►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Judiciary - 1/8/21
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
A
A
All
right
we're
going
to
wait
just
a
minute,
because
I
I'm
still
missing
a
couple
of
members.
We
do
have
a
quorum,
so
we
can
start,
but
I'm
gonna
give
it
another
couple
of
minutes
here.
So
everybody
that's
watching
on
youtube
or
or
elsewhere.
Just
hang
tight.
Thank.
A
A
I
was
gonna
while
we're
while
we're
waiting.
I
asked
roberta
to
hang
around
and
I
should
have
introduced
her
just
then,
but
I
got
distracted
here
everyone.
This
is
roberta
kaiser
sitting
here
to
my
left.
You
may
want
to
scoot
over
or
talk
and
see
if
the
camera
picks
you
up.
That's
okay,.
A
There's
her
arm
people
watching
on
the
there.
She
is
all
right,
so
roberta
kaiser
is
our
new
katie.
Our
new
judiciary,
csa
came
from
state
and
local
government.
I
believe
glad
to
have
roberta
here
on
the
team
joining
the
rest
of
our
fine
folks
at
at
the
committee
that
is
superior
to
the
transportation
committee
and
we're
glad
to
have
again,
I
hope,
john's,
watching
glad
to
have
roberta
here
we'll
get
started
just
a
minute.
Everybody
thank.
A
A
We're
going
to
go
ahead
and
get
started
if
members
show
up
they
show
up.
If
not,
then
they
miss
it,
but
we're
10
minutes
in.
We
only
had
the
room
for
an
hour
and
now
we've
lost
10
minutes
and
I
don't
want
to
lose
any
more
time.
A
Here,
seeing
that
we
have
a
quorum
and
we're
authorized
to
do
business,
we're
going
to
jump
right
in
I'm
going
to
go
in
order
where
I
was,
but
I
don't
see
representative
fisher.
So
I
don't
know
if
he's
here
to
testify
yet
so
we
will
go
to
house
bill
3.
First,
an
act
relating
to
civil
actions
and
declaring
emergency
sponsored
by
chairman,
ed
massey
chairman,
come
on
up.
Welcome
for
your
first
time,
chairman
to
the
upper
chambers,
finer,
more
polished,
judiciary
committee.
C
Thank
you.
It's
a
pleasure
to
be
here,
members
and-
and
I
really
am
honored
to
be
in
this
role,
and
I
appreciate
the
work
that
I've
done
with
many
of
you
and
certainly
chair
westerfield.
C
In
essence,
two
judges
in
our
entire
commonwealth
are
given
the
responsibility
of
handling
all
of
those
cases,
and
one
of
the
concerns
that
many
of
my
colleagues
and
certainly
in
the
house
have
had
is
that
their
communities,
their
voters,
are
unrepresented
in
that
respect
because
they
don't
they
don't
know
the
judges
in
franklin
county
and
additionally,
people
have
to
travel
or
commute
to
franklin
county.
In
order
to
have
these
matters
heard,
this
bill
would
change
that
process.
C
When
a
case
would
be
filed
in
the
county
of
the
plaintiff's
residence,
then
the
supreme
court,
just
chief
justice,
would
receive
certification
and
then
would
randomly
select
three
judges,
one
from
each
of
the
three
areas
in
order
to
be
empaneled
and
to
hear
the
case.
So,
instead
of
one
judge,
we
would
have
a
three
judge
panel.
C
C
In
fact,
I
explained
to
some
of
my
colleagues
who
are
worried
about
the
experience
component
that
if
one
of
those
judges
unfortunately
were
not
judged
tomorrow,
there
would
be
an
election
and
another
person
will
be
elected
and
there's
really
no
requirement
that
they
have
some
kind
of
constitutional
certification
or
some
kind
of
special
talent
in
order
to
hold
that
seat.
So,
basically,
any
judge
has
gone
to
law.
School
has
been
vetted
has
become.
C
A
judge
has
been
elected
by
the
voters,
and
our
jurisdictions
is
competent
to
handle
these
types
of
matters
and
preside
over
them.
The
process
thereafter
would
be
exactly
the
same.
So
after
the
panel
reached
its
decision,
then
it
could
go
to
the
court
of
appeals
or
subsequently
to
the
kentucky
supreme
court.
So
this
creates
a
new
system
it.
You
know
it
would
allow
the
plaintiff
to
file
where
they
reside.
C
The
lawyers
typically
that
are
involved
would
not
be
the
ones
necessarily
traveling
if
we
traveled
at
all,
because
this
also
provides
under
this
new
pandemic
situation.
We've
learned
that
we
can
do
a
lot
of
things
virtually
by
zoom,
webex
et
cetera,
and
this
would
allow
them
to
conduct
matters
in
a
virtual
way,
but
those
would
be
publicly
accessible
and
that
that's
pretty
much
mandated
under
this
particular
language
of
the
bill.
That
is
the
essence
of
of
what
we
are
trying
to
accomplish
largely.
C
It
is
a
fairness
issue
that
that
you
should,
in
all
other
cases,
in
civil
cases,
even
in
criminal
cases,
they're
charged
in
criminal
cases
in
the
jurisdiction
where
the
crime
was
committed
in
civil
cases.
You
bring
the
action
typically
in
the
jurisdiction
where
the
incident
occurred,
but
in
these
cases,
even
though
the
incident
that
triggered
the
claim
may
arise
in
boone
county,
for
instance,
you
would
have
to
originate
in
most
cases
in
franklin
county
now.
C
There's
a
question
that
came
up
yesterday
about
the
case
recently
decided
that
was
heard
first
in
judge
bruggeman's
courtroom
in
boone
county.
That
was
an
as
applied
situation,
so
there
are
circumstances
where
it
can
still
be
filed
in
that
jurisdiction
in
certain
instances.
C
But
by
and
large
any
kind
of
major
claims
of
that
nature
would
be
brought
in
the
place
of
original
jurisdiction,
and
then
it
would
be
assigned
to
this
three-judge
panel
we've
put
in
there
provisions
that
until
the
panel
becomes
impaneled
that
the
circuit
judge,
where
the
case
is
filed
could
enter
an
order
and
there
would
be
a
chief
judge.
That
would
be
a
sign
of
that
three-judge
panel.
But
once
that
panel
was
formed
and
took
jurisdiction
over
the
case,
they
would
maintain
that
jurisdiction
over
the
case.
C
C
In
fact
I
know
for
from
talking
to
many
of
the
the
senators
and
from
the
house
members
that
this
has
been
worked
on
even
before
my
time
before
I
came
to
be
in
the
house
and
so
the
language,
a
lot
of
the
language
that's
in
there
has
been
worked
through
on
the
senate
side
and
on
the
house
side.
So
that
is
the
bill
that's
been
presented
here
today.
That's
the
bill
that
was
passed
in
the
house
yesterday
and
we
would
certainly
appreciate
your
consideration
of
that
and
certainly
I'll
answer
any
questions.
A
E
Schroeder,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
Thank
you,
representative
massey,
for
bringing
this
bill.
You're
correct.
I
I
know
just
from
talking
to
members.
This
is
an
issue
that
has
been
around
a
while.
I
had
a
bill
a
few
sessions
ago,
dealing
with
this
and
and
came
to
learn
that
I
believe
president
williams,
then
president
stivers,
then
leader
thayer
all
carried
it.
So
this
has
been
an
issue.
I
know
that's
been
around
for
a
while.
E
I
agree
your
opening
statements
about.
I
do,
I
believe
you
know
in
kentucky
we
elect
our
judges.
I
think
it's
only
fair
that
when
you
have
an
issue
in
the
county
that
you
live
in,
that
you
should
be
able
to
bring
that
before
an
elected
judge
and
we're
we're
100
on
the
same
page
there,
and
that
is
not
any
reflection
or
negative
feelings
towards
franklin
circuit,
because,
frankly,
I
haven't
practiced
in
front
of
the
judges
in
franklin
circuit.
E
I
know
there's
different
views,
but
I
just
think
it
comes
down
to
you
should
be
able
to
be
in
front
of
the
judges
that
you
elect.
So
I
think
we
are
on
the
same
page.
We
both
want
to
get
there.
I
think
at
this
point-
maybe
you
know
I'm
saying:
let's
take
75
back
home
and
you're
saying:
let's
take
127
back
home,
so
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
three
panel
versus
just
having
a
single
judge.
E
C
In
that
instance,
judge
bruggeman
may
not
wouldn't
have
been
the
judge,
because
the
way
the
panel
works,
it's
a
random
selection
of
a
judge
from
each
of
the
three
areas
created
by
boundary
and
geography.
C
So
that
was
the
rationale
behind
that
it
had
been
discussed
about
just
making
it
that
these
claims,
instead
of
going
to
franklin
county,
would
go
to
the
court
of
original
jurisdiction
and
be
heard
by
the
judge
in
that
jurisdiction
so
that
that
has
not
been
left
out.
That
has
been
discussed
and
this
the
the
people
that
have
worked
on
this
felt
that
the
better
option
was
to
have
three
heads
or
better
than
one
to
look
at
this.
It's
more
balanced.
C
It
involves
our
circuit
judges,
who,
I
believe,
take
interest
in
these
in
these
issues
that
affect
us
that
affect
all
of
us
and
that
it
obviously
spreads
it
out
over
the
commonwealth
as
opposed
to
directing
it
all
onto
the
shoulders
of
two
judges
in
franklin,
county
and,
and
I've
tried
to
be
very
careful
about
that.
Again.
I
have
practiced
in
franklin
county
and
I
wouldn't
say,
and
I'm
not
saying
anything
negative
about
those
judges.
They've
had
a
good
caseload
and
they've
done
a
good
job.
E
Sorry,
just
I
appreciate
that,
thank
you.
I'm
still
a
little
murky
here
on
if
we
could
use
boone
county.
If
you
could
just
walk
me
through
that,
the
case
is
filed
in
boone
county.
In
this
instance,
it
was
with
judge
brookeman,
but
according
to
you
that
he
might
not
be
the
judge
or
he
won't
be
couldn't
be.
He
could.
C
E
C
A
judge
would
be
randomly
selected,
so
it
wouldn't
be
that
the
chief
judge
had
the
ability
to
pick
which
judge
he
wanted
to
hear
the
case
be
randomly
selected
one
from
each
area,
and
then
that
would
be
the
panel
that
would
hear
the
case.
They
could
hear
that
virtually
they
could
hear
it
in
the
jurisdiction,
but
the
case
would
originate
out
of
the
jurisdiction
where
the
plaintiff
resided.
E
C
If
you
look
at
page
three
of
the
bill
section,
three,
the
the
there's,
the
counties
comprising
the
districts
from
which
circuit
judges
shall
be
selected
for
hearing
challenges
under
this
section
will
be
as
follows,
and
there's
three
districts
or
areas
that
are
defined
there,
so
there's
the
in
the
first
district
and
second
district
and
third
district.
So
it
would
be
a
judge
from
one
judge
from
each
of
those
three
districts
so
that
realistically
you're
getting
a
the
the
three
panel
members
are
a
broad
array
from
across
the
state.
C
You
could
have
a
judge
from
from
kenton
a
judge
from
fayette
and
a
judge
from
pike
county.
That
would
hear
the
case
and
a
good
again,
we
think
also
a
matter
of
abundance
of
fairness
is
that
we
all
know
our
communities
are
different.
Our
cultures
are
different
somewhat
and
we
may
have
different
philosophies
or
views.
So
this
allows
these
three
members
to
to
hear
the
case,
discuss
among
themselves
and
to
reach
a
decision.
C
A
I'm
gonna.
There
are
two
other
members
that
have
questions,
but
before
we
get
to
them,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
call
the
chief
justice
if
he'd
come
up.
If
chairman,
if
you'll
hang
around,
I
will
be
here.
Thank
you
chief,
we're
glad
to
have
you
when
the
table's
vacated
there,
you
can
come
on
up
appreciate
your
patience
chief
justice
minton,
always
a
pleasure
to
have
you
before
the
judiciary
committee
you're
always
welcome
here.
F
Thank
you,
mr
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
sincerely
members
of
the
committee,
the
courtesy
extended
to
me.
I
wasn't
given
an
opportunity
to
speak
before
the
house,
and
so
the
house
is
not
heard
from
the
judicial
branch
on
this
matter,
so
I'm
really
pleased
that
the
senate
has
invited
us
to
to
at
least
be
part
of
the
conversation.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee.
You
know
years
ago
there
was
a
very
famous
who
became
very
famous
cartoonist.
F
We
have
mandy's
law,
we
have
this
and
that
this
needs
to
be
rube,
goldbergs
effort
at
judicial
reform.
It
creates
such
a
convoluted,
complicated,
imponderable
process
that
you
know
as
the
as
the
I
don't.
I
don't
take
lightly
the
obligation
to
come
before
a
legislative
committee
and
address
it
on
a
matter
of
legislation.
I
just
don't
do
that,
but
there
is
nobody
else
in
the
commonwealth
who
constitutionally
is
compelled
to
manage
the
court
system.
F
I
am
that
person
by
virtue
of
my
election
by
the
people
of
my
district
and
my
colleagues
on
the
court,
and
so
I
I
can't
I
couldn't.
I
got
up
at
four
o'clock
in
the
morning
rolled
out
of
bed
this
morning
in
bowling
green
and
came
here,
because
this
is
so
important
that
I
can't
I
just
can't.
I
couldn't
stay
at
home
and
and
and
and
monitor
virtually
the
the
adoption
of
this
rube
goldberg
bill
and
for
a
couple
of
reasons,
important
reasons.
F
F
F
In
these
cases,
let's
just
tell
the
people
the
truth,
that's
what
it
is:
nothing
more
or
less,
but
yet
we're
going
to
construct
a
system.
If
this
bill
is
adopted
that
will
totally
upend
the
work
of
circuit
courts
all
across
the
commonwealth.
We
are
to
solve
a
problem
of
eliminating
two
judges,
we're
going
to
up
in
the
work
of
judges
in
120
counties
across
the
commonwealth
and
here's
why
the
bill
is.
F
F
F
They
would
be
deprived
under
this
bill
of
allowing
judge
brugelman
to
hear
the
case,
because
what
it
would
do,
first
of
all,
it
would
require
the
the
circuit
clerk
of
boone
county
without
consultation
with
anybody,
because
this
bill
says
automatically
within
an
x
number
of
the
circuit
clerk
is
to
certify
the
matter
to
the
circuit,
to
the
chief
justice,
who
then
must
select
a
judge,
a
panel
of
three
judges
from
three
counties:
three
super
circuits
that
have
been
created
by
the
general
assembly
to
to
hear
the
case,
and
so
you
know
there's
a
possibility
that
the
judge
senator
carroll
would
come
from
fulton
and
from
maybe
bowling
green
or
pikeville.
F
Anyway.
The
three
places
I
will
say
that
the
way
these
are
drawn,
there's
a
high
likelihood,
there's
going
to
be
a
judge
from
lexington
or
louisville,
based
on
the
way
these
districts
are
created
because
there
are
more
judges
and
the
bill
doesn't
differentiate
between
general
jurisdiction
and
family
court.
Judges,
they're
all
circuit
judges,
they'd
all
be
in
the
pool
they'd
all
be
under
consideration.
F
So,
there's
very
high
likelihood
that
any
case
arising
any
place
in
the
commonwealth
will
be
heard.
At
least
one
of
those
three
judges
will
be
from
one
of
those
two
places,
so
the
golden
triangle
is
well
set
to
the
detriment
of
the
rural
counties
in
this
bill.
It
just
accomplishes
that
this
rube
goldberg
bill
accomplishes
that
the
thing
the
reason
I
really
wanted
to
crawl
out
of
bed
and
come
here
today
is
to
tell
you
that
this
is
an
egregious
an
egregious
invasion
of
the
separation
of
powers.
F
But
this
is
what
this
does.
This
directs,
the
chief
justice
and
and
the
constitution
is
clear
that
how
the
business
of
the
court
of
justice
is
handled
is
constitutionally
given
to
the
chief
justice
of
the
commonwealth.
So
here's
my
point
very
simply.
This
rube
goldberg
bill
is
an
unconstitutional
invasion.
F
It
is
overkill
if
the
general
assembly
wants
to
deal
with
the
matter.
It
says
it's
a
venue
bill.
Let's
tell
the
people
the
truth,
it's
not!
It's,
not
a
venue
bill.
It's
about
eliminating
the
franklin
circuit
court.
So
if,
as
has
been
discussed-
and
I
realize
that
this
has
been
around,
this
issue
has
been
around
a
long
time
as
long
as
there's
been
a
franklin
circuit
court,
it's
been
around.
F
You
know:
senator
schroeder
drafted
a
bill.
It
was
a
200
page
bill
during
my
tenure
that
that
very
surgically
attempted
to
deal
with
the
matter
of
special
jurisdiction
and
venue.
F
F
A
Thank
you
chief
and
we
do
have
some
questions,
but
I
want
to
respond,
and
I
mean
this-
I
hope
you
know
I
mean
this
with
with
all
the
respect
in
the
world,
for
you
as
a
as
a
person
as
a
friend
and
as
a
colleague
and
certainly
out
of
immense
respect
and
appreciation
for
years
of
service
on
the.
A
But
the
court
does
give
us
orders
all
the
time
with
which
we
comply.
I
still
disagree
with
the
court's
finding
in
that
particular
case,
requiring
the
entirety
of
the
amendment,
and
I
was
there
for
the
oral
argument,
and
I
heard
the
the
members
asking
about
how
many
words
were
in
the
ballot
question
in
2018,
and
that
was
a
big
point
of
contention
with
members
and
and
evidently
in
the
in
the
conference
with
you
all
it,
I'm
sure
it
was
discussed
I'll,
say
for
comparison's
sake.
A
A
A
It's
not
to
get
rid
of
franklin
circuit
court,
as
you've
said
it's
to
get
these
special
kinds
of
hearings
out
of
franklin
circuit
court,
because
that
makes
that
a
super
jurisdiction
and
frankly,
I'm
not
worried
about
the
two
judges
that
sit
there
and
I've
got
a
ton
of
respect
for
both
of
them.
I've
not
practiced
in
front
of
franklin
circuit
court.
A
I've
been
in
front
of
them
in
litigation
because
of
marcy's
law,
but
I
haven't
practiced
in
front
of
them.
I
don't
know
either
the
men
very
well,
I'm
not
worried
about
the
two
of
them
as
much
as
I
am
when
they
retire
and
then
the
campaign
for
franklin
circuit
court
becomes
something
that
any
other
circuit
judge
race
is
not
like
around
the
commonwealth,
and
it's
because
that
jurisdiction
has
this
special
power.
A
Here
this
special
jurisdictional
authority-
that's
what
I
those
two
judges,
as
you
have
rightly
said,
don't
have
any
more
qualifications
than
any
other
sitting
circuit
judge
in
the
commonwealth,
yet
they
carry
an
immense
amount
of
weight.
Those
two
seats
do-
and
I
think
that's
not
appropriate.
So
is
this
the
version
and
I
support
house
bill
3,
but
is
this
the
version
I
filed
this?
As
you
might
remember
about
five
or
six
years
ago
it
was
a
400
page
bill
because
we
made
changes
to
all
the
conforming
amendments.
A
You
know
we
and
it
wasn't
a
three-judge
panel,
and
I
this
isn't
the
way
that
I
would
build
it
if
I
was
filing
it
again,
but
I
I
do
support
moving
things
out
of
franklin
circuit
court.
So,
frankly
those
two
men
can
get
around
or
women
one
day
get
around
to
hearing
just
the
cases
for
the
people
in
franklin
circuit
and
these
other
cases
of
statewide
import
can
be
heard
by
lots
of
different
judges.
A
D
Say
this
and
then
talk
to
you
as
the
executive
chief
executive
of
the
judicial
system
but
caveat
it
that
I
think
senator
schroeder
said
there
was
a
couple
of
different
ways
to
get
to
boone
county
from
here
we
could
go
over,
go
up,
64
up
75
or
you
could
take
127
and
pick
up
71..
D
So
I
think
what
you
see
is
is
that
there
is
conformity
to
the
point
that
representative
massey
wants
to
get
to
and
the
point
that
we
want
to
get
to.
We
may
think
there's
two
different
directions
and
I'm
not
sure-
and
this
is
kind
of
a
question
you
think
there
is
a
point
that
we
can
all
get
to
too-
that
does
what
we
are
thinking.
Am
I
correct
you're
correct.
Okay,
now
understand
the
frustration
of
the
general
assembly.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
This
I'm
not
disagreeing
with
you
that
this
is
a
rube
goldberg
type
of
situation,
but
we
need
to
know
that
what
we're
hearing
and
what
we
want
to
see
from
the
courts
that
is
equally
applicable
to
us
is
applicable
to
you
all
and
the
same
rules
and
processes,
because
we
get
complaints
and
things
of
that
nature
are
going
to
take
place
within
the
court
system
that
you,
as
the
lead
of
the
court,
is
going
to
be
the
lead
of
the
court
and
come
to
us
with
ideas
and
suggestions,
because
you
think
this
is
the
way
it
should
be
appropriately
done.
F
Well,
I
know
that
in
conversations
oh
in
the
past,
well,
I
don't
know
kind
of
how
to
begin
here.
There's
been
a
lot
laid
out
here
for
me
to
respond
to,
but.
A
On
one
company
boone
county,
let
me
pause
right
here
and
before
you
answer
that.
F
A
For
housekeeping
purposes,
I'm
just
going
to
say
I've,
the
witnesses
have
been
told
we're
not
going
to
hear
house
bill
2.
So
folks,
jackie,
I'm
going
to
have
a
called
meeting
at
some
point
and
kate.
I
know
you've
both
been
there
we'll
make
sure
you
get
a
link
to
do
this
again.
We
may
have
to
come
back
over
here.
If
we're
going
to
do
zoom,
I
don't
know
if
one
327
is
set
up,
we'll.
F
A
Sure
that
you're
you're
still
participating
when
we
have
the
meeting
this
afternoon-
and
I
don't
know
when
that'll
be
but
we'll
make
sure
you
both
know
so
and
tom.
I
want
you
to
have
a
chance
to
to
speak,
but
I'm
gonna,
let
the
chief
finish,
and
we
do
have
a
hard
deadline
here
right
at
11.,
but
members
tom
was
going
to
speak,
but
your
his
testimony
was
sent
to
you
all
by
email
and
is
in
your
folders
right
now.
A
So
I
want
to
make
sure
you
are
aware
of
tom
fitzgerald's
thoughts
on
house
bill
3..
He
also
opposes
it
and
has
constitutional
concerns
and
he
has
set
those
fourth
in
his
testimony
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure
he
members
saw
that.
So
with
that
chief,
you
have
the
floor
and
I'm
going
to
let
you
and
president
stivers,
duke
it
out
for
the
last
10
minutes
here.
F
Well,
he
and
I
are
not
going
to
duke
it
out
too
much
because
he
and
I
agree
on
on
quite
a
few
of
the
points
he
made
and
one
is
you
know
the
court
on
this
on
this.
Let's
let
me
just
bring
up
the
redistricting
issue
that
senator
schickel
and
I
have
talked
about
we
sent
over
we
have
sent
over.
I
acknowledge
the
length
of
time
involving
appellate,
drawing
appellate
districts
that
that
that
is,
a
legislative
function,
totally
a
legislative
function.
We've
sent
plans
over
here
twice
that
I
know
of
and.
F
F
It
is
it
it's
not
perfect,
but
it
it's
a
start
and-
and
it
needs
to
be
addressed-
and
I
guess
that's
another
matter
we
need
to
get
to
so
I
I
want
you
to
know
that
I'm
not
I'm
not
turning
a
blind
eye
to
any
of
this.
We're
we're
trying
to
do
that.
Now,
the
the
the
point
about
you
know.
Obviously
we
all
understand
the
the
frustration
that
legislators
and
governors
feel
when
courts
take
a
different
view
on
constitutional
issues.
F
F
If
senator
schroeder
drafted
the
bill,
I
don't
remember
the
details
of
it,
but
it
attempted
very
very
precisely
to
address
all
the
places
where
over
the
history
of
the
commonwealth,
the
wisdom
has
been
that
there
be
a
a
circuit
court
in
the
state
that
deals
with
matters
relating
to
state
government.
That's
not
unusual!
That's
the
way
it's
built
in
most
states,
if
not
every
other
state
and
it's
bad.
That's
the
way
it's
built
in
the
federal
system,
with
the
federal
circuit
in
dc.
F
You
know
they
are
the
ones
who
develop
sort
of
a
level
of
expertise,
dealing
with
administrative
agencies
and
matters
of
state
government.
They
just
do,
but
but
that's
not
carved
in
stone,
that's
carved
in
statute,
and
so,
if
you
want
to,
if
you,
if,
if
the
policy
makers
believe
that
that
there's
a
more
appropriate
way
to
do
that,
then
then
that's
a
way
to
approach
it.
F
Perhaps,
with
this
special
jurisdiction
special,
you
know
dealing
with
each
piece
of
legislation
like
that,
so
there
is
a
way
there
is
a
path
to
boone
county,
but
what
what
what
this
this
bill
does?
Is
it
it
it?
It
ends
the
path
to
boone
county,
because
a
boone
county
case
will
end
up
being
heard
by
three
judge
panel
from
who
knows
where,
in
these
super
circuits
not
created
by
constitution
but
created
by
this
piece
of
legislation-
and
I
guess
to
just
to
address
directly
some
of
you
who
are
trial
lawyers.
F
Can
you
imagine
and
senator
shikolai,
let's
use
a
baseball
analogy.
That'll
help
us
all.
I
got
a
colleague
that
believes
everything
resolves
to
baseball.
Suppose
the
game
is
played
with
three
umps
behind
the
back
behind
the
plate
and
the
pitch
is
thrown
and
you've
got
three
umps
behind
the
plate
and
one
says:
that's
a
ball
and
the
other
said
no,
no,
no.
I
think
that
was
a
strike,
and
so
we
got
to
turn
to
the
thing.
So
you
know
you
talk
about
an
inefficient
way
of
trying
cases
because
we're
not
dealing
with
appellate
judges.
F
Here
we're
dealing
with
the
trial
bench
where
cases
get
tried
and
objections
get
made
and
rulings
have
to
be
made
right.
Then
there's
not
time
for
a
committee
meeting
you
know
between
every
pitch.
It's
just
not
this
is
this.
Is
the
rube
goldberg
way
to
do,
and
and
it's
just
it
is
a
disservice
to
the
taxpayers
of
the
commonwealth-
for
us
to
go
down
this
path.
A
Chief,
I
appreciate
it.
I
thank
you
and
I
appreciate
your
coming
and
I
don't
know
if
laura
you
came
up
here.
If
you
wanted
to
say
anything.
A
B
A
Down
got
it,
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
the
chance
we're
not
going
to
vote
the
bill
today,
or
at
least
not
at
this
meeting.
Obviously
we
don't
have
the
time,
and
I
know
senator
schickel
had
a
question.
A
So
my
hope
is
that
we
can
be
back
here
at
one
o'clock
and
we'll
get
tom.
Did
you
hear
that
sure
did.
A
We'll
make
sure
you
get
a
fresh
link
if
one's
necessary,
so
with
that
I'm
gonna
call
for
a
motion
to
adjourn
for
now
we
are
adjourned
chief.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.