsored
by
chairman
westerfield
and
before
he
gets
into
that
there
is
a
committee
sub
on
this
as
well
there
he
is.
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
can't
take
credit
for
this
and
I've
given
credit
where
it's
due,
because
that's
where
it
belongs.
H
Every
time
I've
spoken
on
it,
linda
blackford,
with
the
herald
leader
called
me
several
months
ago,
and
she
was
talking
to
me
about
asking
me
questions
about
some
domestic
violence
things
and
she
mentioned
in
the
conversation
about
how
kc,
adv
and
ksap
are
our
organizations
that
that
are
advocating
for
domestic
violence
issues
and
sexual
assault
issues,
but
the
long
and
short
of
it
was
that
they
they
basically
are
using
google
news
alerts
to
track
data,
and
that
wasn't,
I
don't
think,
the
point
of
the
phone
call,
but
when
she
said
it
whatever,
she
says
it
stunned
me
and
I
think
that's,
I
think,
that's
a
missed
opportunity
and
a
blown
opportunity
I
have
you
have
chairman.
H
Others
in
this
in
this
body,
have
talked
often
about
the
importance
of
having
data
to
inform
our
policy
decisions.
The
the
bill
we
just
voted
on
that
you
all
just
unanimously
supported,
has
a
data
component,
so
we
can
track
its
success.
We
need
to
track
domestic
violence
dating
violence,
interpersonal
violence.
We
need
to
know
what's
going
on,
we
need
to
know
about
fatalities
and
near
fatalities.
We
need
to
know
what
that
picture
looks
like
in
the
state
and
we
shouldn't
have
to
use
google
news
alerts
to
get
it
this
bill.
H
What
you
have
before
you
is
is
our
best
effort
at
getting
that
picture
of
data
so
that
going
forward.
We
know
what
the
domestic
violence
looks
like.
A
J
Yes
and
quickly
comment.
I
just
want
to
thank
senator
westerfield
for
this
domestic
violence
is
something
I
think
that
is
it's
very
important
that
we
talk
about
here
and
if
you
know,
if
we
can
get
that
eradicated,
I
think
it
would
be
wonderful,
but
as
long
as
we're
keeping
it
as
a
conversation,
I
think
it's
important
because
it
speaks
to
survivors
and
victims
of
that.
So,
thank
you
so
much
yes,.
H
D
I
A
A
I
believe
we
still
have
senator
carroll
with
us,
so
we'll
move
on
to
senate
bill
63.,
which
is
sponsored
by
senator
carroll
and
when
you're
adjusted
there
you
can
identify
yourself
and
any
guest
if
you
have
any
and
then
you
can
proceed
by
the
way
while
we're
waiting
for
him
to
get
comfortable.
There
is
a
committee
sub
on
this
as
well.
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members.
It
is
an
honor
to
be
here
today
and
before
I
start,
I
want
to
just
briefly
thank
randall
roof
with
judiciary
staff.
I
have
absolutely
worn
him
out
this
session
and
he
has
not
complained
once
and
with
all
the
staff
can't.
Thank
you
enough
for
all
you
do
you
all
are
the
people
that
make
this
place
happen
and
very
much
appreciative.
L
Mr
chairman,
this
bill
is
senate
bill.
63
is
basically
a
bill
that
passed
last
session.
It
passed
the
house
floor
64-20.
This
is
a
bill
that
addresses
personally
identifiable
information.
It
was
a
bill
that
represented
blanton
had,
and
it
was
combined
with
language
that
I
had
also.
This
is
a
bill
that
we
have
worked
on
for
numerous
years
and
rather
than
go
through
all
the
details
that
I
think
most
of
you
all
are
familiar
with.
L
I
think
what
I'll
do
is
just
cover
the
changes
that
I
have
made
and
if
there
are
questions
or
anything,
you
need
to
get
into
further
detail
on,
I
will
to
begin
with,
under
the
definition
of
immediate
family
member.
I
have
narrowed
this
definition
down
to
where
it
does
not
cover
as
many
people
as
it
did
before.
The
original
version
covered
expanded
family,
not
living
in
the
residence.
L
I
would
also
add
that,
in
section
four,
I
have
put
a
section
in
that
any
public
officer
who's
been
convicted
or
entered
a
plea
of
guilty
to
a
felony
or
criminal
offense
against
a
victim
who
is
a
minor
as
defined
in
kro-17500,
and
the
immediate
family
shall
not
be
entitled
to
protections
under
this
bill,
and
this
is
new
language.
So
if
a
public
officer
has
committed
a
felony
or
one
of
these
other
offenses,
they
lose
their
protections.
L
And
finally,
mr
chairman
members,
on
section
five,
there
was
language
added
that
is
based
on
the
the
doxing,
and
I
hope
I
pronounce
it
pronounce
that
right
bill
that
we
passed
I
think
last
year,
and
this
is
similar
to
that
where
it
establishes
a
civil
remedy.
L
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
by
representative
mccoy.
Is
there
a
second
by
representative
fisher?
We
do
have
someone
that
has
signed
up
to
speak
on
this
bill.
So,
mr
abati,
is
that
correct?
I
say
it
correct.
That's
correct
from
the
kentucky
press
association.
If
you
identify
yourself-
and
you
may
comment,
sir.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee
senator
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
kentucky
press
association.
I
serve
as
one
of
their
outside
general
counsel.
We
do
strongly
oppose
this
bill
for
several
reasons
that
we
put
forward
in
a
statement.
I
appreciate
the
committee's
busy
I'm
only
going
to
focus
on
two
today
that
we
think
are
the
most
problematic.
F
The
first
is
that
we
think
this
bill
is
an
unconstitutional
censorship
of
press
and
speech
of
citizens
in
your
districts,
and
the
second
is
that
it's
going
to
be
impossible
to
administer.
On
the
first
point,
if
you
look
at
the
definition
of
personally
identifiable
identifiable
information,
it
is
so
broad.
It
includes
the
location
or
the
assignment
of
any
of
these
people.
F
You
could
not
write
a
news
story
about
a
judge
or
a
prosecutor
without
running
the
risk
that
that
person
might
feel
that
they
were
put
in
danger
by
it
and
try
to
sue
you
for
punitive
damages
for
attorneys
fees.
Just
a
handful
of
examples
of
stories
that
have
led
to
systematic
reforms
that
will
probably
not
be
published
because
of
self-censorship.
F
The
child
abuse
cases
there's
going
to
be
another
bill
about
the
child
fatality
panel
right
after
this,
that
panel
wouldn't
exist,
but
for
the
coverage
that
coverage
probably
couldn't
be
done
today
under
this
bill
because
of
the
risk
of
punitive
damages,
no
knock
warrants
and
and
stories
about
the
brianna
taylor
situation
in
louisville.
We
probably
couldn't
have
had
those
stories
the
judge
could
have
sued.
If
she
were
upset
about
the
coverage
of
the
no
knock
warrant
she
signed,
the
officers
could
sue
tim
longmire,
a
former
assistant
attorney
general
and
his
controversy.
F
Those
stories
could
have
been
covered
in
any
way
that
referenced
his
position
as
a
public
employee.
It
is
so
broad.
It
goes
well
beyond
narrow
information,
that's
personal.
Secondly,
on
that
point
I
just
want
to
point
out:
we
don't
think
this
law
will
be
administerable.
New
jersey
passed
a
version
of
this
a
few
years
ago
that
was
touted
as
a
model
for
this
legislation
in
the
last
few
sessions.
It
was
far
narrower
than
this,
and
it
was
so
broad
for
new
jersey.
They
had
to
seriously
amend
it.
F
They
had
to
create
a
new
state
agency
with
a
three
million
dollar
appropriation
in
order
to
administer
it
and
they
had
to
add
new
statutory
exceptions
for
things
like
voter
registration,
real
property
documents,
candidates
for
office
filings,
lien
recordings,
encumbrances
property
tax
assessments.
Our
law
has
none
of
those
exceptions,
and
so
it's
not
clear
to
us
how
county
clerks,
how
property
value
administrators
can
administer
this.
If
there's
a
request
for
confidentiality,
we
think
it
could
impede
basic
functioning
of
things
like
title
searches,
liens
litigation
going
on
in
courts.
F
It
is
so
broad
and
there's
gonna,
be
so
many
unintended
consequences
that
we
think
that
the
bill
is
gonna
lead
to
terrible
consequences,
even
apart
from
being
an
unconstitutional
restriction
on
speech
and
an
anti-transparency
bill,
so
we
stand
strongly
in
opposition
to
it.
I
appreciate
the
committee,
letting
me
speak
here
today
and
I
would
encourage
everyone
to
review
our
longer
statement
that
lays
out
other
problems
with
the
bill.
A
L
To
respond
under
current
law,
these
records
can
be
released
upon
order
of
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction.
So
these
act,
these
records
could
be
accessed.
It
just
makes
it
mandatory
that
they
be
protected
and
that
they
that
anybody
seeking
this
information
goes
through
the
court
process.
It's
already
in
law
in
current
language
also
states
that
public
records
containing
information
of
a
personal
nature,
where
the
public
disclosure
thereof
would
constitute
a
clearly
unwarranted
invasion
of
personal
private
privacy
is
protected.
L
So
to
say,
it's
unconstitutional
it's
already
in
the
law
it's
already
been
established,
and
then
in
relation
to
pva
offices
and
any
other
entity,
a
public
entity
needing
to
do
business.
There
is
a
provision
in
the
bill
that
says
nothing
in
this
section
prevents
a
public
agency
from
using
pii
as
required
to
perform
the
routine
functions
of
the
agency
or
routine
functions
necessary
to
complete
business
transactions
between
consumers
when
the
transaction
involves
the
public
officer
or
their
immediate
family.
L
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
would
ask
the
the
gentleman
he
mentioned
that
the
judge
and
the
officers
and
brianna
taylor
case
under
personal
identifiable
information,
which
is
what
is
including
this.
Can
you
point
to
me
because
I'm
looking
through
these,
I
don't
necessarily
recall
any
of
that
information
being
released.
F
Reported
sorry,
yes,
representative
blanton
the
bill
in
in
all
the
versions.
I
don't
have
the
committee
sub
in
front
of
me,
but
every
version
I've
seen
has
included
employment,
location
or
assignments,
or
some
version
thereof.
You
can't
talk
about
a
judge
in
the
jefferson
circuit
court
without
talking
about
where
they
work
where
they
were
assigned.
You
just
can't
talk
about
these
things.
The
same
with
a
police
officer.
You
know
that's
assigned
in
louisville
metro,
were
they
on
the
narcotics
task
force
were
they
on?
You
know,
however,
you
get
down
into
the
details
of
it.
F
You're
going
to
reveal
that
information,
you
couldn't
talk
about
a
judge,
deciding
a
case
anywhere
from
the
u.s
supreme
court.
All
the
way
down
to
you
know
the
circuit
or
the
district
court
here
in
kentucky,
without
talking
about
where
the
judge
works,
what
their
role
is-
and
you
know
it
it's
not.
The
mere
threat
of
the
lawsuit
is:
what
produces
the
self-censorship?
F
F
You
know
and
you
could
turn
around
and
sue,
and
it's
not
just
newspapers,
although
that's
a
huge
deal,
your
constituent
could
tweet
about
interaction
with
the
police
officer
or
a
child
investigator
from
chfs,
and
they
could
be
upset
about
it
and
that
person
could
sue
them
for
punitive
damages.
We've
never
had
that
kind
of
liability
in
this
state
and
that
that's
a
significant
encroachment
on
free
speech
and
press.
D
First
of
all,
that's
a
long
twisted
attorney
response,
in
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
personal
identifiable
information
that
I'm
looking
at
on
this
committee
sub,
to
what
you
just
said.
So
that's
that's
a
long
twisted
answer
that
diverts
from
it.
Secondly,
you
mentioned
somebody
could
post
something
on
twitter.
D
The
true
details
of
this
bill
is
that
person,
the
the
onus
falls
back
on
the
person
looking
for
the
protection
of
their
identity,
has
to
send
a
letter
requesting
that
that
information
not
be
released,
and
if
an
individual
posted
that
and
they
hadn't
received
the
letter
not
to
post,
then,
can
you
explain
to
me
how
that
they
would
be
like?
Yes,.
F
Representative
blanton,
the
the
provision
you're
talking
about
only
applies
to
the
new
open
records
exception,
which
is
section.
Oh,
I
don't
have
the
committee
sub.
It
was
section
two
or
three
of
the
old
bill.
The
civil
liability
provision
is
not
dependent
in
any
way
on
the
person
requesting
confidentiality.
A
public
official
is
defined
in
the
bill.
F
Any
of
their
family
members
could
sue
somebody
that
didn't
even
know
that
this
was
the
child
or
the
parent
or
the
wife,
or
the
husband
of
a
public
official
for
punitive
damages,
attorneys
fees,
if
just
for
posting
something
whether
that
person
made
a
request
for
confidentiality
or
not
whether
they
knew
or
not,
that
person
was
protected
by
the
bill.
This
is
one
of
our
serious
problems
with
it.
We're
writing
news
stories
all
across
the
state
every
day
about
a
whole
bunch
of
people.
You
know
the
reporter
may
not
know
that.
F
That's
the
wife
of
a
chfs,
you
know
investigator
or
an
administrative
law
judge
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
that
person
could
turn
around
and
sue
it's
gonna.
It's
gonna
lead
to
real
self-censorship
that
that
liability
is
not
dependent
on
anything
other
than
the
person
being
upset
and
wanting
to
sue
whether
it's
a
news
story
or
a
tweet.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair
question.
For
the
bill
sponsor
senator
carroll,
new
jersey's
law
only
allows
a
covered
official
to
redact
their
home
address.
Why
does
kentucky's
bill
go
so
much
further.
L
K
Okay,
let
me
follow
that
up
just
a
little
bit,
please.
A
K
New
jersey,
you
know,
has
tried
this
and
they
also
recognized
that
for
their
law
to
be
workable,
they
needed
to
add
several
exemptions
to
the
law's
application,
including
copies
of
voter
registration
files,
documents
affecting
titles
to
property,
ucc
filings
petitions
naming
candidates
for
office
voting
petitions.
I
mean
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
things,
so
why
are
there?
Why
are
similar
exceptions
not
in
this
bill?
Given
that
we
know
new
jersey
has
was
not
able
to
administer
this
law
as
originally
written.
K
Mr
chair,
mr
abate
is
shaking
his
head.
Could
we
get
a
response.
F
I
mean
in
our
view,
if
you
especially
if
you
look
at
the
way,
that,
upon
request
somebody
has
to
take
down
the
information
that's
published
on
a
website
so,
for
example,
the
election
registry.
You
know
somebody's
contribution,
history
that
lists
their
address.
That
would
have
to
be
proactively
removed
from
the
internet,
and
I
you
know
it
remains
to
be
seen
senator
how
broadly
agencies
would
interpret
this
routine
business
function
exception
and
how
courts
would.
But,
in
my
experience,
agencies
err
on
the
side
of
non-disclosure.
F
When
there's
any
question
about
their
own
liability-
and
I
think
the
most
likely
scenario
is
what
happened
in
new
jersey.
Is
the
public
agencies
simply
stopped?
Releasing
that
information
for
everybody,
as
we
understand
from
our
colleagues
at
the
new
jersey
press
association,
that's
why
they
had
to
go
back
in
and
amend
it
because
they
weren't
releasing.
They
couldn't
tell
who
was
covered
by
the
bill,
so
they
just
weren't,
releasing
anything.
K
Okay,
and
and
just
to
follow
up
on
that,
that's
that
was
a
question
that
I'll
now
turn
into
a
comment.
I
did
wonder:
senator
carroll
the
bill
requires
kraft
to
redact
the
personally
identifiable
information
that
kref
gathers
when
an
individual
donates
to
a
political
campaign.
L
L
So
I
think
there's
a
certain
level
of
accountability
that
this
bill
brings
and
the
information
protected
in
this
is
not
information
that
they
need
to
do
their
story
and
if
they
need
the
information
that
bad
there
is
an
avenue
to
get
it
that
currently
exists
in
the
law
in
the
civil
liability.
If
there
has
to
be
some
male
intent
for
that
to
stand
true
within
the
civil
justice
system
and
just
publishing
a
story
with
legally
obtained
information
that
does
not
meet
any
of
these
components.
L
There's
no
judge
that's
going
to
rule
in
favor
of
someone
filing
suit
for
that,
so
the
the
reality.
The
reality
is
that
the
the
media
is
never
going
to
support
this
bill
at
all
and
it's
a
balance,
and
I
think
we
have
reached
that
balance
that
we
must.
We
must
provide
these
protections
to
the
folks
listed
here,
that's
just
where
we
are
in
the
world
today,
and
I
have
with
all
due
respect
to
the
gentleman
here
beside
me.
L
I
have
committed
to
media
representatives
that
if
there
are
unforeseen
circumstances
that
come
from
this
bill,
I
will
work
with
them
to
correct
it.
I've
met
repeatedly
I'm
sure
representative
blanton
has
met
with
media
representatives
repeatedly
to
try
to
come
to
some
compromise
and
the
reality
of
it
is
we
make
changes
we
try
to
to
help,
make
it
more
palatable,
and
it's
just
never
going
to
happen.
L
I
put
the
section
in
about
if
a
public
official
is
convicted
of
a
felon
felony,
they
lose
their
protections.
So
I
think
there
has
been
an
effort
to
make
this
work
the
reality
of
it
is
they
just
don't
want
the
bill
and
that's
just
not
going
to
change.
K
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
appreciate
this
discussion
and
I
I
just
have
a
a
quick
question.
I
I
see
that
this
bill
pertains
only
to
public
officers
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
anything-
and
maybe
I'm
just
not
well
enough.
First
on
this
issue,
but
I'm
as
we're
talking
about
this,
it's
it's
occurring
to
me
that
you
know
public
disclosure
of
information
upon
any
sort
of
accusation
can
be
greatly
damaging
to
individuals.
I
I'm
wondering
if
there's
anything
in
this
bill
that
would
protect
an
ordinary
citizen
who
is
accused
of
something
prior
to
an
actual
indictment.
I
mean
we
see
that
lives
are
ruined,
reputations
are
ruined,
employment
and
livelihoods
are
greatly
affected
by
an
accusation
being
published.
Is
there
anything
in
this
bill
that
protects
ordinary
citizens.
L
I
think
that
would
come
into
play
under
the
the
doxing
and
somebody
correct
me.
I
cannot
ever
get
the
pronunciation
of
that
right
that
anti-doxing
legislation
the
bill
that
passed
that
would
fall
under
those
protections
and
there
I
think
there
are
some
criminal
penalties
associated
with
that
also-
and
I
think
that
was
senator
schroeder's
bill.
F
And-
and
I
would
just
add
representative
moser-
that
the
kentucky
supreme
court
has
issued
guidance
under
the
existing
personal
privacy
exception
that
has
allowed,
for
example,
police
departments
to
redact
the
name
of
individuals
investigated,
but
not
charged
for
the
reasons
you're
articulating.
So
that's
already
in
the
current
law.
F
In
our
view,
the
current
personal
privacy
protections
do
balance
these
things
already
and
we
have
worked
with
the
senator
are
willing
to
continue
working
with
the
senator
to
try
to
come
up
with
appropriate
compromise
language,
for
example
amending
the
personal
privacy
exception
for
all
citizens
to
include
specific
listed
things
here.
That
was
not
an
acceptable
solution.
I
Well,
if
I
may
just
quickly
comment,
I
appreciate
that
I
would
be
in
favor
of
that,
but
simply
the
ability
to
redact
information
after
the
damage
is
done
is
unacceptable.
So
I
I
would
love
to
see
something
more
about
this
issue
come
forward.
Thank
you.
D
J
G
G
D
A
Yes,
there
being
10,
yes,
votes,
one
no
vote
and
three
pass.
The
same
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass
on
the
house
floor,
senator
carroll,
you
can
stay
there.
If
you
don't
mind,
I
know
you
have
the
hat
trick
up
today.
You
have
three
on
the
on
the
roll,
so
we'll
proceed
now
to
senate
bill.
97,
also
sponsored
by
senator
carroll.
L
Mr
chairman,
I
want
to
apologize
to
staff.
I
did
not
submit
the
list
for
the
guest
and
it
was
due
to
a
time
crunch
and
I
apologize
for
that.
This
bill
senate
bill
97
addresses
the
external
child
fatality
and
near
fatality
review
panel
back
on
october,
the
14th
of
2021,
the
program
oversight,
investigations.
Committee
staff
presented
the
annual
review
of
this
panel
and
through
that
review,
there
were
lots
of
issues
that
came
to
the
surface
and
basically,
what
we
have
is
a
panel
that
was
established.
L
L
So
what
this
bill
does?
Basically
it
some
of
the
recommendations
that
the
panel
has
made
over
recent
years
are
implemented
in
this
bill,
and
then
there
was
also
a
process
set
up
to
provide
some
accountability
for
follow-up,
with
the
recommendations
that
the
panel
makes
and
I'll
cover
that
first,
because
I
I
think
that
is
really
the
most
important
part
of
the
bill.
L
It
requires
the
the
panel
to
determine
which
state
agency
is
responsible
for
recommendations
related
to
a
panel
review,
and
then
the
panel
shall
review
those
recommendations
to
the
agency.
The
agency
shall
reply
within
90
days
with
written
intent
to
follow
the
recommendations
or
explanations
to
why
they
can.
L
So.
I
think
it's
very
important
that
you
understand
that
once
this
this
is
sent
out,
there's
got
to
be
some
accountability
as
to
why
this
is
not
done,
and
then
there
will
be
follow-up
with
the
appropriate
committee.
If
there's
legislation
that
is
needed
to
ensure
that
these
these
things
do
take
place.
Some
of
the
other
provisions
in
the
bill.
L
If
the
person
declines
the
request,
then
it's
up
to
the
law
enforcement
officer
to
seek
a
search
warrant.
If
there
is
probable
cause
that
exists
to
to
get
the
sample,
then
the
officer
shall
follow
up
with
that.
There
are
some
requirements
to
appointment
to
the
board.
It
adds
the
the
president
of
kentucky
corners
association
addresses
the
annual
report
to
be
published
by
february
the
1st
of
each
year.
L
It
gives
protections
from
discovery
subpoena
or
introduction
evidence
in
any
civil
or
criminal
action
in
any
manner
that
would
directly
or
indirectly
identify
specific
persons
cases
reviewed
by
the
panel
and
the
final
provision.
Mr
chairman
members,
it
requires
a
corner
upon
notification
of
death
of
a
child
under
18
to
report
the
death
to
law
enforcement,
dcbs
and
the
health
department
immediately,
as
opposed
to
as
soon
as
practicable
as
it
currently
is
in
krs-72,
and
the
purpose
of
that
is
to
determine
the
existence
of
relevant
information.
L
L
That
mou
was
never
followed
up
on
and
this
panel
has
not
been
properly
funded
through
its
existence,
and
there
is
a
proposal
in
the
budget
to
fully
fund
them
at
the
420
000
level,
and
I
can't
stress
enough
the
value
of
this
panel.
I
had
the
opportunity
to
sit
in
on
one
of
the
meetings
and
listen
to
the
review
of
a
few
cases
and
as
a
former
law
enforcement
officer
and
investigator,
it
would
be
good
to
know
that
someone
is
watching
out
and
reviewing
those
cases,
because
mistakes
can
be
made.
L
Policy
can
be
detrimental
to
the
successful
prosecution
and
and
the
successful
handling
of
these
cases
before
and
after
the
death
or
near
death
actually
takes
place.
So
a
very
valuable
panel
staffed
with
experts
that
we
need
to
utilize
to
its
fullest
extent
and
we
hope
to
continue
those
efforts
as
they
move
forward
and
as
the
legislature
moves
forward
as
part
of
the
panel,
and
I
will
pass
it
over
to
steve
for
any.
C
Comments
again,
steve,
shannon
with
association
health,
centers,
I've
served
on
this
for
about
six
years,
and
I
tell
people
this
is
the
hardest
thing
I
do.
We
spend
one
afternoon
every
month
reviewing
cases
that
are
bad
things
that
have
happened
to
children
at
the
hands
of
adults,
and
it's
really
difficult.
I
think
what
this
bill
does.
It
allows
us
to
get
better
data.
It
allows
us
to
address
some
of
those
issues.
Understand
better
and
that's
really
we're
trying
to
do
is.
C
Why
did
this
happen
to
kids,
who
are
in
state
custody
or
other
referrals
from
department
of
public
health?
And
that's
what
we
want
to
accomplish
and
I
think
there's
a
huge
number
of
cases
that
involve
substance
abuse
and
I
think
it
will
help
if
we
can
get
those,
because
quite
often
the
the
drug
tests
aren't
done,
we
don't
know,
we
sure
looks
that
way
if
someone
was
in
the
field,
but
we
don't
know
for
sure.
I
think
this
is
a
great
opportunity.
C
F
A
Okay,
representative
cantrell.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
like
to
ask
a
quick
question
about
page
four
looks
like
line
nine.
The
line
eight
starts
out.
If
a
report
includes
a
child
fatality
or
near
fatality,
and
the
law
enforcement
officer
has
reasonable
grounds
to
believe,
and
it
goes
on
from
there
reasonable
grounds.
It's
not
really
a
legal
standard.
We
we
have
probable
cause.
We
have
reasonable
suspicion.
Those
are
more
common
legal
terms.
Can
you
explain
the
use
of
this
particular
term?
In
this
instance,.
L
D
I
Quickly,
explain
like
that.
I
am
a
yes
and
I
appreciate
very
much
the
updating
of
of
this
provision.
I
I've
been
on
those
calls
those
meetings
and
it
is
grueling
and
heart-wrenching,
so
anything
we
can
do
to
improve
this
system.
Absolutely
I'm
in
favor.
Thank
you.
G
A
A
We
have
a
second
second
by
representative
fisher
and
we've
as
any.
If
nobody's
going
to
change
their
vote,
we
have
already
recorded
the
votes
and
seeing
none.
Then
we
have
13,
yes,
votes,
one
no
vote
and
one
pass
so
senate
bill
97
will
pass
with
favorable
expression.
The
same
should
pass
on
the
house
floor.
So
thank
you,
everyone
that
will
we
will
pass
senate
bill
97
with
that
we'll
go
to
the
final
of
the
trifecta
senate
bill
179
sponsored
by
senator
carroll,
and
you
may
proceed,
sir.
L
I
can't
thank
you
all
enough
for
for
hearing
all
three
bills.
I
think
in
eight
years
this
is
the
first
time
that's
happened
and
will
probably
be
the
last
senate
bill.
179
comes
in
response
to
the
the
natural
disaster
that
recently
occurred
in
west
kentucky,
as
everyone
is
aware,
the
tornadoes
that
came
through
our
area
and
in
the
aftermath
of
that
and
I'm
sure
it
happens
in
any
natural
disaster,
the
flooding
that
occurred
in
eastern
kentucky.
L
There
are
crimes
that
occur,
looting,
crimes
and
and
various
other
crimes,
and
the
the
tornado
was
no
exception.
To
this.
We
had
many
thefts
we
had.
L
I
think
we
even
had
a
murderer
at
the
time
over
in
graves
county,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
an
armed
robbery
within
the
area
there
in
mayfield,
so
I
received
a
request
from
one
of
the
officers
there
in
marshall
county
in
relation
to
that
and
some
of
the
the
issues
that
they
were
experiencing
and
I
think
there
was
also
a
piece
of
legislation
that
came
through
the
house.
L
It's
very
similar
to
this
related
to
looting,
and
when
we
looked
at
the
bill,
we
really
tried
to
focus
the
the
coverage
on
these
enhanced
penalties
to
strictly
cover
a
declared
emergency,
but
only
arising
from
a
natural
or
manmade
disaster.
L
L
Certain
sections
of
assault,
third,
burglary,
criminal,
trespass,
criminal
mischief,
all
the
theft,
charges
and
robbery,
and
basically,
it's
just
a
one
degree
enhancement
in
most
all
of
those
crimes
if
it
occurs
within
the
the
area
of
the
declared
emergency
related
to
natural
or
man-made
disaster,
and
mr
chairman
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
by
representative
blanton.
We
have
a
second
by
representative
banta,
all
in
fact,
representative
representative
cantrell,
I'm
going
to
come
to
you
just
a
second.
I
do
want
to
thank
you
senator
for
bringing
this.
We
actually
had
drafted
a
similar
bill
in
the
house.
We
saw
that
your
bill
was
moving
and
coming
through.
A
So
we
appreciate
that,
in
light
of
what
happened
in
western
kentucky
and
having
been
down
there
and
talked
to
the
sheriff
and
being
told
that,
I
think
there
were
four
people
that
they
caught
that
had
over
10
thousand
dollars
in
change
on
them
that
they
had
picked
up
from
the
people's
homes
that
we
needed
to
do
something
to
try
to
deal
with
these
kind
of
things.
So
cars
being
stolen.
A
Somebody
that
brought
a
trailer-
and
I
think
they
were
loading
up
cars
for
scrap
just
taking
them
out
of
the
community,
and
so
that
you
know
it's
bad
enough-
that
people
have
to
go
through
that,
but
then
to
be
victimized
at
the
hands
of
those
types
of
persons
is
just
unacceptable.
So
I
want
to
personally
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill.
We
do
have
representative
cantrell
as
a
question.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
mean
thank
you
senator
carol.
It's
a
terrible
thing
in
in
every
way
what
what
your
community
has
been
through,
I'm
looking
at,
and
you
and
you
spoke
to
this
a
little
bit
when
you
said
that
you
tried
to
narrow
this
as
much
as
you
possibly
could.
So
it
was
limited
to
a
a
natural
disaster
such
as
the
tornado
and
I'm
looking
at
it
says
unless
it
decr
occurs.
Most
of
the
these
provisions
say
this
unless
it
occurs
during
a
declared
emergency,
as
defined
in
krs
39.020.
J
And
so
when
you
say
you
tried
to
narrow,
it
narrowly
tailor
this
as
much
as
possible
and
that
definition
is
still
so
broad.
How
can
we,
you
know
truly
be
sure
that
this
is
going
to
apply
to
the
situations
when
we
need
it
to.
L
L
A
K
D
I
like
to
explain
my
yes
and
just
say
that
thank
you
for
three
great
bills,
senator
carroll.
Thank
you.
D
F
D
K
Explain
I
want
to
thank
you
as
a
representative
of
a
tornado
affected
area,
where
my
phone
has
been
ringing
off
the
hook
against
from
people
who
have
found
their
homes
looted
dealing
with
this.
It's
still
going
on.
It's
still
going
as
you
as
you
well
know.
That
said
it's
a
good
bill
I'd.
Can
we
just
double
check
to
make
sure
that
represent?
You
know
to
representative
cantrell's
excellent
point:
let's
just
make
sure
that
the
language
we've
done
so
much
with
with
39a
this
session.
K
D
A
L
A
All
right
we
are
going
to
have
one
more
bill,
I'm
going
to
call
that
in
a
moment,
senator
storm
is
tied
up
in
a
committee
meeting.
I
think
I
can
present
the
bill
for
him,
but
I
do
want
to
ask
if
representative
blanton
wants
to
record
any
votes
on.
I
believe
it
was
senate
bill
23
and
senate
bill
90.
A
And
representative
brattler,
would
you
like
to
record
a
vote
on
senate
bill
23
senate
bill
90
and
271.
A
And
then
representative
nemes,
I
think
we
had
you
down
for
maybe
recording
votes
on
90,
271
and
63.
A
All
right
and
did
we
miss
anyone
else
that
needed
to
record
a
vote
all
right
scene?
None
I'm
going
to
call
the
last
bill.
It's
senate
bill,
233
I've
been
asked
to
carry
this
on
the
floor.
I'm
just
going
to
remain
here
at
the
podium
with
regards
to
this
bill.
This
is
senate
bill
233.
A
I
will
say
that
it
passed
unanimously
in
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
We
do
have
some
people
here
that
can
assist,
I
suppose.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
obviously
I'm
ed
massey
judiciary,
chair
boone
district
66,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
my
guest.
Senator
storm
is
in
the
middle
of
a
very
contentious
vote,
apparently
and
said
he
could
not
make
make
it
here
because
he
had
to
vote
on
a
bill
particularly
right
now.
So
with
that
I'll
ask
the
guests
to
identify
themselves.
A
D
Thank
you
this
afternoon,
we're
pleased
to
be
here.
We
appreciate
it.
This
reorganization
bill
is
pretty
straightforward
and
simple.
It
moves
a
couple
of
divisions
within
the
department
of
corrections,
internal
structure,
it
renames
and
updates
the
names
for
a
couple
of
divisions,
and
it
establishes
a
new
division.
D
A
A
D
G
So
this
makes
it
under
one
umbrella
for
the
department,
and
what
does
that
group
do?
The
group
does?
Is
they
will
be
doing
the
auditing
or
quality
assurance
for
the
prison?
Rape,
elimination
act
they'll
be
over
the
safety
for
the
department,
which
is
a
fire
safety,
kentucky,
osha
and
federal
osha
standards
for
the
department
and
any
other
statutory
requirements?
When
it
comes
down
to
safety
and
fire
safety,
you
have
the
accreditation
branch,
which
is
over
all
accreditation
for
all
prisons
and
the
department
of
corrections.
G
It
will
also
be
over
the
program,
credit
branch
which
will
be
doing
auditing
of
all
programs
within
the
department,
which
includes
prisons,
jails
and
community
centers,
and
they
will
also
be
making
sure
that
inmates
are
properly
credited
with
any
courses.
They
have
completed
that
they
get
their
actual
credit,
and
they
will
also
be
monitoring
to
make
sure
actually
making
sure
that
the
jails
get
paid
under
last
year's
legislation
where,
when
they
have
offenders
complete
doc,
approved
programs,
they
will
get
the
monetary
compensation
for
doing
that.
D
And
so
efficiencies
in
making
sure
that
we
put
people
who
are
here
there
and
everywhere
together,
correct
to
make
sure
our
jails
get
paid
quicker.
Is
it
well
it
also
designed
to
get
to
remove
state
prisoners
from
local
facilities
quicker.
D
Get
out
but
get
taken
from
the
local
facility
to
the
state
facility,
because
in
louisville,
obviously,
we've
got
a
major
problem:
we've
had
seven
deaths
in
four
months
we
have
lincoln
county
is
overcrowded
their
number
they're
overcrowded.
We
need
you
guys
to
take
the
state
prisoners
out
of
the
local
jails
quicker.
D
A
Obviously,
there's
some
still
some
issues
that
the
the
legislative
body
is
concerned
with
that
we're
going
to
continue
to
work
with
you
on,
and
we
certainly
appreciate
your
efforts
to
take
positive
steps
towards
making
sure
that
the
audit
compliance
all
of
those
kind
of
things
will
work
more
efficiently.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that,
and
certainly
thank
you
for
being
willing
to
step
to
the
plate
in
the
absence
of
senator
storm.
So
are
there
any
other
questions.
A
J
E
D
D
A
Yes,
there
being
15,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes
and
zero
pass.
The
same
will
be
reported
with
able
expression
that
the
same
should
pass
on
the
house
floor.
So
thank
you
for
your
presentation
today.
I
just
got
a
text
from
senator
stormy,
just
finished,
so
he'll
probably
pass
you
in
the
hallway
and
you
can
tell
him
the
good
news
so
with
that
the
last
announcement
I'll
make
is,
as
I
would
like
to
tell
you
that
this
will
be
our
last
committee
meeting,
but
I'm
not
sure
that's
the
case.