►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on State Government (3-3-22)
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
Present
and
representative
tipton
just
walked
in,
so
we
can
count
him
as
physically
present
the
I'd
like
to
remind
everyone
in
the
audience.
If
you
want
to
speak
on
a
bill,
the
sheet
sign
up
sheet
is
back.
There
get
someone's
attention
that
you
have
signed
it
and
want
to
speak
like
to
remind
everyone.
No
signs
turn
your
cell
phones
off
if
you're
online
mute.
A
Unless
you
want
to
vote
or
ask
a
question,
please
we're
gonna
pass
over
the
first
bill
and
move
on
to
house
bill
436
sponsored
by
speaker
pro
tem
mead.
Welcome,
sir.
Most
on
the
committee
sub
promotion
on
the
committee
sub.
F
H
Thank
you
chairman
today,
I'm
honored
to
introduce
our
colleague's
son
jason
white
is
here
today
as
richard's
son
with
his
grandsons,
and
his
son-in-law
and
phil
stand
up
I'd
like
for
everybody
to
welcome
them
here
today.
A
Speaker
pro
tem
mead,
would
you
like
to
talk
about
what
was
in
the
sub,
which
we
have
just
yeah?
We
haven't
we're
about
to
vote
on,
so
is
there
anything
you'd
like
to
tell
us
about?
What's
in
the
sub
very.
I
Quick
very
quickly-
and
I
appreciate
that
representative,
graham
for
asking
what's
in
it,
what
we're
doing
here
is
as
you
as
you
remember,
through
the
covet
pandemic,
we
allowed
the
boards
and
commissions
to
go
to
a
two-year
licensing
period,
we're
putting
that
just
putting
that
in
the
statute
for
the
auctioneers
to
say
that
they
can
do
their
licensing
biannually
and
also
that
the
150
dollars
is
still
per
year,
but
they
can
collect
the
300
for
the
two-year
period.
I
So
we're
not
changing
any
fees,
just
making
sure
they
can
do
it
collected
on
two-year
period.
We
have
to
carry
as
auctioneers.
We
have
to
carry
a
license
card
in
our
our
pockets
at
all
time
when
we're
doing
auctions.
This
just
says
that
you
can
keep
it
electronically
and
then
we're
giving
subpoena
power
to
them
because
we're
having
an
issue
right
now.
There
there
actually
are
15
boards
that
are
non-medical,
that
have
subpoena
power
in
our
state
right
now.
I
After
that
also
we're,
given
the
final
thing
that
we're
doing
is
just
giving
the
board
the
ability
to
suspend
a
license
during
an
emergency
meeting
with
the
board.
If
someone
is
doing
something
that
may
be
detrimental
to
the
public,
and
so
that's
really
what
the
bill
does.
A
I
A
There
any
more
questions
on
the
sub
before
we
go
to
avoid
voice
vote.
All
in
favor
of
for
of
the
sub
signified
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed
like
signs
sub
is
before
us
motion.
D
You,
mr
chairman,
I
was
just
wondering
leader
mead,
if
you
would
perhaps
by
any
chance,
want
to
do
in
your
best
auctioneer
voice
of
bidding
for
the
votes
on
this.
Before
you
start,
I.
J
K
H
J
A
O
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee.
There
is
not
a
sub
on
this.
There
was
some
some
discussions
around
the
sub
and
I'll
get
to
that
in
a
few
minutes,
but
house
bill
10
addresses
something
that
president
stivers
and
our
respective
leaderships
have
been
discussing
really
over
the
last
couple
of
years,
and
that
is
the
process
of
pre-filing
bills.
O
You
know
from
a
historical
perspective,
the
pre-filing
of
bills
is
basically
a
relic
from
when
we
had
biennial
sessions
and
literally,
the
only
way
that
the
public
could
get
a
copy
of
a
pre-file
or
a
bill
was
to
come
to
the
capitol
and
pick
up
a
printed
copy.
It
was
the
only
way
that
somebody
had
access
to
it
in
the
the
technological
era
that
we
now
are
in
it.
It's
very
easy
to
access
information.
O
The
public
does
not
come
to
the
the
capitol
to
get
their
information;
they
they
get
it
they
get
it
online
and
the
the
the
special
designation
of
a
pre-filed
bill
carries
with
it
a
connotation
that
it
has.
It
has
cleared
some
type
of
hurdle
that
it
has
gone
through
some
additional
vetting
that
it
has
met.
O
Some
type
of
standard
other
than
that
than
other
pieces
of
working
legislation,
and
if
you,
if
you'll,
actually
look
at
the
bill
page
three
and
four,
that
the
stricken
language
from
historical
perspective,
originally
pre-filed
bills,
the
way
the
pre-file
you
actually
pre-filed
a
bill.
Was
the
committee
had
to
vote
to
pre-file
a
bill,
and
that's
that's.
Actually,
the
the
process
has
evolved
administratively
over
that
period
of
time.
O
Since
that
period
of
time,
it
actually
took
an
affirmative
vote
of
the
the
house,
members
of
an
interim
joint
committee
to
to
pre-file
a
bill,
and
it
actually
did
meet
an
additional
standard
and
and
I've
seen
over
the
last
couple
years,
and
I
think
we
all
have
that
when
you
have
a
special
designation.
O
I
I've
seen
a
lot
of
well-intended
and
well-conceived
legislation
that
has
that
that
has
died
quickly
because
of
preconceived
notions,
because
when
you
put
something
out
now,
it
is
immediately
available
to
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people
and
with
the
issue
with
the
thought
of
it
being
a
pre-filed
bill.
Then
everybody's
forced
to
take
immediate
position
on
it,
as
opposed
to
a
working
copy,
a
working
draft
of
a
bill
where
people
are
more
invited
to
to
participate
in
the
in
the
process,
the
development
process.
O
So
what
what
president
steibers
and
I
have
have
kind
of
settled
on-
is
the
idea
of
directing
lrc,
and
that
was
that
was
the
part
that
we
were
trying
to
figure
out
if
it
needed
a
sub
or
not
whether
we
needed
to
specifically
direct
in
legislation
lrc
to
do
it
or
whether
we
as
the
co-chairs
of
lrc,
could
direct
the
lrc
to
develop
a
working
bill.
O
Section
of
of
our
of
our
website,
where
people
that
wanted
to
have
bills
out
for
public
consumption
for
public
input
for
committee
hearings,
freedom,
committing
hearings
could
actually
put
those
things
in
the
public
space,
alerting
the
public
that
these
are
working
drafts.
These
are
not
final
products
in
any
way,
shape
or
form,
and
and-
and
I
think
it
will
make
for
a
better
legislative
process
in
in
the
long
run,
so
that
that's
kind
of
the
the
essence
of
it
and
steve.
F
Representative,
graham
so,
mr
speaker,
what
you're
saying
this
is
going
to
be
an
easier
process
in
terms
of
how
we
do
this
or
what
kind
of
impact
would
we
have
on
the
on
the
on
our
you
know.
In
terms
of
you
know,
this
pre-filing
will
have
any
effect
on
that.
I
understand,
and
I
I
kind
of
agree
with
you
right
that
sometimes
when
you
file
that
deal
you
you
find
out
about
other
information
and
you
need
to
make
those
changes.
Yeah.
O
Representative,
graham,
I
don't
know
that
it
will
necessarily
make
it
an
easier
process,
but
I
think
it
will
make
it
a
more
clear
process
as
to
to
where
we
are
in
the
process
of
moving
legislation.
I
think
that
again,
when
something
is
pre-filed,
I
think
it
comes
with
the
the
connotation
that
it
has.
It
is
kind
of
somewhat
in
a
final
product,
and
I
think,
if
we
make
it
clear
that
that
these
are
working
drafts,
that
this
is
a
work
product,
certainly
if
someone
wants
to
continue
to
keep
just
as
they
do
now.
O
If
someone
wants
to
keep
their
their
legislation
private,
then
then
that
this
would
be
this
require.
You
know
a
legislator
to
say
no.
I
want
this
in
the
public
in
the
public
space.
I
feel
like
it's.
It's
well
baked
enough
to
to
get
it
to
the
public
space
then,
but
I
think
it
makes
it
more
clear.
I
can't
say
that
I
think
it
makes
it
easier,
but
I
do
think
it
makes
it
more
clear
to
the
public.
C
C
So
this
would
also
relieve
some
of
that
burden
on
the
front
end
of
all
that
extra
burden
that's
put
on
the
clerk's
office
on
day,
one
that
we're
literally
like
next
year,
we'll
also
be
dealing
with
new
members
being
sworn
in,
plus
all
these
pre-filed
bills
and
not
to
mention
the
pre-file
bills
from
retiring
members.
That
currently,
you
representative
miller,
would
still
have
the
ability
to
pre-file
and
and
that's
just
really,
truly
a
burden
for
from
an
administrative
aspect
of
the
legislative
process.
A
Very
good
representative
flood,
please.
K
K
This
bill,
I'm
wanting
to
understand
a
subtlety
because
one
of
the
ways
I
know
that
pre-filed
bills
help
us
is
if
we
are
faced
with
a
situation
that
arises
in
our
constituents
or
in
our
districts,
where
we
need
to
respond
in
a
an
emergency
situation.
If
you
will-
and
you
file
a
bill
to
say
I'm
on
this,
so
in
that
sense
that
doesn't
change,
I
as
an
individual
can
still
do
that
file
a
bill,
but
it's
in
effect.
K
O
And
there
may
be
a-
and
I
know
it's
happened
several
times
after
bills
have
filed
been
filed.
Pre-Filed
subsequent
changes
have
been
made
that
that
ultimately,
don't
show
up
on
day
one
they
they
will.
You
know
they
will
require
a
committee
sub
and
so
again
I
think
that
we
put
people
in
a
position
of
having
to
decide
on
what
they
see
the
information
they
see
and,
and
that
isn't
always
the
best
information
available
and
and
this
at
least
alerts
them
that
there's
there's.
You
know
many
potential
changes.
O
You
know,
I
know
that
we
all
like
to
to
think
that
everybody
understands
what
we
do
and
how
legislation
moves,
but
the
general
public
generally
does
not,
and
so
I
think
that
when
the
when
the
public
sees
something-
and
they
are,
they
are
forced
to
make
a
decision
about
whether
or
not
they're
for
or
against
something
it
it
it
does.
It
makes
them
do
that
as
opposed
to
to
to
maybe
compelling
them
to
to
provide
input.
K
Last
follow-up,
question,
sir
briefly,
so
you
used
a
good
example.
You
said,
if
say
you
know,
I'm
here
through
the
end
of
the
year,
but
if
I
decided
at
the
end
of
the
to
pre-file
a
bill
and
then
I'm
not
re-elected
what
happens
to
those
bills
that
are
pre-filed
by
someone
who's,
not
returning,
they.
O
Go
away
they
just
simply,
they
just
simply
go
away
in
this
particular
case.
In
this
particular
case.
If
it
were
a
working
draft,
then
then,
then
you
could
easily
withdraw
as
a
sponsor
and
and
have
someone
else
file
the
bill.
K
Okay,
good,
thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you
speaker
very.
A
Good
representative
hevern.
N
Thank
you.
I'd
just
like
to
make
a
comment,
mr
speaker.
I
greatly
appreciate
this
bill
whenever
I
came
in
on
a
special
election
in
2019
two
days
before
my
election,
the
gentleman
from
jefferson
33
dropped
a
medical
marijuana
bill
that
was
70
pages
long
and
that
was
actually
a
hot
topic
of
conversation
during
my
campaign,
and
so
I
was
then
ex
who
knew
that
I'd
be
mad
at
jason
nevis.
Before
I
even
knew
him,
it
should
have
been
a
real
indicator
of
what
was
coming,
but
it
really
put
a
lot.
N
Anyways
back
to
the
story,
it
put
a
lot
of
pressure
on
me
as
a
new
candidate.
You
know,
I've
read
I'd,
read
language
before
just
did
working
at
the
kentucky
state.
Treasury
I'd
read
bills,
but
really
it
wasn't
a
it
wasn't
a
topic
of
conversation.
N
I
was
ready
to
make
an
answer
on
because
I
didn't
have
the
full
conversation
of
the
caucus
and
to
be
able
to
speak
to
members
on
it,
and
so
I
just
think
that
really
protects
a
lot
of
people
from
having
to
make
decisions,
and
so
I
greatly
appreciate
that
just
having
had
that
experience
from
the
gentleman
from
jefferson
33.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
bringing
this
bill.
J
J
I
have
fallen
victim
to
co-sponsoring
bills
too
soon
and
pre-filing
bills
too
soon,
and
I
see
that
people
who
are
more
seasoned
know
better.
So
somehow
I
see
this
as
a
protection
of
new
members
from
themselves
and
perhaps
that's
not
the
best
thing
to
do
protect
us
from
ourselves,
but
I
see
the
wisdom
of
controlling
the
the
narrative
a
little
bit
better.
It
helps
our
constituents
too,
for
the
reasons
you've
stated.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
representative
tipton.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
G
Speaker,
leader
rudy,
I'm
around
I'm
around
the
column,
mr
speaker,
but
I'm
here.
I
do
see
this
potentially
maybe
reducing
the
number
of
committee
subs
we
deal
with,
but
I
just
want
one
point
of
clarification.
If
I
may,
we
pass
this
legislation,
you
as
a
speaker
and
president
stivers
is
co-chairs
of
the
lrc.
You
believe
you
will
be
able
to
direct
the
lrc
to
come
up
with
a
system
to
that.
Would
allow
these
unofficial
bills
pre-drafted
bills
to
be
outmade
to
the
public.
Is
that
correct
that.
O
Is
our
latest
understanding?
We
actually
had
staff
meeting
with
lrc
staff
yesterday
to
confirm
that
they're
doing
a
little
bit
of
additional
research
if
they
find
out
that
we
do
need
to
direct
it,
then
we
will,
but
I
think
the
added
flexibility
of
not
actually
having
that
in
statute
will
be
helpful.
It
will
allow
them
to
adjust
the
process
as
as
they
need
to.
O
A
A
P
Yes,
I'm
going
to
vote
no,
but
I'm
very
interested
in
the
remarks
that
representative
tipton
provided
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
we're
a
part-time
legislature-
and
I
would
like
for
there
to
be
some
kind
of
mechanism
to
have
that
dialogue
with
the
public
about
what
we're
working
on.
So
thank
you.
Yes,.
M
Representative,
tate,
may
I
explain
my
vote.
Please,
I'm
certainly
going
to
vote.
Yes,
one
of
the
things
that
I
love
about
this
process
is
the
historical
you
know.
The
process
about
the
general
assembly
is
the
historical
piece
about
this.
It's
so
nice
to
walk
in
this
and
know
that
the
people
that
came
before
us
actually
created
this
processes,
and
I
know
I
think
this
process
has
been
in
place
since
1984..
M
O
G
R
Briefly,
explain
and
I'm
a
yes
vote
on
this,
and-
and
this
is
brings
the
legislation
more
into
light,
quicker,
less
committee
subs.
So
that
less
surprises
and
I
think
it's
a
great
idea.
Yes,.
A
A
S
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
If
this
bill
looks
familiar,
it's
because
you
did
see
it
last
year,
last
year's
house
bill
454.
It
is
a
reorg
for
executive
branch
ethics.
Commission.
This
bill
does
a
couple
simple
things:
number
one
increases
a
penalty
for
persons
who
attempt
to
bribe,
or
otherwise
corrupt
this
body
or
someone
who's
a
disobedient.
Witness
increases
the
fine
for
that
from
one
thousand
dollars
to
fifteen
thousand
dollars.
S
It
allows
the
attorney
general
to
prosecute
those
cases
in
the
place
where
the
accused
person
resides
or
in
franklin
county
number.
Two
on
the
reorg
part,
the
current
commission
is
made
up
of
five
members.
Those
five
members
are
appointed
by
the
governor.
The
governor
has
a
sole
authority
to
do
that.
S
This
would
expand
that
from
five
members
to
seven
members,
the
governor
would
still
have
two
appointments.
Each
of
the
other
constitutional
officers
would
each
have
one
appointment,
those
other
constitutional
officers.
They
fall
under
the
exec
executive
branch
ethics
commission.
So
it
seems
only
right
to
have
them
as
part
of
that
under
this
bill,
the
terms
of
the
existing
members
will
terminate
on
the
effective
date
of
the
bill,
and
new
new
members
will
be
appointed
as
listed
in
subsection
two
and
then
on
page
number.
S
Three,
it
talks
about
the
how
they're
dealt
with
the
complaints,
how
those
findings
are
made
and
that's
pretty
much
it.
It's
very
simple.
H
K
S
P
K
Yes,
thank
you.
So
much
chair
is
sir.
Our
lieutenant
governor
is
also
elected
by
the
people
and
is
served
in
the
executive
branch
and
is
an
independent
person
running
for
office
these
days
after
changes
you
all
have
made.
So
why
is
she
not
listed
as
somebody
who
gets
to
be
involved
in
executive
branch,
ethics.
S
Well,
representative
club,
perhaps
that
conversation
could
be,
could
be
between
the
governor
and
the
lieutenant
governor
as
to
who
that
second
appointment
is,
if
you
give
the
lieutenant
governor
an
additional
appointment,
you
end
up
with
eight
people,
which
is
a
nice
even
number,
but
that
doesn't
work
out
well
for
tie
breakers
and
when
you
have
decisions
to
be
made.
K
That
answer
was
insufficient,
but
moving
on,
let's
do
this.
The
last
thing
I
need
to
understand
is
it
got
real
vague
at
the
end,
you
said:
require
the
executive
branch
ethics
to
make
findings
for
complaints
and
then
to
make
public
whether
it's
what
his
purpose
was
tell
me
more
about
that
particular
piece.
What
are
you
asking
the
ethics
commission
to
make
public.
S
So
for
a
complaint
filed
by
someone
other
than
the
ex
other
than
the
ethics
commission,
this
is
on
page
number
three
for
each
complaint
filed
by
a
person
other
than
the
commission
or
a
member
of
the
commission.
The
commission
shall
make
a
finding
as
to
whether
the
complaint
is
well
grounded,
in
fact
warranted
by
existing
law
filed
for
a
good
faith
argument
or
reason,
and
not
for
any
improper
purpose,
such
as
political
advantage
to
harass
or
embarrass
a
person
or
persons
to
cause
delays
or
to
increase
the
cost
of
adjudicating
the
case
before
the
commission.
K
K
A
L
G
L
When
I
looked
at
this
for
the
first
time,
the
first
thing
I
thought
of
was
well
yeah.
It's
another
board
reorganization
bill,
but
the
first
thing
I
thought
about
was
the
fair
board
and
that's
currently
been
held
unconstitutional
by
by
franklin
circuit
court
that
you
can't
do
that
and
that
the
governor
you
know
has
them,
should
have
the
majority
under
the
constitution
of
appointments
on
a
board.
So
how
do
you?
S
The
courts
will
decide
the
constitutionality
of
this
board
as
they
do
others.
If
this
is
challenged
that,
oh
I'm
sorry
the
but
as
it
is,
you
know.
I
think
that
we
would
all
agree
that
you
should
not
have
one
person
appointing
all
the
members
of
an
ethics
commission
that
oversees
their
office
and
if
someone
else
is
going
to
be
bound
by
that,
they
should
also
have
a
say
in
it
to
make
it
across
the
board,
and
this
works,
whether
it's
republican
or
democrat,
it
doesn't
matter
if
it's.
F
You
kind
of
answered
the
first
question
that
I
was
going
to
ask
you
in
terms
of
the
reasons
for
taking
these
appointments
away
from
the
governor.
Was
there
any
discussion
about
extending
the
appointments
but
still
allowing
the
governor
to
get
recommendations
from
the
other
executive
officers
for
them
to
recommend
who
they
would
want
on
the
board,
and
then
he
could
decide
whether
or
not
to
put
them
on
that
board,
or
he
would
accept
them
and
still
give
them
a
voice
on
the
board?
Was
there
any
any
discussions
in
regards
to
that
that
direction.
F
So
there
was
no
discussion
with
the
the
current
administration
in
regards
to
the
appointments.
F
F
Well,
let
me
just
say
this:
I'm
I'm
concerned
about
all
of
these
changes
in
terms
of
the
appointment
to
boards
and
commission,
of
which
all
the
governors
previous
have
had
that
responsibility,
and
we
have
in
terms
approved
many
of
those
people
over
in
the
senate.
They
approve
them.
I
just
think
that
this
is
tramping
on
two
things:
separation
of
powers
and
checks
and
balances,
and
I
think,
as
we
go
down
this
path
for
right
now,
it
may
seem
it's
okay.
A
You're
quite
welcome.
Are
there
any
other
questions
representative
tipton.
G
Q
S
It's
to
ensure
continuity.
If,
if
anyone
could
could
reorganize
that
or
if
it
could
be
done,
re
done
under
the
executive
branch
somewhere
down
the
road,
then
you
find
yourself
right
back
in
the
same
situation.
You
know
when
we
put
up
guard
rails
oftentimes,
we
think
of
of
safety
for
various
people,
and
sometimes
it's
the
very
person
within
that
office.
So
so
guard
rails
are
healthy
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we
have
that.
S
So
it's
to
to
ensure
that
we
just
have
that
one
strict
process
for
that.
Q
Thank
you,
guardwells
are
healthy.
The
other
question
is
this:
is
an
executive
branch
ethics
commission?
Did
the
governor
ask
for
these
changes.
S
Ma'am
I
arrived
in
january
last
year.
I
haven't
seen
him
once.
S
Q
And
my
last
question
is
this:
on
page
three,
you
allow
this
commission
to
be
appointed
by
other
officers
except
the
lieutenant
governor,
and
you
also
say
they
can
decide
whether
or
not
to
take
a
complaint
if
they
find
that
the
complaint
is
for
political
purpose,
harassment
or
to
embarrass
a
person.
Can
you
say
that
this
bill
has
nothing
to
do
with
a
political
ploy,
a
complaint
against
the
governor
or
to
diminish
his
powers.
Q
D
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
very
quickly
to
speak
on
this
this
this
bill,
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
the
conversation
about
the
reorganization
of
boards
is
a
valid
conversation
that
we
should
have,
but
this
is
the
ethics
commission.
D
By
having
the
executive
officer
pick,
all
the
people
on
the
ethics
board
is
challenging.
It's
it's
problematic,
and
this
is
a
solution
for
that
now
we
can
talk
about
all
the
other
boards
we
want,
but
this
is
the
ethics
board,
and
so
I
support
this.
I
think
it's
an
opportunity
to
provide
additional
checks
and
balances
and
provide
some
protection
against
impropriety
or
that
appearance
thereof
for
the
executive
branch.
So
I
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill.
Yes,
sir,.
A
Okay,
everybody
could
be
brief.
Representative
nemes.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
want
to
note
my
friend,
the
lady
from
warren
is
correct,
that
the
court
has
determined
that
the
preliminarily
that
the
bill
that
we
pass
on
the
fair
board
is
unconstitutional.
That
was
a
jefferson
county
circuit
judge,
not
franklin,
it's
on
appeal
and
the
judge
actually
decide
granted
the
stay
so
to
so
that
the
bill
is
being
enforced
right
now.
But
the
main
point
I
want
to
note
is
this:
I
would.
I
would
really
implore
both
sides
on
something
like
that.
We
fight
over
agriculture,
commissioner,
fish
and
wildlife.
E
We
fight
over
that
stuff,
that's
fine,
but
this
I
would
really
implore
my
friends
on
the
other
side.
Kentucky
is
going
hard
red
and
whether
bashir
wins
the
next
election
or
not
chances
are
republicans,
are
going
to
be
governors
for
a
long
time
in
kentucky,
maybe
disagree,
but
I
think
that's
probably
borne
out
by
the
facts.
Do
you
really
want
a
republican
governor
or
democrat
governor?
Do
you
really
want
that
republican
governor
appointing
the
entire
executive
branch?
E
Commission?
I
don't
think
you
do.
I
certainly
don't
want
a
republican
governor
or
democrat
governor
appointing
them
all.
It's
a
flaw
in
the
system:
it's
always
been
a
flaw
in
the
system
and
what
this
does
is
it
diversifies
those
appointments
to
every
person
except
for
lieutenant
governor,
and
if
we
want
to
take
one
from
the
governor
to
give
lieutenant
god,
I
guess
we
can
do
that,
but
but
it
lets
the
sec,
the
treasurer
get
one
attorney
general,
all
of
them
get
one
and
whether
that's
the
proper
diversification
or
not.
Let's
have
the
conversation
about
that.
E
But
surely
my
friends
on
the
other
side,
don't
want
say:
matt
bevin,
runs
and
wins
again
and
wins
again.
They
don't
want
him
to
be
able
to
just
appoint
all
the
members.
It's
not
a
good
thing,
it's
very
unhealthy
and
to
the
point
on
it
only
affects
this
person.
You
didn't
talk
to
the
person
that
it
affects.
This
affects
4.5
million
persons,
not
just
one-
and
this
diversification
I
think,
is
proper.
Maybe
we
can
do
it
differently,
but
it
should
not
be
all
in
the
governor's
hands.
This
is
the
this.
E
A
You
for
your
brevity
representative,
mentor.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
correction
appreciated
my
my
friend
from
jefferson33,
but
I
wanted
to
correct
the
record
on
the
gentleman
from
davey
7..
The
governor
technically
has
five
appointments
on
the
board.
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
right
about
this.
L
Has
five
appointments
on
the
board,
but
two
of
those
appointments,
and
this
takes
it
from
five
to
seven,
but
two
of
those
appointments
are
based
on
names
sent
by
the
auditor
and
the
ag,
commissioner,
and
my
understanding
is
that
each
of
those
constitutional
officers
sends
a
list
of
three
names,
so
they
get
to
pick
the
three
names
and
the
governor
chooses
one
from
that
list
of
three.
Is
that
correct.
S
L
L
L
You
have
to
pick
from
that
list
of
three
that
you
get
so
really
the
ag,
commissioner
and
the
auditor
do
have
a
pick.
They
may
they
might
have
a
preference
that
may
or
may
not
be
the
person
selected,
but
they
already
have.
They
already
have
picks
right,
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
clear
on
the
record.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
just
some
comments
in
the
this
is
the
22nd
year
that
I've
served
in
this
general
assembly
and
have
served
with
five
different
governors,
starting
with
paul
patton,
and
if
you
look
back
in
kentucky's
history,
there's
always
some
nefarious
something
going
on
whether
it
be
true,
not
true
that
that
that
is
in
the
papers,
and
I
I
think,
what
a
way
of
life
in
kentucky
for
years.
You
know
all
the
way
back
in
100
years
ago,.
J
H
Always
been
something
you
know
that
you
can
look
back
in
the
history,
something
unethical
it's
been
in
the
newspapers,
whether
it
was
or
not.
There's
always
been
that
shadow,
and
so
when
you
have,
you
know
one
person
making
all
the
appointments
that
that
can
bring
charges
against
a
governor
there's
something
wrong
with
that
picture,
and
so
I
think
this
is
a
great
piece
of
legislation
and
I'd
urge
the
committee
to
support
it.
R
You,
mr
chair,
and
this
is
also
just
a
comment
or
comments
related
to
this,
and
and
we
certainly
appreciate
some
of
the
concepts
related
to
board
appointments
and
how
they
are
made.
The
ethics,
the
guard
rails.
R
It's
just
overwhelmingly
obvious
that
this
is
being
done
during
this
current
administration
by
a
supermajority
on
the
other
side.
That's
just
cannot
be
helped
and
whether
you've
been
here
a
short
time
like
we
have
or
a
long
time
these
things
weren't
done
previously
and
the
legislative
ethics
commission
is
not
appointed
by
the
governor.
R
So
should
the
executive
branch
commission
be
appointed
by
the
legislature
and
I'm
just
throwing
that
out,
there
is.
There
are
all
kinds
of
ways
that
boards
are
named
and
who
gets
appointed
them,
and
we
know
in
our
history
and
through
some
constitutional
amendments
that
were
passed,
that
the
powers
have
been,
that
the
balance
of
power
has
been
shifted
and
part
of
that
shift
has
given
the
governor.
Some
of
our
own
statutory
work
has
given
the
governor
more
authority
since
the
70s
I'll
say
to
appoint
these
boards.
R
R
These
things
are
going
to
change
and
could
change
very
very
easily
if
there
is
a
new
governor
elected
in
in
2023
or
2027
or
whenever,
because
we
can
do
that
by
statute.
We
haven't
done
this
in
the
past,
but
we
want
to
do
it
now
and
we
seem
to
want
to
do
it
now
again
and
again
and
again,
and
you
can
see
our
viewpoint
from
that
point
of
view.
Thank
you.
A
O
L
Briefly,
explain
my
vote.
Please
it's
it's
a
no
today,
because
this
is
a
separation
of
powers
issue.
It's
another
power
grab
from
the
executive
branch.
I
did
want
to
correct
the
record
that
it's
attorney
general
and
auditor
who
put
people
on
it's
just
simply
not
true
to
say
that
the
governor
picks
all
five
people.
I
mean
that's
just
not
a
valid
premise:
the
list
come
from
the
ag
and
the
auditor,
so
they
get
each
get
a
pick
on
the
board.
L
E
Explain,
mr
chairman,
very
briefly,
please
I
don't
see
that
provision
that
my
friend
the
lady
of
warren,
I'm
reading
the
statue
does
exist
today
and
I
don't
see
that
it's
required
that
the
attorney
general
auditor
submit
the
names
to
them.
It
might
be
somewhere
else
in
the
statute.
I
think
it's
done
by
practice,
but
it's
not
done
by
law.
It
could
be
wrong,
but
I
don't
see
it.
It's.
E
A
Q
Briefly,
explain
my
vote,
I'm
I'm
voting
no
and
I'm
always
concerned
about
when
we
start
using
our
legislative
powers
to
kill
to
harm
another
branch
and
when
we
had
a
governor
in
there
just
bevin,
since
he
said
his
name
and
he
did
all
manners
of
things
that
didn't
work.
We
didn't
do
this.
We
allowed
him
to
keep
all
of
his
powers
and
so
now
to
start
worrying
about
the
appearance
at
this
time
is
troubling.
G
There
is
no
mention
whatsoever
in
the
statute
of
any
other
executive
branch
office
having
any
input
anything
in
the
process.
It
strictly
says
the
governor
shall
appoint
five.
His
existing
statute
and
and
people
forget
all
of
our
constitutional
officers
elected
by
the
people
across
the
state
are
members
of
the
executive
branch.
This
is
about
executive
branch
ethics.
So
I
vote
yes.
Thank
you
representative.
R
A
J
You,
mr
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
am
state
representative
melinda
gibbs
parenting.
I
represent
the
15th
district
in
western
kentucky.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
to
you
today
house
77
a
simple
resolution
that
supports
federal
action
in
mitigating
cyber
attacks
and
ransomware
demands,
and
it
urges
the
united
states
congress
to
take
appropriate
measures
sufficient
to
protect
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky
from
cyber
attacks
motion.