►
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
Alice,
you
might
be
the
only
one,
but
just
let
us
know
if
you're
in
your
annex
when
it
comes
to
you.
Thank
you.
C
D
E
A
A
I
am
here
and
we
do
have
a
quorum,
we
are
going
to
proceed
and
we
will
start
with
senate
bill
5..
I
see
the
senate
president
is
here
and
ready
members
we
do
have
a
sub.
I
believe,
that's
already
in
your
folder
do
apologize.
That
was
there's
a
little
bit
of
miscommunication
that
was
sent
I
think
early
this
morning.
It
will
be
my
preference
going
forward
that
everyone
has
that
the
evening
before.
So
I
do
apologize
senate
president.
Would
you
like
us
to
take
action
on
the.
A
A
D
G
F
Have
my
microphone
sorry
about
that
senator
kerr?
I
would,
I
would
say,
for
mr
chairman,
you're-
probably
not
old
enough
to
remember
this,
but
looking
at
senator
kerr,
you
might
want
to
pull
the
camera
down
because
you
remind
me
of
kilroy
in
world
war
ii,
because
all
you
can
see
is
the
top
of
your
eyes.
So.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
committee
senate
bill.
5
we've
talked
about
this
before
it's
directly
related
to
covid
and
what
has
happened.
We
attempted
to
fashion
a
remedy
that
would
apply
in
any
emergency
situation,
but
came
to
the
conclusion,
and
that's
what
the
committee
subs
does
is
specifically
apply
it
to
this
situation
and
in
the
discussions
we've
had
before
you
know,
we
tried
to
draft
it
broad
enough
thinking
about
long-term
policy.
F
All
of
a
sudden
truck
drivers,
pipefitters
may
become
the
individuals
who
are
defined
as
essential,
and
you
know
so.
We
we
just
backed
it
down
to
this,
because
this
is
something
we
know.
This
is
something
we've
lived
with
and
those
who
would
be
defined
essential
and
the
special
needs
for
those
manufacturers
to
be
brought
in
under
the
umbrella
of
the
state
and
a
little
bit
of
history.
Most
of
the
corrections
or
amendments
to
339a.
F
F
When
we
talked
about
this,
I
think
senator
wheeler
raised
an
issue
that
some
people
may
be
given
the
blankets
of
immunity
and
and
of
the
sovereign
and
liability
protections
when
they're
actually
defined
as
essential,
but
doing
an
activity
that
is
not
related
to
the
function
for
which
they
were
declared
to
be
essential.
F
So
we
tighten
that
language
up,
so
we
we've
listened
to
try
to
come
through
with
all
the
various
scenarios
which
are
tough
to
create
a
bill
that
would
ultimately
give
protections
to
those
individuals
that
are
operating
within
whatever
guidelines
may
be
in
existence.
At
the
time
everybody
on
the
committee
is
aware
that
we've
had
world
health
organization
guidelines,
we've
had
cdc
guidelines,
we've
had
things
from
the
governor's
office,
the
coronavirus
task
force
and
it's
become
difficult.
F
Now
we're
trying
to
do
those
protections
and
for
those
entities
that
have
been
brought
into
the
mix
to
give
them
that
umbrella
of
the
sovereign.
So
that's
the
substance
of
pss-1
committee
substitute
2
underlying
bill
of
senate
bill
5..
I
think
most
people
have
had
this
out.
There's
not
a
lot
of
technical
corrections
from
what
their
bill
originally
was,
but
that's
the
bill.
A
Thank
you,
mr
president,
and
as
a
president
mentioned
and
I'll
remind
not
necessarily
our
members,
but
anyone
watching
we
did
have
this
before
the
committee
early
in
january
for
an
informational
hearing
at
the
time
we
do
have
someone
who
wants
to
testify.
So
members
would
be
my
preference
now
to
hear
from
that
person
and
then
we
will
open
it
up
for
questions.
A
I
believe
we
have
the
link
jayvon.
H
It
perfect
jay
vaughn,
I'm
a
lawyer
here
in
louisville
speaking
on
behalf
of
kentucky
just
association.
I
appreciate
you
all
taking
time
when
we
had
the
the
meetings
earlier
in
january
that
mr
chairman
just
referenced.
I
spoke
at
that
point
and
president
stivers,
I
think
recently
had
made
some
remarks
or
spoken
to
the
chamber
and
we
want
to
at
least
say
that
you
know
I
agree.
H
We
agree
with
president's
divers
comments
that
if
someone
the
business
is
operating
the
best
they
can
and
they
are
complying
with
the
guidelines
and
the
protocols
in
place
that
they
shouldn't
be
sued.
For
that
I
mean,
I
think
that
we
can
all
agree
with
that.
I
think
this
bill
goes
a
little
further
than
that.
A
concern
we
have
is
the
statute
of
limitation
concerns.
We
we
appreciate.
Presidents
divers
did
make
some
amendments
and
add
in
that
motor
that
you
know
motor
vehicles.
H
The
statute
under
the
mvra
will
apply
where
before
that
wasn't
specifically
mentioned,
and
there
was
some
vagueness.
We
appreciate
that
the
concern
is
there's
other
types
of
claims
that
can
be
made
under
this
bill,
not
just
injury
but
property
claims,
and
there
are
some
statutes
for
property
claims
that
are
five
years
and
the
way
this
bill
is
read.
It
could
potentially
make
those
one
year
and
shorten
the
current
statute
limitations
on
property
type
cases.
So
that's
a
concern,
I
think
also
is
the
for.
H
For
any
most
cases
we
have
personal
injury
property,
I
mean.
Usually
we
go
under
a
general
negligence
standard
and
the
bill
actually
increases
the
standard
of
care
to
you
know
a
gross
negligence
willful
wanton
standard
and
on
the
essential
service
side.
I
believe
it's
paragraph.
Seven,
the
concern
on
the
essential
service
side
isn't
necessarily
the
part
where
it
says
essential
service
is
related
to,
but
it
actually
goes
on
to
add
or
impacted
by
the
declared
emergency,
and
I'm
just
abbreviating
says
saying:
code
and
everything
else.
I'm
saying
declared
emergency
but
impacted
by.
H
I
mean
everyone's
been
impacted
by
so,
if
you're
an
essential
service
you've
been
impacted
by
then
you
know,
there's
really
an
argument
that
you
don't
have
any
liability,
but
for
a
willful
wanton
reckless
type
conduct.
So
if
again,
if
it's
someone
who's
operating,
you
know
if
at
the
time
a
beer
delivery,
service
or
or
bars
or
is
considered
central
service
and
a
beer
truck,
is
you
know,
driving
down
the
road
and
runs
into
a
building
and
injures?
Let's
say
the
owner
of
that
building
in
there
or
another
customer?
H
Then,
unless
it's
gross
negligence,
willful
want
and
intentional
conduct,
you
know
if
it's
an
essential
service
and
they're
impacted
by
the
emergency,
then
they
don't
really
have
any
reliability,
not
just
for
the
injury
or
potential
death
claim,
but
for
the
actual
property
owner
that
would
be
damaged
by
that.
So
I
think
that's
a
concern
with
the
reading
of
the
bill
and
that's
really
where
it
comes
down
to.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
broadness
and
vagueness
in
it.
H
Like
I
said,
the
mvra
was
added
back
in
that's
good,
but
I
think
there's
some
other
status
limitation
concerns
and
our
bit
the
biggest
issue
we
have
is
the
heightening
or
raising
of
the
standard
of
care
from
a
regular,
reasonable
person,
negligence
standard
to
a
gross
negligence
intentional
standard.
But
with
that
I'm
happy
to
field
any
questions.
I
want
to
keep
this
short
since
we
you
know,
spoke
on
this
before.
A
Thank
jay
appreciate
that
senator
president,
if,
if
you
wish
I'll
give
you
a
second,
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
just
open
it
up
for
questions
or
respond.
You
know.
F
On
on
mirroring
the
statute
limitations,
I
really
don't
see
that
there's
a
big
problem
in
mirroring
the
statute
of
limitations
on
property
claims,
but
I
don't
think
property
claims
are
really
the
big
issue
in
this
and
where
potential
substantial
damages
are
the
impacted
by
on
the
essential
services,
there
may
be
some
potential
to
tighten
that
language
up,
and
that
is
similar,
something
that
I
think
senator
wheeler
talked
about
when
you
want
to
make
sure
it
is
related
to
the
declaration
of
the
individual's
essential
status.
F
So
again,
that's
part
of
the
process.
I
think
we
can
look
certain
on
the
property
claim
that
I
can
attach
a
floor
amendment
to
clear,
clarify
that,
but
then
I'm
going
to
have
to
take
a
little
bit
more
on
the
impacted
by
to
see
how
we
can
draft.
If
there
is
something
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
understand
the
rationale
there.
I
Mr
just
make
a
quick
statement
here.
You
know
we
kind
of
in
our
line
of
work.
We
joke
that
any
vehicle
inspector
can
find
a
problem
with
a
commercial
vehicle.
I
think
the
same
applies
here
that
any
of
our
attorney
friends
can
find
a
problem
with
the
bill
and
as
dearly
as
we
love.
I
Some
people
do
to
show
up
for
work,
and
you
have
to
decide
quickly
based
off
of
that
guidance
and
knowing
by
the
way
that,
since
these
folks
don't
are
technically
still
deemed
essential,
they
don't
qualify
for
the
pandem
pandemic.
Unemployment
benefits
and
the
things
that
are
there.
Okay,
and
so
you
have
to
make
this
decision.
I
You
know
and
there's
some
exclusions
in
here
for
people
that
were
you
know,
remember
the
term
grossly
negligent
or
willfully
or
intentionally,
but
I
mean
you're
literally
doing
the
best
you
can
you're.
You
know
you're
going
out
and
buying
bottles
of
dawn
to
put
in
the
truck
you're,
buying
sprayers,
to
put
alcohol
in
to
spray
off
shovels
and
concrete
floats
and
such
trying
to
make
the
best
decisions
you
can.
I
We
didn't
have
the
benefit
of
hindsight
as
we
approached
this.
A
lot
of
us
just
did
the
best
we
could
balance
health
to
balance
income
to
balance
contractual
obligations,
and
this
is
a
good
measure
to
say:
hey.
We
recognize
what
you
did
and
if
you're
a
good
faith
operator
we're
going
to
take
care
of
you.
So
I
I
would
move
for
approval.
Mr
chairman,
I
know
we'll
have
more
questions
and
comments.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
would
like
to
start
by
saying
that
you
know
I
I
do
sympathize
with
with
senator
mcdaniel's
statements.
I
mean
they.
They
do
represent
a
a
valid
concern
for
our
business
owners
across
the
commonwealth,
and
I
have
concern
for
those
business
owners
owners
too,
and
you
know
I
I
guess
one
of
the
concerns
I
have
as
as
both
an
attorney.
C
I
have
concerns
about
the
individual,
but
I
also
have
concern
about
business
and
I've
had
this
discussion
with
with
senator
stivers,
and
I-
and
I
think
you
know
jayvon
and
you
know
if
this
bill
passes
and-
and
you
know
it
may
well
pass
out
of
committee
today
and
and
pass
the
senate
floor
in
order
to,
let's
just
say
somebody
walks
into
my
office
and
has
a
a
covered
claim.
You
know
there's
been
a
lot
of
people
that
have
bought
insurance
to
cover.
C
You
know,
virus
exposure
and
things
like
that
and
and
right
now
we
have
numerous
claims
in
court
where
you
know
businesses
who
pop
purchase
virus
coverage,
the
insurance
companies
are
trying
to
deny
that
coverage
and
don't
want
to
give
them.
You
know
extend
to
them
the
benefits
that
they
paid
good
money
for.
C
C
So
what
would
likely
happen
in
that
scenario?
Just
like
these
insurance
companies
who
don't
want
to
pay
out
virus
coverage,
they're,
probably
going
to
hire
you
a
lawyer
to
to
to
answer
the
complaint,
but
at
the
same
time
they're
probably
going
to
hire
another
lawyer
to
sue.
You
see
you
in
what's
called
a
declaratory
judgment,
action
to
say:
hey,
look
at
page
16,
paragraph
64,
subsection
g
of
this
contract,
and
I
use
that
merely
as
a
but
as
an
example.
No
no
actual
point
of
reference.
C
Willful
wanton
and
reckless
acts
are
excluded.
We
don't
want
to
cover
mcd
concrete
for
this
lawsuit.
We
think
that
we
should
have
you
know
he.
We
should
get
a
judgment
saying,
there's
no
coverage.
C
You
know
they
may
very
well
win
that
declaratory
judgment
action
and
then
you're
in
a
situation
where
you
don't
have
insurance.
You
have
an
attorney.
You
have
no
representation
at
that
point
unless
you
want
to
pay
for
that
out
of
your
own
pocket.
C
You
know,
I
think
in
many
ways
this
potentially
exposes
small
businesses
to
more
liability
in
certain
cases
of
reckless
or
wanting
behavior.
If,
in
fact,
that
that
is
what
is
proven-
and
you
know
I
want
to
give
protections
to
businesses,
but
I
want
to
give
real
protections
to
business
that
not
that
appropriately
balances
the
need
to
give
those
protections
with
the
rights
of
the
individual
under
the
kentucky
constitution.
So
I
do
have
some
concerns
about
this
bill.
I
have
expressed
them
to
the
president.
C
In
a
better
place-
and
I
do
think
it
isn't
a
better
place,
but
it,
but
you
know,
I
think
it
still
has
some
significant
problems,
that
you
know
that
not
only
could
hurt
individuals
but
could
actually
hurt
business
in
some
some
circumstances.
So
I
just
and
senator
stivers,
if
you
would
have
anything
to
say
to
kind
of
the
scenario
that
I
that
I
gave
there
well.
Mr.
F
It's
an
interesting
set
of
facts
that
senator
wheeler
puts
forward,
because
what
senator
mcdaniel
speaks
of,
I
think,
is
totally
separate
and
distinct,
and
I'm
very
familiar
with
what
senator
wheeler
says
about.
You'll
have
two
pieces
of
litigation,
one
where
the
insurance
company
and
I'm
sure
that
senator
gerder
is
well
aware
of
this.
They
defend
with
the
reservation
of
rights,
saying
that
if
there
is
proven
to
be
negligence
that
they
will
have
coverage
and
provide
you
counsel
as
part
of
their
contract
and
the
allegation,
then
of
some
that's.
F
If
there
is
in
this
situation,
what
the
allegations
are,
then
there
is
the
other
which
I
think
more
is
the
first
being
what
senator
mcdaniel
talks
about
somebody
that
has
gone
out
and
done,
something
that
is
willful
or
gross
deviation
of
the
standard
of
care.
F
If
that
occurs
in
any
situation,
whether
this
is
in
place
or
not,
that's
going
to
be
part
of
the
declaration
of
rights,
because
that
is
going
to
be
what
the
litigation
is
for
in
the
direction
and
that's
what
we'll
call
it
in
our
profession.
The
deck
action
say
well.
This
is
not
just
negligence
which
we
cover,
and
this
happens
today.
F
So
the
the
the
whole
thing
about
this,
then,
is
not
that
the
entity
is
not
being
protected,
they're
being
protected
for
that
which
we
recognize
they
should
be
protected
for
on
the
other
side,
if
there
is
some
type
of
willful
and
and
I've
actually
seen
this
in
a
criminal
prosecution,
family
members
have
asked
us
to
make
sure
that
it
is
a
reckless
homicide,
not
an
intentional
act,
so
they
can
then
sue
for
wrongful
death.
It
doesn't
preclude
people
from
a
judgment
and
potential
compensation.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
have
a
question
for
president
stivers.
President
stephen.
I
do
want
to
go
back
to
to
paragraph
seven
that
was
alluded
to
by
by
jay
when
he
made
his
presentation.
J
I'm
sorry
page
four,
I
guess
that's
sub
paragraph
seven
line
ten
page
four
line.
Ten
beginning
of
of
subsection
seven
I'm
gonna
commit
I'm
on
the
committee
substitute.
F
J
J
I
can
use
president's
divers,
I'm
just
confused
as
why
are
we
extending
this
to
one
year
after
the
emergency
is
withdrawn,
because
to
me,
the
intent
of
this,
the
intended
year,
legislation
proposed
legislation
has
always
been
to
cover
those
businesses
during
an
emergency.
You
know,
during
the
time
when
we
have
this
this
crisis.
That's
before
us.
J
It
seems
to
me
that
that
this
goes
way
too
far,
because
you're
also
insulating
people
from
liability
who
could
do
damage
after
the
order
is
now
expired,
and
yet,
if,
within
that,
one
year
period
now
they're
subject
to
a
higher
standard
of
care
than
it.
Ordinarily
would
be.
So
I
why
wouldn't
we
just
cut
it
off
at
the
time
the
emergency
was
drawn?
That
would
make
more
sense
to
me.
F
Senator
thomas,
let
me
give
you
an
analogy:
that's
not
quite
on
this,
but
it
will
give
individuals
an
understanding
at
the
close
of
your
calendar
year
2020.
F
That
will
not
take
place
in
the
period
of
time
from
when
the
declaration
was
given
and
the
declaration
was
withdrawn
or
declared
over.
That
will
still
lag
just
as
there
is
a
lagging
medicaid
claim
or
a
lagging
insurance
claim
that
will
be
outside
of
the
defined
period
of
the
emergency
and
that's
what
this
language
is
to
deal
with,
because
I
could
actually
contract
covid
be
one
of
the
last
people.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
mr
president,
if
I
may-
and
I
appreciate
the
amendment
the
before
us
today
and
I've
been
trying
my
best
to
read
through
it,
I
got
this
morning
last
time
we
testified
and
we
discussed.
I
think
it
was
really
clear,
and
I
believe
it
still
is
that
there
was
no
intention
here
to
give
immunity
to
non-covet-related
negligence
was
that
does
everybody
agree
that
and
and
so,
as
I'm
hearing
people
say
well,
this
is
this.
This
may
be
pretty
good.
B
This
does
something
in
the
event
that
what
we
have
before
us
gives
immunity
to
non-code
related
negligence.
We
still
have
a
problem
and
I
have
to
believe
that
the
people
in
this
room
can
fix
that,
and
I
know
that
the
scenario
that
mr
vaughn
gave
and
that
we
was
given
last
time
it's
a
scenario
that
I
see
in
my
law
office
a
lot.
You
know
you
have
the
truck
driver.
You
have
the
individual
that
may
be
delivering
goods.
That
is
for
essential
for
a
service.
Let's
say
it's
liquor.
B
Say
I
thought
it
was
an
essential
service,
so
so
the
beer
truck
or
the
hand
size
same
tattered
truck
it's
driving
in
and
that
individual
is
negligent
and
he
hits
my
family.
He
I'm
crippled
maybe
mentally
disabled,
whatever
it
is
afterwards.
I
can't
work
anymore.
B
My
first
born
child
maybe
need
a
couple
hundred
thousand
dollars
with
the
surgeries
and
otherwise
her
quality
life
is
gone
same
thing
with
the
baby,
normally
there's
insurance,
because
the
truck
driver
pays
a
policy
of
insurance
that
covers
for
negligence.
If
he's
negligent
he's,
not
reckless
he's,
not
willful,
he
didn't
decide
to
hit
his
head
on.
He
was
negligent
and
we
have
this
in
place
as
written.
Are
we
and
really
what
we're
doing?
B
Is
we're
relieving
the
insurance
company
of
paying
that
sums
out,
but
a
bit
in
this
with
this
cover
as
it's
rewritten
that
situation
with
that
truck
driver
who
is
delivering
those
essential
goods
takes
us
out
off
the
road
and
destroys
my
family
destroys
my
life?
Are
we
relieving
them
from
liability
and
even
the
insurance
company
from
having
to
pay
that
out
and
ultimately
putting
that
burden
on
all
the
kentucky
families,
or
have
we
fixed
that
to
the
point
that
that
would
finally
be
covered?
Would
we
put
that
negligence
back
into
it.
B
Okay,
I
have
a
case
right
now:
an
ambulance
driver
same
thing,
they're
driving
ambulance
they
blew
through
and
they
hurt
a
family.
If
you
look
at
it
totality
the
circumstances
were
they
negligent
in
the
totality
of
the
circumstances,
if
they
were
there's
liability,
if
there's
not
they
weren't
would.
Mr
president,
would
you
agree
that
if
someone
is
negligent
in
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
with
covid
providing
essential
circumstances,
there
should
be
that
immunity
shouldn't
be
put
in
place
and
that
it
the
burden
shouldn't
be
on
the
family?
F
Well,
I
think
your
burden
of
proof
is
always
going
to
be
on
the
plaintiff.
That
is
their
duty
and
obligation
to
prosecute
the
claim
as
to
totality
of
the
circumstances,
I'm
not
going
to
agree
or
disagree
with
you,
because
I
think
it
depends
upon
what
the
facts
are
and
if
you
have
somebody
who
is
sitting
there
in
the
scope
of
their
employment,
that's
defined
as
essential.
That
decides
to
go
off
of
of
of
the
parameters
and
do
something.
F
F
That
is
a
justification
and
there's
actually
jury
instructions
that
talk
about
justification,
that
you
are
justified
to
break
laws,
choice
of
evil's
defense,
and
so
then
it
comes
down
to
was
that
justified,
and
so
that
all
goes
back
to
the
circumstances.
I
can
create
circumstances
that
would
take
it
outside
of
this
realm.
I
can
create
circumstances
it'll
be
in
the
realm.
That's
going
to
be
a
question
of
fact
that
a
judge
and
a
jury
based
on
law
and
facts
will
then
have
to
determine.
E
Senator
mills.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
more
of
a
statement
to
try
to
just
get
us
focused
here
before
we
vote.
You
know
we
are.
We
are
dealing,
I'm
a
small
business
guy
and
I'm
going
to
tag
along
with
what
senator
mcdaniel
said.
You
know:
we've
got
businesses
that
are
limping
by
losses
of
30
40
percent.
We
need
to
build
their
confidence.
We
need
to
give
them
stable
footing,
give
them
some
assurances
that
they're
going
to
get
back
to
their
normal
business
environment.
E
I
think
this
bill
builds
that
confidence
and
it's
it's
very
much
needed.
It
takes
something
off
of
a
small
business
guy's
plate
that
he's
worried
about.
Let's
him
contend
with
the
normal
risk
that
he
has
every
day.
I
think
when
we
remove
and
give
him
more
confidence,
his
business
is
going
to
do
better
he's
going
to
hire
more
people
in
our
economy
is
going
to
get
back
to
pre.
You
know
pre-covered
levels
and
I'd
ask
for
you
to
vote
for
this.
Thank
you.
A
A
C
G
G
G
The
other
piece
is,
I
didn't,
find
people
that
are
essential
and
handing
them
certain
privileges
that
other
people
don't
have
and
as
I'm
looking
through
this
list,
you
know
I
do
see
food
on
the
list.
So
that's
good.
I
remember
the
shelves
were
bare
on
food,
but
I
also
don't
see
toilet
paper
manufacturing
unless
that
was
another
item
that
I
think
a
lot
of
people
considered
pretty
essential
certain
things
we
just
always
are
missing,
and
it
goes
back
to
the
issue
of
you
know
who
should
be
covered
and
who
shouldn't?
G
I
don't
think
we
should
be
necessarily
picking
winners
and
loses
of
all
the
different
types
of
businesses
that
we
have.
I
almost
wonder
if
we
couldn't
just
have
a
one-liner
that
says
you
know
our
goal,
which
I
think
all
of
us
could
agree
with,
that
our
government
that's
made
certain
decisions,
needs
to
stand
behind
their
decisions
and
make
a
one-liner
that
employees
or
businesses
aren't
the
source
of
covet
and
anybody
that
thinks
otherwise
or
tries
to
challenge
it.
Well,
sorry
about
your
luck
or
something
like
that
might
be
a
cleaner
way
to
address
this.
I
A
F
I
Heard
from
a
lot
of
well
I'd
like
to
vote
yes
for
today's
purposes
in
the
committee,
if
this
goes
onto
the
floor,
I
may
in
in
fact
vote
no.
I
think
we
have
good
dialogue.
I
appreciate
the
witnesses
that
have
testified
here
today.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
concerns
from
my
perspective
and
my
constituents
that
they
do
want
to
have
their
businesses
back
open.
I
J
Richard
I'd
like
to
explain
my
no
vote,
please
receive
thanks
chair
to
begin
with,
I
would
have
to
say
I'm
certainly
opposed
to
raising
the
standard
of
care
in
this
bill.
Going
back
to
my
colleague
senator
mcdaniels
and
his
his
explanation
as
to
why
he
favored
the
bill.
J
He
used
the
term
good
faith
and
under
current
law
you
know,
good
faith
is
equivalent
to
reasonable
care,
and
so,
if
a
person
in
senator
mcdaniel's
position,
a
business
owner
exercised
a
good
faith
to
try
to
comply
with
regulations
that
just
came
down
the
the
night
before
they
would
meet
the
standard
of
care
now
currently
in
existence
under
well-established
tort
law,
because
they
would
be
acting
as
a
reasonable
person
in
the
circumstances
that
a
reasonable
person
would
act.
So
senator
daniels.
J
There
is
no
emergency
after
that,
and
the
explanation
I
received
about
how
some
things
don't
manifest
to
six
or
eight
to
months
later,
really
goes
more
to
a
limitation
period
in
my
mind,
rather
than
a
justification
for
extending
a
higher
degree
of
care
for
one
year
period,
and
so
therefore,
my
reading
of
this
bill
is
just
inconsistent
with
the
the
approach.
I
think
we
should
provide
protections
to
people
in
an
emergency
as
serious
as
covet
19..
C
C
I
think
that
senator
thomas
is
correct,
that
given
senator
mcdaniel's
hypothetical
scenario,
I
think
that
if
he
acted
reasonably
in
accordance
to
the
guidelines
that
current
kentucky
law
does
give
businesses
protection
in
those
circumstances-
and
I
do
have
some
concern
that
this
goes
too
far
and
in
fact
could
potentially
put
certain
small
businesses
in
a
position
where
they
would
not
have
coverage
or
they
may
be
fighting
with
their
insurance
company
to
obtain
coverage.
C
So
you
know
I
and
and
to
also
mention
something
that
senator
storm
stated.
There
is
house
bill
10
out
here,
which
I
do
think
is
a
more
appropriate
mechanism
to
deal
with
these
types
of
situations.
C
B
Senator
wilson,
senator
yates
care,
explain
my
vote.
Please
please.
I
vote
no
first.
Thank
you.
The
president
continue
this
discussion.
B
I
do
think
colleagues
that
we
can
do
better
and
that,
if
our
purpose
here
is
to
not
to
give
immunity
to
non-coveted
related
negligence,
if
that
is
the
purpose,
then
we
can
achieve
that
and
we
will
have
to
play
with
the
fox
scenarios
and
we'll
have
to
look
because
these
are
real
kentuckians
that
are
going
to
be
affected,
and
if
we
can
come
up
with
those
scenarios,
we
need
to
make
sure
they
fall
within
the
guidelines
here,
and
so
with
that
I
vote
no,
but
with
the
hope
that
we'll
continue
to
get
better
legislation.
A
A
Recently
just
finished
a
book
about
kirk
kokorian,
who
was
an
8th
grade
dropout,
turned
billionaire
one
of
his
favorite
saying
was:
don't
let
the
attorneys
mess
this
up,
so
I
think
that
you
know.
Sometimes
we
have
a
different
perspective
and
certainly
try
our
best
to
get
things
right
in
normal
circumstances.
I
think
there'd
be
some
constitutional
questions
I
have,
but
these
certainly
aren't
normal
circumstances
for
us
for
businesses
out
there
for
our
constituents.
A
I
share
senator
wheeler's
concern
with
heightening
the
standard
that
we
could
potentially
have
businesses
with
insurance
companies
that
are
removed
from
the
case.
Walk,
free
and
they're
left
trying
to
defend
this
action.
I've
personally
reached
out
to
some
businesses
that
have
contacted
me
to
ask
them
about
those
policies.
I
look
forward
to
hearing
back
from
them
and
again
I'm
a
little
disappointed
that
ket
is
not
here
because
I'd
love
to
the
more
feedback.
I
think
the
better
on
bills
like
this,
but
for
today
I
vote.
A
I
and
bill
does
pass
with
seven
yes
votes
and
it
looks
like
four
no
votes
so.
Mr
president,
congratulations
thank
you.
F
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
members
of
committee,
we're
looking
at
senate
bill
141
and
at
the
table.
Obviously
we
have
president
stivers
to
my
left
and
to
my
right,
it's
allison
smith,
with
kimi
and
she's
here.
To
answer
all
the
hard
questions
but
senate
bill
senate
141
is
is
kind
of
a
clean
up
of
1
263
that
senator
wheeler
did
last
year
and
it
involved
kimi
returning
excess
co-worker
pneumoconiosis
funds
back
to
the
coal
operators.
E
As
of
today,
all
the
claims
in
this
in
this
fund
are
fully
paid
and
approximately
20
million
dollars
are
left
in
excess
funds.
The
challenge
here
that
we're
going
to
address
today
with
this
bill
is
after
263
was
passed
and
there
came
up
they.
They
determined
that
there
was
about
there's
two
claims
that
were
found
to
be
pending,
and
these
claims
probably
two
to
three
years
before
they
can
be
settled
so
kimmy
can't
distribute
the
funds
back
to
the
coal
operators.
E
The
excess
funds
until
final
audits
and
litigation
is
ended.
So
141
here
gives
a
remedy,
gives
some
flexibility
to
kimmy
to
be
able
to
assess
the
two
two
or
three
claims
that
are
left
set
aside
funds
and
let
the
excess
funds
be
initially
distributed
back
to
the
coal
operators
as
of
right
now
so
really
just
kind
of
a
clean
up
on
last
year's
bill,
and
I
would
ask
if
you
have
any
questions
we'll
be
happy
to
answer
them.
C
It's
more
of
a
comment,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you.
This
is
good
legislation.
I
mean
I
probably
practice
as
much
black
lung
law
on
the
coal
fields
as
anybody
in
this
room.
C
Considering
some
of
the
recent
executive
orders
that
we've
seen
coming
out
of
washington,
we
also
are
helping
coal
miners
by
taking
the
unclaimed
funds
and
placing
those
to
help
shore
up
the
kentucky
coal
producers
self-insurance
fund.
So
the
unclaimed
funds
will
actually
go
to
pay
miners
claim,
so
we
are
helping
an
industry
that
has
been
very
important
to
kentucky
historically
we're
also
helping
coal
miners.
So
this
is
a
good
bill.
A
Thank
you,
senator
wheeler.
We
do
have
a
motion
from
senator
girler.
Do
I
have
a
second
second?
We
have
a
second
senator
wheeler.
Sarah
mills,
if
I
were
to
ask
you
to
spell
every
word
in
the
title,
would
you
be
able
to
do
so?
I'd
have.
E
A
E
E
A
Madam,
if
you
would
please
go
ahead
and
call
the
roll.
A
A
Schroeder
I
vote
I
as
well.
We
do
have
a
motion
for
consent.
I
think
at
this
time
we
will
go
ahead
and
put
it
on
if
leadership
decides
that,
if
as
long
as
that's
okay
with
the
spill
sponsor
absolutely
yes,
thank
you.
We
have
a
motion.
We
have
a
second
for
consent.
Calendar
senator
storm
is
second
all
those
in
favor
of
adding
to
consent.
Please
signal
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed.
A
A
This
is
I'll
remind
members
at
least
some
of
this
discussion.
If
not
all
the
discussion
and
subject
matter
was
heard
and
debated,
I
believe
it
was
september.
24Th
of
the
interim.
There
was
a
committee
meeting.
I
actually
went
back
to
watch
that
and
unfortunately,
ket
cut
off
before
the
presentation,
but
there
were
some
good
notes
on
it
and
a
good
powerpoint
presentation.
So
with
that
senator.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
that
was
kind
of
my
opening
that
this
was
a
meeting
during
the
interim
with
this
committee
that
we
discussed
this
issue.
Commissioner
swisher
was
present
that
day.
We
also
had
a
representative
from
kimmy
and
clearpath,
and
during
that
discussed
discussion
the
commissioner
clarified
to
us
that,
as
a
legislature,
we
had
the
right
to
address
workers,
comp
issues
as
we
saw
fit,
and
that
response
was
in
relation
to
concerns
about
some
problems.
D
We
had
had
about
1915
c
waiver
providers
in
the
state
in
the
state
and,
as
you
all
are
aware,
these
are
providers
that
provide
hcb
michelle
p,
scl
type
services
for
for
those
with
fiscal
intellectual
disabilities
throughout
our
state,
and
the
problem
that
we
had
is
that
our
workers,
comp
providers
carriers
were
indiscriminately
and
inconsistently
during
annual
audits
coming
in
and
specifying
certain
independent
contractors
that
these
providers
use
that
they
would
then
fall
under
workers.
D
Comp
no
rhyme,
no
reason
conversations
throughout
the
state
one
program:
they
would
require
the
next
one
they
wouldn't.
So
the
idea
was
to
address
that
and
with
commissioner
swisher's
input
into
that,
we
decided
to
file
legislation
to
exempt
these
independent
contractors
from
workers
comp
and
also
from
from
unemployment
which,
which
is
standard.
So
please
understand
that
the
entire
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
protect
the
status
quo
within
the
state.
D
So
there
is
consistency-
and
these
are
true-
independent
contractors
who
oftentimes
work
for
different
providers
so
they're
under
that
definition,
they
they
definitely
do
fit
that
and
I'm
going
to
hand
this
over
to
amy,
and
I
didn't
introduce
myself.
My
name
is
danny
carroll,
I'm
the
state
senator
for
the
second
district.
I
apologize
and
amy
I'll
yield
the
floor
to
you.
K
Hi,
thank
you
chairman
and
members
of
committee.
Thank
you
for
letting
me
be
here
today
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
49,
my
name
is
amy
stade.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
kentucky
association
of
private
providers.
As
senator
carol
said,
we
are
a
trade
association
who
represents
providers
of
important
support
services
for
individuals
with
intellectual
and
developmental
disabilities.
K
This
bill,
if
passed,
will
allow
certain
very
specific,
independent
contractors
to
remain
independent
contractors.
It
will
not
all
of
a
sudden
change
any
employees
over
to
an
independent
contractor.
It
just,
as
senator
carroll
said,
maintains
the
status
quo.
It's
important
that
these
workers
be
able
to
remain
independent
contractors
just
due
to
the
nature
of
the
services
they
provide.
K
They
need
that
flexibility.
They
want
and
need
to
be
able
to
contract
with
many
different
provider
service
organizations,
and
it's
important
that
the
autonomy
remain
that
exists
as
as
a
result
of
the
independent
contractor
relationship
just
to
be
clear
again,
this
bill
won't
affect
any
covered
employees.
It
just
simply
exempts
independent
contractors
who
have
always
been
exempt
from
workers
comp
in
unemployment
coverage.
J
J
J
Does
a
1950,
that's
a
1915
provider
with
respect
to
those
individuals
who
provide
behavior
support
service,
I'm
going
to
make
sure
get
this
right.
Behavior
support
services,
behavior
programming
services
provide
case
management
services,
community
living
support
services,
positive
behavior
support
services
or
respite
services
through
a
contractual
relationship.
J
K
May
I
respond
generally
speaking
the
with
these
services
and
these
kinds
of
contracts,
one
that's
going
to
be
dictated
by
the
contract
and
two
often
times
these
workers
arrange
with
the
individual
themselves
the
individual
with
the
disability.
They
work
that
out
between
the
two
of
them,
so
the
behavior
specialist,
for
example,
will
call
the
individual
with
the
disability
and
say
what
days
a
week.
Would
you
like
to
receive
these
services?
D
It
I
mean
it
could
be
part
of
a
contractual
relationship
where
hours
are
set.
However,
one
of
the
key
components
of
the
independent
contractor
relationship
is
the
flexibility
oftentimes
you,
the
services
are
needed
at
night
and
it
could
go
into
late
hours.
It
could
go
into
the
weekend,
so
the
flexibility
is
key
to
the
quality
of
life,
of
the
people
who
receive
these
services
and
that's
what
the
contractual
relationship
provides.
D
If
you
try
to
bring
someone
on
board
as
a
eight-hour
employee,
normal
business
hours,
that
that
would
absolutely
be
a
completely
inefficient
use
of
time,
because
you
would
be
unable
to
schedule
the
services
for
all
those
who
need
the
services
during
that
eight
hours
period.
Therefore,
the
contractual
relationship
is
the
ultimate
avenue
to
to
be
able
to
to
effectively
and
efficiently
provide
these
services.
J
Thank
you,
miss
state
or
senator
carl,
either
one.
My
second
question
is
this:
does
a
1915
c
provider
have
the
ability
to
dictate
the
type
of
work
or
the
nature
to
work
that
the
behavior
support
services,
behavior
programming
services,
case
management,
services,
community
living
support
services,
positive
behavior
support
services
or
respite
services
are
provided?
Do
they
control?
Does
1915
see
provider
control,
the
the
the
nature
or
the
quality
of
work?
That's
provided.
K
So
that
again
will
be
dictated
by
the
contract.
Generally
speaking,
and
I
can't
speak
for
every
contract
because
I
don't
write
them
or
see
them,
but
generally
speaking
the
contracts
say,
you
must
follow
all
kentucky
regulations.
C
Thank
you,
I
guess
miss
staten.
What
if
and
I'm
just
thinking
outside
the
box
I
mean,
I
can
see
some
circumstances
like,
I
think,
senator
carroll
when
he
spoke
to
me
earlier
mentioned
a
michelle
p
waver,
which
is
often
a
family
member
living
in
the
household
I
mean
I
could
see
that
as
being
kind
of
a
distinct
situation
from
you
know,
maybe
somebody
that's
hired
by
a
company
that
provides
home
health
services
to
mentally
handicapped
individuals,
sending
them
out
to
certain
households.
C
I
guess
my
question
I
mean
because
you
know
this
is
life.
Things
do
happen.
What,
if
you
know,
I'm
thinking
of
a
scenario
somebody
went
out
to
to
check
on
one
of
their
patients
a
mentally
handicapped
patient?
What
if
they
you
know,
were
attacked
or
something
like
that
and
by
this
patient
and
and
suffered
grievous
injuries?
What
would
be
their
recourse
under
that
scenario
if
they
didn't
have
any
workers
compensation.
K
K
B
A
B
If,
if
you
don't
have
coverage
you're
not
required
to
have
coverage,
if
you
are
an
independent
contractor
for
yourself
for
workers,
comp
or
or
unemployment
insurance,
if
me
and
you,
if
me
and
philip
wheeler-
are
in
business
together,
we're
not
required
to
have
that,
because
we're
self
proprietors,
so
in
that
situation
they're
doing
the
contract,
they
would
have
to
have
their
own
workers
compensation
themselves.
H
B
If,
if
senator
mcdaniel
does
the
same
thing
in
the
independent
contractor
and
they're
trying
to
charge
him
for
that
in
audits,
I've
been
through
audits
and
43
years
in
the
insurance
business
they
ain't,
fun
and
and
believe
me
and
there's
one
more
thing.
I
got
thought
here
how
in
the
world
so
many
attorneys
get
on
economic
development.
D
A
Don't
think
I'll
allow
motion
on
the
bill.
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
girler.
We
have
a
second
from
center
mills.
I
did
want
to
ask-
and
I
think
you
both
addressed
this
in
your
opening
comments,
but
if,
if
this
bill
is
passed,
will
any
of
the
agencies
who
you
know
are
currently
employing
people
go
back
to
them
and
say
well
after
this
law
we
we
think
you're
an
independent
contractor.
Now
you
foresee.
D
That
happening
again,
it
protects
the
status
quo.
Those
relationships
are
established
where
they're
either
employee
and
with
some
agency,
the
the
employee
employer
relationship
works
best
for
them.
In
some
it
doesn't.
So
it's
not
going
to
really
affect
that
either
way
it
will
protect
the
status
quo
of
where
we
are
now
and
it
will
be
the
workers
comp
requirements
will
be
consistent
across
the
state
for
an
industry
that
is
struggling
right
now,
we
we
are
going
to
lose
providers
through
this
pandemic.
G
G
I
vote
this
to
me
is
an
example
of
the
entrepreneurs
out
there
that
I
did
represent
at
one
time
myself
being
in
business,
and
you
know
I
have
a
michelle
p
constituent.
I've
got
a
1915
cousin.
I've
got
all
kinds
of
these
people.
I
understand
you
know
the
situations
of
what
it
looks
like
in
real
life,
and
I
do
take
the
legal
perspective
sometimes
and
to
me
this
is
just
a
win-win
on
both
sides
to
help
everybody.
Thank
you.
J
Should
I
explain
my
no
vote?
Yes,
please,
famous
chair
mr
chair,
this
debate
is,
is
one
that's
been
around
a
long
time
and
one?
That's
that's
often
explored
in
case
laws
as
to
when
one
is
employee
and
when
one
is
an
independent
contractor
and
the
courts
generally
use
a
five
or
six
point
test,
but
the
two
most
important
tests
are:
do
you
control
the
the
number
of
hours
and
and
and
when
that
person
works
during
those
hours
and
number
two?
J
You
really
are
an
employee
and
it,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
you
know
having
these
behavioral
type
specialists.
You
know
work
these
hours.
Some
work
late
at
night,
as
senator
carroll,
have
said
and
then
not
be
subject
to
unemployment
compensation
or
not
be
subject
to
workers.
Compensat
compensation
workers,
comp
compensation
or
may
not
even
be
subject
to
minimum
wage,
because
they're
excluded
from
wages
it's
very
harmful
and
goes
in
the
wrong
direction.
From
what
I'd
like
to
see
the
policy
of
the
state
adopt.
So
therefore,
I
vote
no.
C
Mr
chairman
explain
my
vote.
Yes,
please
I'm
going
to
vote
pass
at
this
time
and
I
do
have
some
concerns
about.
You
know
whether
or
not
some
of
some
of
which
were
expressed
by
senator
thomas,
that
this
could
be
expanded
to
essentially
force
an
independent
contractor
relationship
on
folks
who
might
not
otherwise
be
deemed
independent
contractors,
and
you
know,
I
guess
also.
C
I
I
think
that
you
know
we
kind
of
have
a
process
anyway,
that
you
can
file
a
a
waiver
with
the
department
of
workers
claims
asking
to
be
excluded
from
workers
compensation
coverage,
so
I
mean
it.
It
seems
a
little
duplicative
in
in
in
that
sense,
but
you
know
I
I
I'm
going
to
study
this
further.
I
may
get
to
yes,
but
I'm
at
the
present
time,
I'm
just
not
comfortable
with
with
voting
either
no
or
yes
on
the
spill.
B
Senator
wilson
senator
yates
play
my
vote.
Please,
yes,
please!
I
have
to
I'm
going
to
follow
senator
willer's
lead
on
on
voting
pass
vote.
I
did
speak
with
senator
carroll
today
and
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
positive
things
in
this
but
hearing
I
do
have
some
reservations,
I'd
like
to
sit
down
and
maybe
call
some
experts
that
I
do
know
better
and
and
hammer
this
out
so
for
today
I
vote
fast
chairman
schroeder,.