Mar 11, 2024 Council Court - This is Considered a Special Meeting

[00:07:57]

OK? MM.

[Call to Order]

[00:08:49]

[Roll Call]

[00:10:03]

[1. ID 24-0104     Removal Hearing Proceedings]

MR GRIFFIN. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, UH, FOR BEING BACK HERE, UM AND I WILL. JUST AS YOU'RE GETTING SEATED AND SETTLED. I'LL JUST REMIND YOU THAT YOU WERE STILL UNDER OATH. AFTER YOU GET SETTLED. WE'LL RESUME WITH WHERE WE WERE IN MR SWANS. OK SO JUST TAKE A SECOND AND GET YOURSELF SET UP AND THEN MR SMALLEN BEG WHENEVER HE'S READY AND YOU'RE READY. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

OK? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. WHEN YOU ARE YOU LET ME KNOW. JIM WHEN YOU'RE GOOD TO GO, OK, UM I WANNA JUMP BACK TO WHERE WE WERE TWO FRIDAYS AGO. BUT FIRST, I GOTTA ASK YOU A QUESTION. JIM AFTER WE CONCLUDE OUR CONVERSATION TWO FRIDAYS AGO. DID YOU SPEAK WITH ANYONE ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY FROM THAT DAY, OR DID YOU SPEAK WITH ANYONE ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY? UH, I JUST RECEIVED TELEPHONE CALLS ABOUT WHAT TIME THIS WAS GONNA BE OUT OF THAT NOW. AND WE ENDED TWO FRIDAYS AGO. I HAD JUST READ THROUGH A LENGTHY RECITATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF COUNCIL P. ARGENTINA'S INTERVIEW WITH YOU. DURING WHICH HE DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF A PHONE CALL BETWEEN HIM AND MS YORK DAY ON NOVEMBER 18TH 2022. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION? AND THE UPSHOT OF THAT COMMENT TO YOU IF I CAN SAY WERE THAT HE TOLD MISS YORK DAY DURING THAT NOVEMBER 18 2022 CALL THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT A POSITION WITH THE C, BUT THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS IF THE OPPORTUNITY WACONNTED TO THE GRANT OR WAY AND THAT WOULDAVE TOINNY ABAIN ONHEE F THER GRAN OFHI T C W ANDTHXT MET LEGISLATION. ISHAT A FAIR SUMMARY? THERE WAS MORE INFORMATION THAN THAT. BUT THAT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE, OK? YOUR DAY ACTUALLY CORROBORATED COUNCILOR PIAGET'S RECOLLECTION OF THAT PHONE CALL AND HER TESTIMONY TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION HERE, DIDN'T SHE? SAY IT ONE MORE TIME. I'M SORRY, SURE, AND I KIND OF RAN THROUGH IT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND SLOW DOWN FOR YOU. MISS YORK DAY ACTUALLY CORROBORATED COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA'S RECOLLEN O T PH C I HER TESTIMO THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEIN DIDN'T SHE? SHE DID, BUT AGAIN, THERE WAS MORE INFORMATION THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND WHAT YOU'VE STATED OK, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND LOOK ON IF WE CAN HERE, UH, THE TRANSCRIPT OF DAY TWO OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION TRIAL BEGINNING ON PAGE 91 LINE 11.

AND MISS HOWARD, IF WE DON'T MIND SWITCHING OVER THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT ZOOM IN THERE.

YES, ZOOM IN. YOU CAN. AND UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND JUST FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS. IF YOU'RE ALL RIGHT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT TO YOU THE NOW IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, IF YOU'RE OK WITH THAT, UM SO AGAIN HERE WE'VE GOT PAGE 91 LINE 11. DO YOU SEE THAT ON THE SCREEN? OK, AND IT SAYS QUESTIONS. SO YOU SPOKE WITH COUNCILMAN PAGE ON THE 18TH ANSWER? YES. QUESTION.

WHAT DID YOU ALL DISCUSS? ANSWER SO, ANTHONY SAID. YOU KNOW, I SENT YOU THE ND A. WHAT'S UP? AND I SAID, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INITIATIVE THAT IN IT'S A, YOU KNOW POSITION THAT IS OUR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND MOVING FORWARD WITH FORMALIZING OUR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS WORK AND ALSO TIES TO OUR INNOVATION WORK, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT ENGAGING WITH THAT. ARE YOU? YOU KNOW WHAT'S YOUR STATUS? ARE YOU AVAILABLE? ARE YOU EXTENDING WITH WELLCARE? AND HE SAID BEFORE WE SAY ANOTHER WORD I NEED TO. I NEED TO STATE THAT IF WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, I'M GOING TO NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THE VOTE ON THE ARP GRANT AND I SAID, UNDERSTOOD, BECAUSE I DON'T MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE. BUT IF WE LOST ALL SEVEN, YOU KNOW VOTES FROM THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS. YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THIS WOULD

[00:15:04]

QUESTION SO ESSENTIALLY, HE SAID . IT'S A CONDITION IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS WORK IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, I NEED TO KNOW A COUPLE OF THINGS. IS IT RELATED TO THE GRANT OUR GRANT AT ALL? ANSWER? YES. QUESTION AND IF WE MOVE FORWARD, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ABSTAIN FROM ANY ACTION WITH REGARD TO THE OUR PROPOSAL THAT WAS GOING THROUGH METRO COUNCIL. ANSWER THAT'S CORRECT. THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE A VOTE IS WHAT HE WANTED ME TO UNDERSTAND.

QUESTION AND YOU ASSURED HIM THAT IT WAS NOT, IN FACT, AT ALL RELATED OR DEPENDENT UPON THE ARP GRANT THAT YOU WERE FINE WITH THE ABSTENTION ANSWER. THAT'S CORRECT. DID I READ THROUGH THAT CORRECTLY? OK, UM. COUNCIL. THE ARGENTINA ALSO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT HE HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING AN EXTENSION WITH HIS OF HIS CONTRACT WITH WELLCARE OF NORTH CAROLINA. UP TO NOVEMBER. 18TH 2022, DIDN'T HE HE DID, BUT HE ALSO SAID THAT HE HAD DECIDED EARLY IN 2022 THAT HE WANTED TO LEAVE AND WANTED TO SEE THE OPPORTUNITIES.

OK, SO LET'S LOOK AT DAY TWO OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING. YOU SEE THAT ON THE SCREEN? OK SO IT SAYS QUESTION. OK SO YOU GOT IN THE EMPLOYMENT WITH WELLCARE OF NORTH CAROLINA? THAT WAS JUST A SIX MONTH CONSULTING CONTRACT. THE ANSWER. THAT WAS THE INITIAL TERM QUESTION, OK, AND IT WAS NOT EXTENDED ANSWER. IT WAS QUESTION EXTENDED PAST DECEMBER. ANSWER NO, WE EXTENDED IT TO THE TO THE END OF NOVEMBER, AND WE WERE DISCUSSING POTENTIALLY EXTENDING IT PAST THAT. QUESTION OK, AND ULTIMATELY THE HEAD OF THAT ORGANIZATION DECIDED NOT TO EXTEND IT PAST NOVEMBER. ANSWER. NO THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE WERE DISCUSSING EXTENDING IT. AND THEN HE WE AGREED WHEN PARTICULARLY AFTER THE 18TH NOVEMBER THE 18TH THAT THERE WAS I WANTED TO BE CLOSE TO HOME. SO I THINK AT THAT POINT THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. AND I WAS AT LEAST IN THE IMMEDIATE TERM, WRAPPING UP MOST OF THE LIBERALS THAT WERE OUTLINED THERE, BUT THEN HE ACTUALLY CONTACTED ME SHORTLY AFTERWARDS AND ASKED IF I COULD COME BACK TO WORK FOR HIM. DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? YOU DID. OK? UM I WANNA CLARIFY SOMETHING REAL QUICK ON ON. YOU SAID A SECOND AGO YOU INDICATED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR HE ACTUALLY, UH, WAS LOOKING FOR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES WITH WELLCARE. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD ME. YES OK. UM, IS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR HE WAS ACTUALLY EMPLOYED BY A SEPARATE COMPANY UNDER THE WELLCARE UMBRELLA? THAT'S CORRECT. BUT HE HAD SAID IN HIS INTERVIEW WITH ME THAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES AND WANTED TO WORK INDEPENDENTLY. OK AND YOU SAID THAT THAT WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR BEGINNING OF 22. OK? IT WAS DURING THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS DOING HIS NETWORK WITH THIS DAY, AND MR GIBBONS AND ELSE, OK, AND WE TALKED ABOUT AT THAT POINT. HE WAS ACTUALLY EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY CALLED CENTENE. IS THAT CORRECT? 17 OR WELLCARE, NOT WELFARE NORTH CAROLINA. THAT'S SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. SURE, AND WE ACTUALLY INDICATED TO FRIDAYS AGO THAT HE ACTUALLY STARTED WORKING FOR WELLCARE, NORTH CAROLINA. BEGINNING IN APRIL. MAY OF 2022. IS THAT RIGHT? I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT, OK? THE TWO SEPARATE COMPANIES, RIGHT BY TITLE. YES, THEY'RE NOT THE SAME. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE SUBSIDIARY. I HAVE NO IDEA. FAIR ENOUGH. UM IN YOUR INVESTIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT COUNCILMAN IN P ARGENTI RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION FROM THE CEO C IN EXCHANGE FOR SIGNING THE NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT ON NOVEMBER 18TH 2022? HE RECEIVED A JOB. OK, ANY COMPENSATION FOR SIGNING THE DOCUMENT? UH YES. OK? AND WHEN WAS THAT? HE GOT A JOB FOR $240,000. THAT'S THE COMPENSATION. THE JOB THAT HE GOT LATER IN DECEMBER, RIGHT? YES, OK. LET'S GO AHEAD AND LOOK BACK AT A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY MARKED AND INTRODUCED AS CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 25

[00:20:03]

IT'S POSSIBLE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FACT IS. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ONE CALL THE OTHER AND THE CALL WENT TO VOICEMAIL. POSSIBLE. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ONE CALL THE OTHER RIGHT BACK AND SAY, HEY, I'M ANOTHER CALL. I'LL CALL YOU RIGHT BACK, OK? LET'S TALK ABOUT THE LONGEST CALL ON THERE, WHICH OCCURRED ON NOVEMBER 29TH 2022 AND RAN FOR ABOUT 29 MINUTES. DO YOU SEE THAT CALL? AND YOUR INVESTIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. DID YOU FIND ANY PROOF TO CONFIRM WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT PHONE CALL? NO. NOW, AT THIS POINT, WE KNOW THAT MS YORK DAY AND COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI TALKED ABOUT A POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITY ON NOVEMBER 18TH 2022, RIGHT? YES, OK. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY WERE CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITY DURING THAT CALL ON NOVEMBER 29TH 2022. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DISCUSSED. IN FACT, MISS YORK DAY TOLD YOU IN HER INTERVIEW THAT SHE SPOKE WITH COUNCILMAN GENINI AFTER NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 AND DURING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 28TH 2022 ABOUT THE SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE JOB OPPORTUNITY, DIDN'T SHE? I BELIEVE SO OK? AND JUST FOR CONFIRMATION. LET'S LOOK AT PAGE 67 LINE FOUR OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW THAT YOU HAD WITH MISS YOUR DAY. I'LL GO RIGHT AND READ AGAIN. QUESTION AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT AN APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WHETHER THEY'RE IN PERSON BY PHONE? ANSWER. IT WAS BY PHONE. QUESTION OK, ANSWER AND QUESTION. I MEAN, THEY ANSWER, PROBABLY TO QUESTION. OK

[00:25:01]

IS THAT RIGHT AT THAT POINT? YES, OK. AND THEN QUESTION SO YOU THINK BETWEEN THAT TWO WEEKS BETWEEN THE 18TH AND THE DAY THAT THE LEGISLATION CAME OUT ON DECEMBER 1ST YOU MAY HAVE SPOKEN TO HIM TWO TIMES. ANSWER. YEAH, MAYBE, MAYBE TWO OR TO THREE. QUESTION OK, ANSWER. YOU KNOW, IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, WE WERE ALSO WORKING INTERNALLY TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD EVERYTHING YOU KNOW, IN PLACE THAT WE FORMALIZED THE POSITION THAT WE, YOU KNOW, STARTED TO DRAFT AND HAD A SCOPE OF WORK. WE ALWAYS LAUNCH A SCOPE OF WORK WITH ANY POSITION THAT WE ENGAGE. YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE NEXT STEP. SO WE WERE WORKING ON ALL THAT INTERNALLY TRYING TO DODGE THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY WITH THE TIMING OF IT. QUESTION AND AT WHAT POINT WAS HIS COMPENSATION IN WHATEVER HIS TITLE, AND WHEN WERE ALL THOSE THINGS FINALLY WORKED OUT? ANSWER WE EXTENDED THE FORMAL OFFER TO HIM ON. IT WAS THE WEEK AFTER THANKSGIVING NOVEMBER 28TH QUESTION. OK I THINK IT WAS LIKE THAT INCLUDED. HERE'S THE COMPENSATION. HERE'S THE YOU KNOW, HERE'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE FINALIZED SCOPE OF WORK. YOU KNOW HERE IS, YOU KNOW SO ON AND SO FORTH. THAT WAS ALL THAT WEEK. I WAS LEAVING FOR THE MUCH NEEDED VACATION. IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING ALWAYS INTERRUPTED MY VACATION QUESTION. YEAH ANSWER SO IN TRYING TO GET ALL OF THOSE THINGS DONE SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A FURTHER DELAY WHILE I WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR A WEEK. DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? YAY ALSO TESTIFIED TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT SHE AND COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AFTER NOVEMBER. 18TH 2022, DIDN'T SHE? YES. AND JUST AGAIN. FOR THE RECORD, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TRANSCRIPT OF DAY TWO BEGINNING ON PAGE 93 LINE THREE. QUESTION AFTER YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION, DID YOU? ALL HAVE SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE SORT OF THE JOB DUTIES AND THE COMPENSATION THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS POTENTIAL RELATIONSHIP. ANSWER. ON ON THAT CALL WE DISCUSSED. YOU KNOW, I SAID, OK, WE'RE GOING TO BE BENCHMARKING THIS WE HAVE A FEW SITES, YOU KNOW TO LOOK AT WHAT COMPENSATION WOULD BE AND YOU KNOW WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. FIRST OF ALL, IS WAS HE AVAILABLE? HE INDICATED HE WAS MAKING SOME DECISIONS WITH LOOKING AT SOME OTHER THINGS, YOU KNOW, BUT YES, HE WAS. I TOLD HIM THAT WE WERE GOING TO INTO YOU KNOW, THANKSGIVING WEEK . THE NEXT WEEK, I WOULD WORK ON THE GETTING THESE THINGS. YOU KNOW ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THIS TOGETHER AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A FOLLOW UP CONVERSATION. WHICH WE DID. DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? YES. AND YOUR INVESTIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE METRO COUNCIL AFTER FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL DECEMBER. 1 2022 THAT'S CORRECT. AND IN YOUR INVESTIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI DISCUSSED THE A P FUNDING PROPOSAL WITH ANY MEMBER OF METRO COUNCIL BETWEEN NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 AND THE VOTE ON DECEMBER 1ST 2022? UH, DURING HIS MEETING WITH HIS CAUCUS. MEMBERS. THERE WAS DISCUSSION. OK, ACCORDING TO YOU. AND MEETING WITH HIS CAUCUS. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THAT OCCURRED? DECEMBER, 1ST. ON THE DAY OF THE OF THE ACTUAL MEETING. IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE MEETING. I, IT'S BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MEAT IT IS. NOW. A SECOND AGO, I ASKED YOU WHETHER IT WAS POSSIBLE.

THAT COUNCILMAN P, ARGENTINA AND MISS YORK DAY WERE CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITY. AS OF THAT PHONE CALL ON NOVEMBER 29TH 2022 THE ONE THAT WAS 29 MINUTES. IS THAT REMEMBER THAT? I BELIEVE THAT DID OCCUR, AND THAT'S POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN COUNCIL AND P, ARGENTINA AND THE CEO THAT INCLUDES ANY TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A JOB OPPORTUNITY IS THE STATEMENT OF WORK DATED DECEMBER 1ST 2022, WHICH WAS TWO DAYS AFTER THAT PHONE CALL. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I CAN'T. THAT IS CORRECT. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THE PART THAT I WAS ASKED ONE OF THE THINGS OF MANY THAT WE'RE TO LOOK AT WAS IS WHEN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST TOOK PLACE. I DON'T THINK THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT THE CONFLICT HAPPENED. IN MY OPINION SIGNIFICANTLY PRIOR TO THAT, OK, AND I JUST WANT MY QUESTION IS, WAS THERE ANY DOCUMENT ANY EVIDENCE OF A CONTRACT THAT'S SPELLED OUT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN COUNCIL AND THE ARGENTINA AND THE CEO C PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1ST 2022 WITH THAT STATEMENT OF WORK, THERE'S NO DOCUMENTS. NO EMAIL. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. WITH THE SURE. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF

[00:30:12]

OK? YES, SIR. OK? AND IT'S UP ON THE SCREEN. UM, THIS IS THAT STATEMENT OF WORK. THAT HE SPOKE WITH COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ABOUT 22 WEDNESDAYS AGO. IS THAT RIGHT? LET'S TURN TO PAGE TWO, PLEASE. MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, WHERE IT SAYS CREATING AND LOBBYING FOR LEGISLATION. DO YOU SEE THAT HIGHLIGHTED PART THERE? RIGHT ABOVE IT. IT TALKS ABOUT THAT SECTION ACTUALLY IS ENTITLED. OUTCOMES MAY INCLUDE. DO YOU SEE THAT? YES SIR. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE WORD MAY DENOTES A POSSIBLE EXPECTATION AND NOT AN ABSOLUTE EXPECTATION. YES. IT'S NOT SHELL. IS THAT RIGHT? I'M SORRY. IT'S NOT SHALL RIGHT. DOESN'T SAY HOW COME SHALL INCLUDE IS THAT IT DOES NOT SAY SHELL. AND BY EXTENSION, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE USE OF THE WORD MAY THERE ACTUALLY DOES NOT PRECLUDE OTHER POSSIBLE OUTCOMES? YES. IN FACT, THE THREE PREVIOUS SECTIONS ABOVE THAT ACTUALLY SPELL OUT THE ACTUAL EXPECTATIONS OF THE JOB WITH THE CEO IS THAT CORRECT? YES. AND IT DON'T. THOSE SECTIONS INDICATE THAT A RESPONSIBILITY WERE TO FIRST QUOTE, LEAD THE ORGANIZATION'S PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVES. AND IT SAYS, INCLUDING AND THEN IT LISTS OUT. A NUMBER OF THINGS IS THAT RIGHT? AND THEN SECOND, IT SAYS, TO QUOTE, WORK ON A MONETIZATION STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR AGING 2.0. DO YOU SEE THAT? AND THEN THIRD, IT SAYS TO LEAD THE CEO INNOVATION COMMITTEE. IS THAT RIGHT? NEVERTHELESS TWO WEDNESDAYS AGO, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT COUNCILMAN P. ARGENTINA'S APPLICATION TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF KENTUCKY STATE GOVERNMENT. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION? YES. IF YOU CAN TURN IN YOUR BINDER WHAT'S PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED IN ADMITTED AS CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 27, PLEASE. IF I DRAGGED AWAY TOO MUCH, IT'S 27. I'M SORRY. YES, SIR. YEAH. THIS IS THAT INITIAL REGISTRATION STATEMENT THAT YOU SPOKE WITH COUNCIL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE TWO WEDNESDAYS AGO. IS THAT RIGHT? ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S LET'S BACK UP A SECOND, UM I SUSPECT I KNOW THE ANSWER ALREADY INTERNALLY, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOTED FOR THE RECORD. UM DO YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AT THE STATE LEVEL? UM THE LEGISLATURE? YES THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. NOT AS MUCH. BUT SOME. YES. OK, UM AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PATRONIZE YOU BY ASKING THESE QUESTIONS, BUT WHICH BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT ENACTS LAWS TO IMPLEMENT PUBLIC POLICY ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OK AND WHICH BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT PROMULGATES ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS. TO AID IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. I BELIEVE THAT'S ALSO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. PROMULGATES ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME, OK? TURN TO PAGE TWO OF EXHIBIT 27, PLEASE. NOW. THIS WAS NOT DISCUSSED TO WEDNESDAYS AGO. BUT AT THE TOP, IT SAYS, UNDER SUBSECTION D BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY DECISIONS TO WHICH EAL EXECUTIVE AGENCY DECISION WHICH EALS ENGAGEMENT RELATES. DO NOT LEAVE BLANK. DO YOU SEE THAT PART AND THEN UNDERNEATH IT? THERE'S A HANDWRIT PART BY COUNCIL PAGNI, WHICH SAYS, QUOTE CREATION OF RULES RELATED TO HB 200 IMPLEMENTATION. AND AN ATTEMPT TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR THIS BILL'S EXECUTION. IS THAT CORRECT? ARE YOU FAMILIAR AT ALL WITH HOUSE BILL 200 DURING THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S 2023 GENERAL SESSION. UH, ONLY AS WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE INVESTIGATION. I DON'T KNOW THE INTIMATE DETAILS OF IF I REPRESENT TO YOU

[00:35:01]

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT HERE FOR THE RECORD. QUESTION JUST ONE OR TWO MORE QUESTIONS.

COUNCILMAN MISS YOUR DAY WAS ASKED ABOUT A DISCLOSURE FORM FOR LOBBYISTS THAT WAS FILLED WITH, I GUESS WHATEVER THE STATE LOBBYING ETHICS AGENCY IS, WHEN DID YOU BEGIN PERFORMING LOBBYING WORK FOR THE CEO C? ANSWER SO ON THAT DAY, SO, YEAH, I DON'T WANNA GET TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS ON DEFINITIONS OF LOBBYING, BUT UP UNTIL THAT POINT, WE IT WAS ALL LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING. WE HAD ALREADY RETAINED THE ROTUNDA GROUP. THAT DISCUSSION WAS MADE IN CONTRACT SIGNED BEFORE I JOINED TO BE THE LEAD LEGISLATIVE LOBBYIST. THE TRICK WAS THEY ARE LEGISLATIVE LOBBYISTS WHO MOST LEGISLATIVE LOBBYISTS ARE MASTERS OF ALL TRADE JACKS OF ALL TRADE MASTERS OF NONE. SO THEY WEREN'T EXPERTS IN WHAT WE WERE DOING. SO THEY USED SUBJECT MATTER. EXPERTS LIKE ME TO CREATE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, CREATE THE COALITION AND, YOU KNOW, FEED INFORMATION AND DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS IN THE BACKGROUND. THEY INITIATE THE CONTACT. THEY DO THE LOBBYING ON BEHALF OF THE LEGISLATURE WHEN THAT FINISHED AND HOUSE BILL 200 WAS WAS COMPLETED THE WAY MOST LEGISLATION WORKS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE'S AN APPROPRIATION THAT COULD BE ASSIGNED TO IT. IN THIS CASE, THAT'S TRUE AGAIN WITHOUT GETTING TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS. KENTUCKY HAS A SHORT SESSION AND LONG SESSION WILL BE JUST PASSED WAS THE SHORT SESSION HE CANNOT FILE YOU CANNOT PASS FUNDING LEGISLATION WITHOUT LIKE A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY. IT'S VERY IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET FUNDING. THROUGH THE SHORT SESSION. SO WE JUST GOT THE ENABLING LEGISLATION PASSED FROM THERE. THE NEXT THING IS RULES PROPAGATION. SO THAT IS A VERY DETAILED, VERY TACTICAL PROCESS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS TO GO THROUGH. IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR ME TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY DO THAT, BECAUSE THEY WOULD THEY WOULD JUST BE PLAYING CONSTANT

[00:40:04]

[00:45:02]

YOU DID. OK MISS YORK DAY ALSO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT SHE WAS ON VACATION ON DECEMBER 1ST 2022 AND DID NOT SIGN THE DOCUMENT UNTIL A FEW DAYS LATER, AS EVIDENCED BY THE TRANSCRIPT OF DAY TWO OF THE COMMISSION HEARING BEGINNING ON PAGE 100 LINE THREE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT APPEARS TO BE YES. OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND READ IT FOR THE RECORD. QUESTION OK, SO YOU HAD A CONVERSATION ON NOVEMBER 18TH. AND THIS WAS AROUND THANKSGIVING. IS THAT CORRECT? ANSWER YES, QUESTION. AND WHEN DID YOU SIGN THIS AGREEMENT? ANSWER THE SCOPE OF WORK AGREEMENT. UH HUH. ANSWER. WHEN I RETURN FROM VACATION I LEFT FOR VACATION ON DECEMBER 1ST SO I SIGNED IT THE FOLLOWING WEEK. QUESTION OK, THAT'S HER SIGNATURE ON PAGE TWO. ANSWER IT IS QUESTION IT STAYS. IT'S DATED DECEMBER. 1 ANSWER YES. QUESTION WHY DID YOU DATE IT? DECEMBER 1 ANSWER ADMINISTRATIVELY. THAT'S JUST HOW HOW WE ALWAYS DO IT WHEN WE'RE YOU KNOW, ENGAGING IN INITIATIVES, SO IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVE. QUESTION YOU WERE, WERE YOU ACTUALLY OUT OF THE STATE WHEN THE STATEMENT OF WORK WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL PAGE TNI ANSWER? I WAS. DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? YES. WE'VE SEEN BOTH OF THEM ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EACH OF THEM DATED THE DOCUMENT IN DECEMBER. 1 2022 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES IS THAT CORRECT? YES. BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION A SECOND AGO IF NEITHER COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI NOR MISS YORK DAY ON BEHALF OF THE CEO SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF WORK ON DECEMBER, 1 COULD EITHER OF THEM WALK AWAY FROM THE ARRANGEMENT AS OF THAT DATE? OF COURSE.

SO UP TO THIS POINT, UM, WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND QUITE FRANKLY, AND HAVE GONE OVER A LOT OF DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY PRODUCED BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. YES AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE ONLY DOCUMENTS THAT YOU DISCUSSED TWO WEDNESDAYS AGO OR TWO FRIDAYS AGO WITH ME THAT WERE NOT INTRODUCED OR CREATED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WHERE THE JANUARY 23 MEETING NOTES AND THAT SO-CALLED BO BONUS PAYMENT DOCUMENT. UH, I CAN'T VERIFY THAT. SO THE ONLY DOCUMENTS THAT WE LOOKED AT THAT WERE NOT PRODUCED TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, WHETHER IT BE TESTIMONY OR INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS, WHERE THE THREE DOCUMENTS THAT WE LOOKED AT INITIALLY ON WEDNESDAY, WHICH WERE THE 2 JANUARY 23 MEETING NOTES THAT YOU READ THROUGH WITH COUNSEL AND A THIRD ONE BEING THAT BONUS PAYMENT DOCUMENT YOU TALKED ABOUT. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? I DO REMEMBER THOSE, BUT I CAN'T SAY. FOR SURE THAT THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES BECAUSE, I DON'T REMEMBER. OK, FAIR ENOUGH. UM GO AHEAD AND TURN IN YOUR BINDER TO WHAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED AND ADMITTED AS CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 19.

DO YOU SEE THAT? OK? DO YOU HAVE ANY FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHO CREATED THESE NOTES OR WHEN THEY WERE CREATED? NO. LET'S TURN TO THE NEXT ONE. BINARY, UH, EXHIBIT NUMBER 20. CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 20 EXCUSE ME FOR CLARIFICATION. DO YOU SEE THAT? YES I'LL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHO CREATED THESE NOTES OR WHEN THEY WERE CREATED? NO. AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING, COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI WAS ASKED BY COMMISSIONER MIKE EULER ABOUT THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN HIS WORK WITH THE CEO C IN THE ARP GRANT, AS EVIDENCED ON PAGE 10 LINE NINE OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF DAY THREE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION TRIAL. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT TESTIMONY? EXACTLY OK. WOULD IT HELP? IF I PUT ON THE SCREEN? WE CAN GO AHEAD AND WALK THROUGH IT. ALL RIGHT? QUESTION CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE WALL

[00:50:06]

IS THAT RIGHT? ONE MORE TIME. I'M SORRY. SURE IN THAT STATEMENT, WE JUST READ. HE DOESN'T SAY ANYWHERE IN THERE THAT HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING IN JANUARY. 2023 IS THAT CORRECT? IT DOES NOT IN THAT STATEMENT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME? GIVEN THE QUESTION ASKED THAT COUNCILMAN PITI ACTUALLY GAVE A CONTEMPORANEOUS ACCOUNT OF THE DIVISION OF LABOR AT THE CEO C AS OF AUGUST 23 2023, WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF THAT PAGE. WHEN THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED. REPEAT THE QUESTION. I'M SORRY. SO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED AT THE TIME WAS GO AHEAD AND DESCRIBE FOR ME AND COMMISSIONER OILER USES A WALL FOR LACK OF BETTER TERMS AND THEN ASK HIM TELL ME ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF CEO. C IS THAT IS THAT THE QUESTION THAT WE ASKED RIGHT AND HIS ANSWERS AS OF AUGUST 23 2023. WHEN THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED, HE SAYS, HERE IS THE STRUCTURE AND HERE IS HOW I OPERATE WITHIN THAT STRUCTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

IN YOUR INVESTIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. DID YOU EVER FIND EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT COUNCIL PAGE FAILED TO GIVE AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OR RECITATION OF THAT DIVISION OF LABOR? AS OF AUGUST 23RD 2023 WHEN HE RESPONDED TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, AND WE DID NOT LOOK INTO THAT? PARTICULAR. INFORMATION OF WHAT HE DID WITH CEO C AT A CERTAIN POINT. THE LAST DOCUMENT I WANT TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT IS THE CEO C PAYROLL DOCUMENT THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE TO WEDNESDAYS AGO. IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ADMITTED AS CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 21. TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. YES AND MADAM COURT WILL JUST NOTE AS WE DISCUSSED BEFORE ABOUT THE, UM BLURRING THIS OUT. IS THIS THE REDACTED VERSION OR THEY WERE BACK TO PRISON. YES IT IS. THIS IS NOW REDUCTED. CURRENTLY IT IS. THANK YOU, MR SMITH, OK? JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE JUST IN CASE UM OK, YOU REMEMBER THIS DOCUMENT? YES. ALL RIGHT, LET'S LOOK AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF PAGE ONE. OF THAT DOCUMENT. WE CAN BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OVER THERE. OK? IT SAYS IN THAT BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER THAT IT WAS GENERATED 332 23 IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. ARE YOU AWARE THAT AS OF MARCH 3RD 2023 WHEN THIS JOCKEY WAS GENERATED NEITHER THE MAYOR'S OFFICE NOR THE CEO HAD SIGNED ANY CONTRACTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ARP GRANT. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF IT, OK? I'LL ASK JUST IN CASE ARE YOU AWARE THAT NEITHER THE CITY NOR THE CE FC ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO BEGIN PAYMENTS ON A GRANT UNTIL MARCH, 30TH OF 2023 I. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FAIR ENOUGH. TWO MONDAYS AGO. COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE STATED TO THIS BODY THAT AN INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT THE BONUS IS IDENTIFIED IN THAT DOCUMENT WERE APPROVED BY THE CO AS A REWARD FOR ACQUIRING THE GRANT. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT ASSERTION? MORE OF

[00:55:03]

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT STATEMENT? YES. WHO CONDUCTED THIS LATER INVESTIGATION. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL. ABOUT THIS INFORMATION, AND I JUST PASSED IT ON. OK, BUT WHO CALLED YOU I BELIEVE IT WAS MISS HANMER. SO MISS HAND MAKER CALLED YOU AND SAID WHAT? THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT, UM BILLS WERE SUBMITTED FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE A RP GRANT. AND IN THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE, UM REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT ON THINGS THAT WERE TURNED OUT TO BE A MISTAKE WERE WITHDRAWN, BUT THAT THE 10, NEW YORK DAY'S OFFICE OR THE CEO C AND SUBMITTED THESE BONUSES FOR REIMBURSEMENT. WHEN DID THIS PHONE CALL OCCUR? DO YOU REMEMBER? I DON'T IT WAS AFTER BUT I ACTUALLY AFTER ALL, MY WORK WAS ORIGINALLY DONE AND SUBMITTED. I BELIEVE AFTER ALL YOUR WORK WAS DONE SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN BUT PRIOR JUST BEFORE AUGUST 2020 THREE. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. CAN I REFER TO I MAY HAVE MUTATION IN HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW. NO PROBLEM.

NO, IT WAS SO, UM THE LAST NOTATION I'VE HAD OF SIMPLENESS OF MY REPORT ARE AUGUST 10TH OF 2023. SO IT HAD BEEN SOME TIME AFTER THAT. OK, SO IT WAS AFTER AUGUST 10TH RIGHT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MS HANMER WAS NOT ACTUALLY EMPLOYED BY THE CITY AS OF THAT POINT. I DON'T KNOW. DO YOU KNOW HOW SHE GOT THAT INFORMATION TO PASS ON TO YOU? NOT THAT I RECALL. NO, SIR.

OK? DID SHE ACTUALLY TELL YOU AND YOU JUST DON'T RECALL OR DID SHE NOT TELL YOU? I CAN'T TELL

[01:00:02]

POSSIBLY AND I'M GOING TO GO OVER EVERYTHING WE HAD SURE. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SHOW YOU I MAY APPROACH HELP REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION.

YOU SEE THAT DOCUMENT? YES, SIR. YOU RECOGNIZE THAT? I DO AND WHAT IS IT? IT'S A SCREENSHOT OF TEXT MESSAGE. DOESN'T SAY. IT'S FROM, BUT I RECALL THIS OK, THIS IS A TEXT MESSAGE FROM YOU.

DOESN'T SHOW THAT, BUT, YEAH, I BELIEVE IT IS OK. AND DOES IT SHOW TO WHOM IT'S THE TOP? WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE PERSON THAT APPEARS TO BE GOING TO? CAN'T OK? AND WHAT IS THAT TEXT MESSAGE SAY. LEARNED YESTERDAY THAT TYD WOULD STAND FOR TAMMY OR GAY GOT 100 AND 50 K BONUS FOR GETTING A RP GRANT. HE WAS ALLEGEDLY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF REIMBURSEMENT BY ACCIDENT.

THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW. AND WHAT'S THE DATE OF THAT TEXT? AUGUST 31ST AT 220 OR EXCUSE ME, 7:20 P.M. OK? NOW BY THIS POINT THE ETHICS COMMISSION HAD ALREADY HELD A FOUR DAY HEARING ON THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI. IS THAT CORRECT? UM I BELIEVE SO. YEAH, I RECALL THE EXACT DATES. AND EVEN THOUGH THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING HAD ALREADY CONCLUDED AND YOU WERE HIRED BY THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND NOT MR WICKER OR HIS CLIENT. AS YOU TESTIFY TO A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, YOU THOUGHT THAT INFORMATION MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HIM. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? IT WAS SAID TO HIM IN THE CAPACITY THAT HE WORKED FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION DURING THE HEARINGS. HE SAID HE WORKED FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION DURING THE HEARINGS.

IS THAT RIGHT? HE SERVED AS THE FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. THE PROSECUTOR, AND I THINK YOU INDICATED A COUPLE WEEKS AGO THAT THERE WAS SOME ORDER TO THAT EFFECT. DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT I SAID THERE WAS AN ORDER TO WEDNESDAY OR TWO FRIDAYS AGO. I I DON'T RECALL THAT IN ORDER TO WHAT IN ORDER IN THE CONTEXT OF APPOINTING HIM AS THE PROSECUTOR. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ANY OF THAT. SO I DON'T RECALL THAT. IN FACT, YOU ACTUALLY GAVE THIS INFORMATION MR WICKER, BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR HIM TO PURSUE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS AGAINST COUNCILS. THE ARGENTI, DIDN'T YOU? NO. A STUDY WHICH YOU KNOW YES. AFTER THE COMMISSION'S ALREADY FINISHED THEIR HEARING, AND THEY'RE AT THE POINT OF DELIBERATING ON THEIR FINAL OPINION. YES. I'M JUST PROVIDING INFORMATION TO HIM. OK? AT THAT POINT, I DIDN'T KNOW. IF ANYTHING ELSE WAS GOING TO OCCUR AT ALL. HONESTLY I HADN'T WORKED OR LOOKED AT THIS FOR TWO SECONDS AND AFTER ALL THIS IS OVER WITH SURE I WAS DONE. UM EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE HIRED BY

[01:05:02]

AND THE POSITION THAT HE WAS WORKING UNDER. WHO IS STEPHANIE ZAL? I'M SORRY, STEPHANIE ZIMA.

D. I MD A HL. I HAVE NO IDEA. OK, I'M GONNA SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT IF I CAN.

GIVE SOME BACK.

SEE THE DOCUMENT PUT IN FRONT OF YOU. YES, SIR. OK. AND WHAT IS THAT DOCUMENT? THAT APPEARS TO BE A SCREENSHOT FROM TEXT MESSAGING. TEXT MESSAGE. THAT YOU SENT IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT WAS SENT TO WHOM WORKER. OK? NOW ON THAT SCREENSHOT. THEY ACTUALLY DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A DATE IS THAT CORRECT? THERE'S NO DATE AT THE TOP OF THAT PARTICULAR THAT THE FIRST BLUE TAX IS THAT CORRECT? BUT THE ONE RIGHT BELOW THAT SAYS WHAT DATE? AUGUST 18TH . OK, SO WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE BLUE TEXT RIGHT ABOVE IT ACTUALLY WAS SENT PRIOR TO AUGUST 18TH. I WOULD ASSUME THAT SO PRIOR TO AUGUST, 18TH WHILE YOU'RE STILL SERVING AS THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION. AND BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION'S HEARING OF THE CHARGES AGAINST COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI. YOU IDENTIFIED. MS ZIM DAAL, AN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. AS A CONTACT IN THAT TEXT MESSAGE TO MR WICKER, DIDN'T YOU? YES, SIR. FACT IT SAYS FROM FBI, A USA INFO. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND THEN LATER YOU GO DOWN ON AUGUST 18TH 2023 THE WEEK BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING. YOU SENT MR WICKER, A LINK TO NEWS REPORT MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPRIETY RELATED TO THE ART GRANT AND SUGGESTING THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE THE REASON WHY MISS YORK DAY AND YOUR WORDS QUOTE IS CONCERNED TO SPEAK WITH US IS THAT CORRECT? I CAN'T SEE THE LAST TWO WORDS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. YOU ALWAYS SEE THE VERY TOP PART IF YOU FLIP TO THE THIRD PAGE. YES, SIR. OK? AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT PARTICULAR TEXT MESSAGE, MISTER WICKER ASKED IF YOU HAD SENT TELEPHONE RECORDS TO MR SMITH.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. AND JUST TO CONFIRM AS OF AUGUST 18TH 2023. YOU WERE STILL UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND NOT EMPLOYED BY MR WICKER OR HIS CLIENT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

DO YOU KNOW WHO BILL BRAMBLE IS? AND WHO IS MR BRAMBLE? HE IS THE LAW PARTNER WITH MR WICKER, ONE OF THEM. HE WAS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR THE CHAR, THE COMPLAINING PARTY DURING THE ETHICS COMMISSION PROCESS IS THAT CORRECT? BE HONEST. I KNOW IT JUST THERE SOMETIMES. MISTER BRAMBLE ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO YOU. BY TEXT MESSAGE AT 1:32 P.M. ON OCTOBER 19TH 2023 AND ASKED FOR THE CELL PHONE NUMBER OF TODD LEWIS, GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION. IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW, OK? ASSUMING YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT, SO.

YES, SIR. OCTOBER 19TH 2023 WAS THE DATE. THE ETHICS COMMISSION ISSUED ITS FINAL OPINION AGAINST

[01:10:03]

WE ALREADY COVERED MUCH OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ON THE SCREEN. SORRY. I'M SORRY. YOU SAID SIR, LOOKS BAD AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. I ASKED I'M JUST SAYING IT SURE LOOKS BAD, DOESN'T IT? I'M NOT SURE WHAT LOOKS BAD. WHAT'S YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME SOME CONTEXT. WHAT LOOKS BAD IT, I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION TO YOU. AS A FINAL POINT. WE'VE ALREADY COVERED MUCH OF WHAT'S BEEN SAID. BUT COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI AGREED TO PARTICIPATE IN A RECORDED INTERVIEW WITH YOU ON JUNE 7TH 2023 AS PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND IT WAS COOPER DURING THE ENTIRETY OF THAT INTERVIEW, WASN'T HE? HE WAS AT THE END OF THAT INTERVIEW. YOU HAD AN OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATION WITH BOTH HIM AND MR SMITH. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? YES, SIR. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOU TOLD THEM? DURING THAT OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATION. I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL THINGS. YEAH. HE TOLD THEM DURING THAT OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATION THAT THERE WAS QUOTE NO SMOKING GUN. IN THIS CASE, DIDN'T YOU? I DON'T RECALL THAT. IF THEY RECALL YOU TELLING THEM THAT DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE THAT? I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT. BUT IN REFERENCE TO WHAT? WHAT IS THE NO SMOKING GUN AGAIN ? THERE'S NO CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME, SO IT'S HARD. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ANSWER. WHAT I'M ASKING IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU TOLD THEM IN AN OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATION TO WHICH THEY WERE CALLED. AND I'M ASKING IF YOU REMEMBER MAKING THAT COMMENT. I DO NOT GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

UM JIM, I DO HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION REAL QUICK. I'VE GOT YOU AND I TALKED BEFORE ABOUT THE, UH, DISCLOSURE THAT COUNCILMAN PIAGET MARTINI MADE TO MEMBERS OF HIS CAUCUS PRIOR TO THAT DECEMBER 1 UM DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? AND YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID THAT HE TALKED TO THE CAUCUS MEMBERS ABOUT HE TOLD ME THAT, UH, HE HAD TOLD HIM ABOUT HIM ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH CEO C. AND THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO ABSTAIN. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, JIM. THANKS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. MISTER WICKER, REDIRECT. AND MAY I JUST ASK, DO YOU HAVE A LOT OF REDIRECT OR I'M JUST TRYING TO GAUGE WHETHER WE SHOULD TAKE A FIVE OR 10 MINUTE BREAK. 30 MINUTES. LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. WILL RESUME AT 1015.

COLLEAGUES BEFORE WE SORRY COURT MEMBERS DURING THESE BREAKS, IT'S YOUR DUTY NOT TO PERMIT ANYONE TO SPEAK TO YOU OR COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, OR, UH, ANY SUBJECT RELATED TO THIS HEARING, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO DO SO SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED BY YOU TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER. DO NOT CONVERSE OR DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES ANY SUBJECT THAT IS CONNECTED WITH THE HEARING NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINION. THEREUPON UNTIL THIS HEARING IS FINALLY SUBMITTED FOR YOUR DETERMINATION , IF ANYONE SHOULD SAY ANYTHING WITHIN YOUR HEARING ABOUT THIS CASE PROMPTLY BRING THIS MATTER TO THE OF THE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER. MR GRIFFIN. I THINK THAT ENCOMPASSES YOU AS WELL.

[01:15:33]

YEAH.

[01:20:29]

COLLEAGUES IF WE CAN START TO TAKE OUR SEATS WE CAN TAKE OUR SEATS WE'LL BE RESUMING IN ABOUT 30 SECONDS. IT WAS HERE. IT'S NOT MINE. MR WICKER, YOU MAY BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY COLLEAGUES. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. MR GRIFFIN. YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT THE AGENCY THAT YOU GAVE YOUR REPORT TO WAS THE ETHICS COMMISSION. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. WAS THAT THE ONLY AGENCY THAT ASKS FOR A COPY OF YOUR REPORT? NO. WHO WAS THE OTHER AGENCY THAT ASKED FOR A COPY OF YOUR REPORT. THE FBI. THE FBI. WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER YOU AND I MET OF YEAH, THE ONLY THING I'VE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO SAY IS THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE FBI AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO STICK TO THAT. OK BUT CAN YOU SAY WHERE? WHETHER I HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR

[01:25:01]

AND, UM DO YOU RECALL WHETHER MISTER PITI HAD ALREADY SENT A RESUME TO MS DAY THROUGH ROB GIVENS? UM, THAT THEY UH, BEFORE BEFORE THE NOVEMBER MEETING. THAT WAS EARLY IN 2022 IS MY UNDERSTANDING, OK? AND THAT I BELIEVE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN ONE TO MR GIBBONS. BUT AT SOME POINT THAT HE I THINK MR FIATI TOLD ME HE'S ONE OF THE TAM OF YOUR DAY. OK BUT BEFORE SENDING ONE TO MS DAY, HE ALSO SENT ONE TO HER THROUGH ROB GIBBONS. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. OK AND WHEN HE DID THAT DID THAT STRIKE YOU AS JOB HUNTING? ABSOLUTELY. IS THAT SOME HOW DIFFERENT FROM NETWORKING? I BELIEVE THAT THE SAME THING IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A JOB YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A JOB, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, OK? YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT A MEETING IN SEPTEMBER AT CHURCHILL DOWNS.

AND WHETHER MS DAY MENTIONED THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS POSITION THAT SHE WOULD ULTIMATELY OFFER TO HIM. DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY MADE IT CLEAR TO ME THAT UH, DURING THAT MEETING THAT SHE, UH THAT SHE HAD TOLD MR PI ARGENTI ABOUT A POSITION THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT CREATING AND THAT I. I RECALL ASKING HER IF, UH IF SHE THOUGHT HE UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING ABOUT THAT. AND SHE SAYS YES, SHE THOUGHT HE DID. OK AND MR PITI ACTUALLY DIDN'T MENTION THAT TO YOU IN IN YOUR INITIAL INTERVIEW WITH HIM, IS THAT RIGHT? DIDN'T MENTION THEM. NO HE'S THERE. HE DID NOT OK. AND THEN, AT ONE POINT, HE SAID HE DIDN'T REMEMBER IT. YES I KNOW. THAT'S WHERE HE TESTIFIED TO IN THE HEARING AND THEN ULTIMATELY AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING, UM, HE AGREED THAT MS DAY'S MEMORY ABOUT THAT STATEMENT WAS ACCURATE. DO YOU RECALL THAT THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION? YES SO ULTIMATELY, THERE WAS NO DISAGREEMENT AND NO DISPUTE BETWEEN MS DAY AND MISTER PAGNI THAT SHE HAD DISCUSSED THAT JOB POSITION WITH HIM. SHE SHE TOLD ME IN FACT, AND MULTIPLE TIMES THAT SHE SHE DID, IN FACT, DISCUSS THE JOB WITH HIM AT THAT CONFERENCE. HE AGREED THAT HER MEMORY WAS ACCURATE. THAT'S WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO. BUT NEVERTHELESS, HE STILL SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE GRANT PROPOSAL AT BUDGET MEETINGS IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. YES, SIR. NOW YOU WERE ASKED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS POSSIBLE, AND I THINK TO MOST OF THOSE QUESTIONS, YOU SAID, WELL, ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE. BUT I'M GONNA ASK YOU WHAT IT'S LIKELY THAT'S OUR STANDARD, AND I SUSPECT THAT'S A STANDARD THAT YOU USE IN YOUR INVESTIGATIONS THAT COMMON SENSE, OK? LET'S PULL UP EXHIBIT 25, A.

AND WE SEE WE'VE HEARD THAT THE CONFERENCE AT CHURCHILL DOWNS WHERE THEY HAD THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT A JOB WAS ON. THE 21ST OR 22ND OF SEPTEMBER. THOSE WERE THE DAYS OF THE CONFERENCE. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. OK AND DO YOU SEE, UH, PHONE CALLS? SHORTLY AFTER THAT CONVERSATION.

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

[01:30:05]

[01:35:02]

BUT THROUGH MY THROUGH MY INVESTIGATION, IT WAS THE ISSUE THAT RELATES TO THAT IS THE CONFLICT AND IT'S NOT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. UH, AND THOSE RULES ARE PUT IN IN PLACE TO HELP PROTECT THE PROCESS AND ACTUALLY PROTECT YOU ALL AS WELL. AND IT'S NOT WHEN YOU HAVE AN IRONCLAD CONTRACT OF WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IT'S WHEN YOU'RE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. COULD POSE A PROBLEM IN YOUR LEGISLATIVE ACTION. AND SO THOSE THOSE DATES OF SIGNING SOMETHING ON DECEMBER, 1ST. DOESN'T IMPLY IT DOESN'T COVER THAT. THAT CONFLICT PART IN MY OPINION OCCURRED WAY PRIOR TO THAT. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION WAS THE VOTE WHEN THE VOTE HAPPENED FOR THE GRANT THAT'S FOR THE BUDGET ONE. IT WAS THE 17TH OF NOVEMBER AND THEN THE ACTUAL DATE WAS DECEMBER 1ST. FOR, UH, WAS THE TIME WHEN HE ABSTAINED ON THE FLOOR, AND YOU ALL VOTED FOR THE FOR THAT FUNDING THE CC OK, AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, I'M TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF WHAT MY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAS SAID, UM WERE AND BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY WERE THERE MOMENTS WHEN COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI? COULD HAVE TOLD HIS COLLEAGUES MORE ABOUT WHAT WAS MOVING FORWARD? YEAH, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS YOU KNOW, THE WORD CONTENTIOUS WAS USED WITH MEETINGS THAT YOU ALL HAD. NONE OF MY STUFF WITH MR PIAZZI WAS CONTENTIOUS, BUT HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT UM, AND ALL HIS YEARS OF BEING HERE. NO ONE HAS EVER CONTACTED HIM

[01:40:07]

DO ANY OF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ABLE TO QUEUE IN. NO, SIR, I GOT YOU. OK THANK YOU. I SEE NOBODY ELSE IN CUE. ACTUALLY. OH, SORRY, COUNCILMAN ARTHUR. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR GRIFFIN. I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST. I KNOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEING RELATED. TO THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS. WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THE REQUEST ITSELF? THAT SAID, OR IMPLIED IT WAS RELATED TO THOSE FUNDS. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BONUS MONEY THAT WERE SUBMITTED. YEAH NO, ONLY THE INFORMATION I HAVE IS THAT THEY, UM, SUBMITTED THOSE FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND THOSE WERE UNDER THE RARP GRANT SO THAT THIS GRANT TO MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU ASKED THE CITY SPENDS IT AND THEN YOU'RE REIMBURSED FOR THAT, AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE GIVING THE MONEY AHEAD OF TIME AND THOSE, UM THAT INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED AS A REIMBURSEMENT. BUT THEN THEY I DON'T KNOW. THEY DISCOVERED IT ON THEIR OWN. SOMEBODY CALLED I.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE WAS. BUT THOSE WERE ASKED TO BE SENT BACK. AND THOSE WERE SENT BY MISTAKE. AND THAT'S ALL I KNOW. THANK YOU. MR GRIFFIN. THANK YOU FOR COMING THREE TIMES. I KNOW IT'S A BURDEN ON YOUR SCHEDULE. AND, UH, WE APPRECIATE, UM YOU BEING SO GENEROUS WITH YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. MISTER. YOU MAY.

[01:49:37]

[01:52:25]

[01:55:54]

THAT WAS YOUR CITIZEN.

COLLEAGUES. WE WILL RESUME AT 1055. SO SEVEN MINUTES. MM.

MM.

[02:02:43]

TELL US YOUR NAME, SIR. ANTHONY P ARGENTINO. MR P. DID YOU MEET WITH TAMMY OR DAY IN LATE 2021 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING A JOB OR CONSULTING ARRANGEMENT, MR. CHAIR PURSUANT TO THE STATEMENT I MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING. I'M ADVISED MY CLIENT NOT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. WELL, HE NEEDS TO ASSERT THE RIGHT THAT'S THE COUNCIL'S ADVICE. NOW THE WITNESS NEEDS TO SAY WHETHER HE ACCEPTS THE ADVICE AND ASSERTS THE RIGHT. MY VICE CAMP HAS TO INDICATE THAT HE AGREES WITH WHITE COUNCIL HAS ADVISED HIM.

YEAH. COUNCILMAN P, COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU WERE ASSERTING THE FIFTH BECAUSE THAT CONFIRM I CONFIRM. THANK YOU. DID YOU SEND TAMMY YORK DAY A RESUME IN JANUARY 2022 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING WORK WITH EITHER HER COMPANY OR A COMPANY TO WHICH SHE COULD INTRODUCE YOU. MR CHAIRMAN PURSUANT TO THE STATEMENT I MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING. I'M ADVISING MY CLIENT NOT TO ANSWER THAT PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. HE CAN INDICATE IF HE CONFIRMS THAT. I CONFIRM. DID YOU ACCEPT A FREE TICKET TO THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE IN SEPTEMBER 2022 WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH YOU ACCEPTED IT, YOU WERE VIOLATING THE ETHICS ORDINANCE. MR CHAIRMAN PURSUANT TO THE STATEMENT I MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING. I'M ADVISING MY CLIENT NOT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WHICH IS LOADED PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

[02:05:01]

[02:10:03]

WILL YOU GET MR HILLENBRAND, PLEASE? M GBN WELCOME. YOU'LL TURN ON THE MICROPHONE THERE. I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. SO THAT, UH, THE COURT REPORTER CAN CAPTURE. UH, YOUR FULL TESTIMONY, PLEASE. THAT IS YOUR WORK. SORRY. UH, YOU TURN ON THE MICROPHONE WITH THE GREEN BUTTON THERE AND THEN IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE SURE YOU'RE SPEAKING DIRECTLY INTO IT, SO THE COURT REPORTER CAPTURES YOUR TESTIMONY. OK, GOT IT. THANKS, MR WICKER. WOULD YOU TELL US YOUR NAME, SIR? UH KENNETH HILLEBRAND. WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING? MR GILLIBRAND? I'M A DIRECTOR OF THE LOUISVILLE ACCELERATOR TEAM, WHICH IS PART OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. AND TELL US WHAT, UH, YOUR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE IN THAT POSITION. SO WE PROJECT MANAGE THE LOCAL ACCELERATE. UH, EXCUSE ME, THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN PROJECTS SO WE WORK IN COORDINATING WITH THE A P ACCOUNTING TEAM IN THE ARP COMPLIANCE TEAMS. UM SO WE HOLD REGULAR MEETINGS WITH THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED THE FUNDS BY THE METRO COUNCIL JUST TO KEEP THEM ON TRACK. IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES OR RISKS, UH, IDENTIFIED THE SPENDING. UM WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU KNOW OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THOSE PROJECTS GET COMPLETED. THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL AND REALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS WHEN IT BECOMES NECESSARY. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THAT POSITION? I'VE BEEN IN THIS POSITION SINCE DECEMBER OF 22. WHAT DID YOU DO BEFORE THEN? UH, BEFORE THAT I WAS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE LOCAL ACCELERATOR TEAM. SO I REPORTED TO MARGARET HAND MAKER BEFORE THAT. HOW ARE YOUR DUTIES DIFFERENT AS DEPUTY UM MARGARET HANDLED SO DURING THAT TIME WHILE MARGARET WAS OUR, UH, DIRECTOR, UH, WE WERE REALLY IN A LOT OF THE FORMING STAGE. SO A LOT OF, UH A LOT OF NEW PROJECTS WERE COMING ALONG. UH WE WERE WORKING WITH THE METRO COUNCIL ON THE WORKING GROUP COMMITTEES. UH, WE PUT OUT REQUESTS FOR APPLICATIONS OR R FA S, SO WE KIND OF FACILITATED OR MANAGED THOSE PROCESSES. UM AND SO SINCE MARGARET LEFT. MY JOB HAS BEEN MORE OF RELATED. AND EVEN WHILE MARGARET WAS HERE, MY JOB HAS BEEN RELATED MORE TO WORKING WITH THE PROJECT MANAGERS THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO THOSE PROJECTS.

HELPING REMOVE ANY BARRIERS THAT THEY HAVE, AND THAT'S THAT CONTINUES TO BE MY MAIN MAIN JOB. OK, WERE YOU PART OF THE PROCESS OF ISSUING A AN R FA FOR THE WORKFORCE? UH, WORKING GROUP? BACK IN JANUARY OF 2022. YES, I WAS. TELL ME WHAT YOUR ROLE WAS IN THAT SO MY ROLE WAS AFTER THE R FA WAS DEVELOPED. UM I KIND OF HELPED A LITTLE BIT WITH THAT, BUT IT WAS REALLY MORE OF THE MECHANICS OF THAT PROCESS. UH, SO THAT THE TEAM THAT THAT I HAD WORKED ON THE MECHANICS OF PUTTING OUT THE R FA ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS THAT IF ANY OF THE, UH UH INTENDED PROPOSERS HAD AND THEN RECEIVING THOSE, AND THEN AFTER WE RECEIVED THEM I WAS PART OF THE EVALUATION PANEL THAT REVIEWED THOSE R FA S. OK, LET'S BRING UP THAT SCORE SHEET THAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE. FOUR. THAT'S PART OF EXHIBIT THREE. AND TELL US WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, MR HILDEBRAND. SO THIS WAS A SCORE SHEET. UH THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE METRO COUNCIL WORKING

[02:15:01]

TO THE WORKFORCE WORK GROUP IN APRIL OF 22. WERE YOU AT THE MEETING WHERE THAT WAS PRESENTED? YES, I WAS IN A IN THAT VIRTUAL MEETING. OK BUT BUT NO ALLOCATION OR GRANT PROPOSAL.

WAS MADE AT THAT MEETING IS THAT AND IT WAS ONLY LATER IN THE YEAR AFTER UH, A DECISION ON A FEDERAL GRANT CAME OUT. THAT THESE WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT FUNDS WERE ALLOCATED. THAT'S CORRECT. YES WELL, THERE WAS THERE WAS ONE PROJECT THAT WAS ALLOCATED AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE TIMING. THERE WAS A REENTRY PROJECT. THAT WAS ADDED TO THE METRO COUNCIL'S AGENDA FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REENTRY PROGRAM. YEAH, OK. WAS THAT A RELATIVELY SMALLER AMOUNT OF MONEY? YEAH, I THINK IT WAS $2.5 MILLION. AND DID YOU LEARN IN, UM OCTOBER THAT THE WORKFORCE GROUP HAD CHOSEN THE CEO C TO GET THE LION'S SHARE OF THE WORKFORCE. GRANT MONEY I LEARNED THAT THE AN ORDINANCE HAD BEEN INTRODUCED BEFORE THE COUNCIL. YES FOR THAT. AND BETWEEN JANUARY OR APRIL AND OCTOBER, WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED. HAD THE CEO TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE ADDED ANY STAFF TO BE ABLE TO RAMP UP QUICKLY. I WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE OPERATIONS OF CEO C. DID YOU EVER? UM WERE YOU, UH, WORKING TOWARD IMPLEMENTING THE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION? WAS THAT PART OF YOUR JOB NOW ONCE THE ONCE THE METRO COUNCIL WORKING GROUP SAID, LET'S HOLD ON. HOLD ON THERE. THE R FA. UH, WE JUST KIND OF PUT THAT ASIDE AND BEGAN WORKING ON OTHER THINGS. OK? WERE YOU PART OF THE GROUP THAT WAS AFTER THE ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED WAS TASKED WITH DETERMINING WHETHER THE GRANT PROPOSAL WOULD BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE ARP RULES.

UH, YES, I WAS. WE SENT A REQUEST TO THE CEO C FOR KIND OF A FULL SET OF DOCUMENTATION THAT WE USE FOR ELIGIBILITY. IS IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT A GRANT PROPOSAL THAT THIS COUNCIL VOTES ON IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES. THE UH THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THAT HAVE BEEN VOTED ON WHERE WE THOUGHT IN THEORY, THE PROJECT WAS ELIGIBLE, BUT WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONDUCT A FULL ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT. UH AND SO THAT THAT WASN'T ALWAYS COMMON, BUT THAT HAS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. UH SO WHEN THIS WAS THIS ITEM WAS INTRODUCED, WE HADN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A FULL ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND THE AND THE REASON THAT YOU YOU'D PREFER TO DO A FULL ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT IS THAT WHAT THE COUNCIL APPROVES. IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO RIGHT IF IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE, AND IN THE FULL SCOPE YES, THAT MAY NOT BE FULLY ELIGIBLE. AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE OR ALTER OR REALLOCATE. UH, THE MONEY THAT THIS COUNCIL HAD. UH AUTHORIZED TO GO FOR A PARTICULAR SET OF PROPOSALS THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY. NOW HAD THE ELIGIBILITY. UM ANALYSIS BEEN COMPLETED BY DECEMBER. 1

[02:20:11]

YES, AND HOW WERE THE MONEYS? REALLOCATE TO OTHER THINGS. IT WAS PART OF THE LARGE GRANT THAT WAS TO THE HEALTH. HEALTH CARE. UM INNOVATION, WORKFORCE OR WORKFORCE. INNOVATION COALITION I. I DON'T REMEMBER THE ACRONYM. I THINK WE CALL IT CHEWY. UM IT WAS PART OF THAT. SO IT WAS JUST REAL LOCATED TO OTHER PROGRAMS OTHER, YOU KNOW, TRAINING PROGRAMS THAT THEY HAD IN THEIR VERY REMOVAL, FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. THOSE WERE ALL PART OF THAT CHEWY PROPOSAL. DID YOU CONSIDER GOING BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND SAYING WELL, THIS THIS THING YOU VOTED ON. IT'S ALL IT'S ACTUALLY NOT ELIGIBLE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH THE MONEY? NOT FOR THAT. THAT WAS JUST A SMALL COMPONENT OF THE $19 MILLION. REQUEST THAT WHAT? WHAT THE COUNCIL VOTED ON WAS A $40 MILLION PROPOSAL. AND WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT, WE BROKE IT UP INTO THREE DIFFERENT PROJECTS, AND THE TALENT ATTRACTION WAS JUST A SMALL PORTION OF THE, UM, THE LARGER PROJECT THAT WE CALLED CHEWY.

DID YOU, UM, HAVE A NUMBER OF MEETINGS ABOUT, UM FIGURING OUT THE ELIGIBILITY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GRANT. YES, WE DID THROUGHOUT JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AND EARLY MARCH, WE WERE WERE MEETING WITH THE CEO C. YOU KNOW, MAYBE WEEKLY OR EVERY TWO WEEKS KIND OF GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AND LOOKING AT THEM SAYING, YOU KNOW, HERE'S HERE'S SOME HERE'S HOW WE'D LIKE YOU TO ORGANIZE THIS AND THEY'D COME BACK AND MAKE SOME CHANGES AND WE'D G BACK AND SAY YOU NEED, YOU KNOW, HERE'S SOME OTHER CHANGES YOU NEED TO MAKE. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DID WITH A LOT OF, UH, GRANTEES AS THEY PRESENTED THEM. WE'D GO BACK AND FORTH WITH THE ARP COMPLIANCE TEAM AND LOOK AT THOSE DOCUMENTS AND MAKE SURE THE BUDGETS WERE APPROPRIATE THAT IT HAD EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE APPLICABLE OR REASONABLE, UM, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE US TREASURY RULES, UH, FOR FEDERAL FUNDS, SO KIND OF LOOKED AT ALL THOSE ITEMS. YOU KNOW, WE HAD A TEAM THAT LOOKED AT THE BUDGET, THE SCOPE THE AGREEMENT, THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WAS PRETTY MUCH A TEMPLATE. UH, IT WAS REALLY THE BUDGET. THE SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT. THE WHAT WE CALL THE, UH, WORK PLAN AND THE KPIS THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE REALLY CONCENTRATED ON. OK, I WANNA SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE EXHIBIT 19. AND THESE ARE SET US UP AT THE TOP CEO C HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE 1 24 23.

DO YOU SEE THAT? YES AND HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE? I HAVE? YES. WHAT IS IT? THIS IS KIND OF LIKE OUR WORKING WORKING NOTES FROM A MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH CEO C WHEN WE MET WITH THEM TO START GOING OVER THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAD SUBMITTED TO US. AND ALTHOUGH YOU DIDN'T PREPARE IT ARE THE NOTES ACCURATE. YES, YEAH. UM TELL US WHO THE ATTENDEES ARE AND WHO THEY ARE REPRESENTING. YEAH UH, ALICIA AARTI, ALI BURRESS AND KEN HILLEBRAND WITH, UH, WITH THE LITTLE ACCELERATOR TEAM. AT THAT TIME, WE WERE NOT PART OF OMB. WE WERE PART OF THE , UH, OFFICE OF C, CIVIC INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY. UH, JENNIFER UNDERWOOD FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SHE WAS WITH THE ARP COMPLIANCE TEAM. UH, TAM NEW YORK DAY JOSH

[02:25:01]

AND THEN, UH, ANTHONY PAGNI WAS ALSO AT THIS PARTICULAR MEETING. OK, HOW DID HE INTRODUCE HIMSELF TO YOU? WHEN HE CAME IN? HE INTRODUCED HIMSELF AS THE I BELIEVE IT WAS A STRATEGIC ANALYST OR ADVISOR OR STRATEGIC CONSULTANT WITH THE CEO C. UM DID YOU CALL HIM CNCILMAN DURING THE MEETING WHEN HE FIRST ENTERED THE MEETING? I SAID TO COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI, YOU KNOW, WELCOME TO THE MEETING. HE SAID NO. MY NAME'S TONY HERE. I'M I'M WITH THE CE FC. I'M NOT A COUNCIL MEMBER AT THIS MEETING. AND WERE YOU ABLE TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION? YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE MEETING, THAT'S KIND OF AWK. I THOUGHT IT WAS AWKWARD WHEN A COUNCIL MEMBER WAS IN A MEETING, BUT NOT AS A COUNCIL PERSON AND YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO LIKE EXCUSE ME. YOU HAVE TO BREAK THAT DOWN AND JUST SORT OF FIGURE OUT OK, THIS PERSON IS NOT A COUNCIL MEMBER IN THE MEETING AND BUT ALSO I FEEL LIKE I WANNA RESPECT THAT OFFICE THAT THE PERSON IS IN, BUT I THINK WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION DURING THE MEETING. OK? WAS IT CLEAR TO YOU THAT HE WAS THERE TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE CEO C? YES. AND NEXT EXHIBIT. I'M SHOWING YOU EXHIBIT 24. I'M SORRY. EXHIBIT 20 TELL US IF THESE ARE THE NOTES FROM THE JANUARY 30TH MEETING. UH WHAT DO YOU WANT? WHAT DO YOU WANNA KNOW? ARE THOSE THE NOTES FROM THE JANUARY 30TH MEETING? AND HAVE YOU REVIEWED THOSE AS WELL? I HAVE. AND ARE THEY ACCURATE? YES. UM DID MR PAGNI ATTEND THAT MEETING AS WELL? I BELIEVE THIS WAS A VIRTUAL MEETING. AND YES, MR PANINI ATTENDED THAT MEETING. AND WAS HE ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF THE CEO IN THAT MEETING AS WELL? YES. UM ULTIMATELY YOU SAID THAT YOU SIGNED CONTRACTS IN MARCH 2023. YES. AND WHO WAS THE SIGNATOR? ON BEHALF OF THE GRANT RECIPIENT. UH, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TA YORK DAY ON BEHALF OF THE CEO FOR THE ENTIRE $40 MILLION FOR ALL THREE AGREEMENTS. YES. UM AND THEN AFTER THE ETHICS COMMISSION, UH, ISSUED ITS RULING, UH, WHERE CHANGES MADE IN THE ALLOCATION OF SOME OF THOSE FUNDS. UH, NO CHANGES WERE MADE. AND HOW WERE THEY? WHERE SOME REFUNDS REALLOCATE. UH, NO. NO FUNDS WERE REAL LOCATED. OK AND SO THE CEO C GETS TO KEEP ALL THE GRANT WHILE THE ETHICS COMMISSION WAS CONTINUING WHAT WE DID IS WE FOUND A LETTER WITH THE US TREASURY JUST TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THERE WAS A ETHICS COMMISSION INVESTIGATION AND WE WOULD ADVISE THEM IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES WITH THE, UH, WITH WITH THE AGREEMENTS AT THAT TIME , SO WE CONTINUED WITH THE AGREEMENTS WHILE THE ETHICS INVESTIGATION WAS ONGOING.

THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR SMITH AND MR SWANS. I DON'T KNOW, MR SMITH.

GOOD MORNING, MISTER HILLEBRAND. MY NAME IS BROOKLYN SMITH. I REPRESENT, UH, COUNCILMAN PAGE AND IN THIS MATTER, DO YOU REMEMBER TALKING TO ME A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO BEFORE THIS HEARING STARTED? YES. WE SPOKE OVER THE PHONE. CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I WANNA I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING YOU HAD MENTIONED, UH THERE WAS THE REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS PROCESS AND DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO INVITE, UH, ENTITIES TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR THE USE OF WORKFORCE OUR DOLLARS CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT WAS IT THAT THE REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS THAT WE PUT OUT AND THAT WAS CREATED BY THE LOUISVILLE ACCELERATOR TEAM.

CORRECT. THAT DOCUMENT WAS CREATED YEAH, ON BEHALF BY THE ACCEL ACCELERATOR TEAM AND REVIEWED BY THE, UH, METRO COUNCIL WORKING GROUP BEFORE WE PUT IT OUT AND THE SCORING EVALUATION THAT WAS ALSO CREATED BY THE LOUIS ACCELERATOR TEAM. CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS A STANDARD, UH, SCORING EVALUATION THAT WE USED FOR ALL OF OUR R FA S. YOU MENTIONED A APRIL 14TH OR AN APRIL MEETING. UH WHEN THE RESULTS OF THE OF THE LOUISVILLE ACCELERATORS TEAM

[02:30:04]

MR WICKER ASKED YOU ABOUT, UM, A PROCESS THAT, UH, WAS USED IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE OF THIS, UM, THE $40 MILLION PROJECT THAT WAS EVENTUALLY AWARDED BY METRO COUNCIL. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT TESTIMONY? YES. AND YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A THIS OCCURRED AFTER, UH THESE DISCUSSIONS OCCURRED AFTER METRO COUNCIL HAD APPROVED THE $40 MILLION THAT THERE ARE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT. YEAH THE FULL ELIGIBILITY. WE DID NOT. WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DETERMINE UNTIL WE RECEIVED ALL THE DOCUMENTATION FROM CEO AND THAT WAS AFTER THE METRO COUNCIL HAD PASSED IT. WE HAD SOME PRELIMINARY INFORMATION. SO ON A BROAD SCALE, OUR COMPLIANCE TEAM WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT IT WAS IT APPEARED OVERALL ELIGIBLE. UNTIL WE HAD THE DETAILS. WE WOULDN'T REALLY BE ABLE TO DO AN ASSESSMENT ON THE FULL, FULL PROPOSAL. AND WHEN WAS THAT SORT OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION MADE THAT THIS APPEARS AT A HIGH LEVEL TO BE ELIGIBLE, WHICH IS NEEDED TO SORT OF CHECK AND SEE IF ALL OF THE COMPONENTS ARE WHEN WAS WHEN WAS THAT DONE? WHAT? WHAT WAS DONE WELL, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS SORT OF A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OR DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE THAT AT A HIGH LEVEL THIS PROJECT. I'M SORRY. LET ME JUST FINISH MY QUESTION. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE, BUT I WANT TO. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING SOMETIMES WHEN WE'RE TALKING OVER ONE ANOTHER, IT MAY NOT, UH, THE RECORD MAY NOT BE THAT CLEAR. SO I'M JUST IF YOU COULD, UH, WAIT FOR ME TO FINISH ASKING MY QUESTIONS, AND THEN I'LL CERTAINLY ALLOW YOU TO ANSWER SO AGAIN, COMING BACK TO THIS SORT OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION THAT HAD BEEN THAT THE $40 MILLION ART PROJECT.

THAT WAS AWARDED TO THE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE COALITION WAS ELIGIBLE. WHEN WAS THAT DONE? THAT WAS IT WAS DONE BEFORE THE VOTE, UH, BY THE COUNCIL, AND IT WAS IT WAS A DISCUSSION WITH UM MARGARET HAND MAKER AND THE ART COMPLIANCE TEAM JUST TO LOOKING AT BASED ON WHAT WE HAD DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT. THE OVERALL PROJECT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE BASED ON WHAT WE HAD THERE, AND THE ANSWER WAS BASED ON WHAT WE HAD. WE FEEL LIKE WE'D BE ELIGIBLE, BUT WITH THE WE REALLY NEEDED THE FULL ALL THE DOCUMENTATION TO DO THE FULL ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND THAT THAT PROCESS WAS DONE, AND IT WAS ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PULLING OUT AN ITEM HERE AND THERE THAT THE BROADLY THE PROJECT WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN GUIDELINES CORRECT AND WHAT DATE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? UH, WELL. WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THAT QUESTION.

WHEN WAS THAT? THAT FINAL ELIGIBILITY TO? SO THAT WAS YES. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER THE VOTE. SO AFTER THE VOTE, UH, BEFORE THE VOTE, WE HAD ASKED FOR ALL THE DOCUMENTATION FROM CEO C. WE RECEIVED THAT DOCUMENTATION, UH, THAT WE HAD REQUESTED PROBABLY THE END OF DECEMBER. MAYBE THE VERY FIRST OF JANUARY. AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE BEGAN THE FULL ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND SO THAT ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. UM PRETTY MUCH A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE DOCUMENTS WERE SIGNED. SO THE DO BY THE TIME THE DOCUMENTS WERE SIGNED THAT FULL ELIG ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED. WHAT ARE THOSE? DO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CONTRACTS WITH THE CEO COUNCIL TO IMPLEMENT THE WHEN WERE THOSE, UH, CONTRACTS SIGNED? DO YOU REMEMBER? UH AND I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT IT IS AGREEMENTS.

THEY'RE NOT CONTRACTS SO THE TERM IS AGREEMENTS. UH, AS YOU INDICATED THOSE WERE SIGNED. I BELIEVE MARCH 30TH 31ST SOMETHING LIKE I DON'T. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE IN FRONT OF

[02:35:02]

WE HEARD TESTIMONY. FROM MARGARET HAND, BAKER, WHO SAID THAT IT WAS ENTIRELY REASONABLE FOR COUNCILMAN PAGE AND TO SUGGEST THAT THE ELIGIBILITY UH, REVIEW BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME AS METRO COUNCIL WAS CONSIDERING THE ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE, UH THE $40 MILLION. WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH HER ANYWAY? ON THAT? COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? PLEASE SURE. WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM MARGARET HAND MAKER WHO AT THE TIME WAS YOUR BOSS IS THAT CORRECT IN THE IN THE 2022 TIME FRAME, WHO SAID THAT IT WAS ENTIRELY REASONABLE FOR COUNCIL AGE TO SUGGEST THAT THE EL OF THE $40 MILLION AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN. UH, PROJECT FOR THIS HEALTH CARE COALITION BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME AS METRO COUNCIL WAS CONSIDERING, UH, THE ORDINANCE TO AWARD THAT FUNDS.

WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH HER IN ANY WAY ON THAT? I WOULDN'T DISAGREE. WE ACTUALLY REQUESTED THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM CEO. PROBABLY THE END OF OCTOBER. AND THAT WAS IN PART BECAUSE AT THE TIME BASED UPON THE INFORMATION YOU HAD YOU BELIEVED AT A HIGH LEVEL THAT THIS BY AND LARGE, THIS PROJECT WOULD BE DETERMINED TO BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN. UH, THE REASON WHY WE REQUESTED THOSE IS WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN I. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED BEFORE THE COUNCIL, I DON'T I DON'T RECALL THAT. BUT I KNOW THAT WHEN WE FOUND OUT THAT THAT THEY DID NOT WITH THE METRO GOVERNMENT DID NOT GET THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION GRANT. WE'VE HEARD THAT THE COUNCIL WAS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, UH, AWARDING THIS TO CEO C, AND IT WAS GRACE SIMRALL, WHO ACTUALLY SENT SHE HAD THE RELATIONSHIP WITH CEO C AT THE TIME, SO SHE SENT THE NOTE TO THE CEO. ASKING ALONG. WE GAVE THEM ALL THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE NEEDED AND AT AND ASKING THEM TO RETURN THAT TO ME. AND THAT I THINK THAT WAS THE END OF OCTOBER. I HAVE TO. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY THE DATE.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD TO THOSE MEETINGS IN JANUARY. 2023 THAT YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT WHERE REPRESENTATIVES OF METRO GOVERNMENT WERE MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CEO COUNCIL. UH AND COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI WAS, UH, WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT THOSE MEETINGS. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT TESTIMONY YEAH, THE THAT I JUST GAVE JANUARY 2023 MEETINGS. UM YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT COUNCIL PAGNI WAS NOT HIDING IN THE IN IN THOSE MEETINGS, HIS AFFILIATION WITH THE CEO COUNSEL. THAT'S CORRECT. HE INTRODUCED HIMSELF AS A STRATEGIC ADVISOR OR STRATEGIC CONSULTANT TO THE CEO C. AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW COUNCILMAN PIERINI CAME TO BE INVITED TO THOSE MEETINGS, DO YOU? UH, WE I DON'T II. I SUSPECT THAT IT WAS FORWARDED TO HIM BY SOMEONE FROM THE CEO C. I DON'T REMEMBER OUR INVITATION GOING DIRECTLY TO, UH MR PIACENTINI. I BELIEVE IT WAS FORWARDED TO HIM. OK, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW. HOW HE CAME TO BE INVITED OR ON WHAT BASIS HE WAS INVITED TO THAT MEETING. I DID KNOW THAT UNTIL THE MEETING STARTED, THAT'S CORRECT. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR THOSE MEETINGS OCCURRED BEFORE THE GREENBERG ADMINISTRATION SIGNED OFF ON THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CEO COUNCIL. TO IMPLEMENT TO IMPLEMENT THE GRANT. UH, SO THOSE THAT THOSE MEETINGS OCCURRED BEFORE THE LOUISVILLE ACCELERATOR TEAM AND OUR COMPLIANCE TEAM AGREED THAT THEY MET ALL THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND THEN WHEN WE SENT OUT THE AGREEMENTS THOSE WERE SIGNED BY MYSELF, UH, SUSAN , UM DURHAM ON THE ART COMPLIANCE TEAM. UH, TAMMY YORK DAY FROM THE, UH CEO C AND BEN MOORE, WHO IS DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AT THAT TIME THOSE ALL OF THESE AGREEMENTS WERE THROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS THE AWARDING AGENCY. OK AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WERE THOSE THE ONLY TWO MEETINGS THAT COUNCILMAN PIERINI WAS INVOLVED IN? UM BETWEEN METRO GOVERNMENT AND THE CEO COUNCIL ABOUT THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN. UH, GRANT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE. THOSE ARE THE ONLY MEETINGS UH, MR P ARGENTI ATTENDED THAT WORK WITH THE LOCAL ACCELERATOR TEAM AND CEO C. I. I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OTHER MEETINGS.

[02:40:57]

AND WHEN MARGARET HAMMAKER WAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WHO DID YOU REPORT TO THEN? UH, REPORTED TO MARGARET HANMER. AND YOU KNOW, SHE REPORTED TO AT THE TIME I BELIEVE SHE REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. DURING THE MEETINGS OF JANUARY 2023 YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA WAS IN THE MEETINGS TO ADVOCATE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MEETINGS. WHAT DID THAT MEAN TO YOU? OR WHAT DID YOU, YOU KNOW, THINK HIS PURPOSE WAS FOR BEING IN THE MEETINGS. I THINK ITS PURPOSE WAS AND YOU KNOW, HE WAS ABDICATING FOR THE CEO AND AS A HE INDICATED HE WAS STRATEGIC ADVISOR OR STRATEGIC CONSULTANT WITH THEM, AND SO I EXPECTED HIM TO WORK WITH THEM TO GET CLARIFICATION AND BE A MEMBER OF THAT TEAM WHO WAS AT THAT? WHO WAS AT THE MEETING? THANK YOU, OK? COLLEAGUES I SEE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. COUNCIL FLOOD COUNCILMAN REED I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE EVER IN, DO YOU EITHER IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. NO, SIR. OK, THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN MCCRANEY.

THANK YOU, MR HILL. AND DURING THOSE MEETINGS, COULD YOU ELABORATE ON EXACTLY WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THOSE MEETINGS WERE? THAT THE MEETINGS IN JANUARY THAT WERE A PART OF THE EXHIBIT.

YES THOSE MEETINGS WERE SO AT ONCE WE RECEIVED ALL OF THE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS. WE WERE STARTING TO GO THROUGH. LET'S PUT TOGETHER THE AGREEMENTS. WHAT ARE THOSE GOING TO LOOK LIKE? WHAT WHAT DO WE NEED TO WORK ON IN THE WORK PLAN? THE BUDGET DOCUMENT? UM THE, UH, KP I DOCUMENT SO IT WAS REALLY TO START GOING THROUGH THOSE AND HASHING THOSE OUT OF WHAT WHAT IT NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE AND THEN THOSE WERE ALL ATTACHED TO THE AGREEMENT ITSELF. YEAH. SO ARE YOU. REFERRING TO WHAT THE $40 MILLION WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE FUNDS.

YEAH, SO AT WHEN WE WHEN WE LOOKED AT HOW THOSE FUN WHEN THE $40 MILLION CAME TO US. WE LOOKED AT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DIVIDE THAT UP, AND WE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE THREE DISTINCT PROJECTS HERE . AND SO THAT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE STARTED. AND THEN AS WE LOOKED AT THOSE DISTINCT PROJECTS, AND THE CEO C STARTED PROVIDING US DOCUMENTS

[02:45:02]

MR WICKER. MR CHAIR AT THIS TIME , THE CHARGING COUNT. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE RESTS ITS CASE. THANK YOU. UH, COLLEAGUES BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, IT'S CURRENTLY 1140. I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO REALLY START RIGHT NOW AND THEN BREAK FOR LUNCH IN 20 MINUTES, SO, UH, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GO TO LUNCH NOW, UH AND LET'S RESUME. IT IS CURRENTLY 1140. LET'S PLAN TO RESUME AT 1245. UH BEFORE YOU ADJOURN, UH, COURT MEMBERS DURING THESE BREAKS, IT IS YOUR DUTY, UH, NOT TO PERMIT ANYONE TO SPEAK TO YOU OR COMMUNICATE WITH YOU ON ANY SUBJECT CONNECTED WITH THIS HEARING, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO DO SO SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED BY YOU TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER. DO NOT CONVERSE OR DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES ANY SUBJECT THAT IS CONNECTED WITH THE HEARING NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINION THEREUPON UNTIL THE HEARING IS FINALLY SUBMITTED FOR YOUR DETERMINATION IF ANYONE SHOULD STATE ANYTHING WITHIN YOUR HEARING ABOUT THIS CASE, PROMPTLY BRING THE MATTER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER. UH, THANK YOU. WE'LL RESUME 1245.

[02:53:11]

[03:01:41]

[03:06:39]

[03:10:38]

[03:11:50]

OK? YEAH.

[03:16:22]

[03:20:31]

UM. UM.

[03:34:32]

[03:35:01]

[03:35:19]

NO.

[03:54:26]

[03:56:13]

[03:56:57]

[03:57:01]

THAT THAT. MS UNDERWOOD, IF YOU COULD PLEASE APPROACH.

OKAY, MISS UNDERWOOD. YOU'RE GONNA PUSH THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE. AND THEN I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE SO THAT THAT COURT REPORTER CAN PICK UP YOUR TESTIMONY, OK? GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS UNDERWOOD. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK? OK IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S UH HAS BROUGHT IS IT OK, THERE WE GO. OK, THANK YOU. SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. UH PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, JENNIFER UNDERWOOD. AND MISS UNDERWOOD. HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED? I'M EMPLOYED AS AN A RP COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST. AND THAT'S AN AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN. COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST PLAN COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST OK AND AS AN A RP GRANT COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST, CAN YOU, MR UNDERWOOD? IF YOU COULD JUST LET MR SMITH FINISH THE QUESTION AND THEN ANSWER THAT WAY. IT'S A LITTLE BIT CLEANER FOR THE TRANSCRIPT. POLICE. THANK YOU. WE START THIS WAY. AND AS AN A RP GRANT COMPLIANCE

[04:00:02]

[04:06:29]

OK, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. ARE YOU NOW LOOKING AT A DOCUMENT THAT IS MARKED AS RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT 48 IS WHAT WHAT IS BEFORE YOU? IS THAT AN EMAIL THAT YOU SENT TO JUDY COOP WITH THE CEO COUNCIL ON MAY 9TH 2023. YES. AND WHO IS, UH, MISS COPP? SHE WAS DID THAT AT AT THAT TIME, THE CONTROLLER, I BELIEVE WAS HER JOB TITLE. THE CEO COUNCIL. IS THAT CORRECT? AND THERE WERE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED TO THE EMAIL THAT YOU SENT WERE THEIR DOCUMENTS ATTACHED THAT WERE SENT TO THE TO MISS COP IN THIS EMAIL. YES, I BELIEVE SO. ONE WAS ONE A GOV GRANTS, NOTES PDF FILE YES. IT WAS THE OTHER A EXCEL SPREADSHEET FOR THE LOUIS HEALTHCARE. CEO COUNCIL INVOICE REVIEW. YES. AND BOTH OR BOTH OF THOSE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS EXHIBIT, 48 YES. AND SO THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE, IN FACT ATTACHED TO THE EMAIL THAT YOU SENT ON MAY 9TH IS THAT CORRECT? I MOVE TO ADMIT RESPONDENTS, 48 I KNOW IT. MADAM CLERK. I BELIEVE.

ALL RIGHT. SO IF YOU COULD TURN TO THE FIRST PAGE OF EXHIBIT 48, THIS IS THE EMAIL THAT YOU SENT TO MS COBB. UM DO YOU SEE WHERE YOU SAY GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR SENDING OVER THE EMPLOYEE NAMES AND TITLES. CAN YOU EMAIL ME ANOTHER COPY OF THE MARCH 6TH PAYROLL REPORT? DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? AND IS THE MARCH 6TH PAYROLL REPORT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE DOCUMENT OF THAT'S SHOWING THE BONUSES PAID TO THE CEO COUNSEL EMPLOYEES? YES, THAT WAS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED INSTEAD OF THE FULL PAYROLL. AND SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT PAYROLL DOCUMENT WAS, AS YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED, WAS ACTUALLY NOT SUBMITTED FOR REIMBURSEMENT, AND

[04:10:03]

PRIOR TO THE HEARING THESE REMOVAL HEARINGS, UH, CONSIDERING THE CHARGES AGAINST COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI, AND WAS THAT ATTORNEY KENT WICKER WHO REACHED OUT TO YOU? AND DID YOU ADVISE MR WICKER THAT THE BONUS DOCUMENTS HAD NOT IN FACT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REIMBURSEMENT BY THE CEO COUNCIL? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. YOU, MR WICKER.

[04:15:16]

WE CAN BRING UP, UH, EXHIBIT 21 REAL QUICK. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS WITH YOU, MS. UNDERWOOD. UM JUST TO REITERATE. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE, UH, THE CIVIL WAR AGREEMENTS THAT WERE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN METRO GOVERNMENT AND THE CEO COUNSEL TO IMPLEMENT THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN GRANT WERE EXECUTED ON MARCH 30TH OF 2023. YES, I KNOW IT'S SPRING. I DIDN'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE. BUT YES. WHAT WOULD YOU AGREE? IT'S LATE MARCH 2023, AND SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME WEEKS AFTER THE BONUSES HAD BEEN PAID BY THE CEO COUNSEL TO THE EMPLOYEES LISTED ON THAT DOCUMENT. YES AND IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT TW, UH 21. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE DOCUMENT THAT UH, THAT EXPLAINS WHY THE BONUSES WERE PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CEO COUNCIL.

NO, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS UNDERWOOD? I WOULD AGAIN REMIND YOU THAT IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO UNCOVER NEW EVIDENCE, MAKE EITHER SIDE'S CASE FOR THEM OR STATE POSITIONS OR OPINIONS. OUR ROLE IN QUESTIONING IS TO CLARIFY ANYTHING THAT MS UNDERWOOD, UH, MAY HAVE TESTIFIED TO THAT WAS UNCLEAR. LET'S SEE ANYONE IN CU.

ANYONE ONLINE? JUST RAISE YOUR HAND. IF YOU NOBODY ONLINE, MISS UNDERWOOD. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. MR SMITH, YOU'RE NEXT WITNESS. YES UH, COUNCILMAN PITTI CALLS PRESIDENT MARCOS. UH, CHAIR PRO TEM BLACKWELL, IF YOU COULD TAKE THE CHAIR.

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT. WINKLER. UM YOU ARE NO DOUBT AWARE. THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN. AND THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT WORK GROUP, OF WHICH YOU WERE A MEMBER, ALONG WITH COUNCILMAN PITI. LET ME ASK YOU FIRST. WHY DID YOU VOLUNTEER TO BE A PART OF THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT WORK GROUP? UH, SURE . YOUR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT IS, YOU KNOW, REALLY ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I RAN ON FOR ELECTION INITIALLY, I MEAN, I THINK THAT MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A WORKFORCE THAT IS READY FOR THE COMING WAVE OF AUTOMATION AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RISKS TO SOCIETY BROADLY, UH AND SO, MAKING SURE THAT WE GET PEOPLE INTO FUTURE PROOF JOBS, I THINK IS SORT OF THE ONE OF THE MOST EXISTENTIAL CHALLENGES WE HAVE AS A SOCIETY GENERALLY AND

[04:20:01]

AND SO WE'VE HEARD TALK AT VARIOUS TIMES OR TESTIMONY AT VARIOUS TIMES ABOUT IT SORT OF THE NEED TO FIND A BOLDER, TRANSFORMATIONAL WAY TO ALLOCATE THESE FUNDS IS THAT IS THAT FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT WAS A PHILOSOPHY THAT THAT YOU EMBRACED IN YOUR ROLE ON THE WORKFORCE WORK GROUP? YEAH, IT WAS MY PRIMARY FOCUS. I ACTUALLY WAS MEETING WITH VARIOUS PEOPLE AROUND THE COMMUNITY TRYING TO UNCOVER YOU KNOW WHAT ARE INDUSTRIES OR RESEARCH? UH WORK WHERE THE CITY COULD PARTICIPATE . SO UM, UH, BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY THAT SORT OF THE MAGIC.

QUADRANT HERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A PUBLIC PRIVATE PLUS RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP. SO HAVING A UNIVERSITY PARTNER, UH, THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND THEN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR, ALL MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION TOWARDS A GOAL. AND SO I KNEW WE HAD SPA LIKE WE ALREADY HAD A CLUSTER AROUND HEALTH CARE. SO THAT WASN'T REALLY WHERE I STARTED TO LOOK I WAS TRYING TO IDENTIFY. ARE THERE OTHER ANCILLARY? UM INDUSTRIES THAT WE MIGHT EXPLORE ? UH, YOU MAY NOT KNOW WE'VE GOT A CLUSTER OF COMPANIES. ARE FOCUSED ON WHETHER SCIENCE I HAD MET WITH THOSE COMPANIES SORT OF UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW. IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY THERE? I MET WITH THE UNIVERSITY TO SEE IF THERE WAS WHAT OTHER FIELDS DO THEY HAVE EXPERTISE IN. UM I KNOW MSALL TESTIFIED AROUND, UM, SORT OF LOOKING AT, UH, BLOCKCHAIN AND COMPUTING POW OF.

THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT LIKE AS A LEGISLATOR, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. IT'S REALLY HARD TO LEAD THOSE SORTS OF STRATEGIC CONVERSATIONS. YOU REALLY NEED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH LEADING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AND SO I WAS SORT OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE CAN WE GET A GROUP OF PEOPLE TOGETHER AND THEN WORK TOWARDS THAT TYPE OF GOAL? I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS, UH BUT I KNEW SORT OF. I HAD A LIKE A 50,000 FT VISION OF SORT OF THE GENERAL DIRECTION THAT I WAS HOPING WE WOULD GO WITH THAT MONEY. I WANT TO GET TO THAT, UM, THE EFFORTS THAT YOU

[04:25:01]

PRETTY EARLY ON. IN PART BECAUSE OF YOUR EFFORTS TO YOU KNOW, CONVINCE HIM THAT THIS WAS A WORTHY USE OR A NOBLE USE OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS EXCEPT FAIR TO SAY, YEAH, AGAIN.

I MEAN, I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO HIS MOTIVATIONS. UM FOR WHY, BUT YOU KNOW I WOULD SPECULATE THAT PART OF IT WAS YOU KNOW, I. I THINK THAT WE SHARE THE PHILOSOPHY OF MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING LASTING AT THE END OF THE DAY AND NOT SOMETHING THAT, UM YOU KNOW, PROGRAMMATIC, UH, WHERE ONCE THE MONEY WAS EXPENDED IT WAS OVER, AND YOU HAD VERY LITTLE TO SHOW FOR IT. LET'S TALK FOR A SECOND ABOUT THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN PROCESS, AND WE'VE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE LOUISVILLE ACCELERATOR TEAM.

UM ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT QUEST FOR APPLICATIONS? I HAVE WHO ISSUED THE R FA. SO IT WENT THROUGH A COUPLE OF ITERATIONS. I BELIEVE, UM, THE ACCELERATOR TEAM INITIALLY, UM ISSUED AN RF, UM AND GOT BACK SOME PROPOSALS. UM I KNOW THAT COUNCILMAN P ARGENT AND I SAT DOWN AND SORT OF RECOMMENDED LIKE HERE WERE THE THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, AND I KNOW, MISS HANNA TESTIFIED. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE THREE THINGS WERE. BUT THERE WERE 31, I THINK WAS TO FOCUS ON UH IF YOU'RE UNEMPLOYED OR UNDEREMPLOYED GETTING YOU INTO THE WORKFORCE, THE SECOND PHASE OF THAT WAS MOVING YOU INTO CAREER LEVEL JOBS. THE THIRD PHASE OF THAT WAS MOVING PEOPLE INTO LONG TERM , SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNICAL JOBS. THAT WOULD BE AROUND SO THAT THAT SORT OF MY VAGUE RECOLLECTION OF HOW WE DEEM THE THREE THINGS OF THE R FA. THE EXACT LANGUAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. UM, AND THEN I THINK, ULTIMATELY , THE ACCELERATOR TEAM PUT OUT THAT R FA. DID YOU OR COUNCILMAN PENTTI ASKED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO PUT OUT THE R FA? WE DID NOT. AND IN FACT, I REMEMBER WE HAD A CONVERSATION.

THAT YOU KNOW, IT WAS SORT OF STRUCK US AS A LITTLE BIT ODD THAT THEY WERE APPROACHING THIS LIKE A GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PROCESS. DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE R FA? I. I MEAN CONCERNS IN THE SENSE THAT I FELT LIKE WE WERE MISSING THE MARK OF WHAT WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. AND RATHER THAN BRINGING TOGETHER A COALITION OF PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT A PROBLEM AND LIKE ACTUALLY PROBLEM SOLVE, WE WERE SENDING OUT AN R FA TO RECIPIENTS THAT WERE USED TO APPLYING TO GOVERNMENT RESPONSES IN A CERTAIN WAY, RIGHT? AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS FREQUENTLY WHEN WE WORK, PARTICULARLY OR USE THE NONPROFIT SECTOR AS AN EXAMPLE. PEOPLE HAVE THEIR SPECIFIC FOCUS AREA, OK, AND SO WE HAVE VERY FEW ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE SORT OF A SYSTEM THINKING, RIGHT LIKE IF YOU USE WE USE HOMELESS AS AN EXAMPLE. NOBODY OWNS SOLVING HOMELESSNESS. THERE ARE VARIOUS GROUPS THAT OWN PARTS OF HOMELESSNESS AS AN EXAMPLE AND SO SIMILARLY WITH WORKFORCE. UM IT YOU REALLY YOU COULD ALREADY SEE JUST IN IN CONVERSATIONS AND KEEP IN MIND. THERE WERE LOTS OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE REACHING OUT TO US DURING THIS TIME, AND ONE THAT STANDS OUT TO ME WAS, UH, SPECTRUM INTERNET HAD REACHED OUT TO ME AND SAID, HEY, WE WANT TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL. UH, TO GET FREE INTERNET TO PEOPLE. UM AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAD TO THEM, IT WAS LOOK FREE INTERNET MAY BE FINE AND MAY BE VERY IMPORTANT IN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, BUT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS PART YOU SHOULD PARTNER WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND SORT OF FIGURE OUT A HOLISTIC SOLUTION, SO IT'S WE'RE GONNA GET PEOPLE INTO THE WORK. WE'RE GONNA GET THEM DEVICES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HOME INTERNET AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CHILD CARE. I'M I'M MAKING UP THAT SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. BUT THE IDEA BEING THAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE PROBLEM MORE HOLISTICALLY, AND I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE R FA WAS THAT IT DID TEND TO GET RESPONSES THAT WERE SORT OF FOCUSED ON SINGULAR PIECES OF A PROBLEM VERSUS THE SYSTEM OF A PROBLEM. SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT? I MEAN IF I COULD SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU JUST SAID THAT THE R FA WAS IN SOME WAYS

[04:30:02]

NOT ME. DID YOU PLACE MUCH CREDENCE IN THE EVALUATIONS THAT WERE PREPARED AND DONE ON THOSE PROJECTS. I DID NOT WHY DID YOU NOT PLACE A LOT OF CREDENCE IN THE THOSE EVALUATIONS? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT CRITERIA WAS USED TO SCORE. UM I WASN'T ASKED FOR WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME AS A DECISION MAKER IN THE SCORING. UM I ACTUALLY ONLY LEARNED THROUGH MISS HANAK TESTIMONY THAT THE THREE THINGS THAT WE HAD SAID SET OUT AS THE GOALS IN THE R FA WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE SCORING. I'M SORRY, THE THREE THINGS THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH THE LOUISVILLE ACCELERATOR TEAM IN THE R FA WAS NOT ACTUALLY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IN THE SCORING. SO IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS OFFERED PREVIOUSLY THAT THE SAME SCORING WAS USED FOR ALL R FA RESPONSES ACROSS WORK STREAMS. AND IF THAT IS, IN FACT THE CASE WOULD THAT GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL CONCERN FOR THE PROJECTS THAT WERE EVALUATED? UH, THAT WERE SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE WORKFORCE. R FA. IT WOULDN'T GIVE ME ADDITIONAL CONCERN BECAUSE I DIDN'T PLACE ANY VALUE IN THE SCORING TO BEGIN WITH. IT WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T PLACE. A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE EVALUATIONS WAS AT THAT TIME YOU HAD VERY LITTLE TRUST IN THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION. I THINK THAT ONE COULD SAY THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE TIME WAS LESS THAN IDEAL. DO YOU REMEMBER A HAVING AN SITTING DOWN FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH UH INVESTIGATOR JIM GRIFFIN AS A PART OF HIS INVESTIGATION. AND DO YOU REMEMBER TELLING MR GRIFFIN THAT YOU WOULD SAY THAT THERE WAS NOT ANY TRUST BETWEEN THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION AND METRO COUNCIL. I'D PROBABLY SAID THAT AND DID YOU HAVE SUCH LITTLE TRUST IN THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION'S EVALUATIONS? BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD THEIR OWN PREFERENCES ON WHICH PROJECTS TO FUND AND THAT THEY WERE ONLY GIVING YOU INFORMATION. THAT THEY FELT WOULD SUPPORT THOSE PROJECTS. UH, I DON'T I. I THINK THERE WAS CLEARLY THAT FEELING BY MULTIPLE PEOPLE ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET. I MEAN, I REMEMBER HAVING MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE BOTH AROUND WHAT PROJECTS WERE RECOMMENDED. ALSO WHAT PROJECTS WERE DEEMED ELIGIBLE. UM, THERE WAS SOME SENSE BY FOLKS THAT IF IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATION, IT WAS ELIGIBLE. IF IT WAS NOT IMPORTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATION, THEN PROBABLY WASN'T ELIGIBLE, OR AT LEAST WASN'T PRIORITIZED AS ELIGIBLE. AND WAS THAT AN

[04:35:05]

AND DID YOU HAVE AN EXPERIENCE WITH MARGARET HANMER DURING THE WORKFORCE WORK GROUP PROCESS THAT ALSO CAUSE YOU TO PLACE LITTLE TRUST IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU WERE GETTING FROM THE LOUISVILLE ACCELERATOR TEAM. YEAH, I. I JUST I WOULD MAYBE SAY IT SLIGHTLY I. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD SAY A LITTLE TRUST RIGHT? IT JUST IT WAS EVIDENT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT WE WERE ON DIFFERENT. APPROACHES WHAT WAS THE EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAD WITH HER? THAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ON DIFFERENT PAGES. WELL, THE VERY FIRST MEETING WE HAD AS A WORK GROUP. UM SHE HAD PREPARED A MULTIPLE PAGE PRESENTATION PRESENTING TO US WHY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT WAS IMPORTANT. KEEP IN MIND. BY THAT POINT, WE ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS ONE OF THE FOUR OR FIVE PRIORITIES OF COUNCIL. DID YOU FEEL LIKE IT WAS TELLING YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU ALREADY KNEW IT? AS PART OF THE, UH, THE INTERVIEW THAT YOU DID WITH, UH, MR GRIFFIN. DO YOU REMEMBER TELLING HIM THAT THE GLOBAL ACCELERATOR TEAMS. EVALUATIONS OF THE R FA PROJECTS PROBABLY WASN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT WAS PRINTED ON. I DON'T REMEMBER SAYING THAT, BUT I PROB PROBABLY SAID THAT AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THAT COUNCILMAN PIERINI SHARE THE LOW OPINIONS OF THE LOUIS ACCELERATOR TEAMS EVALUATIONS HE DID. FOR THE SAME REASONS AS YOURS. CAN'T SPEAK TO HIS REASONS. BECAUSE OF THE LOW CONFIDENCE THAT YOU AND COUNCILMAN PIATTI HAD IN THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS. WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THEM? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION BECAUSE OF THE LOW CONFIDENCE THAT YOU AND COUNCILMAN PAGNI HAD IN THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION. AND THEY, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE R FA PROJECTS. WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS? WELL WE DIDN'T ACT ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD SAY WE DIDN'T ACT ON THEM BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF TRUST, RIGHT OR OR THE WHETHER THE SCORING WAS WHAT IT WAS OR WASN'T RIGHT. I WOULD SAY EVEN IF I HAD A LOT OF FAITH IN THE SCORING, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH ANY OF THE PROJECTS BECAUSE NONE OF THEM SORT OF FUNDAMENTALLY ADDRESSED WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS. SO UM, IT WOULD JUST I THINK IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. UM, PERSPECTIVE WE DID END UP FUNDING ONE OF THE PROJECTS. UH, WE HAD SORT OF LAUNCHED A DIFFERENT PROJECT AROUND, UM, HOMELESSNESS OUTREACH THROUGH GOODWILL. ONE OF THE INITIAL PIECES OF FEEDBACK THAT WE HAD GOTTEN FROM THEM. IN TERMS OF WHY PEOPLE WERE ON THE STREETS. PANHANDLING WAS THAT MANY OF THEM, UM, HAD CRIMINAL RECORDS. AND WERE HAVING A VERY DIFFICULT TIME GETTING INTO THE WORKFORCE.

UM AND SO THERE WAS ONE PROJECT. I BELIEVE IT WAS FROM KENTUCKY AND IT WORKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN FROM A DIFFERENT GROUP, UM, TO THE TUNE OF 1.8 OR 2.8. SOMEWHERE IN THE 1 TO $3 MILLION RANGE, UM, THAT WE FELT LIKE DIRECTLY RELATED TO FEEDBACK THAT WE WERE GETTING AT THAT TIME. AND SO WE WENT AHEAD AND FUNDED THAT PROJECT. UH, BUT REALLY ALL THE OTHERS WE SORT OF WERE HOLDING FOR. SOMETHING LARGER, OK? AND I WANT TO GET TO THAT MORE, PARTICULARLY IN JUST A SECOND, SO AND THAT'S ACTUALLY A NICE SEGUE. I MEAN, WAS IT AROUND THIS TIME? GENERALLY THAT YOU BECAME AWARE OF A HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE PROJECT THAT HAD APPLIED FOR FEDERAL FUNDING THROUGH THE ECONOMIC THE US UNITED STATES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE BUILD BACK BETTER. PROGRAM THAT IT WAS ADMINISTERING. IT WAS IN MARCH OF 22. THAT'S WHEN YOU LEARN OF THAT PROJECT. IS THAT CORRECT? HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THIS PROJECT? SO AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I WAS GOING AROUND MEETING WITH VARIOUS GROUPS TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY AND I HAD MET WITH, UM, THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT , YOU KNOW, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD SOME SORT OF RESEARCH CAMPUS? WHAT ARE OTHER AREAS THAT, UM YOU KNOW YOU MIGHT EXPLORE AND THE FEEDBACK THAT I GOT WAS, YOU KNOW THERE, SO WE WE'LL USE WEATHER SCIENCE AS AN EXAMPLE. THERE ARE OTHER UNIVERSITIES THAT SORT OF OWN THAT. AND THAT THE REAL KEY FOR THE UNIVERSITY IS HAVING RESEARCHERS BUT REALLY

[04:40:05]

[04:45:04]

IT WAS A SYSTEMATIC SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. UM IT HAD CAPITAL COMPONENTS THAT WOULD BE HERE LONG TERM AT THAT TIME. THE PROJECT IN ITS INITIAL SUBMISSION WAS A $74 MILLION PROJECT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO I BELIEVE THE FIRST ROUND IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS FOR 74 MILLION RIGHT AROUND THIS TIME. WE HAD BEEN NAMED ONE OF THE FINALIST CITIES AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM GRACE WAS PART OF THEIR CONSULTANTS WITH THAT PROJECT WAS THAT THE SWEET SPOT FOR FUNDING WAS RIGHT AROUND $50 MILLION AND SO THEY CUT $24 MILLION OUT OF THE PROJECT. UH, WHICH WAS THE A IN CENTER? UM YOU KNOW IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, PART OF IT WAS THAT WITH THE ED A GRANT, THERE WAS A STRONG FOCUS ON EQUITY. UH, AND THAT BUILDING SOMETHING NEW, UM, AND AT THE SCALE OF 7 74 MILLION WAS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN UM, WHAT SORT OF THE SWEET SPOT FOR THE ED? A GRANT WAS IN, SO THEY CUT THAT PART OUT AND SO MY SUGGESTION, UM TO HER, I DON'T KNOW IF IN THAT MEETING OR IN SUBSEQUENT WORK FORCE MEETINGS WAS YOU KNOW IF WE GET THE GRANT SHOULD WE FUND THE REMAINING 24 MILLION AND SORT OF MAKE THE PROJECT WHOLE AGAIN? UM AND IF WE DON'T GET THE GRANT, SHOULD WE JUST FUND THE 50 MILLION THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, OK, I DON'T WANT TO GET TO THAT IN JUST A MINUTE. BUT I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE AND TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT IT WAS THAT WHAT YOU LEARNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT THAT, I GUESS IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT, UH, RIGHT OFF THE BAT. YOU YOU HAD A GREAT DEGREE OF INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT. ABSOLUTELY AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW THAT IT IT COMBINED SORT OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERS. NONPROFITS FROM YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH MISS CIMER ALL DID YOU LEARN WHO WERE THE MEMBERS OF THAT PUBLIC PRIVATE, NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP, AND WHO WERE THE MEMBERS THAT YOU LEARNED ABOUT? METRO UNITED WAY METRO GOVERNMENT. GREATER LOUISVILLE INC AMPED UM URBAN LEAGUE AND THE CEO C AND THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE. AND MAYBE COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY THAT, UH, THAT GROUP OF ENTITIES WAS SO COMPELLING TO YOU IN THIS AS PART OF THIS, UH, PROJECT? SURE I MEAN, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST, I THINK IT'D BE HARD TO ARGUE THAT THOSE AREN'T SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT UM, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE IS THE PRIMARY RESEARCH UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY.

UM BETWEEN METRO UNITED WAY, UH, THE URBAN LEAGUE AND AMT. I MEAN, THOSE ARE THREE OF PROBABLY THE MOST PREMIER. I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA I DON'T WANT TO INSULT ANY OTHER, BUT THEY ARE AMONG THE MOST PREMIER. UM NONPROFITS IN OUR COMMUNITY, UM AND THEN HAVING OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARM WITH GREATER LOUISVILLE INC. UM AND THEN A INDUSTRY CLUSTER WITH THE CEO C, WHICH REPRESENTS OUR MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN THE HEALTH CARE SPACE THAT TO ME, SORT OF ALIGNS ALL OF THE, UM GROUPS THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR TO HAVE ALIGNMENT ON. AND WHAT IN YOUR THE IN THE COURSE OF DISCUSSING THIS PROJECT WITH MS CIMER AND OTHERS . WHAT DID YOU LEARN AS TO WHAT THIS COALITION WAS PROPOSING TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL FUNDING THAT IT HAD APPLIED FOR? WELL, THAT BASICALLY, THERE WERE, UM I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT TERMINOLOGY FOR THE FOUR OR FIVE FOCUS AREAS, BUT IT WAS BASICALLY, UM WRAP AROUND I MEAN THE PURPOSE OF THE UNITED WAY

[04:50:01]

DO YOU RECALL? TELLING M SIM THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO USE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS TO SUPPORT THIS COALITION PROJECT. DEFINITELY. AND DID SHE PROVIDE ADVICE TO YOU? IN RESPONSE TO THAT DESIRE? AGAIN IT'S SORT OF HARD TO REMEMBER THE EXACT CONVERSATIONS. UM SO, I. I DON'T REMEMBER. UM I AGAIN HEARD HER TESTIMONY AND I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE HER TESTIMONY. SO JUST TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT. YOU DON'T DENY THAT SHE SAID. WELL, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF I WOULD NOT ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY THAT WE ARE GOING TO BACKSTOP THE ED A BUILD BACK BETTER PROJECT WITH AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS. I'M SORRY. THAT CONVERSATION I DO SPECIFICALLY, REMEMBER, I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING WHETHER FUNDING THE PROJECT GENERALLY OR NOT, WAS IMMEDIATELY YOU'RE HOLDING THE MONEY. THE CONVERSATION ABOUT PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING THAT WE WERE HOLDING THE MONEY. GRACE MADE THAT EXPLICITLY CLEAR THAT SHE FELT LIKE IF WE CAME OUT AND SAID WE WERE HOLDING THE $50 MILLION TO FUND THIS PROJECT. INDEPENDENT OF GETTING THE FEDERAL GRANT THAT THAT WOULD HURT OUR CHANCES OF GETTING THE FEDERAL GRANT.

AND DID YOU? UH, DID YOU ACCEPT HER ADVICE? SO THEN, AFTER YOU LEARNED ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE COALITION PROJECT, DID YOU TAKE THAT IDEA AND DISCUSS IT WITH COUNCILMAN AGIN? YES. SO YOU BROUGHT THAT IDEA TO HIM? IS IT FAIR TO SAY? I THINK THAT'S FAIR TO SAY YES. AND DO YOU RECALL WHEN APPROXIMATELY THAT WAS WHEN YOU BROUGHT THIS IDEA TO HIM? PROBABLY MARCH OR APRIL. MY GUESS IS BEFORE THE APRIL 14TH EMAIL. AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT CONVERSATION. DID HE AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO USE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. DID DID YOU SPECIFICALLY PROPOSE TO HIM THAT LOOK, WE SHOULD HOLD BACK AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS AT THE WITH THE FEDERAL GRANT. IT'S CERTAINLY A CONVERSATION WE HAD. WHAT I DON'T REMEMBER IS WHAT WAS THE TIMING OF THESE THINGS, RIGHT?

[04:55:01]

I REMEMBER THE BROAD SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU, UH, WHETHER THAT WAS IN MARCH, APRIL OR MAY. PRESIDENT WINKLER. COULD YOU THERE? SO THERE IS A BINDER IN FRONT OF YOU? IT'S UH, TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY COUNCILMAN PIAGET'S EXHIBITS. DO YOU HAVE THAT BINDER IN FRONT OF YOU? DID YOU TURN TO TAB FOUR? SO THIS IS A EXHIBIT THAT IS ALREADY IN EVIDENCE. ARE YOU LOOKING AT RESPONSE EXHIBIT FOUR. YES IS THAT A EMAIL FROM MARGARET HANMER TO GRACE SALL COPYING KEN HILLEBRAND COUNCIL PAGE. YOU AND COUNCILMAN UH BILL HOLLANDER ON APRIL 14TH 2022. IT IS AND I'LL JUST READ IT REAL QUICK. AND MISS HAMME. MISS HAMMAKER TELLS, UH, MISS SIM, PLEASE DEVELOP A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE 24 MILLION WOULD BE USED. IF WE GET THE ED A GRANT ALSO YOUR BEST ASSURANCES THAT ALL OF THE PARTNERS WOULD MAKE THE SAME FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION AND WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME MANNER. IF WE DON'T GET THE ED. A GRANT AT METRO PUTS UP $50 MILLION.

PLEASE CIRCULATE IT TO THE WORK GROUP MEMBERS TODAY OR TOMORROW. THANKS DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? YOU DID. AND SO DOES THAT INDICATE TO YOU THAT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE THAT DISCUSSIONS WERE BEING UH, WERE ONGOING OR HAPPENING AT THE TIME TO HOLD BACK THE BUILD OF THE AMERICAN RISKY PLAN FUNDS, UH, AND TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE FEDERAL GRANT AT THIS TIME.

I MEAN, I THINK IT'S SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES BOTH THE IF WE GOT THE 50 MILLION, MAKING THE PROJECT WHOLE, WITH THE EXTRA 24 MILLION, WHICH GOES BACK TO THE PART THAT WAS CUT OUT, UM IN THE FINAL PROPOSAL, AS WELL AS THE 50 MILLION IF WE DON'T GET IT, SO WE OBVIOUSLY MUST HAVE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS IN THE MARCH OR EARLY APRIL TIME PERIOD. WERE THERE ANY MEETINGS OF THE WORKFORCE GROUP AFTER THAT, UNTIL BETWEEN THAT TIME AND THE TIME WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAID THAT THE ED A GRANT TO BUILD BACK BETTER GRANT WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, I. I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER WE MET OR NOT, I KNOW THERE WAS ONCE OR TWICE.

WE GOT A RANDOM EMAIL FROM MISS HANNAH BAKER, MISS HAN BAKER. THAT SAID, YOU KNOW. OH, I CAME ACROSS THIS PROPOSAL. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK? UH I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT WE MET ON THAT OR NOT, BUT I WOULD SAY IT'S FAIR TO SAY, UM WE RARELY IF EVER MET , UM AND PROBABLY THOSE WERE HANDLED VIA EMAIL WOULD BE MY GUESS. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT AS OF THIS TIME? CERTAINLY.

YOURSELF AND COUNCILOR AGNI HAD THE INTENT OF HOLDING BACK THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE FEDERAL GRANT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE WHOLE WORK GROUP YES, INCLUDING MC AND MISS HAMMAKER. I THINK THAT THE DIRECTION WAS CLEAR. AND SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT? BASED UPON THE ADVICE THAT YOU GOT FROM MISS CIMER ALL THAT THE WORK GROUP DID NOT ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY THAT IT WAS HOLDING THESE FUNDS BACK PENDING THE FEDERAL GRANT CORRECT. WOULD YOU SAY THAT? AS BETWEEN YOURSELF AND COUNCILMAN PENTTI. IT WAS YOU WHO TOOK THE LEAD TO ON BEHALF OF THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT WORK GROUP TO PUSH THIS PROJECT FORWARD THE FOR FUNDING THE PROJECT THROUGH AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY FAIR TO SAY. WHEN DID YOU LEARN THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION HAD DECIDED NOT TO AWARD FUNDS TO THE HEALTH CARE COALITION THROUGH THE BUILD BACK, BETTER PROJECT. I BELIEVE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT. IT WAS EITHER AUGUST 30TH OR SEP. I THINK IT WAS AUGUST 30TH. IT WAS AUGUST 30TH OR SEPTEMBER 1ST. HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THAT? THAT THAT THAT THAT THAT DECISION HAD BEEN MADE, SO ORIGINALLY I GOT A TEXT ACTUALLY FROM MARY ELLEN WEEDER WALD THAT SAID, WE DID NOT GET THE ED A GRANT. WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER LEARNING THAT THE ED A GRANT HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED? STARTED WORKING TOWARDS, UM GETTING THE $50 MILLION FUNDING FOR US TO DO THE ED A GRANT. AND WHAT DID YOU DO IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT OBJECTIVE? UH PROBABLY REACHED OUT TO EITHER GRACE OR TAMMY YORK DAY, UM, TO GET THE PROCESS ROLLING TO GET A FORMAL PROPOSAL, UM PULLED TOGETHER. DO

[05:00:15]

[05:05:01]

YEAH. I ACTUALLY ONLY LEARNED IN THE TESTIMONY IN THIS HEARING THAT THERE WERE, UM THAT THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COALITION WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN POSITIVE. CERTAINLY THEY DIDN'T VOICE ANY CONCERNS OVER ELIGIBILITY AT THAT TIME TODAY. AGAIN BROADLY SPEAKING, THE I THINK THE VOICE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD NOT COMPLETED THE ELIGIBILITY. UM AND IN FAIRNESS, I WILL SAY THEY DID VOICE CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMPED COMPONENT SPECIFICALLY, UH, BECAUSE THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT USING A RP TO BUILD A CAPITAL PROJECT. UM, IT WAS THE SAME

[05:10:02]

EXHIBITS BINDER. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY TO PROCEED. OK? UM IS THIS AN EMAIL THAT MISS YORK DAY SENT TO YOU? ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28TH 2022 WITH THE SUBJECT CEO C AND COALITION PARTNER ARPA PROPOSED PROPOSAL, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IT IS. DO YOU KNOW WHY SHE SENT THAT TO YOU? UH, BECAUSE I ASKED HER TO WHAT IN WHAT IN PARTICULAR? DID YOU ASK HER TO DO SO IN EARLY SEPTEMBER IS WHEN WE DID NOT GET THE ED A GRANT? I HAD ASKED COUNCILMAN HOLLANDER.

IF WE COULD HAVE THE CEO C, COME AND SPEAK TO A BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING. UM ABOUT THEIR PROPOSAL . UM BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT WE PLANNED TO FUND. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT SOMETHING LARGE AND COMPLEX THAT YOU HAVING THEM COME AND PRESENT ON WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS PROBABLY THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. MOVE TO ADMIT RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT 10 INTO EVIDENCE. SO WE. I BELIEVE WE CAN SEE THE EMAIL THE SEPTEMBER 28TH EMAIL THAT MISS YOUR DAY SENT TO YOU AND SO ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS EMAIL? I AND SO JUST TELL ME GENERALLY WHAT WHAT IS M YOUR DAY DOING IN THIS EMAIL? I MEAN, WHEN YOU SAY WHAT IT SHOULD IS SHE PROVIDING INFORMATION TO YOU ABOUT THIS? AND SHE'S PROVIDING AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AS TO WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS CORRECT. WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL? I DON'T REMEMBER. SPECIFICALLY I PROBABLY SENT IT TO GRACE AND MARGARET TO DRAFT THE LEGISLATION, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THAT EXPLICITLY.

ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL IS, IN FACT, THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THAT IS THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL THAT MISS YORK DAY SENT YOU IT IS BUT CLEARLY. IS IT TWO PAGES LONG IT IS. DID YOU REVIEW THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHEN YOU RECEIVED IT? I I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF I REVIEWED IT EXACTLY WHEN I RECEIVED IT, BUT, YES, I DID REVIEW IT. HOW ABOUT THIS AFTER YOU RECEIVED IT AT SOME POINT DID YOU REVIEW THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY? I DID. AND DID THE DOES THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE THE MEMBERS OF THE HEALTH HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE INNOVATION COALITION. IT DOES AND ARE THE MEMBERS OF THAT COALITION, THE SAME PEOPLE OR THE SAME GROUPS THAT WERE A PART OF THE COALITION THAT APPLIED FOR BUILD BACK BETTER FUNDS. THEY ARE AND DOES THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE THE COMPONENTS? OF THIS PROPOSAL. THE WORK THAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THE $40 MILLION IN AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS. IT DOES. AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN GENERALLY? JUST WHAT AGAIN. THIS PROPOSAL WAS GOING TO DO WITH THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS.

I MEAN, BROADLY SPEAKING. GET PEOPLE FROM OUR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES INTO THE WORKFORCE.

HELP TRAIN THEM FOR, UM ONE GET THEM INTO HEALTH CARE JOBS PROVIDE WRAPAROUND SERVICES, UM, SO THAT THEY CAN ENTER THE WORKFORCE, UH, PROVIDE THEM CAREER TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES.

UM AND THEN THERE WAS A, UM SORT OF THIS. THIS DATA AND INNOVATION CLUSTER FOCUSED ON

[05:15:02]

PRESIDENT WINKLER. COULD YOU PLEASE TURN TO TAB 12 IN THE RESPONDENTS. UH, FINDER OF RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY. GOT IT. OK, YOU SEE A DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN MARKED AS RESPOND AS EXHIBIT NUMBER 12. I DO OK. AND IS THAT AN EMAIL FROM MISS YOUR DAY? ON OCTOBER 14TH 2022 TO YOURSELF. COUNCILMAN PIERINI COPYING JOSH WILLIAMS. IT IS AND JUST FOR THE RECORD WHO IS JOSH WILLIAMS. I COULDN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY HIS ROLE. IS HE EMPLOYEE OF THE CEO COUNCIL? I BELIEVE SO. MOVE TO ADMIT RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT 12. OBJECTION. SO MOVED.

SO IN THIS OCTOBER. 14TH 2022 EMAIL MISS YOUR DAY. RIGHTS TO YOURSELF, AND COUNCILMAN GENINI DEAR COUNCILMAN PITI AND WINKLER. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND BUDGET FOR THE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE COALITION PROPOSAL. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING. LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND. TAMMY DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? YOU DID, AND SO ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL. IS AN EXECUTIVE. AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT. IS THAT CORRECT? IS IT IS IT? PRETTY IS IT SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSAL? THAT SHE, UH, THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THAT YOU PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY ON SEPTEMBER 28TH. I BELIEVE SO. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THERE'S ACTUALLY A BUDGET. THAT IS ATTACHED. AS WELL AS THERE THERE IS. DO YOU KNOW WHY SHE WAS SENDING THIS EMAIL TO YOU? UH, BEEN OUT OF CONTEXT. I DON'T IF I HAD TO SPECULATE IT, PROBABLY BECAUSE WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO, UM FILING OR FINALIZING THE, UM ORDINANCE.

NOW MISS SIM HAS CHARACTERIZED THIS PROJECT AS PERTAINING TO LOW INCOME OR ENTRY LEVEL NURSES. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION? I DON'T WHY IS THAT? I THINK THERE IS CERTAINLY A COMPONENT OF GETTING PEOPLE INTO THE WORKFORCE. BUT THERE IS NUMBER ONE, A FOCUS ON GETTING PEOPLE INTO CAREER LEVEL JOBS. UM AND THEN THE ENTIRE FOCUS OF AMT IS ON TRAINING PEOPLE FOR HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY JOBS, UH, AND GETTING THEM INTO HIGH PAYING JOBS AS WELL. SO FOR THOSE OF US WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WHO DON'T LIVE IN THAT WORLD, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO BE? HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY JOBS? CAN YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT INCLUDES DATA SCIENTISTS. DATA. ANALYSTS, UM I KNOW THAT THEY DO WORK. UM, WITH LIKE, UH, SALESFORCE.COM CERTIFICATIONS AND TRAININGS. THERE'S YOU KNOW. I MEAN, THESE ARE ALL TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE USED IN A NUMBER OF INDUSTRIES. UM BUT I KNOW. SPECIFIC FOCUS IS ON, UM TECHNOLOGY. THE AMPS.

FOCUS IS NOT ON HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY. IT'S ON TECHNOLOGY BROADLY, BUT THIS PORTION WAS FOCUSED ON HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY. AND I KNOW THEY'VE GOT A PARTNERSHIP WITH HUMANA AS AN EXAMPLE. AND, UM YOU KNOW, GET PEOPLE INTO INTO THOSE DATA SCIENCE JOBS AS WELL. IT WAS PART OF THIS ALSO TO PROVIDE CAREER PATHWAYS SO THAT PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE ENTRY LEVEL POSITIONS WOULD HAVE A PATH TOWARDS A HIGHER PAYING JOB AND THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY. I

[05:20:05]

AND WERE YOU SATISFIED THAT THE INFORMATION THAT SHE PROVIDED UM PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR YOU TO F THE LEGISLATION TO MOVE THE LEGISLATION THROUGH METRO COUNCIL. YEAH AND ALSO TO HAVE THEM COME AND PRESENT AT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. UM ON THEIR PROPOSAL DID YOU EVER WAS THERE EVER A TIME WHERE YOU ASKED HER FOR INFORMATION FOR THIS PROPOSAL, WHERE SHE DID NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. MR SMITH? YES I MIGHT JUST BE A GOOD TIME FOR US TO BREAK FOR 10 MINUTES. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT TIME TO BREAK. YES THANK YOU. LET'S LET'S BREAK AND BE BACK AT 225. THANK YOU. IN THE WATER. I.

[05:29:35]

[05:35:26]

[05:35:48]

AND WHEN DID YOU AND COUNCILMAN PITI ISSUE THIS PRESS RELEASE? OCTOBER 25TH 2022 DO YOU REMEMBER WHY YOU AND COUNCILMAN PIERINI ISSUED THIS PRESS RELEASE. I DO WHY SO THE TWO REASONS ONE I THINK THE COUNCIL HAD RELEASED PRESS RELEASES ON ALL OF THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCES WHEN, WHEN A RP ORDINANCES WERE WERE ISSUED, BUT KEEP IN MIND DURING THIS TIME, AS I TESTIFIED EARLIER, WE WERE REALLY DOWN TO THEAST OF THE A RP FUNDS AND PEOPLE WERE STARTING TO, UM SORT OF DRAW THEIR LINES ON THINGS THEY WANTED TO GET FUNDED. AND SO THE DAY BEFORE THIS PRESS RELEASE, I KNOW COUNCIL. DORSEY AT THE TIME ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE ON THE REVERSING REDLINING PROPOSAL THAT SHE WANTED FUNDED AND I BELIEVE A WEEK OR SO. PRIOR TO THIS, COUNCILWOMAN FOWLER HAD A PRESS RELEASE AND A PRESS CONFERENCE FOR, UM, SECURING FUNDING FOR THE ST MARY ELIZABETH HOSPITAL. SO YOU STARTED TO HAVE PEOPLE SORT OF DRAWING LINES IN THE SAND TO STAKE OUT, UH, THE PROJECTS THAT THEY FOCUSED ON DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY TESTIFY THAT COUNCILWOMAN FOWLER THE PREVIOUS WEEK? HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE ON A PROPOSAL PROPOSED USE OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS FOR IS THAT THE BIRTHING CENTER? I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. SO DEFINITELY FOR THE BIRTHING CENTER. I BELIEVE IT WAS A WEEK OR SO PRIOR TO THE THERE WAS ALL SORT OF IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD, OK? FORMER COUNCILMAN BILL HOLLANDER

[05:40:04]

IT IS NOT. PRESIDENT WINKLER. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS CRITICIZED COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI FOR SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE HEALTH CARE COALITION GRANT AND NOT DISCLOSING THAT THE FISHER NOT DISCLOSING THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION'S SCORING OF THE C OS $9.2 MILLION PROJECT. DID YOU SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE $40 MILLION GRANT FOR THE HEALTHCARE COALITION AT THE NOVEMBER 3RD BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING. I DID. I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PLAY WHAT WE HAVE MARKED AS RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 17 VIDEO FROM NO. THE NO. NOVEMBER 3RD 2022 BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING. WE CAN PULL THAT UP. OK? YOU SEE THAT WHERE IT SAYS NOVEMBER NOVEMBER.

3RD 2022 THE BOTTOM, RIGHT? WE'RE SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS NOVEMBER 3RD 2022 BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING. OK, MIKE, COULD YOU PLEASE FAST FORWARD TO APPROXIMATELY MINUTE UH 2736 OR 2730. THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR RUSSELL STATION ON THE JOB TRAINING AND STIPENDS AND THE, UM ASSETS, THE LAPTOPS AND HOTSPOTS THAT ARE NEEDED, UH, FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THIS TRAINING, UM AND SO THAT PUTS THE GRAND TOTAL AT RIGHT AT THAT 40 MILLION THAT WAS REFERENCED. SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA STOP AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SEE, FIRST OF ALL, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, ASK MY PARTNERS, UH, AND COALITION PARTNERS, UH, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD IN A WEEK. THANK YOU, CHAIR, HOLLANDER. AN UM, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. AND UH, FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK ON THI PROJECT, I THINK YOU KNOW, I WANT TO GIVE JUST EVERYBODY A TTLE B OFISTO. IEAN, THIS PJECTNITILY W SUBMTED THRGH FAL GRT APPTI. ER ST. U AS WORK GROUP, WE GOTXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY AND AT THE TIME SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO HOLD BACK MONEY FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. IF THE FEDERAL GRANT DOES NOT WORK OUT, UM, BECAUSE THIS WE THINK IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO ALL IN ON A SECTOR. UM THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR ECONOMY AND FOR THE LONG TERM GROWTH OF OUR CITY, AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING IT TODAY. I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I JUST WANNA TOUCH ON. UM YOU KNOW, FIRST OF A I, I THINK THAT THE WHAT I THINK THIS PROGRAM REPRESENTS IS A GREAT BALANCE BETWEEN A PUBLIC PRIVATE AND NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP. UH, WE'RE REALLY BRINGING ALL THREE OF THOSE GROUPS TOGETHER TO COLLECTIVELY SOLVE A PROBLEM. I THINK THE FACT THAT IT IS SELF SUFFICIENT, UH, WITHIN 3 TO 5 YEARS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. THIS DOESN'T REPRESENT, UH, ONGOING COSTS TO THE METRO. UH, AND IN FACT, I'D PROBABLY ARGUE THAT THAT THIS ULTIMATELY WILL GET PAID BACK IN DIVIDENDS WITH THIS PROGRAM, BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE OCCUPATIONAL TAX THAT'S GENERATED OF A 3500 NET NEW JOBS, I THINK THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. UM THE OTHER PIECE I WANNA TOUCH ON IS YOU KNOW WE HEAR ALL THE TIME ABOUT THE WORKFORCE CRISIS, PARTICULARLY IN HEALTH CARE. UM YOU KNOW, THERE IS AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY NOW OF TRAVELING NURSES WHO BASICALLY GO FROM CITY TO CITY. UM WHERE THEY GET THE BEST OFFER BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH A SHORTAGE, AND WE HAVEN'T DEVELOPED THE TALENT. UM NOT JUST HERE IN LOUISVILLE, BUT REALLY ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND I THINK BEING THE EPICENTER, UM OF HEALTH, HEALTH CARE, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. UH, SETS US UP. NOT JUST WITH THIS PROGRAM, BUT REALLY WITH A N. WHATEVER ANCILLARY PROGRAMS COULD BE DEVELOPED OFF OF THAT, TO REALLY SERVE AS A NATIONAL MODEL. UM THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK IS EXCITING ABOUT THIS WHEN YOU LAYER THIS ON TOP OF THE WORK HAPPENING IN IN NEW WITH OUR SORT OF TECH HUB. THAT'S THERE, UH, THE LED AND THE HAYMARKET SQUARE INVESTMENT THAT U OF L IS MAKING, UH, YOU LAYER ON TOP OF THAT THE ENVIRONMENTS AND THE RESEARCH UNIVERSITY THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY. UH AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THIS. ANCHORING IT IN

[05:45:01]

UH AND I THINK THAT IS ULTIMATELY THE BETTER WAY OF SOLVING IT BECAUSE IT'S BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EARNING THE MONEY. UH, IT'S MUCH MORE COST-EFFECTIVE. BECAUSE I THINK YOU KNOW, COUNCILMAN ARTHUR FREQUENTLY CITES THIS SHEER. UM UH, A AMOUNT OF TIME AND MONEY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEED JUST BASED ON OUR CURRENT FUNDING LEVEL COUNCIL.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 1000 YEARS. UM BASED ON OUR CURRENT FUNDING LEVELS, IF I'VE HEARD HEARD YOU SAY THAT CORRECTLY, UM, 3000 YEARS. I'M SORRY. I WAS OFF BY BY TWO MILLENNIA. UM BUT IF WE CAN HAVE 5000 PEOPLE LESS, UH EARNING 80% AMI, UM WE MAKE A HUGE DENT IN OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROBLEM. UM AND I THINK THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A GREAT PART OF THIS PROGRAM. SO I APPLAUD YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. UH AND HOPE, UH, EVERYBODY WILL SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. OK, YOU CAN STOP THE VIDEO THERE LIKE PRESIDENT WINKLER DID THAT FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT, UH, THOSE ARE YOUR REMARKS THAT SUMMARIZED YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE $40 MILLION ART PROJECT FOR THIS HEALTH CARE COALITION. IT DOES. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID, UH, IN THAT STATEMENT WAS THAT YOU HEAR ALL THE TIME ABOUT THIS HEALTH AND REMIND US JUST VERY BRIEFLY. WHAT WAS WHAT IS THE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE CRISIS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY AND YOU COULD GO BACK, I THINK I TALKED ABOUT WORKFORCE CRISIS GENERALLY, UH, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT. I SAID THAT IT WAS THE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE CRISIS . BUT KEEP IN MIND. THIS WAS DURING 2022 WHERE YOU KNOW ANY LIKE THE AMOUNT OF JOB OPENINGS IN AMERICA EXCEEDED THE SUPPLY OF LABOR BY I FORGET HOW MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SO IT WAS IT SO BASICALLY A SHORTAGE OF LABOR REALLY IN ALL INDUSTRIES, BUT CERTAINLY HEALTH CARE SPECIFICALLY, UM, AND IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ON COUNCIL AS IT RELATES TO LIKE I. I KNOW IT'S COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES WITH LIKE THE FAMILY HEALTH CENTER AS AN EXAMPLE, UM, WHERE THEY HAD TO CLOSE THE FACILITY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH NURSES TO STAFF. IT. AND FROM YOUR TIME, UH, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE ON METRO COUNCIL, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE WORKFORCE CRISIS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS SOMETHING THAT IS RECOGNIZED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLES, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT AS AN IMPORTANT CHALLENGE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED? I THINK THAT I THINK YOU'D BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T THINK GETTING PEOPLE INTO THE WORKFORCE IS IMPORTANT, UH, FOR THE CITY, AND SO WOULD YOU.

WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THAT IS A AN ISSUE THAT IS A BIPARTISAN CONCERN? BROADLY SPEAKING. I WOULD SAY SO. WHEN SPEAKING ABOUT THE $40 MILLION ART PROJECT. DID YOU EVER MENTION THAT THE APPLICATION THAT THE CEO COUNCIL SUBMITTED FOR $9.2 MILLION IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR, UH APPLICATIONS FROM THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION. THAT THAT PROJECT RANKED 29TH OUT OF 30TH. THAT I DID NOT. WHY DID YOU NOT MENTION THAT? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING. ARE DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE GRANT OR THE PROJECTS. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH I MEAN, I THINK THEY'RE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT AND SO I MEAN IT IT IT'S LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES. MAYBE. JUST COULD YOU HELP EXPLAIN WHY YOU VIEW THIS AS BEING APPLES AND ORANGES FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. SURE I MEAN, THE YOU HAD SO AGAIN. I'VE ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THE FACT THAT THE SCORING IN AND OF ITSELF DID NOT HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF RELEVANCY. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BRING IT UP REGARDLESS BECAUSE I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE IN THE SCORING. UM SECONDARILY, YOU HAD WHAT WAS SCORED WAS ONE SMALL PROJECT. UM WHAT WAS FUNDED WAS A COALITION THAT BROUGHT TOGETHER THE OTHER PARTNERS. AMPED, YOU KNOW, WAY, URBAN LEAGUE ET CETERA. SO WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION'S RANKING OF THAT $9.2 MILLION PROJECT WE'RE NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE METRO COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF

[05:50:02]

I CAN'T ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT DID I DRAFT THE PRESS RELEASE? DID THE, UM COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR DRAFT THE PRESS RELEASE II I CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. BUT I WOULD I WOULD SAY IT WOULD NOT BE UNCOMMON. SO LET'S MOVE FORWARD IN TIME FOR A SECOND, UM DO YOU RECALL? A TIME WHEN METRO COUNCIL CONSIDERED A PROPOSAL AUTHORIZED THE FILING OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN TINI IN RELATION TO HIS ACTIVITIES CONCERNING THE ARP GRANT. THE AND JUST WHEN, WHEN APPROXIMATELY WAS THAT RESOLUTION CONSIDERED? I BELIEVE MARCH OF 23. AND WAS IT THE WA WAS THE PROPOSAL FOR THE COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT OF THE METRO COUNCIL TO FILE A COMPLAINT. CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY, WAS THE RESOLUTION PROPOSING? TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT OF METRO COUNCIL. TO FILE A COMPLAINT.

THE RESOLUTION THEY GOT PAST WAS, UM SENDING THE MATTER TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THE, UM AT THE MATTER. DID YOU FACE? UH DID ANYONE ATTEMPT TO APPLY POLITICAL PRESSURE UPON YOU TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN PIERINI? I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD DESCRIBE IT THAT WAY. DO YOU REMEMBER? TALKING TO JIM GRIFFIN DURING YOUR INTERVIEW ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION, I DO. AND DO YOU REMEMBER TELLING HIM THAT SOMEONE SAID SOMEONE TOLD YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT REALLY A DEMOCRAT. IF YOU'RE NOT FILING THIS, I DO. DO YOU REMEMBER WHO WAS APPLYING THIS PRESSURE ON YOU? I DON'T AND I REMEMBER I BELIEVE IN MY TESTIMONY TO MR GRIFFIN. I SAID THAT THERE WERE IT WAS REALLY IN CONTEXT OF PRESSURE ALL AROUND. THERE WAS PRESSURE FROM PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE THAT SAID, IF YOU FILE THIS RESOLUTION WILL START TAKING ACTION AGAINST DEMOCRATS AND FILE UH, CORRESPONDING COMPLAINTS. SO REALLY THE CON. I THINK THE ANSWER WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF SORT OF A LARGER QUESTION. UM JUST AROUND SORT OF THE PRESSURE TO DO SOMETHING, BUT YOU DON'T DENY THAT SOMEBODY MADE AN APPEAL TO YOU THAT TO YOUR TO YOUR POLITICAL PARTY THAT YOU'RE NOT A TRUE DEMOCRAT. IF YOU DON'T FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI AND ON THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL. DO YOU REMEMBER TESTIFYING AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING THAT THERE'S PROBABLY SOME MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY CAUCUS WHO ARE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT IF YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT, YOU SHOULD FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN PIERINI. IT'S SAID IT'S PROBABLY LIKELY. AND WAS ANY MEMBER OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. A PERSON WHO MADE THIS APPEAL TO YOUR POLITICAL PARTY TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI. I DON'T REMEMBER WHO SAID IT, SO I DON'T KNOW.

[05:55:15]

TO ATTEND THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE IN 2022. I WAS NOT AWARE UNTIL MR GRIFFIN BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION. LET'S UM IF YOU COULD TURN TO TAB NINE AND THE RESPONDENTS, BINDER MHM. BE THERE. BAM! IS THAT, UH, AN EMAIL FROM AMELIA PRIEST TO YOU DATED SEPTEMBER 14TH 2022 THE SUBJECT OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 21ST TO 22ND. IT IS AND IF YOU IF YOU READ THROUGH IT IS SHE EXTENDING TO YOU AN INVITATION? TO ATTEND THAT CONFERENCE. IT APPEARS THAT WAY, OK, BUT YOU'RE BUT YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT YOU DO NOT SEE THIS EMAIL WHEN IT WAS WHEN IT WAS SENT TO YOU. NO, THAT'S NOT MY TESTIMONY. I PROBABLY SAW IT. I DIDN'T READ IT. I DON'T KNOW WHO AMELIA PRIEST IS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE IS, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE. I PROBABLY AMONG OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL GET INVITED TO LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF THINGS. AND SO IF I HAVE NO IDEA WHO SOMEBODY IS OR WHAT THE CONTEXT IS PROBABLY I DIDN'T EVEN READ IT. FAIR ENOUGH, BUT YOU DON'T DENY THAT THE INVITATION WAS EXTENDED TO YOU.

IS THAT FAIR TO SAY AGAIN? I LEARNED THAT THE INVITATION WAS EXTENDED TO ME THROUGH MR GRIFFIN. I HAD NO IDEA THAT THE INVITATION WAS EXTENDED. MOVE TO ADMIT RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT NINE SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY IF YOU DIDN'T IF YOU DON'T REALLY RECALL THIS EMAIL OR THE INVITATION DID YOU GO TO THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE THAT YEAR? I DID NOT DO. DID YOU INSTEAD GO TO A CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY GREATER LITTLE INC CALLED THE GLIDE CONFERENCE? UH, I, I THINK I WOULD PHRASE IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY. I WENT TO GLIDE, WHICH IS A TRIP THAT COUNCIL PAYS TO GO TO. OK THAT'S AND THAT'S PAID FOR BY, UH, ALLOCATIONS WITHIN METRO COUNCILS PAID ULTIMATELY BY THE TAXPAYERS FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO THAT CONFERENCE. AND DO. LOCAL BUSINESS LEADERS ATTEND THAT CONFERENCE. AND DO LOBBYISTS ATTEND THAT CONFERENCE? UH, THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME LOBBYISTS THERE. YES. AND IT DOES GL. I LEADERSHIP ATTEND THAT CONFERENCE. THEY DO. AND SO IF THE TAXPAYERS PICKED UP THE BILL FOR THAT YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THAT CONFERENCE IS FAIR TO SAY YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY PAY FOR THAT CONFERENCE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT? AND IN THE FOLLOWING BUDGET YEAR DID YOU VOTE FOR A BUDGET THAT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FUNDING FOR GL? UH I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THERE WAS A GL. I ALLOCATION THERE THAT VERY LIKELY COULD BE THE CASE. OK AND I WANNA BE. I DON'T DENY THAT THAT'S THE CASE.

LOOK, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS WHAT GL IS FUNDED AT OR WHEN, AND I DON'T AND I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ABOUT THIS. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT YOU DID ANYTHING WRONG, BUT NO ONE HAS ACCUSED YOU OF DOING ANYTHING WRONG BY GOING TO THE GL CONFERENCE AND THEN VOTING TO INCREASE AN ALLOCATION FOR GL. I IN A LATER BUDGET IS THAT FAIR TO SAY, I THINK THAT'S FAIR TO SAY. JUST ONE SECOND.

PRESIDENT WINKLER. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. I JUST WANNA, UM I JUST WANT TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I THINK I'VE HEARD TODAY. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT IN THE IN THE APPROXIMATELY MARCH TIME FRAME 2022 THAT YOU LEARNED OF THE HEALTHCARE COALITION'S SUBMISSION OF, UM $50 MILLION TO THE BUILD BACK BETTER, UH, GRANT PROJECT. I APOLOGIZE THAT I COUGHED WHEN YOU SAID THERE A TIME PERIOD. SO IF YOU COULD REPEAT, IS IT IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IN APPROXIMATELY MARCH OF 2022 YOU LEARNED THAT THE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE COALITION HAD APPLIED FOR APPROXIMATELY $50 MILLION IN FUNDING THROUGH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION FOR THE BUILD BACK, BETTER PROJECT THAT'S ACCURATE, AND YOU BEEN LEARNING THAT YOU WENT TO COUNCILMAN PAGNI ADVISED HIM INFORMED HIM OF THIS PROJECT AND PROPOSED SETTING ASIDE BUT A RP FUNDING. IN THE EVENT THAT FEDERAL FUNDS DID NOT COME

[06:00:08]

THANK YOU. MR WINKLER AT ANY TIME DURING 2021 OR 2022. DID MR GENINI TELL YOU THAT HE WAS TALKING TO THE CEO COUNSEL ABOUT TAKING A JOB THERE? HE DID NOT THE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN THAT MR PITI MET WITH TAMMY OR DAY IN NOVEMBER, 2021 ABOUT A JOB. AND HE SENT HER A RESUME. UH, THROUGH APPROACH ON THAT, PLEASE.

PRESIDENT WINKLER. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? YES SIR. SO THE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN THAT MR PAGE AND T MET WITH TAMMY YORK DAY IN NOVEMBER, 2021 ABOUT TRYING TO FIND A JOB WITH THE CEO C, AND HE SENT HER A RESUME THROUGH A FRIEND AT THAT TIME, ROB GIVENS AND THROUGH SENT HER ANOTHER RESUME IN JANUARY. 2021. DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY? I DO? AND YOU TOLD MR GRIFFIN WHEN YOU WERE BEING INTERVIEWED THAT MR PEDINI SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED HIS INTEREST IN GETTING A JOB THERE, QUOTE AS SOON AS I STARTED TALKING TO AN ENTITY AND THIS WAS A POSSIBILITY. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? PROBABLY AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT, SIR, THAT YOU SHOULD DISCLOSE IT AT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.