# Intergovernmental Committee - May 13, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · May 13, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/495 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/495?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-05-13 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: March 1, 2026 - **Length**: 5,083 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 May 13, 2008, at 1:00 PM with CM James presiding over the session. The committee addressed four agenda items during the meeting, with one item being postponed and three serving as informational presentations. The committee took one vote during the proceedings and heard no public comments from attendees. The meeting focused primarily on organizational and procedural matters affecting inter-governmental operations. The Boards/Commissions agenda item was postponed for future consideration, while the committee received informational updates on Grievance Procedures, Council Standing Committees, and a general update on various committee items. These informational presentations provided committee members with current status reports and procedural guidance without requiring formal action or votes beyond the single motion recorded during the session. ## Attendance The Committee meeting on May 13, 2008 had full attendance with all members present. **Present:** • James • DeCamp • Gray • Blues • Beard • Stinnett • Crosbie • Myers • Blevins • Henson **Absent:** None **Late:** None All ten committee members were in attendance for the meeting, with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee meeting on May 13, 2008 concluded with a single recorded vote. **Motion to Adjourn** The meeting was adjourned by voice vote, which passed without opposition. No specific vote counts were recorded for this procedural motion, and no individual member votes were documented. The motion did not require a formal roll call vote. No other formal motions or votes were recorded during this meeting session. ## Contested Items The Committee meeting on 2008-05-13 featured one significant area of contention regarding the structure and effectiveness of Council Standing Committees. **Council Standing Committees Structure** A heated discussion emerged concerning the inefficiency of the current committee structure and the pressing need for comprehensive restructuring to improve operational processes. The debate centered on how the existing committee framework was hindering effective governance and decision-making within the council. Committee members engaged in substantive disagreement about the current system's effectiveness, with participants expressing concerns about procedural inefficiencies that were impacting the council's ability to conduct business effectively. The discussion highlighted fundamental questions about how committees should be organized and operated to better serve the council's objectives. The nature of the debate was characterized as particularly intense, suggesting that committee members held strong and divergent views on the appropriate path forward for committee restructuring. The disagreement appeared to stem from differing perspectives on what constitutes effective committee governance and how best to address the acknowledged inefficiencies in the current system. While the extracted data indicates this was a heated discussion about restructuring needs, the specific details of individual positions taken by committee members, the exact nature of proposed solutions, or the final outcome of this contentious debate are not available in the provided materials. The discussion represents a significant policy disagreement about internal governance structures that clearly generated substantial debate among committee participants. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed participant information were not available in the provided source materials for this contested item.* ## Boards/Commissions The Committee was scheduled to discuss agenda item 1 regarding Boards/Commissions during the May 13, 2008 meeting. However, the administration requested that this item be postponed until the next committee meeting. The item was moved to the June 13, 2008 committee meeting without discussion or debate. No speakers presented information on this topic, and no concerns were raised during the meeting regarding this postponement. **Outcome:** The Boards/Commissions agenda item was postponed to the June 13, 2008 committee meeting at the administration's request. ## Grievance Procedures Leslie Jarvis from Human Resources presented information on the city's grievance procedures during this agenda item. The presentation covered the historical background of the current grievance process and discussed potential revisions that could be made to improve the system. During the discussion, CM James made a specific suggestion regarding survey distribution methods. She recommended that any surveys related to the grievance procedures be sent to her office, indicating that this approach would likely result in better response rates from employees or other stakeholders. The presentation was informational in nature, with no formal action taken by the committee. The discussion focused on understanding the existing grievance framework and exploring ways to enhance its effectiveness through potential procedural changes. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* ## Council Standing Committees Council Member Myers led a discussion on restructuring the city's committee structure to improve operational efficiency. The agenda item focused on evaluating the current standing committee framework and exploring potential organizational changes. During the discussion, CM Myers presented ideas for streamlining the committee system, though specific details of the proposed restructuring were not provided in the available materials. The conversation involved input from multiple council members, with CM Beard and CM Blues participating in the dialogue alongside CM Myers. The discussion appeared to center on how the current committee structure could be modified to better serve the council's needs and improve the efficiency of city operations. Council members exchanged views on various aspects of potential changes to the standing committee organization. This was an informational discussion item, meaning no formal action was taken during the meeting. The conversation served as an opportunity for council members to share perspectives on committee restructuring and consider different approaches to organizing their work. The outcome was classified as informational, indicating that the discussion was intended to gather input and explore options rather than make immediate decisions about committee changes. Further deliberation on specific restructuring proposals would likely occur in future meetings. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Update on Committee Items During the May 13, 2008 committee meeting, CM Stinnett raised a question regarding the current status of the grievance procedure that had been under committee consideration. CM James responded to the inquiry, providing clarification on the committee's approach to this matter. He confirmed that the grievance procedure would continue to remain in committee while the group awaits the results of a related survey. This indicates that the committee is taking a deliberative approach, gathering additional information through survey data before proceeding with any decisions or recommendations regarding the grievance procedure. The discussion was brief and informational in nature, with no formal action taken during this agenda item. The committee appears to be following a methodical process, ensuring they have comprehensive feedback through the survey before moving forward with any modifications or implementations related to the grievance procedure. This agenda item served as a status update, allowing committee members to stay informed about ongoing matters and the timeline for future consideration of the grievance procedure once the survey results become available. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript Thanks for watching. And we'll get started. The first item on our agenda is actually the boards and commissions and there is, the administration has requested postponement of this item and unless there's anything additional we need to give them at this point or we will just go to item number two. Moving on to item number two, the grievance procedure. I believe that Leslie Jarvis and Michael Allen both are here. And Leslie, I guess you'll be doing the presentation for us. Thank you. Welcome to the committee. Thank you. First of all, I wanted to introduce myself. Some of you I haven't had the opportunity or the privilege to meet. My name is Leslie Jarvis and I'm one of the senior managers that works in the Division of Human Resources and my primary area of responsibility would be the training and development areas as well as the employee and labor relations. And I've been asked to take just a few minutes and talk to you about the current grievance procedure. Now the grievance procedure that we're going to talk about today is the grievance procedure that's specifically made available to classified civil service employees. When we were asked to make the presentation, one of the things that we did was to do some research to see where the grievance procedure came into effect. Chapter 21 of our Code of Ordinances, and it was passed by Urban County Council on June the 29th of 1978, which placed it in effect on July 3rd of 1978, established Chapter 21 as the comprehensive plan for civil service system. And Section 21-49 specifically addresses the grievance procedure. Now currently in our system, we have six collective bargaining agreements that are between the Divisions of Police and Fire and Community Corrections. And they have their own grievance procedures that are outlined in those bargaining agreements. So this is just specifically focusing on the grievance procedure that's available to the classified civil service employees. Now when it came into effect in 1978, there have been no documented changes to the grievance procedure. So what's in effect now is our grievance procedure in ordinance is the grievance procedure as it was established in 1978. The only changes that were made was to the grievance form, and we'll go over the form in just a few minutes. Those changes were made in 2000, but there was no substantive changes to the procedure. It was just to clean up the form. Now in your packet that you were provided, you were provided a copy of the ordinance. On page 2 is the grievance procedure as outlined or the ordinance Section 21-49 of the grievance procedure. We've also included Section 22-32. Chapter 22 covers the unclassified, the non-civil as we refer to them sometimes, grievance procedure, which is the same grievance procedure. And then if you'll look at page 6, I'll take just a minute to go over the form. Page 6 is the employee grievance form. This form, like I said, is the form that was established in 1978. The only thing that we have done since then in 2000 was just to clean it up and to form or to make the font a little neater. It's a four-step process. If you'll look at your form on step 1, at step 1 what would happen is the employee would present their grievance verbally to their supervisor, their immediate supervisor. The supervisor would meet with the employee and discuss, and they would try to develop a solution to that grievance. If it's not resolved at step 1 or the employee does not concur at step 1, and they say they do not concur, it goes to step 2. At step 2 on the grievance form is where the employee, at step 2, they would list what the cause of their grievance is, and then they would list what should be done to resolve the grievance, and they would meet with the next level of management or supervision, try to resolve the grievance. If the grievance is not resolved at that step, at step 2, then it would go to the backside of that form at step 3 where it says the person would meet with their division director, commissioner, or that designee, and they would try to resolve the grievance at step 3. If it's not resolved and they do not concur at step 3, then it would move on to step 4. Now at the current ordinance it states that it will be reviewed by the CAO or their designee. We do not have a person in place as a CAO, so currently those grievances will go to Mr. Joe Kelly. The designee that has always acted on behalf of the CAO, and right now Mr. Kelly, is the employee relations area of human resources, who would then meet with the employee, look at the facts, the situation around that, and the response or the reply at step 4 would come from Mr. Kelly's office, and then the CAO or Mr. Kelly's response at this time would be the final result of the grievance. Now if, look at the next one, Cynthia, it's a four-step process and there are timeframes and those timeframes are listed. There's timeframes on behalf of the employee, there's also timeframes on behalf of the supervisors or management in answering those steps, and then again the CAO's response is final. Now when it comes to tracking grievances, we have only been tracking, and if we could see the next page, thank you, the numbers. The grievances were only tracked that I found starting in fiscal year 2002, they were tracked by fiscal year. There were boxes of grievances found back from the 80s, but again there was not a mechanism to count the number. These are the numbers, if you look in fiscal year when we ended in 2002, we recorded 43 grievances. That is not 43 grievances that was filed throughout government, that is 43 grievances that made it to step four in the process. Divisions aren't required, nor do they send to the Division of Human Resources or to the CAO's office or Mr. Kelly's office grievances that are successfully resolved at one, two, or three. So again, these are step four numbers. So you notice in 2003, 61, then it dropped in 04 to 36. The 2005 number, which jumped up to 81, that was a lot of those grievances were based on the pay equity process, so that was where a lot of those grievances were coming from in 81. Then you see that the numbers have started dropping, 46 to 23, and this year we've received nine grievances to date, and again these are grievances that make it to step four. Now if you think about 1978 is when the grievance was put in place in ordinance, and obviously 30 years later, we think it's time to do some revision. I think anything that's in place needs to be looked at and reviewed. One of the suggestions that we have is first of all to survey the classified civil service employees and directors to gain feedback on the procedure. Again this would just be surveying those classified civil service employees, we would not be surveying the people in police and fire and corrections who have their own grievance procedures through their contract. Surveying them to get their opinion of what their feedback is on the grievance procedure. Have they utilized it? Did they feel that the form was user friendly? What was the supervisor and the director's experiences with that? If the feedback warrants that, then we'll revise the current procedure in the form to reflect that, and one of the things in looking at that would be to establish grievable issues. One of the things that our current, if you read the ordinance, the first paragraph says that any employee who feels aggrieved by another, which leaves it pretty wide open. One of the things that happens in collective bargaining agreements is they establish grievable issues so that the employee understands what can be grieved as well as the supervisor understanding that. And then once we make those changes and modifications, which would require an ordinance change because the grievance is outlined in the ordinance, then we would train the employees and the managers on that process. Any questions? Committee members, any questions, comments? I do have one, and thank you for meeting with me. I met with, Paul and I met with you and Michael Allen, as well as my assistant Sarah, and we had some, I think some, a really good discussion about the current grievance process and ways that we can make sure that we are, that it's come to today's time and that we're responding to the needs. One of the suggestions that I have in, with the surveys, is that it can be seen at times, I believe, that a survey could, going back to the entity where there might, someone may want to identify fault or not want to be tracked. You mentioned in the past, you put numbers and people think that that's tracking, but that's only to count. My office has agreed to be kind of the, we would make sure that we have a volunteer that comes in and actually logs all of the responses related to the surveys. So I would ask that those surveys could be sent directly to the intergovernmental chair instead of human resources. So I don't know how you feel about that, but if you, that is a suggestion that I have, is that as employees fill out these surveys or directors or whomever, that if they see that it's coming to the intergovernmental chair versus the human resources department and that we have our person that's there entering that data, a volunteer or an intern or whatever, that we may get more responses or there might be more comfort with responding? How do you feel about that? Well, obviously that would be something I would discuss with my director and commissioner and their thoughts, but I would hope that when that feedback came in, that wherever that feedback went, that obviously it was recorded appropriately as it reflected on the forms. But also, I think it's beneficial if the feedback is not coming to the entity that's been handling the grievances for several, several years, that they be provided all of that feedback because obviously it's a reflection of what myself and some staff members in the division have been doing for several years. Absolutely. And the only way we can improve the process is to know ourselves how we've been accountable for contributing to the success or confusion or whatever of the process. Absolutely. And I think that this would be, what you would receive would be all of the responses, but that way that there could be kind of an intermediate area where those could be processed through and it would be accurate account, of course. Yes. Okay. If there are no further questions, we'll move on to the next item. Thank you, Leslie. Thank you. Appreciate you. The next item on the agenda is sponsored by Councilmember Myers and it's on the Council Standing Committees. Councilmember Myers? Thank you, Madam Chair. As you all know, several months ago, I put in the committee just this issue of the Standing Committees and there's been a lot of talk about what the Charter has to say about Standing Committees and if you'll look on here, page 10, page 9, I'm sorry, of your packet, it actually has a letter from Commissioner Law stating that the revised statutes for Kentucky and the LFUCG Charter neither or both are silent on the Standing Committees. And so there's a couple of questions that we asked here and it sounds like that they've given us a clear green light to really look at whatever we want to do in terms of committee structure for LFUCG moving forward and trying to make things more efficient, more effective in the way we handle issues that come before us. So obviously, we all know we have four committees here listed in the packet. It tells you a description of what matters go before which committee and really today, I just wanted to get the discussion started around this issue, wanted to have some good discussion over the next several meetings so that we can at the end of the day come back with a recommendation to the full council for how we might change our committee structure to be more effective and more efficient. One of the things that I think having too few committees does is it increases the number of months it takes to get an issue through committee and particularly if it's an issue that has to go through to the second meeting, it just really delays things and when you look at the calendar year and our budgets and things, it makes it really difficult to get some things accomplished. So I don't have an agenda in terms of what I'd like to see the committee structure look like at the end of the day. I know we've had conversations with the mayor. He would like to at least look at, as far as our previous conversations go, structuring our committees to structure around the different divisions of government. But if you look at your packet, and I'm going to ask Mr. Schoeniger to weigh in on this, he did some excellent research for us to look at several different cities and what they're doing and also asked him to provide the number of council members that each of these jurisdictions have so that you can see how many council members they have as opposed to how many committees. So I'm going to ask Mr. Schoeniger to kind of weigh in a little bit and then I'll come back on. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Moyers had asked me some time ago to look at our committee structure, look at what other communities are doing, as he had said, how they handle the internal workings of their committees. And I don't know if this is an exhaustive list, but I found that Louisville uses, they have 26 council members and they have 13 different committees. Some of the, I think one of the problems, or maybe one of the advantages, just one of the things in Lexington, we have, all four of our standing committees have 10 members, two-thirds membership of the entire council. In Louisville, their committees, some of their committees are as small as three and four people, some of their standing committees are as small as three and four people. In Chattanooga, in Louisville, and it's across the board in Louisville, it's, I like to think it's administrative in nature, but it's really across the board. The names and the issues that they're dealing with are not necessarily oversight over the administration, but it's a, for lack of a better word, a mishmash of different committees in Louisville. In Chattanooga, they have, I think it's five committees, and they really, very much the case of they mirror the administration. The administration has five different functions, and the Chattanooga City Council has, the committees are structured very after much of the administration. In Raleigh, it's very much the same thing. In Raleigh, I think there's four committees and they have eight council members. In Chattanooga, I think there are seven committees and they have nine council members. And in Spokane, it's not something that Council Member Moyers had asked for, but Spokane has abolished their committee structure and they went to a completely ad hoc structure. I think clearly one of the advantages of that, as the nature of business changes, you're not tied into a group of standing committees. But I think they, and conversely, you're very much a reactive organization as opposed to a proactive organization. At least that's my opinion. I don't know if you wanted me to talk about anything else, but I'm happy to try to address any questions you might have. Okay. Thank you. I would go on and add to that, that if we did look at, you know, where do we start from here in the discussion, several people have mentioned our links committees and how they are sort of structured along with our divisions of government, and that might be a place to start. So down here, Paul has four different things we could do, and that's do nothing and retain the existing structure. I think, personally, our committee structure is broke. I don't think our committees work very well at all. I don't think they're very efficient, very effective. We can restructure committees based on administrative functions. We can restructure committees based on the adopted pillars or abolish the existing structure and place it with an oversight and ad hoc committees as needed, which is what Spokane did. So, really, I don't know if there's any discussion that we want to start with today, but what I'd like to do is maybe put together a subcommittee, Madam Chair, to really start to look at this, but I'd really like to get input from everybody on the committee so that when we get to the end of the process, we don't have a lot of questions after we come back with a recommendation, but that we have that input in the process of putting together a recommendation. Okay. I think Council Member Myers is right. I think we need to, at this point, let's go ahead and, if there's anyone that has any discussion, any comments, concerns, and we can try to tweak it out and see if either one of these options, if you feel strongly about either A, B, C, or D, now would be the time to vet it out with all the committee members here. And there's nobody here to speak. Okay. Council Member Beard. Well, first, I'm interested in knowing what's exactly broken about the present, that we're too slow to act, that things sit for too long. Is that what you mean by broken or? I think that's part of it. That's the first part of it. The second part of it is, so often it seems like we put an issue in the committee, and a lot of times it's an issue that the community, or at least segments of the community, would have a lot to say about that issue. But our committees don't do a very good job of soliciting that input. So it seems like it's whoever puts something in the committee either takes it and runs with it, or they don't. And that's often why some things sit for a long time, is because we don't have necessarily the staff to look at things. And so it's really incumbent upon the Council Member and his or her staff to bring the issue forward. What I think is problematic, though, is when the issues come forward, oftentimes it's not a holistic approach to the issue, and so that you get one-sided options for a resolve instead of a holistic, community-wide input. But that could be fixed within the existing structure, could it not, with a little will and elbow grease? Well, I think we could. I mean, couldn't we have, let's say these options are off the table and we're dealing with existing committees, could we not make many of your concerns, fix many of your concerns right now within the present structure? Well, you started out by asking if part of the problem that was broke is that it takes too long to get things through committee. And I think that won't change as long as we have four very broad committees, and we've got a plethora of issues out there that need to be addressed. If you talk to the administration, I'm sure they're going to tell you that they agree that there are a lot of things about processes inside government that are broken. But it just takes too long once you put something in the committee, because you only have one meeting a month. But you've got, you know, if you just read, for example, planning committee, matters of related to the parks, planning and zoning, housing, transportation grants, legislation and social services. It just takes too long with a once-a-month meeting regarding all those different topics to get something through in a calendar year. So that's a function of having too many people on a committee and too few committees, somewhat. Right. And that's the major thing that I want to address here, is to look at these other cities and they have many more committees, more robust committees, but they're more focused committees, and then less committee members. So it's almost like putting something into this committee and then having 10 subcommittees to address the different issues. But we don't really do that. We just put things in the committee. And part of the reason is because then you start to butt up against meeting times and things like that. If you, and I think also you could probably shorten the length of the meetings for the standing committees maybe to an hour if you had more committees, less committee members, then it'd just be a more efficient process. As I said, if I could reiterate though, I don't have an agenda in terms of how I want to look at the end of the day, but I do think that there's a lot of room for improvement. Well, I don't get really excited about what Louisville does, and I think every time we look at anything, we always look at exactly what Louisville does, and I'm not sure that Louisville does everything as well as they would like to think they do. I'm pretty sure they, as far as any rankings are concerned, Louisville always trails us. It doesn't make any difference whether, what it is, Louisville always trails us. So as far as I'm concerned, let's say right now that I probably would favor the restructuring committees based on administrative functions. The pillars in and of themselves are a little more esoteric in nature, and they may change. Not that the committees couldn't change, but I think you might find that issues would fall into two or three of the pillars, but not all six of them. So it wouldn't be an even distribution. Definitely not a whole bunch of ad hoc and oversight committees. Continuity in and of itself would get broken up if you're forming and dissolving and forming and dissolving committees. You may be doing that on the same subject, even. I don't like the makeup of this committee. These three people who've been giving me problems will just dissolve it, and then we'll go back and reappoint one two months from now, and I'll get it more like I like it. So again, probably if I were to choose committees based on administrative functions, so long as one caveat, that we don't become a micromanagement tool. I wouldn't want us to try to micromanage the administration. Thank you, Councilmember Baird. Councilmember Blues has chimed in. Thank you, Madam Chair. I like the idea of enlarging the number of committees and reducing the number of members on them, and maybe the subcommittee that you talked about might bring a draft proposal to the next meeting, and so we'd have something to look at and chew over. Also I wonder if we might look at the idea of limiting the numbers of items on any committee's agenda. So you'd have, let's say, a limit of arbitrarily seven numbers on the agenda, and in order to put something on, you'd have to kick something off. And that would possibly, I think, discourage burying various items and concerns and questions in committee and help the process of moving them forward and out of committee one way or the other. Thank you. Those are good points, Councilmember Blues. Thank you. Councilmember Blevins. Thank you, Chair. George, I was wondering if you're, we're talking about the speed issue, and I'm curious what your thoughts are there. It seems to me we won't change the speed unless we meet more often as well as possibly reorganize the committee. So are you thinking along those lines, or what are your thoughts there? Well, if you more focus the committees, you will meet more often, because if you've got, say if you just had, I'm just going to throw a number out there, but if you had ten committees instead of four, each one of those committees would still meet monthly. So you're getting a lot more process and a lot more issues through committee in that same month, that same 30-day period. Okay. I've not noticed as much of a speed issue related to being bumped off the agenda kinds of things. Myself, of course, I'll admit I've only been here 15 months now. I was just thinking that, gosh, you know, we're meeting to death now, and I get a little squiggly or something when we start talking about meeting more often. I'm not against this at all, and I have the same sense of discomfort, I'll call it, that you do. I just don't have a good idea in mind yet of what to do about it. So I'm sort of there with you. Okay. Thanks. Council Member Myers, did you have more? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. And that's one reason why I said a couple of things. One is I don't have an agenda, so we really want an honest look from everybody on how we might be able to improve the system. But also, hopefully, we can decrease the amount of time that we meet. And so instead of meeting for two hours, maybe we meet for one hour, instead of having ten of us sitting here, we have three or four of us sitting here. And so you may not need to meet as often because there's going to be, you know, more committees and you're not going to be on every committee. Like right now, I'm on three of the four committees. So, you know, I think there's a real opportunity here if we just kind of put our heads together, set up the subcommittee, and come back with something for everybody to really chew into. I guess we need to proceed in the subcommittee, and is that my chair responsibility of appointing that? My recommendation, and committee members can chime in, but I just suggested this to my vice chair, was to have the chairs of each of the standing committees as kind of a starting base. And how many chairs do we have here today? Kevin, are you a chair of the budget and finance? So that would be where I would start, if that sounds okay with you. And that way we could kind of talk about the problems that we've had or any challenges that we've had right now and start there. And if necessary, we'll branch out if someone's not available. How do you feel about that? That would leave me out. Wonderful. Can you add one more person to that? Sure. Would that be you? Yes. Okay. Sure. We will do that. I'd love to have Mr. Blevins serve on that subcommittee as well, if he would be willing to. He has the time. I respectfully decline. Thank you, though. I'm honored. Okay. Sure. Well, I will get a list together, and I will set up a time for that first meeting to occur. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sure. Unless there's more on that particular item, we will move on to our last agenda item, which is an update on committee items. Is there anything that anyone would like to talk about regarding items pending? Council Member Stennett? In reference to the grievance procedure policy we just talked about briefly, are you going to keep that in committee? Are you looking to come back with a revised ordinance to change that process? I believe that we're going to keep it in committee at this time, and when the survey responses come back, we will report out to this committee prior to going to full council, if that's okay with the committee. Very good. Thank you. Council Member DeCamp? Yeah. I was looking at the two that Council Member Gorton has here that go back to 05 and 06, the proposed new compensation system and the high-risk pay supplement. Are those items still relevant to be discussed today? I think Paul has something to chime in on that. Okay. I can't address the high-risk pay supplement, but the proposed new compensation system, that will come back to committee next month for the regular quarterly update. All right. And we will follow up with Council Member Gorton related to the high-risk pay. Okay. We will report back. Council Member Myers, you're on here to speak. Do you have something else? Yes. With respect to update on committee items, do we know when, will the administration be ready at the next meeting to take up the issue of boards and commissions? Okay. June 13th or something? June 13th. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Could we put that back on the agenda for June 13th? Yes. It looks like Paul's writing as we speak. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Council Member Baird? Actually, this is a question for Council Member Myers. Could not those two issues actually be merged, review current boards and commissions and then boards and commissions that adhere to the ethics committee be merged into one issue? Are we going to be ---- Council Member, I think your point is well taken. I believe, really, the last time this was dealt with, they really were dealt together. I mean, if ---- Makes a list shorter. That's the only reason I brought it up. We're making progress, see? Thank you, Council Member Revere. You're very welcome. Those are the same ones. You do great work. Thank you. Anything else? Can I get a motion? We've got a motion to adjourn. Second. And plenty of seconds. And all in favor say aye. Aye. And none opposed.