[00:09:07]
          ONE METRO TV. 
          [Call to Order]
          [00:10:19]
THIS IS THE MARCH 18TH 2022 24 MEETING OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL COURT MEETING IN THE 
          [00:10:25]
MATTER OF THE REMOVAL CHARGES AGAINST COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PINI, PLEASE COME TO ORDER. THE TIME IS CURRENTLY 3:05 P.M. THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO CRS, 61, 826 AND COUNCIL RULE 
          [Roll Call]
FIVE. A UH PLEASE CALL US THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT ANY COUNCIL MEMBER THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY PRESENT, UH, HAS BEEN AN EXCUSE. ABSENT FROM EXCUSED HARDY. UH, ALSO JOINING US ARE THE LAWYERS FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHO REPRESENT THE COUNCIL COURT. UH THE COUNCILS FOR BOTH THE CHARGING COMMITTEE AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE PRESENT. UH, 
          [Agenda]
COUNCILS. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AGAIN. FOR THE RECORD. WE'LL START WITH MR SMITH TODAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR WINKLER, KENT WICKER AND KAYLA CAMPBELL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. WELCOME. AS WE BEGIN, PLEASE REMEMBER TO SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO YOUR MICROPHONE TO ENSURE THAT YOUR STATEMENTS ARE ACCURATELY HEARD AND REPORTED BY THE COURT REPORTER, THE CLERK MUST TRACK ANY MEMBER THAT DOES NOT PARTICIPATE AGAIN. FOR, UH, TODAY AT THE CLOSING HEAR WAS PROBABLY NOT VERY TO, UH, TRACKING. AND UH BUT IF YOU ARE A VIRTUAL PARTICIPANT, YOU MUST KEEP YOUR CAMERA ON THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, OR YOU REQUIRED TO SIGN THE ATTESTATION. I GUESS IF YOU'RE EN ROUTE, UH WE'LL HAVE AN ATTESTATION FOR YOU. 
          MEMBERS OF THE COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF OUR LAST MEETING ON TUESDAY, MARCH, 12TH, BOTH 
          [1. ID 24-0104     Removal Hearing Proceedings]
PARTIES RESTED THEIR CASE AND THE EVIDENCE EVIDENTIARY RECORD WAS CLOSED. TODAY WE MEET TO HEAR CLOSING ARGUMENTS, AFTER WHICH THE COUNCIL COURT WERE ATTIRE FOR DELIBERATIONS IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. COUNCILS WILL NOW START CLOSING ARGUMENTS BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS A WEEK AGO, YOU BOTH INDICATED THAT YOU'LL NEED AN HOUR OR LESS, SO WE'LL HAVE CLOSING ARGUMENTS RIGHT AROUND AN HOUR EACH. UM BEFORE WE BEGIN ANY QUESTIONS FROM EITHER ONE OF YOU THERE WAS, UH ONE OR TWO HOUSEKEEPING OR PROCEDURAL MATTERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AT THE B BEFORE WE BEGIN IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. 
          [00:17:34]
UH, MR SMITH. MR SWANBERG, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. CHAIR WINKLER. 
          WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, MR SWANS WILL DELIVER THE CLOSING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCILMAN PITI. 
          MR CHAIR. I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST BY THE WAY TO KEEP MYSELF AT THE HOUR. A FEW WEEKS AGO BEFORE THIS MULTI WEEK TRIAL BEGAN. I PICKED UP MY SON FROM SOCCER PRACTICE, AND I ASKED HIM HOW HIS PRACTICE WENT, AS I CUSTOMARILY DO. AND IN RESPONSE, HE TOLD ME ABOUT A NEW PAIR OF CLEATS HIS MOTHER HAD PURCHASED FOR HIM THE WEEK BEFORE, AND HOW ONCE HE WORE THOSE CLEATS TO PRACTICE, HE WAS IN HIS WORDS WRECKING HIS TEAMMATES. NOW I'M NOT A COOL FATHER. BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERM WRECKING MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT. 
          BUT I PERCEIVED IT TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT OF HIS PLAY, AND I THOUGHT IT FUNNY THAT HE SUDDENLY SAW HIMSELF AS THE NEXT LIONEL MESSI BECAUSE OF A PAIR OF SHOES. SO I ASKED HIM SOME QUESTIONS. THE SHOES MAKE YOU FASTER? NO. DO THE SHOES ALLOW YOU TO SEE THE PLAYS UNFOLD BETTER. NO. TO THE SHOES, IMPROVE YOUR DECISION MAKING ON THE FIELD. NO. AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH I TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS IMPROVEMENT MIGHT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY NUMBER OF OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE SLEEP, HEALTHIER, EATING MORE EXPERIENCE WITH HIS COACHES AND HIS TEAMMATES, HE INSISTED REPEATEDLY AND UNAPOLOGETICALLY. NO, DAD. YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. NOW I CAN SEE THAT MY SON'S ACQUISITION OF THESE NEW SHOES AND HAS IMPROVED PLAY COINCIDED WITH EACH OTHER AS A MATTER OF TIME, IE THE CORRELATED WITH EACH OTHER. BUT WHAT MY SON DID NOT REALIZE IN THAT MOMENT WAS THAT HE FAILED TO PROVE TO ME THAT HIS SHOES ACTUALLY CAUSED HIS BETTER PLAY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE WERE SO MANY OTHER FACTORS IN PLAY AT THE SAME TIME. THIS. THERE'S A FANCY TERM FOR THIS LOGICAL FALLACY. POST HOC ERGO PROCTOR HAW, WHICH MEANS AFTER THIS, THEREFORE BECAUSE OF THIS NOW MY SON CAN BE FORGIVEN. HE'S ONLY A 
          [00:20:06]
KID. AS ADULTS, PROFESSIONALS AND LEADERS. HOWEVER, WE SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD. 
          MORE SHOULD BE EXPECTED OF US THAN SIMPLY FALLING FOR AND PERPETUATING SUCH LOGICAL ERRORS. BUT IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION, THE LAST THREE WEEKS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THAT'S EXACTLY HOW THE CHARGING COMMITTEE EXPECTS TO DUPE YOU. 
          FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. THE ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST COUNCILMAN PITI HAVE SOUNDED SOMETHING LIKE QUOTE COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI ACQUIRED A HIGH PAYING CONTRACT WITH THE CEO C AFTER HE SUPPORTED AN ART FUNDING PROPOSAL THAT BENEFIT THE CEO C. THEREFORE HE OBTAINED THAT HIGH PAYING CONTRACT WITH THE CEO Z BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED AN ART FUNDING PROPOSAL THAT BENEFITED THE COC. SOUND FAMILIAR. IT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE MY SON'S ERRONEOUS LOGIC. NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. 
          IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. FROM THERE. THE STORY HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND PRESENTED BACKWARD TO YOU AND THE BASED ON THAT SPECULATIVE CONCLUSION. EVERY MEETING WAS SCHEDULED IN FURTHERANCE OF A SCHEME. EVERY PHONE CALL WAS PLACED OR TAKEN FOR IMPROPER PURPOSES. EVERY DECISION WAS MADE FOR PERSONAL GAIN. AND WHEN YOU WEAVE ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, YOU GET THAT STORYBOARD WE DISCUSSED MORE THAN THREE WEEKS AGO. REMEMBER THAT? IF YOU DON'T MIND PUTTING THAT ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE. ONE OF THE REAL DANGERS OF THIS LINE OF THINKING IS THAT IT PERMITS THE PERSON MAKING THE ARGUMENT TO HIGHLIGHT THE COINCIDENCE OF TIME AND THEN STOP. THEY DON'T NEED TO LOOK AT ANY OTHER FACTORS. THEY DON'T NEED TO SPELL OUT HOW TWO EVENTS ACTUALLY CONNECT WITH EACH OTHER . THEY CAN JUST SIT THERE AND REPEAT OVER AND OVER TO YOU. 
          WELL. THESE TWO EVENTS HAPPENED AT A SIMILAR TIME. IN ONE MUST HAVE CAUSED THE OTHER. BUT IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE HONEST, THEY'D FULFILL THEIR BURDEN AND SHOW YOU THE PROOF. ON THAT FRONT. LET'S REVISIT THAT STORYBOARD. AS I MENTIONED THREE MONDAYS AGO, THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ASSERTS THAT THIS STORYBOARD ILLUSTRATES HOW COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI RECEIVED A CONTRACT IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS SUPPORT OF THE ART GRANT PROPOSAL. WE'VE ALL HEARD ABOUT WHAT IS MORE THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE BASED ON THE STORY BOARD AND THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THEIR COMPLAINT THAT COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI PURSUED AND SOLICITED THIS CONTRACT FROM NOVEMBER 2021 TO JANUARY 2023. TO DO THAT. THEY NEED YOU TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THOSE PLOT HOLES I MENTIONED TO YOU THREE WEEKS AGO. WE'LL START WITH A NOTE THAT SAYS IN NOVEMBER 2021 PIAZZINI MEETS WITH TAMMY YORK DAY ABOUT A JOB. IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE SCREEN. THE CHARTER COMMITTEE ASKED MULTIPLE WITNESSES SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THE COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI EVER TELL YOU HE HAD BEEN TALKING WITH TAMMY OR DAY ABOUT A JOB WITH THE CEO IN NOVEMBER, 2021. REMEMBER THAT? THAT QUESTION IS MISLEADING ON ITS FACE. AND LIKE I TOLD JIM GRIFFIN MULTIPLE TIMES, IT DOESN'T GIVE THE WHOLE STORY. HERE'S A COUNCILMAN PIAZZINI TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION ABOUT HIS MEETING WITH MS YORK DAY IN NOVEMBER. 2021 HE MET MISS YORK DAY AT THE INVITATION OF A THIRD PARTY ACQUAINTANCE, ROB GIVENS. 
          HE DIDN'T KNOW WHO MISS YORK DAY OR THE CEO WAS AT THE TIME. THE ONLY NEW SHE WAS ANOTHER HEALTH CARE EXECUTIVE. HE WAS NETWORKING AND RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE. MISS YORK DAY TOLD HIM THERE WERE NO JOB OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE CEO. ITS CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 A PAGE 154 LINE, 24 THROUGH PAGE 157 LINE SEVEN. SO NO, HE DIDN'T TELL ANYONE. HE WAS TALKING WITH M OR DAY ABOUT A JOB WITH THE CEO IN NOVEMBER 2021 BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED. AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU. BUT THESE FACTS RAISE AN OBVIOUS QUESTION FOR ME. HOW CAN A PERSON SOLICIT AND PURSUE A JOB WITH A PERSON THEY HAVE NEVER MET FOR A COMPANY THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF. PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO JOB WITH THAT COMPANY TO SOLICIT OR PURSUE. ON THE TOPIC OF NETWORKING. GOOGLE DEFINES THAT TERM TO MEAN THE ACTION OR PROCESS OF INTERACTING WITH OTHERS TO EXPRESS INFORMATION AND DEVELOP PROFESSIONAL OR SOCIAL CONTACTS. JUST TYPE IN QUOTE, MEANING AND NETWORKING INTO GOOGLE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GET. THAT'S HOW COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA, A HEALTH CARE EXECUTIVE WITH MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, UNDERSTOOD THAT TERM TO MEAN AND HOW IT APPLIED TO HIS INDUSTRY. RECHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 A PAGE 157 LINE 11 THROUGH 158 LINE TWO. BUT JIM GRIFFIN, WHOSE BACKGROUND IS NOT IN HEALTH CARE ONCE YOU TO ADHERE TO HIS OPINION THAT COUNCILMAN ARGENTINA'S ACTIVE NETWORKING ONLY MEANT JOB SEEKING AND BY EXTENSION EVERY TIME COUNCILMAN TINI NETWORKED WITH SOMEONE HE DID SO WITH THE SOLE INTENT OF 
          [00:25:04]
SEEKING A JOB WITH THE CEO. NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. THE NEXT ENTRY IN THEIR STORYBOARD READS THAT IN JANUARY 2022 THE ARGENTI SENDS A RESUME TO YORK DAY. SURE. HE SAID MORTE AN EMAIL IN JANUARY 2022 TO WHICH HE ATTACHED HIS RESUME. SO NATURALLY, THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ASKED WITNESSES. DID COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI EVER TELL YOU HE HAD SENT A RESUME TO TAMMY OR DAY IN JANUARY, 2022. BUT AGAIN, THAT QUESTION DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY. HE SENT HER A COPY OF HIS RESUME SO THAT SHE COULD FORWARD IT ON TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 A PAGE 157 LINE EIGHT THROUGH PAGE 158 LINE TWO. AND AT THE SAME TIME, HE ALSO SENT HIS RESUME TO NORTON HEALTHCARE, U OF L, HEALTH AND OTHERS. LOOK AT CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 A PAGE 158 LINE 15 TO LINE 22 IS THERE FOR YOU TO READ? SO I GUESS I'LL ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. DID COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTINA EVER TELL ANYONE THAT HE SENT A RESUME TO THOSE OTHER INDUSTRY MEMBERS, TOO? BACK TO OUR STORY BOARD. WE'RE CURIOUSLY ABSENT IN ANY ST VET FROM J IS ANY STATEMENT FROM JANUARY 2022 THROUGH APRIL, 2022 COUNCILS IN ARGENTINA MET WITH HEALTH CARE EXECUTIVES WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE CEO FOR NETWORKING PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR DELTA DENTAL. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. IN THE 4.5 DAYS THEY TOOK TO PUT ON THEIR CASE, DID THEY BUT THAT EVIDENCE IS IN THE RECORD AND YOU CAN LOOK AT IT VIA CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 23 A BEGINNING ON PAGE 40 LINE SEVEN THROUGH PAGE 4191. ALSO MISSING FROM THAT STORY BOARD IS ANY NOTE SAYING THAT IN APRIL 2022 COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI NEGOTIATED AND TOOK A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY CALLED WELLCARE OF NORTH CAROLINA. IT'S NOT LIKE THAT WASN'T IN THE RECORD. THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD JIM GRIFFIN IN HIS JUNE 7TH 2023. INTERVIEW CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 23 A PAGE 41 LINE ONE THROUGH LINE, 20 WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 A PAGE 160 LINE, 13 THROUGH LINE 23. I WONDER WHY WE NEVER HEARD ANY WITNESS GET ASKED TO COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI EVER TELL YOU THAT HE NEGOTIATED AND OBTAINED A CONTRACT FOR WORK WITH A COMPANY CALLED WELLCARE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN APRIL, 2022. NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOT TO BE THE SHOES. WHAT IS ON THE STORY BOARD IS THAT WELL WORN ASSERTION THAT IN APRIL 2022 THE ACCELERATOR TEAM SCORES THE APPLICATIONS WITH THE CEO C PROPOSAL SCORING 29 OF 30. AND WORKFORCE COMMITTEE DEFERS FEDERAL GRANT. PENDING FEDERAL GRANT. EXCUSE ME. HOW OFTEN DID WE HEAR ABOUT THAT? AS WE FOUND OUT THESE PAST FEW WEEKS, HOWEVER, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CARED ABOUT THE R FA APPLICATION SCORING OUTCOMES WERE ONE THE PEOPLE WHO SCORED THE PROJECTS IN TWO THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW WHO DIDN'T CARE FOR THE R FA SCORING OUTCOMES. THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY MADE THE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE GRANT FUNDS. THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF TESTIMONY IN THIS TRIAL THAT THE 29TH OF 30 SCORE WAS IRRELEVANT AND THAT ITS SCORE WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE $40 MILLION HEALTH CARE COALITION GRANT PASSED IN DECEMBER. 2022 IN FACT, PRESIDENT WINKLER TOLD YOU THAT THE SCORE SHE'S QUOTE WERE WORTH THE PAPER THEY WERE PRINTED ON END QUOTE. SO LET'S THROW THAT ISSUE IN THE TRASH BIN WHERE IT BELONGS. AS FOR THE SECOND PART OF THAT NOTE, PRESIDENT WINKLER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH TED SMITH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE AROUND MARCH 2022 ABOUT A COALITION GRANT PROPOSAL BEFORE THE US ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION. AND AFTER TED SMITH SUGGESTED PRESIDENT WINKLER SPEAK WITH GRACE CROL. 
          PRESIDENT WINKLER DETERMINED THAT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WAS TO SEE FIRST WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD AWARD THAT COALITION ED GRANT PROPOSAL AND THEN WHETHER TO BACKSTOP THE PROPOSAL WITH ART FUNDS IF IT WAS EITHER PARTIALLY AWARDED OR NOT AWARDED AT ALL. PRESIDENT WINKLER THEREAFTER TOOK THAT PLAN AND SHARED IT WITH COUNCILMAN PITI, THE OTHER MEMBER OF THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, WHO THEN ENDORSED IT. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY REJECTED ALL OF THE PROJECTS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THAT R FA. AGAIN ALL OF THIS HAPPENED IN MARCH OR APRIL OF 2022. SO LET'S RECAP TO THIS POINT. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE CONTENDS THAT COUNCILMAN PIATTI PURSUED AND SOLICITED A CONTRACT WITH THE CEO C BEGINNING WITH HIS MEETING IN NOVEMBER, 2021. OK FROM THAT POINT THROUGH APRIL . 2022 HOWEVER, ONE COUNCILMAN TINI NETWORKED WITH LEADERS OF MULTIPLE COMPANIES OTHER THAN THE CEO C, TOO, HE NEGOTIATED AND RECEIVED A CONTRACT WITH A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANY FROM THE CEO C AND THREE HE 
          [00:30:03]
DECLINED TO FUND THE CEO LOW. SC ARP GRANT FUNDING APPLICATION, DEFERRING INSTEAD TO PRESIDENT WINKLER'S VISION TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS TOWARD A DIFFERENT COALITION BASED PROJECT. 
          SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF. THAT HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE WORST SCHEMES TO GET A JOB THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. OH, AND LET'S NOT FORGET THAT COUNCILMAN PIAZZINI STOPPED COMMUNICATING WITH MORTE AFTER APRIL 11TH 2022 FOR NEARLY 4.5 MONTHS, AS EVIDENCED BY THE PHONE RECORDS AND THE CALL CHART INTRODUCED BY THE CHARTING COMMITTEES EXHIBIT 25, A I'M SURE THAT REALLY ENDEARED HIM TO HIS SOUGHT AFTER FUTURE EMPLOYER. YET THEY INSIST HE SOLICITED AND PURSUED A JOB WITH THE CEO FROM NOVEMBER 2021 TO JANUARY 2023. NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. 
          AND BY THE WAY, DID THE CHARGING COMMITTEE PRODUCE ANY ONE WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS BODY AS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY OF THE CALLS MADE BETWEEN COUNCIL AND PAGE AND TNI AND MISS YORK DAY BETWEEN JANUARY 31 2022 IN APRIL 11TH 2022 THREE OF THOSE CALLS OR THREE MINUTES OR LESS. BUT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE CAN THE CHARGING COMMITTEE I SHOULD SAY, SHOW ANY PROOF THAT THESE CALLS WERE ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN POSSIBLE NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COUNCILMAN PINI. THEN AS PRESIDENT, WINKLER TESTIFIED. THE ED A GRANT FELL THROUGH AROUND THE END OF AUGUST. BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER. 2022. CHARGE THE COMMITTEE STORYBOARD DOESN'T SAY THAT IT SAYS IN JUNE 2022 THE FEDERAL GRANT WAS NOT AWARDED TO CEO. 
          DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER SEEING ANY PROOF ABOUT THAT ASSERTION? THAT NEVER CAME UP. THEY JUST PUT IT THERE TO HELP WITH THE STORY, RIGHT? SO LET'S ADD THAT TO THE PILE OF FALSEHOODS. WE'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. AT ANY RATE, PRESIDENT WINKLER TESTIFIED THAT HE AND NOT COUNCILMAN PIAGET TNI IMMEDIATELY GOT TO WORK PULLING TOGETHER INFORMATION FROM MS YOUR DAY ON BEHALF OF THE CEO, C AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TOWARD THE GOAL OF FUNDING MOST OF THE PROPOSED ED A GRANT IDEA THROUGH THE ARP FUNDING PROCESS. PRESIDENT WINKLER ASKED FOR THE INFORMATION, AND PRESIDENT WINKLER LED THE WAY TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE. FOR HIS PART, COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTINA WAS KEPT IN THE LOOP AS TO THE PROGRESS OF THE ART FUNNY PROCESS DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER BY BOTH PRESIDENT WINKLER AS HE TESTIFIED IN MISS YORK DAY. 
          LOOKING AT THAT CALL LOG, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN M DE CALLED COUNCILS IN THE ARGENTINA SEPTEMBER 1 2022, WHICH IS ONE OF THE DAYS, PRESIDENT WINKLER TESTIFIED ABOUT THAT HE LIKELY FOUND OUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID NOT FUND THE ED A GRANT. JIM GRIFFIN TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT CALL WAS RELATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S REJECTION OF THE ED A PROPOSAL AND NEXT STEPS IN THE ARC FUNDING PROCESS. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS OFFERED NO PROOF OTHERWISE. NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. THEN ON SEPTEMBER 14TH 2022, THE STORY BOARD SAYS YOUR DAY GIVES PI ARGENTI FREE TICKETS TO THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE AT CHURCHILL DOWNS. I TOLD YOU THREE MONDAYS AGO THAT COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA ACCEPTED A COMPLIMENTARY TICKET TO THIS GATHERING OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE LEADERS. WHAT THE SPORT STORYBOARD DOES NOT SAY AND WHAT WE HEARD GRACE CIMER ALL TESTIFY TO A FEW WEEKS AGO IS THAT METRO GOVERNMENT CO SPONSORED THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND THAT OTHER MEMBERS OF METRO GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING MAYOR FISHER AND MSIM HERSELF, ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE FREE OF CHARGE. HE AGAIN? WAS IT MISCONDUCT FOR COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA TO ACCEPT THIS INVITATION? WELL, HE DIDN'T PAY FOR IT, THEY SAY NO QUESTION. BUT THEN AGAIN, PRESIDENT WINKLER TESTIFIED THAT HE COULDN'T ATTEND THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE EVEN IF HE HAD SEEN HIS INVITATION BECAUSE HE WAS OTHERWISE INDISPOSED AT A TAXPAYER FUNDED EVENT OUT OF TOWN WITH A BUNCH OF LOBBYISTS AND BUSINESS PEOPLE FOR GREATER LOUISVILLE INC. CASE ANYONE FORGOT GREATER. LOUISVILLE INC WAS ALSO A PARTNER OF THE COALITION ARC GRANT PROPOSAL THAT PRESIDENT WINKLER HAD ADVOCATED FOR SPONSORED AND WAS APPROVED BY THIS BODY ON DECEMBER 1 2022. TO BE CLEAR. I DON'T THINK PRESIDENT WINKLER DID ANYTHING WRONG. BUT IT'S AWFULLY HYPOCRITICAL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE TO INSIST THAT COUNCIL P ARGENTINA BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE HE ACCEPTED A FREE INVITATION TO AN EVENT SPONSORED BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ART FUNDING ORDINANCE HE CO SPONSORED WHILE COMPLETELY IGNORING ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER WHO ACCEPTED A FREE INVITATION TO AN EVENT SPONSORED BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ART FUNDING ORDINANCE, HE COS. SPONSORED THEN THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ALLEGES THAT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 21 AND 22 2022 COUNCILS FROM THE ARGENTI ATTENDS THE CEO C OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE, DISCUSS HIS JOB WITH YOUR DAY. AND IN SUPPORT OF THAT ASSERTION YOU HAD JIM GRIFFIN READ A PORTION OF HIS INTERVIEW WITH MONTE INITIATED BY HER ATTORNEY DURING WHICH MISS YORK 
          [00:35:01]
DAY WAS ASKED WHAT SHE MEANT WHEN SHE ALLEGEDLY MADE A REFERENCE TO COUNCILMAN PAGE AT THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE THAT IF THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INITIATIVE, SHE'LL WANT TO TALK TO HIM. WHO REMEMBERS THAT? IF YOU DO THEN YOU'LL ALSO REMEMBER THAT IT DIDN'T PROVIDE THE WHOLE STORY. IN FACT, AT THE VERY END OF THAT COLLOQUY BETWEEN M YORK DAY, AND HER ATTORNEY, MISS YORK DAY, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WHATEVER HER INTENTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN MAKING THAT REFERENCE, SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER COUNCILMAN PIAGET UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE THAT WAY. IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND REVISIT THAT CONVERSATION IT'S LOCATED IN CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 31 PAGE 61 LINE 11 THROUGH PAGE 62 LINE FOUR. AND WHILE YOU'RE IN THERE, FEEL FREE TO LOOK AT MISS YORK DAY'S COMMENTS TO JIM GRIFFIN. BEGINNING ON PAGE 59 LINE, 12 THROUGH LINE 25, DURING WHICH SHE DESCRIBES THIS INTERACTION AS QUOTE, LITERALLY. IT'S TWO SENTENCES AND FURTHER IDENTIFIES THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INITIATIVE SHE MENTIONED AS A POTENTIAL INITIATIVE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE. RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT THE CEO S BOARD OF DIRECTORS DID NOT APPROVE A GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT ASSEMBLING A COALITION OF INDIVIDUALS TO ADVANCE EFFORTS AT THE STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL UNTIL ITS MEETING OF NOVEMBER. 7TH 2022 HAS SHOWN A RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT 19 NEARLY TWO MONTHS AFTER THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE. IT DIDN'T IDENTIFY COUNCILMAN P, ARGENTINA AS A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE TO CONTRACT WITH THE CEO C UNTIL NOVEMBER. 17TH 2022, WHICH MISS DAY TESTIFIED ABOUT UNDER OATH BEFORE THE ETHICS. COMMISSION. YOU CAN READ THAT DISCUSSION IN CHARGE AND COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 32 BEGINNING ON PAGE 84 LINE 15 AND ENDING ON PAGE 89 LINE 25. SO AT THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE, MISS YORK DAY ALLEGEDLY MAKES A PASSING TWO SENTENCE REFERENCE TO COUNT FROM THE ARGENTINA ABOUT A POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INITIATIVE THAT DIDN'T ACTUALLY EXIST AND WOULD NOT EXIST FOR NEARLY TWO MORE MONTHS. THAT'S ALL THEY'VE GOT. 
          IT'S NO WONDER COUNCILMAN P. ARGENTI COULD NOT RECALL THE CONVERSATION AS HE TESTIFIED UNDER OATH TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. AND YOU CAN READ THAT TESTIMONY AND CHARGE IT. 
          COM AT EXHIBIT 24 BEGINNING ON PAGE 171 LINE FOUR THROUGH PAGE 173 LINE, 11 IT. EVEN SO, IF YOU'RE A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL AND SOMEONE TELLS YOU IN PASSING THAT THEY WANT TO SPEAK WITH YOU ABOUT A GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INITIATIVE. WOULD YOU ALWAYS ASSUME THAT IT'S A JOB OFFER? COULD IT NOT BE A PUBLIC POLICY OR LOBBYING EFFORT? EITHER WAY. WHERE'S THE PROOF THAT COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI EITHER SOLICITED OR ACCEPTED ANYTHING AT THAT TIME? NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. LET'S GO BACK TO THE CALL BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 15TH AND SEPTEMBER 30TH 2022. THERE WERE FOUR PHONE CALLS BETWEEN COUNCILMAN THE ARGENTINA MY DAY AROUND THIS TIME. WE ALSO KNOW THAT COUNCILMAN IN THE ARGENTINIAN PRESIDENT WINKLER WERE WORKING TO PUT TOGETHER THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE COALITION ARE FUNDING PROPOSAL. 
          IF IT'S YOUR DAY WAS ALSO COMMUNICATING WITH COUNCILMAN PIAZZINI ABOUT THE COALITION ART FUNDING PROPOSAL, AS EVIDENCED BY HER EMAIL TO COUNCILMAN PITI ON SEPTEMBER 28TH 2022, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD AS RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT 11. THAT SAME DAY, COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI CALLED MISS YOUR DAY. AND JIM GRIFFIN TESTIFIED THAT HE COULD NOT BE SURE ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT CALL OR ANY OTHER CALL DURING THAT TIME FRAME. IF THEY TELL YOU OTHERWISE, THEY'RE JUST GUESSING. THERE IS PROOF. IN THE RECORD, HOWEVER, ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PHONE CALLS BETWEEN OCTOBER 20TH AND 21 OF 2022. THIS YOUR DAY TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT THOSE CALLS WERE ABOUT A FRIEND OF HERS, WHO WAS OFFERED A POSITION TO COUNCIL IN PAGE ANDI'S FORMER EMPLOYER, CENTENE. THAT TESTIMONY IS INCLUDED IN CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 32 PAGE 124 LINE ONE TO LINE 12. LIKE THE PREVIOUS GROUP OF CALLS, THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS INTRODUCED NO PROOF TO THE CONTRARY. LIKEWISE AS JIM GRIFFIN CONFIRMED THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ANY NEGOTIATION ABOUT TERMS, CONDITIONS OR REQUIREMENTS OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN MS YOUR DAY AND COUNCILMAN PINI DURING THIS TIME. LOOKING BACK AT OUR STORYBOARD, THE CHARGING COMMITTEE THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT A CONVERSATION IN OCTOBER, 22. THROUGH WHICH COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA TOLD MARGARET HANMER THAT 40 MILLION WOULD BE AWARDED TO THE CEO AND WHAT IT MISS HAMMAKER SAY IN HER TESTIMONY A FEW WEEKS AGO. 
          DURING THAT CALL, COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI SUGGESTED SHE AND HER TEAM WORK ON THE FINAL ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE COALITION. OUR GRANT PROPOSAL WHILE HE AND PRESIDENT WINKLER WORKED TO GET THE PROPOSAL PASSED THROUGH METRO COUNCIL. A POSITION THAT MISS HAMMAKER SAID WAS ENTIRELY REASONABLE. JUST TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THAT RIDICULOUS LINE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COALITION. OUR GRANT PROPOSALS ELIGIBILITY CAN HILLEBRAND TESTIFY THAT THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED AN INITIAL HIGH LEVEL ELIGIBILITY APPROVAL BEFORE IT WAS ENACTED BY METRO 
          [00:40:01]
COUNCIL IN DECEMBER. 1 2022 AND THEREAFTER RECEIVED A COMPLETE ELIGIBILITY APPROVAL SAVE FOR A SMALL PORTION THAT WAS SIPHONED OFF IN EARLY 2023. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? THE AGREEMENT TO EFFECTUATE THE COALITION ARE GRANT PROPOSAL WAS SIGNED BY ALL THE RELEVANT PARTIES ON MARCH 30TH 2023. I HOPE THIS PUTS TO BED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT ELIGIBILITY. IT WAS ALWAYS A DECEPTIVE DISTRACTION. TURNING BACK TO THE STORYBOARD AGAIN. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE NOTES THAT COUNCILMAN PITI ADVOCATED FOR THE CEO GRANT ON OCTOBER 20TH 2022. THAT'S CLEARLY PART OF THE RECORD. BUT WHAT ISN'T ON THE STORYBOARD TO REITERATE IS ANY PROOF OF ANY JOB WITH THE CEO THAT EXISTED OR THAT COUNCILMAN PIAGET WAS NEGOTIATING ANY WAGES, TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF ANY JOB WITH THE CEO AT THAT TIME? AS JIM GRIFFIN CONFIRMED THERE ARE NO EMAILS. 
          THERE ARE NO LETTERS. THERE ARE NO TEXT MESSAGES. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A PRESS RELEASE IN OCTOBER 25TH 2022 AS THEY HIGHLIGHT WHERE PRESIDENT WINKLER AND COUNCILMAN TINI ANNOUNCED THEIR SPONSORSHIP OF AN ORDINANCE ALLOCATING 40 MILLION TO THE CEO AND OTHER COALITION PARTNERS. FORMER COUNCILMAN BILL HOLLANDER. AMONG THE MANY OTHER OPINIONS HE GAVE AT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE'S REQUEST DURING THIS TRIAL SUGGESTED THAT WAS ODD. BUT AS YOU HEARD FROM PRESIDENT WINKLER , NOT ONLY WAS THE ISSUANCE OF THE PRESS RELIEF PERFECTLY NORMAL. IT WAS INTENDED TO STAVE OFF ATTEMPTS BY OTHER MEMBERS, INCLUDING COUNCILWOMAN IN CHARGE AND COMMITTEE CHAIR CINDY FOWLER TO TAKE THE REMAINING ARP GRANT FUNDS AND ALLOCATE THEM FOR THEIR OWN AND ELIGIBLE PET PROJECTS. BREAKING NEWS. ELECTED LEGISLATORS PUT OUT PRESS RELEASE TOUTING A FUNDING PROPOSAL THAT ADDRESSES A HIGHLY IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY PROBLEM. 
          WHY IS THE PRESS RELEASE? EVEN A FAME. MOVING ALONG. NEXT IS THE NOTE THAT IN NOVEMBER 3RD 2022 WAS THE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE YORK DAY MAKES A PRESENTATION. COUNCILMAN FOR ARGENTINA. ADVOCATES FOR CO GRANT. JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANY CONFUSION. PRESIDENT WINKLER TESTIFIED THAT MISS YORK DAY AND THE CEO C MADE A PRESENTATION DURING THAT MEETING AT HIS SUGGESTION. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHER TESTIMONY THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, PRESIDENT WINKLER LED THE CHARGE IN GETTING THIS WELL INTENDED PROPOSAL THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS. REGARDLESS AS OF NOVEMBER, 3RD 2022. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT A JOB WITH THE CEO EXISTED OR THAT COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA WAS NEGOTIATING ANY WAGES, TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF ANY JOB WITH THE CEO. AGAIN, AS JIM GRIFFIN TESTIFIED. THERE ARE NO EMAILS. THERE'S NO LETTERS. 
          THERE'S NO TEXT MESSAGES EVIDENCING SUCH DISCUSSIONS. NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. AND THEN WE COME TO NOVEMBER 17TH 2022. I TOLD YOU A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS DATE. FIRST THE CHARGE OF COMMITTEE CLAIMS THAT AT 11:42 A.M. MISS YORK DAY EMAILED A NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT TO K FROM THE ARGENTI. THERE IT IS. YOU'VE SEEN IT BEFORE. NOW JIM GRIFFIN TESTIFIED MORE THAN ONCE THAT COUNCILMAN PAGNI AND MORTE HAD TO HAVE DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF A POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITY WITH THE CEO C UP TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE NO ONE SIGNS A NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT WITHOUT READING WHAT IT'S ABOUT, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT'S ABOUT. REALLY? LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS POINT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS. IF I DISCLOSE TO YOU THE REASONS OR DETAILS, NECESSITATING A NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU SIGN IT. 
          THEN I'VE DEFEATED THE PURPOSE OF A NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT. THE SETTING THAT ASIDE, LET'S LOOK AT THIS FOR A MOMENT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT. IF COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA, MISS YORK DAY HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITY BEFORE NOVEMBER 17TH 2022, AS THEY SAY THEN WHY SIGN A NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AT THAT POINT WHY CREATE ANY PAPER TRAIL? YOU'VE ALREADY REVEALED. WHAT'S GOING ON. ARE YOU PLANNING TO STAY SILENT ABOUT THE JOB OPPORTUNITY AFTER YOU'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT OPPORTUNITY IN DETAIL? FURTHER IF THEY HAD DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH UP TO THIS POINT. WHY WOULD NEITHER OF THEM HAVE REFERENCED THESE PRIOR CONVERSATIONS AND THEIR EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE? IT MAKES NO SENSE. REGARDLESS THE CHARTER COMMITTEE HAS ALLEGED THAT IN COUNT EIGHT OF THEIR COMPLAINTS SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPH 113, THE COUNCIL IN THE ARGENTINA COMMITTED MISCONDUCT BY PERJURING HIMSELF IN TESTIMONY REGARDING THE NOVEMBER 17TH 2020 TO EMAIL AND IN PARTICULAR, THEY ALLEGE THAT HE KNOWINGLY MADE A FALSE STATEMENT WHEN HE SAID IT WAS UNCLEAR TO ME 100% WHAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE HE QUOTE KNEW THE REASON FOR RECEIVING THE ND A WAS THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT ARRANGEMENTS GIZZY HAD DISCUSSED ON PRIOR OCCASIONS WITH MISS DAY. LET'S NOT SELECTIVELY HIDE THE FULL STATEMENT, THOUGH. THE ENTIRE LINE OF TESTIMONY IN WHICH THIS 
          [00:45:02]
ONE PART IS FOUND IS CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 B BEGINNING ON PAGE 26 LINE, 18 AND ENDING ON PAGE 29 LINE TWO. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THIS IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. BUT IF YOU GO AHEAD AND READ THIS, THE QUESTION I HAVE TO ASK IS WHERE'S THE FALSE STATEMENT? TO BE SURE. LIKE MY SON IN HIS CLEATS, ENDORSING THE CHARGING COMMITTEE'S CONCLUSION HERE REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE RECORD. IT REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INITIATIVE WASN'T APPROVED BY THE CEO BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNTIL NOVEMBER. 7TH 2022 IT REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT COUNCILMAN PIERINI WAS NOT IDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE TO PARTNER WITH UNTIL NOVEMBER. 17TH 2022. IT REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT UP TO NOVEMBER 17 2022, THERE WAS NOT ONE PIECE OF PAPER OR DOCUMENT SHOWING ANY TYPE OF NEGOTIATION BETWEEN A 20 YEAR HEALTH CARE. EXECUTIVE AND THE HEAD OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS MORE THAN A DOZEN OF THE LARGEST HEALTH CARE EMPLOYERS IN THIS STATE. IT REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE THE SWORN CORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF THE PHONE CALL THAT OCCURRED THE NEXT DAY, NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 , IT REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE THE TESTIMONY ABOUT AN EVIDENCE OF THE ADDITIONAL PHONE CALLS. THEY OCCURRED AFTER NOVEMBER 1820 22, AND IT REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE FIRST DOCUMENT THAT SPELLS OUT ANY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED DID NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE UNTIL DECEMBER. 1ST 2022 THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF WORK. COUNCIL ARGENTI DIDN'T KNOW 100% WHAT THE NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT WAS ABOUT BECAUSE THERE HAD NEVER BEEN PRIOR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A CONSULTING ARRANGEMENT PRIOR TO NOVEMBER. 17TH 2022 NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. WELL, THAT'S GREAT SON. SHOW ME YOUR PROOF. BY THE WAY, THE SUGGESTION THAT COUNCIL IN THE ARGENTI HAD TO OPEN THE EMAIL AND UNDERSTOOD ITS CONTENTS. PRIOR TO THE 5 P.M. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING IS COMPLETELY OFF BASE, NOTWITHSTANDING MY DEMONSTRATION TO JIM GRIFFIN A FEW WEEKS AGO. BESIDES HAVING A PRIVATE LAW PRACTICE, I'M AN ASSISTANT COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OUT IN THE STATE. I CAN ASSURE YOU I HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS EMAILS DURING THE COURSE OF THESE LAST FEW WEEKS, AND EVEN TODAY THAT WERE IMPORTANT IN NATURE AND THAT I HAVE EITHER OPENED QUICKLY AND DETERMINED TO GET TO IT LATER OR DECLINE TO OPEN AT ALL, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER. BUT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. PRESIDENT WINKLER TESTIFIED LAST WEEK THAT HE OCCASIONALLY RECEIVES EMAILS AND DOESN'T READ THEM UNTIL A LATER DATE. AND EVEN IF I GRANT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, THE COUNCIL IN PITI OPENED THE EMAIL ON NOVEMBER 17TH 2022, OF WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF. THERE'S CERTAINLY NO PROOF THAT HE READ THE EMAIL AND UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANT. PRIOR TO THE NEXT DAY, NOVEMBER 18TH 2022. SPEAKING OF THAT NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 PHONE CALL, WHERE'S THAT ON OUR STORYBOARD? COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI SIGNED THE NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THAT MORNING, SENT IT TO MISS YORK DAY AND THEN CALLED HER AT NOON TO DISCUSS THE DOCUMENT. CALLS RIGHT THERE ON THE CALL SHEET. AS FOR THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PHONE CALL, I TOLD THIS BODY WEEKS AGO THAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION IGNORED THIS PHONE CALL IN THEIR THOUGHTFUL AND UNANIMOUS OPINION. YOU CAN GO READ THAT FOR YOURSELF. BUT HERE'S WHAT COUNCILMAN PIATTI SAID ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 PHONE CALL UNDER OATH BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION. IT'S LOCATED IN CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 A PAGE 232 LINE, 16 TO PAGE 235 LINE NINE. HE SAID. MORTE INDICATED THE CEO HAD A JOB OPPORTUNITY THAT SHE WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH HIM. HE THEN STOPPED HER ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. 
          INSTEAD IF THEY WERE CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION HE WOULD HAVE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THE ARP GRANT PROPOSAL ON THE RECORD AT THE DECEMBER 1 2022 METRO COUNCIL MEETING. HE TOLD HER THE JOB COULD NOT BE RELATED TO THE GRANT. NOR COULD HIS CONVERSATION BE PAID BY THE GRANT. AND HE SAID THE CALL WAS NOT PARTICULARLY LONG IN DURATION. HERE'S WHAT MISS YORK DAY HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 PHONE CALL UNDER OATH BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION. IT'S LOCATED IN CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 32 PAGE 99 1 TO PAGE 93 LINE TWO. 
          SHE SAID SHE TOLD COUNCIL IN THE ARGENTI FIRST THAT THE CEO C HAD A GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INITIATIVE AND A NEED FOR HELP WITH HIS INNOVATION WORK AND WANTED TO ENGAGE HIM IF HE WAS AVAILABLE. 
          THE COUNCILMAN PAGE. JE STOPPED HER AND SAID THAT IF THEY HAD THIS CONVERSATION HE WAS GOING TO NEED TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE VOTE ON THE ARP GRANT. HE THEN ASKED IF THE POSITION WAS 
          [00:50:01]
CONTINGENT UPON RECEIPT OF THE GRANT, TO WHICH MISS YORKE DAY REPLIED IN THE NEGATIVE. HE THEN ASKED IF THE PHYSICIAN WAS GOING TO BE PAID BY THE OUR GRANT FUNDS, AND SHE CONFIRMED IT WAS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE INITIATIVE . IN OTHER WORDS, THEY RECALLED THE SAME CONVERSATION. SO I'LL REPEAT TODAY. WHAT I SAID A FEW WEEKS AGO. ACCOUNTS OF THE ARGENTINA PURSUING AND SOLICITING A JOB WITH THE CEO C FOR NEARLY A YEAR UP TO THIS POINT. WHY WOULD HE GIVE UP THAT LEVERAGE AND TELL THEM HE'S OUT OF THE GAME WHEN PRESUMABLY, THEY NEEDED HIM. MOST. WHAT DID JIM GRIFFIN IN THE CHARTING COMMITTEE CONCLUDE ABOUT THAT CALL? NOT POSSIBLE FOR MISS YORK DAY IN COUNCIL TO DISCUSS ALL THOSE TOPICS IN SIX MINUTES. THAT'S IT. WE HAVE CORROBORATING TESTIMONY. THEY HAVE THE PERSONAL OPINION OF ONE PERSON. SPEAKING OF TESTIMONY, THERE WAS EXPRESS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION, WHICH IS A PART OF THIS RECORD AS WELL. 
          WHERE COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI INFORMED EVERYONE THAT HE WAS CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE AN EXTENSION OF HIS CONTRACT WITH WELLCARE OF NORTH CAROLINA, UP TO NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 YOU CAN FIND THAT TESTIMONY IT CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 A PAGE 161 LINE 11 THROUGH PAGE 162 LINE SIX. IF COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA ALREADY HAD NEGOTIATED A JOB WITH THE CEO PRIOR TO NOVEMBER, 17TH 2022 AS THEY CLAIM THEN WHY WOULD HE BE NEGOTIATING AN EXTENSION OF THE JOB HE HAD AT THE TIME? NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. SO WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? FIRST COUNCIL IN THE ARGENTI LEFT TOWN FOR A WEEK TO SPEND THANKSGIVING WITH HIS FAMILY IN NORTH CAROLINA. THERE'S NO DISPUTING THAT FACT. HE SAID NOTHING TO ANY ONE ABOUT THE COALITION. OUR GRANT PROPOSAL BETWEEN NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 THE DAY IT WAS AND THE DAY IT WAS VOTED ON BY THIS BODY, DECEMBER 1ST 2022, THERE'S NO DISPUTING THAT FACT. AND AT THAT MEETING IN DECEMBER, 1ST 2022 JUST LIKE HE TOLD MISS YORK DAY ON NOVEMBER 18TH 2022 HE WOULD HAVE TO DO AND AFTER LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES OF DEBATE, HE RAISED A POINT OF ORDER, ASKED THAT HIS NAME BE REMOVED AS A COSPONSOR OF THE PROPOSAL DUE A TO A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. AGAIN. HE ABSTAINED. FROM THE VOTE. EVEN THEY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT AND THEIR STORYBOARD. AND FOR THE RECORD, NO ONE IN THIS BODY GAVE ONE SECOND CONSIDERATION TO THE IDEA THAT COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI FAILED TO PROPERLY ABSTAIN OR REMOVE HIS NAME AS A COSPONSOR OF THE BILL IN THAT MOMENT, WHY WOULD THEY COUNCILOR PITI DID EXACTLY WHAT OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS BODY DID BEFORE HIM IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS. YET WE'RE SITTING HERE TODAY. TALKING ABOUT REMOVING CALCIUM P, ARGENTINA FROM HIS DULY ELECTED POSITION AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, BECAUSE IN THE OPINION OF FORMER COUNCILMAN HOLLANDER, HE DIDN'T SAY ENOUGH AND HE DIDN'T SAY IT SOON ENOUGH. TALK ABOUT HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. IF ANYONE ELSE IS ANYONE ELSE, I SHOULD SAY, AWARE OF ANY OTHER INSTANCE IN THE HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRACY OR REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, WHERE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL WAS OUSTED BY HIS OR HER COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE HE OR SHE DIDN'T TAKE A POSITION ON A PROPOSAL. SPEAKING OF FORMER COUNCILMAN HOLLANDER IN CASE ANYONE PAID ATTENTION, THE STANDARD WHICH HE WAS ELICITED BY THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, TO WHICH HE REFERRED THROUGHOUT HIS TESTIMONY. YOU REMEMBER THE AS SOON AS HE BELIEVES THAT THREE WORDS STANDARD HE TALKED ABOUT. IT'S ENCAPSULATED IN METRO COUNCIL RULE. 5.08. THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD HERE. A P. ARGENTINA IS NOT ACCUSED OF VIOLATING METRO COUNCIL RULE 5.08. BUT LIKE MANY OTHER INSTANCES, IN THIS CASE, THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS USED THAT DECEPTION AND IGNORED SIMILAR EXAMPLES OF OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS OF STATING DURING ROLL CALL VOTES BECAUSE OF A BLANKET PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE TO PERPETUATE THE NARRATIVE. THE NEXT DAY, DECEMBER, 2ND 2022 COUNCIL IN THE ARGENTI SIGNED A STATEMENT OF WORK WITH THE CEO C THAT SPELLED OUT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS CONTRACT WITH THEM AND THEN BACKDATED IT TO DECEMBER 1 2022 BECAUSE IT WAS EASIER ADMINISTRATIVELY TO CALCULATE HIS PAY. IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT OTHER THAN THE NOVEMBER 17TH 2022 NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO FOR THE CEO C. AS FOR THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK WE TALKED ABOUT THEM AT LENGTH WITH JIM GRIFFIN, DIDN'T WE? THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD HERE IS THAT AN HONEST REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT BY THE CHARGING COMMITTEE AND THE ETHICS COMMISSION BEFORE IT WOULD HAVE SPARED THIS BODY. THE ANNOYANCE OF LISTENING TO 20 MINUTES OF TESTIMONY ABOUT WHICH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT PASSES LAWS, WHICH BRANCH PROMULGATES ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS IN 
          [00:55:01]
WHICH PARTY CONTROLS THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION. SUFFICE IT TO SAY, RICK REMEMBERS TESTIFIED COUNSEL PITI WAS EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE WORK. HE WAS ASSIGNED. AND PERFORMED THAT WORK SUPERBLY. OF COURSE. CAN'T SIT DOWN BEFORE I ADDRESS THE OTHER PERJURY ALLEGATION, WHICH IS LOCATED IN PARAGRAPH 112 OF THE COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY CHARGING COMMITTEE ALLEGES THAT COUNCILMAN THE ARGENTINA PERJURED HIMSELF BY STATING BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT HE DIDN'T ENGAGE WITH THE GROUP EXECUTING THE COALITION ART FUNDING GRANT AND THAT HE WAS NOT EXECUTING ANY PART OF THAT. WHY NOT READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT? LOCATED IN CHARGING COMMITTEE EXHIBIT 24 B, BEGINNING ON PAGE 10 LINE NINE AND ENDING ON PAGE 11 LINE FIVE. 
          AGAIN IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT HERE, BUT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT AND AFTERWARDS ASK YOURSELF, WHERE'S THE FALSE STATEMENT? COMMISSIONER MICHAEL EULER ASKED COUNCILMAN P, ARGENTINA AT THAT POINT TO DESCRIBE THE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF HIS ROLE WITH THE CEO C AS OF OCTOBER, 23RD 2023 WHEN THE QUESTION WAS ASKED HE NEVER ASKED HIM WHETHER HE ATTENDED ANY MEETINGS IN JANUARY 2023 MEETINGS, WHICH BY THE WAY OCCURRED BEFORE THE GRANT WAS ACTUALLY SIGNED BY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, OR THE CEO C. AND HE NEVER ASKED HIM WHETHER HE SPOKE AT ANY MEETINGS IN JANUARY. 2023. FURTHERMORE YOU HEARD JOSH WILLIAMS TESTIFY. THE COUNCIL IN THE ARGENTI WORKED UNDER A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT STRUCTURE FROM THE GROUP WITHIN THE COC, WHO EXECUTED THE A P GRANT. AS YOU SAW. COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE ART GRANT TEAM WAS DOING. BUT EVEN SO, HE NEVER BUILT HIS TIME ON THE GRANT. HE PARTICIPATED IN THE 2 JANUARY 2023 MEETINGS TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE CEO S WORK NOT TO WORK ON THE GRANT. THAT WAS JOSH WILLIAMS' TESTIMONY. 
          THERE'S NOTHING HERE. CERTAINLY NOTHING THAT AMOUNTS TO A MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENT THAT COUNCILMAN PIAGET DID NOT BELIEVE AT THE TIME HE MADE IT. AND WHAT ABOUT THIS BONUS PAYMENT DOCUMENT BRANDISHED BY JIM GRIFFIN AND THE COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. TO BE SURE, IT APPEARS FROM THAT DOCUMENT THAT MISS YORK DAY OBTAINED A SIZABLE BONUS IN EARLY 2023. AND YES, THE DOCUMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ART PROJECT COMPLIANCE TEAM AT SOME POINT, AS JENNIFER UNDERWOOD TESTIFIED, HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE ATTACHED TO THE GRANT. IT WAS INADVERTENTLY SENT TO THE COMPLIANCE TEAM EFFECT, EVEN JIM GRIFFIN CONCEDED. BUT THAT DIDN'T STOP THE CHARGING COMMITTEE FROM MAKING AN OUTLANDISH AND COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION IN FRONT OF THIS BODY THAT FURTHER INVEST INVESTIGATION, WHICH APPARENTLY CONSISTED OF MARGARET HAMMAKER, WHO WAS NOT WORKING FOR THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AT THE TIME, GIVING JIM GRIFFIN THIS DOCUMENT. REVEAL THAT THE BONUSES WERE PAID AS A REWARD FOR OBTAINING OR ACQUIRING THE GRANT. THAT'S PATENTLY FALSE. 
          JOSH WILLIAMS TOLD YOU THAT THE BONUSES HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GRANT, AND AT LEAST IN HIS CASE WAS THE SAME BONUS HE RECEIVED BY THE CEO C'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN 2021. 
          THAT'S RIGHT BEFORE THE ARP GRANT PROPOSAL EVEN EXISTED. THEY INTRODUCED THIS DOCUMENT, QUITE FRANKLY, TO SMEAR THE CEO C PARTICULARLY MISS YOUR DAY AND TO CREATE THE FALSE ILLUSION THAT THE CEO IS RECEIPT OF THE ART GRANT FUNDS WAS SOMEHOW UNFOUNDED. AND THEY DID THIS KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THE BONUS PAYMENTS HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND AGAIN THE WHOLE THEORY. THAT IS BECAUSE THE BONUSES WERE PAID AFTER METRO COUNCIL AWARDED THE ART GRANT, THE BONUS SAYS MUST HAVE BEEN PAID BECAUSE THEY WERE AWARDED THE ART GRANT. NO, DAD, YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S GOTTA BE THE SHOES. OH, YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD JIM GRIFFIN TELL YOU THAT HE GAVE THIS BOMBSHELL OF A DOCUMENT TO TODD LEWIS, COUNSEL FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION AFTER THE COMMISSION'S TRIAL HAD ALREADY ENDED, AND BEFORE THEY ISSUED THEIR OPINION ON OCTOBER 19TH 2023 I WONDER IF THAT AND THE FALSE IMPLICATIONS INCLUDED WITH IT PLAYED ANY ROLE IN THE COMMISSION'S ULTIMATE DECISION. THE CHARTER COMMITTEE NOW WANTS YOU TO ADOPT. WANT TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT THE INSTRUCTIONS AND INTERROGATORIES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO RECEIVE LATER TODAY. AND THEY ARE YOU ARE GETTING A COPY OF THEM. I'M NOT GONNA LITERALLY WALK THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. THERE'S TOO MANY PAGES. BUT AFTER INSTRUCTION. ONE DISCUSSED THAT THE NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT YOU'LL NEED TO CONSIDER IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM. I'M NOT GOING TO COVER THEM AGAIN. BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO REACH THEM VERY CAREFULLY. INSTRUCTION NUMBER TWO IS GOING TO SPELL OUT THE 18 OF YOU. MUST AGREE THAT COUNCIL P ARGENTINA IS GUILTY AND YOU NEED TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE. CONSTRUCTION NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE VERY NEXT PAGE IS GOING TO IDENTIFY KRS 67 C 143 SUB ONE, WHICH INCLUDES 
          [01:00:06]
THE DEFINITIONS OF MISCONDUCT AND WILLFUL NEGLECT. THERE HAVE BEEN IN DISGUST EXTENSIVELY BEFORE TODAY. AND INSTRUCTION NUMBER FOUR IS GOING TO SUMMARIZE THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST COUNCIL PAGE HAS ALREADY INDICATED IN THE COMPLAINT. AND AS YOU FIGURED IT OUT BY NOW. WE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THOSE ALLEGATIONS. ATTORNEY INSTRUCTION NUMBER FIVE. I'M GONNA USE THIS TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT. CONSTRUCTION NUMBER FIVE SPELLS OUT THE STANDARD FOR COUNT ONE. WHICH ALLEGES THAT COUNCIL THE ARGENTINA IMPROPERLY SOLICITED OR ACCEPTED A PROMISE OF EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF VALUE GIVEN OR OFFERED QUOTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING SUCH OFFICER IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING ACCESS TO HIM. THE BEARS REPEATING. THERE IS NO PROOF IN THE RECORD WHATSOEVER THAT COUNCILMAN P IIN SOLICITED ANYTHING FROM THE CEO C. K. NEVER HAPPENED. AND THERE IS NO PROOF IN THE RECORD THAT COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI LEARNED OF ANY JOB OPPORTUNITY WITH THE COC THAT WOULD BE OFFERED TO HIM UNTIL HE SPOKE WITH MISS YORK DAY BY PHONE ON NOVEMBER 18TH 2022. BY THAT TIME, COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI ALREADY WAS A FULL THROATED SPONSOR OF THE HEALTH CARE COALITION AR GRANT PROPOSAL. SO THAT COULD BE NO REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE CEO C OFFERED HIM A JOB FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING HIS VOTE. AND IN FACT, THE RECORD IT DEMONSTRATES THAT ONCE HE ACCEPTED THAT ND A. HE CEASED ALL ACTIVITY IN SUPPORT OF THE ARC BRAND AND ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON IT WHEN IT CAME UP AT THE DECEMBER 1 2022 METRO COUNCIL MEETING. THAT SAME FACT PATTERN SHOULD LIKEWISE GUIDE YOU TO FIND HIM NOT GUILTY ON COUNT TWO, WHICH ALLEGES THAT COUNCILMAN PI ARGENTI USED HIS OFFICE TO SECURE AN UNWARRANTED PRIVILEGE AND THREE WHICH ALLEGES THAT HE ACTED IN A MANNER IN WHICH HE HAD A FINANCIAL OR PRIVATE INTEREST THAT IMPAIRED HIS OBJECTIVITY. ALL OF THOSE CHARGES FAILED BECAUSE OF THE SAME FACTS. LET'S TURN THEN. REAL QUICK TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER ONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ILLUSTRATION. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER HE'S GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN INSTRUCTION NUMBER FIVE. I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THIS ANSWER IS NO ALL SIX OF YOU HAVE ALREADY DEEMED HIM GUILTY BEFORE THIS TRIAL. UP TO 19 OF YOU MAY FIND HIM NOT GUILTY. YOU SHOULD INDICATE THIS POSITION BY SIGNING YOUR NAME ON THIS FORM AND WRITING. NO BESIDE IT. THE FOUR PERSON CAN TALLY UP THE VOTES AND PUT THE TOTALS AT THE TOP. AS WE BELIEVE FEWER THAN 18 OF YOU SHOULD VOTE NO TO THIS INTERROGATORY. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SKIP A DEROGATORY NUMBER TWO. SKIP INTERROGATORY. NUMBER THREE. SKIP VERDICT, FORM A AND THEN PROCEED NEXT TO INSTRUCTION. MEMBER, SIX. WHICH IS THE NEXT COUNT. IN THIS PATTERN SHOULD BE FOLLOWED FOR THE INSTRUCTIONS AND INTERROGATORIES RELATED ACCOUNTS TWO AND THREE. REAL QUICKLY. 
          WE'LL SKIP TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER OR INSTRUCTION NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH RELATES TO COUNT FOUR, WHICH IS ALLEGES THAT COUNCILOR PI ARGENTI FAILED TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM A MATTER PENDING BEFORE METRO COUNCIL IN WHICH HE HAD A PRIVATE OR FINANCIAL INTEREST. AND AGAIN AS I DISCUSSED A FEW MINUTES AGO, THE RECORD SHOWS COUNCILOR PIAGET DID NOT ACQUIRE A PRIVATE OR FINANCIAL INTEREST UNTIL AT BEST. HE LEARNED OF THE PROSPECT OF JOB OPPORTUNITY WITH THE CEO DURING THE PHONE CALL WITH M DAY ON NOVEMBER 18TH 2022. AFTER THAT, THE RECORD SHOWS HE IMMEDIATELY WENT TO NORTH CAROLINA FOR THANKSGIVING AND CEASE COMMUNICATING WITH ANY OF HIS COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE ART GRANT PROPOSAL UNTIL THE VERY NEXT MEETING OF METRO COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 1ST. AND DURING THAT MEETING, HE REMOVED HIMSELF AS A COSPONSOR OF THE ART GRANT LEGISLATION ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE DUE TO A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THUS YOU SHOULD FIND HIM NOT GUILTY OF COUNT FOUR IN THE MANNER I DESCRIBED FOR COUNT ONE AS WELL AS COUNTS FIVE AND SEVEN, WHICH ALLEGE A FAILURE TO DISCLOSE AN INTEREST IN WHICH OUR DISPROVED BY THE SAME SERIES OF FACTS TURNING TO INSTRUCTION 10. THIS INSTRUCTION RELATES TO COUNT SIX, WHICH ALLEGES THAT COUNCILOR P ARGENTI UM, USED HIS POSITION TO OBTAIN AN UNWARRANTED PRIVILEGE OR ADVANTAGE VIA THE TICKET FOR THE SEPTEMBER 22 OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE. AS THE RECORD INDICATES COUNCIL IN THE ARGENTI NEVER SOLICITED AN INVITATION TO THE EVENT. HE RECEIVED AN EMAIL INVITATION FROM AMANDA PRIEST ON SEPTEMBER 14TH 2022. WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE CITY'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE ACCORDINGLY, YOU SHOULD VOTE NOT GUILTY ON COUNT SIX IN THE MANNER I DESCRIBED FOR COUNT ONE. FINALLY, LET'S TURN TO INSTRUCTION NUMBER 12. 
          WHICH RELATES TO COUNT EIGHT. THIS COUNT ALLEGES THAT COUNCIL IN THE ARGENTI COMMITTED PERJURY. I SEE NO REASON TO REVISIT WHAT I'VE ALREADY EXPRESSED TO YOU ABOUT THESE ALLEGATIONS OTHER THAN TO SAY THERE IS NO PROOF THAT COUNCIL GENINI KNOWINGLY MADE ANY FALSE 
          [01:05:06]
STATEMENTS UNDER OATH. ACCORDINGLY I ASK THAT YOU FIND COUNCIL TINI NOT GUILTY ON COUNT EIGHT AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY AND THE MANNER I DESCRIBED FOR COUNT ONE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU MAY HEAR FROM THE CHARGING COMMITTEE THAT YOU SHOULD DRAW A NEGATIVE INFERENCE AGAINST COUNCIL P ARGENTI IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS DUE TO HIS REFUSAL TO ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS AND TO INVOKE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. BE SURE THIS CASE HAS BEEN ABOUT NOTHING BUT NEGATIVE INFERENCES. COUNCIL THE ARGENTINA RECEIVED A JOB OPPORTUNITY AFTER HE SUPPORTED THE CEO SR GRANT PROPOSAL. THEREFORE HE RECEIVED A JOB OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED THE CEO CS OUR GRANT PROPOSAL, RIGHT? AND BECAUSE HE RECEIVED THAT JOB OPPORTUNITY. EVERY PHONE CALL HE HAD WITH TIM YORK DAY WASN'T FURTHERANCE OF THAT JOB OPPORTUNITY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. WHY STOP AT THIS POINT? WHEN A CRIMINAL CASE THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE TO SUFFER THE SPOTLIGHT OF ANSWERING INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS OR INVOKING HIS OR HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EXPRESSLY THOSE RIGHTS ARE PRESUMED AND PROTECTED. BUT AS THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS REMINDED US REPEATEDLY THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL CASE. SO THE RULES FOR THE CIVIL CASES APPLY, I SUPPOSE. EXCEPT WHEN THEY DON'T APPLY LIKE THE ROUTINE PRACTICE OF PERMITTING RESPONDENTS OR DEFENDANTS LIKE COUNCILMAN TINI TO CONFRONT THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE CLAIMS AGAINST HIM. WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT NEGATIVE INFERENCES. HOW ABOUT A NEGATIVE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN BY THE ROADBLOCKS PUT UP EVERY TIME WE TRY TO ELICIT A MOTIVE OR BIAS BY ASKING QUESTIONS OF A MEMBER OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, WHICH IS, BY THE WAY, PERMITTED IN EVERY OTHER CIVIL CASE THROUGH DEPOSITIONS OR AT TRIAL. YET WE WERE TOLD EITHER WE COULD NOT PUT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ON THE STAND FOR THAT PURPOSE, OR WE WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM ASKING THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. YOU SAW IT. PLAY OUT FOR YOURSELVES. WE ASK A QUESTION. THEY OBJECT TO IT, AND THEN THE INDIVIDUALS RECEIVE PROTECTION FROM THAT. EVEN WHEN ONE WITNESS MADE REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT A PHONE CALL, SHE CLANDESTINELY RECORDED . WE WERE PREVENTED FROM PLAYING THAT RECORDING TO SEE IF HER REPRESENTATIONS WERE ACCURATE. MAYBE WE SHOULD ASK WHY. HOW ABOUT THE NEGATIVE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN BY THE ABSOLUTE REFUSAL TO ANSWER REASONABLE QUESTIONS? WHY THE INDIGNATION AT A SIMPLE QUESTION? WHERE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW? CONSIDERING THE WITNESS WHO LASHED OUT OF THAT QUESTION WAS UNDER SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BUT CONVENIENTLY LEFT TOWN TO MAKE HERSELF UNAVAILABLE DURING THE CASE. WHAT'S SHE, HONEY? THE ACCOUNT OF THE ARGENTINA WAS REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DOG AND PONY SHOW YOU AND THE PRESS GOT TO WITNESS WHILE THE CHARGING COMMITTEE GOT TO ASK, CAREFULLY CRAFTED QUESTIONS THAT THEY KNEW HE WOULD NOT ANSWER PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND SO THEY COULD TELL YOU THAT YOU NEED TO DRAW A NEGATIVE INFERENCE AGAINST COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI IN HER DELIBERATIONS. NO DOUBT, YOU'LL ALSO HEAR ABOUT ANOTHER PLUG FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION'S OPINION. YOU KNOW? THE SAME COMMISSION WHO'S HIRED INVESTIGATOR WAS FEEDING INFORMATION TO ONE PARTY AND NOT THE OTHER DURING HIS INVESTIGATION. AND THE SAME COMMISSION WHO IGNORED CRITICAL FACTS THAT WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED HERE. SURE. READ THAT UNANIMOUS, THOUGHTFUL OPINION. AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT OPINION CONTROLS YOUR DECISION, AS YOU MAY HEAR, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I APOLOGIZE SINCERELY. FOR WASTING YOUR TIME THESE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. AS I SAID THREE WEEKS AGO , WE COULD HAVE ADJOURNED THESE DELIBERATIONS AND DISPENSED WITH ALL THE PROCESS AT THAT POINT. THAT SAID. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED. 
          TO ACCEPT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OR CONCLUSION. IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO DO SO BE MINDFUL AGAIN THAT IT IGNORES UNDISPUTED AND UNCORROBORATED FACTS THAT ARE INCONVENIENT TO THE CHARGING COMMITTEE'S NARRATIVE AS WE HIGHLIGHTED WITH JIM GRIFFIN. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MIGHT BE ASKING YOURSELF WHY COS THE ARGENTI REFUSED TO ANSWER THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST HIM OR WHAT DO WE SAY IN RESPONSE TO THE ADMONITIONS OF INFERENCE? I'LL SAY THIS ONLY FROM THE MOMENT THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN THIS CASE, COUNSEL P ARGENTINA HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF COMMITTING MISCONDUCT BASED ON ACTIONS THAT WERE NOT DEFINED IN THE ETHICS CODE. BUT WE'RE DEFINED BY THE KENTUCKY PENAL CODE IN THE UNITED STATES CODE. ON JANUARY 24TH DURING THE COUNCIL COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF OUR MOTION TO DISMISS THESE CHARGES. THE CHARGES COMMITTEE SAT BEFORE THIS BODY AND SAID, QUOTE NOTHING YOU DO. WOULD NOTHING THAT YOU WOULD DO HERE. I SHOULD SAY BE ADMISSIBLE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING OR OF ANY IMPACT ON WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN THERE. THEN BACKTRACKED A FEW MINUTES LATER WHEN PRESSED BY PRESIDENT WINKLER AND CONCEDED THAT A PARTY OPPONENT'S TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE. SINCE THAT TIME, THE COMMITTEE'S POSITION ON THESE CHARGES HAS EVOLVED. RATHER THAN LIMITING THEIR HONEST SERVICES CLAIM TO A DUTY TO DISCLOSE AS THEIR COMPLAINT READS. THE CHARGE OF COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT COULD ALSO INCLUDE 
          [01:10:02]
REFERENCE TO A BRIBERY OR KICK BACK SCREE. YOU JUST MAKE IT UP AS WE GO. AND THEN THIS BODY HEARD TESTIMONY FROM JIM GRIFFIN THAT A REFERRAL OF THIS MATTER HAD BEEN MADE TO THE FBI. FOR HIS PART. COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGE COMMITTEE WAS WELL AWARE OF THIS REFERRAL. AFTER ALL, HE ASKED THE QUESTION THAT REVEALED THE INFORMATION TO GET YOU TO BELIEVE THAT WELL, IF THE FBI RECEIVED A REFERRAL, THEN THERE MUST BE MISCONDUCT. AND IT'S ENTIRELY LIKELY BORROWING THAT TERM THAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE REFERRAL WHEN THE CHARGE OF COMMITTEE DRAFTED THE COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE CRIMINAL CHARGES. GIVEN THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM IN THE COMPLAINT, THE MOVING OF THE GOALPOSTS BY THE CHARGING COMMITTEE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT HIS STATEMENTS COULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN A CRIMINAL MATTER AND THE REVELATION THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN REFERRED TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. THE QUESTION I ASK YOU IS THIS IF YOU WERE COUNCILMAN FOR ARGENTINA AND YOU WERE SITTING IN THAT CHAIR WOULD YOU ACT ANY DIFFERENTLY? ONE FINAL POINT ON THIS MATTER. THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS. TALK ABOUT THE WEIGHT YOU CAN GIVE WITNESSES. GIVEN HOW CREDIBLE THEIR TESTIMONY WAS COMPARED TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. DID IT ESCAPE ANYONE'S ATTENTION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT BILL HOLLANDER AFTER HE READ COUNCILMAN PIAGET'S CHRISTMAS CARD AND RECOVERED FROM THAT SUDDEN ONSET OF SHOCK HE EXPERIENCED DIDN'T CALL LNP D'S PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. OR ANY OTHER LEGAL OFFICIAL ABOUT COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI IS GOING TO WORK FOR THE CEO. HE CALLED THE POLITICAL DIRECTOR OF THE MAJORITY CAUCUS FIRST. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? AND WE SAW THE COMBATIVE TESTIMONY OF THE CHAIR OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, WHICH IT LASTED IN LAUGHTER, AND QUITE FRANKLY, SOME CRINGES FROM A MEMBERS OF THE BODY DURING THE TESTIMONY, AND AS THE CHAIR OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, SHE IS A DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE EFFORT TO REMOVE COUNCIL PAGNI FROM OFFICE. ARE YOU CONVINCED OF HER OBJECTIVITY? LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I AM PROUD. MR SMITH, MY COLLEAGUE IS PROUD TO REPRESENT ANTHONY PIAZZINI. IS A GOOD AND DECENT MAN. IS THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS COMBAT VETERAN. HE'S A DEVOTED HUSBAND. HE'S A CARING FATHER. IS A CONSUMMATE PUBLIC SERVANT WHO WAS ELECTED IN RE-ELECTED WITH THE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF HIS CONSTITUENTS. HE'S BEEN THROUGH HELL AND BACK THESE LAST FEW MONTHS. HE HAS ENCOUNTERED COUNTLESS ACCUSATIONS, QUESTIONING BOTH HIS PERSONAL AND HIS PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER. HE ENDURED ALL OF THIS WHILE MAINTAINING HIS COMMITMENT TO THE CITIZENS OF THE 19TH METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT. TO HIS COLLEAGUES. MOST IMPORTANTLY TO HIS FAMILY. IN HIS OPENING COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ASKED YOU WHAT, YOU WANT YOUR LEGACY TO BE WHEN THIS IS ALL CONCLUDED. YOUR LEGACY I WOULD SUBMIT IS NOT GOING TO BE DEFINED BY THIS CASE. FOR EVERYONE IN THIS BODY. IT IS GOING TO BE DEFINED BY EVERY OTHER DECISION YOU MAKE HERE AND HOW THOSE DECISIONS IMPACT THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THESE WALLS. 
          IF YOU'RE GOING TO SEND A MESSAGE AS THEY INVITED YOU TO DO THREE WEEKS AGO. LET IT BE THIS THIS COUNCIL COURT. WILL NOT BE PRESSED TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON POLITICS OR PERSONAL ANIMOSITY. SURELY NOT BASED ON SPECULATION. SUPPOSITION. OR LOGICAL FALLACY. 
          THE COUNCIL COURT WILL TAKE ITS CHARGE SERIOUSLY. AND IT WILL RENDER AN OPINION THAT IS BASED ON AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. AND IN THE END WE ASK THAT WHEN YOU UNDERTAKE THIS RESPONSIBILITY WHEN YOU CONDUCT THAT OBJECTIVE REVIEW. YOU WILL CONCLUDE THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. 
          YOU WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE 19TH METRO DISTRICT WILL NOT LOSE THEIR VOICE IN THIS BODY. YOU WILL CONCLUDE THAT THEY'RE DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE SILENCED OR REMOVED ARBITRARILY. HE WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE CHAR COMMITTEE HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN. AND HE WILL CONCLUDE THAT COUNCILMAN PIRANI IS NOT GUILTY OF ALL THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST HIM. BECAUSE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU AGREE THAT DESPITE ALL THE EFFORT THEY PUT INTO MAKING IT SO JUST LIKE MY SON DID WEEKS AGO. IT CAN'T BE THOSE SHOES. 
          [01:15:11]
THANK YOU, MR SWANS. UH, COLLEAGUES, WE WILL TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. UH, BEFORE WE RECONVENE, UH, WITH, UH, MR WICKER'S CLOSING, SO, UH PLEASE BE BACK IN CHAMBERS. UH, AT CALL IT 4:20 P.M. AS A REMINDER. SORRY BEFORE YOU GO DURING BREAKS, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO NOT PERMIT ANYONE TO SPEAK TO YOU OR COMMUNICATE YOU, UH, ON ANY SUBJECT CONNECTED WITH THIS HEARING, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO DO SO SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER. DO NOT CONVERSE OR DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES ANY SUBJECT THAT IS CONNECTED WITH THE HEARING NOR FORM EXPRESS ANY OPINION THEREUPON UNTIL THE HEARING IS FINALLY SUBMITTED FOR YOUR DETERMINATION, IF ANYONE SHOULD SAY ANYTHING WITHIN YOUR HEARING ABOUT THE CASE PROMPTLY BRING THIS MATTER TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER. WE'LL RECONVENE AT 420. 
          YEAH. 
          OK? 
          [01:26:47]
COUNCIL COURT MEMBERS. WE ARE BACK FROM BREAK AND ARE NOW IN SESSION. UH, MR WICKER, YOU MAY 
          [01:26:51]
BEGIN YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENTS WHEN READY. 
          CHAIR WINKLER. MAY IT, PLEASE THE COURT. I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING THAT WE WERE HERE TO HOLD MR PITI ACCOUNTABLE. IT'S NOW CLEAR WHY WE HAVE TO DO THAT. BECAUSE HE WON'T DO IT HIMSELF. HIS RESPONSE TO THESE CHARGES THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDING. HAS BEEN TO PLAY THE VICTIM. TO BLAME OTHERS AND TO DENY THE OBVIOUS. HE WON'T HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE. SO NOW YOU HAVE TO DO IT. ONE THING THAT I'VE LEARNED IN BEING AROUND THE COUNCIL FROM WATCHING VIDEOS OF COUNCIL MEETINGS, COMMITTEE MEETGS IS THAT MR PEDINI IS A TALKER. HE HAS AN OPINION ON MOST EVERY ISSUE. AND HE WANTS TO EXPRESS IT. HE WANTS PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT HE THINKS. BUT AT ONE TIME WHEN IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SPEAK. HE REMAINED SILENT. AT THE TIME WHEN HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE CHARGES TO TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. HE REFUSED TO ANSWER. NOW HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO THAT, BECAUSE OUR LAWS SAY THAT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES A TRUTHFUL ANSWER MAY INCRIMINATE HIM. MAY TAKE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. BUT IN A CIVIL CASE YOU CAN CONSIDER THIS REFUSAL TO ANSWER AND YOU MAY PRESUME. IF HE HAD ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS, HIS ANSWER WOULD HAVE BEEN AGAINST HIS INTEREST, AND THEY WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT HE WAS GUILTY OF THE MISCONDUCT OF THESE CHARGED WITH SO LET'S LOOK AT THE QUESTIONS THAT HE WAS ASKED AND REFUSED TO ANSWER. THE FIRST ONE. DID YOU MEET WITH TAMMY YORK TODAY? IN LATE 2021 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING A JOB OR CONSULTING ARRANGEMENT? AND TWO 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. THESE WERE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. BECAUSE IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF A YEARLONG ATTEMPT TO GET A JOB FROM THE CEO. IT WAS THE POINT AT WHICH, AS YOU HEARD, PRESIDENT WINKLER SAY HE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED AS SOON AS HE STARTED TALKING TO THEM ABOUT A JOB. MR GENINI HIMSELF TESTIFIED AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING THAT QUOTE. IF YOU ARE DISCUSSING A JOB WITH SOMEONE, THEN YOU HAVE TO DISQUALIFY FROM ANY MATTERS RELATED TO THAT PERSON. YOU'RE DISCUSSING THE JOB WITH RIGHT. 
          YES. HE KNEW AND, YOU KNOW. THAT YOU CAN'T GO LOOKING FOR A JOB FROM SOMEONE AND CONTINUE TO 
          [01:30:04]
DECIDE WHETHER THEY GET A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR GRANT. BECAUSE AT THE SAME TIME HE'S FIRST TRYING TO GET A JOB FOR THE R FA WITH A $9.2 MILLIONTO PROPOSAL. BUT PIER ARGENTI REFUSED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. ABOUT THE START OF HIS EFFORTS FROM THE TO GET A JOB FROM THE CEO C. AND YOU CAN ASSUME THAT THE ANSWERS WOULD HAVE BEEN YES. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS TRYING TO GET A JOB WITH THE CEO C BEGINNING IN LATE 2021. THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING LIVE TESTIMONY FROM MR TINI THAT YOU DIDN'T GET TO HEAR. THEY FOUND TH BOTH OF THESE WITNESSES AGREE THAT AT THAT TIME YOUR DAY INFOED THE ARGENTI, THE CEO C DID NOT HAVE A POSITION AILAE. THIS LDS TTH LOL CONIO TTH E MEETING. UNDER THE ETHICS ORDINANCE, THE ETHICS COMMISSION HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A METRO OFFICIAL HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION. THEY MADE THAT DETERMINATION AND YOU MAY RELY ON IT. NOW WE COULD STOP THERE. 
          BUT THERE'S MORE. YOU'VE HEARD. THAT PENTTI TOLD MR GRIFFIN THAT HE HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO LEAVE HIS JOB WITH WELL CAR AT THE TIME HE MET WITH DAY THEY TOLD GRIFFIN THAT HE SENT HER A RESUME THROUGH THEIR MUTUAL FRIEND ROB GIVENS. THIS IS NOT A GET TO KNOW YOU SESSION. THIS IS A JOB INTERVIEW. AND THE FACT THAT THE CEO DOESN'T HAVE A POSITION OPEN AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S THE END OF THE STORY. THE OC IS BACKED BY OVER A DOZEN OF THE BIGGEST HEALTH CARE COMPANIES IN TOWN, AND IF THEY WANT TO HIRE SOMEBODY, THEY CAN FIND THE MONEY TO DO IT. THAT'S WHY IT WAS A CONFLICT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THE GRANT APPLICATION OF A COMPANY THAT YOU'RE CONTINUING TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT FROM QUESTIONS THREE AND FOUR THAT PEDINI WOULDN'T ANSWER. DID YOU ACCEPT A FREE TICKET TO THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH YOU ACCEPTED IT, YOU WERE VIOLATING THE ETHICS ORDINANCE. DID YOU DISCUSS A JOB OR CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH TAMMY YORK DAY AT THE OPTIMIZED CONFERENCE IN SEPTEMBER, 2022? HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. SO YOU CAN ASSUME THAT THE TRUTHFUL ANSWER THAT HE SOUGHT TO AVOID WOULD HAVE BEEN YES. BUT THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT. ALSO. THERE'S NO QUESTION HE TOOK A FREE TICKET. 
          YOU SAW THE INVITATION. THERE'S NO QUESTION HE WAS THERE TO FURTHER HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST. HE REGISTERED AS A BP CONSULTING HIS PRIVATE CONSULTING BUSINESS. THERE'S NO SUGGESTION THAT HE WAS THERE TO DO ANY COUNCIL BUSINESS. NOW HE'S TRIED TO MUDDY THIS UP BY SAYING, OH, GRACE SIM ALL WENT TO THE CONFERENCE, THE MAYOR WENT TO THE CONFERENCE. MARCUS WINKLER WENT TO A DIFFERENT CONFERENCE. BUT METRO PAID FOR ALL OF THOSE ADMISSIONS THEY PAID FOR THE TICKET. THEY BOUGHT THE TICKET. THE ARGENTINA DIDN'T GET COMPLIMENTARY TICKET FROM METRO HE GOT IT FROM THE CO, THE COMPANY THAT HAD PENDING BUSINESS BEFORE THE COUNCIL. AND WE KNOW THAT THEY AND PIERINI TALKED ABOUT A JOB THERE. REALLY? THAT'S WHY HE WENT. HE WAS STILL JOB HUNTING. THEY TESTIFIED THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT A JOB. AND SHE SAID THAT THERE'S NO QUESTION HE UNDERSTOOD THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. HE TESTIFIED THAT HER MEMORY WAS ACCURATE. THAT ISSUE IS NOT IN DISPUTE. AND THE ETHICS. COMMISSION MADE THAT SAME FINDING AND YOU CAN RELY ON IT. THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT NOW. HE HAS TO DISCLOSE THE CONFLICT AND RECUSE. HE'S TALKING ABOUT GETTING A JOB WITH A COMPANY FOR WHOM HE IS ADVOCATING A $40 MILLION GRANT. IN WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO YOU NOT HAVE TO RECUSE NOW? QUESTION NUMBER FIVE. DID YOU DISCUSS A JOB OR CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH TAMMY YORK DAY AND TELEPHONE CALLS OR PERSONAL MEETINGS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 22ND AND NOVEMBER 16TH? HE REFUSED TO ANSWER. YOU CAN PRESUME THAT THE ANSWER WOULD HAVE BEEN YES'S LOT THE TELEPHONE RECORDS. HE HAS 
          [01:35:02]
ONE CALL WITH TAMMY YORK DAY IN JANUARY. ON THE DATE THAT THE R FA APPLICATIONS WERE DUE. 
          JANUARY, 31ST. HE HAS ANOTHER FIVE CALLS BETWEEN FEBRUARY AND APRIL. BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY CALLS WITH HER FROM APRIL TO SEPTEMBER. THAT PERIOD OF TIME WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THE FEDERAL GRANT IS GOING TO COME TO THE CEO C THEY DON'T NEED HELP FROM HIM, THEN. BUT ONCE THE FEDERAL GRANT DOESN'T COME THROUGH THE CALLS START AGAIN. AND MOST IMPORTANT IS RIGHT AFTER THE CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER 2628 AND 30TH. LONG TELEPHONE CALLS ON 20. SIXTH AND 28TH MADE RIGHT AFTER DAY TELLS HIM ABOUT THE JOB SHE WANTS TO GIVE HIM. AT A TIME WHEN HIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT IS ABOUT TO RUN OUT. HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CLIENTS. OF COURSE, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT A JOB. THAT'S WHY HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. COUNCIL WANT WANTED TO ASK MR GRIFFIN? WELL IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THERE WERE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE GRANT RIGHT? THAT WAS POSSIBLE. BUT THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT WAS POSSIBLE. BUT WHAT WAS LIKELY PRESIDENT WINKLER TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS THE ONE WORKING OUT THE GRANT DETAILS WITH THE CEO. IT WASN'T P ARGENTI. IT IS LIKELY IT IS PROVEN. THAT THEY DIDN'T THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT THE JOB, AND THAT'S WHAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION FOUND IN ITS HEARING AND ITS RULING ON THE ISSUE. AND WE KNOW THAT'S RIGHT. BECAUSE WHEN PI ARGENTI GETS THE NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, AND HE ADMITS THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT THE JOB THAT CALL WAS ONLY SIX MINUTES LONG. NOT LIKE THE LONGER CALLS OF EARLIER IN THE YEAR. BUT PIERRE CANTINI TOLD GRIFFIN FALSELY THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW HE WAS GOING TO HAVE TO RECUSE HOW HE WAS GONNA HAVE TO WITHDRAW AS A SPONSOR THAT HE COULDN'T ADVOCATE FOR THE GRANT ANYMORE, AND THEY'D HAVE TO WIN THE VOTE WITHOUT HIM. THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW HE COULDN'T WORK ON ANYTHING RELATED TO THE GRANT. AND THEN HE COULD COULDN'T BE PAID FROM THE GRANT. AND THEN THEY TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE JOB WOULD ENTAIL AND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS PROGRAM WOULD BE. ABOUT SEVEN DIFFERENT SUBJECTS IN SIX MINUTES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? NO. AND THAT'S WHY P AND T REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT IT. 
          HOW ELSE DO WE KNOW THAT PIN WAS EXPECTING THE ND A AND THAT HE KNEW WHAT IT WAS ABOUT BEFORE HE EVER RECEIVED IT. BECAUSE DAY DOESN'T PUT ANY EXPLANATION AT ALL IN THE EMAIL. SHE DOESN'T EVEN SAY CALL ME ABOUT THIS AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT'S UP. NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT WHY SHE SENT IT. 
          WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE THEY BOTH KNEW IT WAS COMING. THEY BOTH KNEW WHAT IT WAS ABOUT. THEY BOTH KNEW THAT WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. AND WHEN PIER ARGENTINA RETURNED THE ND A THE NEXT DAY. HE SAYS BEFORE HE TALKED TODAY. HE LISTS HIS TITLE AS PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT, THE SAME TITLE THAT HE HAS WHEN HE FINALIZES THE DEAL ON DECEMBER 1ST. AND THINK ABOUT THE TIMING HERE. ONE THING THAT I HAVE LEARNED IN DOING THIS STUFF FOR A LONG TIME. IS THAT TIMING IS NEVER AN ACCIDENT. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COINCIDENCE. HE GOT THIS ND A ON NOVEMBER 17 THE MORNING BEFORE THE CRUCIAL BUDGET VOTE IN THE EVENING. WHY DID HE GET IT THEN? IT WASN'T BECAUSE THE CEO BOARD HAD JUST APPROVED THE HIRE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THERE'S NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT PI ARGENTI OR APPROVING HIS HIRE IN THE MINUTES. IT'S NOT BECAUSE MISTER REMER, THE FOUNDER OF THE CEO HAD JUST APPROVED THE HIRE BECAUSE HE TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING UNTIL IT WAS ALREADY DONE. WHY DOES HE GET THIS? ND, A IS SHOWING THAT THE CEO WAS SERIOUS ABOUT HIRING HIM. RIGHT BEFORE THE BUDGET COMMITTEE VOTE. THE EVIDENCE. 
          SUGGEST THAT IT WAS BECAUSE TAMMY YORK DAY WAS GETTING NERVOUS. THE ORDINANCE WAS EXPECTED TO COME UP FOR A VOTE ON NOVEMBER 3RD. BUT THEY PUSHED IT OFF AND LET THE CEO MAKE A PRESENTATION INSTEAD. SOME MEMBERS HAD BEEN DISAPPOINTED BY THAT ACTION. IT WAS GETTING DOWN 
          [01:40:01]
TO THE END OF THE A RP MONEY, AND THERE WERE MORE PROJECTS STILL LEFT TO BE FUNDED THAN THERE WAS MONEY TO DO IT. SO THEY HAD TO BUY AN INSURANCE POLICY. AND SHE HAD TO DO IT BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 17 VOTE. QUESTION NUMBER SIX. DID YOU READ ANY PART OF THE NOVEMBER 17TH EMAIL OR NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FROM TAMMY YORK DAY BEFORE THE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING IN THE EVENING OF NOVEMBER? 17TH 2022 HE WOULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO YOU CAN PRESUME THAT THE ANSWER WOULD HAVE BEEN YES. AND IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE ANSWER IS YES. THE ARGENTINA TESTIFIED IN THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING THAT HE DOESN'T REMEMBER WHETHER HE CHECKED HIS EMAIL BEFORE THE BUDGET COMMITTEE BEING WELL, ISN'T THAT CONVENIENT? HE TOLD JIM GRIFFIN EVERY LITTLE DETAIL OF EVERYTHING HE DID THAT DAY. MEETING WITH HIS AID, DOING A RADIO INTERVIEW EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE AFTERNOON, BUT HE CAN'T REMEMBER IF HE SAW THE EMAIL ABOUT AN ND, A FROM THE GROUP WHOSE GRANT HE WAS GOING TO BE PUSHING FOR THAT NIGHT. ABOUT A JOB THAT HE'D BEEN TRYING TO GET FOR A YEAR. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. 
          QUESTION NUMBER SEVEN. DID YOU INTENTIONALLY FAIL TO PROPERLY RECUSE FROM THE VOTE ON THE CEO GRANT ORDINANCE BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO HIDE YOUR IMPENDING CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH THE CEO C. HE REFUSED TO ANSWER SO YOU CAN PRESUME THAT THE ANSWER WOULD HAVE BEEN YES. AND OF COURSE IT WAS. TESTIMONY WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PROPER DISCLOSURE WOULD HAVE CREATED A FUROR. COULD HAVE DERAILED THE GRANT. CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE DELAYED IT. AND THEN MAYBE TAMMY YORK DAY DOESN'T SIGN THAT CONTRACT. AND YOU HEARD THE EVIDENCE THAT SHE DELAYED SIGNING THE CONTRACT UNTIL AFTER THE GRANT WAS APPROVED. WASN'T THAT ODD. SHE WAS IN SUCH A RUSH TO HIRE HIM THAT SHE DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT IT OR GET BOARD APPROVAL. BUT THEN SHE WAITS TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT UNTIL AFTER THE GRANT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. ISN'T THAT ODD BUT THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES. THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES. SHE WAITED TO SEE IF SHE GOT WHAT SHE PAID FOR. THERE IS NO QUESTION THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT THIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE JUST WHAT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAS VIOLATED THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AND VIOLATED THE METRO COUNCIL'S RULES. HERE'S THE TEST TEXT OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE. IT'S NOT COMPLICATED. IT'S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. THE SAME RULE IS IN RULE 508 OF THE METRO COUNCIL RULES. HE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE INTEREST. THAT HE HAD AND HE VIOLATED THAT DUTY. NOW. AS EVERYONE ALL THE TIME BEEN PERFECT IN THE WAY THEY RECUSED. NO WE'VE SEEN THAT THERE WERE TWO OTHER OCCASIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNCIL IN WHICH MEMBERS DIDN'T DO IT PROPERLY. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT NEITHER OF THESE MEMBERS WERE TAKING THE $240,000 CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH THE BENEFICIARY OF THE MATTER THAT WAS BEFORE THEM. PEOPLE RECUSE ALL THE TIME IN THE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. BUT THE ONE TIME WHEN THERE IS A REAL HUGE CONFLICT THAT THIS COUNCIL NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT. HE HIDES IT FROM THE COUNCIL. HE HIDES IT FROM THE CAMPS. AND WE KNOW THAT HE DOES IT ON PURPOSE BECAUSE YOU SAW THE VIDEO OF WHEN HE DID IT PROPERLY. ABSTAIN DUE TO MY WIFE BEING ON THE WATERFALL, BOTANICAL GARDENS BOARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S HOW YOU DO IT. HE KNEW HOW YOU DO IT. BUT HE HID IT FROM THE CAPSULE. QUESTION NUMBER EIGHT. DID YOU ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS ON BEHALF OF THE CEO IN JANUARY, 2023 OF COURSE HE DID. THAT WAS UNDISPUTED. AND BY THIS TIME HE DOESN'T NEED TO HIRE HIDE HIS AFFILIATION ANYMORE. BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. BUT HE LIED IN HIS TESTIMONY TO JIM GRIFFIN AND TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION IN SAYING THAT HE DIDN'T DO ANY WORK ON THE GRANT. HIS DEFENSE IS THAT HE WAS JUST CROSS TRAINING TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CEO C DID. FRANKLY THAT'S LAUGHABLE, THE NOTES OF THE MEETINGS OR IN EXHIBITS 19 AND 20. HE'S NOT THERE TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT THE 
          [01:45:08]
CEO DOES. HE'S LEADING THE MEETING. AND HE LIED ABOUT SO WHAT'S THE DEFENSE. WHAT'S THE DEFENSE? WELL, THE DEFENSE IS NOT TO ANSWER LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR. 
          IT'S JUST TO ATTACK EVERYBODY ELSE. THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FOWLER AND THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. BUT NONE OF THEM TOOK A 240,000 JOB WITH THE COMPANY WHOSE GRANT THEY WERE PUSHING FOR. THEY WERE PERFORMING. A DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT DUTY FOR THIS. COUNCIL. IN RESPONDING TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION ORDER TO CONDUCT A HEARING TO REMOVE PAGE FOR HIS ETHICS VIOLATIONS. EVERY TIME THE ETHICS COMMISSION HAS ISSUED SUCH AN ORDER, A CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS BEEN FORMED TO BRING CHARGES. IT WOULD BE THE MOST EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THIS COUNCIL'S DUTY. IF NO ONE STEPPED UP TO BRING THESE CHARGES. WE SHOULD THANK THE CHARGING COMMITTEE FOR STANDING UP. FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO PERFORM THIS IMPORTANT DUTY. ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY. ANOTHER DEFENSE WE'VE HEARD IN THE QUESTIONING IS TO SAY THAT THE GRANT WAS A GOOD THING. MAYBE IT WAS. MAYBE IT WASN'T WE KNOW THAT IT PLACED 29TH OUT OF 30 IN JANUARY. FOR TWO REASONS. ONE WAS THAT THE CEO C DIDN'T HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE IN RUNNING WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE STAFF TO DO IT, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO LEARN ON THE JOB. 
          THAT WAS STILL THE CASE. IN DECEMBER. THE OTHER REASON. THAT IT SCORED SO POORLY IS THAT IT DIDN'T MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF THE GRANT TO CREATE GOOD FAMILY SUPPORTING JOBS. NOW RESPONDENT WANTS TO CLAIM THAT IT WAS DIFFERENT IN DECEMBER, BUT IT REALLY WASN'T IT WAS PAIRED WITH THE AMPED PROPOSAL AND SOME OTHER SMALLER PROPOSALS ABOUT GENERATING NEW BUSINESSES. BUT THE CORE OF THE CEO C'S PART WAS STILL THE SAME IN DECEMBER AS IT WAS IN JANUARY TRAINING PEOPLE TO BE NURSES, AIDES AT $15 AN HOUR AND UPSKILLING OTHER PEOPLE TO $20 AN HOUR. $32,000 IS THE POVERTY LINE FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR. AND SURE THERE IS SOME BENEFIT IN GETTING PEOPLE INTO ANY JOB. BUT IT'S JUST WRONG TO SAY THAT SPENDING $19 MILLION TO CREATE POVERTY LEVEL JOBS IS SUCH A GREAT IDEA THAT NOBODY COULD EVER OPPOSE IT. AND THEN LOOK, HOW ABOUT LOOK HOW THEY GO ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THE GRANT? THE OC IS GOING TO FURNISH AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO RECRUITERS TO CAREER ADVISORS AND MARKETING DIRECTOR AND SOME OTHERS. $2 MILLION IS GONNA BE SPENT ON EXECUTIVES AT THE CEO C. THEN THEY'RE GONNA OUTSOURCE THE ACTUAL TRAINING TO ANOTHER COMPANY. CO ISN'T DOING ANY TRAINING. THEY'RE GONNA HIRE SOMEBODY TO DO THAT. SO WHY ARE THEY INVOLVED AT ALL? WELL. MAYBE. IT'S BECAUSE THEY GAVE A $240,000 JOB TO THEIR PRIMARY SUPPORTER ON THE METRO COUNCIL. BUT FOLKS, YOU DON'T NEED TO REACH THAT ISSUE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS A GOOD GRANT OR A BAD GRANT. THE QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE YOU GOOD GRANT BAD GRANT. YOU CAN'T TAKE A SECRET JOB FOR $240,000 IN SUPPORT THE GRANT. THAT'S A CONFLICT. THAT'S MISCONDUCT. ANOTHER ISSUE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE IS WHETHER MR PAGNI WAS A GOOD HIRE. MAYBE IT WAS MAYBE HE WASN'T BUT YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT THE WAY HE WAS HIRED WAS WEIRD. 
          HE CLAIMS TO BE A WELL KNOWN HEALTH CARE EXECUTIVE HERE IN LOUISVILLE, BUT MR RAMS THE FOUNDER OF THE CEO, WHO HAS SPENT A LONG CAREER IN HEALTH CARE IN LOUISVILLE. HE DOESN'T KNOW IT. HE DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS GOING TO BE HIRED UNTIL AFTER THE DEAL WAS DONE. JOSH WILLIAMS. THE NUMBER TWO PERSON AT THE CEO HE DOESN'T NEED. HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT PI ARGENTI IS 
          [01:50:03]
GONNA BE HIRED UNTIL AFTER IT'S ALREADY DONE. THE BOARD MINUTES. DON'T AUTHORIZE THE HIGHER OR MENTION HIM AT ALL. WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE THIS IS A RUSH JOB THAT TAMMY YORK DAY DID ON HER OWN TO BUY INSURANCE FOR GETTING A $40 MILLION GRANT. SO LET'S LOOK AT THE CHARGES. MR PIERINI IS CHARGED WITH EIGHT COUNTS. SIX OF THEM ARE THE COUNTS OF CONVICTION AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING. YOU'VE HEARD SOME TECHNICAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE WAY THE CHARGES ARE WORDED OR WHERE THE ETHICS ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED. THOSE SAME ARGUMENTS WERE MADE TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND REJECTED THEY ARE THE BODY CHARGED WITH INTERPRETING THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AND THEIR INTERPRETATION GOVERNMENTS. YOU SHOULD RELY ON THE DECISIONS THAT THEY MADE AS WELL. YOU SHOULD ALSO RELY ON THEIR GUILTY FINDING ON EACH OF THESE SIX COUNTS. THEY HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY AND OF PI, ARGENTINA AND TAMMY OR DAY THAT YOU DIDN'T GET TO HEAR. THEY WERE ABLE TO WATCH THEM TESTIFY TO JUDGE THEIR CREDIBILITY TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS. YOU MAY RELY ON THEIR FINDINGS. THE OTHER TWO CHARGES ARE COUNT SEVEN MISCONDUCT BY FAILURE TO DISCLOSE AND COUNT EIGHT. MISCONDUCT BY FALSE TESTIMONY IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION PROCEEDING. COUNT SEVEN IS KIND OF THE CORE QUESTION ABOUT THE WHOLE ORDEAL. WHY DID YOU KEEP IT SECRET? PIERINI WOULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. BUT YOU KNOW BY NOW WHAT THE ANSWER WAS IF HE HAD TOLD ANYBODY, IT WOULD HAVE KILLED HIS CHANCES OF GETTING THE JOB. IF HE HAD TOLD ANYBODY, IT WOULD HAVE EITHER TORPEDOED THE DEAL, OR AT LEAST CREATED SUCH INTENSE SCRUTINY ON IT THAT HE NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE JOB WITH THE CEO. COUNT EIGHT. IS MISCONDUCT BY FALSE TESTIMONY. IF HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. WHY DID HE HAVE TO LIE ABOUT IT? AND THAT'S WHAT HE DID. HE LIED WHEN HE SAID HE WAS SURPRISED TO GET THE ND A. HE LIED WHEN HE SAID HE DIDN'T DO ANY WORK ON THE GRANT. AND LYING UNDER OATH IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE MISCONDUCT. YEAH. I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING THAT IT GAVE ME AND THE CHARITY COMMITTEE NO PLEASURE THAT WE HAVE TO BE HERE. HE GAVE NONE OF US ANY PLEASURE TO BE GOING THROUGH THIS DIFFICULT AND PAINFUL EXERCISE. BUT IT WASN'T ME. IT WASN'T THE CHARGING COMMITTEE THAT BROUGHT US HERE. IT IS ANTHONY PI ARGENTINA'S MISCONDUCT THAT BROUGHT US HERE AND IT IS OUR DUTY. YOUR DUTY. TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT. 
          BECAUSE HOW COULD YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE? IF YOU DON'T REMOVE HIM FOR THIS MISCONDUCT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU APPROVE OF IT THAT YOU CONDONE IT. YOU WANT TO SERVE WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO DOES THINGS LIKE THIS? YOU WATCH THE SPECTACLE OF A MEMBER OF METRO COUNCIL, TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND TAKE THE 5TH. 15 TIMES. IS THAT THE CONDUCT THAT YOU WANT TO APPROVE TO SUPPORT TO CONDONE IS THAT THE KIND OF CONDUCT THAT THIS COMMUNITY DESERVES OF ITS METRO COUNCIL MEMBERS. THE TITLE OF MEMBER OF METRO COUNCIL IS A TITLE OF HONOR. BUT IT WILL ONLY BE A TITLE OF HONOR. IF YOU REQUIRE THOSE WHO WEAR IT. TO SERVE WITH HONOR. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CASE. GOES FAR BEYOND HOW IT AFFECTS. ANTHONY P, ARGENTINE WE MAY SAY THAT HE IS ON TRIAL HERE. BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS REALLY THIS METRO COUNCIL. THAT IS ON TRIAL. YOU PASS A CODE OF ETHICS. IF YOU WEREN'T SERIOUS ABOUT IT, YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST TEAR IT UP. LET SOMEBODY ELSE REGULATE COUNCIL BEHAVIOR. THIS COMMUNITY MAY SOMEDAY FORGET WHAT PITI DID TO GET HERE. BUT IT WILL NOT FORGET HOW YOU RESPONDED TO IT. BUT I THINK YOU WERE SERIOUS ABOUT IT. 
          [01:55:08]
I BELIEVE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL KNOW WHAT THEIR DUTIES ARE. KNOW WHY THEY'RE IMPORTANT. THEY KNOW WHY IT'S CRUCIAL TO FIND HIM GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND REMOVE HIM FROM THIS COUNCIL. I BELIEVE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL CAN PUT DUTY ABOVE PARTY INTEGRITY ABOVE PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP AND HONOR. ABOVE CONVENIENCE OF IGNORING THIS MISCONDUCT. IT IS UNFORTUNATE. THAT MR PI ARGENTI REFUSED TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE IN DOING SO, HE ALSO REFUSED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. AND ONE OF YOU MAY HAVE ASKED TONY ARE YOU SORRY FOR WHAT YOU DID. WILL YOU APOLOGIZE TO THIS COUNCIL FOR WHAT YOU'VE PUT US THROUGH? BECAUSE FOLKS, YOU CAN FORGIVE A LOT OF TRANSGRESSIONS IF SOMEONE ASKS FOR FORGIVENESS. BUT ANTHONY P ARGENTINA HAS PUT THIS COUNCIL THROUGH A HORRIBLE ORDEAL. AND HE HAS NEVER ONCE APOLOGIZED FOR IT HAS NEVER ONCE SUGGESTED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS. THAT HE DID SOMETHING WRONG. SO NOW YOU HAVE TO TELL HIM. YOU HAVE TO TELL HIM THAT HE FELL BELOW THE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR THAT THIS COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY REQUIRE. YOU HAVE TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE. AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT. IS BY REMOVING HIM FROM METRO COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR WICKER. 
          UH, MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PASS OUT THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS, PLEASE. THANK YOU. COUNCIL COURT MEMBERS. EACH OF YOU WILL BE RECEIVING A COPY OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS MOMENTARILY. I WILL NOW READ THOSE INSTRUCTIONS INTO THE RECORD. COLLEAGUES NOW THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS IS MY DUTY TO GIVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE LAW APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. IT IS YOUR DUTY AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL COURT TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS STATED IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS, AND TO APPLY THAT LAW TO THE FACTS YOU FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE. YOU ARE NOT TO SINGLE OUT ANY ONE INSTRUCTION ALONE IS STATING THE LAW. YOU MUST CONSIDER THE INSTRUCTIONS AS A WHOLE. YOU ARE NOT TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE WISDOM OF ANY RULE OF LAW STATED BY THE COURT. YOU MUST APPLY THE LAW GIVEN IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS. WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT. IT IS YOUR DUTY TO DETERMINE THE FACTS. AND IN SO DOING, YOU MUST CONSIDER ONLY THE EVIDENCE. I'VE ADMITTED INTO THE CASE. THE TERM EVIDENCE INCLUDES THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES IN THE EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD. IT IS YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION AND RECOLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTROLS YOU ARE PERMITTED TO DRAW REASONABLE INFERENCES DEDUCTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBITS WHICH YOU FEEL ARE JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF YOUR OWN COMMON SENSE. SOME OF YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF SOME OF THE EVENTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. WHILE YOU ARE PERMITTED TO INCORPORATE SUCH PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE INTO YOUR THINKING YOUR DECISION MUST BE FREE FROM BIAS OR PREJUDICE AND MUST BE BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING. EACH OF YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE IN YOUR OWN MIND, BUT ONLY AFTER IMPARTIAL CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER COUNCIL COURT MEMBERS YOU MUST DISREGARD ANY COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED FROM CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THIS MATTER. WHILE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT THIS MATTER, THOSE OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. IN EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE, YOU SHOULD BE GUIDED BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD. THE STANDARD MEANS THAT EVIDENCE WHICH, AS A WHOLE SHOWS THAT THE FACTS OUGHT TO BE PROVED IS MORE PROBABLE THAN NOT. IN SAYING THAT YOU MUST CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. I DO NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT YOU MUST NECESSARILY ACCEPT ALL THE EVIDENCE IS TRUE OR ACCURATE. IT IS THE SPECIAL DUTY OF THE COUNCIL COURT TO SCRUTINIZE AND WEIGH THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THE EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE. YOU ARE THE SOLE JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SEVERAL WITNESSES AND THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THEIR TESTIMONY. IN DETERMINING SUCH WEIGHT AND CREDIT. YOU SHOULD AS TO THE WITNESSES, CONSIDER THEIR INTEREST OR LACK OF INTEREST IN THE RESULT OF THIS PROCEEDING, THEIR CONDUCT AND DEMEANOR ON THE WITNESS STAND THEIR BIAS OR PREJUDICE, IF ANY, HAS BEEN SHOWN. THE CLARITY OR LACK OF CLARITY OF THEIR RECOLLECTION. THEIR OPPORTUNITY FOR OBSERVING AND THE REASONABLENESS OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN YOU SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. ALSO ALL OF THE FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES APPEARING DURING THE HEARING, WHICH EITHER TEND TO SUPPORT OR DISCREDIT THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS, AND THEN GIVE THAT TESTIMONY OF EACH WITNESS SUCH WEIGHT AND CREDIT AS YOU BELIEVE IT IS FAIRLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE. THE RESPONDENT CHOSE NOT TO TESTIFY, INVOKING HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION, WHICH HE HAS LAWFULLY PERMITTED TO DO IN THIS PROCEEDING. YOU MAY BUT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO INFER FROM THAT DECISION THAT IF HE HAD INVOKED 
          [02:00:05]
NOT INVOKED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS, HE WOULD HAVE ANSWERED IN A MANNER THAT WOULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED HIS POSITION ON THE ISSUE. WHILE YOU MAY CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT CHOSE NOT TO TESTIFY, YOU MAY NOT BASE YOUR DECISION SOLELY ON THAT FACT. THE STATEMENTS, OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LAWYERS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. WHAT THE LAWYERS HAVE SAID IS NOT BINDING UPON YOU. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING AS TO THE EXISTENCE OR NON EXISTENCE OF ANY FACT. YOU SHOULD BE GUIDED IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS BY THE QUALITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE HEARD. WHEN A WORD VERDICT HAS BEEN REACHED. 
          WE WILL RETURN TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS AFTER SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME HAS ELAPSED AS TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEMBER P ARGENTI TIME TO RETURN TO CHAMBERS. 18 OR MORE OF YOU MUST AGREE IN ORDER FOR THE QUESTIONS UNDER PARTICULAR INSTRUCTIONS OR MAKE ANY OF THE TERMINATION REQUIRED BY THESE INSTRUCTIONS. IF ALL OF YOU AGREE THE CHAIR ALONE CAN SIGN FOR YOU, BUT IF LESS THAN ALL OF YOU AGREE, THEN EACH OF THOSE 18 OR MORE, WHICH ARE IN AGREEMENT MUST SIGN IN THE SPACE PROVIDED UNDER EACH INSTRUCTION. KRS 67 C 0.1431 PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, ANY ELECTED OFFICER OF A CONSOLIDATED LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN CASE OF MISCONDUCT, INCAPACITY OR WILLFUL NEGLECT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF HIS OR HER OFFICE MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BY LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL SITTING AS A COURT UNDER OATH UPON CHARGES PREFERRED BY THE MAYOR OR ANY FIVE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OR IN CHARGES OF AGAINST THE MAYOR, UPON CHARGES PREFERRED BY NO LESS THAN 10, MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. MISCONDUCT IS DEFINED AS A DERELICTION OF DUTY, UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST OR IMPROPER BEHAVIOR, ESPECIALLY BY SOMEONE IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY OR TRUST BY BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. 11TH EDITION. 2009 WILLFUL NEGLECT IS DEFINED AS INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS FAILURE TO CARRY OUT ILLEGAL DUTY AGAIN BY BLACK'S LAW. 11TH EDITION 2019 THE GEORGIAN COMMITTEE HAS FILED AN EIGHT COUNT COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE RESPONDENT ANTHONY PITI ENGAGED IN THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS, WHICH THEY ALLEGE CONSTITUTE MISCONDUCT OR WILLFUL NEGLECT. IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES IN OFFICE. YOU WILL RECEIVE A SEPARATE INSTRUCTION ON EACH OF THESE ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLETE A SEPARATE INTERROGATORY AND VERDICT FORM FOR EACH OF THESE EIGHT COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT. THE EIGHT COUNTS ALLEGED IN THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT COUNT ONE IMPROPERLY SOLICITING OR ACCEPTING PROMISE OF EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF VALUE. COUNCIL MEMBER AND RESPONDENT ANTHONY PI ARGENTI, SOLICITED OR ACCEPTED A THING OF VALUE OR PROMISE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT BY SEEKING A CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH THE CEO S COUNCIL DURING THE TIME THAT THE CEO COUNCIL WAS ACTIVELY SEEKING PUBLIC FUNDS THROUGH THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL, THE CHARGING COMMITTEE COMPLAINS CLAIMS THAT THE PROMISE OF A THING OF VALUE WAS GIVEN OR OFFERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING HIM IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND ARE GAINING ACCESS TO HIM AS A METRO COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNT TWO USE OF OFFICIAL POSITION TO SECURE UNWANTED PRIVILEGES OR ADVANTAGES. COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE RESPONDENT ANTHONY PIACENTINI USED HIS POSITION AS A MEMBER OF METRO COUNCIL TO ULTIMATELY OBTAIN A CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH THE CEO BY ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY TO PROMOTE THE GRANT FUNDING REQUEST OF THE CEO COUNCIL TO METRO GOVERNMENT. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ALLEGES THAT THROUGH THOSE ACTIONS, THE RESPONDENT OBTAINED AN UNWARRANTED PRIVILEGES OR ADVANTAGE FOR HIMSELF. COUNT THREE IMPAIRMENT OF OBJECTIVITY OR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS A METRO OFFICER. COUNCIL MEMBER AND RESPONDENT ANTHONY P. ARGENTI ACTED IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY IN A MANNER IN WHICH HE HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST OR PRIVATE INTEREST THAT MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO IMPAIR HIS OBJECTIVITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ALLEGES THAT THROUGH THOSE ACTIONS, THE RESPONDENT OBTAINED AN UNWARRANTED PRIVILEGE OR ADVANTAGE FOR HIMSELF. COUNT FOR FAILURE TO DISQUALIFY FROM A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL IN WHICH THE ARGENTI HAD A PRIVATE OR FINANCIAL INTEREST. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER AND RESPONDENT ANTHONY PENTTI FAILED TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM THE PARTICIPATION IN OFFICIAL ACTS INCLUDING DEBATES, VOTES AND COMMUNICATIONS AND PROCEEDS INVOLVING THE GRANT REQUEST OF THE CEO COUNCIL, WHILE THE REQUEST WAS PENDING BEFORE METRO COUNCIL BECAUSE HE HAD A FINANCIAL OR PRIVATE INTEREST IN IT WHOLLY OWNED COMPANY, A BP CONSULTING THROUGH WHICH HE ENTERED INTO A 240,000 CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH THE CEO C COUNT FIVE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A FINANCIAL OR PRIVATE INTEREST IN A MATTER BEFORE PENDING BEFORE METRO COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER AND RESPONDENT ANTHONY GENINI FAILED TO PROPERLY DISCLOSE TO METRO COUNCIL HIS AGREEMENT TO BEGIN WORKING AS A CONTRACTOR FOR THE CEO COUNCIL, WHILE THE CEO COUNCIL WAS SEEKING APPROXIMATELY $40 MILLION IN PUBLIC FUNDS FROM LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT UPON WHICH HE HAD THE OFFICIAL AUTHORITY TO ACT. COUNT. SIX USE OF OFFICIAL POSITION TO OBTAIN UNWARRANTED PRIVILEGES OR ADVANTAGES. UH, CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE VALUED BETWEEN 199 AND 499. COUNCIL MEMBER AND RESPONDENT, ANTHONY P ARGENTI ACCEPTED PAID ADMISSION FROM THE CEO COUNCIL TO A PRIVATE CONFERENCE VALUED BETWEEN 100 AND 99 AND $490 AT A TIME WHEN THE CEO COUNCIL WAS SEEKING AND RECEIVING HIS ACTIVE ASSISTANCE, PROMOTION AND OFFICIAL ACTIONS IN OBTAINING A GRANT OF PUBLIC FUNDS FROM METRO GOVERNMENT. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ALLEGES THAT THROUGH THOSE ACTIONS THE RESPONDENT OBTAINED AND UNWARRANTED PRIVILEGE OR ADVANTAGE FOR HIMSELF. COUNT SEVEN MISCONDUCT BY FAILING TO 
          [02:05:05]
DISCLOSE COUNCIL MEMBER AND RESPONDENT ANTHONY PI ARGENTI WILLFULLY FAIL TO DISCLOSE TO HIS CONSTITUENTS AND FELLOW MEMBERS OF METRO COUNCIL THAT HE WAS PURSUING AND SOLICITING A CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH THE CEO COUNCIL AT THE SAME TIME THAT HE WAS CONSIDERING THEN ADVOCATING THAT THE CEO COUNCIL AND ITS FELLOW GRANTEES RECEIVE $40 MILLION GRANT FROM METRO COUNCIL. COUNT EIGHT MISCONDUCT BY PERJURY COUNCIL MEMBER AND RESPONDENT ANTHONY PIACENTINI KNOWINGLY AND FALSELY MADE MATERIAL STATEMENTS WHILE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAT HE DID NOT ENGAGE WITH THOSE WITHIN THE CEO COUNCIL WHO WERE EXECUTING THE GRANT AWARD BY METRO GOVERNMENT, NOR DID HE EXECUTE ANY PART OF THE GRANT AND THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE REASON WHY CEO COUNSELS TAMMY TAMMY YORK DAY SENT HIM A NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT ON NOVEMBER 17TH 2022. INSTRUCTIONS 5 TO 12 EACH DEAL WITH A SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE COMPLAINT INSTRUCTION FIVE DEALS WITH COUNT ONE AND SO ON. EACH INSTRUCTION INCLUDES THE SPECIFIC LEGAL STANDARD APPLICABLE TO THAT COUNTER COMPLAINT. EACH INSTRUCTION IS FOLLOWED BY THREE INTERROGATORIES AND A VERDICT FORM SPECIFIC TO THAT INSTRUCTION. COUNCIL COURT MEMBERS. NOW THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ARGUMENTS FROM EACH ATTORNEY, WE WILL NOW RETIRE INTO DELIBERATIONS. IN A MOMENT I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION TO ENTER CLOSED SESSION. HOWEVER I MUST REMIND YOU YOU ARE NOT TO TALK WITH ANYBODY ABOUT ANY ASPECT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THEY ARE FINALLY CONCLUDED, WHILE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS TAKE PLACE IN OPEN SESSION, DELIBERATIONS AND OTHER PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH LAWYERS FOR THE COUNCIL COURT WILL TAKE PLACE IN CLOSED SESSION. THESE CLOSED SESSIONS MUST REMAIN STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. ONLY COURT MEMBERS AND LAWYERS FOR THE COUNCIL COURT ARE PERMITTED IN CLOSED SESSION. DURING CLOSED SESSION. 
          YOU ARE NOT TO TEXT OR CALL OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATE WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF CLOSED SESSION . THE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE RECORDED BY ANY COURT MEMBER. YOU CANNOT COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN CLOSED SESSION WITH ANYONE NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE IN CLOSED SESSION. MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT, WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, OCCUPY A NE POSITION AND MUST BE MINDFUL OF THEIR DUAL ROLE PURSUANT TO KRS 67 C 143 NO DISCUSSIONS OF CLOSED SESSION OF CO COURT MATTERS MAY BE SHARED WITH THE COUNCIL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. IN JUST A MOMENT. I WILL ASK FOR THE MOTION TO ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION. IT IS CURRENTLY 5:01 P.M. UH, ONCE WE MAKE THAT MOTION, I'M GOING TO SAY WE RECONVENE AT 510 IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. UH, THAT UNDERSTOOD PURSUANT TO KRS 
          [2. ID 24-0152     Council Court Deliberations – Closed Session]
61 810 AND RULE 17 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL'S REMOVAL HERE AND ACTUALLY, BEFORE I GET TO THAT, I'LL JUST SAY, UH, BOTH COUNCILS FOR THE DEFENDANT AND, UH, THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. JUST STAY AVAILABLE. WE WILL CALL YOU. I MEAN THAT. YOU KNOW? AND COULD TAKE AN HOUR COULD TAKE FIVE HOURS. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW. SO JUST STAY AROUND . WE'LL CALL YOU GIVE YOU ADEQUATE TIME, UH, TO RECONVENE IN CHAMBERS ONCE WE HAVE A DECISION, OK? UH, WITH THAT, MAY I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO INTER CLOSE SESSION MOTION BY COUNCILMAN S SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BATCH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY A. I AND HE OPPOSED THE AYES HAVE IT. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT. WE WILL RECONVENE 5 13TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. THANK YOU. 
          [02:12:45]
COUNCILWOMAN SHANKLIN. YOU WANT TO? YOU WANT TO GO OUT OF THIS MEETING AND GO INTO THE CLOSED SESSION? UM, MEETING THAT I SENT YOU. OH, OK. I'M SORRY. NO, NO, I JUST DIDN'T WANT YOU TO FORGET. BYE. THANKS. WITH. 
          OK? 
          [02:16:56]
MM. 
          [02:25:26]
UM. 
          [02:35:43]
BOO BOO BOO BOO BOO! 
          [02:37:15]
OK? 
          [02:40:07]
MM. 
          [02:48:36]
UM. 
          [02:53:36]
MHM. 
          [02:59:22]
MHM. 
          [03:03:17]
MM. 
          [03:11:47]
UM. UM. 
          [03:16:47]
MHM. 
          [03:21:01]
MM. 
          [03:21:56]
OK? 
          [03:26:28]
YEAH. 
          [03:34:57]
UM. 
          [03:45:29]
MM. MM. 
          [03:46:47]
I. 
          [03:49:39]
MM. 
          [03:53:52]
MM. 
          [03:58:09]
UM. 
          [04:09:58]
MM. 
          [04:12:50]
MM. 
          [04:18:32]
I. 
          [04:21:19]
UM. 
          [Council Court Verdict]
          [04:35:32]
THE COUNCIL COURT WILL COME BACK TO ORDER, PLEASE. THE COUNCIL COURT HAS COMPLETED ITS 
          [04:35:38]
DELIBERATIONS ON COUNT ONE THROUGH EIGHT OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE CHARGING COMMITTEE 
          [04:35:42]
IN THE MATTER OF THE REMOVAL OF COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PI ARGENTI PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF 
          [04:35:46]
THE COUNSEL COURT. INSTRUCTION TWO PROVIDES THAT 18 OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT 
          [04:35:51]
MUST AGREE IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE A FINDING OF MISCONDUCT OR WILLFUL NEGLECT, LEADING TO THE REMOVAL OF COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI FROM THE METRO COUNCIL. WITH RESPECT TO COUNT ONE OF THE COMPLAINT, THE COUNCIL CO. ANSWERED. THE TOTAL IS 10. YES AND 13. NO VOTING? YES ARE COUNCILWOMAN, UH, COUNCIL PEOPLE PARISH, RIGHT? BAKER MCCRANEY. RENA WEBER. OWEN. M HILL. 
          FOWLER. CHAPEL. RUBY. BLOOD. VOTING. NO. HAWKINS. PURPOSE. KRAMER BLACKWELL S. READ. 
          WINKLER, PARKER BENSON. ANGLE. HUDSON. ABOUT JOHN ACKERSON. WITH RESPECT TO COUNT TWO. SEVEN YEARS. 16 NO. VOTING? YES, PARISH, RIGHT? MCCRANEY. OWEN. M HILL. FOWLER. CHAPEL. REALLY? VOTING. NO. HAWKINS. PURPOSE. BAKER. RENO WEBER. KRAMER, BLACKWELL SIGN READ WINKLER PARKER BENSON. ANGLE. HUDSON. FLOOD. BATCH ON ACKERSON. COUNT 312. YES, 10. NO VOTING? YES. 
          COUNCILMAN PARISH WRIGHT. BAKER MCCRANEY. RENO WEBER. IRWIN M THE HILL BLACKWELL. FOWLER. 
          CHAPEL. WINKLER. RUI! BLOOD. VOTING NO, HAWKINS. KRAMER. SIGN. READ. PARKER BENSON. ANGLE HUDSON. BAT ON ACKERSON. COUNT FOR 10 YEARS. 13 NO. VOTING? YES, PARISH, RIGHT? BAKER. 
          MCCRANEY OWEN MULVIHILL BLACKWELL. FOWLER. CHAPEL. RUI! F. VOTING NO, HAWKINS. SERVICES. 
          RENO WEBER. KRAMER. SIGN. READ WINKLER PARKER BENSON. ANGLE HUDSON. THAT JOHN ACKERSON. 
          COUNT 511. YES, 12? NO. VOTING? YES, PERISH RIGHT. BAKER. MCCRANEY. RENO WEBER. OWEN. M THE HILL. BLACKWELL. FOWLER. CHAPEL. REALLY? BLOOD. VOTING. NO. HAWKINS. PURPOSES. KRAMER. 
          SIGN. READ WINKLER PARKER BENSON. ANGLE HUDSON. THAT JOHN ACKERSON. COUNT 612. YES, 11. NO VOTING. YES. PERISH RIGHT? BAKER. MCCRANEY. RENA WEBER OWEN MULVIHILL. BLACKWELL. FOWLER. 
          CHAPEL WINKLER. RU. BLOOD. VOTING NO, HAWKINS. PURPOSE. KRAMER. SIGN. READ. PARKER. 
          BENSON. ANGLE. HUDSON. THAT JOHN ACKERSON. COUNT SEVEN. 10 YEARS. 13 NO VOTING YES, PARISH, RIGHT? 
          [04:40:08]
BAKER MCCRANEY. OWEN MOBILE HILL. BLACKWELL. FOWLER. CHAPEL. RU. BLOOD. VOTING NO, HAWKINS. 
          PURPOSE. RENO WEBER. KRAMER. SIGN. READ WINKLER PARKER BENSON. ANGLE HUDSON. THAT JOHN ACKERSON. FINAL COUNT COUNT 88. YES, 15 NO VOTING? YES, PERISH RIGHT. BAKER MCCRANEY. OWEN MOBILE HILL. FOWLER. CHAPEL. RUIN. VOTING NO, HAWKINS. PURPOSE. RENO WEBER. KRAMER. 
          BLACKWELL. TIME. READ WINKLER PARKER BENSON. ANGLE HUDSON. BLOOD. BET ON ACCURACY. 
          ACCORDINGLY COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI IS NOT REMOVED FROM OFFICE. AS A RESULT OF THIS TRIAL. THIS HEARING HAS ENDED WITH MY THANKS TO BOTH PARTIES AND TO THE COUNCIL COURT FOR ALL OF THEIR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. I KNOW THAT THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT ON EVERYBODY INVOLVED, UM AND HOPE THAT WE CAN FIND A PATH TO MOVE FORWARD, WORKING TOGETHER AGAIN APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF TIME COMMITMENT, APPRECIATE BOTH COUNCILS AND, UH, COURT REPORTER CLERK COUNTY ATTORNEY UH, THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE WE 
          [Adjournment]
STAND ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.