# Intergovernmental Committee - January 15, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · January 15, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/321 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/321?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-01-15 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 1, 2026 - **Length**: 9,409 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 Inter-Governmental Committee convened on January 15, 2008, at 1:00 PM with CM James presiding. The committee addressed two informational agenda items during the session, focusing on administrative and operational updates. The meeting included discussion of CSEA Officers receiving 4 AWL hours monthly for association business and a general update on committee items. One motion was considered during the proceedings, while no public comments were heard at this meeting. ## Attendance All committee members were present for the January 15, 2008 meeting. **Present:** • Moloney • James • Gray • Blues • DeCamp • Beard • Stinnett • Crosbie • Myers • Blevins **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The committee took one formal vote during the January 15, 2008 meeting. **Motion to Request Administration Confirmation on CSEA Hours** [timestamp: 02:09] Vice Mayor Gray made a motion asking the administration to confirm its position regarding the CSEA (Civil Service Employees Association) request for 4 AWL (Administrative Work Leave) hours. The motion was seconded by CM DeCamp. The motion passed by a voice vote with 9 members voting in favor and 1 member voting against. **Voting in favor:** • Moloney • James • Gray • Blues • DeCamp • Beard • Stinnett • Crosbie • Myers **Voting against:** • Blevins No members abstained from the vote. The motion carried, directing the administration to clarify their stance on the union's request for additional administrative work leave hours. ## Contested Items The Committee meeting on January 15, 2008, featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among members. **CSEA Request for 4 AWL Hours** The primary point of contention centered on a request from the CSEA (Civil Service Employees Association) for 4 hours of Administrative Work Leave (AWL) for meeting purposes. The discussion became heated as committee members held differing opinions on whether the union should be granted paid time off for their meetings. The debate involved both legal and procedural implications, with participants examining the appropriateness and precedent of approving such requests. Committee members appeared divided on the matter, leading to an extended discussion as they worked through the various considerations surrounding the union's request for compensated meeting time. The disagreement highlighted broader questions about the relationship between the municipality and employee unions, as well as the proper use of administrative leave policies. While the extracted data indicates this was a contentious topic that generated significant debate, the specific outcome of the discussion and any final decision reached by the committee was not captured in the available information. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed participant information were not available in the source materials for this contested item.* ## CSEA Officers Receiving 4 AWL Hours Monthly for Association Business [timestamp: 00:00] The committee discussed a request from the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) to continue allowing officers up to four hours per month of Administrative Work Leave (AWL) to conduct association business. The discussion involved several key participants including Jack Barnett, CM Blues, CM Stinnett, and Michael Allen. The committee reviewed the historical practice of granting this time allowance and examined the legal framework surrounding the arrangement. Committee members discussed the background and precedent for allowing CSEA officers to use work time for union-related activities. The conversation included consideration of legal opinions regarding the practice and potential implications of continuing or discontinuing the monthly AWL allocation. The agenda item was treated as an informational discussion, allowing committee members to understand the current arrangement and its various aspects. Speakers addressed both the operational history of the four-hour monthly allowance and the broader context of how such arrangements function within the organization's labor relations framework. The committee examined potential impacts that could result from changes to the existing practice, though the discussion remained focused on information gathering rather than immediate decision-making. The item concluded without a formal action being taken, serving its intended purpose as a briefing on the CSEA officers' AWL request and the associated considerations for the committee's future deliberations. ## Update on Committee Items [timestamp: 02:09] The committee received an informational update on committee items during the January 15, 2008 meeting. This agenda item was purely informational in nature, with no substantive discussion, debate, or formal presentations recorded. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no particular issues or concerns were raised during this portion of the meeting. The update appears to have been routine administrative business without any contentious matters requiring committee deliberation. The item concluded without any motions being proposed or voted upon, consistent with its informational designation on the meeting agenda. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-1): Ask the administration to confirm its position regarding the CSEA request for 4 AWL hours. --- ## Full transcript One o'clock. And this is the Intergovernmental Committee meeting for January the 15th. And it looks like we have a quorum. I will be chairing today's meeting. And the only item we have on our agenda today, besides updating of committee items, is the CSEA officers issue. And it looks like Council Member Luz's name is beside that issue. And I would ask that he give us a little intro and let us know who's here to speak on that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you know, all Council members received a request from Jack Barnett, who I see is with us this afternoon, who is president of local chapter of CSEA, asking us to continue what has been at least up to now an informal policy in the government to allow CSEA officers up to four hours a month to conduct business. So the bottom line here is that CSEA wants us to approve, to endorse that continuation. So, Mr. Barnett, if you'd like to speak to this and to provide any further information on this and why this request is necessary and appropriate at this time, that would be helpful, I think, to the committee. I think so. My name is Jack Barnett, for those of you who don't know me. The reason we requested this is over the years, well, since 1951, when the federal government established the civil service program, there's been one at the city of Lexington. In 1973, I think, when the government merged the Civil Service Employees Association, the government recognized, and it was one of the early ordinances, that the Civil Service Employees Association would be sort of like a voice for the employees. There's never, I don't think there was ever an ordinance that said, we will give you four hours to do your civil service activities, but it has been granted since before Scotty Basler. It's been going on ever since at least the merged government for more than 25 years. And so it was questioned as being legitimate or not, just like our employee picnic. That was always a thing where, you know, all employees go, have a good time, but it wasn't an ordinance saying that the city council said that was okay and we were going to pay everybody. So it's fallen under question whether it's legitimate or not. So we're asking for four hours a month, and this is for the board members and the representatives, and it's just like any kind of organization. You don't have, everybody doesn't show up at your meetings like you would like. You know, you may get half of the people that you want at these meetings. So we're not wasting a lot of government time. As far as I'm concerned, the employee relations with the government are very important and worth four hours a month. Just over the years, we've had pay issues. We've had policies where they've changed the accident policies, and they were going to suspend you for the first accident you had. You know, these are the kind of things that we would go to the administration, the CAO, or the mayor, or somebody, and say, you know, this is not fair to the employees, or we would come to the council in cases. And we work on these type things, benefit packages, anything that supports the employees, and not to the government's detriment. We work with the government. I don't think we ever ask for what's fair and reasonable, and I think these four hours are fair and reasonable. The thing in here where it mentions about using government property for personal use, it's not personal use. It's for the city, for the employees to use to help make it a better place to work. And part of our job is to look out for working conditions and things like this. You know, these are reasonable things that anybody, but you have to have a focal point. You can't have 4,000 employees calling their council members and the mayor saying, we need this, we need that. It would be total chaos. So we focus our concerns through the Civil Service Association to the legislative body or the mayor, administration. And as far as using those personal things for personal, like I said, it's not for personal use. We don't go in there and copy some kind of assignment that we have. If we copied, we really don't copy much, but if we ever do, it's like for the newsletter that we send out after the meetings. And we like to get the newsletter out to all the employees through the representatives, because all of our employees are scattered all over the city. They're in every nook and cranny of the whole city, and it's hard to get everybody together and let everybody know what's going on and look out for their interest. So that's about just for the request. Council Member Blues, did you have any questions for Jack? I have a question or two. Jack, to what extent does CSEA represent all of the civil service employees? I guess more specifically, you know, what is your membership? We have a paid membership. We charge $5 a year, and that helps cover legal expenses. If an employee has a disciplinary action and it goes through the whole chain and we believe that they're right and it needs to go to court, then we supply an attorney for that employee. If that employee wins a judgment, they pay us back. If they lose, we lose. But that's where our $5 go, mostly to legal actions, or we'll have our yearly employee kind of picnic thing. We have about 600 or so paid employees. But anything we win for the Civil Service Employees Association, it's a win for all the employees in the city. And that's the way we look at it, that we look at, we represent them all, whether they're paid members or not. They're just, if you're a paid member, you can ask for an attorney or something like that. But if you're not a paid member, then we can't help them. But they do receive the benefits that we try to get for everybody, like our pay equity thing we went through the last few years. That's an effort on CSEA and working with the administration and the council. The council was behind us 100%. Most of the time the council's behind us on everything we do. I don't think we've asked for anything that's unreasonable. And whenever we have a tough call, I always feel confident the council's behind us. And you all always are, because, you know, we're the employees. We make the city run. And I think it's like any organization. You have a few weak links here and there. But as a whole, when we have natural disasters and things, the employees are out there taking care of it. Collecting the garbage, keeping the sewer lines open, doing the work that other people don't want to do. So I know the council's always behind us. So what you're suggesting is, is that you have 600 in your membership, but that in an informal or de facto sense you represent all of the civil service employees in government. What happens then when somebody who's not a part of your membership comes to you with a problem or an issue? We have employees that come to us. It's generally a disciplinary problem. And we investigate it just like human resources would. We would go to our source in the division or wherever. And it doesn't matter if they're a paid employee or not. We try to do what we can. If we see that they're at fault and they really should be terminated or given days in the street, we say we're sorry. You know, you got what was coming to you. But if they were treated unfairly through some kind of personal vendetta or whatever and we can prove it, then we stand behind them. We have some people that are in litigation now that our money's paying for their attorneys. Some of them are paying us back, you know, like from their jobs as they go. But it's whether a member or not, we do what we can for them. Thank you. Next on the list is Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Jack, thank you for coming today. We appreciate the information you've given us. A couple of questions for you. Can an unclassified civil service employee be a member? No. So they have to be a full-time civil service. A classified employee, okay. And how many years did you say you all have been meeting at the four hours a month? At least 25 years that I know of. And have you all ever, has this ever been questioned and brought up before now? No, no. We would go to the incoming administration or mayor each year just to get it cleared. You know, each mayor, previous mayor has authorized us to meet four hours a month and conduct civil service business. Would you condone that? And they say, sure. I assume that's just been a policy that's been passed down to President, to President, to President. There's nothing you created personally or anything? Right, no. And have you all considered, though, if this request is denied, meeting after hours? We could. I mean, what type of hardship would that create? Well, it creates a lot. It's just like a lot of people have families, small children, kids going to school. You've got to get them cleaned up, you know, put them to bed. Your membership and interest would fall off, not because they weren't interested in what was going on with employees, but just their family life comes first. And after hours would really hinder people's ability to attend meetings. Okay. Just working class people and, you know, you can't afford babysitters and things like that all the time. We have to do it ourselves. Right. Logan, I have a couple questions for the law department. I assume you're here to answer those. I assume, is this the first time the law department has ever examined this issue that you're aware of in your family? As far as I know. I don't know that we are, I don't know how thorough a record search we did, but I'm not aware that the law department has ever made an issue, an opinion on this. I don't know that they've been asked, frankly. I know when Paul indicated this was going to come up on the agenda and if we were going to supply something, which I think is typically done, we felt like we needed to provide you all with our legal opinion on it. So basically someone 25 or 30 years ago just decided that the mayor would have the authority to grant them a four-hour meeting window monthly, and it was never investigated, as far as your department knows, from a legal standpoint. It's been more of a policy decision? That's correct. And much, much again, Councilmember Stennett to the, you know, Mr. Barnett mentioned the employee picnic and the four hours that had been given off by executive authority before. And as I told you at the council meeting that night, it is my opinion that the mayor does not have that authority. Only the council would have that authority. Well, let me ask you this. We have a collective bargaining employees in the LFUCG, namely police, fire, and corrections. Right. Would they be allowed to have a meeting because they are collective bargaining employees during the middle of a workday? Mr. Allen is here. I'm not that familiar with the collective bargaining agreements. He helped negotiate them. He may know. I'm not sure. And do they have meetings? I mean, I know they do meet. Do they meet on work hours? No, they don't. To the best of my knowledge, it's always after work, but it is part of the collective bargaining agreements, Councilmember. Each one is different depending on what's negotiated because it is negotiated at the table. So that would be something they could negotiate, the ability to meet four hours a month during which time they're being paid. That is correct, and also the number of individuals. So why wouldn't the CSEA have the same ability to negotiate that or request that or just simply ask? Either one. Asking is one thing, sir, and not to split hairs in negotiating is another. They're not a recognized collective bargaining unit. Only collective bargaining can have the permission to ask? We don't negotiate. No, let's negotiate. And I think the point that Jack is here and CSEA is here is to ask instead of negotiate because they don't have that privilege. So anyone can ask. You don't just have to be a collective bargaining unit to negotiate it. That's correct. And, Logan, what is our authority to grant that? Does this Council have the power to grant such requests? I believe that you have the authority, the ultimate authority, to decide about leave time, whether it be vacation or sick time or holiday time or whatever kind of time off because you all set the business day and the time, permitted time off. But I guess the last line of the legal opinion is that we should not request that. That is the legal department or the law department's opinion. That's correct. And give us some of those reasons why, sir, so everyone can understand where I'm coming from here. Well, there are two or three reasons. One is that you're not granting any other groups the authority to have paid time for meetings. That's the first one. The second one is, as you all are aware, the legislature, the General Assembly, has mandated that we have collective bargaining with our police, fire, and corrections employees, which we do. Those are the only groups that are authorized or that we are required to negotiate with, and those groups that have been properly designated by those various employees are their authorized representatives. You do not have that situation here. This is not a group that has been recognized officially by the government. They are not a group that's legally representative for collective bargaining purposes. And until the General Assembly indicates that collective bargaining is required, and as you all are aware that, and I think I've indicated in my letter, that there have been efforts to try to require collective bargaining for municipal employees, which have been unsuccessful in the past. So it's my feeling and the law department's feeling that it's best that we not grant various groups special rights that nobody else has. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Stennett. Next is Councilmember Blevins. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to comment a little, I guess. In private industry, we usually handle these kinds of things on an informal basis. When I was in management, an employee such as yourself would come and say, I want to go volunteer at school, I want to do anything, and we'd usually just work it out where you could make up the time another time. So I would imagine that most of the folks watching this are sitting out there scratching their heads wondering what we're talking about. So I want to net it out. The two things that I think I'm hearing are a request for use of facilities, copiers and the like, as well as paid time for time to meet together and do things. So I want to treat those a little separately. The use of facilities and copiers seems like a reasonable request to me. We do this for Weight Watchers is another group that I'm thinking of. I would think, Joe, is that a possible thing? We could just issue a CAO policy or something that says, yes, reasonable use of copiers and facilities is granted to all employee associations as long as it's reasonably done. That just seems like common sense to me. Joe, Kelly, can you please go to the mic? Thank you. I'm sorry. The folks who do that reimburse the government for whatever materials that they use. And the ballroom and Phoenix third floor room and one other, I believe the fifth floor conference room, I believe, people are supposed to reimburse if they use those. They pay rent to use our conference rooms? Is that what you're telling me? That's what's in the policy. Wow. Okay. I would love for you to review that policy and inject a little common sense into it. All the policies are in the process of being reviewed. Thank you. That would be wonderful. It seems to me that we want to encourage activities like Weight Watchers, like CSCA. All these are smart, good things for us to do. And it's not that I want to give away government, you know, access and so forth. But goodness gracious, everybody else in the planet is looking at us going, what are you doing? This should be a no-brainer. So if you could review that policy and change it, I would greatly appreciate it. We're in that process. Thanks. So that's the first one. The second part is, though, about paid time off. And I can tell you that when I was in private industry, both as an employee and as a manager, I was highly resistant to give paid time to do an employee's choice of activities, whether it be Weight Watchers, CSCA, volunteering at schools, what have you. So I would be reluctant to do that here, even for CSCA, given even the special status that that association has. That said, I think, however, there's another common sense approach here that we use in private industry all the time, and that's flexibility with your manager. And, Mr. Allen, I would hope this is a part of our policies, but I would have to believe that, say, his manager, if he needs to go to a meeting with CSCA, if there's enough notice and agreement that at 2 o'clock next Thursday I need to go do this, would it be okay if I do that and make up the time another time? I have to believe we're flexible enough to allow that in this government. Is that the case? Am I correct in assuming that our managers have that kind of discretion and flexibility? Council Member, it depends on the division. All divisions have a certain amount of flexibility as far as scheduling their employees, yes. Well, I would think that we could handle it that way. We've got lunch period is a time that we can trade time. I think as long as you work with your management, you should be able to make all these activities work within the business day, avoiding the issues you were talking about with families and so forth, and yet still get your business done. This is the way we handled it in private practice, and it works great. It allows for all people to be treated equally, whether it's wait watchers or CSCA, and it seems like a reasonable compromise to me. So that's what I would ask us to consider. Lastly, I just want to say that it's a little strange for an organization that we're being asked to support is actually funding legal action against us. I would encourage you to go rethink that policy, or at least consider how that puts us in an awkward position that we're actually supplying you with supplies and so forth and a place to meet so that you can turn around and sue us is how somebody might net that out. So just think about that, and I would hope you'd consider a change in that policy. That's all I have, Chair. Thanks. Did you have a response, Mr. Burnett? Step to the mic. The reason that it seems kind of strange, but we recently had an employee that was terminated for not all the right reasons. So that person had the right to litigation, and it turns out that the city had paid that person due to this action their back pay and things like that. One of our main jobs is to make sure that the civil service laws are not violated, and sometimes when people come into government, it takes a long time to get the concept of the civil service keeping politics out of the employment section, and they don't like it because it does tie your hands. If there's an employee that you say, I'd really like to get rid of that employee, well, it's not as easy to just say, pick up your check Friday, we don't need you anymore. There's a process, and it was developed by the federal government and Congress to protect government employees, and that's one of our main focuses is to protect the employees under these violations. Okay. Thank you. I just want to give you that opportunity. I'd like to respond to that since he has. I would say that you've crossed the line when you go from advocacy to paying for their legal representation. So I don't want to raise this issue. If we talk about it more, I will. I think you all need to rethink the policy of funding those lawyers because I suspect you've crossed a major line there. That's all I'm saying. Council Member Baird has an act on the list. Thank you, Chair. Jack, at the time of the substitute picnic that CSEA held out at Jacobson Park, there was a table set up and there were brochures handed out by a, and I couldn't string together all the letters, and don't even know what they stand for, but a group that does function as a bargaining unit for government employees. Maybe not in Kentucky, but somewhere. And, Michael, maybe you are familiar with this organization. Do they function in Kentucky? Or how do they function in Kentucky if state law doesn't allow them to function in Kentucky? That's my point. It's a federation of state, county, and municipal employees. So they have a presence in Kentucky. I don't know whether they are the bargaining representative for anyone in the state of Kentucky. Okay. And probably we would just as soon as stay that way. I'm wearing a management type hat for the moment. But at the same time, I don't know that we want to create an environment here in the city that pushes the CSEA in that direction. And, you know, it's a fine line, again, as Council Member Blevins discussed, as to how far we can go in aiding the CSEA. I've been a supporter of the CSEA myself, personally. I think it's a good organization with good people running it, and I've been impressed with that. But at the same time, you know, we have to, like the question with the attorneys, for instance, we do have to look at those things maybe under a stronger microscope than others. I would hope that some type of a compromise could be made where we could have happy campers on both sides of this and would work toward that and be glad to work toward that as far as the Council is concerned. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think from what I'm hearing of this discussion is that the Council members are probably reluctant to try to address this situation by ordinance. But we do have an interest in making sure that, you know, that employees have a good channel of communication with employees, with managers and supervisors. And I'd like to pursue for just a second what those avenues are and what the blockages might be or the sticking points. And maybe, Mr. Allen, you could just summarize what, you know, what an employee's recourses are when, you know, there's a problem, an issue, you know, some kind of grievance situation. And then, Mr. Barnett, if you could answer the second part of that question, where things from your point of view go wrong and what kind of remedies are needed. I apologize, Council Member. I'm not really clear on what you'd like me to respond to. Well, suppose that Mr. Barnett has a work-related complaint. And what does he do? We have a very formalized grievance process, sir, that's outlined in our employee handbook, and it's several steps. And it gives the employee an opportunity to voice his or her opinion through a series of channels, various steps, all the way up to the senior advisor's office. Thank you. And that, I gather, from the CSEA point of view, could be improved. Well, I think so, because I think the main focus is when we have 1,600 or so civil service employees that are full-time, certified, and they have problems or concerns, then you don't want 1,600 people calling Mr. Allen's office or calling all of you guys. You have to have a focal point for this thing, and we don't just tell the employees, we don't like this and here's what we're going to do. They bring problems that they perceive as a problem to us. We take them to the administration or whoever it concerns and try to work it out. A lot of times we do work it out with no problem at all. Sometimes it gets a little sticky, and then we're arguing over whose point of view is right over the civil service laws. So that's just, you know, from our point of view, the city adopted the civil service comprehensive plan as the civil service law, and that's what I go by. When we have a problem, I refer to the civil service comprehensive plan as the civil service law, and I expect the administration is supposed to handle it that way because they agreed to it in an ordinance. If they don't want the civil service, then maybe we need to take it to Frankfurt and see what kind of fight they get out of that, because civil service is deep-rooted mainly because of the political protection you give the employees. The administration comes in. They don't fire everybody in the government. We have people who have been here 25, 30, 35, 40 years, and I think a lot of it's owed to the civil service plan because they feel comfortable, they feel safe that you're not going to just come up and fire them because you don't like their looks or they didn't put out as well last year, you know. Somebody has to look out for the employee interest, and it needs to be a focused group like us. So you see yourself as sort of the spokesfolks for the civil service employees, the civil service law. Yes, sir. As a kind of clearinghouse for complaints if they come forward, and as a informally at least a sort of negotiator with management and administration. And we do solve a lot of issues like that. Most of the time they can be solved that way, but every now and then they get a little tougher. And at the same time, however, we're in the situation where CSEA is a voluntary organization that's only formally representing 500, 600 dues-paying members. Correct. And has no formal relationship with LFUCG. No. Although a kind of traditional or sort of tacitly understood agreement, which our law department says really puts us in a difficult position if another similar organization wanted the same privileges. And that's our situation. I'm hoping that the question of finding time for meetings and for conducting CSEA business could be worked out informally rather than formally at this point, so that we don't try to go forward with a kind of ordinance that might put us in sort of jeopardy if other organizations come forward. The way I've looked at it over the years, though it's not an ordinance, it's like we're not an outside agency. We're employees. We work for this government. We are the government. Just like everybody else that works here, we're not like asking for some car club down the road and we want to use city equipment, you know. The things we do is for the city, for the employees, to make life better for the employees and the administration. If we're butting heads all the time, it's not good for anybody. But as long as we can negotiate, talk, settle, you know, however we work out the time is fine with me. But, you know, they're more or less saying, no, you don't have the time. You've got to make your own time. You know, we've been doing it for 25 years or longer. It's sort of like the rights of adverse possession on a piece of land. If you let somebody use it over and over and over and over, the court says it's yours if you want to claim it. So, you know, we've been granted this permission for all these years, and then all of a sudden maybe we're making too much of a fuss and, you know, things aren't looking good. So they don't want us to have this time to be able to talk about our problems. But these problems have to be talked about or it's just going to come in your lap more often. Well, I think that that's, you know, that since you did, you know, raise this, you know, this issue and asked for, in a sense, an extension of a previously understood, albeit informal, policy, that it was perfectly appropriate for, you know, for the council and, you know, and for the administration and the law department to, you know, to review the history of it and to give us the best advice on how we might respond to it. And so, you know, I think that Mr. Askew's letter has shown us some, you know, some obvious difficulties with, on the one hand, with extending the, you know, the informal policy and, on the other, with attempting to codify it. So what I'm hoping is, and I would echo council members Beard and Blevins here, is that we can, you know, go forward in, you know, an informal way that maybe there are ways, and I stress the word maybe, that working out with, you know, with management and administration on a case-by-case or individual basis, that maybe sometimes can be granted that would be at X time that could be made up at Y time, so that it might be convenient to meet during working hours, although those hours would have to be returned in effect. But as I say, I don't detect, unless I'm mistaken, a sense that we should try to resolve this by passing a new or recommending a new ordinance. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I have two council members remaining on my list to speak, Council Member Crosby and then Vice Mayor Gray. My question is actually for Mr. Allen. Thank you. How many formal grievances do you get approximately per year? Council Member, I would have to double-check that number before I would feel comfortable in just, you know, spitting one out, but the grievance process is a full-time process for one individual in my department in employee relations. That's pretty much all she does all the time. Okay. If you could find that out for me, I would appreciate it. Certainly. Thank you so much. Absolutely. And then the other comment I would just like to make, along with what Council Member Blevins said, is I find it actually a little shocking and surprising that we charge rent to some of these groups to utilize, for example, our conference room upstairs, and I would be very interested to find out what those fees are and actually what that brings in, how much is generated from that. So I find it hard to imagine that we charge support groups like Weight Watchers to utilize our facilities. Council Member, that's attached to the letter. There is a CAO policy that talks about the use of government facilities, and there's also a CAO policy that deals with the use of government equipment. I didn't see the room on there. I just saw the copies, I guess, in the computer. It should be CAO policy 18-R. Is that in your material? Okay. Yeah, I don't see. Well, I have a copy. Let me give you my copy of it because it's attached to mine. There are two different policies. I just see the guidelines for use of government center, council, chamber, ballroom, and Phoenix Conference Center. That's it. If you look at paragraph 6, for an organization outside the government, it will tell you what the charges are for the ballroom, but you will also notice that in paragraph 1 it says it may be used for government-related or sponsored functions from 8 to 5, weekdays, Saturday, Sunday, and holidays, and then it says organizations outside of the government may use after 5 o'clock, so there's a distinction made. So I'll save my question for later. I'd rather save it for later, actually. That will be fine. Thank you. And Vice Mayor has yielded his spot to Council Member Stennett. Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate it. I have a follow-up question. Since we're talking about grievances in the process, Michael, what's the difference in the CSEA meeting and the Mercer Committee meeting to discuss these type of grievances? The Mercer Committee? Mercer doesn't discuss grievances. They discuss reclassifications, is that correct? They discuss reclassifications. What's the difference in the Mercer Committee and this group? The difference between the Mercer Committee, the Mercer Committee was created by a CAO policy based upon to review our compensation system and recommendations made on any position to change that classification or where it sits in our compensation system. So it's just for compensation only, no other type of grievance? That's all Mercer does, Council Member, yes. It was created not by ordinance but by a policy? That's correct, by a CAO policy, yes. The grievance process is different depending on whether it's under a collective bargaining agreement, which is then an itemized process, which is kind of unique. And I think to Jack's point, because we are under the guidance of the statute, the civil service statutes, we have a grievance process, and that's normally, again, to his point, dealing more about discipline. I would say that the majority of grievances, 90-plus percent, deal with issues of discipline received. Okay. Thank you for clearing the distinction up. Thank you. All right. Council Member Beard. Thank you again. One more pass. And something that Council Member Crosby brought up concerning weight watchers, which has always intrigued me somewhat, and, Michael, you and I have had this discussion at one time or another, and that is there are five or six other weight loss entities in Lexington. And do we invite all of them? Do we take a bid? What do we do? How do we select weight watchers just because we like them? Secondly, quite recently all of us received a solicitation on government letterhead signed by Alice Phillips recommending Liberty Mutual automobile insurance and homeowners insurance, which I was appalled at, to tell you the truth. And this thing has been coming on, it seems like, repeatedly for some time, where through some informal process, surely the council is not involved, that human resources selects somebody and anoints them, and all of a sudden we're in their camp and we're recommending them. This is a little off the subject, but not totally. And I guess really the point I'm trying to make is that we're selecting this issue to be ultra strict about, and we're extremely, in my opinion, loosey-goosey about the other. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. That just illustrated why I yielded to you, Council Member Stanton. Council Member Beard just, you know, after listening for some time, illustrated what I was thinking. And it looks like Mr. Kelly has an opportunity to address that. I'll yield to Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to say I think I want to make absolutely sure, but I think we have a contract with the weight watchers' folks, and we don't charge the weight watchers' folks. If someone is here providing some program that has been deemed appropriate to offer to our employees, then that would be a different circumstance. The intent on charges relative to any services that are provided, and that could be facilities or copiers or whatever, we're trying to avoid subsidizing organizations that aren't necessarily providing a service to our employees or to the government, and that has been approved by someone within the government. It is an ad hoc endorsement, is it not? If somebody was to look at it from afar. I think if you're talking about the weight watchers, it's my understanding that an RFP was issued, and people were offered the opportunity to apply, submit an RFP. The other entities? Yes, sir. I would assume so. I had asked that question once before, and I was told no, but this was a couple of years ago. Weight watchers did submit a proposal, and they were selected to provide the service. So we're getting kind of apples and oranges here on the topic, I think. Well, not really, because my point is, again, the strictness of how we want to apply the rules to the CSEA, and what I see is maybe a more relaxed approach towards some of these other activities. No, I understand it's not specifically on the CSEA question in and of itself, but it's on the route we take, I think, that I'm discussing. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah. Did you have more, Vice Mayor? Please. So just to confirm the history on this, I'd like clarification. I've read these e-mails and so forth, but did the administration deny the CSEA meetings as a paid-time activity? No. When we first asked our mayor about it, he was in agreement with it. Charlie Boland was working with him at the time, and they were supposed to have put together a letter to the agreement that we can use these four hours a month to conduct the CSEA business, and we never got a copy of the letter. So it was agreed to at that time, but no hard copy ever came out. So then the question was presented to this committee through CSEA, is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, you know, if it's appropriate, you know, I'd make a motion that we ask the administration to consider all the comments that have been presented today and urge the administration to use its discretion in making a management decision on this, which seems consistent with what most have suggested. We've got a motion and a second to ask for administration a written statement. Please clarify that. I'd just like to ask, I think the administration needs to consider it based on the past protocol. There's been a letter from past mayor or a memorandum from Mayor Miller that's in the documents that we're looking at here. I'm thinking through the motion right now. The way that I characterized the motion, the way that I structured it first, was that the administration consider the issues and exercise management discretion in its decision. Sure. So the motion is to, for the administration to consider. And it's got a second. I can, I'll ask a question. I just, consideration resulting in what, is what I think I'm looking for. What's going to be the end result of the consideration? How will we know what the response is? Administration's decision. They would inform us of what the administration's position is on this issue. Okay. If it's already, if the administration's position is through the law department, well, I'm asking that it reconsider it then. Okay. Is there any discussion? Based on the presentations and the comments today, the protocol and the history and the protocols that have been exercised before, that this seems to us like a management decision and not a legislative decision that should be implemented through ordinance. Okay. Well, let me, let me, I think I understand what you're, what you're suggesting. However, the opinion of the law department's not going to change. Now, I've not had a discussion with the mayor about this, so I don't know what, you know, and what his position is going to be. If, if he decides that he doesn't want to take the advice of the law department, that would be up to him, just as it would be up to you as well. If you decide that you want to go ahead and, by ordinance, allow the four hours for these certain employees to have time off, paid time off. But in terms of trying to work something out, like Councilmember Blevins is talking about, I'm sure that the mayor and Joe Kelly can work with Mr. Barnett to try to figure out a way to allow time where the work week is still utilized for work and there's lunch time or break time or holiday time or vacation time or some of those things that you all have permitted can be used for these activities. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Councilmember Blues, then Councilmember Blevins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Vice Mayor, are you, are you asking for a statement of administration policy on this in the light of these discussions? Yes, in light of these discussions, especially what Councilmember Verbeer presented. I mean, you know, to me this looks like any employee group could get to get, could be, if it's doing its work effectively, is going to get together or often gets together to work on employee improvement initiatives. So I think this has the potential of opening up the proverbial can of worms, where do you limit it or where do you, where do we end up creating an ordinance for every time any group gets together to work and to engage in improvement initiatives? Well, I think the improvement initiatives that you all discussed don't involve paid time off. I think that's the difference. I don't believe that the government is paying employees while they're on wait watchers. I believe that's done during lunch or at other times. I don't, there's not paid time off for wait watchers, Vice Mayor, if that's what you're suggesting. That's not, if that's what's been suggested, I don't believe that's the case. I'm not aware of any employee groups that are allowed paid time off outside of what you all have set forth in the ordinance. Now, Mr. Allen is here. If I'm, Mr. Barnett may know. I'm not aware of it. I'm not aware of it. If this is sufficiently unique, that's, I think that's the question that, one of the questions that I have, if this activity on the part of this organization is sufficiently unique that it merits attention by the legislative body. Vice Mayor, in my letter, and I'll reiterate again, it is my opinion, it is the opinion of the law department, that the mayor does not have the authority to give paid time off, whether it's the Friday before Labor Day, the half day on Christmas Eve that this body gave to the employees earlier this year or last year, or whether it's four hours for these certain employees to have paid time off. I don't believe that's the mayor's prerogative. And the law department's position is not going to change on that, regardless of whether it's all employees or certain employees. So, okay. And hold on. I mean, just stay with me for a second here. Okay. What distinguishes this, then, from the Christmas parties that were held, you know, in different departments, in different divisions, where, you know, potluck Christmas parties, for example? What's the distinction here? Retirement parties. Or retirement parties. When people, you know, occasionally, you know, and it's at the discretion of the manager. Okay. What's the distinction? Well, there are CAO policies, as you are probably aware, that deal specifically with retirement receptions or other kinds of receptions, food in offices, those kinds of things. So that is specifically dealt with. But I'm not aware of some policy that says every month all employees or a certain group of employees are going to have a designated time off per month. I mean, I think that's the distinction. You're trying to equate a request for four hours per month for certain employees with a potluck get-together at Christmas, and I don't – I'm not sure I'm seeing the analogy. But that's specifically addressed in policy. I don't know if there was a CAO policy on this or not, but there was apparently some protocol and some precedent associated with it. So whether it's policy or not, it's de facto policy. Well, I disagree with Mr. Barnett's interpretation that it's like adverse possession. I don't – I didn't say that. I just said that it's de facto policy. It's a function of being in place for 25 years. Oh, I think the fact that it has gone on before, without question. And simply because CSEA happens to be adverse to us occasionally, you know, sometimes is beneficial. So I don't think – I don't think we should penalize them on account of their occasionally being adverse to us. You know, whether or not – Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. The opinion that was written doesn't have anything to do – I mean, if it was some other group that wanted time, it wouldn't be any different. This – this opinion is consistent with what we indicated to you with respect to the four days off before Labor Day for all employees. Okay. The motion is still there, and I believe we need to – is your question related to the motion? All right. Go forward. Thank you. Vice Mayor, I'm going to have to oppose this. And the reason is that I think we have the tools we need to address this situation. We've already discussed them. The first tool is – and Joe Kelly, if I took your nod of agreement that you would go look at this policy about copiers in room and make sure that our own employee groups are encouraged and able to use our own facilities. That's just common sense. So that seems like a checkmark to me. And the second management tool we have here is that any employee can come in early, leave or modify their lunch hour, work with their management, and any employee can make that happen. The last thing I want to say is that I don't want to pick on wait watchers. I just use that as an example because those employees do use their lunch hour to do exactly what these folks are trying to do as well. There's no penalizing anybody. I'm trying to achieve equity. Any employee group should be able to use our facilities and meet on their own time, period. That's what everybody in private industry does. I can't see why we would ever want to legislate anything more than what we have today. So that's all I have to say. Okay. Beard's on the list, and then Council Member DeCamp. Just very quickly, if I might, I'm a little conflicted here. The only person who, the only entity that can grant paid time is the council. The mayor doesn't have the authority to. And then in the same breath, a CAO policy can allow for receptions, potluck, lunches, and things of that sort. If anybody else doesn't see the conflict between those two statements, I would hope they'd look again. Council Member DeCamp. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, again, reiterate that I do second, because I think what the vice mayor has put forth as a motion is exactly what we're talking about, Mr. Blevins. And I think I agree with you that it can be worked out, and I think this motion gives us the ability to work this out from the administrative point of view, and we will certainly know about it one way or the other. So I think we should go ahead and vote on this motion. I think it's doing exactly what needs to be done at this time. All right. Yes, Council Member Stennett. I just want to clarify one thing. I think, Logan, you said there are no employee groups that meet and are paid. Is that correct? There is one. The Mercer Committee does meet, in fact, and are paid. Correct, Michael? And that is a group that is created by the administration on a policy basis that is recognized as being paid and sitting here and working sometimes, as I understand, for a day or two days they meet. Is that not correct? But it's more than one hour or four hours a month. So I think there is some precedent, is what I'm trying to say, that exceptions have been made. It varies, Council Member, but normally the average Mercer Committee meeting is about two hours to three hours. Is that once a month? Once a month. And, again, that committee was created by the administration from a CAO policy, not from a council ordinance, correct? It is directed by a CAO policy. That's correct. And I'm sure something can be worked out the same way on this group. I think what you all are suggesting about trying to work through it is a good idea. I think we're trying to make some, for instance, with the Mercer Committee is actually doing work on behalf of the government, not on behalf of any particular group, which I see as different. Council Member Beard, I'd be happy to discuss all of this with you later. We can look at the policies if you would like for us to do that. I don't know that we're going to resolve it today, but you have our opinion. I'll leave it up to you how you care to deal with it. All right. And we have a motion to vote on. We have a first and second already. Council Member Blues has more comment. Yes, thank you. It does seem to me that since we've brought this up afresh, so to speak, and the administration or at least the legal department has said we really need to look at this anew, there are problems with continuing an informal policy. I support the motion, as I understand it. That is that we're asking the administration to present us with a clear sense of what this policy should be. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Yeah, I used, I think, in the language. Did anybody write it down? Paul, did you write down the motion? You did not? No, sir. Okay. The motion was for the administration. Confirm its position as it relates to this issue. I mean, right now, my understanding is there's a legal opinion that was offered. Okay. And the legal opinion doesn't necessarily deal with the operational protocols, the operational issues. It deals with the legal issue of whether or not four hours of time can be allocated to this group absent legislative authority. Right? That's the first part of it. The second part has to do with the use of facilities and equipment. Right. Okay. Contrary to what the current policy is. Which is what Councilmember Blevins suggested that we try to work out. That's what my motion is designed to do. Right. And just to be clear, this opinion was not prepared at the request of the administration. It was prepared at the request of the committee. Right. So, I mean, as I say, I haven't even discussed it with the mayor, but this opinion is not going to be any different for him than it is for you. And that's what this motion is designed to do, is to encourage the administration to look at it on the basis of history, precedent, protocols, and so forth, and the administrative application of it. Jack Barnett, if you'd like to speak before we vote. Yes. I just wanted to enlighten you on one issue they're saying on this away with leave. They want to give us leave time, like we're going fishing or something like that. It doesn't like the AWL is if I work in streets and roads and there's an asphalt conference in Louisville, I get AWL time to go to that conference. Our business is city business within the city, but it's employee business with the administration. So the AWL time really doesn't apply. If I come down here to address the council and I'm here three hours waiting for my turn, do I have to apply for AWL time? No. I'm still on the clock. I'm doing my job. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Does anybody need the motion repeated? Okay. Let's proceed to vote. All in favor of Vice Mayor's motion for the administration to confirm its position regarding this issue, please vote aye. All opposed? All right. One opposition and a vote passes. Thank you very much. Yes, step forward, please. Sorry, I had to check protocol. Do I have to state my name? Yes, please. My name is Debbie Taster, and I'm the treasurer of the CSEA. And you all, they say that we're not recognized, but I've got a resolution that says a resolution relating to recognition of employee organizations by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Resolution 181-74. So, to me, we got incorporated in 73. This resolution was made in 74. And as far as I've been here since 1990, and I have been involved in this CSEA, and we've always got four hours off. And, I mean, we don't really take a full four hours because most of the time we go for our lunch hour and maybe stay a half an hour over for the two meetings that we have a month. We have one on the first Wednesday and one on the third Thursday. So, really, we might be using maybe an hour of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's time. And that's really not too much to ask, I don't think, but sometimes when you go weigh-in at Weight Watchers, you go weigh-in, and then you come back for your meeting, and sometimes it's a little bit over an hour. So, I don't understand the difference. Okay, thank you for that. Can we keep a copy of that resolution? Can you turn that in to the clerk so we can make it part of our record? And I hope that you'll have those conversations with the administration, the comments that you just made to us. Mr. Allen, do you have something else to add? Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to publicly state to Councilmember Beard's point, Councilmember, all of the vendors who are approved and who contact our employees have gone through the RFP process, to the best of my knowledge, including the insurance company. And that's been, sir, I would guess at least 15 years. All right. Maybe Councilmember Beard would want to take that up another time. Okay. I received this legal opinion 30 minutes before I came down here, and I really haven't had a chance to digest it to its fullest, and I wish I'd had it a little earlier. Yeah, I think we all got it about the same time, but maybe once we have the recommendation from the administration, we'll be able to discuss it further, maybe even as a full council. All right. And our next agenda item is only to review the items in our packet, the outstanding items. Does anyone have anything to add or to remove or bring forward? Any comments? All right. Motion to adjourn? So moved. All right. All in favor? Aye. So moved. Thank you.