►
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
If
we
can
get
yeah,
thank
you
so
we're
kind
of
hung
up
on
this.
We
we've
receded.
We,
the
the
house
com,
the
house
conference
committee,
has
receded
on
our
e
and
now
we
are
on
the
senate's
e
trying
to
understand
the
implications
of
leaving
it
in
while
retaining
the
house's
original
language
and
what
we
would
need
to
do
with
the
senate's
e
to
conform,
it
basically
to
conform
it
to
the
house
language,
and
so
I
asked
director
obrecht
to
come
and
I
think
we
had
it
kind
of
backwards.
B
B
So
I
think
what
the
purpose
of
the
new
subsection
e
the
senate,
subsection
e,
is
to
say
that
a
public
entity
can
apply
for
a
federal
grant
or
reimbursement
reimbursement
which
has
as
one
of
its
qualifications
that
employees
receive
covet
19
vaccines
if
the
provisions
of
subsection
b
are
not
in
a
force
at
that
are
not
enforceable
at
that
time.
So
I
think
the
way
city
e
would
read.
C
Well,
ultimately,
this
is
going
to
come
down
to
a
hospital
board
trying
to
decide
whether
they
can
submit
for
medicare
and
medicaid
reimbursement.
So
I
whatever's
going
to
be
the
clearest
simplest
to
understand
is
is
is
what
we
need
to
have
or
we're
going
to
close
hospitals.
So
so,
if,
if,
if
we
can
lose
subsection
c
or
d
and
make
it
clear,
let's
do
that,
so
they
can
apply
for
medicare
reimbursement
while
subsection
b
is
not
enforceable.
In
other
words,
we've
got
all
this
litigation
going
on
trying
to
wait
to
see
it
resolved.
D
A
So
I'm
a
mr
chairman,
I'm
I'm
I'm
tracking
on
the
same
line
as
senator
ellis.
So
I
think
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is.
We
want
to
encourage
them
to
keep
going
through
applying
for
the
federal
dollars,
making
sure
that
they're
can
do
the
the
compliance.
So
under
that
scenario,
why
don't
we
just
put
a
period
after
vaccine
mandate?
B
C
A
The
period
up
to
take
care
of
that
issue
to
where
so
what
we
want
to
do
getting
back
in
to
get
the
director
obrecht's
concerns
here
is,
is
we
could
back
that
period
up
to
reimbursement
and
put
a
period?
Nothing
in
this
section
shall
prohibit
the
public
entity
from
applying
for
a
federal
grant
or
federal
reimbursement.
E
E
B
C
Senator
kinski
so
a
question,
mr
oberg,
so
so,
let's
look
at
the
span
of
a
year
within
that
year,
there's
constant
application
for
reimbursement
and
then
an
application
for
a
a
grant
to
build
a
new
wing
or
something
and
you
have
to
submit
the
grant.
They
want
you
to
register
the
compliance.
If
you
get
the
grant,
you
got
to
register
your
compliance,
then
there's
the
potential
that
all
through
that
maybe
a
stay
is
on.
Maybe
this
day
is
off.
Maybe
this
day
is
on.
Maybe
this
day
is
off.
B
C
C
A
So,
mr
chairman,
I'm
still
of
the
disposition
that
what
we
want
to
do
is
allow
these
people
to
continue
to
apply
and
continue
to
seek
reimbursement,
correct,
whether
there's
a
stay
in
place
or
not.
Now
we're
not
talking
about
the
compliance
issue
here,
whether
they're
compliant
with
the
federal
law
or
the
state
law.
We
want
that
flow
of
exchange
going
back
and
forth.
A
A
A
I
want
that
free
exchange
of
applications
and
funds
flowing
back
and
forth,
regardless
of
where
we're
at
within
our
parameters,
are
their
parameters,
there's
other
things
that
will
govern
that
that
they
will
have
to
look
at.
Is
there
a
way
to
craft
that?
Well,
we
can
do
that
so
or
do
we
obviate
the
very
effective,
b,
c
and
d,
so
director
obrecht,
if
we
go
to
you,
know
romanette
3
in
the
definitions
and
we
look
at
what
the
house
did.
B
B
You've
got
a
subsection
b
that
says
no
publicity
shall
require
that
so
you've
got
the
tension
between
the
two.
This
was
trying.
My
understanding
is
the
subsection
he
was
trying
to
give
public
hospitals
an
option
to
still
apply
for
that,
while
the
state
requirement
was
not
in
force
for
effect,
and
I
think
what
senator
kinski
points
out
is
an
issue.
B
C
B
So,
mr
chairman,
senator,
and
what
you're
stating
is,
is
the
on
the
top
of
page
seven
lines.
Three
three
six
correct
if
you
re-insert
in
the
definition
of
public
entity
except
the
public
entity,
does
not
include
an
entity
receiving
federal
funding
that,
by
complying
with
subsection
b
of
this
section,
would
lose
that
federal
funding
yeah
that
that's
that
would
be
cleaner,
but
but
essentially
what
you
would
do
just
so
everyone's
clear
is
hospitals.
Public
hospitals
in
the
state
would
require
vaccine
mandates.