►
From YouTube: Public Pension Oversight Board (2-23-22)
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
We're
going
to
try
to
hurry
up
and
get
rolling.
We
had
committee
before
it's
been
a
little
late,
so
we're
starting
late,
not
because
we
weren't
ready
secretary.
Please
call
the
role.
C
Senator
mcdaniel
senator
mills
senator
neil
senator
parrot,
senator
wilson
senate
representative,
graham
representative
petry
representative
tipton
representative
weber,
representative
wheatley,
here
joseph
fonz,
mike
carmen
john
hicks,
here
remotely
sharon
mattingly
here
remotely.
Thank
you.
Both
representative
miller.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
we
do
have
a
quorum.
Let
me
quickly
give
you
a
just
a
synopsis
as
to
why
we're
here
is.
As
you
know,
last
year
this
this
body
passed
house
bill.
8.
A
No
more,
no
less
was
kind
of
the
mantra,
and
most
of
us
can
get
behind
that
and
as
the
bill
went
through
its
it's
it's
process,
section
seven
was
amended
into
the
bill
with
the
purpose:
to
give
some
teeth
to
the
legislation
so
that
those
who
had
contracted
employees
out
would
be,
for
lack
of
better
words
forced
to
put
those
employees
back
in
the
system,
because
it's
important
that
we
have
members
back
in
that
we're
supposed
to
be
in
keywords
supposed
to
be
in
to
help
fund
the
system,
so
that
amendment
was
agreed
to
and
what
we're
finding
is
like
a
lot
of
things.
A
Implementation
is
sometimes
harder
than
the
legislation
so
we're
having
some
disagreements
on
how
this
section
seven
is
going
to
be
implemented
so
co-chair
higdon,
and
I
felt
it
a
good
idea
while
we're
still
in
session
and
can
do
something
about
it.
If
need
be,
that
we
hear
from
some
of
the
affected
parties
and
from
the
system
as
to
what
issues
section
7
is
causing
them.
A
What
their
concerns
are,
why
they
think
such
and
such
should
be
not
counted
in
kate
yaris
or
why
they
should
and
then
kpa
will
have
the
ability
to
to
speak
to
those
and
then
at
the
end
of
that,
if,
if
any
of
the
the
representatives
from
the
chmcs,
the
universities
would
like
to
come
back
and
address
the
body
based
on
what
kppa
said,
I
would
encourage
you
to
do
that.
A
We're
going
to
have
to
keep
our
comments,
succinct,
because
we're
already
15
minutes
behind
and
your
chair
has
taken
too
long
to
get
through
an
introduction.
So
with
that
I'm
gonna
start,
let's
see
who's
on
steve,
shannon!
A
A
Thank
you
so
too
so
pass
and
house
bill
8
reporting
requirements.
We're
going
to
look
at
that
from
steve.
Shannon
executive
director
of
the
kentucky
associated
association,
regional
programs
and
state
floor
is
yours.
Please
try
to
keep
it
10
max
15
minutes.
E
All
right
we'll
try
to
keep
it
short
again.
I'm
steve,
shannon
I'm
the
executive
director
of
carp,
carpenter,
association
of
11,
of
the
14
regional
community,
mental
health
centers
and
of
that
11
nine
participate
in
krs
non-hazardous
two.
Do
not
one
never
has
the
14
community
mental
health
centers
serve
about
175
000
people
a
year
employ
about
7
500
and
are
led
by
over
300
dedicated,
volunteer
community
leaders
on
the
board
of
directors.
We
make
communities
better
throughout
kentucky.
I
really
believe
that
we
have
seven
broad
categories
of
issues.
E
Concerns
relating
to
section
seven,
the
first
and
most
pressing,
is
how
will
that
sixty
percent
and
eighty
percent
threshold
be
determined?
I
know
in
another
part
of
the
bill,
it
talks
about
percentages,
but
for
us
what's
the
start
date.
What's
the
denominator,
sixty
percent
is
three-fifths.
How
is
that
denominator
figure?
What's
the
date
on
that
number?
Okay,
that's
going
to
help
us
manage
it
and
understand
it
I'll
go
forward
and
the
bill
doesn't
speak
to
when
that
happens.
The
effective
date
of
the
bill
is
march.
23
21!
E
D
E
54
57
talks
about
it,
but
you
know
the
sub
the
subsidy
we
receive
and
we're
grateful.
For
that
I
mean
it's
profound.
We
appreciate
that
across
the
board.
We
also
appreciate
department
of
available
health
for
getting
us
that
money
promptly,
which
it
flows
pretty
smoothly
for
us,
but
that
reduction
in
90
percent
of
75
percent
is
problematic.
So
we
don't
know
how
to
calculate
that.
60
percent
we're
concerned
about
that,
and
the
other
comments
is
how
how
does
that
calculation?
E
How
do
our
business
model
impact
that
calculation
and
our
changes
that
we
have
to
make?
For
example,
if
we
change
discontinuous
service
for
some
reason,
we
have
a
day
program.
The
day
program
closes.
We
no
longer
have
staff
in
the
day
program.
We
do
a
different
model.
We
support
people
in
the
community
through
support
of
employment
and
may
have
other
providers
do
that.
Does
that
count
towards
that
denomination
figure,
because
we
had
those
employees?
Now
we
don't
do
we
have
to
keep
them
on
board
if
we
don't
necessarily
want
to
do
that,
that's
a
concern.
E
So
we're
concerned
about.
Does
this
allow
kppa
to
impact
private
corporations,
501
c
3,
non-profit
corporations,
staffing
patterns,
and
does
it
restrict
our
ability
to
make
business
decisions?
We
think
we
need
to
make
the
other
piece
and
it's
not
a
secret.
We
have
employees
who
have
never
participated
in
krs
right.
They
never
have.
I
acknowledge
that
it's
not
a
secret.
We
all
know
that.
E
Will
this
result
in
those
people
enrolling
for
the
first
time
and
some
of
those
folks
do
not
want
to
participate
in
krsna's
hazards.
They
won't
do
it
and
they've
been
reported.
We
have
to
do
that.
They
may
resign.
Now,
that's
the
message
we
get.
Does
that
really
come
to
pass?
I
don't
know
we
can't
staff.
Today
previous
meeting
talked
about
nurses,
we
can't
hire
staff
we're
challenging.
We
don't
want
to
have
to
tell
people,
you
must
be
in
this
again.
They
were
never
enrolled.
They
have
no
liability
again,
they
weren't
participating.
E
So
maybe
that
was
a
problem.
They
were
never
enrolled
if
they
don't
want
to
be
enrolled
and
they
quit.
What's
the
plan,
that's
not
good
for
us
and
it's
not
good
for
retirement
system.
It
doesn't
accomplish
anything
so
we're
concerned
about
that
impact.
Potential
liability,
talks
about
traditional
contract
positions
and
we
have
those
in
our
world.
The
psychiatrist
is
king.
They
are
top
of
the
pyramid
and
any
relationship
a
psychiatrist
wants
to
have
with
us.
E
We
will
agree
to
because
they're
really
hard
to
get.
They
are
not
many
of
them
and
they're
poorly
distributed
throughout
the
commonwealth
throughout
the
country.
So
when
we
have
a
psychiatrist,
we
have
them
as
employees
because
they
want
to
be
an
employee,
we
have
them
their
own
corporation
and
they
want
us
to
contract
with
their
corporation.
We
have
psychiatrists
that
work
for
a
larger
corporation
that
play
psychiatrists.
All
three
of
those
things
take
place.
E
If
the
standards
used
today,
traditional
contract
employee
will
those
psychiatrists
have
to
be
in,
and
they
don't
necessarily
want
to
do
that,
and
we
can't
get
psychiatrists
that
jeopardizes
our
ability
to
provide
that
core
service
that
we
provide
to
people
every
day,
we're
expanding
the
primary
care.
We
could
have
the
same
issue
with
primary
care,
maybe
aprns
at
some
point,
but
we
can
do
primary
care
now,
and
people
with
mental
illness
die
25
years
younger
for
things
that
can
be
prevented.
E
Primary
care
matters
to
us
is
that
going
to
jeopardize
this?
Will
we
have
to
put
them
in
and
will
doc
say?
No.
Thank
you.
It's
a
concern
grant
funded
new
hires
the
grant's
going
to
end.
Does
that
count
against
our
number?
At
some
point,
we
have
four
centers
two
in
the
system
we're
doing
a
certified
community
behavioral
health
center.
This
is
a
new
model
of
cmhc,
a
lot
of
staff
brought
on
board.
It's
a
two-year
demonstration
grant.
North
key
has
one
they
participate.
New
vista
and
lexington
have
one
they
participate.
E
E
Yes,
I
mean
that's
the
same
thing,
it's
a
very
similar
issue,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
grant
funded
spots.
That's
why
I
want
to
have
that
so
yeah.
That's!
The
hiring
pattern
is
a
real
concern,
the
next
one
we
have-
and
this
is
down
in
the
weeds-
it's
the
scl
and
michelle
p
waiver
programs.
Those
are
waiver
services
or
six
hcb
waivers
in
kentucky,
and
this
is
two
of
them
that
program
and
we
can
do
it
with
the
home
community-based
waivers
and
some
abi
waivers.
E
E
We
are
talking
thousands
and
thousands
of
people.
One
center
here
today
has
a
thousand
people
they're
cutting
payroll
for
okay.
They
shouldn't
be
included
pretty
clear,
problematic.
Some
of
those
folks
think
they're
employed
by
the
mental
health
center
they're,
not
they're,
employed
by
this
separate
individual.
He
is
the
employer.
She
is
the
employer.
These
folks
do
incredibly
personal
things.
They
help
you
dress,
bathe,
feed;
they
want
to
hire
people,
they
want
to
hire.
They
set
the
expectations.
E
We
got
to
make
sure
that's
an
excluded
population
for
those
two
waiver
services,
especially,
and
we
had
people
doing
similar
work
who
has
been
in
so
historically,
they
could
argue,
they've
been
in
another
waiver
service
is
family
home
provider.
Adult
foster
care.
Many
centers
have
gone
from
a
traditional
24
7
staffed
model,
three
people
to
an
adult,
foster
care.
I
call
it
adult
foster
care
because
the
irs
recognized
foster
care
income.
E
E
Right
they
are
not
hourly.
Employees
got
to
make
sure
that
relationship
is
not
impacted.
The
last
piece
that
impacts
all
these
across
the
board.
What
is
the
appeal
process?
We
had
this
experience
with
employees,
we
submitted
names
and
the
system
was
great
they,
but
there
was
no
appeal.
We
don't
know
this
person.
Well,
it's
on
the
list.
It's
attributed
to
you
all
what
happens
here
in
terms
of
an
appeal
process.
You
know,
there's
no
way
to
say
wait
a
minute.
We
don't
think
it's
wrong.
E
So
again,
we
just
think
maybe
some
guardrails
will
help
us
understand
how
to
do
it.
I
don't
recognize
health
departments,
but
I
had
a
conversation
with
them.
They've
hired
a
lot
of
people
because
of
covet
that
population
they've
hired
needs
to
be
addressed
because
they
were
coping
anyway.
Those
are
my
concerns,
so
it's
the
staffing,
it's
the
appeal
process
and
how
is
that
number
determined?
What
is
the
denominator
for
us
to
hit
60
and
80
any
questions.
A
I
think
we're
going
to
hold
questions
to
the
end,
if
that's
okay,
just
so,
we
can
get
everybody
up
there.
Thank
you,
steve
for
your
succinct
testimony
next
we'd
like
to
call
dr
caboni
from
western
kentucky
university's
president
and
any
of
your
guests,
sir.
I
would
ask
that
you
would
announce
yourselves
and
I
don't
see
dr
capone
okay,
so
he's.
F
F
Sure
thanks
mr
chair
aaron
thompson,
president
of
the
kentucky
council
on
post-secondary
education.
I
have
with
me
our
vice
president,
general
counsel,
travis
powell,
who's
here.
To
answer
any
questions
I
also
have
in
the
back
of
me,
representing
chief
financial
officers,
chief
business
officers
and
so
on.
I
won't
spend
a
lot
of
time
with
my
original
introduction
just
to
say
that
house
bill
a
was
in
fact
so
needed
in
so
many
ways
for
our
regional
institutions,
whose
own
krs
and
kctcs
that
level
dollar
approach
is
truly
the
right
way
to
think
about
it.
F
However,
over
the
last
many
years,
you
know
what
we've
done
in
order
to
be
lean
and
mean
because
we
had
so
many
cuts
in
higher
education.
We
had
to
figure
out
a
business
model
that
gave
us
efficiency
and
effectiveness.
A
lot
of
outsourcing
was
done.
The
main
concern
we
have
here
really
is
trying
to
figure
out
exactly
what
what
that
means
in
house
bill
8.
As
far
as
what
we're
supposed
to
do
from
this
point
forward,
I
I'll
let
the
rest
of
my
introduction
go
and
I'll.
D
We
can
very
good
well,
first
of
all,
chairman
du
plessis
and
chairman
hayden,
thanks
so
much
for
inviting
the
universities
to
speak
today,
I
apologize
for
not
being
able
to
be
there
in
person.
We
are
cutting
the
ribbon
on
our
first
year
village
this
afternoon
on
campus,
so
I
had
to
remain
here
in
bowling
green.
D
We
also
understand
that
the
decisions
made
to
make
the
pension
system
more
sound
were
difficult,
but
cpe
has
challenged
each
of
the
universities
to
become
more
nimble
and
make
financial
decisions
that
best
utilize
taxpayer
dollars
and
one
of
the
ways
universities
have
done.
This
is
through
external
partnerships
for
services
that
are
not
essential
to
our
core
business,
so,
for
example,
at
wku
we
have
contracted
on
dining
services,
our
bookstore
maintenance
and
ground
services
and
health
services.
D
D
Many
of
the
contracted
services
have
been
performed
by
a
third
party
vendor
for
a
significant
number
of
years,
and
while
I
understand
the
legislation
encouraging
us
to
bring
those
services
back
in
house
with
the
threat
of
losing
our
kers
subsidy
would
not
be
in
the
best
interest
of
our
institutions
and
would
create
a
significant
financial
burden.
It's
also
important
to
mention
that
universities
have
employees
in
kers
ktrs
and
our
optional
retirement
plans.
D
Our
kers
populations
are
smaller
because
most
employees
providing
core
business
services
are
ktrs
or
optional
retirement
plan
employees.
Now
at
wku,
I
want
to
be
clear.
We
have
1
710
employees
that
participate
in
various
retirement
programs.
1710
of
those
339
are
in
kers,
non-hazardous
619
are
in
ktrs
and
729
are
in
our
optional
retirement
plans
requiring
universities
to
grow.
The
kers
employee
base
in
two
years
will
be
a
really
difficult
to
ask
for
us
to
meet
an
accrued
liability
on
any
position
now
provided
by
a
third-party
contract.
Prior
to
june.
D
D
We
think
it
is
imperative
to
have
an
open
dialogue
as
kpba
considers
implementation,
but
we
need
to
know
what
guideposts
are
going
to
use
to
make
their
decisions
pursuant
to
section
7..
So
we
respectfully
request
that
contracts
for
services
performed
by
third-party
partners
entered
into
prior
to
the
passage
of
house
bill
8
be
permanently
held,
harmless
from
the
calculations
in
section
7
of
the
statute.
D
In
addition,
the
definition
of
regular
full-time
employees
should
not
include
those
positions
not
eligible
for
kers
participation,
which
is
not
clear
in
the
current
language.
So
I
appreciate:
are
you
having
us
here
the
universities
to
share
our
perspectives?
Aaron
thompson
and
travis
powell?
Are
there
in
person
to
answer
any
additional
questions
on
behalf
of
those
participating
in
the
pension?
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
F
Mr
chair
I'll,
let
travis
powell
finish
this
conversation
up
and
then
happy
to
take
any
questions
when
the
time
is
right,
but
I
will
just
say
I'm
concerned
that
that
creating
a
situation
whereby
we
have
to
go
back
and
really
hire
some
of
these
folks
back
that
we
seriously
don't
need
at
a
much
larger
rate,
creates
the
bigger
opportunity
that
we
can't
focus
on
what
we've
asked.
The
campus
is
to
focus
on
and
that's
student
success.
F
That's
making
sure
that
we
provide
the
needed
workforce
for
the
state,
and
I
will
tell
you
over
the
last
many
years,
every
single
one
of
our
campuses
have
taken
such
dollars
and
put
it
toward
last
dollar
in
need,
based
promise
scholarships
and
we've
gotten
the
success
that
you've
asked
for
and
if
you
look
at
just
the
latest
data
came
out.
Kentucky's
now
number
seven
in
the
top
tier
of
doing
this
kind
of
completion.
So
I
would,
I
would
ask
us
to
think
seriously
about
the
ramifications
of
going
there.
Travis.
B
Just
I
don't
have
a
lot
to
add
other
on.
In
addition
to
what
dr
thompson,
dr
cabone
said,
I
just
just
want
to
reiterate
the
importance
of
making
sure
that,
when
looking
at
this
percentage
that
we're
only
including
those
employees
that
are
potential
that
could
be
in
kers,
essentially
the
distinction
on
our
campuses.
If
a
position
requires
a
bachelor's
degree,
then
it
is
a
ktrs
position.
And
then,
if
it's
a
ktrs
position,
they
have
the
option
to
join
ktrs
or
do
the
optional
retirement
plan.
B
And,
as
you
can
see,
the
large
majority
of
employees
on
our
campuses
are
in
that
category.
And
so,
when
looking
at
the
percentages,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you're
not
including
those
employees
in
the
denominator,
because
they're
not
we're
not
ever
eligible
to
be
krs
employees
and
again,
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
our
campuses
are
able
to
make
these
decisions
based
on
business
decisions
on
on
their
campus.
B
A
Significantly
but
happy
to
answer,
you
did
well,
and
this
won't
be
the
end
of
the
talk.
But
this
is
we
want
to
get
you
you
and
kppa
on
the
record
for
what
you
need
and
what
you're
looking
for
and
what
they're
trying
to
do,
because
what
we're,
what
we
we
don't
see
you
as
pitted
against
each
other.
But
what
we
see
is
is
that
there's
some
vagueness
in
the
in
the
in
the
law
that
needs
to
be
corrected
to
help
us
give
those
guide
posts.
G
A
As
dr
caboni
was
talking,
I
I
did
have
a
couple
questions
pop
up
and
I,
since
you
finished
early,
I'm
going
to
take
the
chairman's
right
just
to
ask
a
couple
questions
then
david
eager
we'll
have
you
up
here
in
a
second,
dr
caboni
is
a
I'm
very
sens
in
dr
thompson
as
well.
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
what
your
argument
is.
Is
that
folks
that
are
that
are
key
to
to
education
are
the
ones
that
should
be
getting
either
ktrs
or
kers
those
who
are
contracted
out
for
non-essential
purposes?
A
A
I
in
my
other
life
I
too
have
done
a
lot
of
work
with
sodexo
providing
services
to
the
university,
so
I
know
that
some
of
the
sodexo
folks
will
actually
wear-
or
at
least
in
the
past
I
haven't
been
down
in
a
while,
would
wear
university
uniforms
that
were
provided
by
the
university
and
and
maybe
that's
not
a
problem,
but
it
does
cause
some
confusion
and
then
you
have
supervision,
direct
supervision,
that's
fairly
low
down
down
pretty
far
down
the
food
chain
that
are
interacting
with
those
contracted
folks.
A
D
Appreciate
the
question
and-
and
I
think
it's
it's
the
right
question
to
ask-
and
my
response
to
that
is
that
did
we
make
decisions
for
cost-saving
purposes
for
the
university?
Absolutely
that's
what
we've
been
charged
to
do
and
the
question
for
us
is
having
folks
as
university
employees
doing.
That
work
is
that
the
most
efficient
use
of
scarce
taxpayer
dollars
and
student
tuition
dollars.
D
My
answer
to
that
is
absolutely
not
do
we
have
them
wear
wku
branded
logos
on
their.
Yes,
we
do
because
we
want
every
student
to
know
that,
no
matter
the
employment
relationship
with
the
university,
the
service
is
designed
to
support
them
in
their
experience,
whether
it's
core
or
tangential
to
our
core
mission.
D
But
I
will
say
that
if
we've
had
to
bring
because
we
do
have
a
renegotiation
coming
up,
if,
if
we
have
to
renegotiate
at
any
time,
we
renegotiate
bring
folks
into
the
system
that
will
cost
the
university
millions
of
dollars
that
we
were
charged
to
reduce
in
expenditure,
and
my
fear
is
that
an
additional
multiple
millions
of
dollars
in
costs
to
the
institution
will
be
borne
by
not
the
institution
but
by
families
and
our
students.
And
it's
really,
I
think,
not
in
the
best
interest
of
the
institution,
our
operations,
to
do
that.
B
I
I
would
agree
with
everything
dr
caboni
said
microphone.
I'm
sorry,
I
would
agree
with
everything
dr
cavone
said
and
that-
and
I
would
just
reiterate-
I
mean-
there's
really
no
reason
at
this
point
with
the
level
dollar
approach
that's
in
place
to
to
to
avoid
the
retirement
system.
For
any
reason,
right
now
I
mean
now
they're
just
going
to
pay
the
normal
cost.
So
if
a
business
decision
was
made
to
bring
somebody
back
in
I
mean
that
would
be
just
made
on
the
business
piece.
B
There
would
be
no
consideration
essentially
for
the
retirement
piece,
because,
that's
already
you
know
the
unfunded
liability
portion
that
was
such
a
large
percentage
before
when
they
were
paying
per
employee,
is
taken
care
of
by
this
by
house
bill
8..
So
really
it's
it's
all.
It's
all
going
to
be
based
on
the
business
decision
at
this
point
moving
forward.
Obviously,
unless
you
know
not
considering
this
the
current,
you
know
a
subsidy
piece
and
making
sure
that
that
you
know
if
that
piece
is
taken
care
of.
A
Fair
enough,
all
right,
I
think
you
did
an
excellent
job
if
you
don't
have
anything
else,
I'll
ask
you
to
hang
around
in
case
some
other
questions.
Come
though,
thank.
A
G
Mr
chairman,
I'm
david
eagle,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
kentucky
public
pensions
authority
and
I
have
two
of
my
our
employees
participating
in
this
presentation
and
with
your
permission,
I've
asked
a
third
person:
aaron
sarat
who's,
our
executive
director
office
of
benefits,
because
it's
hard
to
tell
where
these
questions
are
going
to
go
michael,
you
want
to
introduce.
G
Okay,
I
I
brought
along
a
one-page
document.
I've
heard
recently
called
the
key
messages
to
legislators.
Six
key
messages,
one
of
them
says
legislative
changes-
may
take
considerable
time
and
I
think
it's
easy
to
say
you
know,
let's
have
60
at
one
point
and
80
another
point
but
the,
but
you
can
see
the
complexity
of
the
kinds
of
things
that
come
out
of
that
in
terms
of
implementation
and
regulation.
G
Page
updates
on
yep,
so
there
are
a
100
agencies,
employers
that
are
affected
by
the
sixty
percent.
Eighty
percent
I'll
just
use
that
term,
and
there
are
let
me
get
my
notes.
G
Do
you
see
60
health
departments,
24
and
non
p1s,
10,
regional,
mental
health
and
six
universities?
That's
a
total
of
a
hundred
there.
There
are
exceptions
for
agency
employers
not
being
included
there's
a
list
of
some
below
that
are
not
being
included,
but
that
that's
the
universe
we're
talking
about.
G
So
krs
krs,
not
as
employers
they're
there
to
provide
information
to
kppa
we're
going
to
talk
about
what
that
information
is
in
the
timeline
and
so
forth,
on
all
independent
contractors
and
or
at
least
employees
not
directly
employed
by
kers,
non-hazardous
they're,
also
to
provide
information
on
any
persons
employed
directly.
Who
will
meet
the
definition
of
a
regular
full-time
employee
who
are
not
being
reported
to
the
system?
G
I
don't
know
that
we
have
an
idea
how
big
a
problem
that
is,
but
it's
a
problem
whether
there
are
employers
who
do
not
report
the
exceptions,
original
contracts
entered
into
prior
to
january
1
2021
for
services
provided
by
an
independent
contractor,
leased,
employer
or
other
employment
arrangements
other
than
direct
employment,
and
the
second
exception
would
be
contracts
for
professional
services
that
have
not
historically
been
provided
by
employees
of
the
ke
kers
non-haz
employer.
G
So
here's
the
definition,
regular
full-time
employee,
it's
essentially
the
starting
point
is
the
amount
of
hours
per
month
worked.
It's
100
hours
in
excess
of
100
hours
is
considered
a
full-time
employee.
There
are
exceptions
below
seasonal
positions,
not
to
exceed
nine
months
emergency
positions
not
to
exceed
30
days,
temporary
positions
not
to
exceed
nine
months
part-time
positions
again
that
don't
exceed
100
hours
and
interim
positions
that
are
established
on
a
one-time
basis
and
also
don't
exceed
nine
months.
I
I'm
going
to
talk
to
you
about
the
timeline
a
little
bit,
so
we
emailed
all
our
employers
on
monday
of
this
week,
the
21st,
it's
pretty
short
email
that
says
in
big,
bold
letters.
There's
a
reporting
requirement
you
need
to
know
about.
We
sent
that
to
the
reporting
official,
who
is
their
primary
contact
at
agencies
and
to
the
head
of
those
agencies.
I
It
links
them
to
the
website
where
all
the
information
is
also
held
on
the
website.
I
believe
181
people
received
that
email
on
monday,
so
that
was
monday,
the
21st
february.
They
have
eight
weeks
then
including
this
week
to
fill
out
a
form
6756,
we'll
look
at
that
form
here
in
the
next
couple
of
slides.
This
form
allows
them
kind
of
talks
them
through
the
process
of
reporting
to
us
who
are
contract
employers.
I
Nothing
prevents
them
from
having
multiple
entries,
but
it
it
will
be
easier
if
to
keep
everything
straight
if
they
will
have
one
entry
on
the
15th
or
before
the
15th
and
1
entry
before
the
30th
and
then
august.
29Th
is
statutory
60
days
after
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year,
which
is
june
30
for
us
to
provide
this
information
both
to
lrc
and
to
the
office
of
the
state
budget.
Director.
I
I
I
Providing
information
about
independent
contractors
and
leased
employees
and
the
the
last
page
is
just
certification
that
you
know
things
like
they.
They
believe
these
to
be
all
the
information
that's
available
to
them.
The
information
that
they're
looking
for
is
contracts.
H
So
the
excuse
me,
the
historically,
been
provided
by
an
employee
language.
That's
in
currently
included
in
section
7
of
house
bill.
8.
kppa
will
review
those
contracts
from
the
prior
fiscal
year
to
ensure
that
the
employee
is
a
term
that's
being
utilized
correctly,
we'll
review
those
we'll
do
that
annually
to
determine
if
that
ratio
is
correct
and
how
the
employer
designates
that
position
is,
is
not
going
to
be
binding.
A
I'm
going
to
jump
in
because
this
this
first
bullet
really
hits
on
one
of
the
bullets
that
the
chmc's
brought
into
account,
define
for
this
committee,
how
you
see
historically
been
provided
what
that
means.
What
that
date
is
is
that
is
that,
when
house
bill
8
was
passed,
is
that
when
1953
or
whenever
it
was
when
k
ers
was
created?
How
are
you
interpreting
historically
been
provided?
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
H
No
problem
as
it
currently
stands,
our
current
interpretation.
What
we
plan
to
include
is
that
we
would
determine
that
by
if
the
professional
services
have
ever
been
provided
by
a
direct
employee
of
the
employer,
then
they
would
not
meet
that
definition
that
then
those
those
have
historically
been
provided.
A
So,
for
instance,
when
dr
caboni
talks
about
they've
contracted
out
their
their
lawn
lawn
maintenance.
Now
that's
all
contractor!
Well
those
used
to
be
university
employees
in
the
70s
and
80s
and
90s
yes
and
you're
going
to
say
those
folks
need
to
be
brought
back
in
it's
how
you're
interpreting
this
law.
H
So
the
next
slide
just
lays
out
a
brief
listing
of
these
common
law
factors
that
the
irs
utilizes
for
determining
whether
someone
is
an
independent
contractor
or
an
employee.
A
That
wrap
it
up.
Okay,.
I
A
I
I
3C
says
a
percentage
computed
by
dividing
the
number
of
employees
reported
in
paragraph
a
that's
the
number
reported
during
the
prior
fiscal
year,
so
we're
looking
for
subsidies
for
fiscal
23.
So
it's
fiscal
22
reported
employees,
the
ones
that
you're
reporting
to
us
on
april
15th
and
again
on
june
30th
and
on
your
normal
reports
during
the
year.
I
So
we
will
take
all
of
them
who
have
been
reported
that
year
they
don't
have
to
be
active
as
of
june
30.,
it's
all
of
the
ones
during
that
and
and
combine
that
number
of
employees
and
persons
reported
in
paragraphs
a
and
b
they
contract,
or
at
least
and
divide
them.
So
that's
total
employees
and
contract
employees.
So.
A
I
A
A
Those
will
all
add
together
to
create
that
denominator,
so
I'll,
just
throw
out
an
example
that
I
think
needs
to
be
corrected
in
your
favor
mountain
comp
care.
Well,
I
don't
know
if
mr
shannon
represents
them
or
not,
but
they
have
1388
employees
in
a
side,
business
called
mountain
plus
which
provides
employees
to
do
their
core
business.
As
I
understand
it,
they
created
that
because,
because
honestly,
pensions
got
totally
out
of
control
there
for
a
while,
so
they
there's
a
way
for
them
to
manage
their
costs.
A
A
A
A
We
have
about
five
minutes
and
I
have
one
person
who'd
like
to
ask
a
question
or
speak
and
that's
senator
mcdaniel
and
then
and
then
I'm
gonna
have
steve,
shannon
and
dr
thompson
and
or
caboni
come
back
up
and
answer
anything
from
what
they've
heard
and
because
we
want
to
get
this
right
before
sessions
over
yeah.
G
Mr
chairman,
yes,
I
didn't
know
whether
staff
had
any
other
responses
to
mr
shannon's.
C
There
was
a
question
that
came
up
about
the
employees
of
university,
specifically
because
they
report
to
kers
and
teachers
and
to
have
their
optional,
whether
all
of
those
employees
and
all
three
of
the
plans
would
be
considered
we're
only
considering
those
employees
that
would
be
reported
to
kers,
not
the
total
and
all
those
plans.
Okay,
thank.
J
Mcdaniel,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
have
a
statement
so
guys
a
lot
of
you
heard
from
me
last
year
that
I
was
looking
forward
to
to
this
year
coming
up,
because
finally,
we
were
gonna
quit
when
I
talked
to
steve,
shannon
we're
gonna
talk,
mental
health
policy.
When
I
talk
to
universities,
we're
gonna
talk
university
policy,
because
all
we've
done
since
I've
been
here
is
allow
the
financial
tale
to
wag
the
dog,
but
yet
we're
back
here
again.
J
Let
me
start
with
this
very
simple
admonishment.
If
you
guys-
and
you
guys
don't
get
on
the
same
page
and
if
you
want
a
legislative
fix.
If,
because
the
chairman's
right
we
want
to
get
this
right,
but
you
bring
us
something
adversarial,
and
the
first
thing
I'm
going
to
do
is
push
for
elimination
of
all
subsidies
that
are
going
to
these
organizations.
I
wasn't
for
it.
In
the
first
place,
the
chairs
worked
very
diligently
to
have
it
included
in
there.
J
This
committee
worked,
you
guys
got
a
bill
vetoed
one
time
by
the
governor.
You
came
in
with
a
solution.
Then
you
didn't
like
the
solution.
You
came
back
for
another
solution.
I
I'm
not
going
to
be
for
things
that
reduce
accountability
or
increase
burden
on
the
general
fund.
We've
been
down
this
road
for
too
long
it's
time
for
the
quasi-pension
issue
to
be
solved.
J
Chairman
duplicy,
representative
tipton,
lots
of
chairman
representative
miller,
have
worked
diligently
on
this
and
I'm
not
going
to
be
for
dodging
basic
accountability.
I'm
not
going
to
be
for
more
third
parties.
I
mean
goodness
gracious.
How
hard
is
it
overseeing?
You
know
what
we've
got
now:
we've
got
to
look
out
as
a
general
assembly
for
the
whole
state,
not
just
quasi
employers.
You
guys
are
critical.
You
have
critical
functions.
J
We
want
to
help
you
with
those
critical
functions
but
bring
us
another
mass,
and
I
just
I
I
caution
you
you're
opening
a
can
of
worms
here.
The
general
fund
has
absorbed
as
much
as
many
of
the
questionable
employees,
as
I
think
is
reasonable.
There
might
be
a
couple
ones
and
twos
out
there
still
as
we
work
our
way
through
this
process,
but
it's
time
to
move
past
this,
and
if
we
get
brought
some
mess,
you're
going
to
reopen
everything-
and
I
don't
think
any
of
us
want
to
go
there.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
If,
if
you
look
at
industry
and
I'm
going
to
use
toyota
because
toyota
is
a
one
of
the
star
industries
in
our
state,
ford
can
make
the
same
thing
and
several
others
down
lots
of,
but
I'm
very
familiar
with
toyota
toyota
contracts.
The
company
that
I
work
with
out
to
do
environmental
concerns
they
hire
out
somebody
else
to
do
their
their
paint
mixing
and
all
this
they
hired
other
groups
out
to
do
water,
treatment
and
other
things.
A
But
when
it
comes
to
making
camrys
it's
all
a
toyota
employees
but
grounds
maintenance
and
things
that
are
ancillary
to
the
making
cars
they've
contracted
that
out,
because
they
figured
out
we're
really
good
at
making
cars
and
that
guy's
really
good
at
treating
water
and
that
guy's
really
good
at
cutting
grass
and
this
guy's
really
good
at
maintaining
parking
lots.
Or
what
have
you?
A
I'm?
Okay,
personally
with
this
with
universities
and
even
chmc's,
not
having
folks
who
aren't
core
to
their
business
in
there?
But
when
we
see
things
like
mountain
comp
care
that
has
1388
employees
in
a
side
side
venture,
that's
supporting
that
supporting
what
they're
doing
is
their
widget
they're
they're,
they're,
doing
mental
health
and
when
their
core
business
is
being
supported
by
these
employees
but
they're
not
in
the
system.
I
think
that's
who
senator
mcdaniel
and
I
totally
agree
with,
should
be
part
of
the
system
they
were
before.
A
They
should
be
now
now
as
markets
change
as
business
models
change.
I
think
somebody
one
of
the
somebody
said
it
makes
sense.
We
need
to
have
some
flexibility
and
I
do
think
that
house
bill
8
because
of
its
level
dollar
based
on
historical,
already
takes
care
of
some
of
this
stuff.
The
universities
have
a
set
pay
they're
going
to
pay
regardless
of
who's
in
their
system,
but
what
we
don't
want
to
do
is
have
this
happen
again.
So
I
I
I've
spoken
with.
Is
it
john
michael,
michael?
A
I'm
sorry,
michael
okay,
he
told
me
earlier
today
we
will
have
you
regulations
in
two
weeks,
and
I
appreciate
that
because
we
need
those
regulations
because,
as
senator
mcdonough
said,
you
either
give
us
regulations.
We
can
live
with
or
we're
going
to
give
you
regulations,
we
can
live
with,
and
that
might
not
be
something
you
like.
So
it's
best,
if
you
guys
all
get
together
and
figure
this
out.
So
dr
caboni,
do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add
after
you've
heard
kppa.
D
Yeah
I'll
be
very
brief,
mr
chair,
first
of
all,
I
think
that,
obviously
we
all
want
to
get
to
a
stable
pension
system.
It's
what
we've
agreed
to
do
as
institutions.
We
think
we're
meeting
our
obligation
to
pay
for
the
folks
who
are
in
that
system
and
to
to
pay
for
our
portion
of
the
liability,
but
the
the
idea
that
going
back
to
when
we
joined
kers,
which
is
what
I
heard
earlier
in
the
testimony
that
any
employee
that
would
have
done
any
of
that
work
when
wku
joined
the
pension
system.
D
Until
now,
that
seems
to
me
to
put
us
in
tension
with
the
pension
oversight
board,
and
so
I
think
that
what
you
have
here
is
public
policy
that
is
creating
a
tension
between
what
I
have
to
do,
what
I've
been
hired
to
do,
which
is
to
take
care
of
students
and
do
the
work
there
versus
trying
to
get
additional
folks
into
the
pension
system
to
shore
it
up.
I
think
the
other
challenge
that
we
have-
and
this
is
something
that
we
all
are
focused
on-
is
transparency.
D
The
pension
system
is
a
black
box
to
university
presidents
and
I
would
like
for
us
to
be
able
to
open
up
that
block,
that
black
box
see
the
decision
making
process
understand
why
it
is
an
employee
is
or
isn't
considered
an
employee
and
not
just
have
to
take
whatever
comes
back
to
us
from
kppa,
and
I
appreciate
the
challenge
that
mr
edgar's
has
it's
different
challenge
than
mine,
and
so
I
I
would
look
to
the
legislature
to
help
us
assist
us
and
come
to
a
good
conclusion,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
my
job
is
about
one
thing:
educating
more
students
for
the
welfare
of
the
commonwealth
and
it's
not
about
cutting
grass
and
anything
that
I
can
do
to
outsource
or
make
business
decisions
that
are
in
the
interest
of
our
institution
is
what
I've
been
charged
with
doing.
D
And
so
I
do
think
we
have
attention
there
and
I
certainly
appreciate
senator
mcdaniel
and
I
agree.
The
last
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about
this
year
was
pension,
and
I
would
like
for
us
to
get
this
all
cleared
up
and
we're
willing
to
work
with
anyone.