# Intergovernmental Committee - February 12, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · February 12, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/375 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/375?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-02-12 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 2, 2026 - **Length**: 1,554 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 Urban County Council Inter-Governmental Committee convened on February 12, 2008, at 1:00 PM with CM James presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed two agenda items during the session, focusing on internal organizational matters and ethics compliance issues. The meeting included the election of a new committee chair, which was approved, and an informational presentation regarding boards and commissions that adhere to the Ethics Act. The committee conducted two votes during the proceedings, with no public comments received during the meeting. The session successfully accomplished its primary organizational objective of selecting new leadership while also receiving important information about ethics compliance requirements for various municipal boards and commissions. ## Attendance The Committee meeting on February 12, 2008 had seven members present and two members absent. **Present:** • CM James • CM Blues • CM Myers • CM Beard • CM Blevins • CM Henson • CM Stinnett **Absent:** • CM Gray • CM DeCamp No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took two unanimous votes during the February 12, 2008 meeting. **Election of Committee Chair** CM Blues motioned to elect CM James as chair of the Inter-Governmental Committee, with CM Myers providing the second. The motion passed unanimously with no opposition or abstentions recorded. **Policy Development for Boards and Commissions** CM Myers motioned to draft a policy requiring boards and commissions to meet at least once per year, seconded by CM Blues. This motion also passed unanimously without any dissenting votes or abstentions. Both votes were conducted as voice votes with unanimous consent rather than formal roll call votes, so individual member positions were not recorded in the official record. ## Appointments The Committee made one appointment during the February 12, 2008 meeting. • **CM James** was appointed as Chair of the Inter-Governmental Committee The appointment was processed through the standard committee procedures, with CM James taking on the leadership role for the Inter-Governmental Committee. This appointment represents the Committee's ongoing efforts to fill key positions within various governmental bodies and committees. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting materials for this appointment action.* ## Election of Committee Chair The committee proceeded with the election of a chair for the Inter-Governmental Committee during this meeting. CM Blues made a motion to elect CM James to serve as the committee chair. The motion was seconded by CM Myers. The election proceeded without any discussion or debate from committee members. No alternative candidates were nominated, and no concerns were raised regarding the proposed appointment of CM James to the chair position. The motion to elect CM James as chair of the Inter-Governmental Committee passed without dissent, indicating unanimous support from all committee members present. With this approval, CM James officially assumed the role of committee chair. ## Boards/Commissions that Adhere to Ethics Act The committee held a discussion regarding the consolidation or elimination of inactive boards and commissions, as well as the development of a policy requiring boards and commissions to meet at least once annually. Key participants in the discussion included Shaye Rabold, Anna Hartje, CM Myers, and CM Blevins. The conversation focused on addressing boards and commissions that may have become dormant or are not fulfilling their intended functions. The discussion centered on two main objectives: first, identifying boards and commissions that are no longer active or necessary and determining whether they should be consolidated with other entities or eliminated entirely. Second, the committee explored establishing a formal policy that would mandate all boards and commissions meet at least once per year to ensure they remain active and engaged in their designated responsibilities. This agenda item was presented as an informational discussion, with no immediate action items or decisions made during the meeting. The conversation appears to have been part of a broader effort to streamline city governance structures and ensure that all appointed bodies are functioning effectively and in compliance with applicable ethics requirements. The discussion represents an administrative review process aimed at improving the efficiency and accountability of the city's various boards and commissions while ensuring they adhere to established ethics standards. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Elect CM James as chair of the Inter-Governmental Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Draft policy for boards/commissions to meet at least once a year --- ## Full transcript Both. Okay. Council Member Meyers, just to clarify, what the ordinance requires is the Ethics Commission or the designated administrative official, and I think what would happen is the Ethics Commission, not having a staff of its own, would direct somebody in the council clerk's office to notify by certified mail that they've either failed a file or they've filed something that's incomplete. And they'll state the date by which the noncompliance shall be remedied and that the failure to do so will result in some penalty being imposed. So somebody could get a notice because they haven't done what they're supposed to do by the deadline and they get it in late and they're still not fined. I mean, they didn't comply, but they've gotten it within the grace period. So you can have a situation where somebody hasn't complied, but they're not penalized. Okay. Another question I have is, how does the timeline work on this? Because I guess here's the reason I'm asking this. A lot of times some of these folks that are appointed by the mayor are confirmed by the council. But I, as a council member, have never seen anything from the Ethics Commission showing that the person has completed a document and that there is no conflict. And I guess, is the timeline that they would fill out that document after they were confirmed or prior to confirmation? Because I don't know, since I've been involved with the council or on the council, that we've ever gotten anything from either the Ethics Commission or the Council Clerk's Office stating that this person that we are going to look at confirming does not, in fact, have a conflict. So I guess what I'm trying to get at is, if someone reviews that document, one, to make sure that it's complete and that it's turned in in a timely fashion, but where does it actually happen that it's determined that there are no conflicts for them being on that particular commission or board, particularly before we confirm them? There is no requirement that you all have the statement of financial interest prior to confirmation. But once the form is submitted to the Council Clerk's Office, if they can fill out the section that says there is a conflict of interest, that is relayed to the Ethics Commission. And then if the Ethics Commission wants to talk to the person or review it further, then it can. And that's what we've done in the past. Once the forms come in, if anyone has filled out something that says there is a conflict, that is provided to the Ethics Commission, and then they can determine what they want to do. And would that happen before we confirmed them? It doesn't always happen before. And we can change that, that you all have the form before the confirmation hearing. But right now, that's not a requirement. Okay. Let me ask you one more question. What if they don't fill out that there's a conflict, but if you were to look at that form, you might see that there's something that appears to be a conflict, but I'm not saying they're being dishonest or anything, but just that they didn't check that box that says here's a conflict. Is there someone that actually reviews the information to see if, in fact, there might be a conflict? And then what's the reporting process for that, if they determine that there might be? If there isn't anything written on the form, then the forms aren't gone over to see if there is any other type of conflict. But they do sign that section saying that everything that they're putting on the form is accurate. But each person who is subject to the Ethics Act also has the ability to disclose a conflict when it comes up. So it doesn't necessarily have to be on that form. Okay. Because, you know, there could be conflicts that come up later. Right. And so you just have to disclose that in writing or on the record at the time. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Stevens. I think it was the notion when this system was devised that these forms that are filled out are a matter of public record. And if you, say, as a councilperson or a citizen, feel that a person has voted in an issue that affects them personally, then you can file the complaint with the Ethics Commission, and the Ethics Commission then deals with it. Of course, we all have conflicts. For example, you pay taxes, and I pay taxes, and we vote on them. And we can't do what Plato wanted, which was to create a government in which people had no property, no family, nothing, so that they would never have a conflict. We all have conflicts. And it was trying to work out a compromise between what is important and appropriate. And it's after the fact. I don't think it was ever intended that information would be a matter of consideration when somebody was appointed. Any further comments on this issue? All right. Shay, do you have something further? I'd just like to add one other thing. I want to make sure that all the council members saw this in your packet, just for consideration. On page 92, we included a form that Louisville uses for its boards and commissions. People are required to answer yes or no to a series of seven questions that are trying to identify any potential conflicts of interest. And this goes to all boards, or for every board and commission, not just ones that are subject to various portions of their Ethics Act. I just wanted to make sure y'all were aware this was in your packet, because that might help from the council's perspective. You would receive this, just like you do with other information, when the mayor sends his recommendations to you for approval. I just wanted to make sure you saw that in the packet. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Ms. Rabel, a quick question. So were you thinking of this in addition to the changes that we're looking at making to the Ethics Act? So this would be something that each council member would get with respect to the people that they're going to confirm or not confirm? Yes. So this is in addition to, but not instead of the changes? It could be either way. Today, with the conversation, I learned more about what you were thinking about which boards would be subject to the Ethics Act and the financial disclosure. From our perspective, we were concerned about the administration, the folks who actually work on the appointments were concerned that if we asked everybody that is on a board or commission to fill out, and that was where we misunderstood and thought that this form might answer some of the questions that come up. But I understand now what you're looking for, having all of the boards be subject to the Code of Conduct, I believe it's called. This is just something that I thought might be helpful for council members when you get the mayor's report that has their address and everything else, and we already do a background check, that this might alleviate some concerns that you have when you're deciding whether or not this person might have conflict of interest and you haven't seen or there is not a financial disclosure form. Okay, yeah, I think that's a good addition. Wouldn't do it instead of, but in addition to, I think it's great. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. And anything further on that issue? Commissioner? Madam Chairman, let me ask one question. Mr. Blevins asked about us going ahead and preparing the paperwork necessary to abolish those boards that are on that list. Do we still, is that part of what you want us to do? That motion was made and passed, yes. Okay, that was part of your motion. Okay, very good. We'll have that ready for you. Thank you, I appreciate that. Next agenda item is just looking at the committee items. Let me find my list here. Are there any that need to be, does anyone need to discuss any of these for possible removal? I would like to comment that I spoke with Shea earlier and with regard to the CSEA officers, they are, our administration is prepared to address this at the next month's meeting, so we will be discussing that. Some of the CSEA officers had inquired to my office related to that, so that will be on the March agenda. Anything else? I'll get it later. Yes? Madam Chair, I would ask that we go ahead and put these two items that were on the committee today, the Boards of Commissions to adhere to Ethics Commission and the review of current Boards of Commissions back on the agenda for next meeting as the administration is going to be ready to present to us. Okay, that can be done. Thank you. And I guess I'll just ask for a motion, a motion to adjourn. All right, a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. And opposed? Thank you for a good meeting. Thank you.