►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on State and Local Government
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
I'm
here
and
we
have
a
quorum
and
speaker
just
walked
in
president-
is
here
we're
going
to
do
house
joint
resolution
77
first,
if
general
want
to
come
to
the
table,
try
to
honor
y'all's
time,
and
you
know
you're
busy.
D
A
D
Committee
good
to
be
back
with
the
with
the
committee
this
morning,
we
are
here
to
present
hjr
77,
and
this
deals
with
governor's
executive
orders
that
have
been
put
in
place
over
the
past
year
and
an
acknowledgement
of
course,
that
the
court
has
enjoined
senate
bill,
1
senate
bill,
2
and
house
bill
1..
We
understand
that
that
those
decisions
will
likely
be
made
after
we
leave
here.
D
Some
of
the.
Of
course,
much
of
the
conversation
has
been
about
our
disagreement
with
some
of
those
executive
orders
and
and
some
public
displeasure
with
some
of
those
executive
orders.
This
does
not
speak
this.
D
This
really
speaks
to
the
fact
that
there
are
some
of
those
executive
orders
that
are
and
are
very
good
for
businesses
or
individuals
that
people
don't
necessarily
think
about
in
normal
course
of
business,
whether
that
be
people
that
have
professional
licenses
that
have
been
given
extensions,
continuing
education,
things
like
waiving
co-pays
on
vaccines
and
coveted
testing
things
that
people
are
reliant
on,
and
especially
businesses
as
they
are
trying
to
plan
in
this
very
uncertain
time.
D
I
think
that
it's
important
that
we
signal
to
them
that,
regardless
of
what
the
courts
say,
we're
going
to
give
you
at
least
60
days
as
it
was
originally
drafted,
60
days
to
make
those
decisions
on
on
those
certain
items
that
were
extending
that
benefit.
You
there's
another
section
of
the
bill
that
deals
with
professional
boards.
That
portion
extends
everything
for
30
days.
D
Just
saying
that,
beyond
that
30
days,
you
have
to
go
back
through
the
regular
regulatory
process
that
we
that
we
set
forth
in
in
the
legislature
for
doing
administrative
regs,
and
that's
really
all
the
bill.
Does.
I
do
think
that
there's
a
committee
sub,
which.
A
A
C
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
the
speaker,
is
exactly
right:
we
have
been
working
on
this
between
our
respective
offices
to
make
sure
that
the
governor
has
the
utmost
latitude
on
these
areas
that
we
feel
appropriate.
C
We
also
have
you
know
there
was
some
technical
matters,
that's
just
some
dates
and
things
of
that
nature
that
were
corrected
in
the
sub
the
other
is
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
does
not
in
any
way
restrict
us
from
receiving
federal
funds,
as
it
has
been
discussed,
I
think
in
both
chambers
and
quite
prevalently
in
the
news
we
just
wound
up
with
2.4
billion
dollars
in
our
lap.
C
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
can
continue
to
access
those,
because
that
will
be
close
to
a
14-month
period
that
will
be
receiving
those
types
of
funds.
A
Any
questions
or
comments
from
the
committee
senator
alvarado.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
gentlemen,
thank
you
very
much
for
this.
Has
the
governor
reached
out
to
either
of
you
to
request
this.
D
No,
this
is
the
the
kind
of
the
the
evolution
of
this
represent.
Our
senator
is
during
the
court
proceedings
judge
shepard
himself
actually,
when
he
issued
the
injunction
suggested
that
perhaps
we
should
get
together
to
to
try
to
settle
this
to
work
things
out.
D
President
and
I
sent
a
letter,
I
believe
it
was
in
february
to
the
governor
asking
for
some
dialogue
about
which
of
these
orders
he
would
like
to
extend
and
how
much
flexibility
he
would
like
on
those
responded
in
a
manner
that
that
didn't
really
give
us
the
opportunity
to
to
have
those
discussions
about
individual
orders.
So
this
this
kind
of
became
our
our
vision
of
what
what
we
thought
that
was
important
to
to
continue,
regardless
of
ultimately
what
the
courts
did.
C
Senator
alvarado
that
that
is
correct.
This
was,
I
think
the
court
basically
was
pushing
us
to
have
discussion,
asked
that
the
governor
file,
all
the
executive
orders
and
regs
into
the
court,
so
we
would
know
what
was
currently
active
because
there
weren't
good
records
on
a
lot
of
these
things,
and
so
this
was
done,
and
I
agree
again
with
the
speaker.
C
E
Mr
president,
mr
speaker,
thank
you
for
your
leadership
on
this
is
kind
of
my
point
is
that
again
I
think
we've
been
asking
for
some
collaboration
clearly
and
we
haven't
received
it
from
the
executive
branch.
I
want
to
thank
you
all
for
for
bringing
this
forward
and
taking
the
leadership
to
continue
to
extend
these
I'd.
Make
a
motion
on
the
resolution.
A
F
Email
kes,
nye
vote.
Gentlemen.
Thank
you
very
much.
You've
threaded,
an
incredible
needle
between
public
safety
policy,
the
politics
on
both
sides
of
it,
the
pressures
we've
received.
It's
been
unbelievable
and
just
thank
you
both
sincerely
from
the
bottom
of
my
heart
for
what
you've
done
today.
G
A
I
vote
I
and
house
joint
resolution.
77
passes
eight
to
one
same
should
pass
on
to
the
senate
floor.
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
A
H
You,
mr
chairman,
I
have
online
with
me
kathy
ruppenin
of
the
of
the
kentucky
retirement
system,
and
this
bill
is
brought
on
behalf
of
the
kentucky
retirement
system
and
the
reason
is
it
applies.
It
relates
to
fraud
related
to
disability
claims.
The
reason
it's
only
related
to
krs
and
not
trs
or
others
is
the
richness
of
the
disability
payment
in
in
the
k
in
the
c
plans.
H
So
I'd
like
to
turn
this
over
to
ms
ruppenin
to
explain
the
details
of
the
bill,
but
it
is
it's:
it's
a
knowing
fraud,
type
action
very.
A
Please
miss
mr
rippin.
If
you
can
be
cognizant
of
our
time
just
as
quickly
as
possible,
please.
I
Yes,
I
will
be
very
brief.
Thank
you,
representative
miller.
261
amends
krs
61685
to
allow
for
civil
penalties
for
individuals
who
file
false
or
fraudulent
information
with
retirement
systems
seeking
benefits
or
for
individuals,
people.
It
defines
people
who
withhold
information
records
documents,
things
such
as
that
that
they
have
an
obligation
to
provide
to
the
retirement
systems
in
order
to
receive
benefits.
I
The
civil
penalties
that
it
provides
for
is
up
to
three
times
the
amount
of
benefits
that
were
falsely
obtained
500
penalty,
pre-judgment
interest
and
legal
fees
and
costs
in
litigation.
Whenever
these
false
receipts
of
benefits
are
are
uncovered.
Appeals
of
these
matters
can
last
six
to
ten
years.
In
some
cases,
individuals
have
a
lot
of
incentive
to
continue
to
litigate
these
matters.
I
To
put
this
off
as
long
as
possible,
our
current
statutes
do
not
provide
for
any
penalties
or
interests,
and
this
legislation,
I
believe,
is
necessary
in
order
to
help
make
the
retirement
systems
whole
when
they
actually
recover
these
benefits,
if
they
don't
get
the
cost
of
litigation
or
interest
they're,
not
really
recovering
the
true
expense.
We
also
believe
this
could
act
as
a
deterrent
to
keep
individuals
from
making
these
types
of
false
or
fraudulent
claims.
Thank
you.
A
E
A
I
vote
I
in
house
bill
261
passes
10
to
zero.
There
is
a
motion
for
consent
from
senator
thayer,
a
second
from
senator
alvarado,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
house
bill
261
is
proceeding
on
to
our
consent
agenda.
Thank
you,
ma'am
for
your
testimony
and
your
time.
Thank
you
very
much
represent
miller.
Has
the
next
item
on
our
agenda
so
he'll
stay
right
in
place
is
house
bill
113
and.
H
I'd
like
to
ask
mr.
A
H
Mr
barnes
to
the
table-
and
this
is
a
housekeeping
bill
now
for
those
of
you
that
haven't
seen
too
many
of
these
it's-
these
fix
things
they've
crept
into
into
being
through
the
passage
of
subsequent
statutes
that
slightly
changes
meanings.
H
A
perfect
example
is
258,
and
one
258,
which
has
already
been
passed,
actually
created
a
conflict
with
this
housekeeping
bill.
So
it's
that
type
of
thing
that
conflicts
are
created.
It's
been
11
sessions,
since
a
housekeeping
bill
was
passed
for
trs.
So
it's
quite
a
long
time.
Krs
we've
passed
a
couple
since
I've
been
in
so
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
barnes.
F
Thank
you,
representative
miller.
Thank
you,
representative
miller,
beau
barnes,
deputy
executive
secretary
and
general
counsel
for
teachers,
retirement
system
house
bill
113
is
the
trs
housekeeping
bill.
It
is
largely
technical
changes
and
does
not
change
practice
or
procedure
at
all.
There
are
two
areas
of
more
substantive
changes.
F
Those
are
first,
they
put
in
statute
stricter,
retire
and
return
to
work
provisions
for
our
retiring
members,
and
these
are
recommended
by
outside
tax
counsel,
to
ensure
continued
compliance
with
federal
tax
law,
and
the
second
area
is
to
tighten
up
the
disability
retirement
provision
somewhat
and
those
are
the
two
substantive
provisions.
They're
discus
they're
discussed
in
detail
in
the
in
the
actual
analysis
attached
and
I'd,
be
happy
to
discuss
those
in
greater
detail
this
morning
with
the
with
the
committee.
If
you'd
like
motion
on
the
bill.
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
from
sam
mcdaniel,
second
from
senator
nemas.
If
there
are
not
any
other
questions,
the
aaa
did
not
show
any
additional
expense
or
any
additional.
A
C
A
A
Our
final
item
is
the
carryover
from
yesterday,
which
is
house
bill
309
and
represent
miller
and
represent.
Nemesis
are
back
at
the
table
before
we
get
started.
There
was
a
committee
sub,
it
is
committee,
sub
number
10
pss
number
10..
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
adopt
that
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
nemes.
A
H
When
senator
mcgarvey
and
president
james
said
they'd
rather
have
nothing
than
what
was
in
that
bill
for
the
subpoena
power,
I
spoke
with
a
business
group
in
louisville
that
had
been
contacted.
I've
had
spoken
with
four
or
five
times
over
the
past
three
months
about
this
bill
and
asked.
Would
they
have
a
problem
if
I'd
completely
dropped
section
one?
They
responded
to
me.
No,
they
did
not.
So
the
sub
reflects
that
and
I'd
like
to
expl
have
representative
nemes
talk
about
that.
If,
with
your
indulgence.
J
For
c
yes,
so
so
the
sub
knocks
out
section
one.
There
is
possibly
an
agreement
on
the
framework
that
the
house
had
on
the
subpoena.
I
wanted,
if
I
could.
Mr
chairman,
I
wanted
to
say
two
things.
One
thing
I've
learned
yesterday
that
supports
the
position
that
we
had
to
go
through
this
committee
on
the
on
the
council.
If
I
can
just
take
a
moment
to
do
that
briefly,
yes,
so
the
mayor
has
made
his
appointments
to
this
committee,
and
there
are
a
number
of
very
concerning
folks.
J
A
couple
of
them
said
that
fop
was
white
supremacy.
The
lmp
are
evil
in
the
devil
and
most
concerning,
if
that
weren't
concerning
enough,
is
they
said,
police
officers
aren't
entitled
to
due
process?
That's
the
group
that
some
folks
would
give
subpoena
power
to
so
we
believe
they
should
have
access
to
subpoena
power,
because
we
think
that
enhances
the
investigation.
That's
important.
Some
people
think
they
should
have
no
subpoena
power,
no
access
to
it.
Some
people
think
they
should
have
unfettered
and
unqualified.
We
think
they
should
have
access
to
it.
J
We
think
that
improves
the
our
community.
Our
community
needs
this.
We
believe,
and
so
we've
we've
reached
out
to
a
number
of
people,
the
fop
aclu
senator
mcgarvey,
and
I
think
we
have
a
compromise
that
works
if
if
the
senate
would
agree
to
it,
and
that
is
that
they
still
have
to
go
through
the
board
still
has
to
go
through
the
committee.
The
committee
would
subpoena
just
like
metro,
council
committee,
metro,
council
committee.
Thank
you
thank
you,
representative
and,
and
then
the
the
documents
that
the
the
that
the
committee
gets
back.
J
They
would
then
forward
onto
the
board,
whereas
before
we
said
it
was
a,
it
was
a
may.
We
that
was
a.
I
think
it
was
not
our
intent
to
have
it
in
may
so
that
whatever
documents
they
get
remember
they've
already
vetted
to
make
sure
the
subpoenas
appropriate.
The
elected
body
has
whatever
they
receive.
They
give
to
the
to
the
inspector
general
who
has
professional.
He
has
he's
he's,
got
a
professional
background
investigation
in
this
area
and
he
or
she
so
those
documents
would
then
be
forwarded
on.
J
I
think
I
think
we've
had
we've
reached
an
agreement.
I
guess
senator
mcgarvey
can
can
talk
about
his
understanding
of
that,
and
we
also
would
say,
because
we
never
intended
it
not
to
be
able
to
to
go
after
documents
that
third
parties
have.
Somebody
brought
up
tasers
yesterday
when
you
subpoena
something
it's
it's
in
the
custody
or
control,
they
certainly
would
have
the
control
over
it,
so
that
was
all
already
covered.
We
thought
we
want
to
make
it
explicit.
So,
with
those
two
changes,
fop
agrees
with
it,
I
think
senator
garvin.
J
He
can
speak
for
himself.
I
think
he
agrees
with
it
and
the
aclu
agrees
with
it.
So
I
think
we've
reached
a
good,
a
good
resolution
there.
I
also
want
to
say
if
I
can
real
quickly,
because
I
want
to
correct
the
record
on
something
the
mayor
said
this
morning:
he's
he's
taking
shots
at
us
because
we
won't
give.
J
We
don't
agree
with,
and
even
if
jerry
and
I
representative
miller-
and
I
did-
we
couldn't
get
it
past-
the
house
anyway,
we
won't
agree
with
direct
access
to
subpoena
for
this
board,
even
if
the
senate
doesn't
I
don't
know
what
the
senate's
position
is.
The
house
couldn't
pass.
It
so
the
mayor
has
said
he
thinks
it
should
be
there,
I'm
going
to
tell
so
I'm
going
to
tell
the
truth.
Just
straight
up
a
senator
and
I
met
with
the
mayor's
top
two
people
this
past
summer.
J
She
gave
us
the
mayor's
top
10
list
on
that
list
was
direct
subpoena
power,
but
listen
to
me
closely
here
I'll
take
a
lie.
Detector
test
both
of
those
ladies
told
me
and
the
senator
this
is
on
our
list,
but
the
mayor
doesn't
want
it.
It's
bad
policy,
and
I
said
so:
the
mayor's
got
something
on
his
list
that
he
doesn't
want
and
he's
putting
it
on
us.
She
said
you,
you
can
characterize
it.
However,
you
want
but
he's
going
to
request
direct
subpoena
power,
but
he
doesn't
want
it.
J
It's
bad
policy,
I'll
put
my
hand
on
a
stack
of
bibles.
They
said
that
and
I'll
take
a
lie.
Detector
test
now
he's
out
in
the
media
saying
he
wants
direct
subpoena
power.
That's
not
what
he
told
me
his
people's
top
two
officials
and
that's
not
what
he
told
a
leader
of
the
senate.
I
wanted
to
make
that
clear
and
hope
the
people
of
louisville
are
listening,
that
he's
telling
you
one
thing
and
telling
the
legislative
leaders
from
louisville
another.
H
Mr
and
mr
chairman,
with
your
indulgence,
he's
also
given
the
impression
that
we
won't
negotiate.
I
have
not
spoken
with
the
mayor
mayor's
not
reached
out
to
me
his
deputy
mayor.
The
last
contact
I
had
with
her
was
a
text
in
january
since
this
bit
since
the
bill,
since
the
middle
of
the
session
have
had
no
contact
with
them,
except
through
their
general
counsel,
and
have
responded
favorably
to
some
of
the
changes
they
requested.
H
So
I
did
not
when
I
started
this
process,
I
didn't
even
know
about
the
crab.
I
had
a
core
of
a
bill
which
I
want
passed
because
that's
important
for
louisville.
We
added
the
crab
because
we
knew
that
subpoena
power
access
to
subpoena
power
was
important
to
them.
We
knew
they
couldn't
get
direct
subpoena
power.
I
offered
an
avenue
that
was
what
they
needed,
but
not
what
they
wanted
right.
A
Currently,
right
now,
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
is
not
the
subpoena
power.
We
just
have
the
stripped
down
louisville
bill
that
you
initially
started
with
correct.
Are
there
any
questions
from
a
committee
right
now
we
have
two
or
three
people
online
that
might
need
to
speak.
Just
real,
quick,
senator
thayer.
K
H
There
is
a
process
that
was
set
up
in
67
c,
almost
20
years
ago.
However,
the
way
it's
worded
there's
a
it's
not
called
impeachment.
It's
called
a
charging
committee,
their
10
councilmen
out
of
the
26
councilman,
have
to
be
on
that
charging
committee.
If
it's
a
mayor,
but
those
people
don't
get
to
vote
yet
you
still
have
to
get
two-thirds
majority,
which
is
seven
actually
17
plus.
So
it's
mathematically
impossible
to
impeach
a
mayor,
no
matter
how
factless.
K
Well,
this
one's
pretty
feckless,
I
believe
his
approval
rating
at
one
point
was
12
percent
and
I'm
not
sure
who
those
12
percent
were
what
a
tremendous
lack
of
leadership
out
of
that
office
over
the
last
year.
I'm
wondering
if
this
is
something
we
should
look
at
in
the
metro
charter
going
forward,
not
not
in
this
bill,
not
not
enough
time,
not
even
sure,
I'm
going
to
vote
for
it,
but
just
want
to
put
that
out
there.
K
Today
I
mean
the
guy
came
before
the
agriculture
committee
at
the
what
was
left
of
the
state
fair
in
august,
completely
oblivious
to
what
was
going
on
around
him
and
talked
about
what
a
wonderful
food
town
louisville
was
in
the
middle
of
the
biggest
crisis
the
city's
had
in
50
years.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
G
Yes,
sir,
mr
chair,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
allowing
me
to
be
here
I
I
am
just
listening
to
representatives
nemas
and
miller,
talk
about
the
subpoena
power
portion
and
their
agreement
with
senator
mcgarvey.
J
G
H
To
do
that,
president
james,
we
didn't,
we
thought
the
language
was
sufficient,
but
we
are
willing
to
tweak
that
language
to
make
it
very,
very
clear.
G
All
right,
thank
you,
senators,
mr
chair.
I
I
would
think
both
of
the
representatives
for
the
changes
that
they
have
made
to
the
bill.
I
would
still
say
that
there
is
grave
concern
on
my
part
and
on
the
council's
part,
with
the
annexation
language
that
is
in
this
particular
bill.
G
The
citizens
of
jefferson
county
voted
when
they
voted
for
consolidated
local
government
or
annexations
to
go
a
particular
way
and
that
the
metro
council
would
decide
on
on
how
that
would
go.
The
language
that's
been
put
in
309
has
not
been
discussed
here
in
jefferson
county
amongst
the
citizens
of
jefferson
county
in
any
debate,
and
I'm
very
concerned
about
unintended
consequences
that
that
this
annexation
language
could
create
without
the
privilege
of
having
that
debate
in
that
discussion,
amongst
our
citizens
and
with
the
metro
council
members
with
that
out,
I
will
be
quiet.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
we
have
thank
you,
president
james.
We
also
have
kate
miller
kate.
If
you
have
a
couple
minutes,
I
know
I've
skipped
over
you
previously.
I
apologize
for
that.
But
if
do
you
have
a
couple
minutes,
please.
L
Thank
you
so
much.
My
name
is
kate
miller,
I'm
the
advocacy
director
for
the
aclu
of
kentucky,
and
I
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
testify
before
you
today.
I
just
want
to
keep
my
remarks
very
short,
but
just
briefly,
we,
as
you
all
know,
hardly
endorse
meaningful
oversight
of
all
government
institutions,
all
public
institutions,
but
especially
law
enforcement,
because
they
have
such
high
levels
of
responsibility,
and
there
are
a
number
of
reasons
to
support
oversight.
L
Given
so
I'll
give
a
couple
myself,
you
know
when
this
body
this
chamber
discussed
civilian
review
boards
last
week
there
was
a
hearty
discussion
on
the
sexual
assault
and
sexual
abuse
perpetrated
by
lmpd
officers
against
louisville
kids
through
the
explorer
program
and
as
a
little
billion.
I
don't
have
to
tell
representative
miller
and
representative
that
what
as
well
as
councilman
hollander
and
james
that
was
abhorrent
to
watch
unfold,
not
only
because
of
the
abuse,
but
because
of
the
evidence
of
cover-up,
but
that
was
several
years
ago.
L
Just
this
week
there
have
been
two
alarming
stories
on
law
enforcement
officers
within
the
commonwealth.
There
was
a
story
from
the
herald
leader.
I
think
last
week
about
an
officer
who
used
a
racial
slur
and
entered
a
home,
even
though
he
had
been
denied
access
to
that
home
by
his
supervisor
for
a
misdemeanor
warrant.
He
entered
the
home
with
guns
drawn
that
happened
in
the
fall
and
he
didn't
resign
until
february.
L
Just
this
week,
wdrb
reported
on
a
story
that
a
law
enforcement
officer
in
louisville,
who
was
tasked
as
the
diversity
and
inclusion
officer
for
lmpd,
experienced
discrimination,
allegedly
experienced
discrimination
and
bias,
and
so
these
are
the
the
perspectives
of
the
community
that
are
calling
out
for
an
opportunity
to
hold
our
institutions
accountable
and
that's
why
we
are
asking
for
the
most
robust
access
that
you
all
will
permit
and
we
want
to
say:
hey
look
if
this
doesn't
work
and
crb
doesn't
get
the
access
they
need.
Let's
come
back
in
2022..
L
I
would
love
to
have
that
sort
of
commitment
to
2022
and
say:
let's
make
sure
we
did
this,
the
way
that
it
should
be
done,
and
so
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
Thank
you,
representatives
and
representative
miller.
Thank
you,
senator
mcgarvey.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
allowing
this
space
for
us
to
be
a
part
of,
and
we
urge
you
to
pass
as
robust
access
to
to
secure
power
as
possible.
Thank
you.
A
M
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chair.
Yes,
sir,
I
have
two
comments
not
related
to
civilian
review
subpoena,
and
I
would
say,
mr
chair,
in
response
to
your
question.
There
are
two
sections
of
this
bill
which
were
clearly
not
part
of
the
original
legislation
and
those
are
the
sections
that
deal
with
annexation.
M
The
section
allowing
suburban
cities
to
annex
without
any
approval
of
metro
council,
which
is
a
direct
contravention
of
what
is
approved
by
the
voters,
was
not
in
the
original
legislation
it
appeared.
On
the
on
the
house
floor,
the
section
that
allows
new,
suburban
cities
to
be
created
was
not
in
the
original
legislation
it
appeared
yesterday
in
the
committee
substitute
when
louisville
voters
voted
for
emerged
government.
M
We
voted
to
abolish
the
city
that
I
lived
in
the
city
of
louisville
to
allow
suburban
cities
to
continue,
but
to
say
that
for
12
years
they
couldn't
expand
and
when
they
did
want
to
expand
and
they
have
since
then,
with
metro
council
approval,
it
would
take
metro
council
approval
that
is
being
stricken
from
the
law
that
the
voters
of
jefferson
county
approved.
We
also
said
that
having
80
plus
suburban
cities,
we
weren't
going
to
allow
more
that
is
also
being
stricken
from
the
the
merged
government
that
the
voters
of
jefferson
county
approve.
M
There's
been
no
discussion
about
that
in
the
community.
No
discussion
among
the
people
who
supported
merger.
I've
talked
to
gli.
Today
they
have
no
position
on
this
because
they've
never
heard
about
it.
They
were
big
supporters
of
merger.
We
have
talked
about
annexations
at
metro
council
in
a
very
bipartisan
way,
and
this
has
never
come
up.
I
one
of
the
first
things
I
did
on
council
was
the
vice
chair
committee,
chaired
by
a
republican
kelly,
downard
talking
about
annexations
and
how
we
could
deal
with
it.
It
never
came
up
in
that
discussion.
M
We
just
changed
our
ordinance
as
to
how
we
would
review
annexations
and
it
never
came
up
in
that
discussion
at
all.
I
don't
think
this
is
the
kind
of
change
that
should
be
made
to
our
emerged
government
that
the
voters
of
jefferson
county
approved
without
any
discussion
in
our
community.
I
have
one
other
comment.
M
65.0037
allows
the
metro
council
to
delegate
existing
subpoena
power
to
the
ethics
commission.
I
don't
understand
why
we
would
be
doing
a
bill
which
would
say
that
our
ethics
commission
would
no
longer
have
subpoena
power,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
that's
unintended
by
the
sponsors,
but
that
is
in
this
bill.
It's
on
page
10,
striking
the
language
65.0037
and
that's
exactly
what
65.0037
does
thank.
A
N
Thank
you
chair
mills,
yes,
a
couple
of
comments
and
thank
you,
councilman
hollander,
for
making
the
point
about
the
ethics
provision.
We
have
made
that
point
before
holly
hopkins
with
the
jefferson
county,
attorney's
office,
legislative
services
chief
and
our
office
also
handles
all
the
litigation
for
metro
government
with
respect
to
civilian
oversight.
If
I
understood
correctly
from
representative
miller
and
representative
nemes,
the
committee
substitute
before
you,
which
I
have
not
yet
seen,
strikes
out
existing
section
one.
N
However,
there's
a
verbal
agreement
that
will
later
come
to
paper
that
was
articulated
on
the
record.
Did
I
understand
that
correctly.
A
N
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
clarification,
so
I
will
direct
my
comments
then,
to
the
settlement
provisions
that
I
mentioned
yesterday.
N
N
The
effect
of
that
language
would
be
likely
metro
would
lose
its
insurance
coverage.
Those
of
you
who
are
lawyers
and
deal
with
litigation
know
that
third
party
coverage
you
want
to
access
that
coverage.
You
give
control
of
the
case
to
the
insurer
simply
put
if
the
entity
with
the
financial
exposure
can't
control
the
risk
by
making
the
decision
whether
and
for
how
much
to
settle
an
individual
claim,
there's
little
incentive
for
them
to
provide
that
coverage
insurance
contracts
require
that
you
give
the
insurer
the
control
of
the
case.
N
N
N
This
puts
insurance
coverage
for
metro
government
at
great
peril.
It
also
creates
practical
barriers
to
settling
cases.
Anybody
who's
been
involved
in
litigation
knows
how
free-flowing
and
fast-moving
settlement
negotiations
can
be
and
to
have
to
go
before
a
public
body
to
get
approval
before
making
an
offer
creates
practical
barriers
to
having
settlement
approved.
N
It
becomes
even
more
problematic
in
the
context
of
court
ordered
mediation.
You
have
to
be
in
a
room
with
with
the
powers
that
be
an
authority
to
do
it.
This
bill
constricts
that
authority,
and
we
think
these
provisions
are
very
problematic
for
metro
government.
Frankly,
the
effect
would
be.
We
would
probably
wind
up
having
to
try
every
case
over
a
million
dollars.
O
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
representative
miller
and
representative
nemes.
You
know
the
subpoena
power
is
not
at
issue
in
this
bill,
so
I'm
not
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
it
today,
but
if
it
gets
back
in
this
bill,
this
is
the
type
of
bill
I
would
love
to
see
go
to
a
conference
committee.
I
think
there
have
been
some
really
good
conversations
since
the
committee
hearing
yesterday
and
if
this
could
get
to
a
conference
committee.
O
This
is
the
type
of
thing
where
maybe
we
could
work
something
out
and
get
it
get
something
good
for
the
people
of
louisville.
So
I
want
to
go
through
the
bill
that
is
in
front
of
us
today
and
you've
heard
a
lot
of
these
points,
but
I
want
to
give
it
to
you
from
another
louisville
legislators
perspective.
O
This
deals
with
local
government
and
we
are
telling
local
government
what
they
can
and
cannot
do,
regardless
of
whether
they've
asked
for
it,
for
instance,
the
settlement
on
page
five
of
this
bill.
You
just
heard
ms
hopkins
go
into
some
detail
about
this.
I
want
to
be.
I
want
to
give
you
a
very
real
world
example
of
what
just
happened.
O
O
Well,
if
this
bill
had
been
in
place,
then
the
mayor,
whoever
the
mayor
would
have
been
couldn't
have
settled
that
lawsuit
for
12
million
dollars.
If
it
had
gone
to
trial
and
a
jury
had
awarded
25
million
dollars,
the
city's
insurance
company
could
have
come
back
and
said
we're
not
on
the
hook
for
25
million
dollars.
O
We
could
have
settled
it
for
12..
You
guys
are
the
ones
that
chose
not
to
settle
it,
and
so
there
really
could
be
some
real
world
ramifications
from
getting
rid
of
this
settlement
power
from
the
mayor
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
partisan
politics
whatsoever,
just
working
on
how
you
actually
settle
cases
and
run
government.
O
O
But
the
people
of
louisville
voted
to
have
that
term
limit
in
place
for
that
office
when
they
voted
for
merger,
they
knew
exactly
what
they
were
going
to
get.
They
were
going
to
get
a
mayor
for
the
entire
county
of
jefferson
for
three
terms
at
a
maximum
we're
coming
back
in
here,
because
we
don't
like
the
decisions
of
one
mayor
in
one
year
and
limiting
terms.
O
Let's
have
a
real
conversation
about
term
limits.
A
lot
of
us
have
been
pushing
for
it
for
a
long
time.
This
doesn't
get
us
there.
The
annexation
piece.
You
heard
councilman
hollander
talk
about
this
and
councilman
hollander
good.
To
see
you,
I
should
say
he
is
a
constituent,
full
disclosure,
but
he's
not
my
councilman,
but
I'm
his
senator
and
he's
right.
We
haven't
talked
about
this.
O
Could
this
end
up
being
a
good
thing?
Maybe,
but
we
have
no
idea
the
ramifications
of
what
this
means
long
term.
What
we
do
know
is,
it
does
look
like
it
could
potentially
unwind
much
of
the
agreement
of
merger
where
the
cities
were
frozen
and
the
and
the
consolidated
urban
services
came
in
again.
That's
what
the
voters
voted
for
if
this
is
something
that
needs
to
be
done.
Let's
talk
about
it.
We
have
a
state
and
local
government
committee
that
works
on
these
local
government
issues
with
the
cities
impacted
by
them.
O
I
don't
want
to
be
completely
negative.
There
is
a
really
good
part
of
this
bill,
and
that
is
the
metro.
Council
deserves
its
own
legal
counsel.
I
fully
support
that,
but
it's
mixed
in
with
a
bunch
of
other
stuff
and
we're
not
talking
about
civilian
review
boards
anymore.
We
are
just
talking
about
the
substance
of
a
bill
which
could
drastically
alter
the
form
of
government
put
in
place
by
the
voters
of
louisville
and
we're
doing
it
on
the
basically
what
I
call
the
last
day
of
the
regular
session
before
the
veto
on
a
committee
sub.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
to
be
fair
to
my
friend
leader,
mcgarvey
jefferson,
county
and
fayette
county.
Both
asked
for
and
received
a
different
form
of
government
than
118
other
counties,
and
when
you
ask
the
legislature
for
special
dispensation,
the
legislature
has
the
right
to
come
back
and
make
those
changes.
A
H
Certainly
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
will
check
if
it
is,
does
inadvertently
remove
subpoena
power
for
the
ethics
commission,
but
believe
me,
I
I've
been
trying
since
2016
to
get
direct
subpoena
power
for
the
ethics
commission
and
it
was
mayor
fischer
who
blocked
that
in
2016..
We
were
able
to
get
it
in
2017
via
the
goat
committee,
which
is
exactly
where
it
should
be.
H
H
J
In
10
seconds,
I'd
ask
for
the
committee
to
vote
this
out
of
out
of
committee
and
let's
move
forward,
it's
a
good
bill
and
on
its
at
its
heart,
I
think
it
needs
to
move
forward.
If
we
can,
if
we
need
to
make
changes,
we
will,
throughout
the
day.
O
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
nemes,
a
second
from
senator
wheeler.
If
there
are
not
any
other
comments,
madam
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
B
E
B
E
I
vote
to
get
it
out
of
committee.
I
mean
there's
still
a
lot
of
discussion
around
this
obvious,
a
lot
of
worries.
I
appreciate
the
section
that
was
removed.
That
gave
me
a
lot
of
angst
because
I
was
probably
a
no
on
that
just
based
off
of
that
yesterday.
So
the
fact
that
came
out
makes
me
feel
better
and
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
work
it's
out
of
my
district.
P
Chair
explain
my
vote.
Yes,
you
may
I'm
gonna
cast
an
eye
vote
as
well
to
get
out
of
committee.
I
do
you
know
as
a
person
that
usually
values
local
control.
I
say
usually
because
there's
always
exceptions,
but
the
mayor
term
limit
does
bother
me.
However
senator
there
does
bring
up
a
good
point,
but
that
is
an
issue
that
I'm
going
to
continue
to
look
at.
So
I
vote.
I
today.
P
Vote,
mr
chairman,
yes,
this
might
be
the
only
time
you
hear
me
say
this
this
session,
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
to
get
it
to
committee
to
move
it
forward.
I
think
the
free
conference
committee
is
about
our
only
option
here,
because
this
thing's
been
the
worst
tangle
ever
and
I
could
sit
here
and
vote
pass.
P
I
could
vote
no,
certainly
wouldn't
vote
a
wholehearted
yes,
but
I
do
think
that
if
we
could
have
the
jefferson
county,
louisville
metro
caucus
get
together
and
tell
me
what
in
the
world's
going
on,
I
would
really
appreciate
one
clean
version
and
then
I
will
vote
on
it
with
my
eyes
and
my
heart.
Thank
you.
Senator
storm.
C
K
Explain
my
vote.
Yes,
I'm
going
to
vote
I
to
get
it
out
of
committee,
and
I
rarely
do
that,
but
I
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
the
two
men
sitting
before
me.
I
don't
like
civilian
review
panels.
I
think,
as
I
said
yesterday,
we
have
civilian
review
panels.
They
are
called
the
elected
bodies
of
government
and
they
should
be
the
ones
dealing
with
this,
not
an
appointed
unelected
board,
also
I'm
ambivalent
about
the
term
limit
piece.
K
I
just
think
we
need
to
give
metro
government
a
better
avenue
for
impeachment
to
remove
for
misfeasings
malfeasance
non-feasants
or
what,
however,
you
want
to
ascribe
mayor,
fisher's
job
performance
over
the
last
year
or
so
on.
The
term
limits
matter,
I'm
old
enough
to
remember
when
they
called
jerry
abramson
the
mayor
for
life.
I
mean
he
was
on
maker's
mark
billboards,
for
heaven's
sake.
K
Q
Mr
chairman
explain
my
vote
again.
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
to
make
sure
that
the
conversation
is
continued.
I
have
great
faith
in
the
two
people
sitting
before
me,
as
well
as
other
members
of
the
louisville
legislative
delegation.
I
think
that
a
conference
committee
where
this
these
things
get
hammered
out
as
the
appropriate
place
for
that
to
happen.
So
I'm
going
to
vote
to
move
it
forward.
A
Yes,
explain
real
quick,
you
know.
One
of
the
reasons
I
put
this
on
the
agenda
was
to
give
some
oxygen
to
this.
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
on
both
sides
and
I
think
we've
done
that
today.
So
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
to
move
it
on
out
of
committee,
so
house
bill
309
with
the
committee
sub
10
passes,
9
to
1
and
same
shall
pass
on
to
the
senate
floor.
Thank
you.
Gentlemen.