# General Government & Social Services Committee - April 5, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 5, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3917 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3917?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-04-05 - **Last revised**: April 5, 2016 - **Length**: 13,402 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government & Social Services Committee convened on April 5, 2016, at 1:00 PM with Lamb presiding as the committee chair. The committee addressed six agenda items during the session, with one item requiring formal approval and five items presented for informational purposes. The committee took five votes throughout the meeting and heard no public comments during the session. The meeting's primary business included approving the committee summary from a previous session, along with receiving informational presentations on several key municipal topics. Committee members received updates on security camera installations in city parks, proposed changes to council rules and procedures, and the current status of various boards, agencies, and commissions. Additional informational items covered the location and broadcasting arrangements for council meetings, as well as a review of items currently under committee consideration. The session focused primarily on administrative and operational matters affecting city governance, with most agenda items serving to inform committee members rather than requiring formal action. The single approval item involved routine committee business, while the remaining presentations provided updates on ongoing municipal initiatives and procedural matters. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on April 5, 2016: • Lamb • Evans • J. Brown • Bledsoe • F. Brown • Moloney • Scutchfield Three members were absent: • Akers • Gibbs • Henson No members arrived late to the meeting. Seven of the ten members were in attendance, constituting a quorum for conducting official business. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took five unanimous votes during the April 5, 2016 meeting, with all seven members present participating in each decision. **Approval of February 2, 2016 Committee Summary** Scutchfield motioned to approve the February 2, 2016 Committee Summary, seconded by Evans. The motion passed unanimously with votes from Lamb, Evans, J. Brown, Bledsoe, F. Brown, Moloney, and Scutchfield. **Extended Social Resource (ESR) Process Policy Revisions** Moloney motioned to accept policy revisions for the Extended Social Resource (ESR) Process, seconded by Evans. The motion passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. **Amendment to Keep ESR Process in Committee** Scutchfield motioned to amend the previous motion to keep the ESR process in Committee, seconded by Bledsoe. This amendment also passed unanimously with support from all members present: Lamb, Evans, J. Brown, Bledsoe, F. Brown, Moloney, and Scutchfield. **Removal of Aquatic Program Design from Committee** Scutchfield motioned to remove the Aquatic Program Design from Committee oversight, seconded by F. Brown. The motion passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. **Meeting Adjournment** J. Brown motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Scutchfield. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously with votes from all committee members present. All votes were conducted as unanimous voice votes rather than formal roll call votes, with no members voting against any of the proposed motions or abstaining from the voting process. The consistent seven-member participation indicates full attendance throughout the meeting's voting procedures. ## Approval of Committee Summary The committee reviewed and approved the summary of their February 2, 2016 meeting as the first item of business. Committee members Scutchfield and Evans participated in the discussion of the meeting summary. The committee examined the documentation from the previous meeting to ensure accuracy and completeness of the record. Following their review, the committee voted to approve the February 2, 2016 meeting summary without any noted revisions or corrections. **Outcome:** The committee summary was approved. ## Security Cameras in Parks F. Brown delivered a presentation on the implementation of security cameras in municipal parks during the April 5, 2016 meeting. The presentation examined both the potential benefits and drawbacks of installing surveillance systems in public recreational areas. Brown's presentation covered the advantages of park security cameras, which typically include enhanced public safety, crime deterrence, and the ability to monitor park facilities and activities. The discussion also addressed the disadvantages associated with surveillance systems, such as privacy concerns, installation and maintenance costs, and potential impacts on the natural park environment. The agenda item was structured as an informational presentation, allowing Brown to provide comprehensive details about security camera systems without requiring immediate action from the meeting participants. This format enabled attendees to receive detailed information about the topic while having the opportunity to consider the various factors involved in implementing park surveillance systems. The presentation served as an educational session for meeting participants, providing them with the necessary background information to understand the complexities of installing security cameras in public parks. No specific decisions or votes were taken during this agenda item, as it was designated for informational purposes only. The discussion of security cameras in parks represents a common consideration for municipal governments balancing public safety needs with community concerns about privacy and the preservation of natural recreational spaces. ## Council Rules & Procedures The council held a discussion on amending the rules and procedures governing council operations during agenda item 3. Kay served as the key speaker for this informational item. The discussion focused on potential modifications to the existing council rules and procedures, though specific details about the proposed amendments were not provided in the available materials. This appears to have been an exploratory discussion rather than consideration of specific rule changes. The item was designated as informational, indicating that no formal action was taken during this meeting. The discussion likely served to introduce potential procedural changes or gather initial input from council members on areas where rule modifications might be beneficial. No transcript timestamps were available for this agenda item, and the outcome was recorded as informational only, suggesting this was preliminary discussion on the topic of council rules and procedures rather than formal consideration of specific amendments. ## Boards, Agencies, & Commissions – Update Scutchfield provided an informational update on various boards, agencies, and commissions during this agenda item. The presentation was designed to keep the governing body informed about the current status and activities of these municipal entities. This was an informational item with no action required from the governing body. The update served as a routine briefing to ensure elected officials remained current on the operations and developments within the city's various boards, agencies, and commissions. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item, and detailed discussion points were not captured in the available meeting materials.* ## Location and Broadcasting of Council Meetings The council discussed the location and broadcasting arrangements for future council meetings during agenda item 5. Scutchfield served as the key speaker for this discussion item. This was an informational discussion focused on examining the current practices and potential changes regarding where council meetings are held and how they are made available to the public through broadcasting or other media channels. The agenda item was categorized as a discussion item rather than requiring formal action, indicating the council was exploring options or reviewing existing policies related to meeting accessibility and public engagement through broadcasting services. No specific outcome or decision was recorded for this item, as it served an informational purpose to allow council members to discuss and consider various aspects of meeting location and broadcasting arrangements. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Items in Committee Agenda item 6 addressed various matters currently under committee review. Lamb served as the key speaker for this discussion item. This agenda item was designated as informational in nature, providing an update on the status of items being considered by different committees. The discussion covered various matters currently in the committee process, though specific details about individual items or their current status were not detailed in the available materials. The item concluded as an informational update without requiring formal action by the body. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of February 2, 2016 Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Accept policy revisions for Extended Social Resource (ESR) Process - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Amend motion to keep ESR process in Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove Aquatic Program Design from Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript The End ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ The End ¶¶ It's one o'clock and we'll call the General Government and Social Services Committee on April 5, 2016 to order. The first item on our agenda is approval for the March 1st committee summary. Is there a motion or a motion? Motion by Council Member Scotchfield, seconded by Council Member Akers. Any discussion on the motion? There being none, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. All right. Yes, ma'am. Okay. It's all right. Thank you. I think that we can move on forward with the first presentation today. It's regarding security cameras. Council Member Fred Brown, would you like to introduce the presentation? Thank you, Chair. I put the security cameras in the park into this committee, and we've been reviewing some things of that nature. And we've got a presentation from Parks, Ms. Conrad, and also I think the police has some items that they can talk about. And if you want to come on forward, we'll just go ahead into the presentation, and then we can ask some questions after the presentation. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting us to present today on security cameras in Lexington parks. Lieutenant Mike Wright and myself will be going through the information that we're going to present to you. So our agenda today is to talk about our present use of security cameras by parks and recreation. Lieutenant Wright will then talk about the advantages and disadvantages of additional cameras. Our next steps, time for questions, and then we'll also have some references available to you for just informational purposes. Currently, our security cameras at Parks and Recreation locations total about 49 cameras. They are located both interior and exterior at Artworks at Carver, at Dunbar Community Center, and at the Bell House. They are exterior only at McConnell Springs and at North Base Maintenance. McConnell Springs primarily used to do visitor counts. How many people do we have coming and going at McConnell Springs? At the golf courses, you'll see that we have cameras which are positioned actually over our cash handling operations. All of these cameras are analog infrared cameras. They are reviewed, with the exception of McConnell Springs, where it's just used for visitor counts. These are reviewed through security downtown here at LFECG. And the frequency is primarily for review. If there's an issue, we pull up the tape, or the security folks here would pull up that tape. The only time that we're looking at it on a regular basis is at McConnell Springs, where, of course, we're doing those visitor counts. Now I'm going to let Lieutenant Wright speak to you a little bit more. Thank you. I was just asked to help put together some advantages and disadvantages to make sure everybody was looking at these the same way. And most of these are pretty common sense, pretty straightforward, but there can be some unintended consequences with some of them, both advantages and disadvantages. So as you see there, one of the possible advantages is a possible decrease in crime. And what we found from a little bit of research that we have done is that it tends to lower your property crimes, but not necessarily your violent crimes that may occur in those areas. A disadvantage is not really going to be on the slightest disadvantage, but another unintended consequence with that is it may lower the property crime in that location where the camera is, but citywide stats, it may just displace it to where the cameras aren't. So that's something else you have to think about that could potentially cause you to have to put more and more cameras up to watch for that displacement. Obviously, advantages reviewing footage of incidents, evidence of crime is obvious. A couple different perception issues. One advantage is if you talk to a lot of people, they will believe that there is a less fear of crime if they know that there are cameras in the areas where they or their kids are going to be. But a disadvantage, again, to that could be that they accept that too much of an advantage or they expect that nothing bad is going to happen because there are cameras when obviously something still could happen. The live monitoring, it's worded there as stopping crimes in progress. I would probably word that more of reducing response time. If it's being monitored live, then obviously notification to us of a crime actually occurring was going to happen and then increase our response time to that area. So I don't know if I would say stop, but I think certainly increasing our time getting there is going to help. Some disadvantages, again, going back to the advantage of a less fear of crime could be a false sense of security if there are cameras up, but yet they're not being monitored live. So I think getting with the public, which is on down there a little bit more, possible community disproval, getting with the public and making sure what the expectation is and making sure that everyone knows whether they are live monitored or not, because obviously that is a big difference and could potentially change someone's view of their safety. And then the cost. The cost is big, and there's a lot of things to consider there that sometimes may not get thought of. You know, especially if it's not a live monitoring system, then the system has got to be good enough that you're going to be able to recognize faces or you're going to be able to see license plates or whatever the case may be, and it's not just a shadow because that's really not going to do you a lot of good in solving that crime. And if that gets known that that's happening and we're not getting good footage out of it, then obviously that's an issue. So that's going to increase the cost, not to mention the records, the retention of it, the installation, repair, open records requests that are going to come because you've got to believe that once people know that there is monitoring out there, that people are going to be requesting to see that footage through open records as well. So that's something, again, that has to be thought of a little bit. And then the last two, there are just things that I pulled off some other research from other places around the country that have these and talking about a heightened suspicion. Well, there must be more crime than they're really telling me if they're putting cameras in my park. They're hiding something. They know something's there or they wouldn't put a camera there. And then the last thing is just the unrealistic expectations. And that goes back really to the live monitoring or not. And again, just making sure that you've got the community bought in and understanding of what's going to be provided and what's available to them. So our recommended next steps for moving forward with security cameras is to develop a task force to evaluate them within our parks. We would recommend that we would have someone from IT. Certainly there are a lot of decisions to be made about cabling and fiber optics and what types of cameras. From the law department, certainly to address any issues that we would have from a legal standpoint. We already have a great relationship with the police department and public safety, but we would certainly want to be working with them directly on this issue. Division of Parks and Recreation certainly needs to have a seat at the table as well as council. And now we have time for questions. Thank you all for this presentation. Council Member James Brown. Okay, all right. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, James. I know this is kind of the beginning, and I put it into this committee because I felt like that our parks, that we just don't have the security that we need. One of the ideas I had was that we've got the new skate park in Berry Hill Park, and it's an ideal place for a taped camera. I'm not really in favor of monitoring cameras because that does get into expense. But a taped camera of that activity out there, because we have such a large group and it's a new type of park that we have. And also I've got a couple other parks in my district. I felt like some type of taped camera would be really beneficial for safety and concerns, especially if you have walking paths that, and I have one at River Park, that is in a tree area, a shaded area. So there is some concerns out there. I didn't, really, I think when I talked to Parks and Monica, we were talking about maybe doing a pilot program, maybe doing one or two parks or try it. When you were reviewing, and then I'll go back to my question, did anybody talk to UK campus? Do they have some securities on their actual campus? I mean, I know this is a little different from parks to campus, but UK probably has security cameras. I'll ask the chief to address that. Did we look into any of that as far as how successful those were working? They do. They have just installed security cameras, live monitoring security cameras. that they have monitoring people monitoring there on their campus. It goes around, and they do have people inside that watches that as it goes along in case they receive a call. Okay. What about Fayette County Schools? Do they have any kind of monitoring or any type of cameras? Yes, and they have them on their buses also. Okay. So there is, and one other area probably would be some of the large corporations that are in town, Lexmark the banks any of those type of there's a plethora of CCTV monitoring going on in private and public interest I think for us looking at it is one the expense the responsibility and then also the expectation of the community if they want surveillance so we tend to go and everything we look at in academia that does research on this is the most important aspect of it is the community wants it, has input on how it's going to be viewed, how it's going to be monitored, and what are the standards and expectations from it. Because people do have an expectation of privacy, even when attending a park, and so they need to know if it's being viewed or not, and then who's responsible for maintaining that information and releasing that information. So it's worthy looking at. You know, European countries, England is a very CCTV society, everything they use and do. It doesn't do much as far as crime prevention. The studies have come out and said that. They haven't had those many cases made on it, even in terrorism. but it is a sense and people like to feel safe and they think that that makes them safe, then the perception of crime and perception of safety is important to the community too. I just believe the community ought to have some input about where cameras are stationed and where they want them. And it's not just the police department, but it's a community whole. Well, you know, and that makes sense. And I think I do like the recommendation that we're looking at, maybe a task force or even a subcommittee out of this council where we could address that and look at it. Because there is attached in the back sheets there, we do have some information on some other cities. And I think this is something that's kind of starting. And, you know, Lexington, a lot of times we're on the cutting edge of things of this nature. and we're getting into the body cameras for the police officers. So it looks like technology and these things are happening and what I really was looking at was just to have some parks that were more secure, safety-minded, and that people felt a little safer and that was kind of the reason I brought this forth. Thank you. All right. Now Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Monica and Chief, for this presentation. I think it was valuable information. My question is, and I guess it's to the Chief, is as an investigation tool, does the department see any value in using these cameras? I will say that a lot of our investigations technology is the way the investigations are going. I will tell you, as far as the body cameras, one of the things that jurors are asking are, we want to be there. The CSI moment, people want to actually see the crime scene. They want to see exactly what happened and not the description of what happened or the testimony from just the officers. They want that firsthand view. So there will be some evidentiary. If you're able to gain evidentiary value from it, it would be very helpful, yes. Okay. Yeah, and I would agree with Council Member Fred Brown. I kind of see it more as something that's not live monitoring. I don't know if it's on a 24-hour or 48-hour roll. And can you be used as an investigation tool and as a deterrent for crime more so than a live monitoring. And I think the next steps, I do agree with the task force would be a good way to move forward. And I'm also interested in doing a trial. So I think maybe some additional partners to add to the task force, if the U.K. has implemented a monitoring system, maybe they can provide some valuable information. And then maybe add some neighborhood leaders from the parks that we may designate to do a trial if we decide to go that route. I think those would be some additional voices of value that could be added to the task force. All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I just had one question and then a comment, but would the task force look at possible locations for cameras or what it would be based on? would you base it on higher crime areas, higher vandalism areas? I was going to take the question, but as it becomes more of a public safety issue, I think it's important that we're deferring public protection in those questions to the experts. So I'm going to defer to the chief again on this one. Thank you. Once again, I think we have to speak to the technology of why we want it and why are we implementing that technology. So I think we have to take all those things in concern. When Council Member Brown was talking about who to bring to the table, I would also suggest Eastern Kentucky University, their College of Justice and Safety. They're on the forefront of doing the studies of looking at these type of implementations. But you would deploy it based on, I would think you would want the community, the council district and the community leaders that say that they need it and why they need it and that it's accepted into that area. I think if, for me being the police chief, I don't want to go into a park and say this park is really dangerous and I'm putting cameras up here. I don't think that sends the right message. And when you're looking at the expense and technology, implementing that, fiber optics, everything that we're looking at with body cameras now, which I understand are very expensive, one of the things I would suggest is we have a park patrol system right now, but that's on a roving patrol. And if we had parks in your district that were looking at that, we would fund those park patrols for an off-duty officer for full time to be into that park at that time, and that may help alleviate some of the situations that are occurring. Right now they move from park to park to park during a shift, whereas if we had parks that were designated that you all thought needed full time, that actually runs out of parks, they could schedule it and tell us which park they need, and we put the officer over there. So if that would help also, we're willing to do that. I guess I think a lot of man hours goes into removing graffiti and fixing things that have been just purposely destroyed. So I think you could base possibly where to put the cameras on issues like that. If you have a park that doesn't have any issues, then, you know, you wouldn't want to foot the cost for the cameras. But I think the task force is a great idea. I would be supportive of a task force to look at, you know, if we're going to do this, let's do it right. Let's look at what other folks have done, what other businesses have done, and just do it right. instead of just throwing something out and trying to, you know, waste money rather than, you know. But that's all I have to say. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I, you know, as a mom of two very young kids, we go to the park all the time. And my first reaction to cameras is, I know a lot of mom and dads who do not want their kids on camera, period. I mean, that's just the number of waivers I have to sign for my child to get his picture taken anywhere we go is like five or six. I mean, it's immense. And I get very nervous about the privacy issue in the 18 and under group putting cameras in parks in general. I think the question, although I agree with the spirit of what we're trying to do, and the spirit of the question is how do we make our parks safe? And I think limiting that conversation to just cameras limits what maybe the best options to keep our parks safe might be. So I like the patrol option. I think if you put cameras up in certain places, people are going to say, well, great, we'll go someplace else. Or they'll say, well, what do I not know what's going on in that park that someone else may know? And it raises all that suspicion. And on social media, I just think that explodes in ways that it's really hard to put back. so the disadvantages that you see I see as well as being some pretty substantial ones to overcome so I would just encourage you I'm not against the task force I think it's a good idea to look at but I may broaden the focus to not so much just cameras but to what are the best ideas we have to keep our parks safe and maybe cameras in certain areas make the most sense I'm not saying they don't but maybe that's not the only thing we could do that would also accomplish the main goal and the spirit of the goal, which I think is to make our parks safe. That's just my initial reaction. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the report. I really appreciate the comments by the Chief of the community input. I think that that is really important. I mean, in any work that we do, I think it's important that we don't go in as experts ourselves from outside of a neighborhood or outside of an area and say, this is what you need and this is what we think is best. Because I defer to those areas and neighborhoods, and even as Council Member Bledsoe said, we may think this park has a high rate of crime and this would be a good deterrent, or this is how we could catch vandals or other crimes. that have happened there, but if the neighborhood doesn't want it, if they don't believe that it's a need, and if parents are concerned about their children, privacy issues, then I think I agree that there's no point, that that's not the answer, that cameras are not the answer. So saying that, however, just this week we had a fire set and a trash can and a toilet paper set on fire in one of the community centers in my district. And then there have been, obviously, lots of, I mean, not lots, but some violent activities in some other parks in my district. So I do want to continue the conversation of how can we make our parks safer and what can we do to ensure that residents feel safe when they attend events at the parks. And I think it, I believe that cameras might help in some of these locations in order to identify who set the fire. I mean, it's a cost. It's man hours. It is expenses in replacing property or painting over graffiti. And then it also might help identify who goes into large crowds and fires a gun. So I think that the task force is a good idea, and I think I would like at least what I would like to see maybe in a future report or just as part of the task force discussion to look at, instead of just all the parks, But let's narrow it down to where have we had most calls for service in the past five years or incidents or something like that. I think we have to start somewhere. We can't just, you know, maybe a pilot project. So that's my thoughts. Thank you. Councilmember Evans. Thank you, Chair. I've got a lot of comments, and I'm going to try and keep them short. I do have concern. If safety is what we're talking about and everyone wants parks to be safe, I personally don't think we need to jump straight to public surveillance because that's really what we're talking about. And there have been several studies, research agencies or organizations that have done their own research on public surveillance and the pros and cons to it. And I think one of those core principles is that there has to be a serious identified threat to the public. And it's not just a general property damage or what else is going on. So that's my concern is that there isn't, based on that, there doesn't seem to be a true threat that we're trying to resolve. and that's what I've understood the purpose of public surveillance to be. And I'm not sure the cost of what we're trying to prevent, the behavior we're trying to prevent, would really outweigh that need. So I'm really, when you talk about a task force, I think that's fine, but I think maybe perhaps the first question should be what are the safety issues. like that has previously been said, instead of going directly to public surveillance. I think that's taking a huge leap. And why not use the resources that we do have? I mean, as you all suggested, we've got new officers that might just be out on the street now or haven't gone out there yet. So I think we're probably jumping the gun and going straight to public surveillance for all kinds of different reasons and not the least of them constitutional issues that would probably be raised. And task force, yes or no, I mean, I do agree with others that it needs to be much more inclusive, and whether it's recorded or whether it's just kind of a live feed, I mean, I do think you need to incorporate or include neighborhood representatives from all over the city. I mean, it sounds like a given, but I don't think it always is. And outside of our law department, I would suggest finding some constitutional professors that do teach that, because I think they would bring a different perspective. And the social justice, human rights organizations that we have, I mean, I think this is a big, big issue to tackle. and I think maybe going straight to the public surveillance is perhaps short-sighted. Although it might be something we want later on, but I don't know if that's really going to address the issues that perhaps council members have in their districts with parks. And again, using the resources that we have, I think, is probably a more prudent way to go. And, again, who else to add to that? I mean, I think it needs to be a much broader group of people. You know, we talk about open records. I think, you know, the journalism community should probably be included as well to talk about that and hash those things out. So, you know, I think it's their safety issues in parks is fine, and we can discuss that. But I just think the public surveillance is probably jumping the gun. and I hope it could be a broader discussion in what we all can do to keep parks safe and consider all of the resources that we have. I didn't know what my time was, so thank you. We're on there. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak again. I just wanted to make my colleagues aware and remind some of my colleagues that we did have a Safe Parks Task Force that we worked on for months and months. So I can send that out as a review, the recommendations that came out of that task force. And I do remember having conversations about cameras in some of our parks. But that task force came about because it is important for parents to be able to take their children or for people to be able to walk in our parks or whatever and feel like they're safe. So if you've had a recent shooting in a park, then you don't feel so safe. So, and that is the last thing we need is that perception of our park. So I'll send that out for review. And I know that there is a position that we're looking at. We had filled the position, but then it became unfilled for a person that would coordinate the efforts of the safe parks. and getting particularly our neighborhood parks where there's not a lot of activity and which they're open to more unwanted activities. So I think as, you know, I've got parks in my district, and I believe Council Member James Brown does, where we have activity leagues. and even though there's no organized sports in those parks, there are organized activities to keep people busy, people in the park, people cut down on crime. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks. And if nobody else has questions, I would like to. I've got some questions as well. I know Mr. Craig Benz is the one that prepared this information from comparable cities of similar populations. I was wanting to ask, when he did this, I know that some there were pending responses, but the ones that answered no, did you actually go to the extent of asking them if they have even discussed it or if it's just that they just don't have anything in place? I didn't know the level of depth that you might have been able to go into. Right. There are two that we still haven't received responses from. The first was Louisville, and I believe they have cameras in their parks. They were just trying to get some details before they got back with us. And Corpus Christi, Texas, was the other one that we just haven't heard back from. We don't know whether they have cameras in their parks right now at all. They didn't respond to the several requests. Okay. And then the ones that answered no, did they elude that they had ever looked at it or never? Some of them stated that they had looked into it in the past. Some stated that they found it more important to have cameras within facilities in the park. In other words, if there's a building in the park, most of them have a camera or two in buildings within parks. But most of them had generally looked into the issue and decided not to in the past. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Benz. I think that's more of a reason, too, to actually go down the road of the task force. I think that is very valuable. The other questions relate to what Chief Barnard was talking about, the park patrol. I would like to make sure, and I know that if we go down the road of a task force, I think that it's important that this committee set out what we want them to come back with. And so I think that one of them would be, for me, is to determine whether having cameras versus park patrol, number one, the cost effectiveness of it and just the effectiveness of it. And, you know, when you install a camera that's in one location, These parks we have are massive parks, and so whether you have a camera in two places or a person in one place, you're still going to have areas that are going to be un... They're not going to be... Yeah, they're not going to be... Yeah, thank you all. Okay. Okay. So I guess the other thing the task force would need to do is we would need to ask, like Council Member Bledsoe said, is how do we keep our parks safe and how we want to address that. What I would like to know is the crime data that we have currently, would that be used in order to determine what parks that need to have? Is there anything more than the crime data that we have in order to determine that? Do you all have reports in Parks and Recreation along with the reports in police? I think all of that has to be taken into consideration. The other thing is, and you all have kind of alluded to this, is what type of cameras to use. I know that if you have a camera monitoring things and you can't zoom in enough to even tell what's happening, then you're wasting your efforts completely. So I think, I guess the other thing is that Vice Mayor Kay was saying maybe the difference between a task force or a subcommittee. I would ask the law department to explain the difference between a task force and a subcommittee. Would a task force be more, would there be more advantage to having a task force than a subcommittee of this? The technicality you're going to run into is if this committee puts it together, for open meetings purposes you're going to run into the same issues. So I don't know that as a practical matter it will make that much difference. Now, typically if you create a subcommittee, you're going to put a time frame on it. A task force could probably operate longer than subcommittee without a deadline to act. Okay. And as far as voting privilege on the task force versus subcommittee, a task force, all members would possibly write a vote, and then a subcommittee, it would strictly be the council. Is that fair to say? Well, once again, it would depend on how you set up the subcommittee because you could create a subcommittee where everyone you decide to place on the subcommittee would have a vote. Same thing with the task force. It really depends on the parameters that you give the group. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. And I have seven seconds, six seconds and counting. And so I will recognize anyone else that would like to make a motion or to move forward? Council Member Evans? Just for clarification on the difference between task force and I guess the subcommittee. The subcommittee is just council. We couldn't create a subcommittee and appoint members of the community, correct? I haven't looked at the rule on it, but generally if you create a subcommittee, a group would have the option of putting people that aren't on the committee on a subcommittee. It just depends on the parameters you establish for it. But they all have to be council members. That's my question. No? Okay, I'm just clarifying. As long as you spell out what you're doing and what the perimeters of the subcommittee and who the members are, I think you're able to do that. And then if you say everyone's, you can limit it to the voting members would be the members of this committee or whatever council members you put on it, but you don't have to. limit it that way. Cool. Thank you for the clarification. Council Member Fred Brown, how would you like to proceed since this is your item in committee? That's a good question. I'm not sure after listening to other council members, it's mushroomed. We're trying to get it out of control. I wanted to keep it pretty simple within government for us to look at something and address if we've got some problems and maybe have a pilot of one or two parks and just work within our system. A subcommittee would probably be the best, but for a full-blown task force, I didn't envision that, and I'm not so sure that I would want to go along with that because that's time-consuming for everyone and it's a bigger project than I want to undertake. But I still am pretty well convinced that we've got some parks that it wouldn't hurt to have some of these cameras located in them and I alluded to a couple that I had but I think that we ought to be able to maybe study it a little bit more. We don't have all the responses back. I would be interested to see what Louisville is doing in their parks and we haven't got a response back on that. So I guess I'd like to keep it in committee. I'm not ready to go any further than that. If somebody else is, fine. And maybe I would add perhaps by the time we review it again as we wait to get the information from Louisville, and also perhaps we could ask police and parks to bring us some information as far as crime report or some information for the parks. And this will allow community maybe to get some input. You know, council members, you've got some neighborhood associations and everybody meets with them. You know, just let's discuss it and talk about it and get it out there to some of the neighborhood associations and then see where, let's keep it in this committee, but maybe bring forward some additional information from the community. And I'll do likewise on a couple of my neighborhood associations that are involved in the park area. So maybe what we could do is we could set a time frame to bring this back for further discussion, and that way everybody knows what we're talking about. I'm going to just shoot, what about July? I think. Does that sound like a good plan? Well, July 5th. So that way maybe if the Division of Parks and Division of Police could maybe look at some crime data and bring back some information and we can put together some more information. Okay. All righty. So I don't believe a motion is in order for any of that, and I appreciate that. Thank you, Council members, for your inclusion on that. And the next item on our presentation happens to be the Council Rules and Procedures. Vice Mayor Kaye, I'd like to recognize you about this presentation. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring this forward. For those of you who have been on Council for a while, this is an oldie but goodie. It came before Council four years ago, three and a half years ago. this is at least half the people who were there then are not here now so I thought it might be useful to bring it forward again. It was a very close vote at that time. What's being proposed is some changes in the council rules that would streamline our regular council meetings and the two readings of every single item on the docket. So there are three things in the packet. The first is a resolution that would amend the existing rules. It adds on the second page of the resolution an item called legislative review, and that would be treated pretty much like budget amendments and new business. There'd be a list. There'd be an opportunity to discuss if needed. there would be an opportunity for motions to either place them on the docket or dispose of them in some other way. And if you turn to the fourth page, it begins a set of categories of things that could be included on legislative review, items A through K. In your packet you have two dockets, one from March 3rd and one from March 17th, the last two council meetings we had. And they're marked up with an indication of which items would be able to be on legislative review and would not necessarily require two readings. They're in red boxes and they have a letter in the box and a red. that refers to the specific category that that item falls under. So, for example, if it's an execution of deeds and easements, it would have an A in that box. If it's an execution of contracts not to exceed 19.9, it would have a B in that box and so on. If you scan through that, what you'll see is that it's somewhere between a half and a third of the items that now get read twice would not need to be read twice. They could be approved in a single motion as legislative review. A couple reasons for bringing this forward. One, just simple efficiency. We have 15 council members. We typically have 15 or 20 people from the administration and other people here at council meetings. When the clerk is reading the ordinances and resolutions, I think it's fair to say that at times some council members are not paying full attention to the reading. I'll leave it at that. I personally find it most difficult when we have a troop of Boy Scouts or other students who have come to observe Council and the way in which it acts. And what they see is the clerk reading and the council members, some at some times, not paying full attention. And at times, actually most not paying full attention. I don't think it sends the right message. And I don't think that it does anything to enhance the transparency, et cetera, of the government. So that's the proposal. The categories, as I say, A through K, obviously they could be amended if there's too many of them. But as you look through, I think what you'll see is that these are items that are 100% routine. they rarely, does anybody have a question or a comment or a concern about any of the items in this kind of a category. And if any council member did, it would be possible to take it off the legislative review and have it be read twice. So that's the proposal, and I'm open for questions, comments, et cetera. Thank you, Chair. All right, council members, are there questions? Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. I like the idea very much. I do pay attention throughout the entire meeting, but I have noticed some of my colleagues reading, you know, not paying full attention. But I think we spend entirely too much time on those council meetings. My question is if we could possibly expand this proposal. We have 11 items. There's an item. every week we usually have job offers and pay raises and they're oftentimes the longest items on the list and I've never in my memory heard anybody raise any question about any of those and I was wondering if there's some reason if somebody from the law department could answer is there a reason why we can't put that and add those items on there make that letter L Hi. Not that I can think of off the top of my head, this list that's in the packet before you today is the list that was originally presented to the General Government Committee, I guess, four years ago. And at that time, there was, I guess, a feeling among the council that those personnel items should still go to the docket and receive two readings as opposed to being on the consent agenda. But I can't think of anything right now that would prohibit that. Okay. Well, if you could examine that for me, and if this passes throughout through the committee, I think what I'll do is work on wording to make an amendment to add those if it's okay with you. Okay. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. Law Department, please. I guess my only concern is how does this affect the charter that was set up that talks about readings, and there's supposed to be two readings for every item of resolutions and ordinances. and I'm not so sure where we're at from whether the charter has to be amended for these type of things to happen. No, the charter does not have to be amended, but if these things were to make it to a consent agenda, they wouldn't be a resolution or an ordinance, so it wouldn't require those two readings. So that's how we get around, for lack of a better way to say it, that section of the charter. Council Member Evans. Don't go to work, Linda. Well, and I think that was kind of part of what my question was, because I'm not opposed to making things more expeditious, but I was confused on, this was the last paragraph, it starts with, no procedural action is taken. That was kind of my confusion and still really honestly trying to wrap my head, my brain around the process. These are items that we have to vote on. So you're voting. Consent agendas, you're still taking a vote at some point. Yes or no? So this just means we're just voting on it once to move it? If you didn't do, if you look at that last paragraph, If you didn't do one of these three things, then it would just automatically go forward to the mayor being able to execute the document. There wouldn't be a yay or nay by you not doing one, two, or three. You're basically saying yes, and that would go forward. That's the way this is set. This is designed. Okay, and that's okay and goes with the charter? Because that was my concern about the voting and making sure. Okay, thank you. I guess I'll chime in here. And I think this is probably our, I think I remember having this discussion at a very minimum of three times and perhaps maybe even more. There's more. Yeah, yeah. And while I respect and appreciate my colleague bringing this forward, I wanted to find out, had you had any communication with the council clerk's office about this? Because it would drastically affect their work process. I think we actually had a question that was asked of the council clerk, and I believe that the clerk office would be in favor, but I've not had any conversations since I brought this forward. to this committee. Okay. All right. Because, I mean, it does drastically affect their workload, and I would be very interested to know how they feel about this. Obviously, that is my former 21 years, so I understand that it can be implemented, or at least it could when I was over there. And so, but the way I look at it, and this is just my perspective, is that I believe the majority of the reasons that it has never moved forward is it lessens the authority of the council and it gives more authority to the administration. And I will say, with most administrations, I don't think that's a bad thing. But there is a possibility the administration could come in and it could turn topsy-turvy on the council. I am concerned with some of the sections, and now that I'm looking at it from a different lens, which was interesting, that I think I probably would have a problem with all of the items except for subsection F, which would be the grant agreements. and probably I, again, with the grant applications, and then the J, the donations of goods, those I probably wouldn't have a problem with. But the other things, I think there's a level of transparency that our process is set up for. And do people listen to the clerk when she's reading? Do we listen to the clerk? Who knows? But if we lessen that amount of transparency, what are we telling our citizens? Are we telling them that we don't want them to be able to know what's going on in the city? I worry about what that perception is. So I guess I will leave it at that and say that at this point, And I don't think I could be supportive of moving forward with this just for the fact that I think that it would lessen the transparency and give more authority to one part of the government than we currently have. And, again, in the future, that could be a bad thing down the road. So that's my two cents worth. Council Member Maloney. I want to echo Council Member Lamb's statement on transparency. I've been on this. This is my fifth mayor that I've worked under. And if this would have passed when I first come on the council and what I know now, I would have been very uncomfortable with a couple of mayors having this kind of authority. And what concerns me is who may be the next mayor is what I've heard. and I don't believe in what I've been hearing and I don't believe that they'll be similar to those mayors that we've had and I have concerns about that. So I agree that we should leave it the way it is and I hope we don't change it. And I believe, and this isn't the third time. Some of you all might have heard it the third time. I've heard it ever since I've been on here. Every time I get on the council, everybody wants to do something about this. But as I read this and see what I've done the last five, I'm glad we're doing what we're doing. Because some of you guys are going to be on here someday, hopefully being five bears like I did. And you're going to sit back and say the same thing I said. I'm glad. I did not change this because we need transparency. And while some people not have that, I think it's the right decision we're doing is to keep doing what we're doing now. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. I just want to clarify and make sure that I'm understanding this correctly, because I think that I am. So all of these items, A through K, would still be on the docket, correct? They just wouldn't be read. I mean, they would be placed on the agenda, just like what's... They would be listed in the work session. They would be on the agenda for the work session. there would be an opportunity at that time to place them on the docket if you wanted to or put them in committee or put them back to the administration. Similar to how we do the mayor's report now. Yes, ma'am. So it's still accessible to the public. We would all still see every single item, every grant application, every professional services contract. We would all still see it. Yes, ma'am. Right. So it's not that we're deleting that and just letting the mayor make all of these decisions and contracts on his own. We still have a say in what happened. Yes, that's what I thought. All right. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. Sorry. I know a lot of council members probably aren't big fans of workshops. But for me to better understand some of the recommended changes in the reason for them and how it could make us work more efficiently as a council, I'd be interested in having a workshop that lays out the changes and maybe getting an explanation for it. And then I'm also concerned about the transference of authority from the council to the administration and how some of these recommended changes would allow that to happen. And then another concern is the workload for the clerk's office. If it's going to be a big impact to that office and may affect their ability to be able to have information in a timely manner for us to review and for them to log it and to keep track of it as moving forward, I think that's a concern that needs to be addressed as well. So, you know, I'm in favor of taking a look at this in an optional workshop to get a better understanding of the impact of some of these recommended changes. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Chair. To Council Member Maloney's point, I would say if it keeps getting brought up, then to me that shows that there's something, not wrong, but something needs to change. And I don't really know what that is, but if this is something that keeps coming up and it's not just one person bringing it up, to me that says something can be different. Something needs to change. Again, not knowing exactly what that is, but there's a reason it keeps coming up. So I would be interested in maybe thinking more about this, thinking through perhaps maybe eliminating some of these topics. I mean, the ones that I think, as Council Member Lamb suggested, that are perhaps the more benign ones, including them in the list. but also kind of understanding that it does say that the mayor's office may do it, and we have the authority to remove it from a consent agenda. So to the point of losing any kind of authority, as I mentioned earlier in a subcommittee, that puts more work on us as council members, and do we want that? I don't know. To make sure to go through that list thoroughly, but I guess I'm kind of of the opinion that if it keeps coming up, then perhaps there is something of value to this discussion and we can try to address it somehow. Thank you. Thanks. Councilman Maloney. I just want to make a clarification here. In the 20-something years I've been here, it's only been brought up three or four times. In the last three years, it's brought up three times. And before that, it was brought up one. the time that were brought up before people were complaining because it took too long and that was a hard argument that I had to sell my constituents when I went that was the reason why I voted against them I got elected to do this job to inform the people and this is the process we have and from what I wasn't here the last three times the previous council were on there and I believe they voted it down every time that they had the same argument that was brought up. And to me, we took this job on knowing what this is, and I don't see a problem with the system. It's not broke. It may be some people don't like to stay here all day on it. But to me, it goes back to my number one concern is if we did this, and it was back to those mayors that I worked with, I have a serious problem on a couple of those mayors. And what's going for the future and the people out here who are going to be the next mayor, I have a real serious problem with that. So it sounds like to me we need to not fix something that is not broke. And that was the reason I'm not trying to. I'm telling you what the history, and I mean, there's a lot of council members, but I've been here a long time, and I've heard the same argument. If they don't like sitting here on a Thursday night, they could be home watching some comedy channel or something. But to me, that's their problem, and that's what we got elected for, to let everybody know that we read, we do, and we make sure that the dollars are being spent wisely. And that's why I got elected, and that's what I will continue to do. I believe Vice Mayor, he's not able to log in, but he wanted to. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'm not a member of the committee, so somehow I'm not able to log in. I just want to reiterate what I think was already, with all due respect to some of the comments, There is no change in the authority the Council has in regard to the administration. No change. There is no shift of power. There is no difference. We have the opportunity to review every single item just like we do now. So there are many reasons why I can see people objecting to this proposal, but if it's on the basis of a shift of authority, that's simply not the case. This is absolutely as transparent as we have always operated. There is no change in the responsibility the Council has to review everything. The only change is that instead of having these items read quickly while no one's paying attention, they'll be listed and we'll have an opportunity to review them and dispose of them as we will. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Henson, and then I would like to say something after Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I guess share my thoughts as far as our Thursday night council meetings, although just having the clerk read all of the items is, you know, maybe in the future we will have a better way, But for right now, I think that's meant for the citizens, the residents of Fayette County, to be transparent. So I'm kind of torn. I mean, I understand, Vice Mayor, what you're trying to do. But yet, I think the Thursday night readings at our council meetings is not meant for us because we've probably already reviewed everything on the docket or close to have reviewed it. So it is. It's just meant for the public to be able to see and hear what's out there. So I'm not sure that we're ready to take any action on this. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I see them very conflicted. I completely agree, and I have transparency questions. So I have a question. Why do we not read the mayor's report out loud? Is that just by president, or is that just because we don't have to? I'm just curious. I'm asking anyone. Because it's not in the form of an ordinance or resolution. I mean, anything in the form of an ordinance or resolution is by state statute. You have to read it aloud. Okay. So I guess my thought on transparency is that's not as transparent as it could be. If our thought is that we want all of this stuff to be public, then you have to look it up, and you have to go online, you have to find it, and you have to do all the things that you would have to do if we passed this as well. And I just thought I would bring that up. Thank you, Chair. Sure. And I would like to add my further two cents worth in. I understand and I have sat through this discussion. I really have sat through it a lot. And I realize the value of being able to do things quicker on a Thursday night. But if that's the purpose, then I think that we are shorting our public that process. we don't have to advertise or we don't have to publish our resolutions anymore. So some of you might even not know that that process has changed. So sometimes the only way that the public can hear about a resolution is through this docket. Because we, luckily, it's a major cost savings, so it's a good thing, but it's something that we were able to change as state statute. But if one of the reasons to do this is that for appearance to a group of Boy Scouts or for the public perception that we're being derelict or not being respectful up here, then I think that we all have to examine that ourselves. And I, of all people, sit up here, and I try not to talk because I know how hard it is to sit over there and read, and everybody else is talking, you're having to read above each other. So I, of all people, find myself having to maintain and refrain from talking. But the other thing is the fact that we are discussing this today and we don't have the council clerk over here or any of her staff, nor do we have anybody from the mayor's office, and this would directly affect their work process. And while I understand, Council Member Akers, your comments about the transparency, I get that, but it will be in a different format. And when we're talking about a consent agenda, it is going to be in a different format. And so I think that, to Mr. James Brown's point, I think that we need to, if you want to see what it really looks like, I think that we need to bring in some realistic documents so that you can actually see what we're talking about. Because us just talking about it right here doesn't give you the full picture. nor does it entail the workload and how it's going to have to be changed up amongst the administration. Because right now, everything that comes to work session, our council administrator handles the work session packet and the new business items. But then from there, the council clerk's office takes all that, and then the law department turns it into ordinances and resolutions, and then it comes back through the council clerk's office. And I know that there's been discussion before about the mayor's office actually being the one that handles this consent agenda? And are they even able to handle that responsibility? I don't know what that level is right now. So I think there are lots of questions. I do have problems with it as far as the transparency. We don't even know what the consent agenda would look like. So having said that, I will ask if there are any motions amongst the colleagues. So, Vice Mayor, you want to speak? Okay. If I may, I think those are legitimate questions. I would like to see this left in committee and to have the Council Clerk and whoever needs to be represented from the Administration to come and speak to us about what the impact would be, pro and con. It would also give Council Members an opportunity to look at those categories and see if there are one or more that you think don't belong on a consent agenda or, as Council Member Gibbs has suggested, other categories that you think might like to be added. So I don't think that requires—I can't make a motion. I'm not on that committee. I don't think it requires a motion. But I would like to suggest to the committee that it be left in and we bring it back in a couple months. Sure, and I will add to that. And I can't, in my brain, go back and remember all the dates that we've discussed this, But I think it would be advantageous for this committee and the members of it to go back and actually listen to the discussions when we had it before. We actually, I was talking to Ms. George earlier, and at one time it did actually make it to the docket. And I don't remember the dates on this, but we should be able to provide that information so that people can actually visualize and see what other questions came to the council as a result of these previous discussions. So I would ask that, and I can work with the administration and the council clerk's office to be able to try to determine that information and those dates so you all can look at it. And we can leave this into committee and we can bring it back probably be June or July at this point with the schedule. Is that okay? And is there any other further discussion amongst the committee? No? All right. Okay. Okay, and so now we will move forward with, I guess the next items would be, oh, okay, the boards and agencies and commissions report. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. I had put this into committee because I didn't think we were getting an update on a regular basis about boards and commissions. And I know serving on Council Member Evans' Ethics Commission review, we've kind of had a lot of these come up for discussion. The original form that they had sent out to us was pretty huge, and so I worked with them to try to narrow it down so that we kind of got the information that I thought council members would want readily available if we got this sent to us on a quarterly basis. So looking at the sheet, essentially what it shows us is the left-hand column is the commission or board. The next column is going to be the listed vacancies, because some of the vacancies, it doesn't matter who they are. It's a general membership board. But some of those board commissions require a certain person from a certain area, either district or representing an organization or area. And so I asked them to kind of put it together with the date that they may have expired, if they were expiring within a short period of time from the date that they gave it to us, and where that person that's expiring or has expired came from. so if you all have any questions or concerns about how this is if you want more information less information i thought this you know instead of listing out every one of the current members i thought this gave you a quick quick snapshot and if you needed more information you could always contact and get that particular information Thank you, Council Member Scotchfield. I guess there was discussion at one point about having access via a software. Is there any more discussion on that? I think they're moving towards it. We're just not there yet. So, I mean, I think this will be something that will be easily generated. You'll be able to apply online. You'll be able to see the makeup of the commissions and boards online. I just don't think we're there yet. Jeff? You're exactly right, but we are close. We've reviewed a system. We're getting cost. We're working with IT on it. I think in the very near future we'll be able to present something and move forward with that. Okay. All righty. Well, that's cool. So do we want to – are there other comments from the council committee members? No? Do we want to leave this in here so that we can look at it again in another quarter? I think quarterly report would be fine. I don't know if it needs to stay in the committee in order to have quarterly reports. Okay. I guess I'll leave it up to the discretion. Are you suggesting them coming to this committee or just to the work session updates or all council members? I think just bringing up, I don't even think necessarily a presentation, but making it available quarterly. And so I don't know that it needs to stay in committee as long as you all provide it to us quarterly. I agree. Okay. I guess my only question would be is if you all are going to, when would you all be able to present to us about the software? That's the only thing. Within the next couple of months, I think. So do you want to use that as a separate or for the software to update? I think that's a separate. Sorry. I think that's a whole separate issue because, I mean, I think you all will want to present that. To the committee. Right. Yes, I believe we can. Councilmember Akers. Thank you. I just had a quick question. When we receive it quarterly, the quarterly update, how do you all determine who to include as far as upcoming vacancies, expired terms? We typically go three months out. Okay. We kind of like look ahead three months in retirement and give everyone paperwork at the proper time for three months out. All right. Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? Nope. Okay. All righty. I will go ahead and make a motion to remove from committee. All right. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? All right. Motion made by Council Member Sketchfield, seconded by Council Member Henson to remove this item from the committee. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Scutchfield. Okay. The next item is regarding the location and broadcasting of Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you. This is something I put into committee after we had a meeting not that long ago that was not broadcast, but yet almost all of the council was there. We had council aides. We had representatives from the administration. I guess after that meeting, I kind of thought it's appropriate that if we have a meeting with that many people, any time we actually have a meeting that invites all of council, I think, except for with exclusions, I think those should be publicized or should be transmitted. in the horseshoe. And so I thought this was something that should be discussed by Council. Sure. Is there discussion amongst the Council? I mean, I agree, too. So, Council Member Akers? I fully agree as well. I think, you know, we talk about transparency in the Vice Mayor's proposal, and so I think it's more important when we all meet in a back room and discuss the work of the public, that we should be doing that on camera in the chambers. That's all. So I say we make a motion to make that happen. Sure. Thanks, Zach. Council Member Evans? I'm not so sure you needed to wait. But, yeah, I'm in agreement as well because I've never really understood having a workshop that, you know, is for our education and we want, I would hope, we would want the public to be educated as well. So it's always been interesting that they have been in the back room and as pretty and nice as it is. I think most definitely those meetings need to definitely be in an area that is more welcoming to the public and not behind secured doors. I would add, if we do have what we call off-site meetings, I know we've had retreats which are still open to the public, and lest we forget that, that there should also be some kind of reminder of those as well, because those are equally public and anyone can come. So I think we should think about how we can make that notice within the GTV system. I don't know if it's scrolling or blacking it out for the moment and saying there is something going on. it's just off-site or something, I don't know. But I think we do need to even extend it beyond those meetings, but when we do have something off-site, that those are just as public as anything else that we do. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the spirit of which Council Member Scotchfield brought this forward. I have a couple questions I just want to clarify or maybe discussion that But, you know, for the quarterly cow, is that, I mean, I think about quarterly cows we have back there. I think about educational meetings. I think about workshops that we have. I think about where we have quorums and where we don't, where we take action and where we don't. And I'm all for transparency. I'm just questioning how do we define if there's more than eight of us, is that when we do it? Is it when we're going to take action on something or when we're just talking about an issue? I'm just asking for clarification because I think there are cases in which we've been back there talking about something like the TIF workshops, for instance, where the room is packed and everyone's in there asking questions. It would have been easier to have that out here. I think about our quarterly count meetings, and I think, I don't know if the public needs to know how we decide our flow charts or how we move things around. And so I'm just asking for clarification. And I think that's the reason I put it into committee, is I think we need to have a determination of when it should be in here and when it shouldn't. I think we're having a lot of meetings that should be in here. And I guess I'm asking for Council to come up with our qualifications of when it should be in here. I mean, I guess I will add what I was thinking, and I totally agree that we should be in here and be able to be more transparent. There's two things. One, I was thinking that when a workshop involves a presentation, and if it's more than just a discussion, like you were talking about the Committee of the Whole, when we're just discussing our process or something of that nature, but when it's a presentation such as the TIF workshops, I think that is very valuable to have it in here. Now, the caveat to that is I think we need to check with GTV3, because before we go saying that we're going to have all these meetings in here, and if they're going to be public, we have to make sure that GTV3 can actually cover that. And I don't know if Ms. Hamilton would like to speak to this, but I think that has been a consideration for having it off-site in the past, for lack of having the GTV3 coverage. I was just hearing on my way down that this has been discussed with Chris, and Chris is on vacation this week, but I think that we can cover this. Where you run into trouble is when you go off-site. That's a different thing. That's a production. But in here, I think you can cover whatever you need to have. The other thing is I think that there have been times where the Planning Commission was in here on a Thursday, and perhaps that was one of the reasons that they thought about having the caucus room to not have to move the Planning Commission out of the chamber in some situations, too. That's just something else. So, Council Member Henson. I just had a statement. I was thinking about this topic and thinking that this topic actually should be in the Committee of the Whole and not this committee because it involves all of us. So I would make that recommendation. Thank you. All right. We will note that, and I'll recognize Council Member Akers. Thank you. I wanted to follow up to, I guess there was miscommunication or my own misunderstanding of what would be in here and what would not. So since I've been here, we always had Committee of the Whole meetings were in chambers until that room was renovated. So in Committee of the Whole, generally is discussion that leads to action. I mean, those decisions and discussions from the Committee of the Whole move to the docket in some way generally. That we discuss a change of rules or something, you know, an agenda that we want to set, and that moves to a vote. Even though we don't take technical action in the Committee of the Whole, it does become items that we do later vote on and make decisions on. That's why I think Committee of the Whole should definitely be in here. Meetings that require action from us. I think a workshop that's purely educational, and this year we've had a lot because we have so many new council members, or last year we had a lot. I don't know that a workshop that is not necessarily leading to action or leading to decisions from the council requires meeting in here. I think if it's purely educational for council members, just like for our process of changing or not changing the council docket, I think that would be unfair to the public to put them through. But unkind, perhaps, is the better word. So I just think that when it is, you know, action, requiring action and calling for quorum and those kinds of meetings is when I think that should be in chambers and not necessarily workshops and that sort of thing. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. My memory of the Committee of the Whole is a little different. I thought we were meeting up on the fifth floor routinely, but that doesn't matter. So I've got, I mean, it doesn't make a difference whether it was back there or not. Two things. I think, one, this probably is a topic for the community of the whole when we have the entire council present and they're ready to discuss it. But my quick take on it is that probably the default position ought to be in Council Chambers. And if for some reason Council, in its infinite wisdom, thinks that that's not appropriate, that we make an exception. So that would be here, would be whatever it is. And I have an immediate concern, actually. We have a budget committee of the whole meeting coming up, and typically that's been off-site. We are not going off-site this year. It's a long meeting. There will be food involved. I guess I'll be asking the question of whether people think it would be appropriate to have that meeting in Council Chambers as opposed to in the caucus room. Just a question. Thank you, Chair. And I guess I will add on to that is whether it would be televised or not. You know, you can meet in this room and not televise it, too. So that's just another thought I'll throw out there. And I wanted to follow up on Council Member Evans' concerns about the notification of meetings. I wanted to make sure, because the public probably didn't hear your conversation, I know that the council administrator does notify all of our meetings and make sure that the public is known about that information and when they're going to be held and where and all that. So I just want to make sure that the public knew that we do notice those meetings. So, all right, so the council is, you all are looking toward wanting to put this issue over into the committee of the whole, and Council Member Akers had said that she might have a motion. Do you still have one? I guess I'll just, I'll actually defer to Council Member Scutchfield. She brought it to this committee, so I'll let her move it if she'd like to. All right, thanks. Council Member Scutchfield. Yeah, I mean, I guess I have no problem with that. I wish we would have made the decision to move it when I placed it into committee because it's just going to delay a decision. But I would hope in the meantime, as we plan our meetings, that we plan our meetings trying to be as transparent as possible. And if we can have it in here and have it publicized by GTV, I think we should. But I think there's been several meetings that I've wondered why we're not. And I think so I'll make a motion to move it to Committee of the Whole. All right. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. All right. Council Member Scutchfield made a motion to move this item into the Committee of the Whole and seconded by Council Member Evans. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? All right. We will take that and put it over in the Committee of the Whole. And that takes us to the items in committee currently. All right. The Parks Foundation. Council Member Scutchfield. Let's see here. We've got some movement possibly on that. And so I'd like to keep it in the committee, though. Sure. Sure. All righty. And then Council Member Evans, review of the ethics ordinance. We need to keep that in committee. Yes. We're very close. We are close. Very close. I mean, you know, it just takes time. And I think that's okay. The ESR, Council Member Bledsoe. Leave it in committee? Yes. Okay, all righty, okay. Veterans Affairs, again, we're pending review. We're waiting to get information from Council Member Hensley. The security cameras, we'll leave that in committee. Council Rules and Procedures, Vice Mayor, you wanted to leave that in committee. And CNG Fueling, Council Member Maloney. That will still be in work done as we speak. Maybe in May. Okay. All righty. And then, Council Member Scutchfield, we removed the board's agencies and commissions from the committee. Autonomous cars, that's, again, that's another one that we're waiting to find information on. And minority recruitment and retention. Council Member James Brown. Yes, ma'am. Maybe July. Okay. If you've got room on the variety. Okay. Okay. We removed location and broadcasting of council meetings to the Committee of the Whole. And the updates on the Domestic Violence Prevention Board, I believe, will be ready in May for that. And the SAVI, the update, I believe, will be in June, I believe. and revision of procurement regulations. I believe we might be ready for that in May. And then we'll have follow-ups on the Bluegrass International Center, maybe June, July. And EMS services, I believe, maybe May. Commissioner Ford? Okay. All righty. So is there any other discussion or any other things? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion. For adjourn. All right, there's a motion and second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. We are adjourned. Kicks and hops. Let's go. Let's go to the hop. Let's go to the hop. Baby, let's go to the hop. Baby, let's go to the hop. Come on.