# Inter Governmental Committee - October 14, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 14, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/620 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/620?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-10-14 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 6,358 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council's Inter-Governmental Committee met on October 14, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. at the Government Center in Lexington, Kentucky, with CM James presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking three motions to a vote and hearing one public comment. The committee's agenda included discussion of a Staying Union Free Human Resources Training Class, which was postponed, and Boards/Commissions Reporting, which was deferred to a later date. The committee also tabled consideration of Boards/Commissions That Adhere to Ethics Act Financial Disclosure Requirements. An Update on Committee Items was presented for informational purposes. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 14, 2008: * James * DeCamp * Gray * Blues * Beard * Stinnett * Crosbie * Myers * Blevins * Henson No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Hold Off on Workshops** [timestamp: 00:48:48] CM DeCamp moved to hold off on further workshops until revisions are reviewed by the Intergovernmental Committee, seconded by CM Myers. The motion failed by voice vote. Those voting in favor were CM DeCamp and CM Myers. Those voting against were CM Blues, CM Stinnett, CM Blevins, and CM Beard. **Motion to Cease 'Staying Union Free' Class** [timestamp: 00:49:20] CM Blevins moved to direct administration to cease delivery of the "Staying Union Free" class until state law changes or a pressing need arises, seconded by CM Beard. The motion passed by voice vote. Those voting in favor were CM Blevins, CM Beard, and CM Stinnett. CM Blues voted against the motion. **Motion to Table Boards/Commissions Ethics Item** [timestamp: 00:50:22] CM Myers moved to table the item on Boards/Commissions that adhere to Ethics Act Financial Disclosure Requirements for further research. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition. This item is to be brought back at the next meeting. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 00:26:41] Deborah Force, representing AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), addressed the meeting to oppose a proposed "Staying Union Free" training class. Force criticized the training program as offensive and misleading. She argued that despite claims of neutrality, the class promotes anti-union sentiment. Force emphasized that public employees have the right to organize and that the training content is inappropriate for the public sector context. Force noted that the training material is drawn from the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, which focuses on private-sector concerns. She contended that applying private-sector anti-union messaging to public employees misrepresents the nature of public sector employment and employee rights. ## Contested Items **Staying Union Free Human Resources Training Class** A significant dispute arose regarding the content and implementation of a Human Resources training class titled "Staying Union Free." The class generated heated discussion centered on concerns about neutrality, labeling, and potential bias in its presentation. Critics of the class argued that both its title and content promoted anti-union sentiment rather than presenting objective information. They contended that the framing was inherently biased and inappropriate for a mandatory or widely-offered training program. In response, HR representatives maintained that the class material was factual and objective in nature, defending the curriculum against accusations of bias. The controversy resulted in two formal actions: - A motion to revise the class failed - A subsequent motion to halt the class succeeded The class was ultimately discontinued as a result of these proceedings. ## Staying Union Free Human Resources Training Class [timestamp: 00:04:48] The committee discussed concerns regarding the "Staying Union Free" human resources training class, with significant debate over whether the program's content and title were neutral or represented advocacy against unionization. **Defense of the Program** HR Director Michael Allen defended the class as informational and neutral in nature. He noted that the training had been requested by both managers and employees, and characterized it as educational material designed to provide information on union-related topics. **Concerns Raised** Critics of the program, including CM Blues and Deborah Force, argued that the class crossed the line from information into advocacy. They expressed concerns that the training was misleading and questioned its appropriateness as a government-sponsored program. A particular concern was raised regarding the class's origin from the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, which raised questions about potential bias in the material's development and framing. CM DeCamp and CM Blevins also participated in the discussion, contributing to the debate over the program's neutrality and appropriateness. **Actions Taken** A motion was made to pause the class pending review of revisions to address the concerns raised. This motion failed to pass. However, a subsequent motion to cease delivery of the training class until state law changes were made passed. This action effectively suspended the program pending potential changes to relevant state legislation. **Outcome** The agenda item was postponed, with the training class suspended from delivery pending legal or policy changes. ## Boards/Commissions Reporting Paul Schoninger indicated that the Boards/Commissions Reporting item would be revisited at the next meeting. [timestamp: 00:49:50] No discussion or action occurred during this session. The item was deferred for consideration at a future meeting. ## Boards/Commissions That Adhere to Ethics Act Financial Disclosure Requirements [timestamp: 00:50:22] Council Member Myers moved to table this agenda item for further research, indicating that additional information was needed before the body could proceed with discussion or action. The motion to table passed. The item was not revisited during this meeting and will be addressed at a future meeting date. ## Update on Committee Items [timestamp: 00:50:54] Paul Schoninger provided an update on committee items. He reported that the Boards/Commissions reporting item would be ready for presentation at the next meeting. Other matters under review remained in flux and were not yet ready for action. No action was taken on this agenda item. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — failed: Motion to hold off on further workshops until revisions are reviewed by the Intergovernmental Committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to direct administration to cease delivery of the 'Staying Union Free' class until state law changes or a pressing need arises - **Motion** — passed: Motion to table the item on Boards/Commissions that adhere to Ethics Act Financial Disclosure Requirements for further research --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. in city government, but rather why there should be, what is the need for a workshop that, at least in my opinion in terms of the content as listed here in the packet, is anti-union. Is there a need, is there a concern, is there a rationale? It does seem to me that as employers, we should treat our employees fairly. We should not discriminate. We should pay a decent wage, fair wage. We should treat folks equally. We should respond to grievances in a timely manner and in a transparent manner. We should not retaliate. And so forth. It doesn't seem to me that we should be in the business of launching preemptive strikes against, in this case, a union. And, you know, is there a need? Is there an issue? These are things that perhaps Mr. Allen would want to address. These are concerns I think we should have aired. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Council Member Blues, for bringing this issue forward. And I will ask at this moment, if, Paul, can you just go over what's in the packet? It's pages 1 through 25, and just tell us a little bit about what's in here. Sure page one is the letter from Teamsters that I think prompted maybe possibly prompted council action This was sent to all council members back in September and then starting on page 2 through 14 excuse me handout that was provided at the class They've had this class at least once maybe maybe even more than once and then starting on page 15 I think through page 24, it's the same material, I think just in a, excuse me, to page 23, the same material, just in a different form. HR had provided me two different types of the same information. And then page 24 and 25 were comments from attendees at the class, I believe. This came from HR, so if I'm wrong, I think Mr. Allen can correct me. But I think that's the order of information from pages 2 to 25 came from HR on page 1, really the letter from the Teamsters that prompted your discussion. Okay. And raise your hand if you're here to speak on this issue today. And then we have human resources and one employee or representative. Okay. Okay. So we will hear from human resources first, and then we'll give you an opportunity to speak, public comment on this issue. Mr. Allen, will you be speaking today on this? Thank you. Good morning. Good afternoon. Ms. Jarvis apologizes. She would normally be here to speak on this, speak on this, but she had other business that she had to attend to, so I'm her stand-in. With respect to the council member, the materials, if you take a look at them, are not anti-union. The reason that the workshop was developed was, as we developed many workshops, as requests from our managers and for our employees, calling us to say, what can we say? What can we do? How does this work? How does unionism, how does a union come in? We had a meeting, a safety meeting, and they were giving out cards. Is that okay? You know, so there was a lot of questions that came up, and we thought it would be valuable to put together a program. We discussed it with the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, which is where we got quite a bit of the materials. And actually, I know it's different in the private sector versus the public sector, but in the private sector, it's a very common term to use for a training class, maintaining union-free status. It's not meant as any kind of union animus. It's just if you're currently non-union, how do you maintain that status through, as Council Member Blue so aptly put, maintaining a fair working environment, fair benefits, fair compensation? In fact, it would be completely illegal to call it just the opposite, how to get rid of a union, because you certainly wouldn't want to do that. So if the issue is the labeling of the class, that's fine if the recommendation from Intergovernmental would be to change the title as far as information concerning unions or what, you know, questions and answers concerning union activity. We'll be glad to change that. I think it was a little reactionary because the letter was sent from the Teamsters to the council members, to the council, prior to even looking at the information or even having the class. We had one class before the issue was raised and there were 21 attendees. You have the information, the feedback from the 21, and even the past CSEA president was one of those attendees, and his comments, as was published in the paper, was that the class was very fair, presented both perspectives. It wasn't pro-union. It wasn't anti-union. It's simply fact-based. And that's the design of it, just to impart information. I believe that we should all, Council should be able to pick up the phone and call me or the training department at any time if they ever have a question on anything that we are training and in fact that has been the case in the past and we have been quite responsive on that prior to taking this level of action. We, because it is a form of censorship, we have trained classes on, not to be overly sarcastic on this, but we trained classes on fly fishing. and we never got a letter from PETA. So the same kind of general impression comes to my mind. Again, the intention of this class was just informational, and if directed, we will gladly change the title. Council members or committee members, if you'd like to ask questions, please be sure to hit your request to speak button. Hit on your, if you go to your left where it says staying union free, click on that. Thank you. I do have a couple of committee members to speak, Mr. DeCamp and then Mr. Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, looking through this, I agree that, you know, it's probably a good thing to do. I think the major problem was staying union free. I think if we change that, like understanding union status or whatever it may be, I think it's perfectly legitimate. I think we raised a red flag by staying union free. It looked like we were a little prejudiced one side or the other, and I think we should be right in the middle. Look, these are the facts. This is if you join the union. These are some of the advantages, disadvantages. If you don't, there's some of the advantages, disadvantages. That's all that you're saying. And I think there are situations, as you mentioned, Mike, about how to handle particular situations when things are being handed out and that kind of thing. So I think it's a very legitimate activity of your department. I just think there was a little – I think you used the wrong wording, and I think if this was ever done again, and I don't know what your plans are, But if you have something like understanding union status or something along that line, it would make it probably a better opportunity to look at something more objectively or at least appear more objectively than this particular title. That's one to believe. We did have another class scheduled that was full that we did cancel. So we would like to offer this again if allowed. And I think that that's quite appropriate, Councilmember, that we could change the title, because I think that's exactly what caused the furor. Mr. Blues. Thank you. You know, I do, on the one hand, understand, and I appreciate the need for supervisors, managers, directors, to be able to know whether sign-up cards can be passed out at a safety meeting and so on. But I think that this workshop crosses the line between providing information and advocating, and that's an issue here. If you look, just for example, page 6, staying union-free rules of engagement, The employer's campaign, there's a number of things that supervisors cannot and rightly should not do. It also indicates certain things that supervisors can do. I'll just read a couple. Tell the employees, this is number one, that you and the division prefer to deal with them directly rather than through an organization. Number six, tell employees your opinion about union policies and union leaders, even though in uncomplimentary terms. Number nine, layoff, discipline, or discharge for cause so long as such action follows customary practice and is done without regard to union membership or non-union membership. Well, you know, that's especially number nine to talk about why you can be laid off, disciplined, or discharged in the context of staying union free. Now, the problem here, too, is one I have in a sense of timing. I can understand that if there is a union wanting recognition and this issue comes to the government, it's perfectly legitimate for the union to make its case. And it's certainly perfectly legitimate for the government to make its case and then to address all of these issues. But as I say, I think this goes beyond, you know, this goes beyond a kind of neutral, cautionary, informative workshop. And again, I don't think it's the business of the government to be telling its directors and managers why people want to unionize. Let the unions do that. Let those who are interested in unions do that. I'm sorry, but I do not think that this is a neutral document. And I do not mean, once again, I'm not speaking pro or anti-union here. But I am not satisfied with this document as the content of a workshop. And I think that if we are going to have information sessions, that they ought to be strictly neutral, strictly factual, strictly informational in terms of what it is that management needs to know in order to communicate effectively with employees. Thank you. All I can respond to that is we've had one workshop that I don't think the council member attended. So just looking at the materials is one thing. It's judging a book by its cover. The respondents, I think, are pretty key as far as how they perceive the workshop. And you can see, based upon the respondents, that they perceived it as objective, despite the Council Member's perspective on some of the materials. Madam Chair, if I could just respond once. I really don't mean to get into an argument about this, but looking at the comments of those who were in the workshop, one strikes me. What is LFUCG doing, as in the case of Toyota, to cause employers to stay union-free? Again, I think that this is not neutral presentation of information, and that is my concern. That was a respondent's comment, Councilmember, that obviously they have an interest in wanting to know what the government is doing more to, and our perspective obviously was we're not going to be presenting that kind of information because we do want to remain neutral. I understand. And if I – this page is headed handwritten comments from the evaluations. That's what I was reading. Just to clarify on that sheet for comments, were all comments put on this sheet? Is this representative of everyone that did a comment or did someone go through and pull? This is unedited, Council Member. This is all comments. These are all comments. To the best of my knowledge, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Beard is next on my list. Thank you Madam Chairman. Coming from the private sector, as most of us do, but having somewhat of a long tenure in banking, we had a situation at a time where there was a big move of full it to unionized banks. Started in Washington, D.C. and kind of expanded up and down the East Coast. And we got into a same type of situation. It wasn't so much that we were anti-union or trying to keep the unions out. We wanted the process to be clear to our employees, our managers at various levels, so that we didn't get, in other words, we wanted negotiations to happen with the right people and the right folks. And we were told at that time anyway that you could be approached by a union representative and they could hand you a pack of cards and that if you looked at those cards, you had accepted those and had essentially accepted the entity as a bargaining unit. And I don't know whether that still applies or not, and that might have been a bit of overkill, but, you know, we had a process where we would want to forward that to the right place at the right time so that we could have a branch manager, for instance, get the whole bank involved in a union negotiation situation without us, the management of the bank, actually being involved until halfway through it. You were talking about Toyota, or Dr. Blues was. I remember IBM also was a non-union shop and wanted to stay that way. And they bent over backwards, both in their pay scales and all their other remuneration activities, one of which was so amazing to me because they were hyper about this during the missile crisis in the 60s within 72 hours they had passed out to all their employees a two page listing of materials you would need to build a fallout shelter at cost, portable chemical toilets, water purification systems, at that time K1, the MREs now, but K1 rations, all types of things like that that they would sell at a discount, and IBM would buy them and then sell them at a discount, and then a five-year interest-free loan of $5,000 to build a thing. And all this was put together, at least it was presented, within 72 hours of the missile crisis popping up. So, you know, they were on top of their relationships with their employees. And to this day, they're not unionized, to my knowledge, anyway. I think we need to be careful. It seems counterintuitive to me for some reason that public safety can collect a bargain and the rest of the employees can't. You would think that it would be the opposite, I guess, in my mind, that the public service people would be the ones that you would want to be sure were out there on the front lines. I know there's a no-strike clause, I guess, in the negotiation, but at the same time there can be slowdowns and there can be all other ways to achieve the same thing. Maybe it's not appropriate to even talk about community corrections at this point because that hasn't been signed yet, so I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Beard. Anyone else, any other committee members have questions? I have a couple of questions. Councilmember DeCamp, I'm going to ask a couple of questions and have you take over. Yes, I will take over. Thank you. Who created the information for the training? Is this a standardized format of information about staying union free, or is this something internal? This is information we gathered from a presentation by the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. Okay. And do you feel like it's neutral? Do you feel like it's a neutral presentation? Absolutely, Council Member. I helped design this program, and I don't have any union animus. being the chief spokesperson for the city. My role is to negotiate contracts between the city and the unions. This was strictly designed because we were getting so many, there was questions concerning legislature that might be forthcoming. And based upon the past legislature that had just, legislation, excuse me, that had just been passed that allowed collective bargaining to the council member's point with corrections and with the rest of public safety. We were getting quite a few questions from other groups saying, okay, what about this, what about that? And at the same time, the ad campaign was on TV for the employer, the employee, I think it's the Privacy Act, which was getting all kinds of questions about what's about this election stuff. So it just seemed very appropriate at that time to say, okay, here's what you can do, here's what you can't do, here's what this is about. And it was designed strictly as a very neutral, and I would invite, if we could do it again, any of the council members to come and listen, and if you still feel it isn't neutral, then we'll make all the necessary changes to make it so. Okay. All right. If no other committee members have questions for Mr. Allen, we'll hear public comment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ma'am, if you would state your name and address when you come forward and your affiliation as well, if you'd like to do that. Hello. My name is Deborah Force and I'm a representative of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. I was called here some time ago by some of the employees to talk to them about organizing a union. And I've been working with them, listening to their concerns, watching things as they go along, and I see some of the reasons that they have called me here. I am not a Lexington citizen, but I have worked with all the Lexington employees. First of all, I want to make a couple of comments to Mr. Allen. He said something about fly fishing, and I just want to say maybe PETA wasn't aware of that class. But did taxpayer dollars subsidize this class? Just a question. I want to comment that Jack, that he spoke about, Mr. Allen spoke about, is not an officer of CESA, does not speak for the members, only speaks for himself. Maybe he didn't make that clear, I'm not sure. I wonder why Mr. Allen has put all this written information in here for the council members, members to read and then say, well, you didn't attend the class so you don't understand what I'm saying. That makes me question. I want to tell you as a union member, almost my whole adult life I've belonged to unions and this is very offensive to me. The title itself The title itself is offensive, misleading. If truly it's neutral, it is very misleading. I especially want to refer to pages 6 and page 7. Rules of engagement on page 6, the employer's campaign. That in itself is saying that you're campaigning against a union. Page 7, what do you say? Those questions are offensive, objectionable. They're leading questions. They would lead in leading statements. These things may never be questioned, but they're given out written materials so people can think that way, and they're led into that kind of mindset. I just want to know why the current administration would deny one group, discriminate against one group not being allowed to organize or not being allowed the freedom to talk about organizing when you've allowed that for the three other entities in the government, fire, police, and corrections, all with different unions. I think there's a KRS statute and I believe urban government has a resolution about employees having the freedom to choose and to organize. So I'm wondering how close this borders on a legal issue. I want to also say something about my union. It specializes in public employee It specializes in public employee and civil service employees. That's our specialty, we represent 1.4 million people across the nation. Public employees unions are different than a normal union or a private sector union, let me say. And the information, if it did come from the Chamber of Commerce that's being used in this lesson, is for a private entity. not for public service. Public service has different rules, different laws, and different borders and those need to be discussed and you know educated on before this class resumes. So I thank you very much for your time. Thank you for your comment. Comments. Committee members, let's move to camp. I would like to ask you a question? I understand it was my interpretation that you made you made a statement does that mean you are not allowed to organize? No. Well I thought you it sort of indicated that maybe you weren't. No I'm saying this this thing there there's a law that says that I mean no matter what it says in here you're still allowed to organize. Oh you mean no matter what the lesson says? Yeah. Well, it's not going to stop us, but it is going to put some doubts in some of the management's eyes. Well, I mean, don't you... Council Member DeCamp, please let her finish her response. Because it was my understanding that only managers went to this class. So if only managers are going to this class, only managers are learning this, then that's giving them the idea that, yes, the government is not going to let them organize. It's just promoting the idea. But it still allows the employees to organize. Yes, but under harassment or under fear because they know about this program, this lesson. Well, I mean, to me it is, the manager is clearing up, you know, that there are a lot of doubts, a lot of misinformation. To me, it's just clearing up the information and it's trying to be objective about it. And I don't see where it would stop anybody who's interested in establishing a union in the civil service. It doesn't stop anybody from doing anything that you want to do along that line. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I said that it was going to stop organizing. I didn't mean it that way. Thank you. But I do want to say again, this lesson is for private sector employees or employers. And a lot of the information in here would not pertain to civil service. Thank you, ma'am. Councilmember Blues, did you have a question for the resident? No, I don't. I have a comment. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I think that it's perfectly legitimate for HR to develop a document and to hold a workshop on answering questions that come from managers, directors. And I would certainly be interested in that kind of process where the managers say, well, we've had, I have questions about this, this, and the other thing. Employees ask me this question and that question. and for HR to prepare answers to them. What we have here is not a neutral document. I'm sorry, it is simply not. And it is one that is perfectly true in its content to its title. And I don't think that's appropriate for this government. I think that we ought to be answering questions factually and specifically. I'm sticking to that and not advocating, not getting into motives, not getting into, you know, into advisories that go beyond the kinds of questions that managers are likely to receive from employees. And there's always room for answering other questions if they come up. But in short, I have to say I think that this document should not be used in further workshops and that I think that HR should go back to the drawing board on this and develop a QA statement and follow-up meetings with reference to it if needed and not use this as a template for further workshops with managers and directors. Thank you, Council Member Blues. Council Member Myers is next. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Allen, could you come up with us a second? Do you know if there's a different training course for private sector versus public sector? There are, certainly the rules are a little bit different with the National Labor Relations Board and its role and some of the things that how the NLRB applies or does not apply to public sector. But in general, the rules, and that's all we're talking about here, are the same. And just as a point of clarification, this was in our regular training announcement, and the training announcement is open to every employee throughout government. So this was not a class that was strictly reserved for either managers or directors. That was my next question. Do you know offhand, looking at the attendance, were non-management employees involved in the course? Oh, absolutely. Jack Barnett, for instance, I think he has a supervisory capacity, but he's not a manager or a director. He doesn't hold the title of manager or director. Okay. Do you know if any non-supervisory employees at all just hadn't? Oh, there were, yes. Okay. Yes. And again, you said that the handwritten comments here for the exit survey, this is all of them. To the best of my knowledge, Council Member, yes. Okay. And then one final question I have for you is you said that you used the model from the Chamber of Commerce. Is that the State Chamber of Commerce? That is correct, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. Okay. How much modification did you do to their curriculum? I'd have to go back and take a look before I'd answer that, but my initial reaction was not much. Okay. Were you involved in the actual modification? No, I was not. Leslie Jarvis was. Okay. Do you know if she did that based on time constraints for the length of the training or what the thinking was when they made the modifications? I'm not quite sure the level of modification, Council Member, so I don't know. it could be exactly what the chamber presentation was. So I'd have to take a look at that and get back to you. But my initial reaction is there probably was very minimal because Ms. Jarvis is relatively new to labor relations and wouldn't be able to really make that many modifications herself. Okay. So that was my final question, but you brought up another one. Could you get us a copy of the training that the state has? Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Beard is next. Again, thank you, Madam Chairman. Michael, while you're there, please clarify for me, if you would. As I remember anyway, the state legislature enabled collective bargaining for public safety entities. I think they added corrections at some other time. Fire and police went first. And it was also my understanding that the rest of the employees cannot collectively bargain. Is that correct or not? To my understanding in this state, it would require legislation, Council Member, and that has not passed. Okay. Well, I get a little confused from what I was hearing from the previous speaker, but it's somewhat a moot point right now anyway. Obviously, at least I thought there was some move afoot in the last legislature to attempt to get that changed, but it didn't happen, and it will have to happen, I suppose, before the real activity takes place. But of course, I guess there's also activity that could take place that would tee that up so that they could be ready whenever the legislature acts or if they act. Thank you. That's my understanding. Council Member DeCamp. Yes, I think in view of all this discussion, I would like to make a motion that HR hold off holding any more of these workshops until, I'm not saying to eliminate them at all, because I do think they are important. but to revise some of the wording or some of the questions or whatever it might be and bring it back to the members of this committee so we can be sure that it's all very objective and not subjective and if there are any specific areas that any of the members would like to have that they get that HR and that they bring back to this committee another outline of this workshop and at that time we will discuss it further. We've got a motion and a second to hold off any further workshops until revisions to wording be approved or discussed by the Intergovernmental Committee and then decision furthermore to decide whether that moves forward. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Councillor Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think I'm going to support this motion. What I would like to see is Mr. Allen said that he could get us the Chambers curriculum that they have on their website. I don't know that any of us are experts in labor law and should be making modifications to this training program as such. I think that we'd be much better served if we allow him to provide us a copy of what the Chamber has on its website. I'm sure that their attorneys and the like have vetted what they have out there across the state and see how much if any modification was done to that program before we do anything like what you're suggesting in this motion. I would be glad to make an amendment that along with that, that they send that information along with a revised work plan for this workshop. Would that satisfy, Congressman Myers, what you're suggesting, an amendment? I guess the problem that I have, well, can I ask a question, Mr. Allen? Do you have this particular workshop scheduled between now and next month before we meet again? It was scheduled. It was a full class, but we have canceled it. See, I would rather have him get a copy of what the Chamber has on its website and bring that to us and present it at a work session either later today or next week rather than put this on hold for a month until we come back and meet again. Because like you said, they may not have made any modifications at all to what the State has. And if they haven't, then I definitely wouldn't be trying to make modifications up here as this body goes. And so rather than put off their courses for a whole month, I would rather have him just bring that to us at the work session today. You could probably get that by today, couldn't you? Make every effort to. Okay. So could you amend it to at least shortening that time period so we're not out a whole month that we could hear from them today? Well, I would agree to go ahead and have Mike send that chamber information to us, I would still like to see some of the changes that they might make at the next meeting, which would, you know, just go through it with a fine-tooth comb to be sure that what some of the objections that have been brought up today have been clarified in the outline of the workshop. In the meantime, they can go ahead and send it, and it would inform us so that when we do get this, we'd be more prepared to, I think, give a better answer of whether we think that they are being objective in this workshop. So I think if he'd go ahead and do that, I would like to still see at the next meeting a revised workshop outline. Okay, so the motion is amended to include the language or include the resource of the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. Is that the second stand on that, Council Member Blues, to add the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce information? Not to me it's not because it seems to me it overcomplicates a fairly straightforward, simple issue. We do not need to be labor relations experts to be able to tell whether a document presents information in a neutral way. Does it answer pertinent questions in a way that doesn't advocate in any direction or another? So it does seem to me that instead of bringing this to closure soon, it just overcomplicates it. I'm perfectly satisfied with Council Member DeCamp's motion as he made it. And it seems to me that this committee and this council is perfectly capable of looking at a document and telling whether it's informative and neutral. Council Member DeCamp, so your motion as it stands is to bring that forward to, for Human Resources to bring the revisions back to Intergovernmental Committee. Would you like to include the language of the Kentucky, having the information from Kentucky Chamber of Commerce included? it? No, because I think it's been made as a request, and I'm sure that Mike will honor that request. Okay, so the motion stands. It doesn't need to be part of the motion. Okay, the motion stands, and Council Member Blues, did you have anything additional? You're on my list to speak. No, I don't. Thank you. Council Member Stennett? Thank you, Chair. You know, as interesting as this discussion has been, and as lively a topic this has been over the last month or so, I certainly appreciate Council Member DeCamp's efforts, as well as Council Member Myers and Council Member Blues for bringing it forward, But I would not support this motion. The only type of motion I will support is one that directs the administration not to do this type of class. That's what I think we should be talking about, whether we do it or not, not how we do it. I don't like this class. I don't think we should do it at all. I don't see the value it serves to our employees or to our business as government. So I will not support this motion. The only type of, once again, motion I will support is one not to do this type of class at all. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Blevins is to speak on the motion? Yes, it is. I concur with Council Member Stenet. I will not support the motion in its form as it is because I also feel like Council Member Stenet, this is really a business decision. Given that it requires a change in state law for us to unionize here, there is no pressing union issue before us. I don't find it as a cost-effective use of our employees' time to be going to a class on unionizing when it's not a pressing issue. So I would prefer to see us just not do the class at all and in the future Should state law change and we need to educate our management structure on what's proper and what's improper in terms of Negotiating while we go through that process. That's a different issue But today there's nothing before us no need for this class given that's at least offensive to some of us Why would we do it at all? So I'm with councilmember Senate and after this motion we may bring a different one Thank you councilmember Blevins councilmember Beard Thank you. I'm going to have to agree with Council Members Stenet and Blevins. If we were to do it at all, however, the point was made that there is some difference between what we might get from the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce and what we might get from some other source that is more pointed toward government employees. And, you know, if we were to do it, I would like for us to have information that hits the target 100% as opposed to 90% or something of that sort. Thank you. Thank you. The motion that we need to vote on, if there's no one else to speak, is Council Member DeCamp's motion. Does anyone need that restated? All right. So all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. So it looks like the no's have it. That did not pass. Is there another motion? Council Member Blevins? I make a motion directing the administration to cease delivery of this class until such a time as the state law changes to allow unionization or some other pressing need comes before us to deliver this kind of information. Wow, you said that fast. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. and two no's. Two no's, right? All right. That motion passes. Thank you, Council Member Levins. Thank you, Mr. Allen and Citizen. Thank you for coming forward. Next item on the agenda. Council Member Myers. Items two and three you brought forward. Would you like to discuss those? Council Member, number two is my mistake. That's not an item for this committee. It was an item for outside agency. But the issue of reporting will come back to this committee next month, I believe. Okay. So that second item is an error. Paul. Thank you, Paul. And Council Member Myers, item number three, board's commissions that adhere to Ethics Act financial disclosure requirements. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to table this item to do some more research on it and probably bring it back at the next meeting. Motion and a second to table the item and probably to come back for next meeting. I think we have a time. I think we'll have a, well, you know what, let's make it two meetings from now. Okay. Give us enough time to do what we need to do. All right. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Opposed? All right. That passes. And update on committee items. Paul, do you have anything you need to let us know about? The Board's and Commission's reporting, as I just indicated, we'll be ready for the next meeting and I think everything else is in flux. All right. Any committee members have questions, comments about the pending items? If not, then I'll look for a motion to adjourn. And a second. All in favor, you can leave. Thank you. Thank you.