# Intergovernmental Committee - April 22, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · April 22, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/468 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/468?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-04-22 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: March 1, 2026 - **Length**: 9,413 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Inter-Governmental Committee convened on April 22, 2008, at 1:00 PM with CM James presiding over the session. The committee addressed three agenda items during the meeting, covering topics ranging from pay equity concerns to board and commission matters, along with general committee updates. The committee took three votes during the session, with no public comments recorded for this meeting. Two of the agenda items were informational in nature, including discussions on pay equity issues and updates on various committee items, while one item regarding boards and commissions received formal approval from the committee members. The meeting focused on both administrative matters and policy discussions, with the pay equity issue serving as an informational presentation to keep committee members informed of ongoing concerns. The boards and commissions item that received approval likely involved appointments or procedural matters requiring formal committee action. The session concluded with updates on various committee items, providing members with current information on ongoing inter-governmental initiatives and projects. ## Attendance All committee members were present for the meeting on April 22, 2008. **Present:** • James • DeCamp • Gray • Blues • Beard • Stinnett • Crosbie • Myers • Blevins • Henson **Absent:** None **Late:** None The committee achieved full attendance with all ten members participating in the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took action on three motions during the April 22, 2008 meeting. **Motion to Adopt Board/Commission Recommendations** CM Myers moved to adopt the recommendations for elimination/consolidation of boards and commissions, with CM Crosbie providing the second. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition recorded. **Motion on Ethics Act Amendments** CM Myers made a motion to move Ethics Act amendments to the full council, which was seconded by CM Blues. However, this motion was subsequently withdrawn before a vote could be taken. **Motion on Reporting Policy Resolution** CM Myers moved to advance a resolution on reporting policy for boards and commissions to the full council. This motion did not receive a second initially but proceeded to a voice vote. The motion passed with one dissenting vote from Council Member DeCamp, who voted against moving the resolution forward. The Committee's primary focus appeared to be on governance reforms related to boards and commissions, with successful passage of consolidation recommendations and reporting policy measures. The withdrawal of the Ethics Act amendments motion suggests there may have been concerns or need for further discussion on that particular item before advancing it to the full council. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the source materials for these votes.* ## Contested Items The Committee meeting on April 22, 2008, featured one primary contested item that generated significant debate among members. **Ethics Act Amendments** The proposed amendments to the Ethics Act sparked heated discussion during the meeting. The disagreement centered on two main concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposed changes. Committee members raised significant objections about the administrative costs that would result from implementing the amendments. The debate focused on whether the financial burden of administering the new ethics requirements would be justified by the benefits. Additionally, members expressed concern about the potential deterrent effect the amendments might have on citizen participation in government processes. The discussion revealed disagreement over whether the proposed ethics requirements would discourage qualified individuals from seeking public service or participating in government activities. The nature of the discussion was characterized as heated, indicating that committee members held strong and opposing views on the matter. The debate highlighted the tension between strengthening ethical standards and maintaining accessibility for citizen involvement in government. The extracted data does not specify which individual committee members took particular positions on the amendments or provide details about the final outcome of the discussion. The disagreement appears to have focused on balancing the goals of enhanced ethics oversight against practical concerns about implementation costs and potential barriers to public participation. ## Pay Equity Issue Michael Allen, HR Director, presented information on pay equity during the committee meeting. Allen explained the concept of pay inversions and discussed how these situations occur within the city's compensation structure. During the presentation, CM Stinnett inquired about current pay equity issues affecting city employees. In response, Allen outlined the established process that the city follows when addressing pay equity concerns and inversions. CM James also participated in the discussion regarding the pay equity matter. The agenda item served as an informational session, with no specific action items or decisions made during this portion of the meeting. The discussion provided committee members with an overview of how the city identifies and handles pay equity situations when they arise in the municipal workforce. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* ## Boards/Commissions Anna Hartje Butcher presented a memo regarding the elimination and consolidation of various city boards and commissions. The presentation outlined specific recommendations for streamlining the city's board and commission structure. Following the presentation, Council Member Myers made a motion to adopt the recommendations contained in Butcher's memo. The motion addressed the proposed changes to eliminate certain boards and commissions while consolidating others to improve efficiency and reduce administrative overhead. The committee discussed the recommendations without significant debate or opposition. No concerns were raised during the discussion regarding the proposed eliminations and consolidations. The motion to adopt the recommendations passed without dissent, indicating unanimous support from the committee members present for the proposed changes to the boards and commissions structure. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Update on Committee Items During the April 22, 2008 committee meeting, CM Beard raised questions regarding the referral process for items to standing committees. The discussion centered on clarifying the procedures and protocols for how matters are assigned to various committees for review and consideration. CM Beard sought clarification on the specific mechanisms and criteria used when referring items to standing committees. This inquiry appears to have been prompted by a need for better understanding of the administrative processes governing committee workflows and item assignments. Paul Schoninger was designated to provide additional information and clarification on the referral process. This assignment suggests that Schoninger has expertise or administrative responsibility related to committee operations and procedures. The agenda item was informational in nature, serving as a fact-finding discussion rather than requiring any formal action or decision by the committee. The outcome focused on ensuring committee members have a clear understanding of how items move through the committee system and the proper channels for referrals. This discussion reflects the committee's attention to procedural matters and their commitment to understanding the administrative framework that governs their operations. By seeking clarification on the referral process, the committee demonstrated due diligence in ensuring they understand the mechanisms that direct their work and the flow of business items through the committee structure. The item concluded with the understanding that Paul Schoninger would follow up with the requested information to provide the clarification sought by CM Beard regarding standing committee referral procedures. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adopt the recommendations for elimination/consolidation of boards/commissions - **Motion** — withdrawn (0-0): Move Ethics Act amendments to full council - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Move resolution on reporting policy for boards/commissions to full council --- ## Full transcript numbers of employees by month. You can see how that one number was like 419. Those were the ones that were taken care of. I think if you add up all the ones in front of that as well, those, there was, we probably looked, when we did the pay equity, we looked at, oh my gosh, seven or eight hundred employees. We looked at almost the entire, we had to look at the entire population at that point in order to make sure that all the classifications, there weren't any new inversions. It was a mammoth undertaking. Yeah. You put a request out to employees or something, didn't you? Like if you want to be evaluated, please let us know. Absolutely. Okay. I mean, it was a huge undertaking, but it had been sitting around for so long. Our employees were so frustrated that we just had to get it taken care of. Did you, what did you think the budgetary impact would be and where did you foresee that the future monies would come from as you, as you thought about this impacting us year after year after year? What, where did you think this would come from once that pay equity fund was gone? Are you talking about my personal opinion? Yeah. Yeah, why not? Or as a professional? Well, both. I wouldn't, I wouldn't necessarily have taken this route. That's one of the reasons, one of the first things I requested council to think about and to allow human resources to do was to scrap the current compensation program and work towards a market driven, you know, comp program and much more of a performance based kind of program within the guidelines that were allowed to to drive increases versus some of the current practices. However, having said that, I still had my, the rules that I currently was given to play with and I was going to play by those rules. Okay. Well, thank you for coming today. Certainly. Yes. No, I, I would just like to say that I think it was, you know, all of us who've been here for a long time realizes this was a terrible problem and I, I, I do want to give a lot of credit to human resources who took a really bad problem and, and have done a good job, a huge job in bringing it to this point. So I think we've made a, um, a lot of progress and, um, I think we need to give credit where credit is due. And I think that, uh, human resources in my mind has made wonderful strides and will continue, uh, to eliminate this problem, uh, and, and tackle it each time it comes up and be ready. But there were an awful lot on their plate to catch us up to this point. I think they've done a very good job in doing that. Thank you. Any other committee members? Councilor Sennott? One last follow up question. Um, I know we have seen a presentation on a new pay system. Yes, sir. That should be hopefully back to this council by January ish of 09. There are some, yes, some definite, uh, uh, due dates on the, on, on that program. During the planning process of creating that new system, will that cause for the, the need to abolish the current pay equity ordinance and do away with it? Are you accounting for that in your, your steps were taken or will we always need this type of ordinance? I can only talk to you at this point in time, theoretically, council member, but it would be my perception that this type of ordinance is almost, let's say not directly in conflict, but almost in conflict with a market driven, um, concept. So my initial reaction to your question would be, uh, it would have to be probably if anything amended for certain, uh, if not, yes, abolished. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. If no one has anything else on that particular issue, we will move on to our next agenda item, which is, um, boards and commissions. And I just want to let you know, you just have to wave to me. Evidently our system's not working to recognize you to speak. Um, so just wave to me whenever you are, um, need to speak. Council member Myers is a sponsor for this. Do you have anything to say in advance of our speakers coming forward? Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could bring, um, Ms. Shea Raybo up. I think at the last meeting we had asked the administration to help us out with a recommendation as to which boards and commissions that we should, um, either merge or eliminate or what have you. We have a recommendation in the packet here. And if, uh, Ms. Raybo could go through that real quickly, that would be great. If you don't mind, I'm going to ask Ana to come up because she prepared this. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Give credit where credit is due. Quite all right. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Um, this list is repaired and I've, we've gone through it and, and been fairly specific in how they were originally created and what our thought was as to how to take care of these that don't have a lot of, um, a lot of action required at this point. And so in bold, I've outlined what would need, what is needed or not needed. And in the case, just in, uh, below the first paragraph, it states that no action, further action is required. Um, and that there's a list there and I think that those are outlined as to why it's needed or not needed. And going on to page two, um, we have recommended a number of boards, committees and commissions to be dissolved by resolution. Um, also outlined under each heading, um, each commission or board is outlined why we believe that that would be in the best interest of, uh, moving forward. If I, if I could interrupt for just a second, the committee's had the packet since Thursday. If I'd like to take an opportunity, if there's anyone on the committee that has a question about dissolving any of these to, to go ahead and address it now before we move forward to the next category with the chair's permission. No, I'm sorry. The one I was looking at was to maintain. So I'm good to go. Thank you. Councilman Stennett. Thank you. I do believe the, on page two on the commission to review, to review revenue policy and tax structure. We, we do have an active body that is doing that exact same thing. I don't know whether or not we're calling it the commission or as I know Dr. Steven serves on there with me or it's just a task force, but we do have something that's doing that very thing active right now that Commissioner Coe was on as well. Okay. Go ahead. I'm pretty sure that is separate, but, um, since Commissioner Coe just left the room, we probably just want to recheck that, but I don't believe it's a commission. I think it's a task force. Okay. Either way, we do have something that is doing that job. So I don't want council members to think that we're ignoring their function. Sure. We have reestablished a task force, which is chaired by Merle Heichbart. So we want to kind of put that one on the side? Well, I mean, we can abolish the commission, but we do have something that is doing the work of that, what that commission did in the nineties. Okay. Just want to make sure we know we were still working on that issue. Okay. Can I ask while we're on that topic, do, are you going to report out at some point during the budget process? Are you working on things for this year's budget? No, that task force is working on a overhaul of the revenue policy and tax structure. Okay. Which will report it hopefully sometime this fall. Okay. Thank you. Uh, the task force they're referring to here gave its report to the council in 1994 and was dismissed at that time. And I don't know why I never got wiped off the books. And we have their report on file and it's totally different from what we're doing now. So I think the action to do away with this is appropriate. Officially kill it. Okay. Are there any more questions for this category? Okay. Okay. Moving on to page three. Um, there is a section that says, uh, dissolution by ordinance. There are three listed there. I think that there's enough information there to, um, explain why we believe that that's should be, um, acted upon. And then we've referred a couple to the department of law for them to, um, take a look at and research and come back to us. Um, and in the case of the stonewalls appeal board, um, it is most likely appropriate to send that those sorts of appeals to bore, um, that really comes under what they do and would consolidate. And so that's a case of consolidating in that respect. And then we did ask to maintain one simply until that land bank trust is more fully developed. And that comes before council. Are they currently meeting or are they kind of in limbo until they get to a certain point? They're not meeting. I'm, um, actually I've spoken with Glenda George about this. She was a part of that and due to the lack of funding, they were never able to really continue forward. Um, so it is effectively inactive. Okay. And then the final one would be, um, I have gotten the information. I've spoken with a number of folks. Um, when the hazardous materials technical advisory committee was moved from Dean to the division of fire, um, that group is, they believe still necessary and needed, especially when hazmat is activated. Um, and so chief Hendricks is working on reactivating that group. Okay. Thank you very much for your report and it's thoroughness. Um, are there any questions from anybody on the committee regarding these last few categories? Seeing that there's none, I would like to make a motion. Madam chair. Council member Myers. I moved to, I moved that the committee adopt the recommendations as presented here by the administration. So moved. We've got a motion to accept the recommendations, um, presented before us today. Um, and a second from council member blues. Um, and, um, all in favor say aye. Aye. And those opposed. And that passes. Thank you very much. Is there anything else on the boards and commissions or is that, does that take care of it? I think that takes care of boards commissions and we'll pass it on to the full council for its approval. Okay. Let's see. Yeah. And the ethics issue. Are you dealing with that today as well? Yes, ma'am. All right. Wonderful. Council member Myers. Thank you. If I could have miss, uh, Glenda George come up, please. As you know, we began discussing this issue back in November and then brought it forward to February and we had a, we had a draft amendment done and now we've gone back and done some more work in the interim. And so we have that before us. Um, I guess I'd like to start by, do you want to just run through the changes that we've made? And I guess before we say this, I would say also that we have submitted the original draft and we have this draft, um, submitted to Angela Davis, who's the chair of the ethics, ethics commission. And I think that she was, they don't have any concerns about the changes we're making. They were a little bit concerned about maybe being overwhelmed with the additional work, but are very pleased that we're recommending that we eliminate, um, 21 or so boards and commissions. So I think they're comfortable that they're not going to get overwhelmed with this. Yes, ma'am. At the November, um, intergovernmental committee meeting, the Department of Law was asked to prepare a draft ordinance that would amend the ethics act to require all boards and commissions to comply with the ethics act. And in addition to that, also to require certain boards and commissions to complete the financial disclosure statement. So if you will look on page 17 of your packet, that's where the draft ordinances and we can go through that. One of the things we did was changed the definition of an agency. And so with this new definition, this brings every board and commission of the urban county government, um, in which the members are appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the council under chapter 25 of the ethics act. That's the first change. Um, also in deciding who should complete the financial disclosure statement based on my discussions with council member Myers, it was recommended that the best course of action would be to require those boards and commissions who had the ability to expend public funds or had regulatory authority. So if you look on page 18 of your packet, what we've done is included two definitions. One would be the definition of public funds, and the second would be the definition of regulatory authority. Then on page 19 of your packet, we've changed 2520 to just include those boards and commissions under the financial disclosure filing requirements. The last thing that was recommended was that, um, as you know, with this administration, we've created some new positions, one being the senior advisors to the mayor. And so we have changed this, um, the disclosure requirement to require senior advisors to the mayor to complete the financial disclosure statement and also to add language that in the future, if there are other positions that are created that have similar responsibilities and authority, they would also be required to complete the financial disclosure statement rather than us having to come back and amend this section to specifically list a certain position. And those are the changes to the ordinance. Thank you. I would just say before we start and open up for discussion that one of the things that we felt moving forward was that, although the original Ethics Act was great, wonderful authors, did a great job in drafting that, as we move forward, it's maybe prudent to change legislation so that rather than have to amend the legislation every time a new board or commission comes into place or is dissolved, it makes more sense at this point in time that we just change the criteria so that from this point forward, anyone who meets that criteria automatically falls under it and we don't have to continue to come back and change the ordinance. And so we try to be proactive rather than reactive in coming up with these changes. And, Madam Chair, if you'd like to open the floor for discussion. Sure, that sounds like a good idea. Any committee members like to make any comments, have questions? Council Member Beard? Advisory boards, are they included? Such as? Raven Run Advisory Board, which I happen to be on. I would have to take a look at that to see how they're set up and whether or not, are the members appointed by the mayor subject to confirmation by the council? Not confirmation by the council, they're, well... If it's not... Yes, they are. If it's subject to... They're confirmed, but they have no authority whatsoever. Well... All they have is somewhat oversight, I guess, and the ability to make recommendations, but they have no actual authority of their own. Could I speak to that? Sure. I think what you're doing is you're asking to separate the two questions. If they don't have any regulatory authority or the ability to spend funds over $5,000 of taxpayer dollars, then all they're falling under is the Ethics Act itself. That's not really onerous. Probably everybody on there would say that we have no problems living up to the Ethics Act. There's nothing that they have to do different than what they're doing now, except that they're underneath the Ethics Act. They won't have to fill out the financial disclosure form. That sounded like that may be what your real question was. Well, actually, yes. Okay. So, no, the answer is, no, they don't have to file the financial disclosure form. They just fall under the Ethics Act. Okay. Good to go? Okay. I think that our request to speak buttons are now working, so if you would like to ask a question, I'll show Councilmember Stephens here. Do you have a question? Yes. All right. Go right ahead. Thank you. I'm a little bit confused. There are two documents here. I'm not sure which one. One that you received from the Department of Law on April 16th, and then the suggested amended ordinance. And there are several things in the April 16th document that are not in the suggested change to the ordinance. For example, require all members of boards and commissions created by the Urban County Government to comply with the Ethics Act. I think that'd be very good to have in there, because there should be no confusion about who would be, what act, what people should be involved with the Ethics Act. And I'm not sure if that would be in the final ordinance changed or not. That is in here. That's what we've accomplished by changing the definition of an agency. How does that work? Explain to me. Okay. Say, for example, the Ethics Act would comply to, let me see here, the Ethics Act applies to all officers of the Urban County Government, and then it also applies to the agencies that are listed in the Act. Currently, the agencies that are listed are the Board of Adjustment, the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, the Ethics Commission, and the Planning Commission. So we're amending that definition to say that it's going to apply to any board or commission that's created by the Urban County Government. The members are appointed by the mayor subject to confirmation by the council. So that makes every board and commission subject to the Ethics Act by amending that definition of an agency. And under, also under item B, under 1 on page 13, to change the definition of officer to include appointees or members of agencies. Is that in, would that be in the Ethics Act? On page 13, yes. We've changed section 24-490 to include all officers of the Urban County Government. And under item B, to amend that, because what it currently says, it lists the agencies that are subject to the Ethics Commission now. And so rather than listing every board and commission, what we've done is just given a definition of an agency, and then we just refer to agency as opposed to listing every board and commission as we did with these four. Well, that brings up a question I have regarding the Ethics Act. The Ethics Act is section 25 of our Code, chapter 25 of our Code of Ordinances, and it is 19 pages. And one of the statements in it, or one of the assertions is that no, let me read it to you please. Under section 25-6, it says, no officer or employee or any immediate family member of any officer or employee shall directly or through others undertake, execute, or hold, enjoy in whole or in part any contract made with the government. So this means that anybody that's on a board or commission that, as I interpret it, that is defined as an agency, it would be unethical for any relative to be involved with the government. And I'm concerned that we may be making it stricter than we really need to be. There are about a thousand people usually who are involved with agencies and boards, and sometimes these are not easy to fill. And the government is always looking for people who are willing to serve in these various agencies and boards. And I'm not sure that creating, defining them all as officers is necessary. Because also, if you look at the Ethics Ordinance on section 25-22, it lists there the, excuse me just a moment while I get to 22, it lists there the, excuse me just a moment while I get to 22, it lists there the, no, I'm sorry, I got the wrong one, but there is a whole series of things that an officer of the government cannot do. And I'm not sure we want to go quite that far. And I'd be interested in knowing how many agencies would be included under the definition as you define it now, $5,000, spending our, as one criteria, how many would be affected by that, and which agencies, not necessarily which. And I understand Mr. Meyer's effort here to simplify the things, so you won't have to keep naming agencies. But to my knowledge, we've had no problems. Are you aware of any problems we've had with any of these? No. So I'm not sure that this action is, might be more severe than we really need. I'm all for ethics, and I think anybody who's guilty of unethical conduct should be exposed and should be dealt with. But I'm worried that if we're too strict, we may prohibit volunteers from working with our government. Glenda, did you have any opinion at all that you want to say? Yes, Dr. Stephens, if I may speak to Section 25-6, which is the conflict of interest section in contracts, which you just referred to. If you look at Section 1B, there's an exception there. The portion that you read doesn't apply unless the officer or employee is authorized to participate in establishing the contract specifications, awarding the contract, or managing the contract performance after the contract is awarded. So that may not eliminate as many people as you might think. Well, as I've read over this ordinance again, and I hadn't really read it for many years since I, George Brown and I got the privilege of visiting with the Irving County Ethics Board once because we were engaged with an outside agency, and we were accused of unethical contact because of our work with a subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce, which we were appointed by the mayor. Then coming back and relating this to the council, and that was considered by some as unethical. I think the Ethics Commission, after examining it, exonerated George and I think they did me too. But anyhow, I just think that you can carry it too far. And that contract, I thought that applied to pre-existing arrangement. If you look at it, it's to any arrangement. So you're saying that a family member of an officer could be involved with the Irving County government as long as it's disclosed. Right, and as long as the officer isn't one of the people who is establishing the contract specifications, awarding the contract, or managing the contract performance, then we would not have a problem. My hangup, I guess, is classifying these people as officers. I think if you were to classify them as a member of a board or an agency and subject them to the rules, it would be fine. But there are many places in here where officers are cited. And I just would like to have it straightened out before we pass these things. Well, may I speak? Councilman Myers. It sounds to me that the interpretation by the law department is that the concern that you have when you look at the exemption is eliminated. Because that exemption exempts. I mean, in other words, if you look at who would be involved in that, you'd want that to be something that they'd have to adhere to. If you had someone who was involved in designing what the contract was going to look like, or managing the contract, or determining who gets the contract, you'd want them to not be able to be involved in that. If they don't have that, then they're exempt. So it's not an issue. Councilmember Stephens, did you have anything, any questions for here today that you wanted to ask to help you to sort things out? I'll pass for right now. I have some other, I'll find it in the ethics ordinance here for us. Come back. Okay. Councilmember Blevins. Thank you, Chair. I just had two quick ones. Glenda, have you had a chance to go and vet the ethics ordinance and see if we have any unintended consequences like Dr. Stephens is searching for here? Yes. I think Councilmember Myers and his aide Joe Shuler and I have gone over this several times. I think we're okay. And it's your opinion that we're okay? Yes. We're not going to unintentionally just qualify hundreds and hundreds of people? No, I don't think so, no. Okay. And then secondly, do we have, and I don't know if this is you, George, or Glenda, do we have an idea of the change to the agency designation and specifically for filing the financial form, how many new boards, what's the new list going to look like? Do we have that? And if so, could somebody publicize that for us? We don't have that at this point because we didn't know how many boards and commissions were actually going to be eliminated. So I think there are 80 still on the list, about 85. So we'd have to go back through to see which ones of those have regulatory authority or which one of those have the ability to spend public funds in excess of $5,000 to see how many boards and commissions we're actually talking about in terms of completing the financial disclosure statement. Okay. I'm generally very supportive of this. I think it's a great idea. I like the way you all phrased it so that we don't have to individually list the commissions anymore. That's just the right way to do it. The only hesitation I have is I'd like to know how many we're going to affect for filing that form before I go forward. I'm willing to vote this out of committee today so that we can get it on in the process, but I won't vote for it until I hear that number and understand what the real effects of filing those forms are. I don't think it's onerous in the sense that just for the TV audience that the form we're talking about is a form you have to file when you run for office in a variety of other positions within the government to disclose your financial holdings so that you can be exposed if you have an interest in a particular property or something and you shouldn't be voting for or against it. What it causes you to do, though, is have to disclose all of your personal financial information. Some citizens are understandably reluctant to do that. We don't want to have that be a disincentive where it's unnecessary. So what I'm asking is to get a full accounting and list of those before we vote this ordinance change in. That's all I have. Thanks. Thank you. Any other committee members? Vice Mayor? Maybe I missed this. Was there commentary on the administrative costs associated with this exercise? It looked like you all were, Shea and Ana, you all were having some conversation about it. Maybe I missed that, but maybe that will come out of what Council Member Blevins suggested. Can I ask for a clarification when you say administrative costs to? The cost of administration, the cost of engaging this number, additional number of disclosure. Okay. I think Council Member Myers has the answer for you. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's an excellent question. And we've discussed how the process would work. And when the mayor or the administration, whoever it is in the mayor's office, would send that letter out to me saying that I've been nominated for that position, that form would go along with it. And I would just complete that form and send it back in. So really there's no administrative piece to it that's extra. Maybe a second stamp because you've got a few more documents to send in that letter. But when it comes back to the council clerk's office, the only thing they have to do is just ensure that everybody's completed that document. And we've talked to them, and that's not onerous to them because it's really clear. And here's the safeguard that we have. That document needs to be completed before you're confirmed. So if you don't complete the document, then you don't have to be confirmed. And that's kind of the way that that would take place. So there's really no monetary value to having to implement this change. Council Member Stennant? Let me add something to that. There actually is a monetary value because what you're doing now is effectively adding 80 different boards and commissions to our council clerk and for her to keep track of all of those. And that's a lot. And every time there's a change, she's going to have to keep track of it and keep a file on it. So if anybody wants to question an appointment, they go to her. So we are adding some duties to their role. We just need to make sure that her staffing level wouldn't enable her to handle those duties. I would agree that there's a potential increase, but that's only when someone makes an inquiry. Well, if she has to house all the records, so she would have to house all those in our office. That's all I would add. Okay. Vice Mayor? Yeah. I agree with the motivation. My concern is the effect, and it's in a couple of areas, but I think a couple of dimensions. One is the willingness of citizens in a citizen-sponsored government, citizen-involved government to actually participate. I've already discovered people that I've asked to serve, you know, if they would be willing to, and they shake their head because of time limitations, because of other limitations. So I'd like to encourage some kind of a matrix examination of these issues, the cost issues inside the government, so that we're fully aware of what those costs are. And I don't mean outside costs. I mean the administrative costs like Councilmember Stennant was just mentioning. And the unintended effect to those who might not otherwise serve, who might otherwise serve, but might be disinclined to as a function of this. I'm not saying what the answer is. I'm just saying a good examination of that. Or one that, if you all have done it, Councilmember Myers, you know, that's great. A little bit more conversation about it, perhaps, would be useful. Councilmember Myers, did you have anything? I would like to respond, but I think Ms. George has a response that she wants to make. My response to that would be that while I appreciate your concerns and want to validate those concerns, I would argue that that's what the committee process is for. And this has been a committee, this will be the third committee meeting that we've addressed this issue in. And I would encourage the Councilmembers to look at why we're doing this, not the unintended consequences of it. One, I don't think there's going to be that many. And I think if you talk to the Ethics Commission, when they first implemented this, they thought that there was going to be, you know, a scare from those four commissions or boards that are involved in it right now with respect to the financial disclosure, and that it might be hard to find people to serve on those. But to date, since 1994, there's been, you know, a surplus of people who want to serve on those boards and commissions. But in saying that, I would ask that you look at why they implemented this in the first place. And it's not whether or not it's onerous to put that information on a document, to me, that's important. What's important is, if you have millions of dollars at your disposal of taxpayer dollars, the citizen ought to know what your relationships are. That's what this is all about. And so, again this was proactive. We're not looking at this, there hasn't been anything that's happened in the dark that nobody knows about that we're trying to effect change because of. We're just saying that there are a lot of boards and commissions out there that have a lot of money, the taxpayer dollars that they can expend. They also have a lot of regulatory authority over private citizens. And the private citizen ought to know the relationships of the people who serve in that capacity. And so, that's really why, that's the impetus for this. Any follow-up from anyone or additional questions? Any motions? Point of clarification then. So, we're going to move to, the procedure would be, we're going to get a motion now and then what? Thank you Madam Chair. I think Ms. George has a couple of things that she wants to say, not necessarily addressing what the Vice Mayor had to say. But I'd also like, since our Council Clerk is in the room now, if she, I don't want to throw you under the bus or anything, but the points were made about how it might be onerous on your department. So, if you'd like to come speak to that, I'd appreciate that as well. And then, yes, you're right, I would be making a motion to bring this out to the full Council to approve. On page 15 of your packet, in the memo that the Department of Law sent to Council Member James, in the last two paragraphs on that page, one of the questions we had was whether, when would this take effect? Would the requirement that you're required to complete the financial disclosure statement be retroactive to January of 2008 or would we not start it until 2009? Because as you all know, the Statements of Financial Interest were already sent out that you needed to complete for 2007 and that deadline has passed. So that's one of the things we'll need to know, when is this going to take effect? And then the second concern is that if we're going to bring all of these boards and commissions under the Ethics Act, there will need to be some type of training done. We can't just say, okay, you're now subject to Chapter 25 without explaining to boards and commissions what the Ethics Act says. Currently, training is done by the Division of Human Resources, so we would need to talk about when we want training to take place, how we want to do that, and we would just need some direction as to what course of action you would like for us to take. Okay. Thank you, Glenda. So we need to address those as well as we move forward, the timing and the training. Yes, and the timing issue, actually when the Council Clerk comes forward, if she feels like for her office to be able to manage this process, it would be better to wait until January 1 of 2009, I'd be perfectly fine with that. So really it's up to her if she wants to implement it now or not. And we also have that process of educating all the boards and commissions that this is taking place. And so maybe the way to do that is to wait until January of 2009, but I'll let, you want to, could you come forward? I have no problem with that whatsoever. Okay. I take it you've been listening, Susan, or watching, you've been listening or watching, so you know. Yes, I'm multitasking over there, yes. To speak to the question, I would have to have a number in order to speak to it accurately. If we're obviously talking about 10 or 15 boards compared to 50 or 80, that's, you're talking about totally huge difference. 50 to 80 would be huge. It would be very disconcerting to me to deal with that at this point in the venture. 10 to 15 is manageable. Basically what it would encompass each year, as that person is on that board, they would have to be sent out a postage stamp each year. They would have to be dealt with in that respect. Storage for the files, because once that person is on that board, I believe, and I'm speaking off the top of my shoulders, maybe three years following that person leaving that board, we're required to keep that file over in our office before we can destroy it. You're talking about a lengthy time for record storage and capacity. We do have some capacity storage needs if we're talking about 50 to 80. That would just be exorbitant. The other thing is we would need to probably implement a database to be able to better handle the structure and everything. Starting in 2009 or 2010 would be wonderful. I have a couple of council members that would like to speak. Council Member Stevens. I have a question for Ms. Lamb. In the course of the last few years, how many people every year ask to see these financial statements? There are very few. Usually when there's election year, there's a few people that come out of the woodwork and want to look at them, but I can count on both hands the time that somebody has looked at them over the last five years. When they first were started, they were hot topics, but they've kind of died down now. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Ms. Lamb, when you said that you have to file these for three years, do you have to keep the hard copy for three years, or can you use the Liberty System to scan these in and archive or even? I believe that the state still requires a hard copy for records, especially those that are going to be disposed. I could be incorrect. I think that there's maybe, if a record has to be kept for less than seven years, I believe that record can be kept electronically, I think. If it's over seven years, then it has to be kept hard copy. I believe that's correct. Do we have capacity in the Liberty System right now that if we had to do this electronically, we could do it? I realize that it takes a person to scan that and all those things, so I realize the manpower or person power. Yes, we could do that. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Bruce. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that before we might pass this on to the Council, we'd want to know a little bit more about the impact on the Division of Human Resources that might be involved here, if training of a number of boards and commissions would be appropriate. So I'm not prepared at this time to vote to put this before the Council. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Blevins. Did you have a question? Oh, Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. As far as these boards and commissions are concerned, it's something I just don't happen to know. Are there attendance requirements for people who are board members? It looks like I'm not by myself. For most boards and commissions, yes, there are. Say, for example, with the Ethics Commission, if you have so many excused or unexcused absences, then you can be removed from the board. Define excused, I guess, is the question. I think it's if you give notice to the Council Clerk in advance. The Ethics Commission was having problems with board members showing up, so we have the requirement that you either have an excused or unexcused absence, and you have so many days to give us notice before the meeting that you are or are not going to be in attendance. And if you have too many excused or unexcused absences, then we can remove you. And I'm assuming that there would be similar attendance requirements for other boards and commissions, but without checking each board and commission's bylaws, I can't say that with certainty. But that's why that's determined in the bylaws of a specific board. Okay, thank you. And also, too, I know we've had a question about how often we would have to send out disclosure statements. When you look in the Mayor's Report, I think on a regular basis, there are people being appointed to boards and commissions, which shows how often that comes up. So every time there's going to be an appointment, we would be sending out the letter and the financial disclosure statement and having to get that back before the person could actually be confirmed. All right, thank you, Glenda. Any other committee members have questions or motions or statements, critiques? Yes. I have a motion. I'd like to go ahead and make the motion to go ahead and pass this out to the full council for a vote. And before I make the motion, I think we've all agreed and what I'd like to see the motion eventually say is that this wouldn't be implemented until January of 2009. That would also give HR a chance to get the things in motion. We actually talked about that issue before, and we talked about either making this, if possible, an online. Currently, I think they have a PowerPoint presentation that they use for the training, so we could possibly just put that up on the web and make it available to people. But I'd certainly like to get with HR and find out what they need to do to make that happen between now and the time we vote on it for second reading, if we get that far. And secondly, to come up with a number that we're working with so that we understand how many boards and commissions this affects with respect to the financial disclosure. So, Madam Chair, if it's all right with you, I'd like to make the motion that we move this on to the full council for approval. So moved. Second. We've got a motion and a second to move this issue forward to the full council. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Oh, I'm sorry. I always forget discussion. Me. Any discussion? Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the effort here, Council Member Myers, but I'm not going to support this move because I'd rather we have the information and the facts before the committee, before the committee sends it on to the council. Thank you. Council Member Blevins. I concur with Dr. Blues. I'd like to wait. I'd like to suggest that if you don't mind withdrawing it and let's just take this up next month and hopefully we have all this information and next month we'll crank it through. I don't see any burning reason why we have to pass this quickly, so let's do it right and not quickly. Council Member Baird. I've been preempted again, but that's exactly the way I feel also. I think let's get our act together and make sure we've got all the I's dotted and T's crossed and then do it next month. Vice Mayor. I'd vote for it because I know Joe and Council Member Myers have worked on this a lot already and for that reason alone I'd vote for it, but I do believe that we, in order to get a good understanding and sense that we're going the right direction on this, I'd like to suggest the same thing if it's possible. Council Member Myers. I'm starting to read some tea leaves here. And I respect my colleagues and take to heart what they have had to say, and so I would respectfully like to remove my motion. So moved. And do you have to get a second to remove a motion? Okay, the same second. Thank you, Council Member Crosby. Well, we'll take that up next month? Yes. Okay. So we will do our homework and bring that back and move on. We said before when we looked at this in November that we weren't in a hurry to get it done, so let's do it the right way. And let's remember, though, that the reason for this is because people have the ability to expend those funds and have that regulatory authority, and we'll move forward. If I may make the suggestion that if particular committee members have particular issues, you mentioned a matrix, that you get that information to Council Member Myers so he can respond directly to your concerns. The next issue, as far as I know, is the reporting policy. Which is page 20 of the packet. Did you have anything on that, Council Member Myers, to speak on? Or anyone else? Yes. This was the one we had behind us was to look at this list that we just made recommendations to dissolve a lot of these boards and commissions. It was an effort to ensure that if a board and commission is going to be in existence, that they really do meet and be about the business that their charter is requiring them to be about. And then if there's not a need to do that, then we need to go ahead and eliminate that board or commission. So this was really an effort to try to ensure that that happens so that five years from now, we don't have another list of 20 or 30 boards and commissions that we need to dissolve. But that also that we ensure that we get some type of report back from those boards and commissions as to what their work is and what their resolutions are to the issues that they're working on. And then to further promote what they're doing and to benefit as a city from what they're doing, is to make that information available on our website, LCCD website, so that citizens can understand what's going on and be better informed and also involved. So could I, Ms. George, could you come up for just a second? Actually, I think the attorney that you need is Tracy Jones, and she's here. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, okay. I'm sorry, Ms. Jones. That's okay. Could you kind of give us a little bit of background on the draft that you have here before us? Yeah, if you look on page 21 in your packet, there's a draft resolution. And basically what we did was draft this from what you suggested at the minutes from your last meeting. The ordinance or the resolution would require that boards and commissions, and it can only be boards and commissions that are created by the LFUCG, if we're going to post it on the LFUCG website, and that basic information beyond there. Now, how that would be accomplished specifically, I don't know. I would assume that, you know, the chief information officer, whoever's working on our website would be able to address that better than I would. But basically it's just information about the citation that creates that board or commission, their bylaws, if they have them. Not everyone has them as I understand it, who their members are, minutes, and that's basically it. But it would allow people to look at that on the website. It will require someone to put that on the website and to collect that information, and I don't know what the ramifications of that would be at this point, but that's basically what the ordinance says. Thank you. Council Member Bruce. Thank you. I think this is an important provision, not only to have some assurance on the part of the government that the board or commission is, you know, is in operation and is meeting, but also for the boards themselves. So as members go off, new members come on, there's a kind of built-in institutional memory. And I know that in some of our boards we do not have this now. We do not have complete records. And the boards are somewhat at sea as to what they, you know, what their predecessors may have done and what they're supposed to be doing. You know, I would certainly support this ordinance. Just for your information, there's a kind of typo in the draft where it refers to the minutes of each, minutes of each. We can correct that. So we don't want that to show up in the final version. But I'd certainly support moving this one forward. Does anyone else have a question? I have a question to ask. Ms. James, would you like to ask a question? Yes, thank you. I do. I like this resolution as well. You know, I love anything that we can get on a website because a lot of folks are looking at it and using it and looking at it as it improves and watching it. I do know that our IT department currently, as far as I know, has one person that's in charge of getting the boards and commissions pages up there. And I want that to be addressed, who would maintain it and who would produce it to be addressed in the resolution, at least the maintaining. And then offline, I guess we can talk with IT department as far as getting them on there. But the maintenance is going to be an issue because some of these do meet monthly and some twice a month, depending on what the issue is. And if you've got to get the minutes of each meeting on there, that's going to be a maintenance possible, you know, just tedious work for someone to do. So I would like to see that addressed at some point. And if this could be brought forward, I mean, if you want to bring it out of committee today, I would support that. I'd like to see another section that addresses the maintenance of the site as well. Sure. I think we could do that. And I presume that it's just going to be a PDF file that's going to be on the web. There's not going to be a lot of graphics or anything like that. So it's not going to be intensive in that way. So it's going to be similar to you go to the council website and you can find packets, work session packets, committee packets on there. It's going to be similar to that in structure, I think. But I think you're right that it does make sense to put that in the ordinance on how that's going to be maintained. So are there any other? Let me get the chair back. Thank you. Turn it back to Ms. James. Thank you. Council Member Brews, I have your name up here. Are you finished speaking? Okay. Any other questions from committee members? I think Council Member Myers may have something. Ms. James. Ms. James. Who is it? It's me. It also is going to need an effective date. I mean, we may be able to work that out prior to it going to the council, but we need to consider that. And that may come from the IT discussion. Okay. Good point. Thank you. Council Member Myers. So I'd like to make a motion to go ahead and move this forward with the understanding that we'll get with IT and have some discussion about who's going to maintain it and how, and then also come up with an effective date. And I guess we also have to talk to the administration about notifying the boards and commissions that this requirement is going to be in place. So I would suspect that, you know, certainly not before July 1, but probably maybe January again might be a good time to implement this. So any thoughts on when we might want to implement it, I'd be welcome to hear those as well. I was just going to request to be in that meeting with the IT folks because I imagine that most of it will be coming from the mayor's office and we'll be working directly with them, so we'll need to know what's going on. Absolutely. Thank you. Absolutely. So if there's no other discussion, I would move to go ahead and move this forward with those things in mind. So moved. Second. We've got a first and a second. Motion and a second to move the resolution related to websites for boards and commissions. To move that forward to council. Any discussion? Council Member DeCamp? Yeah, you know, I think we, before we vote on this, before I'm willing to vote on it, I need to hear, see some more specific language as to the administration, you know, how this will be done. I mean, it's easy to say here, well, it will be done and we'll put it in later. I'd rather hold off and read and see the language myself, and so I will not be voting in favor of this at this time. Thank you. Council Member DeCamp? Council Member Blevins? Council Member Myers, I didn't follow your last little comment there. When is the effective implementation date for this? That's what I was saying. We don't have one yet. I would say certainly not before July 1, but maybe it's easier if we just push this out to January 1 of 09. So procedurally what you're suggesting is they're going to redraft this ordinance for us to consider at a future work session with that and a couple other minor changes? Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay. Is everyone clear that the next resolution that we see will be with our changes that we've requested? All in favor? Any more discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. With one opposed, it passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is just an update on committee items that are in the packet. Are there any updates from committee members? Council Member Beard? We went through this in planning, and, of course, the list in planning is two or three pages long. But we have issues that are on the list with people's names by them who are no longer members of the committee. Is there some way to reassign, or maybe if we don't want to lose that person, to do Gordon slash DeCamp so that there's some continuity but at the same time that somebody who's presently on here can marshal or herd these issues forward? I'd be happy to take care of that. And this list, these are all current council members unless there's been a change over the weekend that I'm not aware of. Oh, they're not committee members. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was aware that Linda Gordon was a council member. Okay. I'd be happy to take care of that. Paul will take care of that for you. Council Member Myers? Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would like, we've got committee, council standing committees on the pending list, and I would like to move that up for the next meeting's agenda. I see Paul taking notes on that, so that can happen. We want to kind of hold off on that to look at the boards and commissions, some of the different things that we were doing, and now we've got some of these things sort of out of the way. Then I'd like to work on that issue and have it back next month. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Motion to adjourn? And a second. Thank you very much for being here today.