►
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
All
right
we'll
go
ahead
and
gable
in
here
and
get
the
rolling
for
the
evening
and
thank
everybody
for
being
back
here
for
both
of
you
across
the
commonwealth,
who
are
more
interested
in
this
than
the
uk
game.
A
We
welcome
you
tonight
I
put
in
to
have
the
uk
game
preempted,
but
nobody
would
answer
the
phone
so
all
right
all
that
being
said
so
after
we
did
all
that
image
and
stuff
yeah,
you
thought
we'd
have
done
better
right,
but
that
being
said,
so
what
we're
gonna
do
is
we're
gonna
kind
of
open
it
up
for
some
questions.
Tonight,
we're
going
to
go
through
the
various
budget
units
just
kind
of
one
by
one,
we'll
take
questions
and
roll
along
and
then
see
how
the
evening
progresses.
Mr.
B
A
I
think
maybe
we'll
advance
to
that,
as
as
we
get
before,
we
get
into
part
two,
maybe
after
we
get
out
of
mr.
C
Chuck,
if
I,
mr
chairman,
if
I
may
and
talking
with
and
talking
with
members,
I
don't
know
that,
there's
any
objection
to
anything
that
was
talked
about
last
evening.
That
was
a
technical
correction
by
the
budget
staff.
I
don't
think
we'll
have
any
objections
and
if
you
want
to
take
questions
or
whatever
on
that,
but
we
have
we're
good
with
those
technical
corrections
if
we
choose
to
move
along
with
them.
Well,.
A
A
I
think
we're
all
good
to
say
go
ahead
with
that,
if
in
advance
from
there,
okay,
very
good,
okay,
so
we'll
throw
this
open
inside
of
general
government,
and
if
anybody
has
any
questions
in
that
section
in
particular,
please
feel
free
and
I'll
recognize
you
from
the
chair.
E
On
the
general
government,
you
guys
added
some
language
to
the
auditor
of
public
accounts.
I
believe,
could.
A
E
That's
fine
yeah!
I
just
we
again
not
opposed
just
we're
seeking
clarity
on
the
if
it's
cheaper
to
go
to
a
third.
A
F
G
I
mean
we've
had
tremendous
success
that
we've
seen
last
year
with
the
ford
plant
coming
here,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
that
that
kind
of
proactive
thinking
you
know
by
the
governor
by
bypass
governors
has
held
us
in
good
stand.
So
I
just
like
some
explanation
if
I
could
as
to
why
that
was
not
considered
by
either
the
house
or
the
senate.
A
Sure
that's
an
excellent
question.
Senator
I
can
give
you
our
rationale.
Certainly,
we
had
47
million
in
direct
economic
development
money
in
that
section,
but
we
also
had
money
applied
inside
of
tourism
and
several
other
areas
that
we
felt
while
economic
development
is
important.
It
takes
many
forms,
and
so
we
applied
more
money
to
various
segments
of
economic
development
than
necessarily
the
ones
the
governor
had
wanted,
but
feel
like.
Ultimately,
in
that
effort
there
was
more
money
applied
in
this
budget
than
theirs,
and
mr.
C
Chairman,
thank
you
very
much.
As
far
as
the
house's
version,
there
may
be
a
difference
of
words
and
phrases
more
so
than
there
are
concepts
we
had
actually
passed
out
of
the
house,
100
million
to
go
into
a
product
development
initiative,
which
is
a
small
project
program.
That's
ongoing
right
now,
but
has
no
statutory
codification
to
it
and
actually
there's
a
bill
that
I
think
is
now
passed
off
the
house
floor
or
coming
to
the
house
floor.
Maybe
that
would
give
that
statutory
flesh
to
the
program.
C
So
we
were
trying
to
address
that
and
I
think
there
may
be
other
addressing
zone
economic
development
now
we'll
point
out
that
the
economic
development
you
referred
to
with
ford
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
program.
That's
in
the
governor's
budget
that
had
more
to
do
with
what
we
had
in
september
in
special
session
and
developed
that
mechanism
of
over
2
billion
projects
and
made
400
million
plus
available
for
those
type
of
large
projects.
E
H
H
E
And
okay,
I
understand
that
may
have
some
more
questions,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
apples
and
oranges.
I
mean
all
those
auditors
are
state
employees
and-
and
they
certainly
could
be
undercut,
but
I
mean
they
operate.
A
lot
of
their
operation
comes
from.
I
mean
billing
through
audits.
They
don't
get
a
lot
of
general
fund
to
supplant
that.
So
one
other
question
on
general
government-
and
this
is
very
easy-
it.
C
May
be
for
staff.
On
page
eight,
the
appalachian
regional
commission.
E
B
As
and
I
think,
if
I'm
not
badly
mistaken
jeannie,
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
or
somebody
on
staff
through
the
various
bills
that
have
come
out
of
dc,
there's
going
to
be
more
money
into
the
arc
appalachian
region.
Commission,
you
know
you
have
a
similar
one,
the
delta
river
or
central
region
delta
regional
authority
off
the
mississippi,
but
there
is
going
to
be
additional
money
put
in
that
and
to
do
to
be
able
to
meet
the
grant
matches
and
the
increased
application
process.
B
D
I
F
All
right,
the
win
grant
is
the
hang
on
a
second.
C
C
So,
just
to
make
just
to
make
sure
that's
the
324
thousand
is
to
allow
a
match
drawdown
of
federal
funds,
or
is
it
something
else.
D
F
The
original
it
originally
came
out
of
the
governor's
budget
and
they.
D
A
Speaking
of
that
real
briefly
d,
I
think
that
we
had
a
delayed
request.
Well,
you
know
what
we'll
come
back
to
that.
Was
there
anything
else
we
wanted
to
cover
in
economic
development,
senator
wilson.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
There
is
something
that
is
needed
in
economic
development
that
has
been
a
request
from
the
governor,
that
is,
for
undisclosed,
unknown
project
with
the
ndas
that
we
need
to
add
into
economic
development,
16
and
a
half
million
dollars.
C
That's
that's
my
understanding
also
so
when
you're
talking
about
product
development
initiatives
and
the
over
2
billion
dollar
and
what
projects
are
going
on,
there's
been
additional
requests
from
the
governor
regarding
a
project
non-disclosed
somewhere
in
the
commonwealth
and
we're
under
agreements
not
to
talk
about
that.
But
that's
going
to
be
necessary
and
I
think
everyone
will
probably
be
in
agreement
with
getting
that
done
and
then,
if
there's
follow-up
requests
on
that,
we'll
probably
take
those
up.
Also.
C
A
Mr,
mr
chairman,
mr
speaker,
I
think
that
on
our
side,
we're
pretty
in
agreement
with
the
governor's
office
on
this
thing,
if
you
guys
don't
object,
we'll
just
go
ahead
and
direct
them
to
get
with
the
governor's
office
and
draft
that
in
there
that'll
be
fine
all
right,
very
good.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Anybody
else
got
economic
development.
B
Everybody
felt
it
was
necessary
a
year
ago
because
of
the
circumstances
around
the
attorney
general's
office.
They
had
to,
I
think,
had
to
contract
with
an
outside
agency
to
provide
security.
You
all
had
that
in
your
budget.
We
took
it
out,
we
didn't
know
what
his
status
was
now
we're
not
disagreeing
with
it.
We
just
want
an
update
on.
C
It
just
making
sure
if
I
understood
from
the
presentation
last
night,
if
I'm
looking
at
page
13,
the
last
row
attorney
general
security,
the
language
that
the
house
had
in
was
stricken.
However,
the
money
remained
in
the
base,
so
the
funding
remains,
but
it's
just
a
language,
that's
been
removed,
that's
correct,
so
they
still
have
the
ability
to
offer
it
if
they
so
choose
or
need
under
the
circumstances.
The
funding
remains
correct.
Yes,
okay,
all
right,
I
don't
know
that
we
would
have
any
objection
to
doing
that.
G
I
go
back
to
general
government
for
a
minute.
Please,
and
I
want
to
bring
up
the
issue
of
our
retirees
we
have.
They
have
not
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
since
2011.
G
C
G
A
topic:
it's
the
topic,
it's
the
topic,
it's
not
on
the
page,
but
it's
a
topic
that
I'm
bringing
that
we
could
possibly
consider
a
one
and
a
half
cost
of
living
increase
being
that
they
have
not
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
since
2011.,
and
I
have
the
actuarial
analysis
that
I'd
like
to
give
to
each
one
of
you.
If
you
will
and
just
look
at
it
and
if
we
can
revisit
this,
I
would
certainly
appreciate
it.
A
G
Thank
you
chairman
daniel
look.
I
don't
want
to
dominate
questions
because
I've
got
plenty
of
them,
so
if
someone
else
wants
to
go,
first
they're
welcome
to
do
that,
but
I've
got
certainly
got
a
question
on
education.
Yes,
sir,
okay
and
and
and
and
to
your
point
of
chairman
petey
page
37,
page
37,.
G
Actually,
I'm
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
a
big
policy
debate.
I
think.
G
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
a
big
policy
debate
over
education.
You
know,
I
think
you
know
we
all
understand
our
differences,
but
but
I'm
just
curious
I'd
like
to
hear
hear
from
from
either
you
chairman,
daniels
or
chairman
petrie,
why
full
day,
kindergarten
what
was
at
least
not
funded,
because
you
know
we're
requiring
that
now
we
asked
the
local
district
to
pick
that
up.
Why
we
didn't
fund
that,
as
as
a
as
a
body,
particularly
since
we've
got
so
much
money
to
spend
this
time
around.
A
Certainly,
I
believe
the
house
did
include
that
in
theirs
and
it
was
a
decision
we
made
that
came
to
ours,
and
you
know
it's
it's
an
idea,
that's
worthy
of
consideration,
but
I'll
tell
you
is
somebody
who,
just
probably
the
the
closest
to
any
of
you
around
this
table
to
having
a
kid
just
leave
all
day
kindergarten.
A
You
know
it's
something
that
we
believe
that
the
overall
value
of
them
being
there
is
a
decision
best
left
to
the
individual
district
and
that's
the
way
it
was
before
we
went
into
this
I'll.
Tell
you
from
our
personal
experience.
All-Day
kindergarten
does
not
extend
necessarily
the
education
part
of
the
day,
while
it
does
extend
the
day,
but
it
does
add
in
a
lunch
period
for
my
little
guys
it
added
in
a
nap.
A
It
had
been
a
recess
period,
and
so
the
actual
education
increase
wasn't
as
much
there
and
we
just
felt
like
if
the
districts
felt
like
it
was
effective
program
there.
They
could
continue
to
do
it.
There's
been
a
lot
of
money
that
flowed
into
the
district
somewhat
unexpectedly
and
were
optimistic
that
they
would
take
the
lead
on
making
their
own
decisions
there.
A
Education
and
labor,
hey
page
58.,.
A
A
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
you
right
now,
so
anybody
wants
to
go
on
to
energy
and
environment.
On
page
64.,.
B
B
This
is
for
adults
and
we
wondered.
If
is
this
not
something
that
is
because
in
the
voc
rehab
area
that
I
think
we
apply
for
we've
fully
funded
the
last
few
years
like
four
or
five
million
dollars,
it
draws
down
on
a
three
or
four
or
five
to
one
match
rate
to
do
similar
things,
but
is
this
not
a
component
of
that,
or
is
this
in
addition
to.
E
C
Fair
enough
and
that's
one
of
those
things
I
think
we'll
just
need
to
check
into
because
I
was
just
asking
because
I
know
we
have
adult
and
we
have
child
yeah.
And
then
we
have
different
ways
that
we
put
that
other
one
in
the
budget
between
the
two
chambers
and
we'll
just
have
to
sort
that
one
out.
I
don't
know,
that's
actually
going
to
be
a
difference,
but
yeah.
B
And
that's
that's
kind
of
one,
because
I
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
we
appropriate
for
somebody
can
tell
us
a
five
to
one
or
six
to
one
drawdown
and
that's
why
we
just
kind
of
changed
it.
It's
not
that
we're
being
mean-spirited
or
anything
we
just
kind
of
want
to
know
what
it
dovetailed
into
so
I'll.
Just
raise
that
question.
J
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
page
64.
J
We
make
pretty
good
cars
and
trucks
here
in
kentucky,
not
not
sure
that
corvettes
are
the
best
choice
for
state
issued
cars
that
even
though
they're
an
amazing
car
made
in
the
senator
from
warren's
district,
but
we
make
a
pretty
good
ford
truck
and
a
pretty
good
toyota
camry,
and
it
always
has
amazed
me
when
I
see
all
these
cars
mostly
made
in
detroit,
that
are
being
driven
around
with
the
state
license
plates
on
them.
J
And
so
I
asked
in
on
the
senate
side
to
include
the
language
there
on
the
bottom
of
page
64,
about
at
least
having
a
preference
for
vehicles
manufactured
in
kentucky
to
be
considered
and
just
to
put
in
a
little
plug
for
the
toyota
camry.
We
ought
to
consider
long-term
maintenance
costs
which
are
quite
low
with
the
georgetown
manufactured
camry,
and
it's
not
just
about
my
district.
E
But
I
I
do
think
well.
That
may
be
a
good
idea,
mr
chairman,
and
it's
perfectly
appropriate,
but
I
I
think
that,
given
the
fact
that
cost
of
vehicles
is
up
40,
do
we
really
need
to
be
doing
a
lot
of
fleet
purchases
right
now?
As
a
broader
policy
question,
I
mean
I
understand
that
that
we
have
to
upgrade
the
fleet
from
time
to
time,
and
certainly
maintenance
costs
play
a
big
role
in
that,
but
this
you
know
horrible
time
to
be
trying
to
to
buy
vehicles
in
general.
E
I
think
everybody,
that's
that's
in
that
market.
Right
now
understands
that
and
it's
not
to
be
a
negative
against
any
of
our
manufacturers,
but
the
supply
chain
has
just
created
wreaked
havoc
on
it,
and
you
know,
I
think,
to
any
degree
possible
that
we
can.
We
can
push
that
off,
maybe
into
the
next
fiscal
year
or
something
and
probably
get
a
lot
more
bang
for
our
buck.
I
tend
to
agree.
B
And
to
that
extent
I
don't
know
what
the
driving
ratio
of
state
employees
has
been
since,
for
the
last
two
years
we
have
been
basically
a
remote
conversation.
Courts
have
been
shut
down,
facilities
have
been
shut
down.
That
was
a
question
facili
or
fleet
management
that
how
much
is
actually
how
many
miles
been
put
on
them.
C
Both
those
issues
are
good
and
I
saw
this
language.
I
think
the
senate's
version
has
this
multiple
places
to
express
that
concept
of
preference
by
kentucky
great
preference
kentucky
great.
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
if
there's
any
language
like
that
that
we
place
in
the
budget
one,
we
don't
run
afoul
of
competitive
legal
issues
out
of
state
and
so
and
the
next
thing
would
be
preference.
C
It's
vague
enough
that
we
might
be
able
to
get
by
with
it
legally.
But
what
exactly
does
preference
mean?
What
the
weight
would
be?
Is
it
determining
a
significant,
a
nominal
so
just
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
run
a
foul
of
it
but,
of
course,
by
kentucky's
a
great
preference?
As
far
as
I'm
concerned,
it.
J
Says
a
preference
for
vehicles
manufactured
in
kentucky
shall
be
considered,
doesn't
force
anybody
to
do
anything
except
make
the
consideration
and,
on
behalf
of
the
tens
of
thousands
of
workers
who
make
these
kentucky
vehicles,
I
think
you
know
they're
they're,
taxpayers
too,
and
I'm
I'm
ambivalent
to
you
know
whether
or
not
we
put
money
in
there
to
to
to
buy
new
cars
for
the
fleet.
I
think
the
speaker
makes
a
good
point,
but
I
think
that
when
we
do,
this
sort
of
consideration
ought
to
be
included.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Very.
A
Well,
thank
you,
sir
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
including
finance
administration,
and
I
would
have
a
quick
question
off
of
page
71.
Mr
chairman,
you
guys
had
had
a
dollar
amount
in
there
for
public
defender
claims
that
we
had
removed.
Could
you
kind
of
just
touch
on
that
briefly,
please?
That
was
my
question.
F
C
B
We
have
this
here
and-
and
I
don't
want
to
say
this-
is
all
inclusive,
but
it's
something
we
have
discussed
when
we
start
talking
about
broadband
that
I
was
at
a
conference
this
year,
where
the
former
I
think
he
was
the
obama
administration.
B
Cyber
security
person,
along
with
former
police
chief
of
boston,
was
talking
about
how
we
assist
especially
the
local
group.
So
we
have
the
capacity
as
a
state
to
be
fighting
cyber
security
or
fighting
hacking
with
cyber
security,
but
there's
a
lot
of
smaller
entities:
small
towns,
small
hospitals,
that
they
have
other
places
gone
in
and
hacked
them
and
they
shut
it
down
and
then
hold
them
ransom
and
they
don't
have
the
abilities
we
do
so.
B
When
you
shut
down
a
hospital,
they
don't
have
medical
records.
When
you
shut
down
a
city,
they
they
small
cities.
They
don't
have
that
capacity,
they
can't
run
their
sewer
and
water
systems,
so
that's
kind
of
what
we
have.
C
B
D
Okay,
yeah
on
71,
going
back
to
that,
I
had
been
contacted
by
department
for
public
advocacy
and
they
kind
of
gave
me
a
breakdown
of
what
their
original
request
was,
and
it's
not
remotely
what
I
see
here,
but
it
may
be
in
another
part
of
the
budget.
C
A
Lighter
okay,
you're,
probably
going
to
ask
they
come
to
me
too,
about
protection
advocacy.
I
believe
that's.
A
Absolutely
good
catch
represent
miles.
F
D
D
D
Okay,
part
of
it-
I
don't
know
if
you
can
hear
me
part
of
it-
was
for
the
salary
differences,
the
salary
policy
differences,
but
there
was
an
increase
of
one
million
dollars
in
restricted
funds
in
each
year
in
the
senate
for
four
attorneys
and
three
public
utilities,
financial
analysts.
C
F
B
I
A
Yes,
all
right
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
pick
up
health
and
family
services
as
well.
At
this
point,
which
starts
on
page
75.,
could
we
just
ask
you
guys
to
touch
briefly
on
the
office
for
children
with
special
health
care
needs
operating
expenses.
I
On
page
83.,
the
public
health
transformation
funding
that
was
in
the
house
budget
looks
like
at
least
part
of
it
was
taken
out
in
the
senate
budget,
and
I
wanted
to
express
a
concern
for
my
health
department
that
that
would
amount
to
about
1.4
million
dollars
it
it
may
be.
I
know
it's
called
public
health
transformation.
This
might
not
be
the
exact
trend
provision,
but
I
know
that
that
will
result
in
loss
of
jobs.
For
my
district.
A
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
our
general
thought
was,
since
this
is
a
new
program
that
we
passed
as
part
of
the
overall
health
transformation
that
had
previously
not
been
funded.
It
is
these
with
the
alignment
of
federal
funds
in
the
federal
fiscal
year
and
the
way
that
worked
out
that
they
would
have
opportunity
to
draw
down
those
funds
throughout
that
first
fiscal
year
and
then
in
the
second
fiscal
year
is
when
they
would
actually
begin
to
need
the
state
support.
A
That's
why
we
made
the
adjustments
that
we
did
there,
but
we
did
fully
fund
them
for
that
very
reason
in
the
second
year,
because
it
is
something
that
we
we
believe
then
clearly.
Dr
alvarado
representative
mosher
both
brought
a
lot
of
passion
to
that
issue,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
since
we
passed
it,
we
fund
it.
So.
C
As
I
was
under,
as
I've
been
informed
subsequent
to
the
senate's
version
coming
out
that
there
may
be
federal
funds
that
will
be
left
over
to
fund
that
first
year.
I
haven't
confirmed
that
yet,
but
I
understood
the
thought
process.
I
didn't
gather
any
intention
to
defund
it
or
underfund
it.
It's
just
that
the
sourcing
may
be
different
from
federal
and
when
we'll
hit
general
fund
the
next
year.
I
A
D
A
D
A
A
So
basically,
instead
of
48
4.8
million
the
current
page
87
paragraph
two,
then
that
basically
you
would
take
that
4.8
million
that's
in
current
year
and
add
2.4
to
each
of
the
next
two
fiscal
years.
So
if
you
guys
do
anyone
take
a
look
and
potentially
verify
that,
but
they
did
come
and
made
that
request.
J
I
C
And
I'm
not
going
to
be
an
ex
chairman.
Mcdaniel
can
speak
to
what's,
particularly
in
the
senate's
version.
But
on
the
house
side
we
looked
at
two
different
things
that
have
to
work
together,
one
you
have
scls
and
michelle
p's
the
waivers
themselves
and
who
is
in
line
to
receive
processing
of
their
application
to
see
if
they're
eligible
and
assuming
we
have
plenty
of
eligibles,
which
I'm
going
to
assume
that
we
do.
C
We
could
fund
thousands
of
slots,
but
that
means
nothing
on
the
ground
in
the
real
life
to
anyone.
Unless
you
have
someone
who
can
actually
execute,
implement
and
perform
the
slot
by
providing
care.
So
what
we
chose
to
do
in
the
house
was
also
make
sure
that
we're
trying
to
focus
money
on
getting
raises
and
higher
reimbursement
to
the
workers
in
those
areas.
As
best
we
can.
C
And
then
we
pulled
the
slot
numbers
down
because
we
weren't
sure
whether
or
not
that
could
process
through
the
administration
and
out
to
the
ground,
with
the
workforce
shortage
that
we
have
over
the
next
year,
and
I
can't
remember
we
may
have
put
in
or
asked
that
we
have
some
reporting
requirements
come
back,
we're
trying
to
track
how
those
slots
are
utilized
and
if
they
are
fully
utilized
and
it's
going
to
rate
faster
than
from
the
house
side.
We
were
thinking.
We
can
always
come
back
in
next
session
and
take
better
advantage
of
them.
A
A
But
chris
it
awaits
yes,
president
givens.
H
A
C
A
A
All
right
so
moving
on
down
we'll
go
on
justice
and
public
safety
and
labor.
If
anyone
is
oh,
I
apologize
speak
me.
A
J
We
we
gave
them.
F
20
million
last
year,
which
they
said
should
be
one-time
money
and
once
they
were
able
to
fund
their
additional
prevention
services
that
should
start
generating
money
on
its
own,
which
did
not
happen,
and
they
spent
one-time
money
on
recurring
costs
this
past
year,
which
should
not
have
been
done.
I
think
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
that,
maybe
later
on,
very
good
would
agree.
B
There
I
want
to
go
back
to
84,
just
something
as
a
language
that
I
think
we
really
need
to
start
considering
in
an
overall
concept,
is
outcome
based
or
performance-based
contracting,
with
the
mcos
not
fee
for
service
or
things
of
that
nature.
B
These
are
we're
going
to
have
that
you're
going
to
see
this
type
of
language
a
couple
of
places
that
this
should
be
mandated
to
be
involved
in
their
contract,
that
they
are
doing
things
like
this
for
preventative
care,
because
this
is
where
we
could
spend
a
few
dollars
force
them
to
spend
dollars.
That
would
save
us
dollars
in
the
long
run,
but
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that.
We
we've
inserted
this
in
two
or
three
places
to
say
that's
what
the
cabinet
should
be
doing
when
they
bid
the
next
contracts.
C
Very
good,
and
if
I
may,
mr
chairman,
while
we're
on
page
84,
if
we
could,
if
you
could
help
me
understand
about
the
electronic
health
records
system,
thoughts
behind
that
language
being
taken
out,
whether
it's
been
addressed
otherwise
or
or
implicitly
addressed
otherwise
or
the
request
is
moot.
F
Yeah
president
kevin's.
H
H
We
see
it
showing
up
in
multiple
places
in
the
document
we're
curious
about
the
overlap,
we're
curious
about
the
seamlessness
of
it
and
then
there's
always
this
question
of
turf
protection,
of
whose
data
is
it
who
gets
access
to
it?
Who
doesn't
we'd
love
to
see
a
robust
system?
It's
been
talked
about
for
a
long
time,
it's
past
due.
We
need
a
good
presentation
on
it.
H
I
A
Yeah,
absolutely
that's
a
good
question.
I
think
to
us
that
is
kind
of
a
overall
employment
question
that
we
weren't
necessarily
opposed
to
what
the
house
was
up
to
there.
That
is
a
critical
needs
area.
You
saw
us
put
some
emphasis
as
well
on
what
for
an
alternative
work
program
to.
F
A
It's
on
page
92,
on
92,
to
kind
of
speak
to
a
bit
of
a
mental
sabbatical
for
the
folks
engaging
in
those
positions,
and
so
I
think
that'll
be
part
of
the
bigger
conversation
about
how
do
you
attract
and
retain
social
workers
and
then
on
the
pay
side
genie.
I
can't
speak
so
well
to
what
the
house
did.
So
you
want
to
just
kind
of
run
through
the
two
sure.
D
The
house
actually
for
social
workers
included
a
4
800
increase
effective
july
1
of
2022,
and
the
senate
also
did
the
exact
same
thing
and
included
intent.
Language
for
a
10
increase
in
fiscal
year,
24
based
on
the
results
of
the
personnel
cabinet's,
comprehensive
review.
A
And
kind
of
to
the
second
thing
that
jenny
was
talking
about
there.
What
we're
particularly
concerned
with
is
both
based
off
of
position
and
geography,
things
just
change
inside
of
state
government,
so
it
might,
we
might
find
out
that
dump
truck
drivers
are
underpaid,
but
maybe
amusement
ride.
A
Equally,
I
mean
there
may
be
positions
that
need
15,
20
or
maybe
positions
need
four
and
five,
but
we
we
need
personnel
to
come
back
and
tell
us
hey
here's
the
best
places
to
make
those
adjustments.
We
just
think
we.
We
are
in
a
weird
space
right,
my
first
time
in
six
budgets,
where
we've
got
money
to
make
decisions
like
this,
that
it's
it's
best.
You
know,
let's
kind
of
get
a
a
true
up
of
where
we're
at
for
the
state
employee
workforce,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at.
C
And
that
is
a
compound
attempt
just
to
make
sure
we're
clear
about,
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
off
on
this
house
and
senate
versions,
both
identified
social
workers
as
a
critical
needs
area,
so
special
treatment
address,
we've
lost
too
many
workers
in
a
short
amount
of
time
case
loads
are
way
up.
So
in
both
versions.
As
I
understand
it,
they're
part
of
the
overall
raises
across
state
government,
plus
there
were
add-ons
in
both
versions
of
the
house
and
senate
to
add
on
more
than
just
the
regular
raises.
C
So
it's
identified
as
critical
needs
now,
where
we
differ
is,
is
just
the
implementation
of
those
on
dates
amounts
and
whether
it's
a
percentage
or
whether
it's
an
absolute
number,
we've
differed
on
the
method,
but
I
don't
think
there's
any
disagreement
that
it's
a
critical
needs
area
that
requires
more
than
just
a
18a,
raise
absolutely
okay.
Senator.
D
Yeah
on
page
93,
the
senate
funded
the
family
recovery
court,
and
I
just
wanted
that
house
folks
to
know
that
that
is
that's
a
program,
particularly
in
jefferson
county
and
it's
been
funded
by
metro
council
and
it's
also
been
funded
by
private
donations.
D
The
private
donations
have
now
run
out
and
they
have
asked
the
state
to
step
in
and
they're
getting
incredible
results
working
with
families
to
keep
the
family
together
and
then
to
get
the
treatment
that
the
parents
need.
If.
A
D
Yes,
so
the
family
court
judge
that
signed
up
to
run
this
court.
I
mean
she
does
a
lot
of
it
after
hours
and
and
does
a
lot
of
it
on
her
own
time.
So
it's
it's
just
been
really
successful.
Good
deal
I
lost
there.
I
am
rep.
A
D
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
a
question
about
the
on
the
social
workers.
Did
we
not
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I
thought
that
we
had
asked
the
cabinet
previously
to
kind
of
give
us
a
an
evaluation
of
the
pay
scale
and
and
trying
to
because
that
was
a
lot
of
the
conversations
we've
had
previously
was
you
know
whether
they
be
supervisors
or
frontline
workers
or
whatever?
That
may
be
that
we
had
requested
some
evaluation
of
that
to.
C
I
won't
go
through
the
full
rendition
I'll
try
to
truncate
slightly,
but
yes,
in
july
of
last
year,
in
budget
review
subcommittees,
we
had
asked
personnel
secretary
and
commissioner
to
come
in
and
speak
on,
compaction
issues
on
pay
scales
and
the
compaction
issue.
C
If
you
simplify
and
oversimplify
you
basically
compact
your
pay
scales
so
that
you
may
be
training,
someone
and
you've
been
in
that
employment
for
four
years,
but
now
you've
got
one
sem
coming
on
as
a
new
hire
and
you're
training
them
and
they're,
making
the
same
amount
as
you
or
possibly
even
a
little
more.
That's,
not
good
business
in
any
form
or
fashion.
So
they
have
a
great
presentation
about
the
need
to
decompact
those
scales
and
agreed
to
by
september.
One
provide
us
with
a
plan
of
how
to
accomplish
that.
We
waited
on
that.
C
So
we
can
could
consider
it
when
looking
at
pay
grades
across
the
board,
so
house
version
said
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
do
six
percent,
because
something
needs
to
be
done,
and
then
we
said
have
to
have
that
report
by
july
1st,
which
would
be
an
anniversary
date
for
when
it
was
first
spoken
about
pretty
much
and
if
not,
then
there
would
be
a
financial
penalty
to
their
administrative
budget
if
it's
not
provided
for
each
month,
and
it
goes
past
due
during
the
session.
C
What
is
a
way
to
adjust
those
payout
scales,
so
we
can
actually
make
the
system
fair
and
more
competitive
for
recruitment
and
retention
purposes.
We
may
run
into
differences
of
what,
if
they
don't
have
it
done.
How
are
we
going
to
address
the
issue
and
try
not
to
exacerbate
it
in
the
meanwhile,
in
the
way
we
give
raises
provisionally?
In
one
year
and
waiting
for
the
report
to
address
it
in
the
second.
B
And
I
don't
want
to
we
do
agree.
I
think
it
is
a
general
conceptual
that
we
agree
where
we
want
to
get
to
it's
just
how
we
get
to
there,
but
I
think
it
was
our
position.
I
think
it's
your
all's
position.
There
were
three
of
these
areas,
one
social
workers,
because
it's
one
of
the
toughest
jobs
you
can
be,
and
there
there's
you
know-
probably
right
up
there
with
dealing
with
legislators.
B
It's
tough,
but
no,
I'm
just
joking
about
that.
But
we
know
state
police
and
we
know
corrections
officers.
So
we
really
tried
to
make
a
differential
between
those
and
agree
with
you
on
the
compaction
and
which
individuals
need
the
actual
assessment
and
that's
what
the
purpose
of
the
lock
box
in
the
second
year.
A
F
Just
one
on
page
85
put
in
a
word
for
our
friskies,
with
the
kids
being
out
of
school
for
so
long
and
coming
back
in
they
have
tons
of
mental
health,
behavioral
health
and
all
those
other
problems
that
friskies
really
does
address,
and
so
it
would
vote
for
the
house
version
of
that
budget.
There,
yes
ma'am.
A
Mr
president,
you
want
to
go
to
96.
yeah.
B
Joni,
you
know
I've
done
this.
We've
had
this
we've
had
such
a
request,
an
explosion
in
the
realm
of
it's
on
page
96,
first
block
audit
language.
B
A
Very
well
all
right
we'll
go
ahead
and
throw
it
on
open
to
personnel
as
well.
If
anybody
has
something
that
and
as
you're
getting
there
one
thing
that
we
we
did
do
a
little
differently
and
in
terms
of
number
of
people,
it's
small,
but
the
impact
is
great
is
the
medical
examiners.
They
came
to
us
with
an
additional
request
in
terms
of
comparatively
some
of
the
things
that
they
were
struggling
with,
and
so
we
had
added
some
people
in
there
as
well
as
funded
some
raises
in
that
department.
C
C
We
spoke
with
medical
examiners
coroners
over
the
interim
and
and
yes,
we
need
to
do
something.
We
desperately
need
to
do
something
when
their
agency
request
came
in
the
house
version
granted
that
in
full
and
then
the
coroners
and
the
medical
examiners
found
out
that
the
agency
request
was
like
a
third
of
what
they
thought.
They
were
going
to
be
requesting
and
they've
come
and
spoken
with
the
senate.
C
E
On
the
same
page
that
president
stavros
was
on
second
ago
96,
the
the
freedom
house,
language
does
that
provide
for
any
of
the
expansion
that
they're
working
on
or
is
that
just
the
existing
five
counties?
Okay?
Okay,
good!
Thank
you.
B
C
C
We
may
want
to
look
at.
Did
we
be
able
to
look
at
112
on
the
public
defenders?
I
think
that's
what
senator
rocky
adams
was
asking
about.
Yes,.
D
It
looks
like
the
handout
that
I
got
when
I
was
contacted.
It
looks
like
it
mirrors
what
the
house
put
in,
and
so
it
looks
like
that.
C
Yeah,
I'm
not
sure,
I'm
not
sure
what
information
had
been
presented
to
the
senate,
but
there
is
a
pension
spiking
we're
trying
to
deal
with.
I
think
we
put
that
everywhere.
We
could
to
make
sure
we
didn't
have
any
false
positives,
but
on
the
salary
increases
understand
that
as
an
increase
we
look
at
it.
Is
this
an
incarcerations?
C
If
your
capacity
is
over
too
much
this,
I
say
about
135
percent
over
capacity,
you
run
the
risk
of
a
lawsuit,
and
then
you
run
the
risk
further
that
if
that
lawsuit
is
successful,
you
have
a
federal
judge,
telling
you
what
your
budget
is
going
to
be
on
incarcerations
akin
to
that.
You
run
similar
risk
when
you
offer
public
defenders
out
of
the
constitutional
requirement,
when
you
offer
those
out
and
the
case
load
turns
out
to
be
four
times
the
amount
of
what's
approved
by
the
aba.
C
Are
you
actually
offering
people
out
or
not?
And
if
you're
not
and
there's
a
good
equity
argument
that
you're
not
then
you're
at
risk
of
having
a
lawsuit
federal
will
come
and
then
they
could
take
that
budget
unit
over
and.
C
A
sub
that's
separate,
and
apart
from,
if
you've
got
two
high
case
loads,
just
like
with
social
workers,
you
have
two
high
case
loads.
You
have
burnout,
you
have
quick
turnover,
they
lose
to
other
agencies
and
you've
got
not
ineffective
assistance
of
council.
In
a
sense
we
talk
about
it
on
appeals,
but
you
have
in
effect
ineffective
assistance
of
council,
and
we
have
some
significant
issues
in
the
justice
system
itself
and.
A
I
think
that
one
thing
that
we
wanted
to
chime
in
with
you
know:
we've
heard
complaints
actually
from
the
dpa,
as
well
as
others
that
folks
are
being
appointed
counsel,
who
don't
necessarily
qualify
as
eligible
to
have
counsel
appointed
but
they're
not
being
they're,
not
filling
out
the
requisite
affidavit
of
indigency,
and
we've
got
some
language
in
here
to
try
to
tighten
that
up,
and
then
I've
also
heard
from
other
folks
inside
of
government
about
some
of
the
dpas
taking
on
actions
outside
of
the
actual
defense
of
their
client
to
include
litigation
against
the
state
or
individual
institutions
locally,
and
things
like
that
that
are
outside
of
the
scope,
and
I
think
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
really
tightening
up.
A
But
because
that
is
I
mean,
that's
a
constitutional
principle,
the
right
to
defend
yourself
from
the
court
of
law-
and
I
mean
that's
important,
but
we
also
need
to
make
sure
that
those
folks
are
doing
that
job
and
not
deviating
from
it
and
that
service
that
is
provided.
It's
provided.
Those
who
truly
are
indigent.
Don't
don't.
C
Disagree
with
those
at
all
great
things,
to
look
into
a
wood
state,
also
just
for
context
that
this
was
what
we
considered
in
the
house,
band-aid
funding
to
the
agency
and
dpa.
We
made
clear
to
them
that
their
structure
as
currently
exists
cannot
continue
to
exist
in
the
future
without
it
being
changed,
they
should
not
expect
any
additional
funding
in
the
future
to
which
they
have
agreed
to
reorder.
I
You
well
that's
something
that's
near
and
dear
to
me,
anybody
that
practices
knows
and
when
you
look
at
the
disparity
of
the
budget
on
the
prosecutorial
side
and
chairman
petrie's
practice
is
much
like
mine,
but
you
look
at
the
disproportionate
on
the
rocket
docket.
You
can't
do
a
rocket
dock.
If
you
don't
have
a
well-funded
dpa,
it's
it's
just
throwing
good
money.
After
an
impossibility
with
the
covet
and
the
inability
to
get
the
in-person
courts.
I
tell
you
now
there's
an
exodus
of
public
defenders.
I
They
cannot
hire
people.
It
is
not
competitive
and
we're
we're
beginning
to
have
a
hemorrhage
for
indigent
justice.
The
system
and
you
think,
the
system's
bad.
Now
in
two
years,
when
these
things
start
stacking
up
and
of
course,
I'm
of
the
ilk
that
I
think
the
dpa
has
a
broad
mission,
they
are
to
defend
the
client,
the
state.
Sometimes
you
have
to
bring
action
against
the
jail.
Sometimes
you
have
to
bring
the
action
against
up
against
the
state.
That's
their
job,
there's
no
other
recourse
for
those
individuals.
I
So
we
have
to
consider
that
and
have
parity
when
you're
funding
in
the
justice
system
and
that's
my
two
cents
and.
B
We've
had
a
good
hour
of
discussion
and
open
and
appreciate
it,
and
I
think
this
is
what
we'll
continue
to
do
I
want
to.
I
want
to
suggest
that
you
two
get
together
and
kind
of
think
how
we
can
submit
questions
and
additional
things
that
need
to
be
posed.
I
don't
think
we're
really
scheduled
to
go
until
next
week,
but
we
don't
want
to
burn
anybody
out.
We've
got
plenty
of
time
and
I
think
we've
had
a
good
night
tonight
with
a
good
back
and
forth
collegial
discussion.
B
F
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
don't
really
have
any
specific
comments
other
than
I
do
agree
that
a
lot
of
these
things.
A
lot
of
these
things
that
appear
as
questions
are,
have
very
logical
explanations,
and
I
think,
if
there,
if
there
is
a
way
that
the
the
committee
could
kind
of
wrap,
you
know
kind
of
package
their
their
their
specific
questions
about
things
that
were
done.
E
C
Petri,
thank
you.
I
was
simply
going
to
say
that
if
you
have
questions
feel
free
to
get
those
into
me
or
anybody
in
in
house
and
r
we'll
share
those
and
if
you'll
do
the
same.
C
If
there's
something
that
comes
to
you
we'll
share
those
just
to
have
them
from
to
look
at
it
see
if
there's
a
commonality
or
a
trend
in
the
question,
so
we
can
address
bigger
topics
all
at
one
time
rather
than
little
bitty
individuals
so
get
those
to
us
and
we'll
be
glad
to
share
them
out
and
try
to
get
an
efficient
addressment
at
the
next
scheduled
meeting.
Thank
you
very.