Mar 01, 2021 Executive Committee

[00:00:05]

ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO ORDER IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION THAT THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, POSTED AND DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOUTH

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

THANK YOU. >> ALICE MAKES THE SECOND. AND WITHOUT OBJECTION WILL

APPROVE THE AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTION? >> HEARING NONE.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- February 8, 2021 ]

BUT THE AMENDMENTS FROM OUR SIDE WE WILL BURY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE WILL MISCHIEF YOU BRING IT UP WITH SO FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. ARE YOU OR PAUPER OR NO MOVING ON MY SCREEN WHICH TELLS ME THAT MY SCREEN MIGHT BE FROZEN OR PARTIAL OR FROZEN.

DID I HAVE A FEW YOU? WELL I CAN SAY REAGAN SO SO AS CHAIRMAN FINE.

>> I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. CAN YOU HEAR I CAN USE VISE CHAIR SUMMERHILL. UH UH BROADCASTING JUST SABMILLER.

IT'LL TURN OFF YOUR VIDEO AND USE AUDIO ONLY. IT MAY BE EASIER ON YOUR INTERNET SUGGESTION. NOW WE APPEAR TO HAVE LOST HIM COMPLETELY.

ALL RIGHT. >> I WAS I WAS WAITING. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I WAS WAITING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OUR FEBRUARY 2012 MEETING MEETING

WAS PUSHING YORK SOME MOVES. >> CHAIRMAN I'LL SECOND MR. CHAIRMAN PAUL TURN YOUR VIDEO OFF RIGHT NOW AND JUST SEE IF THE AUDIO WILL WORK WILL WORK BECAUSE YOU CONTINUE BREAKING UP THEN YOU'RE FREEZING NOW YOU'RE ON MUTE AND IS STILL FREEZING TOO.

>> YEAH. WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE A FEW BREAK AND SEE IF WE CAN

GET THIS SORTED? >> YEAH. LET'S PAUSE AND WE'LL COME BACK TO INTO SECOND ON THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 8. WITHOUT OBJECTION WILL APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? HEARING NONE THE MINUTES FROM

[6. A RESOLUTION TO SET FORTH A UNIFORM POLICY FOR PROCESSING, RESPONDING TO, AND TRACKING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SC CODE OF LAWS 30-4-10 et seq. ]

>> MR. SOMERVILLE. YES. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE BRIAN AND CHRIS ARE BACK? THEY STEPPED OFF FOR A MOMENT WHEN WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY.

ALSO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS ON HERE. OF COURSE.

YEAH, WE'RE JUST WAIT A SECOND. WE MISS YOU SAID CHRIS AND BRIAN.

CHRIS AND BRIAN, I KNOW THEY JUST SHUT THEIR CAMERAS OFF POINTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. BRIAN'S HERE. WAITING ON CHRIS.

I'M HERE TO LISTEN. OK, JUST MAKING SURE. ALL RIGHT.

[00:05:02]

>> CHRIS IS HERE. HE'S GOOD. SO HE IS OK.

BRITTANY AND YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED FOR THIS ITEM NUMBER SIX?

YES, SIR. >> I'M GOING TO SHARE IT NOW. PLEASE GO AHEAD.

YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. >> AS YOU ARE ALL OF THIS WENT TO A COUNCIL EARLY LAST WEEK AS OUT IN FRONT OF YOU IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL HAD AND REGARDS THE POLICY THAT'S BEEN DRAFTED. TO THOSE CONCERNS I DECIDED IT BEST TO COMMUNICATE THE POWER POINT SO THAT THERE IS A VISUAL AND EVERYBODY CAN SEE THE APPLICABLE LAWS.

FIRST I WANT TO BE CLEAR WHAT THE POLICY IS. PURPOSE IS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO CREATE A UNIFORM POLICY FOR RESPONDING TO THE REQUESTS PREVIOUSLY.

THERE WAS A SYSTEM PUT IN PLACE BUT IT HAD NOT BEEN PLACED INTO WRITING SUCH AS THIS.

SO MYSELF AND STAFF DECIDED IT WAS MOST APPROPRIATE TO PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING.

SECOND IS RIGHT STAFF A CLEAR PATH TO FOLLOW WHEN RESPONDING TO THESE REQUESTS OR RECEIVING . THE POLICY IS PROVIDING CERTAIN COMMUNICATION FLOWS AS FAR AS WHEN YOU RECEIVE THEM. AND ADDITIONALLY WHEN WE'RE RESPONDING TO THEM WHO THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE COMMUNICATING THOSE DOCUMENTS TO YOU. LASTLY, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS TO PROVIDE A PATH TO GET HAVE A POLICY PUT IN PLACE AND TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE CITIZENS A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TELLING YOU WE'RE GOING TO DO. I THINK IT REASSURES THEM THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A SPECIFIC FLOW AND A EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE SETTING FOR THEM. SO AND AND THROUGHOUT ANY OF US PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP AND INTERRUPT AND ASK QUESTIONS. SO FROM LAST WEEK'S MEETING I BELIEVE THERE ARE SEVERAL CONCERNS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION.

>> AGAIN, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHERS, FEEL FREE TO ASK THEM FIRST WOULD BE REGARDS TO FOIA REQUEST. NEXT WAS PERSONNEL RECORDS, ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND SURVEYS AND HOW THOSE ARE BEING RELEASED OR NOT RELEASED. VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDINGS THAT ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COUNTY RELEASE OF EXEMPT RECORDS.

SPECIFICALLY THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. AND LASTLY THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUT FEES REGARDING THE LABOR COSTS AS WELL AS A COST WAIVER. SO FIRST WOULD BE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHICH OBVIOUSLY AFFECTS EACH AND EACH ONE OF YOU AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR PURSE ,YOUR PERSONAL E-MAIL OR PHONE ACCOUNTS.

>> THAT MEANS ANY TIME YOU RECEIVE AN EMAIL ON YOUR PERSONAL ACCOUNTS OR YOU SEND A TEXT MESSAGE OR MAKE PHONE CALLS ON YOUR PHONE. WE AS THE COUNTY STAFF DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THEM AS IT IS PROVIDED FOR CURRENTLY IN THE POLICY WHICH CAN OBVIOUSLY BE CHANGED IF YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS IN FRONT OF US. THE FIRST ONE IS WHAT THE POLICY CURRENTLY READS WHICH IS ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULD RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY OR VIA THEIR DEPARTMENT STAFF WHICH IN YOUR CASE WOULD BE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND YOU CAN RESPOND BACK ACCORDINGLY AT THAT POINT. I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S TWO OTHER OPTIONS HERE.

AND ESSENTIALLY THEY BOTH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE COUNTY STAFF TO RECEIVE THOSE.

WE WOULD THEN DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE TO YOU AT WHICH POINT TO EITHER ONE OF THESE YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTATION.

SO IT DOESN'T ALLEVIATE ANY OTHER RESPONSIBILITY ON YOUR END AS BEING ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IF YOU IN FACT EVEN HAVE THEM. AND TAKE A QUICK PAUSE AND MAKE SURE NOBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING. ALL RIGHT.

PERSONNEL RECORDS. I KNOW THIS IS BEEN AN ISSUE IN THE PAST SO I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND SOME TIME AND ASK. BUT YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS. ASK THEM NOW.

AS FAR AS THE PERSONAL PRIVACY IS GOING TO BE REDACTED, I THINK IT'S UNDISPUTED THAT ANY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBERS OR ANYTHING REGARDING A MINOR

[00:10:05]

>> THE SAME TYPES OF INFORMATION THAT ARE IN THAT FIRST BULLET POINT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE REDACTED FOR ANY FORM ANY OF THOSE TYPES OF DOCUMENTS.

ADDITIONALLY SECTION 8 FOR THE SAME SECTION STATES THAT MATTER SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY STATUTE OR LAW. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY ALTHOUGH THERE IS A FIRE LAW THERE IS ALSO GOING TO BE OTHER LAWS THAT ARE APPLICABLE SPECIFIC FOR INFORMATION ABOUT EDUCATION OR ABOUT YOUR HEALTH. THOSE ARE PROTECTED BY THE FAMILY PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT AS WELL AS HEPA. SO ALTHOUGH THERE ISN'T A SPECIFIC STATUTE OR WITHIN BOY THAT SAYS THEY SHOULD BE REDACTED, THERE ARE OTHER FEDERAL THE STATE LAWS THAT

INSTRUCT TO NOT RELEASE THEM. >> LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER DOCUMENTS OR PORTIONS THEREOF ARE EXEMPT FROM FOIA MUST BE MADE ON A

CASE BY CASE BASIS. >> AND THEN EXEMPT AND NOT EXEMPT MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEPARATED AND THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT MATERIAL IS DISCLOSED. I ADDED THIS DECISION FROM THE COURT'S AND HERE BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE REASON THAT OUR POLICY WAS WRITTEN THE WAY IT DOES IT WAS AND SIMPLY STATES PRESUMES AND BENEFIT PACKAGES IS BECAUSE NOT EVERY RESUMÉ IS THE SAME AS EACH ONE OF YOU KNOWN EVERY PERSON DRAFTING THE RESUMÉ IS GOING TO PROVIDE DIFFERENT INFORMATION. THEREFORE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE AND DETERMINE WHICH EXEMPTIONS APPLY AND WHERE THERE MAY BE ONE EXCEPTION APPLIES ON ONE ANOTHER. SO THAT'S WHY THAT SECTION WAS KEPT SLIGHTLY VAGUE IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE APPLICABLE LAWS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND USED APPROPRIATELY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? QUESTION YES. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ROSEMARY'S BENEFIT PACKAGES AND RESIGNATION LETTERS ARE GOING TO BE EXEMPTED AND INSTEAD JUST SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF INFORMATION WILL BE REDACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS SUCH AS THE FAMILY PRIVACY ACT HIP ETC. AND THAT THOSE LAWS THAT ARE CAUSE FOR THE REDACTION WILL BE SIMPLY STATED IN THE FOIA REQUEST WHEN IT'S RETURNED WE COULD REMOVE THOSE ITEMS FROM IT. THE REASON THEY WERE PUT IN THERE WAS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED CONCERNS AND A LITTLE BIT OF PUSHBACK THAT RESIDENTS WERE REDACTED AT ALL WHICH IS WHY I DID INCLUDE THEM HERE SO THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE THAT THOSE THINGS WOULD BE REDACTED. YEAH AND I YOU KNOW I THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE.

YOU KNOW, IF I WAS JUST A REGULAR YOU KNOW, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THESE MEETINGS EVERY DAY AND YOU KNOW, PAYING ATTENTION TO THE GOINGS ON AND I ASKED FOR SOMEBODY IS RESUMÉ AND YOU CAME BACK AND SAID WELL IT'S REDACTED, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE CONCERNED TOO. NOW IF YOU SAID WELL IT'S REDACTED BECAUSE PARTS OF IT ARE REDACTED BECAUSE HIP OR FAMILY PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OR WHATEVER IT IS, THEN I GUESS YOU KNOW, I JUST REMEMBER THE PUBLIC EYE. I TOTALLY GET IT.

SO I THINK THAT IN PLACES WHERE IT MAKES SENSE AND THE INFORMATION ISN'T YOU KNOW, PROBLEMATIC ACCORDING SPENDING OF THESE LAWS IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN REQUESTS.

BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD SET THE EXPECTATION UPFRONT. HEY, YOUR REQUESTS MIGHT BE REDACTED FOR THESE POTENTIAL REASONS. AND THEN WHEN WE DELIVER IT IT SAYS IT'S REDACTED FOR THESE REASONS. AND I THINK PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT AND THE PROCESS AND THE FIGHT OF HER AT THIS TIME ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T DONE IN THE SAME MANNER PREVIOUSLY AND THE PROGRAM THAT WE USE FOR REDACTIONS WE HAVE IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS IMPLEMENTED A I'LL CALL IT A QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE WHEREBY WHEN AN ITEM IS REDACTED ON A DOCUMENT AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE ABILITY RIGHT THEN AND THERE TO ADD WHAT WE CALL A COMMENT. AND THAT IN THAT COMMENT IT PROVIDES THE EXACT REASON FOR WHY THAT SECTION IS BEING REDACTED SO THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE VERY SURE BRITNEY IS THAT COMMENT RELEASED TO THE APPLICANT TO THE REQUEST? THANK YOU.

[00:15:01]

COMMENT ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND SURVEYS. >> ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ARE ACTUALLY PROTECTED BY CORPORATE LAW. THEY CANNOT BE RELEASED UNLESS IT IS THE OWNER OF THE DOCUMENT. THIS IS THE 1990 ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT. THEREFORE THERE IS AN AFFIDAVIT THAT WE HAVE SIGNED.

I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED WHEN THERE IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT SAYS BUT WE ARE NOT TO RELEASE THEM. THAT IS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY WE HEARING TO ALL FOIA AND ALL OF US.

SECOND IS IS SURVEYS ALTHOUGH THE SURVEYS ARE NOT EXPLICIT EXPLICITLY PROTECTED BY THAT SAME COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE SURVEYS ARE OWNED BY THE SURVEYOR AND OR THE LANDOWNER DEPENDING ON WHAT THEIR CONTRACT STATES AND THAT'S THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE LANDOWNER AND THE SURVEYOR. THEY ONLY PROVIDED TO THE ACCOUNTING AND VERY FEW INSTANCES ONE WOULD BE FOR SOME TYPE OF PERMIT LIKE A BUILDING PERMIT. THE NEXT IS GOING TO BE WITH THE REGISTERED DEEDS.

WHEN IT COMES TO REGISTER DEEDS THE OWNER OR THE LICENSE HOLDER WHETHER IT BE THE SURVEY OR THE LANDOWNER THEY'VE MADE THAT SURVEY PUBLIC. THEY'VE MADE IT AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION AND THAT THAT'S THEIR RIGHT. AS FAR AS OWNING THAT DOCUMENT TO DO SO. IF FOR A BUILDING PERMIT THE COUNTY HASN'T OBTAINED A RAISE TO THAT DOCUMENT. THAT'S NOT WHY THAT DOCUMENT IS BEING PROVIDED TO US.

THEREFORE IT'S OUR OPINION THAT THE SURVEYOR SHOULD IT BE DISTRIBUTED EVEN MORE SO A SURVEYOR TYPICALLY ACTUALLY CHARGES A MINIMAL FEE IN ORDER FOR THOSE SURVEYS TO BE RELEASED. SO SAY I HAD A SURVEY DONE ON MY PROPERTY THE NEXT HOMEOWNER WANTS ONE DONE. THEY COULD CONTACT THE SURVEYOR TO GET A COPY OF IT AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE A FEE WHETHER IT BE FIVE DOLLARS OR 20 IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHO THE SURVEY IS AND EVEN MORE SUPPORT OF THAT DECISION. THAT IS ACTUALLY HOW A SURVEYOR DECIDES HOW MUCH THEIR COMPANY IS. IT'S WORTH IF EVER SELLING A COMPANY IS HOW MANY SURVEYS DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR BACK POCKET? THAT IS HOW THEY OBTAIN THE VALUE OF THEIR COMPANY. AND I THINK THAT EVEN MORE SO SUPPORTS THE IDEA THAT THEY OWN THOSE DOCUMENTS. SO AGAIN WE HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTING THE AFFIDAVIT IN TERMS OF RECEIVING A SURVEY. THAT'S NOT TO SAY WE'VE LIMITED IT ENTIRELY.

IF SOMEBODY DOES WANT TO VIEW THE SURVEY THEY ARE WELCOME TO GO TO THE BUILDING CODES DEPARTMENT AND THEY CAN SEE IT AT THAT POINT. THEY JUST CANNOT COPY IT AND IT CAN'T BE RELEASED TO THAT PAUSED FOR A MOMENT IN CASE ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS BRITNEY. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE PICTURES OF IT EITHER, ARE

THEY? >> THAT WAS CORRECT. THAT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED A RELEASE IF WE ALLOWED THEM TO TAKE PHOTOS NEXT. THE VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDS SPECIFICALLY. IT WAS DISCUSSED WHETHER THAT VIDEO FROM SECURITY CAMERAS AROUND THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING OR ANY BUILDING SHOULD BE RELEASED.

COULD SECTION 34 20 SEE STATES INFORMATION RELATING TO SECURITY PLANS AND DEVICES PROPOSE ADOPT ADOPTED AND STORAGE SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED .

THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE MADE TO BE MADE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT. AND THAT IS THE FOIA SECURITY PLANS AS DEFINED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. DECEMBER 2017 OPINION STATES THAT LEGISLATURE LIKELY INTENDED FOR INFORMATION RELATING TO SECURITY PLANS AND DEVICES.

YOU MEAN THE METHODS, PROCEDURES AND DETAILED FORMULATIONS PROPOSED, ADOPTED, INSTALLED OR UTILIZED TO GUARD AGAINST ESPIONAGE OR SABOTAGE CRIME ATTACK OR ESCAPE? IF WE WERE TO RELEASE THE VIDEO FOOTAGE OF OUR BUILDINGS YOU WOULD BE SHOWING WHERE ALL THE SECURITY DEVICES ARE INSTALLED WHEREBY AN INDIVIDUAL IF THEY WANTED TO OR DESIRE TO ENTER THE BUILDING WITHOUT BEING SEEN WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO.

AGAIN FURTHER THIS IS A MATTER SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY DISCLOSURE BY SUCH A LAW.

>> AND ADDITIONALLY THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT IF THERE WAS A CRIMINAL ACT THERE WAS VIDEO

[00:20:01]

IF THERE WAS AN INCIDENT THAT WE WANT IT RELEASED THAT IT'S JUST NOT DONE SO BY FOIA ANY

QUESTIONS? >> IS IT WRITTEN THAT WAY IN THE LANGUAGE WITH THE DOCUMENT

THAT IT CAN STILL BE USED? >> IF IT'S BY SUBPOENA OR LAW ENFORCEMENT I DO NOT BELIEVE I HAVE THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THERE NOW BECAUSE THAT IS IT FOI I WANT RILEY TO ME THAT

WOULD BE THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE ARE EVEN ASKING THAT QUESTION. >> THERE'S NO ANY OTHER REASON ANYBODY REALLY BEEN ONES THAT PUT THAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO I HAD A COMMENT.

SO IN OTHER WORDS IF A CRIME WAS COMMITTED A TV STATION COULD REQUEST V A SUBPOENA.

IF THEY RECEIVE. YES. I SAID BECAUSE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A FOIA REQUEST. AND AGAIN I I HOPE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN HIS PRESENTATION THERE IS FOI A LA AND THEN THERE ARE OTHER LAWS THAT ARE APPLICABLE IF WE RECEIVED A SUBPOENA FORM FROM THE COURTS FROM ANYBODY THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REASON BEHIND IT. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY. AND I APOLOGIZE IF I KEEP ASKING IF ANYBODY QUESTIONS.

I ONLY I CAN SEE TWO INDIVIDUALS ON MY SCREEN RIGHT NOW.

>> SO RELEASE OF EXEMPT RECORDS COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION IS PROHIBITED.

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

>> NOW THERE IS A CONCERN FROM I BELIEVE SEVERAL ON THE COUNCIL WHAT A REASONABLE MEASURE WOULD BE. STATUTE DOES NOT DEFINE OR ELABORATE ON WHAT A REASONABLE MEASURE IS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION STATES THAT WHAT, WHAT AND WHAT MEASURES A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAKES TO SATISFY THESE REQUIREMENTS IS A MATTER OF POLICY. THEREFORE FROM READING THAT YOU CAN TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PLACED THE BURDEN BACK ON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO MAKE THIS DECISION WHAT REASONABLE MEASURES ARE. I HAVE GONE A STEP FURTHER AND A LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THIS KIND OF PRESS ASSOCIATION'S ATTORNEY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

WE DRAFTED A LETTER JOINTLY THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE SOUTH TO BEIJI.

I HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED A PHONE CALL CONFIRMING THAT THEY ARE IN RECEIPT OF THAT REQUEST FOR AN OPINION AS TO WHAT A REASONABLE MEASURE IS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF AN AFFIDAVIT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS FOR THESE REASONS. AT THIS POINT WE'RE STILL WAITING ON A RESPONSE AND HOPE TO HAVE IT HERE NEXT FEW WEEKS. BRITNEY, YOU KIND OF LOST ME.

WOULD YOU WOULD YOU REPHRASE THAT ANOTHER WAY AND TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT SECTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THIS IS OUR REGARDS TO THE USE OF AN AFFIDAVIT.

SO WHEN AN AFFIDAVIT TO DO WHAT? SO WHEN THERE IS A REQUEST AND WE CAN USE THAT COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION SO REQUESTER SUBMITS FOR THE EASY ONE IS ANY AND ALL TAX RECORDS. THAT IS A VERY LARGE REQUEST. ONE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT POTENTIALLY FOR A COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION PURPOSE MEANING THEY'RE GONNA TAKE ALL THOSE ADDRESSES AND USE THEN JUST SEND OUT MAILERS IN AN EFFORT TO BETTER THEIR BUSINESS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THAT INFORMATION.

WE HAVE TO PURSUE INTO THE PRIVACY OF THE FAMILY PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.

WE HAVE TO TAKE REASONABLE MEASURES TO PROTECT THAT. SO WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED THIS AFFIDAVIT WHEREBY THE REQUESTER HAS TO AFFIRM TO US THAT THEY ARE NOT USING IT FOR THAT COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION PURPOSE OR WHATEVER OTHER REASON THEY'RE USING IT FOR.

I HAVE NO IDEA BUT PURSUANT TO THAT AFFIDAVIT THAT'S NOT HOW THEY'RE USING IT.

AND THAT IS HOW WE ARE PROTECTING THAT INFORMATION. SO WHAT OTHER SCENARIOS WOULD

[00:25:03]

WE REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE TO STATE WHETHER THEY THEY ARE THE OWNER OF OR THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THE ABILITY TO RETRIEVE READ THOSE DOCUMENTS VIA THE OWNER.

>> OTHERWISE THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER EXEMPTIONS BECAUSE IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS APPLICABLE TO HIP WON'T IT BE RELEASED IN THIS MANNER ANYWAYS? SO THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY TWO TIMES AT THIS POINT THAT WE USE THE AFFIDAVIT IS FOR COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION AND OR FOR THESE SURVEYS AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS TO BE RELEASED. THANK YOU. GLOBAL QUESTIONS.

NUMBER ONE, IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNTY TO ASSUME WHAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO USE REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR? AND THEN NUMBER TWO, ISN'T IT KIND OF LIKE THE REQUESTER BASICALLY CERTIFYING THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BREAK THE LAW? AND IS THAT EVEN NECESSARY? AM I THINKING ABOUT THAT INCORRECTLY? NO, YOU'RE ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT IT LIKE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW HAS TOLD US.

WE HAVE TO DO IT. THEY HAVE TOLD US AND PUT THE BURDEN ON US TO TAKE A REASONABLE MEASURE TO PROTECT THAT INFORMATION. SO YOU'RE TAKING IT CORRECTLY.

IT'S JUST A LAW HAS STATED THAT WE HAVE TO DO IT. GOT IT.

AND THEN THAT APPLIES TO THE FIRST QUESTION TO ABOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

EXACTLY. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION AFFIDAVIT IS NOT REQUIRED IN ANY AND ALL REQUESTS FOR MY EXAMPLE I SAID TAX RECORDS.

IT IS WHEN WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR IT. AND THAT IS YOU CAN SAY DISCRETIONARY. BUT I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS TO ANY INDIVIDUAL WHEN YOU'RE REQUESTING A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DATA AND OR OR SPECIFICALLY ANYTHING THAT COULD BE OF A PERSONAL NATURE FOR MAILERS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS BERNIE. THIS IS MARK AND I JUST WANT TO JUST CLARIFY. THE BUILDING PLANS AND SURVEYS AND THIS IS WHERE I PROBABLY NEED MORE EDUCATION ON BECAUSE I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE THOUGHT THAT WHENEVER YOU FILE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS BECOME PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE THEY ARE AVAILABLE. THAT INCLUDES BUILDING PLANS, CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND SURVEYS BECOME PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND THEY ARE THEN AVAILABLE FOR ANYBODY THAT WANTS THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT WAS THE NORM WHEN IT COMES TO NATIONAL STANDARDS. BUT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY ARE NOT THEY ARE ACTUALLY STILL OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUALS. BUT AGAIN I CAN IF YOU CAN CLARIFY THAT FOR ME BECAUSE I REALLY I MEAN I'VE I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT IT WAS CONTRARY TO THAT. AND AGAIN THIS WE HAVE TO KEEP IT IN A FIRE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THIS SAYS. SAL. IT IS A PUBLIC RECORD IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE BUILDING CODES.

>> FOR YOUR EXAMPLE. BUT THERE ARE GOING TO BE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT.

SO FOR INSTANCE, THE COPYRIGHT LAWS, ARCHITECTURAL PLANS WE ALL KNOW THAT PEOPLE BUY ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ALL THE TIME, THAT THE ARCHITECT OWNS THEM TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AND THAT IS PURSUANT TO THE COPYRIGHT LAW. SO YES, IF SOMEBODY REQUESTS A BUILDING PLANS FOR YOUR HOUSE OR MINE THEY WOULD BE RELEASED AS ANY DOCUMENT SHOULD BE BUT THERE WOULD BE REDACTIONS IN THOSE DOCUMENTS AND I'M STATING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN REDACTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE. AGAIN, IF IT WERE TO SAY YOU REQUESTING A DOCUMENT FOR YOUR OWN HOME AND YOU'RE THE OWNER RECORD OF THAT THEN YOU WOULD SIMPLY SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT I WOULD LIKE A COPY OF MY ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR MY HOUSE. OK. I'LL SIGN AFFIDAVIT AND YOU CAN HAVE THEM RELEASED TO YOU. SO AGAIN THEY ARE PUBLIC RECORD.

THERE ARE REDACTIONS THAT SHOULD BE MADE. >> I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT YOU COULD ONLY VIEW THEM YOU COULDN'T GET A COPY OF A MURDER OR EVEN TAKE A PICTURE OF THEM. SO I HAVEN'T THEY WOULD BE GIVEN A DOCUMENT THAT WOULD BE REDACTED AFTER WE'D TELL THEM. YES, YOU CAN HAVE A SURVEY BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG BLACK

[00:30:01]

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S AN LLC IF IT'S A BIG CORPORATION LIKE ZILLOW OR IF IT'S BRITNEY A WARD AS AN INDIVIDUAL, IF AN IF ANY THREE OF THOSE ENTITIES ARE ASKING FOR THE TYPICAL ONE WOULD BE ALL OF THE TAX RECORDS FOR ALL 20 20 FOR EVERY HOME. I THINK THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND ANY ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES ASKING FOR THREE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES INFORMATION. GO AHEAD. I GO.

I GUESS WE JUST WONDERED ABOUT THE DEMARCATION LINE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND NOT AND THEN IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL ENTITY MAKING THE REQUEST AT THAT POINT DON'T WE HAVE TO REQUIRE THE AFFIDAVIT FOR EVERY COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN ORDER TO SATISFY THIS REASONABLE MEASURE LANGUAGE IF ANY DEPENDING ON THE INFORMATION THEY'RE ASKING FOR? SO IT'S ANY IF ANY COMPANY CAME FORWARD AND ASKED FOR EVER ACCURATE IN ACCOUNTING EACH ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE TREATED THE SAME IN MY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION NOT QUITE WHAT IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL ENTITY SO A BUSINESS WHETHER JUST ASKING FOR A HANDFUL OF RECORDS OR A COUPLE DOZEN RECORDS NOT EVERY RECORD AND BY DEFINITION DON'T WE HAVE TO TAKE THE REASONABLE MEASURE BECAUSE IT IS A COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT IS ASKING.

YES. AND OUR FLEET SPECIALISTS DO NOT ASK AT THAT POINT.

>> YOU KNOW, WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR THESE? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THEM AT THAT POINT IF SHE'S QUESTIONING IT, HE OR SHE MORE THAN LIKELY THAT COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION AFFIDAVIT WOULD BE REQUIRED. SO BASICALLY IT'S AN AFFIDAVIT FOR ANY REQUEST BY A COMMERCIAL REGARDLESS OF SIZE SIZE OF THE BUSINESS. YES, SIZE OF THE REQUEST.

IF IT'S ONE I THINK THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE SAME ONE AND 20 OR YOU YOU KNOW FIVE THOUSAND IF A. BRIAN YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP. YEAH I DO.

THIS THIS ONE IS KIND OF KIND OF A TOUGH NUT TO CRACK BRITNEY BECAUSE I'M I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT THE THE THE REQUIREMENT TO PREVENT EFFORTS TO SOLICIT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO REPORT. AND I QUITE FRANKLY ALL OF OUR RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE LIKE SPECIFICALLY TAX RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE.

THAT INCLUDES ALL THE INFORMATION REALLY ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THE TREASURER'S OFFICE HAS ON EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN BEAUFORT COUNTY INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLES, MOBILE HOMES, BOATS, TRAILERS, ET CETERA. AND ANYBODY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO A WIDE VARIETY OF DATA AT ANY GIVEN TIME. THE WORK THE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITATION IS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GETTING A MAIL USING OUR RECORDS TO GET A MAILING LIST TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH SOME THINGS SUCH AS SOLICITING PROPERTIES FOR SALE

OR TO SELL MORTGAGES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. >> BUT IF YOU IF YOU WANTED TO GET A LIST OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CO OWN WITH YOU A CONDAMINE COMPLEX ON FOR A PILOT SO THAT YOU ALL CAN GET TOGETHER IN ORDER TO SUE ONE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE REGIME MANAGER ET CETERA. THAT IS NOT PROHIBITED. THAT IS NOT SOLICITATION IN THE STANDARD SENSE. THAT IS THAT'S SOME OTHER REASONABLE USE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. SO YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT THAT AFFIDAVIT SAYS REGARDING SOLICITATION BECAUSE SOLICITATION IS KIND OF A FUNNY WORD. IT MEANS FOR SOME PEOPLE IT MEANS ASKING FOR A DOLLAR FOR OTHER PEOPLE. THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER YOU KNOW, ACTIVITIES THAT ARE COVERED UNDER SOLICITATION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THAT AFFIDAVIT HAS A BROAD DEFINITION AND I DON'T EVER WANT TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMEBODY WHO HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND THESE RECORDS THAT WE HAVE

[00:35:01]

BUT THERE IS A WIDE ARRAY OF DATA THAT IS REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF ACCESS PUBLIC RECORDS. CAN YOU CLARIFY HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS SO THAT WE CAN? WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER IT'S SOLICITATION OR NOT? AND WHAT IS THE STANDARD USED FOR IT IS ACTUALLY QUOTED AND THERE IS A DEFINITION OR AFFIDAVIT LITERALLY CUT AND PASTED FROM THE CODE SO THAT DEFINITIONS PROVIDED AND WE DON'T MAKE THAT TERMINATION THAT IS ON THE REQUESTER THEY ARE PROVIDING US AN AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING IT. SO ANY CONCERNS THAT STAFF IS BY SOME STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION DETERMINING WHAT IS PERSONAL SOLICITATION THAT IS NOT ON US TO DETERMINE HOW THEY'RE USING THEY ARE PROVIDING US AN AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT. IT IS.

IT IS GIVING US THE ABILITY TO GO FORWARD AND SAY JUST WE'RE RELEASING THIS INFORMATION EVERY SINGLE DAY AT THAT POINT. READ ME. I THINK WE HAVE A WE HAVE TO HAVE A REASONABLE MEASURE TO HELP OR TO PREVENT THE DISCLOSURE ON AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN RECORDS. SO SO WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS WE'RE NOT CHECKING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE NOT CHECKING FOR THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, IT IF I CAN FINISH UP BY SELLING THE AFFIDAVITS PROVIDED TO US AND IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION TO THE VALIDITY OF THAT AFFIDAVIT, THEY ARE NOW BREAKING THE LAW. IF THERE IS ANY CONCERN AS TO HOW THAT INFORMATION IS BEING USED AT WHICH OR ANY QUESTION IF WE RELEASE THAT INFORMATION IN THE NEXT DAY I DOUBT THAT THEY'RE SENDING OUT A MASS MAILER THAT THEY KNOW WE'RE GOING TO LAW. SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT IF YOU WANT TO USE THE TERM CIA THEN THAT IS WHAT THAT'S WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES OF US. SO THIS IS FOLLOWING THE LAW.

AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN AND I HEAR YOU. BUT THERE'S THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER FOI TO SAY YOU MUST FOLLOW UP AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ADHERING TO THE LAW. THE POLICE OF IS NOT A POLICING SERVICE.

AND WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING AT THAT POINT AS FAR AS PROTECTING PERSONAL INFORMATION, WE'VE GOT TO REMEMBER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOIA. AND AS YOU KNOW, THERE IS INFORMATION IN THOSE REQUESTS THAT WOULD BE REDACTED. YET OTHER EXEMPTIONS MEANING ANY TYPE OF PHONE NUMBERS, E-MAIL ADDRESSES IF THEY ARE A PERSONAL NATURE UNDER ANOTHER EXCEPTION THOSE WOULD BE REMOVED. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN. YEAH, MINE. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT CURSES BUT WHAT ABOUT LIKE J.S. DATA? IF SOMEBODY COMES IN ASK FOR A JAZZ DATA, WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO IF IT WAS A COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT'S ASKING FOR J.S. DATA IN ANY SORT OF QUANTITY WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE AFFIDAVIT THEY ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS DAN MORGAN WHEREBY HE BASICALLY HAS A CONVERSATION WITH THEM ON HOW THIS INFORMATION IS POINT TO BE USED BECAUSE WE HAVE A LICENSE THAT WE PURCHASE FOR THE JAZZ DATA AND IF BEING REQUESTED THAT IS HANDLED THROUGH DAN MORGAN TO DECIDE OR FOR WHETHER THE REQUESTER IS USING THAT INFORMATION APPROPRIATE PURSUANT TO OUR AGREEMENT WITH CREATING THE G YES WE GET WE GET THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FOLKS THAT ARE LOOKING TO MAKE MONEY OFF THE WORK THAT THE TAX PAYERS HAVE PAID TO HAVE DONE OUTSIDE OF ITS INTENDED PURPOSE . SUE THAT'S QUITE AN EFFORT TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION APPROPRIATELY AND EFFICIENTLY OF FORM THE PURPOSE AND CHAMP OF THE STATUTE. SO EACH EACH ITEM AS BRITTANY HAS ALLUDED TO IS DONE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND THINGS SOME THINGS ARE OBVIOUS, SOME THINGS ARE NOT SO MUCH SO I THINK AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT WE TAKE PEOPLE AT THEIR WORD UNTIL THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVE OTHERWISE THAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GETTING INFORMATION AND IS ABLE TO BE RELEASED UNDER FOI AND THEY'RE NOT USING IT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES THEN WE

[00:40:06]

COMMENTS, SIR. >> WHERE ARE YOU IN THE PRESIDENT'S ASIAN BROTHER?

ARE YOU AT THE END? YES, SIR. >> FROM THE LAST ONE AS FAR AS FEES AND COSTCO AND LABOR COSTS ARE AT AN HOURLY RATE. SO I SEE PRO-RATED HOURLY SALARY THE LOWEST PAID EMPLOYEE WHO HAS SIX SKILL TRAINING TO PERFORM THEIR REQUEST.

THE PROPOSED COSTS ARE BASED ON THE PROPOSED COST AND OUR POLICY AS IT PROVIDES RIGHT NOW. THAT IS THE LOWEST PAID EMPLOYEE FROM ALL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AT EACH LEVEL. SO FOR AN EXAMPLE OUT OF ALL THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS THE LOWEST PAID DEPARTMENT STAFF RATE RANGES FROM FOURTEEN DOLLARS TO THIRTY DOLLARS TO EIGHT CENTS. THE COUNTY IS ONLY GOING TO CHARGE FOURTEEN DOLLARS CARRIES EQUIPMENT DOWN ON THE LEFT WHERE HE SAYS PROPOSED COSTS. THIS IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PRESENTED IN THE POLICY. THE THE RIGHT IS GOING TO BE THE HIGHEST COST THAT COULD BE CHARGED UNDER THE FOIL LAW. SO SEE THE DIFFERENCE HERE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF. WE HAVE COME UP WITH A THE NUMBERS FOR THE DEPT.

OF MINISTER AS WELL AS THE ADMINISTRATOR. IT WAS THE PARENT INTERIM ADMINISTRATORS DECISION THAT HE DID NOT FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO CHARGE EIGHTY FOUR DOLLARS AN HOUR IF HE HAD TO PERSONALLY REVIEW OR REVIEW ANY DOCUMENTS. SO WE HAVE SET A FLAT RATE OF FIFTY DOLLARS FOR THAT ON THE RIGHT ON THE FAR RIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER COUNTIES AS WELL AS OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES WITHIN OUR STATE WHEREBY I HAVE GONE AND LOOKED AT THEIR FEES AND RATES WHILE I WAS CREATING THIS. AND WE ACTUALLY DEPARTMENT STAFF ARE WELL BELOW THE MAJORITY OF THEM AS FAR AS COSTCO.

I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT. SO FOR INSTANCE, RICHLAND COUNTY HAS A SET RATE OF TWENTY

SIX DOLLARS. >> OURS IS ONLY GOING TO BE 14 FOR THE LOWEST IS THAT SAME RICHLAND COUNTY IS THAT IS TWENTY SIX THE LOWEST. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE PUBLISHED ON THEIR SITE. RIGHT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE ARE SEVERAL LEVELS HERE THAT ARE THAT EXCEED THE TWENTY SIX DOLLARS.

THAT IS CORRECT. LOOK, SPECIFICALLY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WHICH IS I THINK PROBABLY THE ONE DOING MOST OF THE REDACTION. IS THAT WHAT I'M.

IS THAT A CORRECT SET POSITION ? NO IT IS NOT.

I ONLY LOOK AT A REQUEST WHEN THEY HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE FOI A SPECIALIST AND WHEN

THERE IS CONCERNS FOR SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS. >> PAUL, THIS STILL I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE MY HAND. YEAH I CAN'T I CAN'T NOW SEE TO GO THROUGH THREE THREE THOUGHTS. ONE, IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT HAVING SOMEWHAT OF A HIGHER RATE PERHAPS WHATEVER THE STATE AVERAGE IS OR THE AVERAGE FOR THE OTHER TIER 1 COUNTIES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WE WANT TO KEEP KEEPING TRACK OF ALL THIS STUFF.

[00:45:01]

THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY. AND THIRDLY, RELATIVE TO THE LATTER PART OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING THIS INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES SEEMS TO ME SOME WARNING TO THE EFFECT OF NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE.

IT MIGHT BE A WAY TO HELP MINIMIZE WHAT PEOPLE ASK. BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PLACES TO GO FIND IT. SO THOSE THREE THOUGHTS IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT FIRST.

WE CAN NOT BY LAW USE THE AVERAGE OF THE OTHER ENTITIES BY LAW.

WE HAVE TO USE THE LOWEST PAID INDIVIDUAL PART OF THAT IS AVAILABLE TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THAT'S WHY WE ACTUALLY TOOK OUT OF ALL THE FIFTY TO DEPARTMENT'S THE LOWEST RATE OUT OF ALL FIFTY TWO DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE THAT ALLOWS US TO ADHERE TO THE LAW THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE THE LOWEST PAID STAFF MEMBER. WITHOUT QUESTION I BELIEVE WE WERE WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO RICHLAND COUNTY AND THERE TWENTY FOUR DOLLARS.

ARE THEY CHARGING TWENTY FOR SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT? AND IF I CAN I CAN CLICK ON IT

BECAUSE I WAS ASSUMING QUESTIONS WILL BE RAISED. >> SO RICHLAND COUNTY IT SAYS THAT THE RETRIEVAL OF REDACTION FEE IS TWENTY SIX DOLLARS AN HOUR.

THAT MEANS MY READING OF THIS IS THAT THE LOWEST PAID INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS ABILITY TO RESPOND TO FOIA IS AT TWENTY SIX DOLLARS AN HOUR. WAS ONE RESULT.

THE OTHER PIECE IS OUR FOURTEEN DOLLARS FULLY LOADED. WE HAVE BENEFITS INFRINGES RETIREMENT LOADED INTO THAT. THAT IS FROM H.R. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY HOURLY RATE IS SO I

CAN ONLY ASSUME I DID IT. >> I DID NOT ASK H.R. FOR THE BREAKDOWN OF EACH INDIVIDUAL'S PAYMENT TO BE HONEST. I DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW. SO I ASKED THEM SPECIFICALLY ONLY FOR THE HOURLY RATE. IT VERY MONEY. THE DISCUSSION WAS GOOD BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THERE IS A WAY AROUND THE ABSOLUTE LOWEST PERSON COST THAT WORKS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY BEING WHAT WE PAY OURSELVES FOR THE WORK THAT WE DO BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY USE GOOD PEOPLE OR A HIGHER LEVEL PEOPLE TO DO IT. THEY'RE ALL GOOD PEOPLE.

ANYWAY I GUESS MY THOUGHTS ON HEY BRITNEY, I HAVE A QUESTION .

THIS JUST MIGHT BE ME NOT BEING EDUCATED UP ON THE SITUATION BUT THE FUNDS THAT WE COLLECT ON THIS, DO THEY GO DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE WORK I THINK TO MAKE OUR PROBLEM A BETTER FIT. I BELIEVE SHE IS ON HAIR BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING I THINK THEY GO TO THE GENERAL FUND CORRECT TO SAY IT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND.

IT'S A MISCELLANEOUS FUND THAT WE USE. SO IT DOES NOT GO TO THE

EMPLOYEE THAT DOES THE WORK. >> SO THAT EMPLOYEE IS MAKING NO MORE LIVES WHETHER THEY'RE

DOING THE JOB OR NOT. >> CORRECT. RIGHT.

RIGHT. AND THEY ARE NOT MAKING ANY MORE MONEY THAN THEIR 14 THAN I

COULD HAVE ANSWERED THAT WHEN THEY RECEIVE NO BENEFIT. >> AND THEN JUST MY CURIOSITY IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE'RE STILL PAYING THEM THE SAME OR NOT THE SAME.

WHY ARE WE CHARGING TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE SOIL FOLLOWING A LAW THAT IS THE RATE AND

WHICH HAS BEEN SET BY LAW. >> THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN MENTIONED WHEREBY A WAIVER CAN BE MADE. BUT I DO NOT KNOW AND I'D BE WELCOME TO DISCUSS IT WITH WHATEVER GOVERNMENT ENTITY IT IS. DR. WE HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU LOGAN BECAUSE THAT COUNTY EMPLOYEE COULD BE DOING SOME OTHER JOB FLOW THERE AT WORK INDOORS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY AS OPPOSED TO THIS FOI REQUEST WHICH REALLY ONLY INSURES TO THE BENEFIT OF ONE PERSON THE REQUESTER OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST.

YOU SEE HOW THAT'S THIS KIND OF . YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO A SPECIFIC THING FOR YOU. YOU SHOULD PAY FOR THAT AS OPPOSED TO ALL OF PAYING FOR THE PERSON TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. YEAH, IT'S KIND IT'S KIND OF LIKE REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER TO PAY FOR ROAD IMPACTS OF ROADS THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN ORDER TO SUBSIDIZE HIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. YEAH, I MEAN I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY MAIN ARGUMENT THAT AT THIS STAFF MEMBERS DOING MORE LABOR THAN THEY WERE GOING TO FOR THIS SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL THEN STILL

[00:50:02]

THAT'S MY POINT. ALL RIGHT. >> WHERE ARE WE ON THE PRESENTATION BRIDGE NEAR YOU ABOUT THAT? DID WE JUST DISCUSS THIS LAST ONE IN REGARDS TO WAIVERS SO THAT AS OF HAD SOME GOOD COMMENTS AND WE MAY HAVE SOME MOTIONS TO PUT IN THIS MOVE MOVE THIS ALONG BUT I'M GOING TO DO THAT.

>> WE NEED A MOTION TO MOVE THE RESOLUTION FORWARD AND ONCE IT ONCE THAT'S ON THE TABLE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THEN WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE THE RESOLUTION FORWARD SO MOVED OUR I'D LIKE TO SECOND I MET US, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL SECOND THAT RUSSIAN THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WE'RE NOW IN DISCUSSION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT. YES, OF COURSE. THANK YOU.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE DISCUSSION WE HAD HERE TODAY, I DO HAVE IN MIND A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT I'M GOING TO WANT TO INTERVIEW AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD THE REST OF THE AGENDA THAT YOU HAVE IT'S REALLY APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT DO THAT HERE AND NOW. AND AGAIN I I WOULD NEED MORE TIME ANYWAY IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE TODAY. I'D LIKE TO BRING THIS UP AT A AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING AND WHEN WE CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO ABSORB RESEARCH WHAT BRITNEY HAS TOLD US AND GIVE OUR OWN IDEAS ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD MAKE SUBTLE CHANGES.

I HAVE TO TELL YOU, BRITNEY, IT'S I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM A LOT BETTER NOW THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IT IN DEPTH AND THERE ARE GONNA BE A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT I RECOMMEND BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M READY TO DO THAT HERE TODAY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, SO YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CORRECT.

OKAY. I GUESS THAT COULD DONE IT EITHER HERE OBVIOUSLY OR IT CAN BE DONE. IT'S ALL COUNCIL IS. KURT, ARE YOU ON? NO. BRITTANY, YOU CAN ANSWER THIS POSITIONING.

THIS RESOLUTION THIS NEEDS TO GO TO COUNCIL. IS THAT CORRECT?

YES. >> YES. OK.

SO WE CAN DO. YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTIONS AT COUNCIL ■ORIFTHERE ISA&-PCONSENO

[7. BOARDS AND COMMISSION ]

[00:57:18]

>> I DIDN'T GET THE LIST FOR NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

I APPLAUD THIS OF SYSTEMATIC WAY OF TRACKING THINGS. BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE NORTHERN REGIONAL PLAN ON HERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT CAME UNDER SOMEWHERE ELSE BUT I SAW THAT ONE MISSING AND I I I DON'T I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE LIST OF YOU SAID WE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED ONE IF WE'RE ALWAYS ON TO SOME OTHER GROUP. THAT'S CORRECT.

I DON'T RECALL SEEING SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS THAT I WAS LY IS ON TO OUTSIDE NATURAL

RESOURCE COMMITTEE. >> YOU DON'T GET AFTER THIS MEETING.

I WAS WAITING FOR SUMMERVILLE TO ANNOUNCE WHAT TO DO WITH THEM BEFORE US.

THAT AMOUNT THAT WAS OK. AND JUST WE WERE APPEARING AT THOSE OR EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER AND THEN TO THEM OK I'D JUST LIKE TO SUGGEST TO PUT NORTHERN REGIONAL

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN GROUP SOMEWHERE. >> OKAY.

YEAH. IF SOMETHING IS MISSING LIKE THE EXAMPLE THAT ALICE USES

THEIR NORTHERN REGIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION. >> LET LET'S LET.

KNOW. THANKS. WE'LL GET IT.

HOLD ON. THERE'S A PAUSE. WE GET IT.

IF WE CAN ADD THAT ONE IT'S NOT AND IT'S NOT A THIS OFFICE THAT A SPECIFIC ONE IS AND IT FALLS

UNDERNEATH DIANE MCMASTER. >> ERIC KNOWS MORE ABOUT THAT THAN I DO.

BUT WE ADD IT TO NATURAL RESOURCES. ALICE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT OF THAT AND GET SOME UPDATES ON IT. THANK YOU'RE NOT HELPFUL.

YEAH, SURE. I'M SORRY. YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ANGEL.

THTEE IS NORTHERN REGIONAL PLANNING OR LABOR'S IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE.

THINGS LIKE THAT. CAUSE THOSE AREN'T REALLY SHORT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT THE THAT MISS BROCK'S OFFICE COORDINATES FOR COUNCIL. WE'RE HAPPY TO.

WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE HER THE INFORMATION AS NECESSARY IF YOU WOULD LIKE THOSE LISTED.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT, ERIC. I JUST I JUST THOUGHT OF SOME OTHER ENTITIES THAT FALL UNDER THAT SAME CATEGORY. YOU HAVE THE. THE WARNER LADY'S ISLAND.

TO CALL THE VILLAGE CENTER A COMMITTEE WHICH I ATTEND WHICH IS NOT MANAGED BY OR OVERSEEN BY MY COUNCIL. SO PAUL, I QUESTION YES OR LARRY, DID YOU INDICATE.

OR DO I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED ALL OF THE THE A'S ON

[01:00:06]

BECAUSE APPARENTLY SARAH HASN'T SENT THOSE OUT. >> SHE'S NOT GOING TO SEND THOSE OUT UNTIL THE END OF THIS MEETING IN CASE ARE ANY CHANGES.

BUT WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IS A LIST OF ALL OF THE ASSIGNMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

I MEAN THERE MAY BE THERE MAY BE FOR EXAMPLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS IN YOUR CASE A NATURAL RESOURCE WHICH SURELY IT IS ON TO AND YOU WON'T HAVE RECEIVED YET.

AS AN EXAMPLE, THE OTHER ITEM THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT A BRIEFLY I MEAN BRIEFLY BECAUSE

[8. RULES AND PROCEDURES]

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TIME TO GET INTO THAT NOW. BUT PLEASE BE THINKING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO COME UP FAIRLY SOON. WE'RE GOING TO START ASKING FOR SOME GROWTH FOR SOME MOTION'S BOATS ON THAT US. AND FINALLY ON REFERENDUMS

[9. REFERENDUMS ]

OK. I DIDN'T. I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT AND I DIDN'T THINK TO ASK YOU THIS QUESTION BEFOREHAND BUT I'LL ASK.

I'LL I'LL I'LL PUT THEIR COMMENT OUT HERE NOW AND IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER IT NOW THAT'S FINE. IF NOT YOU CAN ANSWER THE NEXT MEETING BUT ON REFERENDUM WHERE WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT TWO IN PARTICULAR ONE IS THAT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE HAVE AND THE SECOND IS A LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX WITH RESPECT TO THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND ALSO I GUESS THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX. THE QUESTION IS GOING TO COME UP DO WE WANT TO TRY TO PUT EITHER ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE ON 2019 TO MOVE FORWARD TO 2020? BUT HERE'S ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE WE MAKE THAT DECISION AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE NEED A DECISION FROM CARD ON IF WE PUT IT ON THE TWO THOUSAND TWENTY REFERENDUM AND IT HAD EITHER ONE OF THESE AND IT PASSES. WHEN DID THEY GO INTO EFFECT THE DECISION? IT WAS QUITE WHAT'S. DID YOU MEAN 2021? I'M SORRY. I'M RIGHT ON ME AND I'M SORRY. TWENTY TWENTY ONE.

OK. WELL IF WE PUT IT THE REFERENDUM TWO THOUSAND TWO YEARS BEHIND IF WE PUT IT ON THE REFERENDUM FOR 2022. WHEN DOES THAT TAKE EFFECT IF WE PUT IT ON THE ON THE REFERENDUM FOR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY.

WHEN DOES IT TAKE EFFECT. BECAUSE AS WE DISCUSS THIS IT MAY WELL BE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT IT'S CRITICAL DOES WHEN IT GOES INTO EFFECT. SO IF IT GOES INTO IT FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE IF IT GOES ON THE 2022 REFERENDUM, IT DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT THE 2026, THEN THAT MAY BE A MOTIVATION FOR US TO PUT IT ON THE 2021. YES, SIR.

I LIKE TO RESEARCH IT AND GET BACK TO YOU WITH A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT.

BUT I BELIEVE THE TREASURER AND AUDITOR WOULD CONTINUE THEIR CURRENT TERMS TO EXPLORATION BEFORE IT WOULD REVERT TO A APPOINTED POSITION. BUT I NEED TO LOOK THAT UP AND I WILL GET YOU A MEMO ON THAT. SO JUST HEARD THAT PARTICULAR THAT STOOD OUT FOR.

MY RECOLLECTION ALSO IF THEY SERVE OUT THEIR TERM I BELIEVE SOME.

SO THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. DO WE WANT TO.

DO WE WANT TO WAIT AND PUT IT ON THE 2022 REFERENDUM NOSE AND GET IT WILL KICK INTO 2026 OR DO WE WANT TO PUT IT ON THE 21 REFERENDUM? NO, NO KICK IN AND 2022? NO, THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER. SO WHEN I REMEMBER WHEN THEY WERE ELECTED THEY HAD THE IN THE US 20 19 FREE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE TREASURE BUT IT COMES

UP IN 2020 TO BOTH OF THEM TO BOTH OURSELVES ELECTED IN 2019. >> OKAY.

>> WELL THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON THE 22 BALLOT? SAY IT AGAIN. I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO ON THE

22 BALLOT SO IT DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL 2020. >> SIX I THOUGHT IT WENT.

>> I THOUGHT THE ELECTION IN NINETEEN THEY TOOK OFFICE IN TWENTY FOUR THEY WOULD BE THEIR TERM WOULD EXPIRE I BELIEVE IN JUNE OF TWENTY FOUR. IT EXPIRES IN 20 TO NOT IF THEY WERE ELECTED IN NOVEMBER OF NINETEEN. NO THEY WERE ACTUALLY ELECTED 18 19 OR THEY'RE ON THE SAME THE SAME ROTATION AS I AM ALL NOT I GO IN DECEMBER THIRTY FIRST TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO I DO DO IT THE YEAR DO IT THE YEAR BEFORE THEIR TERMS EXPIRE

[01:05:02]

BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE. >> YEAH WE'LL GET A LEGAL OPINION ON THAT. THANK YOU. RIGHT.

I DON'T I DON'T KNOW BY PAUL I BELIEVE THE SALES TAX IS LIKE THE PENNY ON THE TRANSPORTATION IT KICKS OUT IMMEDIATELY. BUT THEY DON'T REALLY GET GOING UNTIL ABOUT APRIL OF MAY OF THE YEAR AFTER THE IT'S APPROVED IN NOVEMBER. ALL RIGHT.

A SALES STARTS IN MAY AFTER IT'S APPROVED IN NOVEMBER. MR. CHAIRMAN, ON FRIDAY'S MEETING OF THE NORTHERN REGIONAL PLAN, ALL THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WERE FROM THE TOWN AND FROM THE CITY AGAIN SAID THAT THEY WANT THAT SALES TAXES AS EXPECTED.

>> IT'S WE'VE HEARD BEFORE THEY MADE A PLEA FOR IT AGAIN. YEAH, THE LOCAL AUCTION WILL GET THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ON COUNCIL A YEAR OR SO AGO RECALL THAT WHEN WE HAD A MAYORS MEETING IN BLUFFTON, ALL 11 OF US WERE THERE AT THAT TIME AND WE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED THAT WE'D PUT IT ON THE ON THE BALLOT IN TWO THOUSAND TWENTY I THINK ANYWAY.

>> SO THERE'S A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT TO THINK ABOUT BUT WE GONNA MAKE A DECISION ON THAT FAIRLY QUICKLY. GO AHEAD. ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS TO ME LAST TIME AROUND WE ACTUALLY HAD A LIST FROM THE MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THEY WOULD SPEND THE I HOPE I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY. BUT IF SO WE PROBABLY WOULD WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S ON THE LIST BEFORE WE JUST APPROVED NILLY, OK.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT CHAIR. I BELIEVE YOU MAY BE RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW.

I'M GOING TO CALL IT ON THE REST OF THE DAY THAT YES, SIR. YOU SAID THE HEIRS OF THE TOWNS ARE CALLING FOR IT. CORRECT? YES.

SO MY QUESTION IS NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWENTY TWENTY ONE .

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A BIG TURNOUT. WE I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING THE RETREAT BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY TYPE TURNOUT IN TWENTY.

I WOULD THINK THAT 20 22 WOULD BE THE EARLIEST IS POSSIBLE WHEN YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL GENERAL

ELECTION. >> THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT IN SOME DETAIL BUT BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY NEED TO DO IT NOW AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE SAID NOR THEY WANT ELECTED OFFICIALS, NOT JUST THE MAYORS OF PORT ROYAL AND THE CITY BUT ALSO THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS. THERE'LL BE TWO SIDES TO THAT ARGUMENT AND WE'LL HAVE WE'LL DEBATE EDITABLE VOTED ABOUT HOW IF I MIGHT ADD SHOULD BE A SORT OF ONE QUICK POINT. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THOUGH THAT WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS THE EXTRA PANTY WHICH IS A WHICH REDUCES REAL ESTATE TAXES AND THEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF IT GOES TO THE TO THE MUNICIPALITIES AND TO THE COUNTY FOR ITS GOVERNANCE OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. AND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? RIGHT. OK. YEAH, NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX WHICH IS THE ONE. YEAH.

OK, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. I'M GOING TO IN OUT OF RESPECT FOR FINANCE I'M GOING TO MOVE ALONG. WE STILL HAVE CITIZENS COMMENTS.

ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS COMMENTS EITHER ON ONLINE OR THAT CAME THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE IN CITIZENS COMMENTS? NO, SIR. WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY OK.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT BRINGS US TO GERMANY.

ALL MATTERS HAVING BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING HAVING BEEN DISCUSSED. WE ARE ADJOURNED NOW. WOULD FINANCE BE BACK ON AN HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU WANT BEFORE WE MOVE, MARK? HOW MUCH TIME YOU WERE BY TEN MINUTES. MARK LARSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES THAT COMES UP NEXT.

IS THAT RIGHT, LARRY? LARRY, HOW MUCH TIME YOU WANT? FIVE OR TEN? NEWT LARRY, I SEE YOUR LIPS MOVING. I DO BETTER NOW.

YEAH, THAT'S FINE. YOU LOOK FIVE OR TEN TEN TEN MINUTES WOULD BE FINE.

WOULD WE STAY ON THE SAME SCREEN? YES, SIR.

NO SIR. YOU WERE SENT AN INVITE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES NATURAL RESOURCES THAT WE LEAD MEETING AND START THAT ONE. OK, SO IT'S THAT 10 AFTER TWO

[01:10:03]

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.