►
From YouTube: Public Pension Oversight Board (12-20-21)
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
Well,
good
morning,
I'd
like
to
call
this
ppob
meeting
to
to
order.
We
do
have
a
quorum,
we'll
have!
Madam
clerk,
would
you
please
call
the
roll.
B
A
A
Okay,
we
have
a
quorum
first
order,
business,
entertain
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
minutes.
From
our
last
meeting,
we
have
a
motion.
D
A
All
right
motion
carries
all
right:
the
next
order
of
business.
The
first
thing
on
our
agenda
is
discussion
of
ppob
recommendations
that
we
will
send
to
the
general
assembly
that
we've
items
that
we've
discussed
this
year,
that
we
will
recommend
to
the
general
assembly,
and
you
all
see
your
list.
There
there's
five
items
on
the
list.
A
The
number
one
item
or
not
number
one-
is
the
budget
and
that
recommendation
is
made
by
it
looks
like
chairman
higdon
made
that
recommendation
we're
going
to
encourage
general
assembly
to
ensure
sufficient
funding
is
provided
to
fully
fund
actuarial,
determined
contributions
for
the
com
upcoming
budget
we've
been
very
successful
in
doing
that
since
2014
for
krs
number
two
is
a
jffr,
the
judicial
forum,
retirement
system,
housekeeping
measures.
We
discussed
that
in
november
ppob
meeting
and
that's
just
clean
up
language,
and
we
won't
recommend
that
that
be
passed.
A
The
third
item
on
the
list
is
representative
miller,
representative
miller.
I'm
calling
you
you
want
to
just
briefly
describe
your
recommendation.
E
Yes,
and
of
course,
we
just
passed
those
in
the
minutes
and
that's
because
last
meetings
when
I
presented
those,
but
certainly
the
the
pension,
spiking
exemptions
really
was
brought
to
my
attention
because
of
the
an
issue
in
jefferson
county
where
we
had
civil
unrest.
E
Last
year,
the
mayor
declared
a
state
of
emergency,
the
governor
sent
in
national
guard,
but
he
did
not
declare
a
state
of
emergency
and,
as
a
result,
all
of
the
mandatory
overtime
worked
by
our
first
responders
in
jefferson
county,
which
was
was
huge
last
summer,
winds
up
spiking
their
pension
and
our
pension.
Spiking
was
really
designed
to
avoid
where
someone
worked
a
lot
of
over
voluntary
overtime
that
they
want
to
spike
their
pension
by
working
all
the
overtime
they
could
get
because
they're,
probably
the
most
senior
people.
E
This
was
not
discretionary.
These
first
responders,
their
their
vacations,
were
canceled.
They
had
to
work
that
overtime,
12
12
hours
on
12
hours
off,
so
this
bill
is
made
retroactive
to
may
30
last
year
and
addresses
that
the
third
item
or
the
fourth
item
on
our
recommendations,
relates
to
the
experience
studies
for
state
systems
and,
as
you
know,
from
attending
ppob
meetings
or
watching
them
on
television.
E
If,
if
you're
remote
every
five
years,
our
systems
come
to
us
with
experience,
studies
and
experience,
studies
that
the
actuaries
do
often
times
just
like
trs
this
year,
very
very
large
adjustments.
E
The
reason
they
do
those
every
five
years
is
because
on
the
demographic
side,
which
is
the
longevities
and
the
the
how
long,
you're
staying
in
your
job,
how
long
you're
living
a
variety
of
things
like
that
are
very
expensive
for
an
actuary
to
go.
Do
that
work?
E
On
the
other
hand,
the
the
fiscal
assumptions
is
are
not
costly
to
do,
and
it
would
be
better,
in
my
opinion,
and
as
I
presented
to
this
group,
if
we
would
have
the
financial
assumptions
every
two
years
in
sync
with
our
biennial
budgets.
E
If
you
look
at
the
trs
adjustments,
two-thirds
of
those
of
that
dollar
impact
were
fiscal.
They
were
the
payroll
growth
assumption
and
the
return
so
that
it's
it's
not
a
costly
process
to
do
that,
so
it
would
keep
the
demographics
at
a
minimum
every
five
years
more.
If
the
board
chooses
and
then
on
the
financial,
it
would
be
every
two
years.
So
that
would
be
the
recommendation.
Mr
chairman,.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
first
thing
I
want
to
say:
is
I'm
going
to
pull
this
item
for
recommendation,
but
I
would
like
to
take
a
few
minutes
to
just
talk
about
it.
Please
proceed.
Okay,
thank
you.
Br
424
is
a
bill
that
would
take
all
hazardous
duty.
C
Representative
miller
just
touched
on
a
number
of
reasons
why
this
would
be
important,
and
I
think
there
are
almost
too
many
reasons
to
go
into
why
this
is
important.
Retirement
security
is
listed
as
the
number
one
or
number
two
reason
why
hazardous
duty
employees
are
either
leaving
the
job
or
not
interested
in
the
job.
C
According
to
the
leaders
in
the
law,
enforcement,
firefighting
and
corrections,
the
packet
includes
additional
document
documents
that
you'll
see
related
to
the
bill
itself
is
very
simple:
it's
122
pages,
but
I
have
a
two-page
start,
starter
page
there
that
pretty
much
explains
it.
It
just
basically
takes
tier
three
hazardous
duty
personnel,
so
that
is
cers
has
kers
has,
and
our
state
police
from
tier
three
to
tier
two.
C
There
was
a
preliminary
preliminary
actuarial
review
of
the
bill.
It's
it
is
from
grs.
It
has
some
dollars
in
there.
We
can
talk
about,
but
I
won't
go
into
the
figures.
There
are
slight
increases
to
the
liability
of
these
systems
related
to
the
bill.
C
There's
another
document
in
there
just
to
to
show
the
amount
of
people
it
does
affect
it's
about:
50,
50,
800,
tier
3
employees.
At
this
time,
hazardous
duty,
public
safety
employees
would
be
affected.
The
option
is
to
stay
in
tier
three.
If
you
do
opt
to
stay
in
there's.
Another
document,
that's
included
from
the
kppa,
was
a
bri
as
an
analysis
of
what
is
the
difference
between
a
tier
3
and
a
tier
2
pension.
Based
on
a
certain
scenario.
C
Please
take
a
look
at
that
and
then
there
is
a
the
the
comparison
of
all
three
tiers
tier
one
tier
two
tier
three
for
hazardous
and
non-hazardous,
a
form
that
currently
exists
on
the
kppa
site.
That
does
a
nice
breakdown
of
what
it
is.
What
are
the
the
benefits
and
the
requirements
for
our
all
of
our
members
in
our
state
pension
system,
not
including
a
teachers?
Of
course,
this
does
not
affect
teachers
at
all.
C
I
would
entertain
any
questions
at
this
point.
I
recognize
that
we
typically
would
not
make
recommendations
based
on
a
bill
being
introduced
at
the
first.
B
C
The
first
time
this
is
a
bill
I
have
been
working
on
for
a
couple
years,
I've
been
working
with
staff
to
concepts
about
how
to
do
this,
how
to
deal
with
our
significant
problem
with
the
lack
of
people
who
are
applying
for
the
job
and
leaving
the
job
in
public
safety.
C
I
work
in
that
area.
I'm
an
attorney
for
the
firefighters.
I've
been
around
this
almost
my
entire
adult
life.
A
lot
of
the
data,
if
you
want
to
call
it
data,
is
anecdotal.
I
use
covington
as
an
example.
I
was
the
fire
chief
there
when
we
would
give
an
entrance
exam
city
of
covington
for
firefighters.
We
would
typically
have
about
350
to
400
people
sign
up,
and
that
number
has
dwindled
drastically
during
the
last
every
sign.
C
They
have
set
up
a
way
that
people
can
lateral
in,
and
that
is
the
situation
going
on
in
public
safety
all
around
the
state
where
there
is
lateral
work
to
to
retain
or
to
attract
new
members,
which
means
we're
basically
pushing
from
one
department
to
another,
and
we
need,
as
a
state,
in
my
opinion,
to
provide
this
retirement
security
so
that
we
level
the
playing
field
for
all
of
our
public
safety
employees
and
it
can
be
done
at
a
cost.
That
is
worth
it
I'll.
Just
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
representative
wheatley,
under
krs
7a
0.250.
The
ppob
has
the
duty.
A
Okay,
I
got
the
cart
before
the
horse.
Excuse
me,
so
it's
been
a
policy
of
ppob
to
make
recommendations
on
on
items
or
proposals
heard
during
the
interim.
With
that
in
mind,
my
motion
will
be
that
we
approve
today
items
one
through
four
to
publish
and
send
his
recommendations
to
the
general
assembly.
A
Okay,
so
now
I
do
my
the
under
krs
7a
0.250,
the
ppob
has
a
duty
to
publish
an
annual
report.
The
report
includes
a
summary
of
the
systems,
the
summary
of
the
testimony
and
data
we've
heard
during
the
year
and
recommendations
we've
approved
here
today,
so
they
have
been
approved
in
items
one
through
four
and
they
will
be
included
in
our
2021
annual
report
to
the
general
assembly.
A
Okay
also
need
a
motion
to
to
approve
the
report.
We
have.
We
have
a,
we
have
a
motion.
Second,
we
had
to
have
a
second
okay.
We
have
motion
a
second
any
discussion,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
I.
A
G
There
you
go.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
again,
my
name
is
jennifer
hans,
I'm
staff
with
the
lrc,
and
I
am
getting
my
presentation
up.
You
should
have
in
your
in
your
packet
a
a
summary
of
my
presentation.
G
So
that
really
is
what
I'm
going
to
be,
what
you're
going
to
be,
what
I'm
going
to
be
following
today,
so
everything
should
be
in
there.
But
this
will
allow
you
to
see
it
a
little
bit.
So,
as
the
chairman
said,
I'm
presenting
a
summary
of
the
submissions
that
the
lrc
received
from
the
actuarial
firms
in
response
to
the
request
for
information
that
was
issued
pursuant
to
the
input
that
we
had
received
from
the
board.
G
So
just
to
summarize,
as
the
members
may
recall,
the
purpose
of
issuing
the
request
for
information
was
to
permit
greater
discussion
before
the
ppob
in
that
public
forum
to
determine
if
we
had
a
sufficient
pool
of
actuarial
firms
interested
in
conducting
an
actuarial
audit
of
kentucky's
three
retirement
systems,
and
since
this
was
the
first
time
that
the
ppob
will
conduct
an
actuarial
audit
under
the
statute,
it
seemed
appropriate
to
seek
guidance
on
how
to
accomplish
the
task.
Such
as
what
level
of
audit
should
we
conduct?
G
A
level
one
or
a
level,
two
audit.
What
experience
should
we
look
for?
How
long
should
it
take
and
what
the
estimated
cost
would
be?
So
those
are
are
the
purposes
that
we
were
seeking
and
we
received
responses
to
all
of
those.
In
order
to
look
at
how
we
would
we
could
possibly
tailor
the
scope
of
work
as
we
went
further
in
the
procurement
process,
including
the
option
to
issue
the
rfp,
so
the
summary
of
responses.
So
that's
what
we're
here
today
to
provide
the
update
on.
G
We
did
receive
responses
from
six
actuarial
firms
before
the
deadline
of
november
30th.
All
six
firms
were
highly
recommended.
You
know
actuarial
firms
with
a
great
deal
of
experience.
Five
of
the
firms
that
responded
have
a
specific
experience,
providing
actuarial
consulting
services
for
large
statewide
public
pension
plans.
G
The
proposal
proposals
offered
several
good
reasons
to
justify
a
level
one
review.
It
is
the
most
thorough
way
to
evaluate
the
reliability
of
the
assumptions.
According
to
the
actuarial
firms,
the
actuarial
firms
also
pointed
out
that
it
offers
a
full
replication
of
each
actuarial
analysis
conducted.
G
G
The
firms
did
agree
that
a
level
two
limited
scope
audit
could
be
appropriate
under
other
circumstances,
for
example
on
an
alternating
five-year
basis,
since
the
statute
does
call
for
it
to
be
every
five
years,
so
that
was
also
information.
They
supplied
to
us
so
another
question
that
we
asked
them
two
questions
that
we
asked
them
that
we
had
concerns
about
was
time
constraints
and
where
their
costs
would
fall.
G
G
The
rfi
did
indicate
a
cost
estimate
only
again.
This
was
not
a
request
for
proposals.
It
did
not
have
a
specific
scope
of
work.
So
what
was
being
asked
for
is
you
know
how
much
does
a
level
one
level
two
audit
typically
cost
and
as
we
kind
of
expected,
we
got
a
fairly
broad
response
for
a
level
one
audit.
The
estimates
ranged
between
150
000,
which
was
rather
on
the
low
end
to
above
250
thousand
dollars.
G
So
we
had
one
one
or
two
outliers
that
gave
us
such
broad
ranges
that
they,
you
know
they
went
much
higher
than
that,
but
most
of
them
fell
into
that
200,
250
000
price
range
for
in
terms
of
an
estimate
for
a
full
scope:
audit
for
a
level
two
limited
scope:
audit
for
all
the
systems.
G
The
proposed
estimated
costs
ran
between
50
000
to
180
000,
again
with
you
know,
outliers
that
had
different
kinds
of
pricing,
and
that
went
a
little
bit
above
that,
just
as
it
is
a
typical
I
did
want
to.
I
did
want
to
provide
sort
of
a
comparison
as
what
how
how
much
cheaper
a
level
two
audit
is
than
a
a
level
one
according
to
the
responses
and
they
they're
they
range
between
between,
like
30,
cheaper
to
60
percent,
cheaper
with
most
of
them
kind
of
falling
in
that
50
range.
G
The
estimates
were
in
no
way
binding
on
the
on
the
responders
and
they
could
certainly
change
once
we
develop
a
scope
of
work
and
they
look
at
the
specific
systems,
although
I
will
say
that
they
did
all
the
responders
did
seem
to
have
done.
Quite
a
bit
of
due
diligence
in
looking
at
the
systems
and
having
some
degree
of
knowledge
of
what
our
kentucky
systems
looked
like.
So
what
are
the
takeaways
from
the
responses?
G
I
I
would
say
that
you
know
there's
a
reasonable
consensus
among
them
that
a
scope
of
work
if
issued,
should
represent
a
level
one
audit,
so
that
was
there.
That
was
their.
That
was
the
information
that
they
supplied
to
us.
G
So
first,
do
the
members
have
any
questions
for
me
that
I
can
provide
regarding
that.
A
Jennifer
outstanding
report
and
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
this,
so
I
know
you've
done
a
lot
of
work
and-
and
I
certainly
appreciate
that
most
that
we're
submitting
I
get
the
proposals
recommended
to
level
one
correct.
Did
you
you
know,
of
course,
if,
if
I'm
selling
something
I'm
going
to
try
to
get
you
to
take
it
by
as
much
as
you
can
take
the
take
the
full
load,
do
you
feel
comfortable
with
that?
A
G
Well,
the
the
information
that
they
provided.
I
certainly
can't
give
you
know
an
opinion
one
way
or
the
other
I
can.
I
can
share
that.
The
information
that
was
provided
in
in
their
responses
was
not
just
based
on
on
price.
Each
of
them
had
consistent
reasons
for
why
a
level
one
would
be
best
under
the
circumstances
and
a
lot
of
those
reasons
were
the
same
across
the
requests.
G
I
mean
across
the
responses,
so
you
know
you
can
take
that,
as
you
know,
some
indication
that
even
independent
of
you
know
talking
to
one
another
just
upon
looking
at
the
statute
and
looking
at
at
the
status
of
our
systems,
you
had
six
different
firms,
return,
a
a
recommendation
that
you
know
that
a
level
one
would
be
appropriate
based
on
the
circumstances
so
independently.
Looking
at
it,
you
had
you
had
you
know
six
that
that
recommended
to
move
forward
with
that.
A
Well,
thank
you,
jennifer
and,
and
thanks
for
your
work
because
of
your
work,
I
I
feel
very
comfortable
with
the
level
one
full
scope.
Audit
co-chair
duplessy
has
a
question.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Actually
I
didn't
have
a
question.
First,
I
did
want
to
thank
you
jennifer.
We
have
talked
a
lot
and
you've
done
so
much
work
you
and
your
team
it's.
This
is
exactly,
I
think
what
we
had
hoped
to
do
to
see
whenever
we
talked
about
doing
this,
and
I
do
want
to
agree
with
the
chairman
that
we,
the
tier
one,
is
the
way
we
want
to
go
or
level
one
simply
because
there's
been
this
after
house
bill
like
so
many
questions
came
up.
F
F
I
fully
expect
that
the
level
one
audit
will
come
back
and
confirm
some
of
the
things
that
we've
been
looking
at,
but
I
I
see
it
as
a
way
to
gain
some
trust
and
if
it's
200
000,
I
think
that's
a
well
worth
the
money
to
get
that
done.
So,
thank
you
again
for
all
your
work.
We,
I
do
appreciate
it.
E
Miller,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
would
like
to
know
of
the
six
firms
that
responded
which
of
these
had
previously
done
work
for
one
of
our
plans,
because
if,
if,
as
you
said,
some
did
work
for
us
up
until
2017
and
then
we
flipped
them
out.
I
really
don't
think
I
would
want
one
of
those
people
back.
So
I'd
like
to
know
that.
G
None
of
the
firms
had
provided
and
they
had
indicated
that
they
had
ever
served
as
a
you
know:
full
contract
actuary
as
we're
you
know,
typically,
that
we
typically
see
before
the
board
with
any
of
our
three
systems.
There
was
one
firm
that
had
done
some
sort
of
a
very
high
level
secondary
review
of
one
of
the
systems.
Several
years
ago.
G
There
was
another
firm
and
then
there
was
there
were
two
there
was
that
and
then
there
were
two
firms
that
have
previously
conducted
audits,
actuary
audits,
in
other
words,
they've
done
the
same
thing
that
we're
asking
them
to
do,
but
they
have
done
it
at
the
behest
of
one
of
the
systems
or
two
of
the
systems,
so
they've
they've
not
been
the
primary
actuarial.
G
Those
firms
that
indicated
that
sir
indicated
that,
in
order
to
maintain
a
100
percent
independence
level,
they
would
in
fact
put
together
a
a
completely
separate
team.
So
if
they
were
to
pursue
that
and
that's
something
we
could
certainly
include
and
would
include
as
part
of
an
rfp
that
they
would
have
to
do
and
part
of
a
contract
that
if
they
were
selected,
they
would
have
to
provide
a
completely
separate
team
to
oversee.
G
And
that
is
you
know
that
kind
of
selection
and
those
kinds
of
protections
then
fall
to
our
lrc
business
office
and
our
lrc
director
to
make
those
kinds
of
you
know
ultimate
decisions,
and
that's
only
if
they
respond
to
the
rfp.
G
E
I
I
do
agree,
since
this
is
the
inaugural
actuarial
review
by
ppob.
I
think
it
should
be
level
onesies.
F
A
Okay,
jennifer
again
your
work
and
the
work
of
the
ppob
staff
have
we
we
discussed
this
remember
several
months
ago,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
indecision
or
a
lot
of
questions
to
be
asked,
and
we
really
were
not
really
comfortable
or
confident
to
make
that
recommendation
at
the
time
and
you've
done
great
work
to
to
bring
us
all
up
to
date
and
that
we
understand
what
we're
doing.
A
And
you
know,
we've
been
granted
by
the
the
authority
to
to
expend
the
funds
for
an
actuarial
audit
and
and
you've,
given
us
that
guidance
that
we
that
we
need
to
to
feel
comfortable
to
make
that
recommendation
a
level
one
full
scope.
Audit
be
done.
So
thank
you
for
that
I'll
entertain
a
motion
that,
if
there's
no
for
any
other
questions,.
A
B
A
G
A
A
And
I
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
bring
john
chilton
and
ed
owens
with
you
to
the
table
and
just
for
a
brief
discussion.
B
A
D
A
D
I
know,
mr
chairman,
you
asked
that,
do
we
speak
to
the
appeals
process
of
house
bill
8.
D
A
The
only
question
I
would
have
is
the
I
guess,
an
update
and
a
status
on
our
your
negotiations
and
the
appeal
process
right
with
the
quasi
groups
that
that
have
filed
appeals.
If
you
would
to
what
you
can,
I
know,
that's
you
might
be
restricted
on
some
things
you
could
tell
us,
but
just
just
an
update
cause.
We
are,
we
are
getting
some
feedback
and
and
we'd
like
to
like
to
hear,
hear
an
update.
Please.
D
Let
me
say:
first
of
all,
I
any
time
I
can.
I
want
to
thank
members
of
this
committee.
I
want
to
thank
representative
duplessi
and
his
bill
co-sponsor,
someone
in
the
committee
of
six
that
worked
on
this
hospital.
Eight.
It
is
it's
a
savior
for
us,
it's
really
changing
the
method
of
funding
and
it's
really
protecting
the
financial
security
of
the
of
the
k
non-haz
system.
D
We
appreciate
it
greatly
in
the
process
of
developing
that
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
gee,
who
are
we
being
charged
for
we're
being
assigned
to
liability
and
how's?
Who,
who
are
the
people
that
we're
being
assigned?
D
And
how
do
we
know,
and
so
an
appeals
process
was
developed,
that
an
agency
could
any
employer
could
appeal
any
of
the
178
are
that
were
eligible.
D
They
could
say
for
one
of
three
reasons
that
person
didn't
work
for
me:
we're
not
the
last
employer.
In
other
words,
we
had
contract
with
the
executive
branch.
They
should
be
picking
that
up
and
finally,
there
is
a
we
picked
up
with
regard
to
three
mental
health
agencies.
We
picked
up
people
that
really
were
the
responsibility
of
the
state.
So
they
could,
they
could
appeal
any
one
of
those.
D
The
overall
liability,
once
it's
determined
is
developed
by
grs
is
not
appealable,
but
but
people
could
say
we
shouldn't
be
charged
with
that
person,
so
we
provided
a
large
number
of
them
with
all
the
people
that
were
on
the
list
of
where
there
was
a
liability
assigned
to
them.
D
We
have.
We
have
400
000
people
in
our
system.
We
have
records
on
probably
a
million
people.
Our
records
go
back
to
the
1950s,
so
this
has
been
an
interesting
process
to
go
through
this
and
determine
whether
or
not
the
people
that
are
being
assigned
the
they're
being
assigned.
The
liability
really
does
whether
that's
appropriate.
So
we
had
178
agencies,
we
they
could
appeal
by
by
june.
30
of
2021.
D
47
of
them
did
appeal.
Their
appeals
represented
50,
191
employees
and
again
they
either
said
we
weren't
the
last
employer.
We
had
a
contract
with
the
state.
The
state
executive
branch
should
pick
that
up
or
it
was
tied
to
a
mental
health
agency,
particularly
a
central
state
in
louisville,
so
50
191
individuals.
D
D
D
224
were
were
counted
as
being
not
the
last
employer
and
of
those
we
approved
49..
So
we
got
into
the
records
we
either
could
not
establish,
or
we
essentially
had
to
waive
those
people.
There
were
49
of
the
22
224
of
404
that
were
appealed
because
there
was
a
contract
with
the
state
and
it
was
primarily
universities.
78
of
those
were
approved
as
a
waiver
and
then
finally,
all
2563
that
were
appealed
because
of
the
medical.
F
Thank
you
dave
question
about
the
process
here
and
I
didn't
want.
I
want
to
hear
all
your
numbers
out,
so
I
hated
to
interrupt
you,
but
I
wasn't
sure
about
some
things.
If
somebody
you,
I
think
you
said
the
universities
had
70
nine
that
were
approved,
78
78,
yep.
B
D
Branch
they
could,
they
could
submit
it,
they
could
submit
information
to
us
and
we
also
worked
with
the
budget
director,
because
these
are
being
assigned
back
to
the
executive
branch
and
would
go
on
on
the
state's
budget.
So
the
answer
is
yes
again.
D
D
The
one
thing
I
would
say
is:
if
you
have
constituents
or
employers
who
contact
you,
and
we
have
some
that
we're
still
having
some
discussions
with,
but
we're.
Essentially,
the
book
is
closed.
D
But
if
you
have
anybody
that
you
have,
you
want
to
have
discussions
with
us
about
I'm
going
to
give
brad
gross
aaron
sarat's
contact
information
and
feel
free
to
contact
her,
because
we
we
are
dealing
with
a
couple
agencies,
I'm
dealing
with
a
couple
of
representatives
who
are
and
senators
who
have
experienced
employers
in
their
area
who
are
who
are
effectively
challenging
our
findings.
A
D
It
is
complete,
the
process
is
done.
Our
board
has
approved
the
the
process
and
the
findings
the
at
the
at
their
board
meeting
on
december,
the
2nd.
So
we're
done.
Okay,
that's
not
that
doesn't
prohibit
an
employer
to
come
back
and
come.
You
know
to
complain
to
us.
D
49
49
out
of
all
of
them
we
couldn't
and
again
we
go.
We
go
back
to
the
1950s.
With
paper
records,
there
were
some
that
we
could
not
establish.
On
the
other
hand,
we
have
we
have
employers
who
recently
submitted
form
6000
to
have
the
person
retire
and
they
say
that
person
wasn't
not
an
employee
of
ours.
Six
months
earlier,
we've
gotten
a
form
said
they're
applying
for
a
retirement.
D
A
And
get
this
resolved
so
co-chair
deposit
has
a
question.
F
D
Yeah
we
decided
this
wasn't
a
part
of
the
original
process.
We
decided
to
allow
and
have
a
part
of
the
process
that
would
send
an
affidavit
to
the
employees
and
to
the
employers
where
we
were
uncertain.
We
didn't
have
the
records
we
sent
affidavits
to
about
212
employers
and
177
employees.
Saying
can
you
verify?
D
Where
is
the
last
place
you
worked
and
should
you
should
they
be
assigned
the
liability
that
they're
being
assigned?
We
had
15
responses,
it
was
a
decision
made
in
the
middle
of
november
to
do
that.
That
wasn't
a
part
of
the
original
process,
so
we
had
a
short
a
short
window.
I
grant
that,
but
there
was
a
period
of
time
ten
days
for
the
employees
and
and
five
business
days
for
the
employers
to
turn
it
around
and
come
back
to
us,
and
very
few
did.
F
Yeah,
so
I
I,
I
will
agree
that
when
we
decided
to
give
this
this
time
period
towards
the
end
of
the
year
to
allow
people
to
to
debate
or
challenge
the
decision,
we
didn't
know
how
long
it's
gonna
take
for
for
your
systems
to
do
all
that
work
and
obviously
it's.
It
was
a
big
task.
20
people
pouring
over
5,
000
or
so
folks,
that's
a
lot
of
work
and
ultimately,
as
senator
higdon
said,
we
know,
you'll
do
the
right
thing.
We
want
to
get
this
right.
D
Yeah-
and
this
is
a
this-
was
a
job
first
of
all,
I
said
these
people
all
had
a
day
job.
You
know
they
had
a
job
to
do
every
day
and
we're
22
people
short
in
staff
to
begin
with,
it's
not
something
that
could
be
farmed
out.
I
mean
you
had
to
know
that
you
had
to
know
the
intricacies
of
the
system
and
the
forms
that
are
being
used
and,
and
so
it
wasn't
something
we
could
outsource
to
anybody,
they
had
to
be
done
by
staff.
D
So
there
were
four
in
the
legal
and
I
I
don't
know
the
exact
number
and
benefits
two
in
the
executive
branch
that
all
worked
on
that
team
of
20..
So.
F
D
You
know
I
apologize,
I
can't
tell
you
the
exact
communications
back
to
them,
but
they
were
notified
in
each
case
of
yes
or
no
on
on
the
individuals,
because.
F
If
you'll
remember
in
david,
you,
you
were
instrumental
in
helping
us
as
a
group
get
a
house
delayed
yeah
the
whole.
My
whole
premise
for
sponsoring
the
bill
was
people
should
pay
what
they
owe
no
more
no
less,
and
I
think
we
all
in
this
room
would
agree.
No
more,
no
less
and
the
the
appeals
process
was
done
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
everybody
paid
what
they
owed.
F
So
I
would.
I
would
hope
that
you
could
share
with
some
of
the
organizations
that
still
don't
feel
like
you
got
it
right,
even
though
you
had
20
people
that
I
think
worked
very
hard
to
try
to
make
sure
they
got
it
right.
It'd
be
nice
if
they
got
that
data
to
show
here's
the
form
where
your
employee
retired,
under
your
under
your
care,.
D
They
have
been,
they
have
been
notified.
If
your
suggestion
is
that
we
send
47
employers,
5
000,
plus
copies
of
forms.
F
D
D
F
A
D
A
Our
testimony
with
you,
I.
A
Videos,
you
know
they've
unless
they
have
questions
of
us,
we're
we're
good
to
go.
A
No
questions,
thank
you
all
appreciate
you
being
with
us
before
we
go,
I
like
to
take
a
take
a
moment
to
have
a
moment
of
silence
for
the
tornado
victims
of
this
past
week,
including
deputy
jailer
robert
daniel,
also
including
that
officer
zach,
coltogen,
cotton;
gm.
Thank
you!
Cotton,
zach,
cotton,
jim,
the
lowell
metropolitan
police
department
who
was
killed
in
the
line
of
duty
over
the
weekend.