►
From YouTube: Administrative Regulations Review Committee - (5-10-22)
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
Representative
bridges,
representative
frazier
gordon
here,
representative,
mary
lou,
marzian,
co-chair
west
here
in
koter
hill.
Here
we
have
a
quorum.
B
B
C
B
Good
afternoon
welcome
today,
would
you
please
identify
yourself
today
for
the
record?
Yes,
my
name
is
stephen
pulliam,
sir.
Please
push
your
mic
until
the
little
red
green
light
comes
on.
All
right
now
go
right
ahead,
so
I'm
stephen
pulliam,
I'm
general
counsel
for
the
executive
branch.
Ethics.
Commission.
Thank
you,
sir.
B
There
is
a
staff
amendment.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendment
at
this
time?
There
is
a
motion.
Is
there
and
there
is
a
second
without
objection.
It
is
so
ordered.
Are
there
any
questions
from
any
members
of
the
subcommittee
for
the
gentleman
before
us
today?
B
A
Board
of
pharmacy
201
kar
2
440,
with
staff,
suggested
this
administrative
regulation
establishes
a
legend
drug
repository
program,
as
required
by
statute,
establishes
definitions
and
requirements
relating
to
participation
in
the
program,
acceptance,
inspection
and
storage
of
drugs,
distribution
and
dispensing
of
drugs
and
forms
and
record
keeping
for
the
program.
The
staff
suggested
amendment
amends
various
sections
to
comply
with
the
drafting
and
formatting
requirements
of
krs
chapter
13a
and
also
amends
section
7
to
add
a
url
for
material
incorporated
by
reference.
B
E
Is
sure
this
this
was
established,
the
general
assembly
passed
passed
a
bill
and
amended
315.
D
To
allow
the
legislative
repository
program,
which
is
basically
a
donation
program,
so
for
individuals
that
have
high
cost
medications,
they
want
to
donate
back
as
long
as
they
meet
this
certain
standards.
Then
a
pharmacy
may
participate
in
in
the
program
for,
and
this
is
for
low
cost
or
for
indigent
populations
or
or
individuals
that
can't
afford.
A
D
They
have
to
be
there's,
there's
definitions
of
donors
and
recipients
built
into
the
regulation
and
a
pharmacy
is
as
as
the
recipient
and
and
then
we
have
the
the
donors
that
can
be
the
the
patients
or
providers.
Okay,.
G
Thank
you
and
I'm,
showing
my
ignorance
a
little
bit
with
this,
but
just
to
follow
up.
Are
there
certain
parameters
in
which
that
only
certain
drugs
can
be
donated
because
of
necessity,
for
instance,
fertility
clinics,
wind
up
being
very,
very
expensive,
the
drugs
they
take?
Sometimes
people
will
pay
nine
ten
eleven
thousand
dollars
to
get
up
to
it
in
the
event
that
doesn't
work
out,
there's
a
lot
of
times
a
stockpile
of
that
my
understanding
was
that
they
could
not
be
donated
back.
Is
that
is
that
part
of
the
program
yeah.
D
So
there
there
are
parameters
in
which
drugs
cannot
be
donated
back.
They
have
to
be
in
the
original
package.
They
can't
be
expired,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
they're
not
expired,
so
they
have
to
be
essentially
reusable.
G
B
A
H
This
regulation
is
being
amended
to
allow
the
initial
meeting
regarding
telehealth
to
take
place
via
telehealth
clarify
the
requirements
for
informed
consent
and
secure
communication
and
allow
for
the
participation
of
a
person
licensed
by
a
compact
state.
The
staff
suggested
amendment
amends
various
sections
to
correct
statutory
citations
and
make
technical
changes.
A
B
B
Thank
you,
mr
winstead.
There
is
a
staff
amendment
to
this
regulation.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval?
There
is,
and
there
is
a
motion.
There
has
been
a
motion
and
there
has
been
a
second
without
objection.
It
is
so
ordered.
Are
there
any
questions
from
many
of
the
members
of
the
subcommittee
at
this
time?
B
A
Board
of
nursing,
201
kar
20
260
emergency
with
an
agency
amendment
201kr
2480
emergency
in
ordinary.
F
201K
or
2260e
amends
to
make
changes
pursuant
to
executive
order
statute
and
senate
bill
150
from
the
2020
regular
session,
including
to
delete
the
requirement
for
request
for
an
increase
in
student
enrollment
to
be
submitted
two
months
prior
to
the
increase.
Add
simulation
resources
to
substitute
clinical
site
resources
require
board
approval
within
30
days
of
a
completed
request
for
an
increase
in
enrollment.
If
the
program
of
nursing
has
demonstrated
sufficient
resources
to
support
the
increase
and
require
new
campuses
to
be
considered
as
enrollment
increases
and
not
separate
programs
in
nursing.
F
201
kr,
2480
e
and
o
both
amendment
changes
pursuant
to
executive
order
statute
and
senate
bill
150
from
the
2020
regular
session,
including
to
require
an
applicant
for
licensure.
By
endorsement,
who
is
a
graduate
of
a
foreign
nursing
school
to
submit
a
full
education
course,
by
course,
report
from
the
commission
on
graduates
of
foreign
nursing
schools,
credentials.
Evaluation
service
rather
than
visa
screen,
add
a
requirement
for
english
language
proficiency
examination
and
set
a
required
score
previously
covered
by
visa
screen.
B
Thank
you,
mr
prather,
for
being
with
us
today.
There
are
staff
amendments
to
these
regulations.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval?
Please
there
is
a
motion
and
there
is
a
second
without
objection.
It
is
so
ordered.
There
is
also
an
agency
amendment.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
agency
amendment
there
appearing
to
be
no
discussion?
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval?
B
There
is
a
motion
in
a
second
without
objection
it
is
so
ordered.
Are
there
any
questions
on
this
specific
regulation
from
any
of
the
members
today?
B
A
A
22020
updates
the
form
used
to
request
a
testing
or
disability.
22070
amends
to
require
foreign
educated
applicants
to
meet
specified
individual
and
overall
examination.
Scores
22-170
amends
to
update
the
compact
commission
rules
and
bylaws,
including
requiring
self-reporting,
if
participating
in
a
confidential
alternative
program
and
establishing
a
new
standing
compliance
committee.
The
staff
amendments
for
22020
and
22.070,
I'm
in
various
sections
to
comply
with
13a
drafting
and
formatting
requirements.
B
Thank
you,
mr
curley.
We
appreciate
your
time
here
today.
There
are
staff
amendments
on
these
regulations.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendments?
There
has
been
a
motion
in
a
second
without
objection
it
is
so
ordered.
Do
we
have
any
questions
today
for
many
of
the
members
on
the
specific
regs
that
were
mentioned
there
being
no
questions?
Thank
you,
sir,
for
your
time
today
please
call
the
next
regulation.
Thank
you
guys.
F
201
kr
3315
amends
to
clarify
requirements
for
individuals
pursuing
due
licensure
and
replaces
the
application
for
licensure
or
certification
and
verification
of
licensure
and
other
jurisdictions
forms
with
a
new
application
for
licensure
certification
or
dual
licensure.
The
staff
suggested
amendment
immense
various
sections
to
comply
with
keras
chapter
13a.
B
Good
afternoon
to
both
of
you,
would
you
please
identify
yourself
ma'am
for
the
record
and
then
we'll
go
over
to
the
gentleman
for
the
record.
Please.
B
B
H
The
approval
cannot
be
extended
beyond
the
five-year
limit
and
the
approval
is
available
only
once
in
the
person's
lifetime.
Allow
the
board
to
extend
certification
as
a
certified
clinical
supervisor
to
a
person
who
is
approved
to
provide
clinical
supervision
but
does
not
meet
all
the
provisions
of
krs
309.0834.
B
B
B
Yes,
sir
senator
yates
go
right
ahead.
Sir.
G
First
of
all,
thank
you
both
for
being
here
and
I
was
going
through
reading
just
some
of
the
amendments,
a
lot
of
technical
things
got
in
here,
but
because
this
is
such
an
important
part
of
legislation,
we
just
addressed
this
past
session
as
far
as
funding
as
well.
Can
you
just
explain
what's
required
by
these
supervisors
on
here?
Obviously
we
have
the
board
and
alcohol.
G
You
have
different
people
who
are
who
are
counselors.
We
know
that
sometimes
sometimes
that
we
put
people
into
roles
where
they're
directly
overseeing
people
before
they've
actually
achieved
their
credentials,
but
that's
only
if
they're,
I
guess
temporary
counselors.
Or
can
you
explain
the
process
since
we
put
about
100
million
dollars
into
it?
Just
kind
of
let
us
know
how
that's
being
done.
Yes,
sir,
and
I
believe.
I
Mr
chairman,
cesario
may
have
the
best
information
for
you
so.
D
That
person
would
have
to
be
a
year
post,
licensure
or
trained
by
the
board
in
the
supervision
practices
when
someone's
pursuing
a
cadc,
for
example,
the
base
requirement
for
them
is
300
hours
of
supervision,
which
takes
approximately
six
years
to
to
complete
the
requirement
for
supervision.
Monthly
is
two
hours
twice
a
month:
okay,
so
it
takes
about
six
years
that
can
be
adjusted
according
to
what
type
of
degree
they
have
it's
a
clinical
degree
bachelor's
level.
Then
it'll
be
200
hours
of
supervision.
If
it's
master's
level,
it
would
be
100
hours
of
supervision.
D
G
Appreciate
you,
the
technical,
I'm
jotting
down
as
fast
as
I
can,
but
my
real
question
is
so:
do
we
right
now
we
have
a
lot
of
people
suffering
from
addiction
issues
and
we
have
mandatory
treatment
and
then
those
that
have
been
paid
for
we
have
super.
G
We
have
people
who
are
counselors,
who
are
meeting
with
them,
who
actually
aren't
certified
yet
but
they're
under
the
direction
of
someone
who
is
certified,
that's
correct,
and
did
you
just
tell
me
that
that
the
requirement
of
this
right
now
is
that
they
only
have
have
two
hours
two
times
a
month
that
supervisions
that's.
D
D
Absolutely
there's
a
requirement
for
direct
supervision
every
six
months,
I
believe
so
twice
a
year.
The
meetings,
the
two
hours
twice
a
month
of
meetings
is
to
review
cases
and
and
documentation,
and
that
sort
of
thing.
B
J
Questions
to
senator
yates
just
a
little
bit
different
tract
so
prior
to
this
requirement,
the
supervision
requirement.
What
is
the
educational
requirement
to
get
to
that?
Is
there
to
that
point?.
J
No
to
no
to
be
to
be
supervised
to
be
the
person.
D
D
Up
until
two
years
ago,
the
requirement
was
a
bachelor's
degree.
It
didn't
matter
what
the
domain
was
in.
You
could
become
a
cadc
with
with
a
bachelor's
degree,
and
I
believe
it
was
2020..
D
Was
it
senate
bill
191
that
created
two
credentials
called
certified
alcohol
and
drug
counselor
associate
one
and
two
a
person
can
become
an
associate
one
or
two
without
a
degree
they
would
have
to
have
a
high
school
diploma.
I
believe
to
to
be
able
to
apply
for
that,
and
they
would
have
to
be
under
supervision
of
either
a
licensed
clinical
alcohol
and
drug
counselor
licensed
alcohol
and
drug
counselor
or
certified
alcohol
and
drug
counselor.
J
B
B
Thank
you
both
today.
We
appreciate
your
your
time
and
your
your
answers
to
our
questions
very
much
very,
very
important
issue,
and
we
we
very
much
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
today
to
answer
that.
Please.
F
B
A
C
J
B
Any
other
questions
there
being
no
further
questions.
Thank
you
very
much
today.
Please
call
the
next
regulation.
C
301
4010-4110
update
wildlife
regulations,
including
the
designation
of
counties
for
districts,
the
administration
of
drugs
to
wildlife
and
provisions
for
ballard
and
peabody
wildlife
management
areas.
The
staff
suggested
amendments
and
in
various
sections
to
comply
with
keras
chapter
13a.
Additionally,
301
4020
deletes
restrictions
on
firearms
and
dogs.
B
Good
afternoon
welcome
today
would
each
one
of
you,
starting
with
the
lady,
please
introduce
yourself
and
go
across
the
table
there
for
the
record
today.
B
Again,
thank
you
all
today
for
being
with
us
at
our
meeting.
Today
there
is
a
or
there
are
staff
amendments
to
these
regulations
or
or
is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendment?
There
is
a
motion
and
a
second
without
objection
it
is
so
ordered.
Do
we
have
any
questions
for
many
of
the
members
today
for
any
of
our
guests
from
fish
and
wildlife.
B
H
In
the
student
information
system,
the
staff
suggested
an
amendment
to
these
two
regulations
amends
section
one
to
comply
with
the
drafting
requirements
of
krs
chapter
13.
A
783020
is
being
amended
to
update
terminology
on
organizational
changes,
remove
requirements
that
no
longer
align
to
kentucky
department
of
education
personnel
policies
and
remove
the
2008
kentucky
tech
salary
schedule
incorporated
by
reference.
B
J
E
E
Under
that
act,
school
districts
are
required
to
create
local
policies
related
to
trauma-informed
discipline.
Corporal
punishment
is
largely
accepted
by
the
field
to
not
be
a
trauma-informed
discipline
practice.
However,
it
is
allowable
in
the
statute,
and
so
we
felt
like
this
was
an
appropriate
time
to
provide
some
safety
and
guardrails
around
corporal
punishment
and
to
provide
some
additional
guidance
to
districts
who
choose
to
continue
to
use
that
statutorily
allowed
disciplinary
resolution.
J
E
So
let
me
just
flip
through
here
real
quick,
so
one
of
the
things
that
we've
done
is
we've
provided
a
standard
definition
for
corporal
punishment.
So
that's
the
first
time
that
that
will
show
up
in
regulation.
For
us,
we
have
exempted
a
handful
of
students
from
experiencing
corporal
punishment
at
school.
Those
are
students
with
individual
education
plans,
ieps
those
are
special
education
students,
as
well
as
students
in
foster
care
or
homeless
students.
E
State
regulation
already
prohibits
foster
care
parents
from
using
corporal
punishment
within
the
home,
so
we're
just
extending
that
protection
to
the
school
for
that
group
of
students.
It
also
exempts
homeless,
homeless,
youth
as
well.
This
these
are
populations
of
youth
who
experience
high
trauma
already,
and
so
we
want
to
exempt
them
from
potentially
higher
traumatic
experiences
at
school.
E
It
includes
parent
notification
and
involvement
requirements,
so
within
the
first
five
days
of
enrollment,
schools
must
receive
written
consent
from
parents
to
even
consider
corporal
punishment
for
their
students
and
then
before.
Administering
a
corporal
punishment
on
on
the
day
of
they
must
receive
verbal
consent
from
the
parent.
We
think
that
parental
involvement
is
really
important
in
corporal
punishment,
because
we
know
that
corporal
punishment
at
home
is
not
a
monolith
and
that
parents
may
use
corporal
punishment
in
different
ways
under
different
circumstances.
E
We
have
also
included
a
requirement
that
a
trauma-informed
strategy
is
deployed
first
before
a
corporal
punishment.
This
is
a
requirement
that
exists
in
other
spaces
that
exist
in
the
special
education
space
and,
in
other,
was
spaces
with
students
with
disabilities
and
504
plans,
so
we're
just
carrying
that
forward.
E
E
So
the
school
safety
and
resiliency
act
does
not
address
corporal
punishment
directly.
What
it
addresses
is
the
implementation
of
a
trauma-informed
disciplinary
policy.
Corporal
punishment
is
not
a
trauma-informed
disciplinary
policy,
and
in
crafting
this
regulation
we
did
review
all
of
the
research
literature
we
could
find
over.
200
studies
related
to
corporal
punishment
at
school
unanimously
find
that
corporal
punishment
is
an
ineffective
long-term
solution
and
does
create
trauma,
creates
difficulty
building
relationships
in
the
schoolhouse.
J
And
I
don't
think
it
passed,
we
cover
a
lot
of
bills.
Sorry,
I
can't
remember
everything,
but
is
this
sort
of
an
end
around
around
that
effort
to
do
away
with
corporal
punishment.
E
So
this
really
will
increase
parental
involvement
in
the
corporal
punishment
process.
Districts
are
required
under
the
regulation
to
create
a
corporal
punishment
policy
that
is
transparent
that
is
adopted
by
that
school
board.
So
parents
will
have
an
opportunity
to
engage
at
that
level
about
whether
or
not
they
want
corporal
punishment
as
an
option
in
their
district.
E
J
E
J
For
indulging
me,
so
if,
if
a
school
cannot
use
corporal
punishment,
what
is
the,
what
is
what
do
they
go
to
the
most
to
to
punish
a
student
if
that's
needed.
E
That
is
a
broad
question.
What
we've
provided
at
the
kentucky
department
of
education
in
response
to
the
school
safety
resiliency
act
is
what
we
call
the
trauma
informed
tool
kit,
and
this
is
a
tool
kit
that
lives
on
our
website.
That
provides
a
large
number
of
various
disciplinary
resolutions
from
classroom
to
system
level
resolutions
and,
and
so
districts
have
access
to
that.
We
have
training
to
support
that
webinars
to
support
that.
So,
if
districts
want
to
pivot
away
from
corporal
punishment,
we
are
prepared
to
provide
research-based
trauma-informed
practices
to
support
them
in
that
effort.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
that
I
was
scratching
my
head,
because
I
remember
the
debate
and
here
last
year
the
kentucky
board
of
education.
The
lobby
members
unanimously
passed
to
end
corporate
punishment
in
kentucky
that
we're
one
of
19
states
that
still
have
it
and
have
not
prohibited
in
the
statute
book.
There's
only
four
school
districts
that
actually
have
it
put
into
place.
G
That's
permitted
and
you
see,
there's
11
other
that
don't
do
it
but
have
not
specifically
restricted
it
by
statute,
so
looks
like
they're
running
them,
pretty
close
to
some
legal
challenges
there
in
the
event
that
they
did.
It
passed
the
house,
I
believe,
but
we
let
it
die
in
the
senate.
We
never
voted
on
it.
It's
my
understanding,
but
this
bill
has
changes.
G
Would
this
restrict
the
actual
physical
pain?
Is
it
if
this
is
passed
so.
E
This
change
here
today,
yeah.
So
that's
a
good
question.
The
way
we
are
approaching
that
in
the
regulation
is
that
districts
will
have
to
adopt
a
policy
and
within
their
policy
they
will
have
to
provide
their
own
limits
on
corporal
punishment
and
they
will
have
to
also
define
the
instrument
to
be
used
to
administer
corporal
punishment.
We
chose
to
go
that
way
because
it
allows
the
parents
in
that
school
board
meeting
to
come
and
voice
their
opinion
and
be
engaged
in
that
process.
E
We
know
that
corporal
punishment
is
an
issue
that
varies
from
community
to
community
and
home
to
home
in
kentucky.
So
we
wanted
to
really
leave
that
up
to
that
local
community.
If
they
choose
to
use
choral
punishment,
then
they
can
choose
what
those
local
limits
are,
but
they
have
to
codify
that
in
policy.
So
it's
transparent
and
everybody
knows
what's
expected.
G
E
G
And
I
would
argue
the
opposite.
I
think
it's
a
good
thing
to
put
in
place.
It
lays
out
what
the
parameters
are,
but
in
the
event
they
breach
that
I
think
it
leaves
major
makes
them
majorly
exposed
to
some
large
verdicts.
Yes,
in
the
event
they
choose
to
do
so,
and.
E
A
And
let
them
know
that
that
was
going
to
happen
and
the
parent
can
say.
No.
I
don't
want
you
to
hit
my
kid.
E
So
that
would
happen
before.
Okay,
that's
correct
parents
within
the
first
five
days
of
enrollment
will
have
to
give
written
consent.
So
right
now
a
lot
of
districts
use
an
opt
out
policy,
but
this
will
make
that
be
an
opt-in
policy
for
corporal
punishment
and
then
they'll
have
to
call
the
day
of
and
get
verbal
consent
from
the
parent
before
administering
corporal
punishment.
And
then
it's
very
clear
in
the
regulation.
A
parent
can
withdraw
consent
at
any
time
during
the
school
year.
Very.
B
Are
there
any
other
questions
I
I
would
just
like
one
clarification,
I
think
in
your
statement.
You
mentioned
that
for
those
that
still
do
allow
that
which
is
four,
but
there
are
11
others
that
haven't
addressed
it
and
and
and
I'm
I
apologize,
but
you
you
made
a
statement,
something
about
the
the
individual
that
could
administer.
That
was
the
principal
or
or
assistant
principal
or
assistant
principal.
But
then
you
followed
that
up
by
saying-
and
I
don't
remember
what
you
said
exactly
after
that-
that
somebody
else
could
not
be
involved
with
that.
Please
clarify.
E
That
for
me
again
yeah,
so
thank
you
for
that.
So
in
a
so
only
the
principal
or
system
principal
can
administer
corporal
punishment,
and
they
must
do
so
in
the
presence
of
another
certified
staff
member,
so
I
may
have
neglected
to
mention
the
witness.
What
we've
included
here
is
a
requirement
that
no
other
staff
member
can
be
required
to
witness
or
administer.
E
So
if
the
principal
doesn't
want
to
administer
corporal
punishment,
the
superintendent
could
not
compel
them
to
do
that,
and
maybe
the
assistant
principal
would
be
the
and
minister
of
corporal
punishment
same
thing
for
the
witness.
If
a
teacher
does
not
want
to
witness
a
corporal
punishment,
they
cannot
be
compelled
to
witness
a
corporal
punishment.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
I
was
wanting
to
make
sure
I
heard
that
correct
as
you
gave
that
anything
else
well.
Thank
you
both
today
very
much
for
your
responses
and
your
time
and
excellent
presentation
very
well
done
there
being
no
further
questions.
Would
you
please
call
the
next
regulation?
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
A
I
M
B
Thank
you
very
much
both
of
you
today
for
being
with
us.
There
are
staff
amendments
to
this
set
of
regulations.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval?
There
is
a
motion
and
approval
of
the
staff
amendments.
Without
objection,
it
is
so
ordered.
Are
there
any
questions
from
the
members
of
the
subcommittee
today?
J
You
most
of
my
questions
are
going
to
revolve
around
the
employer,
employee
relationship
test,
so
to
speak.
So
if
you
could
please
describe
for
us
kind
of
the,
I
know
we
recently
did
a
reauthorization
of
this,
maybe
in
october
november,
or
sometime
in
that
range
pertaining
to
the
sunset
provisions,
so
we
reauthorized
that
language
now
we're
coming
back
and
we're
changing
that
here.
J
I
believe
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
on
that,
but
if
you
could
describe
the
existing
test,
how
it
works
and
the
the
elements
and
then
how
once
we
make
where
to
make
these
changes,
how
would
that
new
test?
Look
if
you
could.
M
Okay,
yeah,
I
can
take
that
the
the
existing
test-
it
is
a
basically
a
holistic
test
of
six
questions
or
the
the
previous
test
was
six
questions
that
tested
the
relationship
between
the
employer
and
their
employer.
As
far
as
subjects
like
control,
profit
loss
margin.
M
Any
of
those
aspects
we
do
not
look
at
one
question
individually.
We
look
holistically
at
all
questions.
The
updated
questions
will
basically
confer
with
the
federal
regs,
which
we
had
six
questions.
The
feds,
the
federal
department
of
labor
had
seven
questions.
We've
added
that
one
question
everything
else
has
is
existing
before
the
updates.
M
The
seventh
question
that
we
added
to
coincide
with
them
was
the
permanency
of
the
relationship
which
would
be
used
to
determine
the
length
of
that
relationship
between
the
employer
and
your
employer.
It
is
a
part
of,
but
not
the
end,
result
of
that
test.
J
Yes,
sir,
do
we
have
to
match
the
federal
standard.
M
No,
not
necessarily
sir,
we
I
mean
we
were.
We
were
good
with
it
before,
but
we
felt
like
we
needed
clarity
on
that.
This
is
an
issue
that
is
coming
up
in
our
office.
Quite
often
now
misclassification
of
employees
has
become
a
a
problem
and
we
felt
like
not
only
did
our
department,
but
the
entire
state
needed
clarification
to
help
with
this
most
of
the
updates
for
the
reg
made
it
user
friendly
being
able
to
con.
M
Anyone
who
is
classified
as
an
independent
contractor
is
not
subject
to
chapter
337,
which
are
all
of
the
labor
laws
that
indicate
payment
of
wages.
Hours
worked,
rest
breaks,
lunch
breaks,
those
aspects
to
determine
the
relationship
is
the
number
one
thing
that
we
do
on
every
case.
We
determine
if
they
are
an
employee
with
that
relationship.
If
they
are,
they
are
subject
to
all
of
the
statutory
regulations
of
337,
which
would
be
minimum
wage.
Over
time.
B
B
J
M
M
N
I
guess
my
question
that
I
see
on
here
were
the
intent
was
necessary
to
clarify
what
constitutes
an
employee
and
an
employer
relationship,
but
my
concern
because
I
I'm
in
the
real
estate
business.
It
involves
independent
contractors,
I'm
in
the
construction
business
and
involves
independent
contractors,
and
I
just
feel
like
there's
some
things
in
here:
that's
pushing
it
more
to
make
them
hourly
employees
rather
and
take
away
their
independent
contractor
status,
and
I've
just
got
some
concerns.
M
N
N
Independently
chosen
not
to
be
an
employee,
so
it
seems
to
me
like
you're,
infringing
on
their
right
their
option
to
choose
and
you're
going
to
force
them
into
an
employee
employer
contractor
relationship
that
their
their
their
intent
is
not
to
be
that
they
they
want
to
be
independent.
They
want
to
act
on
their
own
and
they
want
to
have
their
own.
N
I
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
no
one
factor
is
more
important
than
the
other,
and
these
when
we're
evaluating
this
situation,
it's
just
additional.
It's
meant
to
provide
additional
clarification,
and
you
know
also
when
we're
you
know
in
the
weeds,
so
to
speak
and
considering
whether
an
individual
might
be
an
independent
contractor
or
not.
Clearly,
what
that
independent
contractor
had
to
say
would
factor
into
this
determination,
so
we're
not
trying
to
pigeonhole
anybody
who
doesn't
want
to
be
there
is
that
first
stage?
Yes,
yes,
sir.
N
I
just
feel
like
this
is
very
subjective
and
vague
and
it
leave.
It
puts
a
lot
more
power
into
the
labor
department,
cabinet
decision
rather
and
taken
away
from
the
independent
contractor,
and
I
just
I
really
got
some
concerns
about
this
and
and
again
I
feel
like
it.
We
may
be
blurring
a
line
here
between
statutory
and
regulatory
authority
and
it
has,
in
the
past,
come
to
statute
and
to
the
legislators,
and
they
have
chosen
not
to
act
on
this.
So
I've
got
some
great
concerns
here.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
sitting
to
my
left
is
my
independent
contractor
jacob
he's
not
an
employee.
I
don't
want
to
blur
that,
but
but
this
is
one
of
my
my
very
close
friend's
son
and
very
smart
young
man
and
me-
and
him
were
discussing
this,
and
one
of
the
questions
is
obviously
in
this
particular
scope.
We
look
at
totality
the
circumstances
you
look
at
each
and
everything
it's
beneficial
me
as
an
employer
and
with
contractors
and
employees
I'm
to
have
very
clearly
listed
things
that
I
know
that
will
be
considered.
G
What
we
did
is
just
put
into
place.
What
has
already
been
done
by
the
fed
government
but,
more
importantly,
which
has
been
interpreted
by
the
courts.
There's
already
been
a
precedent
set
that
they
interpret
one
after
each
time,
so
as
an
employer
and
whether
an
independent
contract
or
not.
I
want
to
know
what
those
parameters
that
I
should
be
working
within,
I'm
so
that
I'm
complying
clearly
with
the
law.
So
I
appreciate
you
guys
doing
that.
That
was
just
my
only
comment.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
O
Thank
you
just
out
of
curiosity,
I
can't
see
you,
I
know
I'm
going
to
move
over
here.
Was
this
a
big
problem.
M
To
determine
the
relationship
uh-huh,
it
has
become
more
prevalent
that
a
lot
of
employers
are
kind
of
blurring
the
line
on
whether
or
not
it
is
an
independent
contractor
versus
an
employee.
Employee
relationship.
Part
of
the
biggest
thing
is
the
control
the
employer
has
to
control.
The
employee
does
not
have
the
ability
for
profit
loss
margin,
which
is
clearly
stated
in
our
in
the
test,
and
we
look
at
like.
I
said
we
look
at
it
holistically
to
try
and
determine
that
relationship.
O
Okay,
so
it's
been
a
problem
for
four
years
now,
I'm
curious
about
the
input
that
you
received
in
working
on
this
regulatory
change
who
weighed
in
on
this.
I
We
received
comment
from
association
of
excuse
me.
I
have
it
here.
O
O
Well
because
it
doesn't
see
it
to
me,
like
I'm,
just
very
curious
about
the
genesis
of
this
whole
thing,
and
the
genesis
of
this
doesn't
seem
to
me
to
rise
to
a
level
of
this
dramatic
of
a
regulatory
change.
O
I
You'd
like
to,
I
would
just
say,
the
part
of
the
genesis
of
these
regulatory
changes
were
part
of
the
certification
process
and,
as
we
did
these
updates,
we
received
comments
from
individuals
who
had
concerns
about
this
regulatory
process,
but
our
regulation-
excuse
me,
but
also
part
of
it,
was
just
our
experience
that
mr
hammond
spoke
to
about
needing
clarity
as
we
enforce
the
the
statute
and
regulation.
B
J
I
J
I
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
just
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
reading
the
same
changes
because
it
looks
to
me.
Obviously
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
is
already
considered
yes,
so
these
things
we're
talking
about
today
in
the
past
have
been
considered.
Clearly,
it's
and
so
I've
been
litigating
these.
For
a
long
time.
I
have
an
injured
person,
that's
hurt
by
somebody
who
is
working
for
a
company.
They
say
their
independent
contractor.
I
go
through
and
do
the
test.
G
Are
they
really
an
employee
they've
been
the
contractor
since
time
I
started
litigating,
whether
I'm
doing
defense
or
plans
work.
What
you're
doing
is
laying
out
the
individual
problems
that
are
already
there
for
a
point
of
clarification,
because
these
are
things
that
are
considered,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
they've
broken
out
more
details
so
that
we
see
that
so
whether
this
is
passed
or
not,
these
things
are
considered
what
you're
doing
is
laying
out
these
prongs.
So
it's
it's
more
clear.
Is
that
correct.
M
Yes,
sir,
they
you
know,
we
do
not
have
to
check
all
the
questions.
Sure
we
have
to
we
look
at
the
like.
You
said
the
totality
of
it
there
isn't.
This
reg
is
not
a
change.
This
rig
is
just
a
change
in
order
to
become
compliant
with
with
the
feds
and
with
lrc
to
determine
you
know
that
and
make
it
more.
You
know
clear
and
clear
for.
G
The
public
similar
to
what
the
courts
have
done
through
precedent.
Yes,
thank
you.
B
Gentlemen,
thank
you
all
very
much.
We
do
have
some
people
that
signed
up
to
speak
against
us.
So
if
it's
I'm
going
to
ask
both
of
you
to
please
just
move
back
to
the
chairs
and
stay
close
and
I
will
have
you
come
back
and
respond
in
just
a
few
moments.
Yes,
sir,
who
is
whoever
is,
I
think
I
have
a
couple
people
listed
here,
but
whoever's
gonna
come
and
speak
against
this.
Please
come
to
the
table
this
time.
B
I
please
sir,
introduce
yourself
for
the
record
at
this
time
and
then
you
may
proceed.
L
Thank
you
very
much.
My
name
is
tom
underwood.
I
am
the
state
director
for
the
national
federation
of
independent
business.
Our
organization
is
the
largest
national
organization
that
represents
specifically
the
small
business
community,
our
average
members.
Employment
is
somewhere
between
three
and
twenty,
and
then
we
have
thousands
and
thousands
of
sole
proprietors
that
are
also
our
members.
L
I,
in
addition
to
that,
I
serve
as
the
chairman
of
the
kentucky
small
business
caucus,
which
is
made
up
of
30
business
organizations,
and
some
of
our
members
were
part
of
the
comments
that
were
filed
and
I
believe
I've
also
delivered
a
letter
from
the
associated
general
contractors
to
staff
this
morning.
L
I've
been
the
chair
of
nfib
for
31
years
now
here
in
frankfurt,
and
these
changes
that
are
proposed
are
the
first
ones.
I've
seen
that
actually
cut
clarification
out
of
the
current
regulations.
I
have
a
document
here
that
was
prepared
by
legal
counsel
on
this
document.
The
things
that
came
out
are
in
red.
The
things
that
went
in
are
in
green
and
you'll,
see
that
page
after
page.
B
L
L
We
continued
to
dig
into
this
and
get
more
information
and
would
prefer
to
continue
working
on
this,
should
they
be
deferred
today.
But
that's
the
basis
of
my
comments
here
today.
A
lot's
already
been
said.
B
Thank
you,
mr
underwood.
Are
there
any
members
has
any
questions
for
mr
underwood
representative
or
I'm
sorry
senator
west
pardon
me.
J
Close
enough,
mr
chairman,
in
your
opinion,
I
realize
this
is
your
opinion.
It's
anecdotal,
probably
of
of
your
membership.
Oh
the
membership
you're
talking
about
if
this
were
to
flow
through.
If
this
regulation
was
to
flow
through,
what
percentage
of
that
group
would
then
be
considered
an
employee
and
no
longer
an
independent
contractor.
L
That's
out
there
doing
things
we
brought
up
construction
a
while
ago,
if
someone
is
say
a
drywall
person
they
come
in
under
general
contractor.
The
general
contractor
does
have
the
right
to
ensure
the
quality
of
the
work
that
is
done
and
where
the
drywall
goes
up
on
the
building.
So
there
is
some
control
factor
there,
but
not
enough
to
say
you
are
an
employee
now.
L
The
other
thing
that
we
would
be
concerned
about
is
is
that
my
small
businesses
do
not
have
compliance
officers
on
staff,
they
typically
don't
have
an
hr
department,
and
every
month
a
new
set
of
regulations
comes
out
of
frankfort,
which
they're
expected
to
know
and
be
able
to
comply
with,
and
ignorance
of
the
law
is
no
excuse,
of
course,
but
that
makes
it
very
difficult
for
someone
that
has
three
five
employees
in
their
name
over
the
door
to
keep
up
with
something
like
this
every
month.
So
we
would
ask
that
this
continued
to
be
studied.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
thank
you
for
being
here
tom,
so
I
keep
putting
my
attorney
hat
on
because
that's
one
I've
experienced
to
know
and
I've
had
independent
contractors,
have
employees
and
have
to
give
advice
in
this
area
and
import.
The
plaintiff
worked
in
this
area
as
well
by
listing
as
one
of
the
things
that
they
consider
the
permanency
of
the
relationship
legally,
that's
not
it's
not
making
that's
already
a
factor
considered
under
the
totality
of
the
circumstances.
G
It's
something
that
whenever
I'm
making
arguments,
we
talk
about
it,
and
I
know
that
you
know
that
as
well
so
by
us
listing
this
out,
the
question
was:
does
that
change
the
any
of
the
employers
or
independent
contractor
status?
Well,
if
it's
already
that
part
of
the
totality
of
the
circumstances,
it
is
what
it
is.
G
If
we
clarify
by
listening
out
there,
do
you
believe
that
somehow
that's
going
to
change
the
legality
of
their
how
they're
mentioned
it
will
clarify
it
for
if
I'm
a
small
business
owner-
and
I
don't
understand
all
the
laws
in
the
instruments
of
it-
this
isn't
what
I'm
not
an
attorney,
I'm
just
somebody
that
has
independent
contractors
and
it's
laid
out
there
for
me.
I
think
most
of
them
will
be
appreciative
of
that
if
it's
not
laid
out,
but
it
is
something
that
will
be
considered
once
they're
sued,
that's
a
little
more
dangerous
is.
L
B
G
G
Who
else
do
you
do
work
for
how's
that
done
over
the
period
of
time,
whether
or
not
that
is
that
you're
going
to
have
future
contracts,
or
not
I'm
sure,
but
whenever
they're,
if
you're
just
doing
a
general
like
all
of
the
different
bullet
points
are
going
to
be
very
general
open
ended
with
you,
I
mean-
and
that's
just
purposely
done,
but
I
would
think
that
this
would
be
laid
out
because
that's
something
that's
going
to
be
considered
and
like
a
lot
of
my
businesses,
if,
if
you're
over
in
indiana
or
whatnot,
you
know
you're
going
to
have
to
comply
with
the
federal
government's
as
well.
G
So
again,
I'm
still
learning
here
and
I'm
open
for
discussion
on
it.
But
you
hit
me
with
a
question:
do
you
but
I'd
still
like
to
know
what
your
opinion
of
your
members
are?
Does
that
really
change
the
fact
that
we
have
literally
codified
one
of
the
things
that
are
already
considered?
Does
that
really
change
their
status
as
independent
contractor
in
any
way.
L
Well,
the
question
is,
and
I
continue
because
we're
having
a
discussion
on
this
is
if
I
am
the
proverbial
drywall
hanger
and
as
you
are
well
aware,
there
is
a
major
labor
shortage
across
the
state
and
I
am
a
general
contractor
putting
up
houses
in
a
development
and
I've
got
my
drywall
hanger.
That
goes
from
house
to
house,
to
house
to
house
to
house.
B
May
I
entered,
may
I
enter
please
object
here
generally.
The
protocol
is
not
for
the
questions
to
be
asked
back
to
the
members,
but
I
allowed
you
to
ask
that
one
question
I
would
just
ask:
please
re,
make
the
comments
on.
B
Are
there
any
other
questions,
mr
underwood,
and
I
haven't
spoken
to
you
this?
We
just
had
the
emails
and
the
letters
here
and
just
cordially
spoke
to
you
as
as
we
began
prior
to
the
meeting.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
what
you're,
basically
here,
asking
us
to
do,
or
you're
you're
asking
this
committee
to
defer
this
or
ask
the
cabinet
to
differ
for
us
to
ask
the
cabinet
to
defer
this
for
more
discussion.
Is
that
your.
L
Decision
today,
yes,
sir,
that
would
be
my
request
and,
as
was
noted
by
senator
rocky
adams,
this
is
not
a
house
burning
down
right
now,
but
we
would
like
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
light
a
match.
Okay,.
B
I
I
think
the
only
thing
I
would
note
is,
as
senator
yates
noted,
we
are
simply
adding
factors
that
courts
already
determined
and,
as
we've
tried
to
lay
out,
we
are
here
to
just
essentially
provide
some
additional
clarity,
and
this
is
not
meant
to
be
and
is
not
a
drastic
change
to
the
regulatory
scheme.
J
Yeah
a
couple
here,
real
quick,
we
talked
a
lot
about
totality
the
circumstances
and
I'm
looking
at
the
proposed
wreck
here
in
front
of
me
and
I
I
cannot
find
totality
the
circumstances
I
believe
was
it
in
the
prior
reg
and
we've
taken
that
out.
J
J
I
Again,
two
objectives:
one:
to
meet
the
certification
requirements
of
house
bill;
50
also,
you
know
when
we
know
this
is
going
to
be
a
factor.
That's
going
to
be
considered
when
staff
is
having
this
question
and
we
just
think
it's
a
a
good
thing
to
just
put
it
put
all
the
cards
on
the
table
so
to
speak.
G
We
were
asked
and
again
to
me
I
love
open
discussion.
I
love
debate.
I
like
that's
how
we
learn
things
and
I'm
also
worried
about.
I
don't
like
to
cram
something
down
someone's
throat
real
fast.
In
the
event
they
have
some
worries
to
me.
I
think
this
is
pretty
clear-cut,
not
a
big
deal,
but
do
you
see
there
was
a
request
that
we
defer
have
additional
discussion
together
and
then
you
know
hopefully
lay
things
out.
I
We
would
prefer
not
to
defer
it.
We
think
that
we're
merely
adding
the
requirements
that
courts
have
laid
out
and
we
would
ask
that
it
not
be
deferred.
G
Okay-
and
I
get
that,
obviously
I
move
forward,
but
I
know
I'm
in
this
counting
the
votes
right
now
and
I
think
that's
probably
likely
what's
going
to
be
happening,
can
you
tell
me
if
there's
any
issues
or
problems
that
will
happen
with
the
department,
because
that
that
may
be
may
change?
If
there's
going
to
be
some
kind
of
reason
that
you
shouldn't
do
it
other
than
inconvenience?
I
Just
the
we
have
a
reg
that's
set
to
expire
in
september.
I
believe-
and
you
know,
there's
a
tight
time
frame
to
get
this
one
up
and
going
by
august.
If
all
goes
well
and.
I
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Listen
to
a
lot
of
the
conversation
here.
Here's
a
fundamental
question
is:
I
don't
know
that
you
have
the
authority
to
put
this.
What
you're
trying
to
get
done
in
regulation
be
perfectly
honest.
This
is
why
this
has
been
proposed
through
legislation
before
and
we've
had.
This
topic
has
been
covered
through
years
past.
K
B
Before
senator
alvaro
before
we
go
down
that
road,
senator
west
had
a
follow-up
question.
J
I
think
senator
adams
had
a
question
as
well.
Something
I
really
don't
understand
here
is
is
if,
if
this
is
in
existing
case
law,
this
is
precedent.
J
I
Again,
just
because
we
feel
that
this
is
something
we
do
have
the
authority
to
do
profession
to
295
and
because
we're
simply
adding
a
factor,
that's
an
existing
case
law.
We
feel
that
there's
this
reg
is
ready
to
go
so
to
speak.
O
Yes,
thank
you
just
to
follow
up
as
a
result
of
the
and
I'm
sorry
I
forgot
your
name,
testifying
that
you
would
not
defer.
O
Let
me
ask
you
this,
the
testimony
that
you
heard
here
today
and
the
information
that
we
got
from
agc
and
some
of
their
concerns
when
they
submitted
their
comments
during
the
comment
period.
Did
you
take
any
of
their
any
of
their
concerns
into
account
when
pulling
together
this
new
reg.
O
Oh
okay,
so
you'd
you,
you
read
them,
but
you
didn't
take
them
into
consideration
and
they're
here
today
saying
that
let's
take
another
look
at
this,
so
I'm
I'm
kind
of
of
the
opinion
of
chairman
west.
I
I
hope
that
you
will
consider
deferring
again.
B
Representative
bridges
has
a
question
briefly:
representative
bridges.
N
I
just
more
of
a
comment
chairman.
You
know,
I
look
back
and
I
know
the
irs
already
has
a
you
know:
an
11
factor
criteria
that
we
have
to
follow.
That's
already
set
precedence
in
this.
N
We
go
back
to
laws
as
far
back
as
I
think
it's
1947,
where
you
know
the
supreme
court
ruled
we've
got
these
and
we've
heard
the
words
like
codify
there's,
already
law
and-
and
I
have
to
go
back
to
what
senator
alvarado
said,
I
believe
you're
stepping
beyond
your
authority
and
you're
you're,
attempting
to
make
law
rather
than
make
regulations
and
I've
really
got
a
problem
with
this,
and
I
would
really
urge
you
to
consider
deferring
this.
Let's
take
this
back
a
step.
N
The
employers.
I
mean,
trust
me.
I
I
I
want
to
be
a
a
consumer
advocate.
I
want
to
protect
the
employees
and
the
employers,
but
I
don't
think
this
is
the
proper
steps
to
take
at
this
time,
and
I
I
would
urge
you
to
reconsider
that
and
get
more
people
to
the
table.
So
we've
got
a
wider
field
of
knowledge.
That
of
participation
in
this
because,
like
you
said
in
your
words,
you've
you've
had
a
couple,
and
this
this
goes
back
more
than
just
four
years.
N
This
goes
all
the
way
back
to
employer
employees,
everything
else,
so
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
wisdom
that
that's
going
to
be
lost.
If
we
move
forward
today-
and
I
I
just
urge
you
to
to
reconsider
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
B
As
the
presiding
chairman
today,
I
have
attempted
to
give
everyone
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
and
give
their
their
opinions
and
voice
speaking
on
the
matter
pro
or
for
and
against,
and
I
think
we've
had
some
very
healthy
questions
and
very
good
questions,
and
I
would
I'm
going
to
ask
the
question
myself.
I
know
everybody
several
have
brought
it
up,
but
I'm
just
going
to
ask
the
question
now
in
the
official
role
as
being
the
chair
of
this
committee
meeting
today,
would
you
consider
a
deferring
of
this
regulation
from
this
meeting
today?.
B
Okay,
sir,
I
appreciate
that
very
much
senator
west
did
you
want
to
respond?
Did
you
have
anything
else?
Okay,
all
right!
Senator
alvarado!
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
come
back
to
you.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Again
you
used
to
say
that
we
need
to
do
this.
It's
not
that
you
need
to
that.
You
want
to
do
this,
not
that
you
need
to
that's.
Not
absolutely!
That's
not
true.
So
that
word
is
incorrect.
That
you're
saying
here
today,
and
it
looks
just
like
another
attempt
of
the
administration
really
trying
to
push
policies
that
you
can't
get
done
through
legislation,
because
this
has
been
filed
before
and
the
way
we
get
these
things
done
or
through
legislation,
not
because
you
want
to
do
them
when
you
want
to
do
them.
B
B
B
G
Colleagues,
I
will
vote
no
because
I
I
do
believe
that
the
they
do
have
the
authority
able
to
define
the
the
parameters
in
which
they're
enforcing,
I
don't
believe.
It's
deficient,
I'm
a
little
disappointed
that
there
wouldn't
be
an
agreement
to
defer-
and
I
understand
why
we're
here
and
I
saw
that
coming-
I'm
trying
to
throw
that
softball
out
in
place.
This
is
a
particular
example
where
we
could
have
brought
in
all
the
players
to
the
table.
G
B
N
I'd
just
like
you,
two
gentlemen,
to
take
it
back
to
labor
department,
I'm
very
disappointed.
We,
you
know
you,
you
talk
as
there's
an
urgency,
but
you
yourself
said
september,
but
my
calculations,
that's
four
months.
It's
plenty
of
time
to
get
others
to
the
table
to
consider
what's
going
on,
and
I
I
think,
there's
a
grave
injustice
being
done.
I
think
the
department
is
overstepping
their
boundaries,
trying
to
make
law
rather
than
enforce
law,
and
I'm
just
highly
disappointed
in
this
and
I'm
sure
we
will
most
likely
be
readdressing
this
in
the
near
future.
N
J
You,
mr
chairman,
I
vote.
I
much
of
my
thinking
kind
of
goes
along
with
senator
yates.
We
had
an
opportunity
here
to
get
some
more
discussion.
Talk
about
the
issue
a
little
bit
more
clearly.
Legislators
here
had
questions,
so
the
goal
of
this
reg
is
to
bring
clarity
to
the
statute.
J
So
so
what
is
going
to
happen
now
is
for
the
past
two
sessions.
We
have
passed
senate
bill
65,
which
makes
all
deficient
regulations
null
and
void.
So
now,
by
what
we're
doing
today,
we
are
currently
finding
this
deficient
now.
This
regulation
is
on
the
fast
track
to
be
found
null
and
void
in
january
february
or
march
of
next
year,
and
so
all
we've
done
is
rather
than
provide
clarity.
J
B
I
would
like
to
explain
my
vote
as
well.
Contrary
to
what
a
lot
of
people
think
this
committee
does
not
like
to
find
regulations
deficient.
We
do.
We
do
not
like
to
go
down
that
path.
A
Have
six
eyes
and
two
nays:
we
needed
five
votes.
So
therefore,
the
motion
carries.
B
We
now
will
proceed
with
the
rest
of
the
regulations
on
this
specific
set
and
I
think
we
do
have
a
gentleman
that
is
well
I'm
gonna.
Let
me
go
this
route
on
kar
01091,
the
workers
with
disabilities.
Would
you,
gentlemen,
like
to
address
that
in
any
manner?
Do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
say
on
that,
because
we
do
have
an
individual?
That's
signed
up
to
speak
against
that.
I
This
is
krs-337.
B
I
Krs
337
0102a5
provides
an
exemption
for
the
minimum
wage
wage
requirements
for
those
who
work
in
a
sheltered
workshop.
0.91
is
just
a
regulation
that
clarifies
when
this
exemption
applies.
Okay,.
B
B
Good
afternoon,
both
of
you
would
you
please
at
this
time,
introduce
yourself
for
the
record
today.
Q
My
name
is:
I'm
frankie
help
me
I'm
on
the
pad
board
at
pna.
B
Thank
you
both
today
for
being
with
us,
mr
sharkey,
you
may
proceed
and
testify
as
to
why
you
are
against
this
regulation.
Today,
you
may
go
forward
all
right.
P
I
work
with
kentucky
protection
advocacy,
which
is
the
state's
federally
mandated
disability
rights,
legal
agency
and
I'm
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
the
protection
and
advocacy
advocacy's
pad
board,
which
is
comprised
of
individuals
with
disabilities
and
their
families,
who
advise
p
a
on
issues
and
priorities
that
are
important
to
the
to
the
community
of
individuals
with
developmental
disabilities.
P
P
The
pad
board
commented
on
those
regulations
back
in
august,
but
it
that
regulation
kept
getting
deferred
and
I
think
in
january,
the
cabinet
issued
a
new
regulation,
which
is
this
one
803.190190,
which
basically
was
the
amended
version
of
803
1
0
9
0..
The
pad
board
submitted
comments
to
those
to
the
labor
cabinet's
new
shelter
workshop
regulations.
P
P
So
that
it
would
effectively
stop
the
issuance
of
new
certificates
under
section
14c
of
the
the
fair
labor
standards
act
of
1938.
P
The
ada
prohibits
discrimination
against
individuals
with
disabilities
and,
as
interpreted
by
the
supreme
court
of
the
united
states,
prohibits
unjustified
segregation
of
people
with
disabilities
and
placements
which
isolate
them
from
participating
in
the
community
life
and
severely
eliminating
them
from
everyday
activities,
including
education,
work
and
social
contracts.
P
I
guess
in
recognition
of
this
contradiction
between
shelter
workshops,
subminimum
wages
and
the
ada,
there
have
been
bills
passed
in
in
congress.
The
united
states
congress
that
would
phase
out
subminimum
wages
for
individual
disabilities
and
several
states
have
passed,
have
either
eliminated
or
have
begun
phasing
out
recognition
of
14c
certificates.
P
The
states
which
have
eliminated
or
begun
phasing
out
recognition
of
14c
certificates
includes
minnesota
alaska,
maine,
maryland
new
hampshire,
oregon,
vermont,
rhode,
island
and
texas
in
north
carolina,
the
centers
for
public
representation
partnered
with
that
state's
protection
protection
and
advocacy
agency
to
pursue
an
initiative
and
potential
litigation
to
expand,
supported
employment
and
eliminate
reliance
on
14
certificates.
P
P
Legislative
branches
about
matters
pertaining
to
increase,
meaningful
competitive,
integrated
employment
for
persons
with
disabilities
and
in
the
past
four
legislative
sessions,
a
bill
has
been
filed
which
would
prohibit
the
labor
cabinet,
commissioner,
from
issue
issuing
new
14c
certificates
to
any
employers
in,
in
its
statement
of
consideration
to
the
pad
board,
the
labor
cabinet
stated
that
the
enabling
statute
does
not
allow
for
the
commissioner
to
not
issue
a
regulation
concerning
individuals
with
disabilities.
P
We
we
disagree
with
that.
Krs-337295
states
that
regulations
issued
by
the
commissioner
may
include
regulations
governing
workers
with
disabilities
may
is
permissive,
meaning
that
the
commissioner
has
the
choice
to
issue
regulations
governing
workers
with
disabilities
or
not
issue
regulations
governing
the
people
with
disabilities.
P
With
the
stated
goal
of
you
of
ending
the
use
of
sheltered
workshops
and
sub-minimum
wages
in
alaska
alaska's
department
of
workforce
development
proposed
repealing
the
regulation
after
re
after
review
by
the
assistant
attorney
general
of
that
state
and
the
regulations
attorney.
Who
found
no
legal
problems
with
the
proposed
action,
the
regulation
was
repealed
effectively
ending
recognition
of
new
14c
certificates.
P
P
P
More
minutes
so,
just
as
in
alaska
kentucky's
labor
cabinet,
has
the
authority
to
repeal
sub-minimum
wage
shelter
workshop
regulation
and
eliminate
the
awarding
of
new
certificates
under
14c
of
the
fair
labor
standards
act.
Doing
so
would
reinforce
kentucky's
stated
prop
stated
policy
prioritizing
competitive,
integrated
employment
and
would
incentivize
a
sense
of
urgency
toward
the
development
of
innovative
strategies
that
lead
toward
the
competitive,
integrated
employment
of
every
kentucky
citizen.
Q
Oh
he,
oh
he.
He
spoke
a
lot
that
I
was
gonna
do,
but
I
also
wanted
to
talk
about
my
just
a
little
bit
about
my
experience
in
a
shelter
workshop.
Q
When
I
worked
at
one
I
I
was
supposed
to
get
ten
dollars
a
week,
but
my
hands
ain't
really
strong
and
they
would
dot
my
pay,
but
each
time
that
I
would
drop
something
on
the
floor,
so
I
would
end
up
only
going
home,
but
one
time
I
got
a
two
dollar
check,
oh
and
instead
of
the
thirty
dollars.
Q
It's
my
and
it's
my
understanding
as
well.
The
the
shelter
wardrobe
was
designed
to
help
people
that
came
home
from
world
war
ii.
The
veterans.
Q
B
Q
B
Thank
you,
mr
huffman.
That
is
correct.
Your
name
right,
mr
huffman,
yeah.
Okay,
thank
you,
sir,
for
your
testimony
today.
We
appreciate
that
and
thank
you
for
being
with
us
today.
I
I
want
to
go
back
just
for
a
moment.
B
B
B
Okay,
senator
alvarado
thank.
K
You,
mr
chairman,
I
can
address
think
a
little
bit
of
this
topic.
The
bill
that
you're
referring
to
that's
filed
every
year.
That's
my
bill
senate
bill
131
this
past
year.
It's
to
do
away
with
the
concept
of
shelter
workshops
really
for
a
lot
of
our
folks
with
disabilities
and
for
those
who
are
not
familiar
with
this
concept,
it's
basically
it
allows
individuals
who
have
disabilities
to
work
for
sub-minimum
wage
wages.
A
lot
of
these
folks,
just
like
mr
huffman,
said,
they'll,
get
a
check
for
two
dollars.
K
Pennies
taxes
are
taken
out,
other
things
are
taken
out,
they're
working
for
less
than
77
or
whatever
the
rate
is
right
now
the
bill.
I
propose
these
14
c
certificates
are
allowing
people
to
establish
sheltered
workshops,
and
the
bill
would
basically
say
we're
not
going
to
establish
any
new
ones
so
that
no
more
of
these
can
go
in
the
ones
that
are
there
are
grandfathered
in.
K
There
are
people
with
disabilities
who,
like
the
model,
and
they
like
to
stay
in
it,
and
so
no
one
is
going
to
be
required
to
go
out,
but
in
five
years
you
would
close
the
front
door.
No
more
new
sheltered
workshops
and
that
people
would
have
to
be
mainstreamed
into
mainstream
employment,
and
it
really
is
more
of
a
dignity
issue
for
people
with
disabilities
to
at
least
be
paid
minimum
wage,
which
is
probably
less
than
competitive
salaries,
are
right
now
in
the
workplace
as
it
is,
and
so
I'm
pretty
passionate
about
this.
K
I
file
this
bill
every
year.
I
try
to
work
with
a
lot
of
the
folks
in
sheltered
employment.
I
think
all
of
them
want
to
get
to
the
same
goal
of
mainstreaming
people,
but
the
concern
is
ultimately
do
we
have
enough
jobs
and
enough
workforce
to
be
able
to
help
a
lot
of
these
folks
get
into
mainstream
employment.
That's
always
the
biggest
concern.
K
Other
states
have
started
doing
it,
but
that's,
I
think,
what
they're
referring
to
is
they're
concerned
about
the
model
and
the
concern
we've
got
I'll
continue
to
follow
that
bill,
I'm
pretty
passionate
about
it
and
the
key
thing
is
for
us
to
make
sure
we
educate
our
members,
and
I
know
it's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
educate
people
here
in
the
city.
I
know
that
you
said
you
think
the
commissioner
has
the
authority
again.
It
becomes
a
question
of
whether
or
not,
and
your
opinion
is
that
they
do.
P
Yeah
yeah,
I
heard
everything
you
said
on
the
last
regulation,
but
this
the
the
the
statute
is
permissive.
It
says
he
may
issue
regulations
concerning
individuals
with
workers
with
disabilities.
P
Definition
of
a
worker-
and
it
has
shall
not
include
issues
or
workers
who
have
been
issued-
a
certificate
saying
that
they're
a
worker
with
a
disability.
So
he's
saying
that,
based
on
that,
not
the
commissioner
saying
or
the
cabinet
saying,
based
on
that
that
they
don't
have
the
authority
but
the
the
regulations
permissive
and
says
he
may
issue
those
certificates.
E
K
That
door
to
say
you
will
not.
I
mean
that's
what
I've
been
filing
so
that
in
the
future
that
they
won't
be
able
to
issue
those,
we
can
mainstream
people
in
people
that
are
in
a
situation
that
they
like
can
stay
there,
we're
not
going
to
force
anyone
up
it's
offering
those
services
but
trying
to
stop
that
from
happening
in
the
future,
and
there
have
been
legislative
efforts
to
get
that
very
thing
accomplished.
P
Yes,
okay
and
yes,
I
believe
that
the
the
labor
cabinet
has
the
authority
to
not
issue
any
or
to
repeal
that
rig
or
repeal
the
regulation
and
not
issue
the
new
regulation
and
just
stop
issuing
new
14c
certificates
in
kentucky
and
work
on
just
establishing
programs
and
that
that
help
with
comp
competitive,
integrated
employment.
Thank.
K
N
I
I
do
it's
more
out
of
curiosity
than
anything
because
I
empathize
with
with
what
you're
facing
here,
and
I
say
that
not
sympathy.
I
don't
think
you
want
sympathy,
but
you
know
to
understanding
and-
and
I
couldn't
by
not
being
in
that
situation
could
ever
say
I
understand,
but
I
do
have
a
concern
about
it,
but
I've
also
got
the
opposite
side
concerned
if
we
were
to
take
this
away,
as
is
there
any
studies
in
the
states
where
it's
been
taken
away
of?
N
How
many
are
there
any
jobs
that
have
been
lost
because
of
that
because
as
an
employer
myself
and
and
employ
literally
over
the
30
years,
you
know
thousands
of
employees.
You
know
there's
certain
times
we
we
figure
into
our
expenses
and
everything
programs
like
this,
so
that
because
we
want
to
be
benevolent
and
I'm
not
when
I
say
benevolent,
I'm
not
talking
about
giving
someone
something
but
allow
them
the
opportunity
to
be
in
the
mainstream
to
earn
on
their
own.
N
And
if
you,
if
you
take
this
out,
my
concern
is
that
there
may
be
employers
say
you
know
we
can
no
longer
afford
to
do
that.
So
no
one
gets
to
work
in
that
with
a
disability
or
something
or
they
have
to
they
have
to
make
that
hard
choice,
not
that
they
want
to
it's
just
a
financial
decision,
because
some
of
these
are
very
mission,
oriented
and
they're
they're.
They
operate
on
a
shoestring
budget
anyway.
N
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
out
of
curiosity,
if
you
got
any
numbers,
has
there
been
a
decline
in
employment
of
those
with
limitations
in
the
states
that
this
has
been
done
away
with?
And
I
don't
mean
that
derogatory
or
anything
like
that.
I'm
actually
curious
to
know,
because
we
don't
want
to
push
people,
and
I
appreciate
senator
alvarado
the
grandfather
that
allows
that
to
keep
going
for
those
that
choose,
because
there
are
so
but
and
I'll
talk
to
senator
about
this
later.
N
P
Every
I
don't
have
the
numbers
in
front
of
me,
but
everything
I've
read
has
showed
that
there's
not
been
a
decline
when
the
state
offers
supported
employment
in
programs
that
can
allow
a
person
to
learn
how
to
work
in
a
competitive,
integrated
environment.
Most
of
the
people
in
sheltered
workshops
are
capable
of
doing
so.
The
people
that
are
doing
the
piecemeal
work
are
capable,
with
support
from
the
studies
I've
seen
capable
with
support
to
work
in
a
competitive,
integrated
environment
and
get
paid
a
fair
wage
which
they
showed
it.
G
The
dignity
of
work
are
all
very
important,
sometimes,
though,
that
that
is
when
you
get
into
the
workforce,
sometimes
for
a
period
or
some
depending
on
the
very
degrees
of
disabilities,
that
someone
have,
that
may
be
a
higher
cost
to
the
employer
than
it
actually
ever
would
be
in
a
return.
So
we
do
that.
G
We
want
to
do
that
because
it
is
a
benefit
to
the
individual,
and
I
look
at
like
the
harbor
house,
who
I
do
some
of
the
printing
for
and
things
like
that,
or
I
have
my
printing
done
through
them,
which
I
think
is
just
wonderful
opportunities.
People
to
work
then
there's
a
dd
to
work.
One
thing
that
I
had
thought
and
I
would
love
to
work
with
senator
alvarado
on
this
as
we
move
forward.
G
But
potentially
we
also
look
at
what
kind
of
government
funds
are
received
and
you
want
to
make
sure
that's
not
offset,
but
potentially
maybe
some
type
of
rebates
that
come
back
tax
rebates
that
go
to
the
employers
you're
willing
to
do
that
in
the
event
that
they
are
able
to
pay
the
minimum
wage.
But
the
last
thing
I
want
to
do
is
is
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
loss,
and
so
I
think
that's
one
that
I'd
love
to
sit
down
and
talk,
because
I
don't
know
the
answer.
G
Could
make
sure
that
the
employers
we
could
let
them
know
saying
hey,
even
if
you're
paying
minimum
wage
while
you
may,
we
may
not
show
that
you
can
derive
a
substantial
benefit.
I
mean
some
people
absolutely
right
and
there's
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
have
certain
disabilities
have
a
lot
of
abilities
that
can
can
turn
a
major
profit
for
an
employer.
They're.
Sorry.
J
G
Not
at
certain
periods,
but
if
you
put
that
letter
together
like
the
14c
similar,
maybe
there
could
be
rebates
or
something
that
would
incentivize
that
because
we
do
want
to
be
compassionate
society,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
I'm
giving
people
the
duty
to
work
as
well.
So
anyway,
I
appreciate
your
testimony
here.
I
don't
think,
there's
an
easy
answer
on
it.
I
mean,
obviously
this
committee
we're
limited
what
we
could
do,
but
we'll
look
to
work
with
our
our
good
friend
in
the
back
row
right.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
have
a
one,
lengthy
question.
Okay
and
it's
this
is
truly
because
I
I
honestly
I'm
confused.
I
don't
know
what
what's
happening
so
I'm
gonna
give
you
the
scenario,
and
hopefully
you
can
guide
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
we
have
exist.
The
existing
statute,
existing
structure,
mr
huffman,
has
testified.
You
know
he
was
negatively
impacted
under
that
structure
and
clearly
that's
unconscionable.
What
happened
in
that
situation
this
this
side
and
you
have
all
the
way
over
here.
I
think
senator
alvarado's
bill
would
be,
let's
start
over.
J
Let's,
let's
pay
everyone
in
these
situations:
minimum
wage.
As
I
read
this
this
reg
before
us
and
we're
not,
we
can't
decide
that
today.
That's
that's
a
statute
proposed
statue,
we!
So
as
this
committee,
we
cannot
decide
that.
But,
as
I
read
the
regulation
that's
proposed,
it
appears
to
me
that
the
regulation
is
a
move
from
here
in
this
direction
by
the
cabinet.
J
It
says
no
employer
shall
employ
a
worker
with
a
disability
or
work
activity
center
employee
at
less
than
the
applicable
minimum
wage.
Unless
the
employment
has
been
authorized
by
a
special
certificate
issued
by
the
commissioner
and
or
by
the
department
of
labor,
so
to
me
it's
a
this.
Reg
is
granted.
It
does
give
a
lot
of
latitude
to
the
commissioner.
J
P
Yes,
the
I
mean
you're
not
outlined,
but
the
the
regulation
still
permits
the
commissioner
to
issue
new
14c
certificates.
I
think
there's,
I'm
not
sure
how
many
are
in
kentucky,
but
what
what
we're
proposing
is
that
they
don't
they
they
repeal
that
regulation
and
don't
issue
any
new
ones.
We're
not
proposing
your.
P
B
Gentlemen
proceed
briefly:
if
you
can.
I
I
A
Thank
you
for
clarifying,
so
would,
in
your
opinion,
would
this
regulation
as
written
permit
the
issuance
of
new
certificates.
I
J
Yeah-
and
this
is
in
response
to
representative
frazier's
question-
and
you
can
respond
to
my
response-
I
think
it's
a
little
more
more
nuanced
than
that.
I
think
yes,
they
can
issue
these
waivers,
but
they
can
already
do
that,
and
so
this
regulation
would
not
affect
that,
and
it's
really
it's
really,
although
it
doesn't
affect
that
it,
it
wasn't
meant
to
change.
That
is
that
right.
I
This
is
just
the
this
whole
process
began.
As
part
of
that
you
know
the
updating
and
the
certification
process.
It
would
keep
in
the
existing
structure
right.
So
yes,
I
agree
with
your
comment.
Thank
you.
K
I'll
be
happy
to
speak
to
that,
mr
chairman,
if
you
allow
me
to
so
yeah
I
mean
I
think
I've
had
an
opportunity
to
follow
this
bill
before
I've
spoken
to
a
lot
of
the
folks
who
have
14c
certificates
their
concerns
with
this
they're
concerned
with
the
bill,
because
a
lot
of
them
are
concerned
about
how
it's
going
to
change
it
again.
I
think
everybody
that
works
in
this
space
with
people
with
disabilities
want
to
see
the
same
goal.
K
Want
people
mainstreamed
be
able
to
make
at
least
minimum
wage
the
heart
the
concern
there
is.
Do
we
have
enough
infrastructure
to
allow
those
folks
and
then
we've
gone
through
multiple
variations
of
this
bill,
so
we've
had.
We
would
allow
people
to
be
grandfathered
in
people
who
work
in
this
and
want
to
remain
in
that
structure
can
stay
in
it.
The
front
door
would
be
closed
five
years
from
now,
and
then
at
that
point
no
new
14cs
would
be
issued,
and
then
people
be
coming
out
to
go.
K
Work
would
have
to
be
mainstreamed
into
mainstream
work,
is
the
is
the
attempt,
so
the
concern
is:
is
there
enough
support
to
get
that
to
happen?
That's
the
big
worry
everybody
has.
I
know
the
administration
everybody's
been
working
towards
trying
to
get
that
done
like
I
said
I'll
keep
filing
the
bill
and
keep
changing
it
until,
hopefully
we
get
enough
support.
I
haven't
really
forced
this
a
lot
of
way
through,
but
I
know
it's
there's
a
lot
of
support
from
the
disability
groups
that
are
out
there.
K
I
you
know
this
regulation
doesn't
change
that.
I
know
the
concerns
from
the
people.
Excuse
me,
we've
testified.
We
don't
want
to
have
the
commissioner
issue
any
anymore
and
that's
up
for
debate
in
terms
of
that,
but
I
don't
think
this
regulation.
It
just
addresses
some
of
the
wage
rates
and
definitions
for
that,
but
I
think
those
efforts
are
going
to
continue
moving
forward.
I
don't
know
that
that
would
alter
what
we
would
do
with
this.
With
this,
this
regulation.
B
So
I'm
going
to
kind
of
go
out
of
line
here,
just
a
little
bit
as
the
chairman
is
the
committee
okay,
with
letting
this
go
forward
today
or
do
is
there
any
members
would
like
to
ask
for
a
deferral?
I
will
ask
that
question.
K
I
don't,
I
don't
think
that
the
change
that
that's
being
requested
from
those
who
testify
would
be
accomplished
by
a
deferral
with
this.
I
think
we
can
continue
as
a
legislature
to
keep
working
I
will
commit.
I
will
continue
to
work
with
that
and
I'll
keep
filing
that
bill.
So
that
is
something
I
believe
in
and
we
are
going
to
keep
working
on
that.
B
I
think
senator
west
actually
made
an
excellent
point
to
mr
sharkey
earlier
that
this
committee
is
actually
very
limited
to
what
we
can
actually
do.
But
at
this
point
there
does
not
seem
to
be
a
consensus
to
ask
for
a
deferral
from
the
cabinet
on
this,
so
we're
going
to
let
this
move
forward
at
this
time.
So
at
this
time
please
call
the
next
regulation.
Oh
I'm
sorry.
I
Sorry,
chairman
there's
we
had
other
regulations
that
were
on
set
to
be
heard
today:
026
061,
064,
67
6871.
They.
I
Apologies
then,
for
the
confusion,
and
just
I'd
like
to
thank
the
lrc
staff
for
their
help
with
these
regulations.
B
A
Cabinet
for
health
and
family
services
department
for
behavioral
health,
developmental
and
intellectual
disabilities,
908
kar,
3010
emergency.
This
does
not
have
additional
amendments.
This
regulation
amends
to
incorporate
the
provisions
of
senate
bill
100
for
essential
personal
care,
visitor
programs.
B
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
for
being
with
us.
We
know
you've
been
with
us
a
long
time
this
afternoon.
So,
but
please
identify
yourself
for
the
record
today.
B
B
Thank
you
very
much
both
of
you.
There
are
staff
amendments
today
is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendments
is
there
is
a
motion
in
a
second.
Without
objection
is
so
ordered?
Are
there
any
questions
from
any
of
the
members
today?
For
the
ladies,
it
appears
there's
no
question,
so.
Thank
you
very
much
is
that
the
last
regulation
that.