It is 8:31 a.m.

on Thursday, May 7th, 2026.

I call to order the financial and administrative committee.

In addition to being able to attend in person, remote attendance has been made available to the public via Zoom.

And per our county board rules and the state uh open meetings act, tendance via remote means permittive or qualifying reasons as long as a majority of members are physically present.

We were notified in advance by member Hewitt, uh requesting to participate electronically due to medical reasons.

Uh a physical quorum is present, so we'll uh deem Member Hewitt present unless there's an objection to the notice.

Seeing none, Member Hu will be present.

Please rise.

Member Clark, would you lead us to the pledge of the question?

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for original stands for nation under indivisible liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Well called police.

Member Clark here.

Chair Frank.

Here.

Member Maine.

Vice Chair Park.

Member Peterson.

And Member Volitzik.

Member Hewitt is here.

He is here.

I'm sorry.

Member Hewitt.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Hewitt.

Do we have any addenda to the agenda?

We do not.

Do we have any public comment on items on or off the agenda?

We have no public comment.

Okay.

Chair's remarks, I'll just note in just a minute.

I'm going to ask for your consent to move 7.1 towards the end year 8.26, which is a recommended change in the accompanying policy.

So the two items are related.

So we're going to bounce that down to the bottom.

So related to that unfinished business is item 7.1 resolution setting the compensation for specified countywide elected office holders, county board members, and the county board chair, which we discussed last week.

And so it's on our unfinished business.

We get a motion to table this until after item 8.26.

Motion by Member Clark, second by member Volitic.

Any comments or questions on the motion to table?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Great.

We'll get to that towards the end of the open session agenda.

And members all note we do have an executive session today as well.

Our new business items, consent agenda items 8.1 through 8.22.

Do any members wish to pull any of the items from the consent agenda?

Motion to approve by member Clark, second by Vice Chair RA.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed, the consent agenda items are approved.

Item 8.23 is a resolution authorizing a line item transfer for the purpose of two recommended vehicle replacements in fiscal year 2026.

Motion to approve by member Volitsek, second by member Clark.

Good morning.

Morning.

Michael Wheeler Finance.

Good morning.

Uh Regina Tuzak, Chief Financial Officer.

So we come before you today with these two with this situation.

And the reality is it was just an error on our part in budget prep.

There were a couple of vehicles that were not included in the FY26 budget.

There is capacity for them coming from uh general operating expense.

The note in here about the sheriff's transfer is one vehicle was for the sheriff's office, the other was for the health department.

Sheriff's office had some dollars that became available because there were some expenses that were anticipated in the sheriff's budget that ETSB was able to cover.

So there is a transfer in part from the sheriff's office budget and a transfer from uh GOE contingency to capital outlay where we fund the vehicles.

So we're just wanting to acknowledge the error and asking for your approval so that these vehicles can be purchased.

Thank you.

Questions.

Thing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.23 is approved.

8.24 is a resolution authorizing a line item transfer in the amount of 421,531 dollars and 43 cents from GOE contingency for the Lake County State's attorney for the continuation of the state's attorney child support enforcement program.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Parak, second by member of Litzik.

Good morning again, Michael Wheeler Finance.

Uh this is another situation where we included, we were in the process in excuse me, in the process of budgeting for the state's attorney's office budget.

The uh the child support enforcement dollars.

We had scheduled to go through via the carryover process and realize much later that the revenue was included in the FY26 budget, but not the expenses.

So what this in the the period of the agreement is from July 1st of 25 to June 30th of 2026.

So it is the state fiscal year.

What is not in the FY26 budget is the latter half of that program, which is December 1st through June 30th.

And what we're asking for is the uh transfer from contingency to the state's attorney's office so that they can complete their so they have the funding in place to perform the duties required by the child support enforcement program.

So happy to answer any questions.

Member Maine.

Thank you.

I'm a little confused.

Um is this at all related to the budget with the state's attorney with that grant last year.

If you remember, he's like, but I need the money because the state fiscal year doesn't align and it's gonna run out.

I'm not explaining this very well.

It was a big do you remember what I'm talking about?

It was a big referring to the G VPI program.

That's right.

That's right.

This is different.

That's different.

That's it struck me as similar with that claiming.

Understood.

All right.

So we already had these, so it's not related to that.

Um, and this is something that's an ongoing it's a program that the state's attorney's office has been doing for years.

Uh, you know, it's and so it's what's happened is in the past, we would sometimes it was just kind of included in the budget.

This year we were starting to treat it kind of like a grant where we do the carryover because they don't award it every year.

You don't want to accidentally assume some expenses revenue that may not be there.

So in the process of performing that process of kind of doing that cleanup during the budget, we took care of the expenses, you know, trying to make sure there wasn't more put into the budget than there should have been, but realized much later that oh, the revenue was in there and it shouldn't have been.

So right now they have the revenue in place, and what we're trying to do is make sure that the dollars in there to rec recognize the expense are in place so they can perform the services of the agreement.

Ms.

May I Well, thank you.

Um so this goes through, and and I think you said it, but I just needed to put everything together.

Yeah.

So this goes through June.

June of this year.

Correct.

Two more months.

Right.

And then what's happening for the rest of the year?

So uh the state's attorney's calendar year.

No, yeah.

Yeah.

So my understanding is that the state's attorney's office, and they could speak to this better, but is waiting to see if there will be a renewal that will start in July of 26 for the state fiscal year 27.

I want to make sure I get my fiscal years right.

I I understand what you're saying.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And so uh so if that happens, then there will need to be a conversation about the latter half of the fiscal year.

But right now, this is just to cover from now till the end of the state fiscal year, which is June 30th, and that's what we have revenue for in the 26 budget, just not the expenses.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments or questions on this item.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.24 is approved.

8.25 is resolution approving updates to the finance policies, 3.5 budget development policy, 3.5, FY27 budget planning policy, and 3.6 budget execution policy, which provide the county board guidance for the upcoming preparation of the fiscal year 2027 budget, as well as ongoing guidance for the development and execution of the annual budget.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Parrack, second by member Clark.

Uh good morning, Chair Frank and members of the committee.

Um, just to recap uh where we are a month ago at the FNA committee meeting, we provided you a red line of all these policies.

Um we took the policies through our policy review committee.

Last week, we discussed with you the comments from that review committee.

And in front of you here are the red line versions, which are essentially the same as a month ago, with the exception of the one addition uh that was discussed last week, which is the grants, um, the uh allowance that um amendments to existing grants that are under 20,000 uh can uh continue on and appropriate support provided to accounting, but there isn't a need to take it through the respective committees uh up to a cumulative total of 125,000 for the county as a whole, and once that is exhausted, then the traditional process will continue.

Um in front of you is the proposed budget calendar for the upcoming fiscal year 27 budget.

If the calendar is agreeable to you, it would be an attachment uh that would be included with the board materials along with these budget policy um revisions.

So if you uh have any questions, I'm happy to um take them and uh provide any responses that are appropriate.

Great, thank you.

And um I'll just note per my discussion with Ms.

Fair Sutton, there's no changes on this calendar, these these items align with what's already been previously published elsewhere, right?

That is correct.

Okay, great.

So related to the uh one policy that you highlighted, uh CFO2C that we're that we're uh adopting as a change here, which is that uh at the suggestion request of the health department, we're gonna implement this countywide.

So if there are small amendments to grant amounts that previously had been approved, that that those would be sort of uh we're deeming the departments the authority to accept and amend the the amounts without bringing it back to this committee.

That's correct.

That's correct.

They they those departments would still have to provide the finance uh the grant uh information so that the adjustment, the adjustment could be reflected in the budget accordingly.

The aggregate amount of changes across the budget should across all departments would be under 120,000.

Once we exceed that amount, stuff would start to come to us.

Right.

125,000.

Under 25,000.

Is there an individual department amount by which we're like, hey, this this grant amendment is X percentage of a big change.

It's not a small change.

We think we need to bring this back.

Is there is there any sort of a trigger related to the individual grants, or is it just the the total amount?

The only trigger that we have in here is that it's it has to be individually less than 20,000.

Okay.

Great.

Member Maine.

Um I think this is great.

And I applaud the health department for bringing it forward, and then it's gonna help um other departments save time, help the county save time.

Um of the things that uh I asked at the HCS meeting uh this Tuesday, we had the health department was here, we had some grants of the minimum, a thousand dollars and things like that.

And I was trying to get an understanding, would these fall under that new um this new policy?

And the answer for that was well, no, because that's this one, the one that we were voting on was new.

And which was fine, but I think one of the changes and uh county administrator Sutton was there is that the language in our agendas is unclear on those things.

That the language that was written, there was no way for you to tell that it was new.

Administrator Sutton, could you help me out here and maybe t say because we talked about that, that we're gonna need to change some other things.

If we go through this policy, our agendas are not going to make it clear what should and shouldn't fall under this purview.

I can help, yes.

If you'll um flip back to items 8.3 and 8.4 under the consent agenda, you'll see that in the title of the resolution, it does say additional funding.

Um, this is something that the county administrator did not, you know, notice when we were assembling the agenda.

These are actually new grants, and so we will be much more careful about the wording there so that it is very, very clear whether or not these are you know, increasing the existing um approved budgets or whether they're actually new.

So we'll just be much more careful on that going forward.

Yeah.

I I just wanted to bring that because additional sounds like it's that really it's a new funding item.

And and perhaps I think it's a little tricky, but it's gonna have to be worked out because you can't tell from this.

An important clarification, especially because uh we don't always have recall uh from one meeting to the next.

And if we're gonna put it in writing, we should make sure that the the verbiage is clear.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Good.

I think in total it's additional.

So it's not incorrect.

It's just a little misleading.

Yes.

Yeah.

New additional or something.

Yeah.

Got it.

Um and the other call out members that I just wanted to make related to the budget policy is that I did raise the the question about um the Medicaid match funds for the health department and the way that their capital budgets are developed and and approved and looking for some consistency across uh the departments for the way that we budget and plan for capital.

This budget policy before us does not make any changes to that area.

And that's because we need additional time to have further conversations with the health department folks and and our team.

Um if we if we think that there's a change that's ready to come forward uh before the budget, uh, you know, not too far into planning process, we might see an amendment at some point.

Okay.

So more more to come on that.

Okay.

Other comments or questions on budget policy.

Thanks for the great work.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.25 is approved.

So now we're gonna do 8.26, and then we're gonna jump back to uh the 7.1, which we uh tabled until after this item.

8.26 is a resolution authorizing amendments to the county elected official compensation policy.

This is an accompanying recommended policy change that we we need to make because of the suggested amendment by member Clark last week that we were interested in seeing.

So essentially would um allow for the midterm adjustment of salaries to to be consistent for the uh countywide offices that we that we're setting compensation for so that they are not stagnant for the entirety of the of the four-year term.

Um that's the that's basically the main change that we're looking at here, right?

Yes, great introduction.

Sure.

Okay, sorry, sorry to steal your thunder there.

Oh, it's pretty good.

Yeah.

Uh motion to approve this item by Vice Chair Park, second by member Clark comments or questions.

Member May.

Yeah, I I understand some of the impetus behind this.

Um, but I I want to point out that um people know the salary going in.

Uh people are able to get um health insurance uh for their family, uh, which is worth a lot of money.

And also in my experience, um, trusting my memory, which isn't always um correct.

Um I can't think of a time in almost 25 years in which somebody has had one of these positions and then not run for re-election.

So um if it wasn't working for them and their family, then they wouldn't run for re-election.

So I think the system's been fine, but I understand why people want to change it.

Member Clark.

Yeah, well, I mean, people do have to pay their bills, and if people don't get any increase, their buying purchasing power goes down every year because of inflation.

And um I we also there could be people if higher salaries that could run for these jobs because they could pay their bills with it.

And so I'm not we're not even increasing it's not even keeping up with inflation.

And that actually worries me.

I obviously would prefer that they actually got an inflation increase like everybody else that works here at Lake County, except for the elected officials, because they're they people who have these jobs do need to pay their bills.

And I really would hope that we wouldn't lose any people because they're like, you know, every year I'm making less money and for my purchasing power.

And so then, you know, I can't run, and we're gonna lose experienced people, we could attract maybe not attract other people to these jobs.

And you know, we're looking at just one increase for inflation, you know, every other year.

It's not even every year.

I would rather be every year.

So um, I did talk to some people, and you know, it is a real concern.

It's a real concern for people who are in these jobs to know that they're not even getting up with inflation.

So I really support this.

At least this is one more time.

So twice in four years, you get an increase for inflation.

Um, and so I hope we support this.

I think the jobs we do, we don't do it just psychic pay is great.

They always say teachers work for psychic pay also, which is the idea we work to help other people, but we have to pay our bills, and we can't pay our bills of psychic pay.

And I and I know as a teacher, we get you know, sometimes teachers get tired of saying, well, you get to help students.

Well, billionaires, so that because they are working just for money, they should get high pay, but people that are working to help people should get lower pay.

To me, I I don't really appreciate that.

So I respect the hard work that our elected officials do here at Lake County, and I really think that we should really pay people for doing these very important jobs.

So I do hope this board would consider doing one additional increase for CPI for um these elected officials.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Member Clark, I really appreciate the thinking uh that went into this, and I want to thank you for raising the issue last week.

Um these are important positions.

I think we want to pay people appropriately.

I I think what the compensation is probably still too low for some of them, but understanding the reality of how challenging it is to get uh members to advance uh anything beyond this, but it's consistent with the policy we've instituted for board members that we're gonna do a three percent uh or in line with what we're doing for other county employees.

So I think it's a good place to be.

Vice Chair.

Yeah, I just want to comment on member Clark said this perfectly in my opinion.

Um in 10 years' time, we're decreasing this job.

What it will we actually pay by 40 percent?

If we if we do this, we're decreasing it by 20%.

So we're still telling people your job is not worth what we're paying you, and we're gonna continue to reduce the value of your job.

So I'm big, we're basically saying we don't think these jobs really even are compensated properly.

We think we need to keep reducing it, and I'm saying I think that they're compensated fine.

I don't I mean, I would actually look to raise these, but uh we're basically just arguing like how the worth that we think these are.

Do we think these are 40% overvalued in 10 years or 20% overvalued in 10 years?

So we're saying we think these are overvalued 20% in 10 years versus 40%.

And I would say the whole argument is ridiculous, but I'm hoping that we can at least say, yeah, we're only going to take 20% of people's pay away in 10 years versus 40% of their pay away in 10 years.

So I think you know how strongly I feel about this.

We hear you.

Yes, it's it's a three percent bump or uh, you know, approximately every two years versus every four years.

Yes.

Right.

Yeah.

Other comments or questions.

Member of Litzik.

Can you clarify that?

So and sorry, like you said earlier, going from meeting to meeting, sometimes the info drops off, and then you come back and you have to remind yourself.

And of course, I read the agenda and I'm reading the red line now.

Um this particular amendment is simply saying that the bump that we any bump that we give at the beginning of the four-year term is also bumped in the middle to create parity for anyone who is entering that role sort of mid four-year cycle.

So I think we have a table, don't we also that shows the the adjustment?

It's essentially, yeah, it's it's essentially because the the language already had that we would be we would be in line with whatever raise is given to non-union correct.

Yeah.

So this is this policy change would allow for a midterm adjustment for the three countywide offices that are set uh so that it's not just set for at the same amount for the entire four years, it would adjust again in the third year or the fourth year.

That's what this amendment does.

I mean, the policy already said that we could just them every every every term.

Right.

Yeah.

Now we're adding in the midterm adjustment.

Um we separate for some reason the county board chair from the other countywides, right?

Like I mean, there is am I is that correct, right?

Yeah, I don't think we're making any changes to county board chair in this.

And and I would just ask us to consider that.

I mean, we're talking about countywide elected officials.

I know they're not elected countywide, but in turn if we're talking about the hard work and the full time and the all the stuff, and another thing I think we should think about maybe this isn't for this amendment, but just for the um actual salaries is that as far as I know, and I'm not sorry, prepared enough to to speak to the details um for any sort of change in policy here.

But some countywides are allowed to have second jobs, some aren't.

I think that's a consideration.

I mean, if we're in charge of like sort of approving people's, you know, living and livable wages, then that's something to know.

Some countywide positions will require certifications or other um other things, some don't, like all of that I think matters.

If a countywide position allows you, it like says, well, you can also have a second job, and there's no requirements, there's no minimum requirements for this job besides getting elected.

I think that's a different level of position.

I think we would say that for any organization or corporation or comp you know.

So I, you know, I I'm good.

I I think creating parity, if we're if we're going to raise um three percent or whatever we is raised for this for non-union union staff, all of that is a policy I understand, and I I can get behind.

But I just think there's more than more to consider in the future.

I don't disagree that we're we're not capturing everything here, but I think this I think the establishing the policy as we did four years ago was a really important step forward because we never had one.

I mean, we had no raises for any any of the electeds.

Um, and I think this is also an important step forward.

I so I'm I'm appreciative of the effort and and and supportive of it.

Member Maine, then vice chair.

Thank you.

And you are persuasive.

I I will be abstaining today.

I will think about it for the final.

Um, to a few things to address member Volitzek, and maybe you didn't mean to intertwine them.

The county board chair position is a two-year position, and we're talking about four-year positions here.

So that would fall outside this.

Um, my question is for um our county administrator.

Have we run this language by um by the state's attorney?

Because there are legal requirements about setting um salaries um at the beginning of, you know, the six months in advance.

So if we run by the the state's attorney that this language of, hey, there's gonna be a change.

We're not telling you exactly what it is, but this is the metric if that is legal.

We haven't run the red line new sentence that was added to the policy in there.

The policy was originally developed in coordination with the state's attorney's office two years ago, but um all we're stating is we're going to increase it by two years.

We can certainly do so before the board meeting.

I would recommend that just to make sure that we know that because there are a lot of requirements of how we set these salaries.

That's all.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Park.

Yeah, so I just I just want to clarify, I think what we're we're talking about here is that the job, I think, let's just say one of them pays 138,000 today.

What we're saying is whether you have a second job or not, or you get income from other sources, we don't believe this job is worth 138,000 in the future.

We think that people should be paid less.

What we're arguing is how much less.

We're all agreeing today they shouldn't be paid 138,000 in the future.

That's we're not even at we're not even unless we change it to at least the cost of living every year.

We're just saying we think it's worth less than what we pay them today.

We're just arguing, some of us that we shouldn't be paying them less than what we like once every four years.

So we're saying every 10 years, this job should be decreased by 40% till essentially this job is worthless.

There's no point in paying these people because it won't be worth anything to really do this job.

You'll be paying them under the minimum wage at some point.

We're just saying we think they should be paid not as less is what they should be doing if we followed the rate of inflation or CPI.

That is what we're arguing today.

Whether they have a second job or a third job or a fourth job, I think is irrelevant to the question of do we think this job should be continued to pay super less or just less?

That's the question.

And some of us are arguing less, not in dramatically less.

That is the question.

I appreciate the descriptors.

Chair Hart.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate this conversation.

I'm sorry that I can't be there.

Um, you know, just a thought when we think about raising salaries for staff, um, many of the times we particularly let's just say IT, uh, historically, has been, you know, we're really having a difficult time attracting someone to this position.

Uh we might have to increase the starting salary because we just can't get people.

And you know, we don't have sort of uh a really good template or format that we went through to determine hey, what should these salaries be?

Right?

We've talked over the years, it's really a shot in the dark, right?

Um, so I would say we're starting from sort of something that's ambiguous and then trying to determine what it should be from there.

And so going back to my previous point, we don't appear to have difficulty recruiting people for this position.

And I I would just argue if you don't have people, if you don't if you don't have a lack of candidates, why would you need to increase the salary?

So I I you know I voted against the salary increase two years ago.

Uh I will likely vote against it on Tuesday.

I do appreciate the conversation.

Uh I agree with member Maine that uh, you know, people are very persuasive, but I just come down to that fundamental thing.

Can we recruit good people to run for these positions?

Yes or no?

And I would say yes.

So thank you.

Vice Chair.

So with all due respect, I I would probably argue that that's not necessarily true.

So, first of all, I don't think this is a this is not a we're not looking, this is not a mark, we don't have enough data to create a mark.

This is not a clear-cut market like roles for engineers or IT or something like that.

We don't have like a good uh this is this is not a marketplace for these types of roles.

We could probably look at comparisons to other caller counties and look it to see are we generally in line?

And I would ask this committee if we could ask staff to look at that, that'd be fantastic.

So the question is is do we want no one to run for these roles or do we want a competitive marketplace for these roles?

When I look at how many people are in the primary, I don't see a lot of people running for these roles.

You tell me there's 10, 12, 14 people running for these roles, I would say, my God, that's really competitive.

And maybe we I I'd be unlikely to be persuaded even by that because I just want to create fair wages for everyone who works here for our county and for our people.

But if you told me there were 10, 12 people, I might be able to hear your argument a little bit.

I don't see a lot of people running for these roles.

Maybe one, maybe two, maybe zero.

Like do we want to get to zero?

Is that the goal to get to zero?

If that's the goal, that's not my goal.

I want lots of people to run for these roles.

And if we keep again, we are reducing the value of these roles.

That is not a question today for us.

It is how far we're planning to reduce these roles into the future.

We say they're not at the right salary today.

We are saying how low should they go?

Do we want them to go to the low to the point where people are like, I don't even see the point of running for this.

I why would we want to put ourselves in that position?

That's my question.

Yeah, agree.

Um, and we did look at some of those, you know, we tried to uh ask for comparables or bases for what is the baseline.

And I think I said earlier I said four years ago.

I think you're right, administrator, it was two years ago when we first enacted the policy, but we did have a a failed effort at adjustments four years ago as well.

And and you know, we landed on this hey, same as uh what the budget allows for, employees adjustment to the baseline for the electeds.

We looked at um, we asked for comparables, we asked staff to do research, provide us other guidance because we wanted to have a policy.

We wanted to do something, but we were trying to land it on something that had a basis in precedent or or policy, and and this is where we landed.

It's definitely imperfect, and you're right.

I mean, I think that that it's still uh over time a devaluation, but um it's an incremental improvement.

So appreciate the conversation in the comments.

Any other comments or questions?

Okay.

So uh this policy, and then we're gonna take action on the um amended uh and then these will obviously go to the county board as well.

So a motion to approve is oh, we already have a motion and a second.

So 8.26 on the amended policy.

All in favor, please say aye.

Uh aye.

Any opposed?

Uh you're abstaining.

Okay, got it.

Okay.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

8.26 is approved.

Going back to 7.1, which we had tabled from earlier.

So uh with the uh amended policy, we're going to also uh incorporate the amended adjustment for the three countywide offices.

Uh 7.1, a resolution setting the compensation for specified countywide elected office holders, county board members, and the county board chair.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Parak, second by a member Clark.

Sure, would you like me to bring up the revised I can bring up the revised too?

Yeah.

So yes.

So as we do every two years, we set the resolution includes the salaries for the countywides, some which we which we set ourselves and some which were dictated by statute, and for the county board members whose terms will begin following the November election this year.

And so it's it's all of those offices.

We have to do this every two years.

This is the same resolution.

But the change is that our, as you'll see here, that the policy that the committee is recommending and now has that midterm adjustment for county clerk, county treasurer, and clerk of the court.

So the board chairs uh increases at the um annual percent that was per the policy originally that without the amendment yesterday.

So this nothing has changed in this document with respect to the official salaries from last week, other than the midterm increase for the countywide elected.

So the board chair would go up by the three percent, which was consistent with the county board approved increase for this year.

Board members would go up by the three percent, and they're gonna stay in alignment across the three different groups.

Uh county clerks would go up three percent, but then there would be this one mid-year uh midterm increase of three percent based on the policy that the the committee just passed.

Nothing changes with the sheriff set by state, regional superintendent of schools.

We did make a change that was suggested last week by putting the county salary first.

That was a great catch.

Um, but nothing's changed with that one other than the midterm increase.

Um that is shown to be in alignment with the other countywide electeds, and then the treasurer would do the same thing, and which would be a three percent increase for the first two years and then the mid uh term increase of three percent for the next two based on the policy change.

And nothing has changed with the state's attorney, which is said by the state.

Thank you.

Any comments on the table or on the resolution?

Okay, seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

We have we have uh we I'll note there are two uh votes in opposition in the opinion of the chair.

The ayes have it.

7.1 is approved.

Sorry, Chair, is it three and three?

I heard I'm sorry.

I I heard four eye votes.

We have four.

If that's incorrect, member Hewitt.

Aye.

Oh, okay.

We did.

I didn't hear her.

Okay.

Yeah, no, no, I didn't I didn't hear it.

I didn't hear it.

Uh member Hewitt.

Opinion of the chair, the guy's had so 7.1 is approved.

Thank you very good discussion.

Um we do have executive session.

Sorry, I'm jumping ahead.

County miseries report.

We don't county members.

Okay.

Can we please have a motion and a second to enter into executive session for the purpose of review of executive session minutes from April 2nd, 2026 and April 9th, 2026, and the periodic review of closed session minutes pursuant to five LCS 120 slash 2C 21.

Motion by Vice Chair Park, second by member Volitzik.

Uh roll call, please.

Member Clark.

Aye.

Chair Frank.

Aye.

Member Hewitt.

Member Main.

Aye.

Vice Chair Park.

Aye.

Member Peterson and Member Bolitzik.

Motion is approved.

We'll head into executive session.

And we are back in regular session.

We are not almost okay.

Thank you.

11.1 and 11.2 are committee action approving FNA executive session minutes from April 2nd and April 9th, 2026.

Motion to approve those minutes by member Clark, second by Vice Chair Parak.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion is approved.

11.3 is committee action regarding periodic review of closed session minutes.

The state's attorney's office has reviewed the executive session minutes for the FNA committee, as well as the inactive ethics and oversight committee, which this committee assumed the functions of the state's attorney's office provided recommendations for the executive session minutes to release, and which executive session minutes will remain confidential at this time.

State's attorney's office recommends based on their legal opinion, 101 of those items should be released and open to the public.

242 of those items should remain closed at this time.

For the ethics and oversight committee, there are 16 items state attorney's office recommends based on their legal opinion that none of these items should be released and open to the public.

All the items should remain closed at this time.

Motion and a second to accept and follow the state's attorney's office recommended recommended recommendations pertaining to the periodic review is excessive session minutes.

Pardon me.

That is item 11.3.

Motion by member Clark, second by member main.

Any further discussion, comments or questions?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The recommendations are approved.

Item 11.3 is approved.

Any member remarks or requests?

Seeing none, we are adjourned and we'll be back here on May 28th.

Thank you, everyone.

Oh, I am sorry, I forgot to say happy Mother's Day to the mothers.

And if you are a daughter, a son, or a partner of a mother, don't forget Mother's Day is in 48 hours.

So 72 hours.

Thank you.