►
From YouTube: Emergency Medical Services Task Force (11-15-22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
First,
item
of
a
business
is
going
to
be
approval.
The
Menace
from
the
November
1
meeting
chair
will
entertain
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
minutes
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
any
opposed
the
eyes.
Have.
It
record
will
reflect
that.
The
minutes
for
the
November
1
2022
meeting
have
been
approved
in
everyone's
packet.
We
have
a
copy
of
the
work
product
that
we
will
be
putting
forth.
It's
been
my
experience
working
on
task
forces
that
we
will
not
have
a
formal
roll
call
vote
on
the
final
work
product.
A
My
experience
has
been
those
of
us,
especially
that
are
legislators
in
those
circumstances
where
we're
forced
to
take
a
vote
on
a
commission
or
a
task
force,
and
then
we
have
to
turn
around
the
legislative
session
and
take
a
vote
sometimes
there's
a
sense
of
that.
First
vote
being
binding,
and
so
it's
not
going
to
be
a
roll
call
vote.
When
we
finish
today,
I
will
be
asking
for
a
Voice
vote
to
put
this
before
the
general
assembly
as
a
whole
as
our
final
work
product.
C
The
only
thing
I
want
to
say,
senator
Givens
is
I
appreciate.
The
process
we've
gone
through
has
been
very
thorough,
a
very
upfront,
hopefully
transparent
in
terms
of
trying
to
resolve
the
issues
that
we
we
have
seen
in
terms
of
providing
delivery
and
services
to
to
a
citizens
of
the
of
the
Commonwealth
I.
C
Do
want
to
appreciate
all
the
task
members
to
participate
who
participate
in
this
process,
and
your
input
and
thoughts
are
very
valued,
and
we
appreciate
that
and
also
appreciate
the
co-chair,
senator
Givens
for
all
his
involvement
in
777
last
year
to
get
us
to
this
point,
and
hopefully
we'll
have
some
a
good
recommendation
to
go
before
the
general
assembly
and
then
we'll
take
appropriate
action
from
that
point
on.
So
thank
you.
Senator
Gibbons,
very.
A
A
C
If
you
go
through
a
formal
review
or
a
sub
review,
it's
still
the
it's
still
the
holding
of
the
city
and
county
to
to
provide
that
service
and
so
forth.
But
it
would
be
their
discretion
if
they
so
choose
to
work
with
and
contract
with
a
third-party
inventor.
So
I
wanted
to
just
try
to
make
sure
and
it's
Clarity,
because
I've
got
some
conflicting
information
from
both
sides
on
on
how
this
really
reads
and
so
forth.
C
So
that's
the
the
intent
of
that
to
provide
a
little
more
flexibility
for
City
counties
to
work
with
in
contract
with
the
with
the
third
party
contractor
in
order
to
deliver
the
services,
because
sometimes
the
city
county
assets
may
not
be
might
be
tied
up
and
they
have
somebody
that
need
to
transfer
to
a
particular
particular
facility
or
to
respond
that
gives
them
some
flexibility
in
order
to
provide
continue
to
provide
that
service
and
not
cause
any
type
of
unnecessary
delay
or
at
least
delete,
reduce
the
delay
and
delivering
that
services.
A
Staff
has
provided
some
recommended
language
that
they
feel
would
would
get
us
in
the
right
direction
and
I
think
they've
done
a
nice
job
with
that
recommended
language.
I
do
have
a
caution
on
the
language
we
have
in
front
of
us.
Members
should
have
a
copy
of
the
recommended
language
change
was
just
passed
out
on
single
sheet.
A
That
recommended
change
would
read,
permit
all
city
and
county
governments
to
contract
with
third-party
vendors,
regardless
of
con
status,
regardless
of
con
status.
All
of
us
that
have
been
involved
in
this
discussion
understand
that
to
mean
that
you
still
go
through
the
con
process
to
get
a
coin,
whether
it's
the
substantive
review
or
the
non-substantive
review
the
wording,
regardless
of
con
status,
May
mislead.
A
Some
to
think
that
you
don't
have
to
go
through
the
con
process,
so
I
don't
think
our
intent
is
to
permit
everyone,
every
city
and
county
government
to
contract
with
any
third
party
vendors
I
think
our
intent
is
for
City
and
County
governments
with
con,
regardless
of
their
con
status,
to
contract
with
third-party
vendors.
Is
that
correct.
C
I
guess
my
understanding,
Mr
chairman,
that
the
con
I
mean
these
entities
have
to
have
a
con.
That's.
A
C
So,
there's
really
no
there's
really
no
way
around
in
doing
that.
I
think
it
goes
back
to
what
Mr
representative
Meredith
mentioned
in
terms
of
you
know
in
terms
of
you,
don't
have
this
then
basically
you're
inviting
competition
in
to
that
process.
That's.
D
C
E
A
A
A
D
Do
I
have
to
introduce
myself
for
the
record.
Please
do
Eric
Clark
Senate
president's
office,
so
we
received
a
call
today
from
a
representative
with
the
911
didn't
get
the
full
name.
But
apparently
there
are
two
9-1-1
associations
or
trade
associations
that
work
in
the
911
space.
Who
is
expressing
some
concern
with
Section
16.?
D
Basically,
the
concern
expressed
was
this
would
create
additional
regulatory
burdens
for
9-1-1
call
centers
and
they
talked
about
how
they
were
already
trained
and
certified
and
jumped
through
a
lot
of
Hoops
to
get
in
the
911
space
as
it
is,
and
they
were
reading
recommendations
16
as
another
layer
of
regulatory
oversight
by
the
by
K
beams.
So
they
were
expressing
some
concerns
with
recommendation.
16.
A
I
think
our
conversation
was
quite
clear
and
statute
already
Eric
correctly
statute
already
provides
regulatory
authority
to
K
beams
for
9-1-1
dispatch.
D
Correct
and
that's
reflected
in
recommendation
16
at
the
end,
KRS
311,
a
0.025
I,
believe
it's
subsection,
1
paragraph
L
of
that
statute
already
requires
this
training
of
emergency
medical
dispatchers
dispatch
instructors,
dispatch,
instructor
trainers
and
dispatch.
Centers.
D
A
A
So
director
we've
looked
to
you
and
had
conversations
about
this
we
feel
like
this
is
something
that
this
task
force
feels
is
important.
I
would
I
would
encourage
that
it
be
for
the
purposes
of
streamlining
and
an
efficient
operations,
not
just
for
the
sake
of
promulgating
regulations,
but
I
feel
confident
that
you're
aware
of
that,
any
members
see
a
need
to
have
any
discussion
or
change
on
number
16.
A
B
A
A
A
The
chair
will
Entertain
Entertain
a
motion
that
the
Emergency
Management
Services
task
force
recommend
to
the
lrc
for
submission
to
the
general
assembly,
the
work
product
that
we
have
before
us
as
a
final
work
product.
The
chair
will
entertain
a
motion
as
such
after
amending
Motion
in
second.
Second,
all
in
favor
say
aye.