# Council Work Session - October 5, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · October 5, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1646 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1646?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-10-05 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 19,113 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council held a meeting on October 5, 2010, to address matters related to the government's outstanding bond obligations. The session featured one agenda item — an informational discussion on the total outstanding bonds — indicating the meeting was primarily focused on financial review rather than legislative action. A total of 2 votes were taken during the course of the meeting. No public comments were heard during this session. ## Votes and Decisions Two roll call votes were taken during the October 5, 2010 Council meeting. - **Motion to terminate legal bills and withdraw subpoenas** [timestamp: 1:52:27]: Councilmember McCord moved, and Councilmember Henson seconded, a motion to terminate all legal bills effective immediately, withdraw the subpoenas, and ask both sides to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes to 2 nays, with no abstentions. A breakdown of individual votes by member was not recorded in the available data. - **Motion to refer State Auditor recommendations to committee** [timestamp: 2:11:16]: Councilmember Gordon moved to refer all non-procurement recommendations from the State Auditor to the Intergovernmental Committee. The motion passed unanimously, 13 ayes to 0 nays, with no abstentions. No second was recorded for this motion. Individual member votes were not recorded in the available data. ## Contested Items - **Legal Expenses and Subpoena Power:** The council engaged in a heated discussion regarding ongoing legal expenses tied to a lawsuit concerning subpoena power. Members held differing opinions on whether the council should continue funding the legal battle. The extracted data does not specify which individual council members took opposing positions, nor does it record a definitive outcome from the debate. ## Discussion on total outstanding bonds [timestamp: 06:36] The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) Council took up Agenda Item 11, an informational discussion on the government's total outstanding bonds. The discussion covered the full scope of LFUCG's bond obligations, including both general obligation bonds and sewer bonds, as well as the debt service associated with those outstanding obligations. This item was presented for the Council's awareness and review rather than for any vote or formal action. No specific key speakers are identified in the record for this portion of the meeting. The discussion was informational in nature, providing Council members with an overview of the government's current debt picture across its two primary bond categories: - **General obligation bonds**, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the government - **Sewer bonds**, which are tied to the government's sewer system revenues and obligations The associated **debt service** — the schedule of payments required to meet principal and interest obligations on these bonds — was also addressed as part of the presentation. No specific concerns, amendments, or follow-up actions are noted in the record from this discussion. The item concluded as an informational briefing, intended to keep Council members current on the government's overall debt position. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-2): Terminate all legal bills effective immediately, withdraw the subpoenas, and ask both sides to dismiss the lawsuit. - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Refer all non-procurement recommendations from the State Auditor to the Intergovernmental Committee. --- ## Full transcript ♪ ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak у ҇squeak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak Ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ғsqueak ҇squeak ғsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Әsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Әsqueak əsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Әsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Әsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Әsqueak Әsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Ґsqueak Әsqueak Әstreak Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscreem Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream Әscream From 1193 to 1434 through the month of August new business licenses were slight up slightly to 366 issued in the month of August. Home sales were down slightly to 539 from 585 in the month of July and then unfortunately foreclosures were up significantly to 94 through the month of August um as compared to 51 in the month of July. Revenue numbers again we concentrate on our big four but before I do that just want to give some other economic data out there in the market the S&P 500 for this past month of September gained 8.9 percent which was the largest single month September since 1939 so our economy may or may not be out of recession that's still up to debate but September 2010 was surely a good month on the S&P 500 in the stock market and actually it was the fourth best month in the last 20 years in the stock market so maybe there's some positive things out there but unfortunately also through the first nine months of this year 127 federally insured banks failed in the United States at a cost of 20 billion dollars through FDIC insurance so that's maybe a sign that we're still in the recession and on a positive ending good note oil demand is dropped in half from 216 billion dollars of oil for the first seven months this year to a hundred and forty nine billion barrels of oil so we're using less oil maybe that's because we're becoming greener and on an election note in 2006 midterm elections only 37.1 percent of the population who are registered to vote voted so maybe we'll have more this 2010. Back to our financial numbers again focusing on the big four this is the month of August as compared to actual budget employee withholdings were up 2.4 percent net profit was up 57.3 percent insurance was down 5 percent and franchise fees were down 7.9 percent for a total of 1.7 percent for the month of August alone but keep in mind those numbers do include amnesty so if we take the tax to amnesty program and the revenue we generate from that program out we're actually down 0.99 percent for the month of August and I'll go back over the big four if we take amnesty out employee withholdings were at 1.5 percent up the net profit was down 24.77 percent without taxed amnesty insurance was down 4.96 percent and franchise fees were also down 7.91 percent again for the month of August without amnesty we were still down 0.99 percent year to date through August let's go ahead and take amnesty out so we can have a fair number of where we're at as compared to budget employee withholdings year to date was we're up 3.42 percent net profit was down 40.29 percent insurance was up 19.02 percent and franchise fees were down 7.71 percent year to date though we are actually up 2.64 percent for the first two months in this fiscal year the second item on our agenda was the discussion on total outstanding bonds we have here at LFU CG both general obligation bonds as well as our sewer bonds which are revenue bonds total general obligation outstanding debt is 373 million three hundred fifty five thousand dollars of that 22% are outstanding bonds for the police and fire pension fund of the 373 million dollars 22% are directly related to the pension funds that we talked about earlier in another meeting the debt service on that money each year in our budget is 33 approximately 33 million dollars and that's just for the general obligation debt the sewer bonds we have a standing of sixty four million five hundred sixty five thousand the yearly premium payment that we pay on those are approximately six point five million dollars a year that we pay on sixty four million dollars of sewer bonds FYI 2011 keep in mind we approved ten million seven hundred ninety two thousand dollars worth of bonds and FYI 2011 budget those are general fund bonds the urban service fund bonds were seven point nine million dollars and I passed out a sheet to all the committee or all the council that we had at the committee as well but there did include some follow-up information if we all look at the chart these are a list of all 2011 current budget year bonds that we approved in the budget a couple questions were asked by council members which relate to the motion I'm getting ready to present to the council one council asked what total amount of the bonds that we approved in the budget were already under contract or we've already solicited bids on so we can move forward and spend the money if you look down there there's approximately at the very bottom five point four five million dollars worth of funds of that that we've already had under contract and it breaks it down as to three point one million for solid waste trucks and two million dollars for PDR 250,000 in body armor for division of police and a hundred thousand for fire clothing for the firefighters and if you look at the very last column we also asked what the total was that's for public safety and you can see at the bottom two point three four million dollars was directly attributed to public safety in the budget of these bonds so without further ado I have a couple motions to bring this the full council from the committee first of all we have a refunding opportunity and I know Ryan barrel was here if we need more details but we can actually save I want let's see where's my notes several thou about sixty three thousand dollars I think it was over the next ten years on a refunding issue of two bonds so a motion was made by councilmember Ellinger second by vice mayor gray before the refunding series 2001 B and series 2002 C estimated present value savings to the full council for to the full council so moved have a motion and second any discussion all in favor say aye those no motion carries the second motion which was made by councilman Gordon and second my counselor beer was to bring the FY 2011 bonds which we have under contract those funds already committed under contract go ahead and issue those bonds so moved have a motion the councilmember Senate second by councilmember Henson any discussion councilmember Gordon yes councilmember Stinnett thank you for bringing that forward I think that does reflect the motion that I made in the summary it's not really clear that that motion was made to bring forward those bonds for approval so I think the motion in the summary needs some modification to reflect the true motion to bring the contracted items forward for approval I think a motion would be appropriate to correct the summary and restate it as the way I restated here before the full council and that's to bring forward to FY 2011 bonds and go ahead and bond those projects which you already have contracts on yes but we'll let the record reflect that yes thank you any discussion on the motion by councilmember Senate councilmember Martin thank you mayor so to clarify that we are voting on a total of five million four hundred fifty thousand dollars in bonds that's correct and if would you consider friendly amendment just include that in your motion so there's some clarity on them on the motion that that is them out that were that we're bonding thank you mayor any further discussion all in favor of councilmember stance motion please indicate by saying aye those no motion carries thank you mayor and then also just kind of an update on a couple other items and we can if there's any other questions on the bonds be happy to discuss those we'll have our next debt management subcommittee meeting on October 21st at 4 o'clock in the fifth floor conference room this is this is the first step we actually are hopefully our final meeting but also approving a debt management policy which brings us to another meeting we need to have because based on that motion there are still several bonds in FY 2011 as well as 0809 and 010 that have not been bonded about 55 million dollars worth that we have not bonded so we need to have another bond workshop and we'll try to do that November the 9th I'm sorry November the 11th on a Thursday before council meeting again at 4 o'clock so we need to get the debt management policy squared away first with the subcommittee brought back to the full council prior to that because obviously that's going to have an impact on what we talked about on November the 11th there in the bond workshop so those are a couple means they'll be happening I'll get more information out to the full council and those of you on the budget and Finance Committee as to the agendas for those meetings that's my final the debt management subcommittee will meet October 21st 2010 in the fifth floor conference room at 4 o'clock any further questions for councilmember that's my mark thank you mayor just on the summary from the from your committee meeting on page 21 of our handout it said that mr. Barrow showed a graft of existing geo debt services we could amend that to gr a pH and I hope that we're not having a graft at our meetings and the the second item is on page 22 sort of middle of pages is a renegation property renegotiation of the of the existing contracts Thank You mayor and then I think Commissioner Rumpke wants to talk about what we just passed on our motion for the 5.4 5 million if you'll kind of add some clarity to that it's just one quick note of clarification if you're looking at that summary sheet the items under contract if you look in that column it says yes or no there are two items that we are including in that 5.4 5 million that are required under our collective bargaining agreement so even though we have not contracted with the provider of this equipment we do have a contractual obligation and chair I just wanted to make sure that everyone was clear on that as with respect to what we're bringing forward thank you and that's CBS collective bargaining yes councilmember Wayne Thank You mayor on page 20 of the budget and Finance Committee report it said Lane said the airport corporations undergone refunding and they now have a fixed rate loans but we have a fixed rate and variable rate combination at this time I just want to clarify that for the record thank you there's nothing further for council members tenant turn the floor over to councilmember blues for the Water Resources Oversight Committee report Thank You Mary Water Resources Oversight Committee met on September 21st and the minutes is yet on unapproved by the committee have been distributed to council members along with various handouts at the at the meeting division water quality director Charlie Martin reviewed a proposed step-by-step procedure and timeline for the process of appraising purchasing and demolishing residential properties located in floodplains you'll see that on handout number 48 following a discussion which included recommendations that the contact person in charge of each step be included in the schedule and that notification be sent to the council member representing the district in which a property is designated for demolition committee members unanimously approved the typical home purchase and demolition schedule and when we have that that final copy will distribute it to all council members I reported to the committee on progress toward forming a workgroup to review and to re-establish the stormwater priority project list which is a consent item consent decree item councilmember Stinnett will chair that group and it's thus far composed of three council members who are on the water resources committee and three citizens regarding the water quality management fee we have so far it's reported collected through August 1 million two hundred thousand five hundred two thousand five hundred and thirty two two dollars and the division of water quality after the meeting sent committee members the following report in response to councilmember Stinnett's request for total expenditures to date and here are the numbers on that slightly rounded off the budget for the fee for FY 11 is twelve million eight hundred and fifty one thousand six hundred and ten dollars expenses July 1 through September 15 a six hundred and twenty three thousand three hundred and eighty dollars encumbrances 1 million six hundred and eighty one nine hundred and seventy one dollars pre encumbrances sixty seven thousand six hundred and eighty and available budget ten thousand ten million four seventy eight five hundred and seventy nine dollars director Martin reviewed capital project highlights for August see handout 52 on that he reported that the South Alcorn pump station and the and South Alcorn force main are now are now pumping in operation these are consented decree projects that are being completed in advance of the deadline as you know the consent decree has not been and finalized not been not been finally approved but we are operating on the premise that it that it will be and following the timelines that you know that have been set up so we are in that regard ahead of the game finally director Martin reported that the building lease group will soon be making a final recommendation on a site for division of water qualities administrative offices and I think we'll be able to report out on that next month thank you mayor any questions for councilmember blues councilmember Martin thank you mayor is Charlie Martin here because I had a question about the South Alcorn because it that was I guess some cigarettes they got caught in the in one of the release vows that that correct mr. blues and councilman I'm sorry the South Alcorn pump station you'd indicated that that was operating yes is that what in reference to the recent accident that happened there or is that reference just the fact the project replacement of the pump has been that we the replacement project itself I think Commissioner Bush can comment on this the South Alcorn pump station is is pumping what you're referring to is an air release valve that failed on the force main associated with that pump station which has been repaired is that gonna be a common occurrence or because I tell you I was just shocked by that because we've just put this new new 18 million dollar pump in and to have a couple cigarette butts shut it down it was well we don't know exactly material got in and blocked the valve and the valve failed and I think it was given as an example things like cigarette butts and and stuff that are in the waste stream can get in those valves and block them and hold them open but this valve actually failed do it so it so that it structurally failed so we had to replace the valve that's no just that the release valve itself is all that was do we have any sort of schedule for maintaining those to make sure that they don't get clogged or yes yes we do have an O&M schedule for all of our I just I got a number of calls about and I and I was very concerned about it as well because obviously what one of the reasons we spent the 18 million dollars to prevent under the EPA consent to prevent dumping raw sewage in the South Elkhorn and so I guess I'm trying to get some assurances that this is not going to happen very often or again as I recall there's about a hundred air release valves in the system there about and this was just a system failure of this one mechanical device which can occur from time to time but I wouldn't say it's common how long till we find out after its occurrence or one of these hundred release valves how long does it take to know that it has stopped working how long did it take to know it stopped working or just generally because if these stations aren't manned as I understand and so and it wasn't the pump station itself it was the line that ran from the pump station where the air release valve is because when you have waste in a pipe gases accumulate and so these release valves allow that to vent out of the pipe this is why those have to be there but it had to be fairly close to the station if it came in the if it dumped in the South Elkhorn is that right well it was coming from the station right however by dogwood trace it was down by the pump state and I asked the same question and then the folks at division of water quality told me that you know sometimes our people find them and and we monitor the pressures in the pump stations but a good number of them are reported by citizens when we have an overflow I guess I look forward to maybe some continuing conversations but I'm sorry to usurp councilman blues report but I this was something that I was concerned about and I apologize I thought that this is what you're referring to Thank You Commissioner Thank You mayor any further questions for councilmember blues all right we'll move along to council reports councilmember Senate Thank You mayor just have one item which I passed out to all the council members earlier it's a request for a multiway stop at handover forest and Brighton Place Drive this has been through traffic engineering has been approved by traffic engineering so I make a motion to place this on the docket for October 14th council meeting I'm at the way stop at Andover and right in place drive so I have a motion to councilmember Senate second the councilmember Crosby to add that resolution to the docket for our next council meeting any discussion all in favor please say aye those no motion carries Thank You mayor councilmember blues I just have one announcement mayor and that's the Highlands Neighborhood Association will meet at 7 p.m. on on Thursday October the 7th and at the at the Highlands Park Neighborhood Center and look forward to to seeing the neighborhood that evening Thank You thanks councilmember Beard Thank You mayor I would move approval of the NDF list for this week I have a motion by councilmember Beard and a second to councilmember Myers to prove the NDF all in favor please say aye aye those no motion carries Thank You mayor councilmember Henson Thank You mayor I just wanted to remind that there is a Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association meeting tonight at 7 on Oxford Circle at the Harvest Worship Center Thank You councilmember McCord Thank You mayor first I want to say thanks to all the folks who are making the last week one of the most spectacular weeks in Lexington's history and and moving into this week that last week of the World Question Games again I cannot thank the folks who work for LF UCG and all the volunteers and what a phenomenal event and I think Lexington has put his best foot forward and and so many folks have have complimented our city and love what they see and and compliments to all those who are making that reality this weekend at the closing ceremony or during the closing ceremonies on 10-10-10 we also have Second Sunday which is in this year in 115 out of 120 counties in Kentucky unlike anything that happens anywhere in America and Second Sunday will be going on downtown here on 10-10-10 and want to invite everyone to come out and bring their family and enjoy all the spotlight Lexington and this opportunity for physical activity and exercise shifting gears a little bit I was very pleased yesterday to see that the state auditors report has finally come back from I guess mid-april this council and and so many other folks have been I guess engrossed is maybe the right word in allegations of fraud and wrongdoing and who has done what and after two outside audits an internal audit special investigative committee of the council and now in an exhaustive audit done by the state auditor I want the citizens to know that there is no fraud that there was no misleading misrepresentation that that they can rest assured that every eye has been dotted and T has been crossed and looked at and that to continue on down that path with regard to insurance procurement is is at this point irrelevant and a moot point but as a member of that committee I've got a problem and for those that have read the report I would point you to page 52 and 53 and for citizens I would have you go online and look at page 52 and 53 the last paragraphs of each page I'm going to read you the paragraph that I have a problem with this is from the auditor and says on May 6 2010 a council member met with executive staff of the auditors office and provided copies of the FY 2008-2009 fraud risk assessment questionnaires this council member requested the meeting to discuss a list of issues that related to LFUCG these issues included KLC insurance risk management and that the director position in risk management was being eliminated after this office the auditors office determined on June 3rd 2010 to perform an examination of insurance procurement issues the council member was asked the source of the fraud risk assessment questionnaires the council member also served on the council special investigative committee and they stated that they didn't realize that these documents were the documents that were being requested by the special investigative committee and must not have realized the significance of the documents council member could no longer locate the copies of the documents and did not know the source of the documents I served on that committee I am NOT that council member but I would we've heard a whole lot a whole lot since April from folks in this body about integrity transparency we found those words around a lot and I think for the public for the folks that have served in this committee in this committee I just want to ask my council colleagues that served on that committee that this is in reference to go ahead and just identify yourself go ahead and identify who it was that met with the audit I think the public needs to know I think those of us who served and worked diligently to find these things out I was the council member that went to see the state auditor I did so because I had several concerns and I didn't know where to turn I contacted her in late April met with them on an early May I had a day that day received an envelope nobody knew I had an appointment that day it wasn't even on my calendar a manila envelope that had some documents in it and was a sticky note as I recall now it said risk management or something like that I went to the state auditor and asked for guidance and advice and help because I trusted their integrity and I didn't know as it happens on the way to that meeting I fell on our sidewalk construction and cracked my rib so when I got there I was a tad distressed I handed them several documents on several different matters I had a outline of what I wanted to talk to him about I hadn't even really I opened the envelope and just saw papers in there I handed it to them they looked at it while I was going over it they made a copy of those documents put it back in the envelope I stuck it back in my too large one of my too large bags of documents that I took with me because of my injury I went home and put ice on my back and I when they called me after I talked to him after I got out of the hospital so late July early August and they asked me when I first saw the fraud assessment survey I said well when we got it with the investigative committee and they said well you gave it to us and I said what I didn't even know what a blank one looked like that Mount Joy on April 27th it was a day or two after that that I called crit Llewellyn to ask her if I could meet with her on several issues even when I saw it in the when the investigative committee had access to it I didn't recognize ever seeing it throw away a ton of documents get anonymous documents from employees pretty frequently as well as documents with them identified I made a choice just like the internal auditor did to take it to the state auditor's office along with other things to ask for advice I never saw it again I have looked through after they told me that I've looked through every piece of paper in my house and it is not there so it wasn't a matter of lack of transparency I did nothing wrong I've discussed this at great length with the auditors and it still didn't change anything that happened you know I could have given it to the press I could have done any number of things with it I chose to do something with it that I thought well I didn't know it what I had but with all the concerns I shared with them as well as all the other documents I took them there with the intention of doing what was best for the community and to get advice and guidance thank you councilmember record your time is expired councilmember blues council member Wallace I've got a question why would you take documents to the state auditor that you had no idea what they were well I knew I knew what the other documents were I just received that and it was in an envelope like say I glanced at it and it seemed to pertain to one of my concerns that I had raised and I took all this to the state auditor frankly because and looking at the e9-1-1 call center situation and finding out the makeup of the internal audit board I didn't trust I didn't have I didn't trust taking that information there and that was really the primary focus of my concerns and so I was trying to find out how can I get help on these issues or somebody to rectify what could or could not be going on so I thought the state auditor was a person and I still believe of honor integrity and who could give me some help and guidance well it's that explain that it does seem to me a little strange that that without reviewing the documents and knowing what you had that you would immediately take them to I didn't immediately I already had the appointment I went over there with two bags two of those Lexington grocery shopping bags two of them full of documents and that one I didn't go there for that document I just happened to receive it today I was going over there and saw what it was about and it was pertinent to the KLC issue and procurement issues and etc so I didn't go over there for that document I went over there with another concern that was really more that I've been very focused on so no I didn't make an appointment to go over there with that document well as I said does seem rather strange to me that you would take documents that you hadn't really who read or identified I threw it in at the last minute I had read the rest of the documents and saw it pertain to it so I thought it was relevant and I had made the appointment and at that time nobody knew there was any issue mount joy said we'll give you copies of that even if I had known what it was there was nothing I was not given it under any confidential confidentiality I had no idea it was a confidential document mount joy said that they would provide it to us but I didn't even realize that's what I had and yes it may sound strange but as you may know often my life is stranger than fiction so you know I'm not lying I have no reason to lie I had no reason to hide it and I didn't it wasn't until late July or early August that I even realized that I'd given it to him councilmember Wayne not now that we've gone through what we've gone through do you feel like you use good judgment the way that you handle that I mean you know your members on the council you could have provided copies of information if there was some impropriety it was brought to your attention to the council members and you know I think we would have addressed the issue the way this was handled it ends up we did have an investigative committee that we did legal expenses we also audit and it was a lot of bad publicity it was unnecessary based on the results of the audit you you feel that you held it in the appropriate way yeah I mean if I had known that I had it and what it was and the significance of it and if you'll remember it was a month later before all that became an issue I would have shared it if I had known I'd had it but by then by the time it was this big issue that was confidential I don't know I probably would have asked for their guidance and do I think it was the responsible thing to do absolutely and if you you know I have a lot of information and not just about like say this was not the only reason I went there in fact it was an afterthought because of the e911 call center situation and feeling helpless because I did not feel I could trust the internal audit board and to examine it and not have consequences for employees and to fix the problem and quite frankly we have been through all this I don't know how me having that changed anything I didn't initiate the investigative committee the mayor asked the state auditor to come in and so I don't know what I did that would have changed anything in retrospect if I had anything to do over I probably wouldn't have fallen and broken my rib and cracked my rib and I probably would have taken better care of the document but I have reams of documents and if it's if the most responsible thing to do what what do you do well you know we have 3,500 employees who work for the government and you know somebody could make allegations that are totally unfounded if every time something like that happened that you know we don't do an investigation internally and we just submit it to the state auditor you know I don't think that is a good way to do our business and I would hate for you know every year one of our council members every time somebody made an allegation that we submitted to the internal or the external well you know I mean I said I felt I still feel helpless about many of these issues and there isn't a place to take it other than you know could have given it to the newspaper well best again there's nobody here it's that I feel safe and comfortable taking it and that's is what it is and I feel it's very frustrating when you're sitting there on information and it's not my job to investigate it but whose job is it there isn't anybody that whose job it is that I felt confident and comfortable and trusting with any of the issues and I didn't go to the state auditor to initiate an investigation I went for advice and guidance about what what she would do so I think that the Attorney General's office and the state auditor's office are there for people to get advice if they don't know what to do so it was a month later before any of this came up I think my time was expired where councilmember Stenna just one loss did you share the same documents you share with the state auditor with the investigative committee the investigative committee was well underway and already had the documents when I found out that that's what I had given them it was late July early August and they already had that document but I didn't have it to give them because I'll tell you right now I touched every piece of paper in my house and trust me that's a lot of paper and I do not have it I assume that often I'll grab up a bunch of papers that have gotten mixed up with each other and shred them or throw them away and assume that I threw it away well but you also said there were other documents not just a fraud questionnaires oh they were related to other issues and they were not shared with the investigative committee well no they weren't because they weren't pertinent to the investigative committee well if they were about the KLC and procurement I think it was and I think now it was about a 9-1-1 there were concerned I really think that probably this you don't want to go there but if you want I can did you have with the committee everything that I had ever had the investigative committee got including the fraud questionnaires yes everything I had the investigative or anything I had seen investigative committee had and when you took that information to the state auditor what advice did they give you they said they would look into it and get back to me and they never did thank you councilmember McCord on on page 52 of the audit report it also mentions that on April 13th Patrick Johnson contacted a council member to report that his position was being eliminated due to retaliation of his submission of the fraud risk assessment questionnaires another council member was also contacted by the director of risk management about his concerns related to insurance procurement and whether the council was getting correct information is not known whether the FRA questionnaires were discussed council member Lawless were you one of those council members he contacted I talked to mr. Johnston one time as he said in the investigative committee interviews April mid to late April somewhere April after the budget came out so shortly after that I do not recall him he did say his job was being eliminated I'd never met him before I'd never spoken to him I didn't even know who he was he said his job was being eliminated there were things that he felt council members should be aware of he did mention the procurement but if you'll recall and it was confirmed in our interviews with Commissioner ask you over a year ago I asked from this horseshoe to Commissioner Logan I'm sorry Commissioner ask you why there was no bid process for KLC were they given this and he spoke to that I wasn't particularly satisfied with his answer but that was his answer and he confirmed that in the interviews and we also spoke another time so none of that was news to me it was something I was already concerned about that nature was not put out for bid and was automatic and we've already gone through all that and again nothing was found by five different groups the question you know what question I've got is is that we've got a council member that goes to the auditor with with documents now that we don't know doesn't know how we got them we know that that this came to light on really May 25th when councilmember Crosby started talking about how the internal audit board knew and the internal audit auditor knew that there have been some sort of fraud and so forth and so all this gets kicked up we hear that there's two council members that Patrick Johnson's connected or has contacted and so forth and it's it's I mean who gives you the documents that you don't know about and all that kind of stuff we can infer all day long but this government has spent an exhaustive amount of money and time and we have run a lot of people down the road falsely and we spent $50,000 in legal bills alone on two lawyers the auditor bill is going to come in there's all kinds of other bills associated with this and at the end of the day we had every opportunity councilmember Lawless in every meeting that councilmember Myers conducted to go into closed session and you could have told us hey look I had these documents I didn't know these were the ones or whatever but all throughout this process the one thing that kept coming up was no one everybody in the in that committee kept saying that no one had seen those documents nobody had seen them nobody knew what they were the administration we haven't seen them we don't have we spend half our time didn't we councilmember Myers trying to figure out we could even get the documents and so we spent taxpayer money on that and I have real concern about pages 52 and 53 and one of the things that came out in the special investigative committee was that there was no fraud found but there was certainly opportunity to look at at ethics issues and I think this is an ethics issue that needs to be looked at because I really see a lot of problems with how this was handled and how it was how it was done I have a real problem with there were two council members contacted it all these types of things but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt now after five investigations if you will into this matter there is no fraud it doesn't matter what was said or done or whatever and how people felt and all the recommendations that are going to be suggested that we improve on super that's great that is not why we formed all this and and I've got real problems with how we have been so reckless in talking about that word fraud and who's associated with it and how this has been handled and when this came to light yesterday I got to tell you I got real problems and I got real problems with the ethics of this and so we need to take a long hard look at this over the next coming days and weeks may I respond councilmember Wallace thank you man put you on the council report now I did not share that document with a single other soul I did not know I had it I can't help that and as far as you know nothing would have changed I don't know what I would have done with it I don't know what I should have done with it but that was not the impetus for the investigative committee nor was it the impetus for the state auditor it was the mayor who asked the state auditor to come in and the fact that somebody gave me that and I shared it with the state auditor has nothing to do with the outcome and certainly I take exception to the fact that the state auditor found nothing wrong with anything so I would advise that people read some of those things as far as ethics you know if you want to report me to the Ethics Commission that's fine you know I take exception to the fact that council members and administration had meetings after our investigative committee meetings in this building and with the attorneys etc and so we can go there too but I have not and I have not brought up any of those things so at the end of the day I did what I thought was right I stand by that and had I known I had it I don't really know what I should have done with it other than shred once I figured that it was over a month before the any of this became a big hoorah and I it was not at my instigation you does any other member of the council wish to make a report councilmember Ellinger Thank You mayor Logan could you come up here and on Thursday's meeting I raised the motion and withdrew it about the expenses and about withdrawals subpoena and you were going to go back to both of the councils and speak with them and see if we get something resolved I did I had a conference call with Roger Crittenden and Terry Sellers Thursday afternoon as you all asked me to do we had a good conversation mr. Sellers renewed his proposal mr. Crittenden and mr. Sellers both indicated in their conversation that they saw problems on both sides one was mr. Crittenden didn't think that he wanted to give up or his client wanted to give up the right to challenge the mootness of the suit that is to say that the subpoena issue should not be addressed because the Special Investigative Committee was no longer and therefore it was a moot issue on the other hand mr. Sellers did not and this was subject to his cause I mean we have actually have two legal questions then instead of one that is correct the deck and I've reviewed the pleadings the declaratory judgment action challenges the validity of a subpoena they well actually the authority of the council or the committee to issue a subpoena there was a response file to that but there was also a motion for judgment on the grounds of mootness after the Special Investigative Committee had no longer been active and so that is pending before the court as well as mr. Sellers motion for judgment on the issue of whether there's the authority to issue the subpoena so on one side of the fence you have the issue about not wanting to withdraw the right to ask the court to declare moot and then on mr. Sellers side mr. Crittenden had suggested that they just agreed to go ahead and let the circuit judge's ruling be final mr. Sellers did not believe that that was going to be acceptable so I asked the two of them to continue to talk about it they did mr. Crittenden sent me an email on Friday and indicated they were unwilling to resolve that I assume they had talked to their clients and they were unwilling to resolve it so that's where we are I will tell you that I have not received another bill from mr. Sellers but I did receive a bill that mr. Meyer signed off on yesterday for another 10,000 for mr. mr. Crittenden so that's for the month of September and so the council knows because I mentioned this the last time currently the law department's professional services budget after that is paid and after another outstanding bill to our TIF consultant of the 50,000 we started off this fiscal year we will be down to thirty three hundred and eighty two dollars well I thought it was up to 61,000 at this point no I'm saying what's in our budget that we it was 50,000 your budget wasn't it yes and we've already spent if there's an additional ten I thought we were at up to 51 at this point so you had 25 in your budget okay the council's already spent 25 it's 25 so last month's bill came to the law department today and now the September bills come to the law department today but we have not received mr. Sellers had received a September bill at this point so I don't know what that might be only bill as I indicated last time was he had sent a bill through the end of June for $5,900 which was paid and I have asked internal audit board to pay mr. Sellers bills out of the internal audit budget where's the 50,000 will be to pay for the auditor because I think that's where they may well they won't be in the law Mr. Ellinger I'll tell you because we don't have the money and I don't know what the auditors bills gonna be I think it was reported 50,000 in the paper but that that there's no basis for that okay so we don't know no basis for their report or that no basis for the amount that was reported okay thank you I see my times going out I'll probably come back and listen to some comment and I might make a motion thank you mayor councilmember court commissioner ask you I just had one question to ask you to clarify to tell me again what was it that you mentioned that it was the question came up as to whether let the circuit court make the decision and it be final can you explain that again what it was and do you know why mr. Sellers did not agree to that I want to be sure I understand what that was about well first of all when I talked to these two gentlemen on Thursday I don't think either had talked to their client okay so I think that was first of all let me state that but mr. Sellers renewed the proposal that he made to this body last week and that is if if mr. Crittenden would withdraw the motion to kick the case out on mootness and allow the case to go forward so the subpoena issue could be decided he would agree not to charge any more money and do the remainder of the case on his nickel if mr. Crittenden would offer to do the same so that was what I took to the two gentlemen on Thursday afternoon it was at that time that mr. Crittenden said well I might be willing to do that if you would agree that there whatever the circuit judge decided would be final there would be no appeal by your side and that's where mr. Sellers said I'm not able to do that and then I subsequently got an email from mr. Sellers saying of course I would have to make sure that that was what my client wanted me to do so I'm assuming both parties talked to their client I encouraged them to talk some more to see if there was another way to resolve it given what the council said last week and then I got the note from mr. Crittenden saying they had and they were not able to get it resolved so it was the issue of whether the subpoena power was real that that was proposed to be allowed to be decided by the circuit court judge and be final and are you still did you say you're still waiting to hear from mr. Sellers he's already talked to his client and I'm assuming mr. Sellers and mr. Crittenden is here but I know that he and mr. Sellers talked some more and when I got the email from mr. Crittenden I assumed he had he and mr. Sellers had talked some more and they weren't able to get it done okay did I answer your question well I'm not exactly sure if you fully answered it but I mean it seemed that seems to me something very logical to let the judge decide if both sides could agree they would accept that as a final decision and that would solve the subpoena question at least as far as it would go it would you're correct so can can you confirm just for me that mr. Sellers has turned that down I will try to make a call right now I'd be very interested to know I mean that's a very common sense may be able to tell mr. Crittenden says there's a little more to it so okay I he has talked to mr. Sellers since I have so again my conversation with them was Thursday afternoon in a conference call the two of them at one time okay I tell you what let me get the rest and now I'll come back to you okay thank you very much councilmember Crosby my question for what was for mr. ask you commissioner ask you if you could come back for just a minute here and I was just wondering I find it a little interesting that sellers has not submitted a bill since the end of June and obviously there's been a lot of things going on in the court all summer have you requested that he update his bill so that we get a idea of where he's I know mr. Sully has requested that and I don't know whether you remember mr. Sellers said something about that last week so I don't know where that is right now okay it just seems odd that we're not getting a monthly bill thank you councilmember Senate Thank You Mary I had a question for judge Crittenden about the the offer about the circuit court is that correct you said there was more to it you're again I just want the council members understand who the clients are we keep saying they got to talk there one is it one is ourself in this case or you know no I don't want to throw council members out there by himself but it's the council because we we voted majority voted to hire judge credit to represent council as a second is employee of LF you CG and if we you know this body has the power to one cease all ties with both attorneys and instruct the clients to enter into a judgment let the circuit court and we can do that and I just want I'm trying to see good reason why we don't do that no offense to you but this is getting way out of hand that the cost of taxpayers is beyond approachable to even understand at this point over $100,000 and we can't even have a Halloween go little goblins it for $4,000 but yet we're spending a hundred thousand on I won't go there but anyway what was your offer to the counter to mr. Sellers our offer to mr. Sellers with mr. Myers mission excuse me was that we would let the circuit court decide the entire case on all the motions that have been submitted our motion to dismiss which you may recall I told this body in August that we thought we had a good grounds to get the case dismissed our motion dismiss and his motion for summary judgment the whole matter we did not offer to give up any I did not offer give up any of George Myers valid legal arguments I cannot do that it's a fraud upon the court my own impression may not be in Fayette County it wasn't Frank okay everything virtually has been done except the final hearing on October the 20th we filed for mr. Myers I filed his response to mr. Sellers motion for summary judgment yesterday I didn't get my mail before I left today so I presume mr. Sellers filed his response to my motion to dismiss yesterday the next hearing date is October the 20th 9 o'clock we have we have we have an opportunity to file replies that probably will not happen courts don't generally read them anyway that's on the 14th but the next the next year the only thing left in front of in front of the Fayette circuit the only thing left is the hearing on October the 20th as far as I know with exception maybe of a reply that mr. Sellers might file all the documents all the research everything has been provided to the court okay thank you thank you councilmember beard thank you mayor I guess mr. ask you that now that this has been to some level resolved why could the law department not defend our charter as opposed to outside counsel as relates to the subpoena situation and without a subpoena our investigative committee is has no teeth to it whatsoever and I guess my question would be why in this case now forget about the parties involved and you being involved and whomever being involved and that's all laid to rest why could the law department not defend the charter itself that the legislature accepted and passed well first of all at the time that issue came up the law department was not advising the Special Investigative Committee Special Investigative Committee had hired its own counsel at that time I also was the subject of a subpoena right and I appeared and I expressed to the council that I did not think that you had the right to issue subpoenas so you know the the decor the declaratory judgment action that has been filed talks about subpoena power generally which would include the one that was issued on me so I would be trying to raise an argument when I'm one of the people that have been subpoenaed so I think that along with the other issues that had been raised would be sufficient for us to have a conflict still conflicted well you mean are we conflicted right now yes it's right now that I would want I would want the law department to defend our charter yeah well I'm not sure that the conflict is resolved itself but that's an interesting question did you look into that yes sir thank you my opinion won't change though about your ability to subpoena I still believe that I still believe that only the state legislature can grant the right to subpoena well let me ask you a question about that because if in fact they enabled our charter and our charter had that embedded in it did they not enable us to have subpoena power it's mentioned specifically in the charter it isn't something that we dreamed up it was something that is mentioned right specifically in the charter and they had an opportunity to look at that and they thought that made sense well actually councilmember Beards you made that comment last week and I don't believe that comment last week, and I don't believe that's accurate. I don't believe the General Assembly passed on our charter. As a matter of fact, some courts have struck down, you know, there have been challenges to the charter in court, but it's not a, the General Assembly under 67A, there's a discussion about how an urban county government can be formed, but it's up to the community to put together what they call the comprehensive plan, and that's what was done here through the Commission, as I understand, that put the plan together and then it was submitted to the voters for a vote, but the General Assembly did not have to approve it, and I don't believe they did. Okay, can we check into that too? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Mark. Thank you, Mayor. As I understand that there are two issues pending, one is of mootness and the second is the validity of the subpoena power. Forgetting the subpoena power for a second, just the the issue of mootness could actually be tied up for years on appeal, regarding of who wins or who loses, and these appeals can take, you know, four or five years easily once you go through the Court of Appeals and the Kentucky Supreme Court. The issue of the validity of the subpoena power obviously is important to the Audit Board, but also to this Council, and that is a fairly substantial issue in which we have an existing case from another jurisdiction. Now, there's at least a possibility that we would lose that appeal and that we would, in which case, we would have no subpoena power and the subpoena power that's written in our charter would be basically deemed illegal or unenforceable, and so we at least have some jeopardy by pursuing this in addition to this very substantial amount of money. I would guess this would be, you know, over the number of years it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing this, and if we lose, obviously we would lose both the money, but also we would lose our subpoena power. If we win, obviously we win, but if we do nothing, we still have the subpoena power and it won't have been challenged, and we can still pull it out and use it when we need it. The thing is, here the Investigative Committee has adjourned. It no longer wants to enforce this subpoena, and to pursue it is to pursue an issue that is not current. I mean, yeah, it'd be nice to know, but we don't really currently need it right now, and we might have to go enforce that at a future time, but given at least the possibility you have to grant that we would lose, I think it basically wakes the sleeping bear needlessly. If we call it a day, then I think that we keep our subpoena power, we can use it again in the future, and until it's challenged and until we lose, we can still have it, but I think you have to admit there's at least a possibility that we're going to lose on appeal and that we will have spent a substantial amount of money through years of litigation pursuing it, and we may lose on mootness because the committee is dissolved, and in which case we would spend a lot of money for basically finding out that the issue can't be solved at this point. So I think we have some, I think it's a very questionable pursuit use of taxpayer money given the our financial circumstances right now. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Martin, something you just said leads me to the question of whether we have subpoena power if someone can refuse to honor the subpoena, which is the situation that came up. Can I answer that? Sure. I mean, I'm not sure we have subpoena power since someone can refuse to honor it. You have it, but you have to want to enforce it, and the investigative committee never desired to enforce it, and so if it had wanted to use it, it should have enforced it, and because it chose not to enforce it, we're sort of producing, it's an academic question at this point. The investigative committee is over, and yeah, we could solve this academic question, but we're going to actually be in jeopardy by doing that, and yeah, it's important to find out at some future time down the road, but since it's an academic question right now, since we're not, we don't need to enforce it, it's all sort of over, do we really need to spend this taxpayer money, and do we really need to roll the dice on our subpoena power, because it's there, and the next time we may want to enforce it, and we may win at that point, but it's certainly still in our charter. Well, and I think the hard, one of the difficulties for me is how important it is to have that appeal power, which would cost money to go forward. What I thought I heard is that October 20th, we possibly could have a decision by the judge here without further expenditure of money. Is that, well, the council could, you know, we don't have a contract with Terry Sellers. I asked Commissioner Logan, asked you to confirm that, so the council doesn't have to authorize money to carry us forward to October 20th, so really what I'm struggling with is, is it important to hear that October 20th decision by the judge, because we don't have to have an agreement by both attorneys not to do that. We can just say, that's what we're going to do. I think we can. Can we not? Since we don't have a contract with Mr. Sellers, we do not have a written contract. I thought that's what you, it's an approved list, but it's not a written contract with him on this case, correct? That is correct. He is on the approved list. He responded to the RFP, and so he's proceeding under those terms that are in that, under the approved list. I'm not aware of any contract with Mr. Crittenden either. Yes. I haven't seen it if there is one, but having said that, the answer to your question is, is yes, and that's what Council Member Ellinger asked me last week. Would you all be able to bring this to a halt now, or after October 20th, by going ahead and cutting off any further public funds to either side? And the answer is, I believe you could. And I think it was Council Member Martin or Council Member Ellinger asked the question, what about withdrawing the subpoena? Because if the subpoena is not there, then you're not even arguing an issue. Well, it's my understanding what the problem is here is that the subpoena never got withdrawn. That the committee indicated that it didn't want to enforce the subpoena, but the subpoena was never withdrawn. Mayor, clarification. Well, as soon as Council, as Commissioner Askew finishes. Okay. And we kind of had this discussion last week, but that was going to be part of, I think that was part of Council Member Ellinger's motion, withdraw the subpoena and stop public funds from either side. And then Council Member Lawless raised the issue, well, what happens if one of the attorneys decides to go forward pro bono? Well, I think the best we can do there would be to say, okay, we're asking the Internal Audit Board, since the subpoena is withdrawn, since there's not any money to go forward, that that suit be dropped. Well, my question is really, if everything's been filed, and we're waiting for an October 20th date and decision, can this not go forward without expenditure of funds by attorneys? I mean, that's kind of, maybe I misunderstood. Well, it sounds like we're ready to be there. Well, according to the scheduling order, and I don't have it, I've got it back there, but I believe what Mr. Crittenden said is accurate. Both sides were to make a filing yesterday, and then both sides have the opportunity to file a reply to what each filed yesterday. And I believe October 14, yes, and then the hearing is on October 20th. So whether there will be another filing, Mr. Crittenden suggests not on him, but we don't know about Mr. Sellers. Okay. Council Member Myers had a point he wanted to raise, and then I want to address an issue. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Askew said there wasn't a contract with Judge Crittenden, and that's false. The contract we have with Judge Crittenden is when this council voted by resolution and passed a resolution to hire him to defend the lawsuit. That's the contract. It's Mr. Sellers that doesn't have a contract, and you were asked by Council Member Gordon, when was the date of the meeting that the board hired Mr. Sellers? He chose to answer a different question rather than answer that question, and again, I say the board never voted to hire him. So when you say he's on the approved list, I guess, are you saying that any attorney on the approved list can go out and start working for us without any kind of direction? The resolution, as I recall, had no terms. It was to defend the lawsuit. I understand, but there weren't any terms, Mr. Myers. I mean, it didn't say how much per hour. That's why it was before I paid the bills out of the law department. I wanted the councilman's center to ask you a question. You said you didn't know what the hourly rate was, and so I wanted to be clear that before we paid it that we knew what the terms of engagement were. There was actually two attorneys working on it at different rates and so on, but having said that, as I explained before, that when we have a conflict situation as we did here, then we will engage an attorney off of the approved list, and that's what happened here. And under the ordinance, the council ordinance dealing with internal audit, LFUCG is responsible for providing staff support for that function, and routinely, traditionally, the law department has provided legal advice to that board when necessary. And so in this particular situation, when there was a conflict and we weren't able to proceed with that. Councilman Gordon, there's a couple of things that need to be clarified. One is there are some reply briefs that may need to be found, may not, but that's a possibility. Number two, the judge may or may not rule on that particular date that he has the hearing. It's entirely conceivable a judge could say, I need you to brief this particular point of law that wasn't addressed in the briefs he already has. And then once that decision is ultimately reached, you're into the appeal business as well. So those are some things that could happen such that there wouldn't be a decision on whatever date the hearing date is, the 20th, I think it is. There may not be a resolution at that point. Thank you. All right, Councilmember Martin. I think that was an old login, but since I'm here, I might just respond. Councilmember Gordon and I were talking. One of the things about going to the 20th and letting the court rule on it is we're going to either win or lose. We got the appeal power now. If we lose in Fayette Court, we're going to be bound by that and we will have permanently lost our appeal power. And so because it's an academic question, it doesn't seem to me prudent to put our subpoena power in jeopardy when we don't really need to. Because it's possible that the court might say that we don't have it, in which case we will have lost it. And you know, because it's an academic question at this point, we have it now. It's in our charter. We can use it. It's a very serious power to have. And until someone takes it away from us, we still have it. And so I'm sort of tempted just both to save taxpayer money, but also to avoid putting this in jeopardy by having a court decide. Because when it goes to a court, they're going to decide one way or the other. We're going to have it or not. Or it could be decided on a mootness and can be sort of some procedural things. But because we don't really need to be in jeopardy on this at this time, there's nothing that's being obstructed. And we don't need it at this moment. My feeling is to not press the issue, save it for another day, keep it on the books. And we can use it when we need it next time. And it'll be there. And whoever would respond to it down the road in the future would have to take it very seriously. Because it is on the books, it's in our charter. And I think it's still a very formidable power to have. And if we need to, we can, you know, go to court another day and if it needs to be enforced, but I think it's still a very formidable thing to have on our books. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Again, I agree with Councilmember Martin's assessment and where we are right now. And again, I think that sometimes we can we can really go all in and, you know, want to make sure that we're right. And this is this is what we're going to do and so forth. And maybe not look at a bigger picture of some of the circumstances. So with that said, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that after October 20, that all legal bills on both sides stop so moved. I have a motion and by Councilmember McCord and a second by Councilmember Henson that the council approve a resolution at its next council meeting that would terminate all expenditures of funds relative to that litigation after October 20. Any discussion on that particular motion? Mayor, I'd like to discuss it. Let's I'll try to keep track of people's interest in speaking to this motion manually. So Councilmember Ellinger, then Councilmember Lawless. I'm close to where you are in that, but I have to agree with Councilmember Martin. At this point, I don't think we need to wait to the 20th because if the 20th comes back in a negative for us, then I think we have an obligation to appeal. At this point, we don't have to go any further with this because we have the subpoena power. We stop them. We stop right now. We we withdraw the subpoena power and we make the motion. And I think that's where I was heading. And that's I'll let other people speak. But that's where I'm I'm going to be making the motion down the road. And I would support that motion. Oh, OK. What I'm hearing, then, is a friendly amendment to terminate the expenditure of funds. Let me just start that motion again and just say that we terminate it. But why don't you just withdraw and then I will withdraw the motion and replace it with that we just stop spending right now. And withdraw the subpoena. And withdraw the subpoena. And the motion is when we say withdraw the subpoena and stop paying any legal any further legal fees. So move. And let's see, as of today, second was Councilmember Henson. Are you satisfied with that? OK, the question on the floor now is the motion Councilmember McCord just put forward Councilmember Wallace. I think if we do that. We're in the same bind we would have been before when this was brought up that if Mr. Sellers continues the suit or continues the case. Mr. Myers, Councilmember Myers doesn't have an attorney. I'm wondering if and I'm not a lawyer, but I'm wondering if maybe Judge Crittenden could answer this. Mr. Sellers' client apparently, for whatever reason, however he got there, is the attorney for the Internal Audit Board and Mr. Saleh. And it seems that it would be critical and important and the only way it could be done is for them to drop the suit. Now if they are his client, they have the authority to instruct him to drop the suit. Judge Crittenden, good. Can you come up to the mic? At the present time, I am counsel of record for George Myers in the Fayette Circuit Court. I do not have an alternative of not appearing on October 20th. I would have to request leave the court to withdraw. The plaintiffs, and there's enough lawyers up here can correct me, but I believe the plaintiffs would also have to make a motion to dismiss, which would have to be granted by the court. So we would not object to that. But that would have to be granted by the court also. The court is in charge of this now. So if the counsel votes to disband all proceedings, you can vote to do that, except I still have to go over there because I'm an officer of the court. If the counsel votes not to pay us, that's up to you. That's fine. Most of the legal bills are in. And the mayor was right. The judge mayor may not decide the case on October the 20th. It'll get in line with everything else he needs to decide. It can be appealed. It can go to the Supreme Court and come back and still not be a final answer in the next three years. Those of you who are attorneys know that. It can go to the Court of Appeals and get an answer, and that may not be final. And I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's just kind of the situation we find ourselves in right now. But in terms of what I have to do as an officer of the court, I do have to appear in the Fayette Circuit Court on October the 20th. It's scheduled there. I'd kind of like to keep my law license. Yeah. Well, I guess my question was the only way that this really could go away is if the Internal Audit Board and Mr. Salih dropped the suit. They could make a motion to dismiss. If Judge Scorsone, after hearing all the arguments, dismisses the case, then it would then it's dismissed, but someone can appeal. If Judge Scorsone, after hearing all the arguments, does not dismiss the case and rules against George Myers in his capacity, and that's what they've asked for, George Myers is named, not the counsel. Right. I disagree a little bit with Councilmember Martin, and that's not the first time on a legal issue, but since the counsel's not named, I don't know that there would be any precedent for the counsel. This would be the law in Division 7 of the Fayette Circuit Court. If the counsel issued a subpoena and it got challenged in Division 8, they don't even have to bother to read the opinion from Division 7. You know, and it's no disrespect to the court. I've done that, and Judge Graham and I had different opinions on different things at different times, and people still brought the same litigation. So that's what can happen. I'm sorry. I don't think I'm repeating myself. I think I told this body in August that you're going to be mad at all of us by October or November. You are. I accept that. I know what happens, but I hope that answered your question. I think so, and I'm not mad. Well, sorry. Thank you. Next person I have on the list to discuss the motion by Councilmember McCord is Councilmember Gordon. Others wish to speak? Okay. My question then would be, and maybe I'll ask you this question, Mayor, would a more definitive motion be to, I mean it sounds like this is going to go forward on the part of, Mr. Brendan said he has to be in court if the lawsuit is still going forward, would the, could the motion really be to ask the Internal Audit, along with no funding, ask the Internal Audit Board to drop a lawsuit, which is what would stop it, and that would require no one to show up in court on October 20th. So the lack of funding doesn't mean it'll stop. The lack of funding doesn't affect the fact that, if I understood this correctly, that there's still a court date on October 20th. And so, am I understanding that correctly? There is a court date and the case would have to be dismissed in an orderly fashion. I can't recall whether or not in the discussions with Mr. Sellers and Mr. Critton and whether or not the issue of the withdrawal of the subpoenas was discussed. Was that, Commissioner, ask you an item that you all discussed? I think what I told them was what was discussed here at the Council meeting. I didn't ask one side or the other to withdraw a subpoena. I mean, that wasn't part of it. I don't think that came up in the discussion. And Mr. Critton says it did between he and Mr. Sellers. My sense of the issue, just kind of hearing the back and forth, has been that the withdrawal of the subpoenas is a significant new element in the discussion about how to bring this litigation to an end. My hunch is, if the Council withdrew the subpoena and terminated funding and requested both sides to dismiss the case, there'd be a very good probability that would happen. But I don't speak for the Internal Audit Board. And some of the discussion last meeting, if I recall, was whether the Council itself has the authority to actually withdraw the subpoena because it was issued by the committee. Well, fortunately, I got out of the business of practicing law not too long ago, four years ago. But I think it makes good sense, common sense, that if the committee is a creature of the Council, that is, that it owes its ability to function to the Council, then the Council as a whole has the ability to deal with whatever issues may be out there as a result of the committee's activity. Well, with that, I would make a motion then. I move to amend the motion to include that the Council ask both sides to request that the case be dismissed and that the subpoena be withdrawn. All right, now let me... Did I put that right? Well, I think that's really what I want to do. My understanding is the withdrawal of the subpoenas is already part of the motion that's pending. Okay. So I think we're in good shape on that. And so now it's a request that we terminate the legal bills and ask all parties to dismiss the litigation. Without prejudice. Without prejudice. Thank you. And that the subpoenas be withdrawn. I guess Council Member McCord, is that a satisfactory amendment to you? And Council Member Henson agrees as well. So that will be the motion that's currently on the floor for discussion. Next, I have Council Member Ellinger and Council Member Martin. Council Member Myers. Well, since I was the one brought this up, I'm going to agree with this. My fear is the meter's running. It's going to keep running. Whoever loses is going to continue to appeal. And they have no desire not to appeal because they have a contract with us that we got to pay them. So why would you stop? I mean, I don't see contract, no contract. They still are representing somebody. And I don't... I mean, they're right now, they're going to send us a bill and we're going to pay it. So if we don't stop the paying, then they're going to still send us a bill. So let me finish. I still have some other points. With the subpoena power, this is a unique situation here that deals with somebody in ours that... with an auditor. And they have some... they had issues in that that were very unique to what a normal situation would be like with different ethical standards by what an auditor has to be held accountable towards. So I think that was a unique situation. And also we've talked about and can, if we want to get an opinion, which we don't have to, but we could always ask the Attorney General to give us an opinion if we need to. It doesn't have to carry the same law as what a judge would. But as Judge Crittenden said, and I agree with him, that would be only with what that circuit would be under, that circuit is, who would have precedent over that. It would be a case out there, but then the next one would still have to be a different circuit that would be making that determination. So I think if we can stop it now, that's the best thing. We don't need to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this. We have a government that right now we are short on money and this is not what we need to be spending more money on when we're defending ourselves on a loss that we don't need to be in. And we still, if this is dismissed and it's over, we still have the subpoena power out there. It hadn't been told that we don't have. So I will, since I haven't brought this motion before, I will before this. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Martin, then Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Allengard, did anybody second your motion? Has it been seconded? Okay, I just want to... Actually, Council Member McCord made the motion and Council Member Henson seconded it. It's been amended. Okay, thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I do want to clear one thing that Logan would not say and that is that the judges said he will not appeal. It's Terry Sellers who will not give up the right to appeal. Okay, so to Council Member Allengard's point, both sides don't want to continue this thing. It's one side that wants to continue it. Mayor, can I answer that? Yes. It would be fruitless for us not to then appeal if we lose, because why would we want to get that appeal? So we have to appeal. We don't gain anything. All we do is lose. Right now we have that power. We dismiss it right now. We still have that power. If we go on, the judge determines that we don't have that power, then we do need to appeal it. And then it runs again and again. And you're right, they have no desire at this point not to appeal it if they lose. So we're brought in this that we'll have to if we lose. So I say we stop it now. Sure, and if the council would vote to appeal, that's one thing. But I wanted to be clear that I have no intentions of appealing and neither does Judge Crittenden. And then the second thing I would say is that it's been stated that the council created the committee, therefore it can remove the subpoena. I'd actually like for Judge Crittenden to come up and speak on that and on the process of coming up. I would say that also the council created the Audit Board and they could do the same likewise by telling the Audit Board to drop the lawsuit. And since that's what got us here, it seems to make more sense to drop the lawsuit rather than worry about a subpoena that's not enforceable at this point because the committee's gone anyway. Judge? We filed a motion to dismiss before the committee ever went out of existence. So we thought there was a basis for that prior to the committee going out of business while the subpoena was still in place. The petitioners have asked in their amended verified petition, what they have asked the court to do is to enter a declaration that George Myers in his official capacity as chair of the council of the committee did not have the authority to compel the subpoena the attendance of petitioners or other persons or to compel by subpoena Dukas Tecum to the petitioners or other persons to produce documents. The withdrawal of the subpoena has, in my opinion, would have no impact on what the petitioners have asked for. They have asked for the court to declare that George Myers didn't have the authority to sign it or to issue it when he did. Does that answer what you asked for? So yes, sir. So in plain English for me, that means that if the council votes to withdraw a subpoena, whether it can or can't, if it does do that, it doesn't change what's before the court. No, sir. It does not. It does not. And that's the point we're trying to make. It does not change the issue. The issue before the court now is whether when the subpoena was issued by the committee, whether the committee had the authority to do that. Now, they don't ask to declare that section 408 of the charter is invalid. They just ask to declare that you didn't have the authority to issue that subpoena. Actually, it was the committee that issued the subpoena. You signed the subpoena. And that's why I keep going back to, if you want this to go away, you need to tell the Audit Board to drop the lawsuit because that's the only thing that's going to make it go away. Because the subpoena, withdrawing the subpoena, does nothing to change what's before the court. So I hope everybody understands that. So the motion that's on the floor does nothing to change what's before the court. Okay, yeah, as long as they drop the lawsuit. But as long as you deal with the subpoena only, then that's not going to do anything. Thank you. You have filed a motion. Mr. Myers, you filed a motion to dismiss. Your motion's in there to dismiss the lawsuit. It's already there. Council Member Feigl, then Council Members Beard, Crosby, and Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I may have watched too many TV shows, law shows. But tell me why this can't be mediated before it goes to court. It could be mediated. And could not the two parties get together and come up with an agreement before this goes to court? Yes. And why are we not pursuing that? In a fashion that was, in a very informal fashion, that was the exercise we went through last week with Commissioner Askew. But perhaps a more formal kind of mediation would be productive. There is usually some expense associated with a mediator, but it would not be a great consequence. Not as expensive as going to court. Correct. That would be my inclination. All right. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to dial back a minute to Council Member Martin and Council Member Ellinger. Comments saying that in the future, if we go ahead and fold our tent now, in the future we would have subpoena power. Until such time as someone goes and looks to what happened today, and they refuse for the same reasons. And we're right back at square one. It may be five years from now, maybe ten years from now, maybe ten months from now, but it seems like we would have surrendered our teeth by surrendering now. I'd like for it to be different, but I'm afraid it's a practical matter. It's not going to work. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. I just had a question. Has anybody, it seems to me that there are very clear lines to the fact that there is a professional service agreement with Mr. Sellers, with the Department of Law, and that there's also a very direct line of command with who the Director of Internal Audit reports to. And so my question is, has anybody asked either one of them to drop the lawsuit since the committee's no longer in place? I mean, have they even been asked? My understanding is that's what the motion on the table is now. But I guess before we start, I mean we can make that motion, but before we say we're not going to fund when we have an attorney who says he has to be in court on October 20th and our own Commissioner of Law has stated that he doesn't agree with how the council has, or some of the council has, interpreted our charter, there's definitely some conflict there. So I guess the root of the whole thing is whether or not Mr. Sellers, on behalf of the Office of Internal Audit and the Internal Audit Board, will drop the lawsuit. And so it seems to me that that's the more reasonable motion to make. And then, once we have that answer, then we know where to go from from there. It's just my two cents. Council Member Ellinger. Just in response to Mr. Beard, as Judge Crittenden said, it only applies to the circuit court number seven, which is this one's in front of. So why would we go ahead and do that? And then if we do lose, then we have to appeal. We're obligated because then to make sure that we have a subpoena. At this point, we don't need to do that. We still have it. This is a very unique situation. And if you look at how narrow this issue that we're asking, we're asking if this committee representative chair has this power. This is not something that probably will be brought up in the future. So why would we even have to bring this legal question forward? We don't gain anything by it. And if we do lose, then we're in for a long haul of expenses then in time. So why would we even go through that process? Okay, the motion on the floor is by Council Member McCord to stop all legal bills effective immediately, to withdraw the subpoenas, and to ask counsel for both sides to dismiss the lawsuit. Council Member Beard. Thank you. I wish it would work that way, but I still don't understand, and please enlighten me, I still don't understand what good of having a subpoena power is if the next time a investigative committee is formed, the defense that whomever we're investigating, probably be none of us by that time, but anyway, would immediately be challenged on having subpoena power. And we go right back, you know, we go back in a full circuit or loop. Do we not? And I'm looking at you, because I can't see him. I'm looking at you, Council Member Martin. Mayor, may I respond? Sure. There are no, I wish there were, but there are no real bright-line certainties in the law. We know that there is a, I believe, a Supreme Court case that seems to suggest that we don't. And so the question is, are we going to try to confirm that this existing case applies to our situation or not? And that's probably a jeopardy I probably wouldn't want to take without, unless it was an immediate pressing need. And I understand the history of this, but it is, it is what it is, and we're going to be in the same predicament next time. But if we circle, you know, sort of fold our tents, we still have it on the books, and it won't have a direct challenge. It may not survive a direct challenge. I think that's the answer. But what good is it if you just have it on the books? I mean, it isn't like something we're going to turn to every night and say, pat ourselves on the back and say, look what we got. I think it has some weight, and it had some weight in this procedure. And I think there are a number of folks who responded to it, and I think that's its worth. Well, we had several that responded without a subpoena, and we had several that responded even though a subpoena was issued, maybe, that chose to respond anyway. And then we had some that did not choose. So it was like the full gamut of pick one or the other, which one you like at the time. I have tried to refrain from injecting myself into most of the conversations that take place during council reports, but let me make an offer here in the hopes that we can move forward. I understand there is a strong, perhaps unanimous, sentiment in trying to minimize the expense of this as soon as we can. And I certainly share that point of view. I don't have any interest in resolving academic issues generally, and I sure don't have much interest in trying to solve them at a time when we don't have the financial wherewithal to be engaging in that endeavor. The earliest this matter would find its way to the docket would be a week from Thursday night, correct? So that being the case, between now and next Tuesday, if there is a motion approved by the council today, I'll be glad to try to take it up with the council for both sides. If you want to hold off and let me try to see if there's some common ground again in light of the conversation today about withdrawing the subpoena, I'd be glad to do that. And perhaps by next Tuesday we could have something resolved. So I fill that out as an offer. If you want to act today, fine, I'll visit with them. If you want me to stay out of it, that's fine, too. Suits me. As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. It's great. Thank you. Does anybody have any objection to that approach? Well, I'm just confused. Are we going to withdraw the motion and wait? To be honest with you, I kind of like the motion. Well, that's why I brought it in. I think it puts something out there. And then I will proceed to ask them to dismiss it and report back to you next time. Because it would be the first reading on the 14th. By the 20th, we should have something. And the second reading would be on the 21st. I think the idea of approving a motion to this effect would be helpful in terms of moving forward. Are we ready to vote? Council Member Martin and Council Member Gordon. I'm sorry, Mayor. I probably, I think it's a part of your efforts. I think it'd be very helpful if Council Member Myers would agree to offer to enter into an agreed order of dismissal without prejudice. Because if, in fact, you are the sole driver of our expenses on this side of the ledger, then I think it's the balls in your court to offer to enter into an agreed order of dismissal, putting this to bed. This has become a battle of wills between you and the Audit Board. And I think it is one that we can't afford. And I think that if they will agree as a, you know, it's an agreed order as you all agree to just put it aside, dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, which means there are no rights have been settled, then we could put this behind us and the issue remains for another day. And so I think I would, I guess, request that Council Member Myers make that offer since Judge Crittenden has indicated he works for you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Gordon. Well, I was just going to say if I understood correctly, Judge Crittenden's already filed a motion to dismiss, correct? I mean, it's one side we're talking about. Well, it's already been filed on one side. I think, I think the point we're trying to get to here is to get the parties to agree to a resolution of this so that we stop any further expenditure or effort or distraction associated with the litigation. And to that end, what Council Member Martin was talking about was an agreed order of dismissal under whatever terms the parties will agree to. Yes, there is a pending motion to dismiss, but this is just an agreement to settle, in effect. And that's, that's what I hope to discuss sometime between now and next Tuesday with the parties and their counsel. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. I want to understand, I want to speak to the question. There's been a lot of conversation today about the legal issues and the legal costs associated with this matter. This initiative to contain the legal costs in the litigation, well, that has merit. I think we may be missing what was relevant in the last few months that we have been, where we have been examining the issues related to the reorganization of our government, allegations of a whistleblower that may have influenced that reorganization, and the spending of millions of dollars of taxpayer money in the form of contracts that may have been engaged through subjective decision-making. That is the root, that is the question we were examining. To be dismissive or to suggest that this was a distraction is a big mistake. Now I could ask Commissioner Askew or Senior Advisor Kelly, dialing back almost a year and a half to questions related to spending and contracts related to consent decree number two. Those questions should still be examined. That is what was emerged through this, these investigations, questions related to the spending, and that is exactly, and the spending and the protocols and the policies and procedures of this government. Three of the recommendations of the auditor had to do with our purchasing systems, if not the failure of those systems, the flaws in those systems. So however we go in addressing the subpoena power of the government, we should not believe that everything is perfect in paradise and that by engaging in a settlement here that all of these issues are behind us. They are not. They are present. And that was the root of what we were examining. Those were the systemic issues we were examining in the last several months. If they did not rise to the level of fraud, that is one, that is one recommendation here. That is one outcome here. Not rising to the level of fraud does not suggest that we do not have significant management issues. And that is what emerged from this report. Motion on the floor is to approve Council Member McCord's motion that would terminate all legal bills effective immediately to withdraw the subpoenas and to ask both sides to dismiss the lawsuit. Is that captured accurately? I think we're, unless somebody else wishes to address that motion, let's proceed to vote. And let's do so electronically, Madam Clerk. Those in favor of the motion, please indicate by voting yes. Those opposed vote no. Those, that motion is approved by vote of 10 to 2, with 2. That would be appropriate. We'll note that as your vote, Council Member Myers. So the vote will be, the motion is approved by vote of 10 to 2, with 2 recusals by Council Member Myers and Council Member Lane. There, that ends my report. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Does any other Council Member wish to report? Council Member Feigl. Well, I don't know if it's appropriate or not, but I did want to speak on this particular topic. Is that appropriate? You've got four minutes and 55 seconds. I just wanted to say that as a member of the Investigative Committee, I'm personally very pleased that since the Investigative Committee found no evidence of fraud, that the State Auditor concurred with our findings. In addition, they found no indication of misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. As a member of this governmental body, I'm not so pleased to learn that, one, no procurement policies or procedures have ever been approved by Council, even though it's required by state law. That the Council nor the Audit Board ever followed up with bylaws under which to operate, which came out very clearly in the Investigative Committee. And these should have included regular communication of fraud charges to Council. This government has no established methods for employees or citizens to report issues of concern anonymously. This very controversial and expensive process has highlighted a short-sighted vision by past Councils, which has led to this very painful and embarrassing ordeal. I believe that we now must turn our attention and our focus on correcting these deficiencies in our policies. And I would urge all Council members to try and put this issue behind us and that we begin to work together in a very cooperative manner to implement the recommendations from the State Auditor. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. Thank you. The Ellsford Place Neighborhood Association will be meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at the Woodland Christian Church. The Garden Stop bus stop at Euclid and Linden Walk, sponsored by Art in Motion UK, LexTran. The Ellsford Neighborhood Association, LexArts, was dedicated on September 21st, and I encourage you to go by and look at it. It's very, very nice. The Fire Prevention Parade and Festival will be October the 11th from 5 to 7 p.m. at Cheapside, and the parade starts at 7 going down Main Street from Midland to Mill. So I've been to that several years and it's fun. And also AVAL, AIDS Volunteers of Lexington, are having an event somewhat like a yard sale. However, clients will be able to pick out what they need for free. They don't have to pay for it, but if you have any gently used clothing, household items, kitchenware, lamps, it has to fit in a car. They're located at 225 Walton Avenue and Suite 110, and they're accepting donations, I think, from 9 to 5 on Friday. If those hours aren't suitable for you, you can call during those hours to 225-3000 for more details. But, you know, toys, books, children's clothing, adult clothing, games, adult books, not adult books, but books for adults as well as books for children. All those kinds of things are much needed, and many of these families are struggling. So it's a good time to clean out the cabinets. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray, I had you on the list a minute ago where you wish to... Thank you, Mayor. I'll just take a cue from Councilmember Feigl, who suggested the issues that have emerged as a function of the auditor's report, which are meaningful ones, and in view of her suggestions and others today, I will be appointing a task force to examine the purchasing and procurement issues that were addressed by the auditor, the recommendations made by the auditor, and systems that we can undertake, changes that we need to make, the government needs to make in order to improve. Thank you. Councilmember Gordon. Well, my motion was going to be to place all of the recommendations into the Intergovernmental Committee, but since you have announced you'll be appointing a task force, I'll not make my motion. Any other member of the Council wish to make a report? All right. Councilmember Crosby. I just had a follow-up question to Vice Mayor Gray. Will you also be having them look at the issues from the Special Investigative Committee recommendations? Any suggestions that any Councilmember would offer related to this, we can include in the scope of the task force examination? Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. In relation to that, some of us have already been working on the procurement process prior to this finding in the audit report through the Intergovernmental Committee, as we reported out in the first meeting in December in regards to MBE, WBE, and the rest of the criteria that we utilize currently to select an RFP. We're actually basically formalizing that, and we've been working, we already had a meeting on it, so we'll be bringing that forward to Council. Now the next step, obviously, the one everyone wants to work on is the weighting criteria and the point system that was recommended. So just want everyone to be aware that it's already in the process on the first step with the MBE and WBE criteria. That's one component. Yeah, I would say that is one, that would be one piece of criteria within a broader scope, which includes, at minimum, the recommendation of the Model Procurement Code as it relates to municipal governments, which is something that ICMA, International City Managers Association, has recommended for a long time. Thank you. Councilmember Wallace. I'd like to make a motion to put into InterGov the issue of the structuring of our Internal Audit Board. Do I hear a second? Okay, Councilmember Crosby seconds Councilmember Wallace's motion. Any discussion on that motion? Councilmember Gordon. My question, Councilmember Lawless, is why pick out one recommendation? I think, and the more I think about it, the more I really think all the issues are internal government issues and should be dealt with in an internal committee such as Intergovernmental. I like your task force idea, Vice Mayor, but these are issues that perhaps could come out of Intergovernmental to a task force, some of them. My thoughts as it relates to the task force are very specific. These issues, many of these purchasing issues, are within the experience of professionals, and we should bring professionals from the business community especially, where we are dealing with significant contracts and objective criteria associated with the decision-making, into and around the table so that they can help us with the recommendations. And would that include restructuring the Internal Audit Board? My recommendation was related to the three of the nine recommendations of the Auditor regarding purchasing and procurement. Okay. So I think that would be a, my sense would be that would be plenty for a task force to examine. Okay, thank you. Then with that I move to amend the motion to place all the remaining recommendations into Intergovernmental Committee. Perfect, thank you. All right. I'd like to amend that motion. Hang on just a second here. I think Councilmember Crosby seconded the original motions. Are you comfortable, Councilmember Gorton's motion? The motion then that's on the floor now is to place all of the State Auditor's recommendations relating to matters other than procurement in the Intergovernmental Committee. Yes. Now, Councilmember Feigl. I would like to amend that motion to say that the entire list of recommendations might be better reviewed by the Intergovernmental Committee and for them to determine how these would be further followed up on by individuals task force. I know that we do have some progress on procurement and Intergovernmental could hear that and if they felt it was necessary for an additional task force then we could follow through with that on the Intergovernmental Committee. But I think that maybe to take it as a as a package and have Intergovernmental then review it and see how it needs to be broken down might be a better structure than just trying to piece it out tonight. So you're moving to amend it to put all of the recommendations into Intergovernmental. We have a motion and by Councilmember Feigl and a second by Councilmember Gorton to place all of the items in the Intergovernmental Committee. The amendment is to change the language from all the non-procurement items to all the items. Any discussion of that amendment? Councilmember Crosby. Well, I certainly understand the spirit of trying to divide this up but I think based on what I heard the Vice Mayor say is that in my understanding of previous situations with other entities outside of LPCG with procurement there are individuals from the community and at large that could probably probably be very beneficial in a smaller task force situation versus trying to all come and do that type of work in the Intergovernmental Committee. What I would think might be appropriate is that maybe they work diligently and bring their findings to Intergovernmental and let us then do our work based on what they're able to come up with. Well, I just don't think that there are too terribly many of us that are expert the procurement the state procurement code models and and also then our models with the city and what we use are I would say there's very few people on Intergovernmental maybe if any who totally understand our experts in that area and I well and I'm and I'm not precluding that from occurring that the Intergovernmental Committee might say we need a task force for this we need a task force for the you know for other things but I'm just saying that if they do the overall a very comprehensive look at all the recommendations it would be more appropriate for them to segment that out than for us to sit here tonight and try to piece something together because I do think that there's additional input from from another committee on the procurement process so we might figure out what where the starting point is and also to be very precise in what the scope of each committee should be looking at and I think that's something that's very important. Well I would just say that Intergovernmental had appointed a subcommittee to look at procurement which I believe there wasn't any issue raised about that prior to this so there would have been two separate subcommittees looking at procurement but different areas so I guess I just don't really see how that transpires into this situation there were already going to be two separate subcommittees and I believe there still are Andrea is just trying to find a chair for the other one at this point so this will be a third one yeah or this would be a task force though motion on the floor is to refer is to amend the motion to refer the non procurement issues to intergovernmental by referring all recommendations to intergovernmental committee councilmember Wallace I think this procurement issue is one that's been hanging out there is really critical and leaves our government open to a lot of problems and perceptions because it would take a it might take two or three months to get through intergovernmental to get to a point where we appoint a task force and that is a pretty clear scope and recommendation by the state auditor I won't support separate putting it all into intergov and would support putting all but the procurement into intergov and having a task force all right now does everybody understand the question on the floor all right the question is do you wish to amend the original motion to refer the non procurement issues to intergovernmental so that we would now be amending we would now be referring all recommendations to intergovernmental I'd like to be a discussion on that amendments in order questioner correct thank you councilmember Feigl not my intention with creating the task force was to address as quickly as we could with professionals around the table the issues that were presented as they related to purchasing and procurement especially we're spending and making contracts for millions of dollars a day and these issues are not coming up irregularly they are coming up routinely so getting on it faster and sooner rather than later is what I consider to be important in the spirit of cooperation I would be willing to let's work with the initial administration the mayor can appoint along with the council a commission to examine these questions and that way we could get at it faster you have the administration working with the council all these issues really have to do with both operational and policy so we're not going to get at it by working in silos I agree we need to work at it together so that's what I would encourage someone else who wishes to speak question on the floor is whether you are in favor of amending the original motion to refer the non procurement recommendations to intergovernmental such that all recommendations would be referred to intergovernmental those in favor of that amendment please indicate by voting aye electronically those opposed vote no the motion to amend fails by vote of 2 to 11 we're now ready to discuss the motion to refer all of the non procurement matters to intergovernmental committees there any further discussion on that any discussion seeing none let's proceed to vote those in favor madam clerk if you would clear the voting machines please of referring all of the non procurement recommendations to intergovernmental please vote aye electronically those opposed vote nay motion carries by a vote of 13 to 0 all right does any other council member have a report I have none is there anyone who wishes to address the council in a public comment form have a motion to adjourn by councilmember Ellinger and a second by councilmember Myers all in favor please say aye opposed no motion carries