# Inter Governmental Committee - June 9, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 9, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/934 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/934?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-06-09 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 11,944 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 Inter-Governmental Committee met on June 9, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., with CM James presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking two votes and hearing four public comments. The committee approved the Ethics Act Financial Disclosure for Boards & Commissions, while postponing action on the Oath for Boards & Commissions and deferring the Review Boards & Commissions item. An informational update on committee items was also provided during the meeting. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 9, 2009: * James * Crosbie * Myers * Gray * Blues * Beard * Henson * Feigel * Lawless * Martin No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Re-draft Oath Ordinance** A motion was made by Feigel and seconded by Lawless to direct the Department of Law to re-draft the oath ordinance incorporating committee comments. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 01:08:54]. The following members voted in favor: Feigel, Lawless, Myers, Blues, Beard, Henson, and Martin. **Motion to Amend Ethics Act Ordinance** A motion was made by Myers and seconded by Henson to amend the Ethics Act ordinance to require all boards and commissions appointed by the Mayor and approved by Council to comply with the Ethics Act and Statement of Financial Interest. The motion passed by roll call vote with 7 ayes and 3 nays [timestamp: 01:25:35]. Members voting in favor: - James - Crosbie - Myers - Gray - Feigel - Henson - Lawless Members voting against: - Blues - Beard - Martin As a condition of this motion's passage, the Department of Law was directed to research how other cities handle financial interest thresholds and include historical context for not adopting a dollar-value threshold. ## Public Comment Council members raised several concerns regarding proposed oaths for boards and commissions during the meeting. **Oath for Boards & Commissions** Council Member Lawless expressed concern about the lack of fiscal responsibility for many boards and commissions [timestamp: 01:40:36]. Lawless argued that requiring financial disclosure for non-financial boards would deter volunteers and is not applicable to all entities. **Adoption of State Auditor's Report** Council Member Martin raised concerns that the oath relies on unreviewed state auditor recommendations [timestamp: 01:14:44]. Martin questioned the legal enforceability of such an oath and highlighted the potential for unintended consequences if board members fail to follow recommendations that have not been formally adopted by the council. Council Member Blues supported Martin's concerns [timestamp: 01:24:21], emphasizing that the auditor's recommendations function as a job description. Blues stated that the oath should not be tied to a report not formally adopted by the council. **Training for Board Members** Council Member Myers suggested creating a formal training program to address these concerns [timestamp: 01:36:34]. Myers proposed possibly working through United Way's Get On Board initiative to educate board members on their responsibilities and the auditor's recommendations. ## Contested Items **Scope of Financial Disclosure Requirements** The council voted on a motion requiring all boards and commissions to comply with the Statement of Financial Interest. The motion passed, but three members—Blues, Beard, and Martin—opposed it. Their concerns centered on the breadth of the requirement, specifically questioning whether financial disclosure obligations should apply to non-financial boards. These members also raised the concern that such requirements could serve as a deterrent to volunteerism, potentially discouraging citizens from serving on boards and commissions. **Legal Basis of the Oath** A heated discussion arose regarding the proper legal foundation for the oath, particularly whether it should reference the state auditor's unadopted recommendations. Members disagreed on several interconnected issues: the legal enforceability of incorporating unadopted recommendations into an oath, whether the council needed to conduct its own review before adopting such language, and the broader risk of establishing a uniform standard that would apply across diverse boards with different purposes and functions. The debate reflected tension between standardizing requirements for accountability and maintaining flexibility for boards with varying missions. ## Oath for Boards & Commissions The committee discussed a draft ordinance that would require appointees to boards, agencies, and commissions to take an oath acknowledging their review of the state auditor's recommendations. [timestamp: 01:05:10] **Key Discussion Points** Committee members Beard, Lawless, Martin, Blues, Feigel, and Myers participated in the discussion. Several concerns were raised during the deliberation: - **Retroactivity**: Questions were raised about whether the ordinance would apply retroactively to existing board members or only to future appointees. - **Legal weight of auditor's report**: Committee members questioned what legal authority the state auditor's recommendations would carry and how binding they would be on board members. - **Applicability to non-financial boards**: Concerns were expressed about whether the oath requirement should apply uniformly to all boards and commissions, including those without financial responsibilities. **Committee Action** A motion to table the item was initially made but was subsequently withdrawn. Rather than voting on the ordinance as drafted, the committee agreed to request that the law department re-draft the ordinance based on the feedback and concerns raised during the discussion. **Outcome** The agenda item was postponed pending revision of the ordinance by the law department. ## Review Boards & Commissions [timestamp: 01:12:16] The committee reviewed the status of various boards and commissions during this agenda item. **Boards Discussed** Two boards were the focus of this review: - **Stonewall Appeals Board**: The committee recommended that this board remain active. It was further recommended that members of the Board of Architectural Review serve as ex-officio members of the Stonewall Appeals Board. - **Urban Renewal Board**: The committee noted that this board still holds funds. Due to the presence of these remaining funds, a decision on dissolution was deferred pending further review. **Key Speakers** Myers and George participated in this discussion. **Outcome** The matter was deferred, allowing for additional review before final decisions are made regarding the boards' status and structure. ## Ethics Act Financial Disclosure for Boards & Commissions [timestamp: 01:20:53] The committee discussed a proposal to expand the Ethics Act and financial disclosure requirements to all boards and commissions appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by Council. **Discussion and Concerns** Key speakers in the debate included Myers, Beard, Blues, Martin, and Henson. During the discussion, concerns were raised about the potential burden of imposing financial disclosure requirements on non-financial boards. Committee members weighed the benefits of universal compliance against the administrative and practical challenges this expansion would create for boards whose primary functions do not involve financial matters. **Outcome** The motion to require universal compliance with the Ethics Act financial disclosure requirements passed, though it faced significant opposition. The vote resulted in three dissenting votes, indicating that while a majority supported the expansion, a notable portion of the committee had reservations about the proposal. ## Update on Committee Items [timestamp: 01:27:00] The committee provided an update on items referred to the Inter-Governmental Committee. No changes were reported to the existing list of referred items. The committee confirmed that the status of dissolved boards had been finalized. The remaining items on the referral list were identified for revisitation in future meetings. This item was presented for informational purposes. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to direct the Department of Law to re-draft the oath ordinance incorporating committee comments - **Motion** — passed (7-3): Motion to amend the Ethics Act ordinance to require all boards and commissions appointed by the Mayor and approved by Council to comply with the Ethics Act and Statement of Financial Interest --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. um we will begin the intergovernmental committee meeting for June 9th and we have just our forum so no one can leave and I have been handed a statement which which came out from our, it's a press release, and I will read it. It's related to ESP programs. At the request of Fayette County Public Schools, Mayor Jim Newberry today asked the parents of children in the city's ESP summer programs housed in five elementary schools to pick their children up as soon as possible. The schools made the request after a custodian was shot and killed this morning at Leastown Middle School. The assailant remains at large, and all schools are on lockdown. No students were present at Leastown at the time of the shooting. Investigators have determined that a history of conflict has existed between the victim and the suspect at their workplace. Both are employees of Fayette County Public Schools. The elementary schools where ESP is housed are Liberty, William Wells Brown, Stonewall, Maxwell, and Northern. Mayor Newberry emphasized that if parents are unable to pick up their children, the ESP program will remain open until 6 p.m., their normal closing time. We have assigned a police officer to each school to provide an additional layer of security, Newberry said. The ESP program is operated by the Division of Parks and Recreation. If you have additional questions regarding this statement, please feel free to call our Lex Call service at 311, and they can try to assist you or call the ESP or call the school where your child may be. All right, so we will begin with our, continue with our agenda here. We have four items on the agenda, four issues on the agenda. Two of those issues, just to go ahead and clear these up, two issues related to boards and commissions. We'll have a formal presentation on September the 15th. That will be a presentation by the administration. So those two issues we'll hear about at a later time. And if it's okay, we're going to switch up the order of the agenda. It looks like it's okay as far as Council Member Myers is concerned. and Councilmember Beard is handing out information related to the oath for boards and commissions, and we'll take a moment to review that and hear from Councilmember Beard. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. What I have passed out to you is a draft ordinance that was prepared by the law department. And this is almost a keep a simple stupid type of oath. It's not, there are no duels. Just swear that you've never taken in or been a second for or send a challenge or whatever and all the things that we have to do. when we are sworn in as council members, and I think any governmental entity in the state has to do the same thing. I will read this so that the people on GTV, who are watching GTV will understand it's, as I say, just a few lines. The oath starts. I blank, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will discharge to the best of my ability the duties and responsibilities of the board, agency, or commission to which I have been appointed. I acknowledge that I have reviewed a copy of the state auditor's recommendations for public and non-profit boards dated May 11, 2009, and any amendments thereto, and that I will, to the best of my ability, follow these recommendations in my appointed position. and if passed, this ordinance would become effective on the date of passage. I'm sure the May 9th Critt-Llewellyn memorandum that outlined her recommendations for how boards and commissions should function, but is much too voluminous to go through here in this, but it is a pretty strict guidelines, as I remember. And I think we would attain what we need to attain without letting the oath get in the way and be too verbose and just reference back to the auditor Llewellyn's recommendations. Any questions from anyone? We have several council members logged in for questions. Council Member Lawless. Why are we making this, not making this retroactive to current board and commission members? Is there any reason? I don't think that was the intention. I think the intention was that we would ask them to, as they presently are constituted, to be given the oath as soon as this is passed at their next meeting. I'm referring to number two. It says the requirement set forth in this subsection shall not apply to board and commission members whose appointment began prior to July 109. Oh, hi. I put that in there. I didn't know when we wanted it to take effect, but we can take that out if you want to go back. I mean, I don't have any problem with it taking effect then, but I think people already serving should also. Oh, I agree. To be perfectly honest, Council Member Lawless, I kind of drifted past that. I was more interested in the ordinance. But, no, I think that, obviously, whatever the next meeting might be, whether they meet monthly or quarterly or whatever, that as a group they would be administered the oath. And I would also, Section 3, the second paragraph, wondering if there's some way that we can have a document. and maybe that will be the Ethics Act or whatever be attached, and if that's what they take an oath to follow, not just the recommendations of the state auditor, but specific items that they understand this is their responsibility and this is what they are charged to do. Well, it can't be the Ethics Act because every Board and Commission isn't subject to the Ethics Act at this time. Right. But I mean, something I didn't know where in this, and I don't want to, I'm not trying to hold this up because I absolutely agree with it, but I think we need to be more specific. I see no reason why we couldn't include that, but. And we can go on and pass this out of committee today and maybe by then. The Critt Llewellyn's recommendations, though, are pretty stiff as to how they should function. You know, obviously the Ethics Act, as Linda said, are in force for all those folks anyway. Okay. Like I say, you know, maybe we could have something more concrete. That could be part of the packet. When the oath is administered, pardon me? It's not, the Ethics Act doesn't apply to every Board and Commission. It only applies to four. To the four? Mm-hmm. the pseudo-governmental entities? Planning Commission, Ethics Commission, BOAR, and the Comprehensive Plan Update, which doesn't exist. So every Board and Commission is not subject to Chapter 25 or the Ethics Act. Okay. Well, then that's probably going to spill over a little bit into what Council Member Myers is going to discuss a a little later. Right. But, again, I have no problem with, you know, obviously, we all live by the Ethics Act. Right. So we want as much company as we can get. Yeah. Is that all you have? Yes, thank you. Okay. Councilman Feigl? Well, I was actually going to address the second paragraph on item three as well. I don't see any reason why we can't at least provide information about the Ethics Act. But in addition to that, I think that rather than just ask them to review a copy of the auditor's recommendations that we say that we have provided and that you have reviewed, because I know that's one of the things that the real estate community has to do, relative to some of the documents they have to provide. They actually have to give them a copy, and the recipient has to certify that they've been given a copy of it. Well, you know, obviously I think that while it may be silent on the subject, we obviously would have to hand them out something we're asking them to live by, so that would be part of the packet. And, you know, and if I don't know that we could base, I don't know that we could make this retroactive and ask all of the members that are to say to them, if you're not willing to sign this, then you have to vacate your position. But we can certainly ask them if they would consider signing this as well. That'd be fine. So just to clarify, the recommendation that you have is to change the language in paragraph two that says, I acknowledge that I have been provided and have reviewed a copy. And you're okay with that modification, Council Member Beard? Yes. Been provided, be inserted. Where did Glenda go? Okay. She's working on the next item, I think, right now. Okay, great. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. Linda, I had a question for you. Linda. Linda, I have a question for you. And it's been referred to briefly. May we impose retroactive conditions upon appointments that have already been made? That's something we'd have to take a look at to be sure. We felt pretty comfortable with just going forward and not going back. But if you wanted to make it retroactive, we need to take a look at that to make sure that's something that we can do. I don't think we could. I think it would be, essentially, you would be trying to overturn an existing appointment. I guess if they didn't take the oath, they would have to vacate office. I'm not sure how that would legally work, particularly if it was a statutory. So I'm concurring with Council Member Feigl about that. I just wanted to sort of run that by you real quick. Thanks. My concern about this is that it predicates the oath upon our adoption of the state auditors, I guess, May 11, 2009 report. We haven't taken a sort of a long gander at the state auditor's report. If there are things in that report that are not practical, for example, or are impossible to fulfill or make it difficult for many individuals to serve on boards, then we would be severely limiting our ability to have board members. I would like to first, if we're going to adopt the state auditor's report as a precondition to all appointees, it's sort of promising to fulfill it, that we take a strong look at each of the recommendations and make sure that they're going to work and that we are adopting that report per se, because that's what this is, is that I appreciate the desire and the good intentions behind raising the standards of practice in our agencies and moving us to a more transparent system of administration and government in our affiliated agencies. But the underlying basis of this is, in fact, the state auditor's report, and we really haven't looked at that in this body, nor in the council at large, as I understand. I mean, we've all been provided copies of it, but I don't think we've ever discussed it and gone through the recommendations. The other thing that I'm concerned about is that whether that, in fact, being a independent consultant's report, in essence, because it really doesn't have the weight of law. It's very good advice, as I have seen. But I would be more inclined to review under what circumstances members of affiliated bodies should come under with the Ethics Act. And we could look at the Ethics Act to see what types of provisions there would work in most situations and to make sure that we don't discourage folks from participating on our affiliated boards. because, as I said, when Mr. Carey was in for the library, no good deed goes unpunished. And, you know, we walk a fine line between encouraging folks to participate in government and in agencies and volunteering to be on boards and making sure that those that do have, I guess, operate with the highest standards and within transparency and accountability. This adopts the state auditor's report in total. I mean, this would require each of those folks to essentially do that. I don't know what legal effect this would have because if, for example, they take this oath and they don't follow the state auditor's report, I'm not sure that they're in trouble. They promised to try to follow it, but what if they don't? If they don't, I'm not sure that there's not really a legal recourse to that. And so while I think that I would like to explore and open to exploring it in greater detail under what conditions we can adopt the state auditor's report so that it has impact and is going to be followed by these state agencies, I don't know if this is the mechanism to do that because I don't think, at least I'm not aware, maybe I'd love to hear from Glenda about it, but I don't know really what the consequence would be if they didn't follow that report. Whereas I think if they fail to follow the ethics guidelines, there's an ethics board. Ms. George is the attorney for that board. I think there would be more real consequences for their failure to live up to those standards. standards. And so, and I'm all in favor of having an oath of office for these folks. But I don't know if this is it because of the Otter standards, which we have not reviewed, and possibly the expectation that this is going to create something that's enforceable when maybe it's not. So, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Glenda, did you hear any of that I just wanted to get your response to councilmember Martin or allow you the opportunity to respond and we could her the brief version of it well yeah very brief is just you know in paragraph two of section three councilmember Martin just has some concerns as to whether inclusion of this means adoption of the state auditor's recommendations and we haven't reviewed that as a council and adopted those recommendations and so what's the validity or the strength in having that within this ordinance? Do you all have a copy of the recommendations? Yes we do. In here it talked about minimizing travel and different things that board and commission members should do, kind of as a guideline for board and commission members, which is why we incorporated it into the ordinance. But if you don't want to use it, you don't have to. Well, I don't know that it wasn't about not using it. It was what was, if we haven't adopted it as a council, then can we include things that we haven't adopted as a group into an ordinance? Yes, we would be fine with that. Because if you're going to include it in the ordinance, then you're saying you agree with what these recommendations are. Do you have a response? But that's my point is we haven't reviewed as a body what these recommendations are. Okay. And by adopting this ordinance, we would in essence be adopting the recommendations. And so I think we got the cart before the horse a little bit is that we should review the State Auditor's recommendations and see if anybody has any concerns or difficulties difficulties with those and if we would adopt those then perhaps we might look toward the oath to have them sort of follow those. But the other part of that, what if they ignore it? Does this have any legal effect? What if a commission member were to ignore it? Yeah, what if a commission member just completely ignores this? I mean, does it really have a, is there a legal recourse? Well, there would be, the council would have an opportunity to remove the commission member for failing to follow the recommendations. So we would go through removal proceedings. But we have that already I guess. It would be cause for failure to comply with the recommendations would be cause for removal of a Board or Commission member. But we really haven't adopted that as a Council. The recommendations. We haven't adopted a provision stating as a matter of policy that we're going to require each of the affiliated agencies to follow the state auditor's report. No, not separately from this ordinance. See, I think that's the thing that we should look at is whether we should require the affiliated agencies to follow the state auditor's report. The oath just should be a reflection of an existing law or an existing obligation. The oath shouldn't actually reflect the obligation itself because this just requires them to take an oath. It doesn't actually require them to follow the policy. And we should, you know, maybe we need an amendment to have them follow policy as well. Is that all you have? Okay, thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I think Council Member Martin raises a good point here. And that's, it seems to me, the question is the relationship between the individual board member and the, let's say, the oath that he or she is going to take. Critt Llewellyn's recommendations, the 28 recommendations, really constitute a job description. in effect for the board itself. Everyone, I think, almost says the board shall or the board should and makes recommendations about how you handle travel authorizations, credit cards, and so on and so forth down the list. So her recommendations really set a, you know, really enumerate a list of obligations for, you know, for the board. So, for example, last night the Board of Health went through every recommendation and made a determination of the extent to which it conforms to, complies with the recommendation or what needs to be done in order to be in compliance. for those that may not be relevant to that particular operation of the health department. So I see the problem here. That is that the oath, if we're going to tie it to the auditor's recommendations, which which I think are excellent for all of our boards, and they all should go through the same exercise that the Board of Health has engaged in, and which I presume other boards will be doing in a timely manner. How do we want to craft the oath so that in effect we're saying, so that the board member is aware, I've got to know what these recommendations are and I need to be aware of them because they constitute what my obligations are as a board member. So we may want to, as a council, in some way adopt, endorse the auditor's recommendations. And I think that we ought to do that because they make perfectly good sense. Thank you, Council Member Blues. Council Member Beard had a response to Council Member Blues. Well, I think the problem is that we have a multiplicity of boards and commissions, and they all have different missions, and they all have levels of intensity, I guess, going from Lex Tran, for instance, down to some more minor boards that aren't as visible to the public. If, in fact, the entity, whichever entity it might be, approves the recommendations made by the auditor, but there is no oath and somebody violates the recommendations, is that not the same thing? I mean, will they not be reprimanded and or taken off of the board because they willfully said they would follow the recommendations and they did not? You know, we're getting into a chicken and egg thing here now, and it gets all the recommendations probably don't apply to all of the entities. And I mean, I think I recognize that. But if they don't apply, then that activity, whatever it may be, can't be violated. So and Council Member Martin's comments about the force of law. Well, I mean, we are the ones that are going to craft the law in and of itself with the ordinance, are we not? Does it have to be a state statute before it becomes law? That's a question, Mr. Attorney. Madam Chair, may I answer? And I'm certainly not acting as an attorney in this context. I'm like you, a legislator, I guess. Absolutely, we craft ordinances, and I think we should. And perhaps what our recommendation should be is that we would review the state auditor's report, which is, in essence, an independent consultant's report, and perhaps try to embody that in some sort of an ordinance form that boards and their constituent agencies need to follow. And that would allow us to maybe hone in a little more closely on how they do apply. The problem is that if some things apply to some agencies and some things don't, who determines when they apply and when they don't? And that's when you get into something like a random enforcement or random application, and that causes constitutional and governmental problems. You need to understand how it just can't be a sort of a matter of private discussion about whether we're going to enforce this one and we're going to decide that that one doesn't apply to you, but this one does. Obviously, the people who are charged with taking an oath to fulfill these obligations, they're obviously taking an oath to fulfill all of them. And the problem is they may not be able to fulfill all of them. Some of these things relate to things of the board at large, and some things individual board members might have more of a say over. And so the context in which these recommendations, which I support, I think this is a fabulous set of recommendations. I mean, I really do. And so – but the context in which we adopt it, I think, is important so that we can – it can make sense and it can have the greatest impact. I think whether we want to, for example, have a second rule of ethics – this is, in essence, or not really a rule of ethics, but maybe a rule of financial standards that boards are required to observe. and we can go through these and make sure that they are going to be applicable to all or most of all of our boards. And then, you know, then obviously when board members take an oath to fulfill laws and undertake their duty in accordance with applicable laws and things like that, they are in essence agreeing to abide by these standards because the standards would apply to both the organization and the board as well. But putting it in an oath of office, I think, is not as effective as it could be. I think we need to institutionalize State Auditor Llewellyn's recommendations, perhaps in an ordinance form or in some way that would more give greater guidance to our board members rather than just have them sort of vote to take an oath or something like that. Shea looks like she is dying to say something. One other question before Shea speaks, if I might. Is it better to have an oath and not reference the recommendations, or is it better to adopt the recommendations and forget about the oath? I would actually say the second. I think the recommendations, but I'm not opposed to an oath. And I think the second is, at least to me, it would be the most significant to adopt the regulations in some sort of ordinance form, the ones that we have discussed and are comfortable with that are going to be feasible, because I don't think we've undertaken any sort of feasibility discussion about each of these. There's a lot of stuff here, and I think it warrants discussion before we sort of lay it on top of all of our boards without really some good discussion and consensus. And it may be that we come to them all. I don't know, but I think that's a discussion worth having. and simply incorporating an outside auditor's report by reference into our ordinances, it just seems strange to me. It seems like we would, because that's a recommendation and some of the things are shoulds and things like that and not real mandates. And I would think it's more logical to create an ordinance that would sort of impose after discussion and consultation and debate and consensus building, but impose financial standards upon our affiliated agencies that they would be required to meet. And so that's sort of my thoughts, but I'm still the new guy. So thank you, Madam Chair. Jay, did you have something to add to this? I just want to share some information that might be useful to the conversation. Ana is going to get a copy of a letter. I'm not sure if you all received it previously, but on May 11th, just so you all know, the day that Critt issued her recommendations, the mayor sent a copy of those recommendations to about 10 boards, the ones that we have a relationship with, either we have internal audit authority over or some kind of financial relationship such as the Lex Tran Board, Housing Authority, and so on, and ask them to, as a board, review the recommendations and report back on whether or not they were in compliance and if they were not in compliance, how long it would take them to get into compliance. So I've asked Ana to get a copy of that letter. I just wanted you all to be aware of that, that there currently is, such as the health department you mentioned last night, that those boards that do have some kind of relationship with the city and are managing funds, as apart from like the Parks Advisory Board, have been asked by the mayor to report back, and we can share that information with you too when we get that information. Just wanted you all to be aware of that. Was there a deadline on those responses? There was, and I don't know off the top of my head when it was, so Ana's gone to get a copy to provide everybody. Okay. Let us know when she comes back. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that update, Shea, because that's actually when I asked the auditor, Quitt Lillowin, to take those 28 recommendations that she had for the airport board and kind of separate them from the airport and put them in a document that we could then use. That's exactly what I was hoping to do with it. And so I'm really glad to hear that the mayor has already done that. Another step that I wanted to look at doing was the United Way has a program called Get On Board, and it is where they take citizens across the community that want to participate in board and commission membership through a program that teaches them what their responsibilities are, what their roles are, what their commitment is going to be, that kind of thing. and I haven't had any conversation with the United Way, but I know also in this other ordinance that we're working on in this committee to bring all of our boards and commissions that the mayor has the ability to point to and the council then confirms, trying to bring an ordinance together that would create a situation where all of them are under the Ethics Act and or the financial responsibility portion of it. And I just got an update from one of our attorneys. We're going to talk about that later on. But what I'd like to see is that either we put together some board and commission training as a part of our ordinance, and we've had conversations with HR and their ability to do that, as well as United Ways, so that we could sort of incorporate these 28 recommendations. The other thing I want to do, though, is have Ms. Lillen come back to us and talk about those things so we can talk about what may be appropriate for everyone and may not be appropriate for everyone, and then kind of get an understanding of that and then move forward in a way that then would require people to go through some type of training. Because what we want to do is not just be punitive and say, well, at the end of the day, you didn't comply. We want to give them the tools to understand what it takes to comply and then get them ready to do that. So to the extent that we have your motion in front of us or your recommendation in front of us to have an oath, I like that too. And I think that should be a part of it. But I think we start with having Llewellyn come in, talk about these recommendations in a way that will inform us on which ones we should try to adopt into some type of a training program, and then require everybody to go through that training program. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Council Member Lawless? May I say something real quick? As a matter of disclosure, my wife runs the United Way Get On Board program. So I just thought, I know Mr. George didn't know that, or Mr. Myers didn't know that, but I thought I'd throw that in. Thank you. I appreciate the work that went into drafting this oath, and I think it's a good idea. And certainly as we get our newspapers, it seems frequently we open them and read more. That being said, most of our boards and commissions do not have any fiscal responsibility. For instance, the Town and Gown Commission, they don't have anything to do with funds and would have little or nothing to do with Auditor Llewellyn's recommendations. These were about the fiscal responsibility, the fiduciary responsibility of the airport board. And I know that there are some people from UK consulting with Auditor Llewellyn about putting together something for state boards, and they've offered to come talk to us, and I've been trying to get an appointment with Shay and some of the people in the administration to talk with them. And some of the recommendations, you know, I've had conversations with Auditor Llewellyn, like the whistleblower thing, that there has to be an authority above the board in order for employees to feel safe. So I think it is a little bit of a chicken before the egg or the cow crossed the street or whatever happened after the marathon meeting today that we need to look at it. It's not going to be a one-size-fits-all answer. And so I would like to, I guess, now move to postpone this and look further at what fits for each different board and commission. because most of our boards and commissions have no fiscal responsibility or manage any funds. Is that – I'm not going to move to table, but, yeah, I'll move to table. There's a motion to table the issue of the oath. Is there a second? dies for the lack of a second. Council Member Lawless, did you have more to add? I'm sorry. I'll remove that. My buddy here to my left. But anyway, I'm not trying to, I think this is a good thing to look at. I just think we need to look at some other things first. and carry on. Councilmember Feigl. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This has been in committee now since shortly after we learned about the airport board, before Critt Llewellyn even came to speak to us about her recommendations. And Julian, Councilmember Beard, and Councilmember Myers and I have met on several occasions to talk about this. And we first, the reason that we wanted to do an oath is because one of the things that came out of the situation with the airport board is that we had no assurances that we had ever asked or that we had ever told the airport board what their responsibilities were. So our first goal was to come up with something that just made it very clear that when they were accepting an appointment to a board or commission, that they were also accepting some level of responsibility as well. And that was what our initial goal was. We sat down and started trying to pull together an oath or some requirements from different organizations. And in the meantime, Britt Llewellyn came out with these recommendations, which we felt, You know, she had done a much better job in writing than we could have done. And so we just attached those as part of the oath that they would take. Personally, I still would like to have some type of a training or orientation to go along with that because I think it does need to be a little more formal than just handing them a brochure and expecting them to read it. I don't think that we're looking for any kind of legal consequences because we're talking about volunteers. Really all we want to do is impress upon them the level of the responsibility that they're assuming. And while these recommendations may not necessarily be 100 percent relevant to every board, Nonetheless, it is good information, and the additional information could help to raise red flags when there are some questionable activities going on. So currently we have nothing, and we can send this back and study it again, or we can go ahead with this and remove the words, follow these recommendations, and rather than say follow these recommendations, just say that I will perform this job to the best of my ability, but that they have read the recommendations. because it's certainly good information. Whether or not we're going to enforce every recommendation is something maybe we don't want to do. But I think that we need to move forward with this because this has been since, I guess, January that we've been working on this, and right now we have nothing. So we can pass this today and then maybe make an amendment to it at a later date to add the additional training or whatever else we want to add to it. But I just feel like that we need to move forward and at least get this in place so that we can begin to communicate to people on our boards and commissions that they do have a responsibility that goes along with the title. Thank you, Council Member Feigel. Council Member Beard? Well, I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said, Council Member Feigel. You know, one size doesn't fit all by any means. And if we were to craft something with attendant training and, I guess, investigation into which point applies to which board or commission, we could be here for another two or three years at least. And, you know, our desire was to get something out there to show the public, for one thing, that we had an interest in what happened to our boards and commissions. And the situations that have come up, it seems like weekly, and that's an over-exaggeration, but at least once every 45 days. We're getting a surprise in the newspaper, and I don't like surprises, especially ones of that type. I agree that there's a thin line we're walking. We may be talking ourselves out of having anybody put their hand up and want to be a board member in the future. if we make this so stringent a requirement. And then I don't know what we do at that point. I guess we all end up serving on those boards. But it's kind of a catch-22 that we're in, and I really don't have a solution to it. And I think this is relatively benign though, what we have right now. We have nothing and this puts something in place at least to recognize that we recognize that these boards have responsibilities and duties and at the same time alerts them also that they have responsibilities and duties. So I would want to bring it forward also, and then we'll see. We've got a whole series of people, I think, that are signed up to talk. So I will hold off making a motion until everybody gets a chance to speak. All right. Thank you. Council Member Lawless? Yes. Since the, Shea, did you say that the 12 agencies, commissions, and boards that had financial management duties were sent the letter? I'm getting a signed copy. I have just one right here. The boards that were sent a letter, we did not send one to the airport because it was, they were the recipient. Oh, they didn't need one. They were the recipient of the original. So it's the Carnegie Center, Downtown Development Authority, Explorium, Lexington Center Corporation, Convention and Visitors Bureau, Board of Health, Housing Authority, Library Board, Transit Authority, and the Parking Authority. And I believe all of those are included in our CAFR, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. So maybe this would help in the second paragraph instead of this, because I think it's important also for those boards and commissions that have other kinds of responsibilities to take those very seriously, like the Board of Architectural Review or the Board of Adjustments. So maybe the second paragraph could say, acknowledge that I have read the roles, responsibilities, and duties of the specific board, commission, or agency that I'm serving on. And if there is financial management in those two, I'm coming off the top of my head here. But instead of that way, it would cover them all. They would have a handbook that spelled out what their roles and responsibilities were. And all the boards have those, you know, what they're charged with. And if it that way, they acknowledge that they're going to do that. And it kind of takes the auditor's report out because if it if there is financial responsibility, that could be addressed in that paragraph also. Okay. Makes sense. Council Member Law, let's just clarify, in the first paragraph in Section 3, it talks about duties and responsibilities of the board. Are you saying to repeat some of that same language? Yeah, or add, and I have reviewed a copy of the roles, you know, of those duties. Okay. And, you know, if there's financial responsibility, I've also reviewed the financial or fiduciary responsibility that whatever. Okay. Because it sounds like they've asked each of those boards to come up with their own compliance issues, and there will probably be further recommendations. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was about to make a similar suggestion, and you might include there, I've read the ordinance creating this board, and I've read the bylaws and any other documents pertaining to the duties, responsibilities, obligations of this particular board's membership. That's perfect. I love that. Thank you, Dr. Blase. Are you getting all that, Glenda? okay because we're going to need your help and getting the language together would you like to repeat councilmember Lawless I'll let councilmember blues repeat it because he said it so nicely can you repeat the language I was just giving the law department some magic words here and but but something along these lines I acknowledge that I have reviewed a copy of the ordinance creating this board, its bylaws, and other documents pertaining to the duties and obligations of a board member. And there's no charge. All right. Council Member Myers, did you have something to add to this conversation? I like that. I like the fact that we kept this in committee and are actually working it and weren't just going to let the moment pass by and then have to come back another month from now. I would say that we still include the document that the auditor put forth in that language, though. And I'll just stop there because I don't want to get verbose, but I would include that in there as well. Okay. Heard. Council Member, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Madam Chair. My sentiments, my sense on this is, I guess, reflected by many of the comments today. You know, my difficulty with it is what Council Member Martin and Lawless referred to, to some extent, that one shoe doesn't fit all in terms of the boards and commissions, it seems like, that we have authorized in the government. And Council Member Lawless reminded me, for example, Town and Gown Commission has no staff and no financial management responsibilities actively. So is the expectation that this would be, the way it's reading now, that the oath would include all boards and commission appointees or nominated or those appointed would read this oath or recite this oath, regardless of whether... Okay, the point I'm making is, you know, there's a big difference between the airport, its management, its staff, the downtown development corporation, well, downtown, I'm thinking of the Rupp Arena, the Civic Center, the staff and the resources and the responsibility. So how do we distinguish among those entities? I'll have Law maybe come up and address that, but in the wording, in the bold print, it talks about ones that require council confirmation. So would any that would require council confirmation for appointment, the oath would cover as far as the way the language is in the draft, which has not, there's not even been a motion on the draft yet. So I guess what I mean is if we could consider restricting it to the, at least the references to the auditor's recommendations, restricting it to those boards that have financial and operational activities and responsibilities. Okay. So that's a suggestion. Your suggestion. Okay. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I think this probably already been mentioned a couple of times, but in the wording, I really think even if we do not use a state auditor's recommendation in the ordinance, we should have provide appropriate financial oversight written in the ordinance. And I think that's what Council Member Blues made reference to. If they do have financial oversight, because many of them don't. Right. If it's required or, I mean, you know, applicable. Okay. But that was my only comment is that I think that definitely the financial oversight needs to be in there. Can I ask the law department, but based on the past couple of comments that have happened, can someone from the law department speak to us as to whether the language should be more encompassing, all encompassing or more specific as far as, because that's going to be key in our language. Should we be pinpointing if you fall under the ethics within this language, or should we just be overarching and then be able to deal specifically at a later point? I guess we want a law that we don't have to keep coming back and changing if the recommendation out of the other group, the other subcommittee, is that we change who reports out who is subject to the Ethics Act and who's subject to the financial disclosure. So how do we make this ordinance something that we don't have to keep coming back changing if we evaluate other boards and commissions for? Am I saying my question correctly? Maybe Council Member Myers may be able to clarify. Thank you, Madam Chair. Logan, when we started out with this other ordinance that's on the agenda today, one of the issues that we had is that by separating out four different boards and commissions that have to comply with the financial disclosure piece of the Ethics Act, every single time you want to add somebody else to it or take something away, you've got to go back and change the ordinance. So we're looking for a way to make it comprehensive enough that the language sets up the criteria by which you would have to comply rather than putting the name of the entity that would have to comply. So then if your board of commission, excuse me, if a new one is formed or created and it meets that criteria, then it would have to comply rather than go back and amend the ordinance to say, now this new one was created, we want to add that in. So is there a way that we can make this language encompassing enough so that the recommendations from Llewellyn can be included in it, but it really only pertained to people that meet the criteria that they have those responsibilities? I think I understand your question. You're talking about the proposed amendments to the ethics code. I was just using that as an example. Right. Why we're having to do that or why we want to do that and relate that to this. Right. Because there are some that say, well, there are boards and commissions out there that don't have financial responsibility, so let's not put that language in there because one size doesn't fit all. What I'm saying is can we incorporate that language in a way that if you just don't rise to that level of board and commission, then you're okay. Yes, I think there is a way, and this goes back to what the chair is talking about as well. I think that if we were to make some statement concerning what the Vice Mayor just referenced about if there are financial responsibilities, as long as that's defined, we could actually take the language that we have here and say any recommendations that are applicable to that board. And I understand what Council Member Lawless is talking about, but some of them are going to be applicable and some of them aren't. But it would be pretty obvious if there's no financial oversight that you wouldn't have to worry about it. If they don't have a credit card, you just wouldn't have to worry about it. But you could do that by modifying the current language and then you still have those recommendations from the state auditor. Or you could do as Council Member Blue suggested and say that you've reviewed whatever application applicable documents they are prior to your taking office. And we could, the way you worded that, Council Member Blues, I think it would be because every Board kind of addresses what Council Member Wallace was talking about. All of them have different responsibilities. What I'm not sure about though is I'm not sure all of them would have a Board book that would kind of outline the responsibilities. some of the smaller ones, you know, that don't have any fiscal responsibility and that kind of thing. But whatever is there, and I think that's what Council Member Blues was saying, whatever is there, they're saying they've received, they reviewed it, they're going to follow. Madam Chair. Well, we have Council Member Blues. Was your question related to what Logan's speaking on? Okay. it's related I think the other thing that's really important here is like the Board of Adjustments or the Board of Architectural Review or whatever those boards have incredible responsibility also even though it isn't financial so that's why I like what Councilmember Blue said is they will have an understanding that they also have some pretty incredible responsibilities that are heavy and that they need to be made aware of. Okay. Well, Council Member Martin, is your question or response related to Logan being, do you need to address Logan? Not this time. Okay. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Logan, my question would be if we take the second option, which I do like also, how do we codify which documents pertain to which? I don't think you do. Okay. I think what Council Member Blues was suggesting that whatever is there, if there is an enabling ordinance for that board, they reviewed it. If there are bylaws for that board, they have reviewed it. If there is a board book with the responsibilities and so on, they have reviewed it. I think that's what Council Member Blues was. Okay, if I take the devil's advocate, I hate saying devil's advocate, but if I take the advocate on the other side and part of this is educational for me as a new board or commission member, how do I find out which documents are applicable to me? Well, if there's an ordinance creating the board and it sets out what the board is supposed to do, it would be there. If there were bylaws, we have to, and I don't. Well, do we require then that that Board and Commission to put together a packet for its new members? I'm not aware that we do. Well, I'm asking, do we do that going forward? So that if I'm a new Board or Commission member, I understand what it is I'm supposed to be reading and. That seems to me to be a reasonable request. Okay. I mean, if I was, I think any of us that were being asked to be on the Board would like to know what, you know, what's all involved with it. Council Member Blues had something to add. Yeah, I was going in the same direction as you were here. I think another effect of this kind of oath would enable us to communicate with boards and commissions and say, look, these board members are going to have an obligation. You've got an obligation, too. I mean, I've been appointed to boards where they don't even have records anymore. So this puts boards and commissions on notice that they've got to go perhaps do some work in bringing their own documents up to par. The only thing about that, Council Member Blues, is that I would agree with you, but you wouldn't accomplish all of that in what we have on the table right now. In other words, that's something that you would be asking boards and commissions to do, not just people that are being asked to serve. That's correct. I don't expect that to be in the ordinance, but I would think that that would be a reasonable follow-up for the government to communicate with all of those entities. Councilman Martin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to break a personal rule and engage in some drafting. I promise not to wear my attorney hat while serving on this body, but here it goes. I would suggest the following language that we say in that second paragraph of subsection 3, I acknowledge that I have reviewed KRS 273.215 and the applicable ordinances and governing documents pertaining to the board to which I have been appointed. This does a couple things. One, it allows it to sort of incorporate various ordinances that might be particular to a particular agency. And obviously, government documents would be the charters or bylaws that might pertain to that. But finally, and this was in our packet that was passed out for the agenda today, KRS 273-215. When I'm ever dealing with a nonprofit board and I want to get the board's attention, this is the statute I pull out. because this says that they have personal liability for doing a bad job on the board. And I tell you, that gets their attention pretty fast. And so this would allow us to put them on notice that there are things that are governing their responsibilities and their fiduciary duties as board members that they're going to be required to partake of, which they need to make themselves aware of. As for an additional matter, to the extent that these folks are governed by, you know, are non-profit boards governed by the new Form 990, they're going to have to sign an annual consent that they have read and reviewed and are complying with their own conflict of interest policy for that because under the new Form 990 they're going to be required to do that. So there's a number of things that nonprofit boards particularly will be required to comply with. And so that might be just a suggestion, might be a way to put them on notice that there are a lot of fiduciary duties that they are going to be held accountable to. And that would allow us the flexibility to perhaps adopt State Auditor Llewellyn's recommendations and perhaps an ordinance form that, you know, maybe we have the boards come back and like Ms. Raybold indicated, report to us once a year how they're complying with this and what provisions they aren't complying and why. The other thing is that if we pass that in an ordinance form, we might just decide on a sort of year-by-year basis which boards have become big enough to become subject to that. Some boards might be too small and might be okay to just be governed by this 273-215, but larger boards such as the airport or the library, we may want to sort of push under these financial oversight recommendations that the state auditor has come up with. And that will allow them to sort of throw them into this without sort of picking on the small agencies where most of the things may not apply. So thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this point, I think because so many of us in this group have had different kinds of recommendations, I think the law department has been sitting here listening to all of them and taking lots of notes. I don't think that we can sit here and draft this adequately. So I would like to suggest that we ask the law department to take all of the comments they've heard today, take another stab at this ordinance and come back to us at the next meeting. And that was just a suggestion. That's a motion. That's a motion. And a second from Council Member Lawless. Any discussion? Council Member Beard? If at all possible, I guess this is targeted toward the law department. If at all possible, if the members of this committee, if not the whole council, could get a copy of what you've drafted a few days ahead of time anyway so that they'll have time to absorb it and people will be able to see it and talk intelligently about it as opposed to getting it three hours ahead of time. You know, we've been in meetings since, at least I have, since 8 o'clock this morning and so I haven't had a chance to see what's appeared on my desk yet. and so if we had that lead time, I think then we could talk more intelligently and work through this thing. Okay. What's a suggestion? One thing, I think this was sent out on May the 20th to Council Member Feigel and the Council Administrator, but we will go ahead and send it to everybody and we'll try to turn this pretty quickly and then those of you that have comments can, you know, get them back to us and we'll try to incorporate those. You said on the 20th it was sent to just one council member? Well, and to the council administrator. Okay. I think that's who had requested that it be drafted. Okay. And we do have that in front of us today. And let me mention to you as well, there's been discussions about certain boards and certain commissions by name. And that memo that had been prepared a while back talks about the different classifications that we have. So you have some that it's going to apply to and some that it doesn't. And so it's, I just want you to keep that in mind as well. Okay. Other comments? Yes. This is a quick question, I hope. At this point, does the council have any authority to remove any board or commission members? And if so, and you can just get back to me on that. There are some that you do have the authority to do that. Could you send that? I can't tell you what they are. No, no. Yeah, if you could send that to us, that would be helpful too. And, Council Member Lawless, with respect to that first group of boards and commissions that are governed pretty by state law on that first group that are listed, all of those have different rules. And that's unfortunate that the state set up rules that are different for each one. But, yes, we can. I'll get that to you. Any other comments on the motion? All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. And that motion passes, and we'll look forward to a new draft. Our next item, we've got some time, is the review of the boards and commissions. And within your packet, the first few pages talks about boards and commissions. And Council Member Myers, did you want to say anything before we start talking? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. George, could you come up? Would you give a second? Item number one, I think we've heard from the law department and we have a recommendation on page two of our packet. And then on page three, we've got two that are listed under referred to the Department of Law for additional research. We've actually had work done on both of those two. Could you talk about those for just a second? Sure. In your packet, I think it's on page six, there is an email from the Mayor's Office to Paul Schoeniger. And in that last paragraph, it talks about the Urban Renewal Committee Board and the Stonewall Appeals Board. Those were both referred to the Department of Law. With respect to the Stonewall Appeals Board, there is an ordinance that we can bring forward relating to that board. I do not have the ordinance with me today, but I can forward that to the committee for your review. And then ask to the Urban Renewal and Community Development Board. Can I stop you just a second? Sure. Do you know what that ordinance says? Is it going to be an ordinance dissolving that board? The ordinance actually is asking for the members of the Board of Architectural Review, those members to be ex-officio members of the Stonewall Appeals Board. The Stonewall Appeals Board doesn't meet very frequently. We don't have a lot of those appeals. And those members could do virtually very, very similar activities. And it would really help us to already have those members oriented and ready to go. So that's what that refers to. Okay, so it sounds like we're going to want to keep that board in place. Okay. I'm sorry I interrupted you. That's okay. And then the Urban Renewal Board, that board is still existent, but it's dormant. It doesn't have any members and it's not active at this time. Do we have a recommendation on whether we need to, can we dissolve it then? Can I get back to you on whether or not that one can be dissolved? I'll let you know at the next meeting. Okay. And I will add to that. I do know that there is still some urban renewal funds that are sitting somewhere. So if it's related to the funds, then I think we have to keep it active. That's what I wanted to check about because I do know. It is still active. So let me check on that and report back to you about what we can do with those funds and that committee. Okay, yeah, because obviously if there's funds there, then we want to find out how we can utilize those funds if we need to ramp up this committee again or move it elsewhere to be able to utilize it. Okay. And then on page two, we've got a resolution. by resolution. The following groups represents those entities which were created by resolution or for which non-formal creation could be found or no formal, I'm sorry, creation could be found. We recommend that this group be eliminated by resolution to create a record of the action taken. Am I clear to go ahead and make a motion to do that to accept this recommendation? Well, if you look on page four of the packet, those have all already been done. That's right. I'm sorry. That's right. And page five. I'm sorry. On page four and five. Yes. So the only two that we had a question about were the two we just discussed. The rest have already been done. The mayor's already signed it and everything, so they're done. Thank you. Just to clarify, we had this item on our items in committee, and we just needed to come back and, you know, be sure that those had been dissolved. And thank you for including the resolutions here in the packet, and there's the ordinance where it's appropriate. The ordinances are included here for those committees that have to be dissolved by ordinance. So just wanted to give you all an opportunity as a committee to see the committees that had been, or the commissions, boards and commissions that had been dissolved, and allow you opportunity to ask any questions related to the existing, the ones that were left in. Are there any questions for the law department? related to this. Okay, thank you Glenda. Yes. Can I speak on, you want to go down through the agenda? Yeah, let's go on down. Okay, number two, Boards and Commissioners reporting. I think we're going to have a presentation in the September 15th meeting. But I wanted to skip down to number three and we could talk about the sidebar that we had back here. We had a conversation, part of To bring others up to speed that weren't on the committee when we first put this in, there are those four boards and commissions that by ordinance were required to file the Ordinance Act or the Ethics Act and then also be subject to the financial disclosure aspect of the Ethics Act. And what I wanted to do originally when I brought this into the committee was to put everybody under the Ethics Act and then those that would seem appropriate to put under the with financial disclosure under the financial disclosure. That's been difficult to do by ordinance. If you want to elaborate on that a little bit and then talk about the recommendation you made, Timmy, back in the back. The reason that that's been difficult to do by ordinance, we were trying to craft out a definition that specifically addressed just a few Boards and Commissions and it was difficult to come up with a definition that would fit just those few. So in talking to Council Member Meyer, in order to make sure that we have all of the boards and commissions that we're interested in fill out the financial disclosure is to just require all boards and commissions to be subject to the Ethics Act, similar to all boards and commissions would be required to fill out the, excuse me, to complete the oath. When we talked about this, I guess, last year, one of the problems was the Council Clerk's Office has indicated that it would be, they would have administrative problems in keeping up with all of these statements of financial interest. So it's just a matter of whether or not we want to go ahead and include every Board and Commission and then that would be administered by the Council Clerk's Office. In terms of what we do when Boards and Commission members or officers or employees who are covered under the Ethics Act do not complete their statement of financial interest, the Council Clerk's Office sends a report to the Ethics Commission in June listing which individuals have not completed their statement of financial interest. They then receive a certified letter asking them to complete it. If they don't, they receive another letter asking them to appear at an Ethics Commission meeting and explain why they have not completed their statement of financial interest. And if they don't do those two things, then the Ethics Commission will impose a fine or penalty. we have never imposed a fine or penalty on any person for failure to complete a statement of financial interest. And you serve on the Ethics Commission, right? I'm the attorney for the Ethics Commission. Okay. I guess what I would do is be in favor of just making it simple and requiring all boards and commissions to adhere to the Ethics Act, and then also fill out the financial disclosure form. I know that there's been conversation in the past about if we require people to fill out that form, will we get people to actually serve? But historically, when those four that were designated to have to comply with that, we didn't have that problem, and we still have people that want to serve. And so I guess, do you think that we need to still have the presentation on September 15th? Not about the ethics act and the financial disclosure now. I mean, we can just bring forward an amendment to the Ethics Act requiring boards and commissions to comply with it if that's what you would like to do. Do I need to do that by motion? You would need to. Yes. Okay. We need a motion. So I move that we have the law department amend the ordinance that we have to require that all boards and commissions be subject to both the Ethics Act and the financial disclosure of the Ethics Act. So moved. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion Councilman Beard I applaud what Councilmember Myers is attempting to do I think The financial disclosure piece is going a bit far Especially if the Border Commission doesn't have any Fiscal responsibility I can't see how financial disclosure is going to be applicable if they're, in fact, just in somewhat of an advisory position. And let's take Town & Gown, for instance, as an example. To ask them to do a financial disclosure, and I'm a banker by profession, and I've done financial disclosures for God knows how long because it's required by the FDIC. to do so. But at the same time, for people that are not, that are, haven't been exposed to it, they may think it is an intrusion. And we'll get some pushback on this as far as being able to find people who want to serve on some of these boards. On others, are there other boards, though, that it would apply to? And I I think we need to go do the work to really find out beyond the four that I guess have judicial or pseudo-judicial responsibilities. There are other boards that probably rise to the occasion of financial responsibility involvement but I can't see all. Well, the other option is to just set out which ones we want to do the statement of financial or do the financial disclosure. I mean, we could specifically list them in Chapter 25 as to which ones we want it to apply to so then people like Town and Gown wouldn't have to fill it out. Well, I think that might be preferable then because, you know, these people can understand what their duties and responsibilities are and they're going to scratch their heads about why in the world do I need to fill out a financial disclosure when we don't deal with money and I have no way to influence anything. My opinion anyway, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Council Member Baird. Any other discussion regarding the motion? Can I respond to that? Council Member Myers. I always call it a financial disclosure. I think I'm not calling it by its correct term, and my term is a little stronger than what the document. It's called a statement of financial interest. Statement of financial interest. Okay. So I just wanted to clarify that. And then I'll just leave it at that. But I think when you say financial disclosure, it denotes a lot more information than what this actually does. Right. Because it would be the same form that you all fill out every year. Right. Okay. Can you restate the motion just moving forward? Okay. What did you call it? Financial interest? Statement of financial interest? Statement of financial interest. Okay. So I move that we have the Law Department amend the current ordinance that they've been working on with respect to boards and commissions so that all boards and commissions that the mayor can appoint and the council can approve positions on be subject to the Ethics Act and then the statement of financial interest. So moved. Okay. And that was a second by Council Member Henson. Council Member Blues. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I JUST WANTED TO SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER BEARD'S HESITATION HERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING A SLEW OF PEOPLE TO SIGN A DOCUMENT THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE BOARD OR COMMISSION TO WHICH THEY'VE BEEN APPOINTED. So the Ethics Act is one thing, this is another, and so I'm not going to support this motion as made. All right. Any other discussion? It's time to vote. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Or say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. And raise your hand if you're opposed, please, so we can make note. Council Member Blues, Council Member Beard, and Council Member Martin. And the motion passes. The motion passes. Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes. Just to clarify, so that is instructing the law department to bring us a recommendation. Is that right? That's correct. To do an amendment. Yes. Not a recommendation, but a redrafted ordinance. Right. They're going to bring us a draft, and we're going to vote on that. Right. That's correct. Yes. And it will come back to this committee, right? Okay. All right. Commissioner. Madam Chair, when we do that, if you would, let us check on what some other cities do. I know, for instance, in my old hometown, they used to have a dollar value associated with a board or commission or agency and how they, you know, whether they were required to handle the financial statement of interest. and it might be helpful to see how some other folks are dealing with that and that might help you get through this. I know the issue that you're wrestling with and it's other folks have wrestled with the same issue. Okay. And, Logan, that's actually in one of our past iterations of this ordinance we looked at that. So can you also include that history of why we didn't go that direction? Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. We've got three minutes until it's time for work session. Any immediate updates on committee items? Back page here. Anything to go over? All right. Can I get a motion? Motion to adjourn in a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.