 Do you want us to reflect what we have? That's what he's talking about. Yes, it's about the re-reach. So it's still about the budget? Yes. Alright, we have another record. You are on the record. Michael, can you just join us up front here? So we have this afternoon, we're coming very close to the range on this apology from Jennifer Spires. And Spires still is sterilization. Michael, if you could just walk us through. I'd be happy to change you. And I'll note the changes. Yes, go through this. First for the record, Michael Churnick Legislative Council. And this is a revision to JRH7 that you heard the first version of earlier in the week. This is the Eugenics Apology Resolution. 1.2, Michael. This is now, yes, this is now 1.2. First clause, I'll read them and indicate where I made changes. In the first clause, we are as a 1925 UBM Zoology Professor in Henry Perkins Established. The discredited, that's your first change from Dubious. Eugenics Survey, Vermont. This is new language to measure evidence of defective, delinquent, and deprived behavior. And the balance in the survey targeted members, the balance of the clause is the same. The second clause is a clause you may want to stop and talk about for a minute. The first half is the same, the General Assembly adopted. But for the purpose of, and I know you were all working on different language, this is what I came up with for the moment. For the purpose of eliminating from the future Vermont genetic pool the tendency towards defective, delinquent, and depraved behavior. If that's what you want or don't want, but I had to come up with something at least for this round and that's what I came up with. Moving on for the moment, whereas this eugenically inspired legislation resulted in the sterilization of Vermonters, often without that's the same as it was before. Now here are several new clauses. This is the first of them. Whereas in conducting the eugenics survey, the survey is for granted access to case files from state agencies and institutions. And the files were made available to police departments, social workers, educators, and town officials. I split the new clause as it was too much for one clause. Next clause, whereas as a result of the opening of these files, children are removed from families institutionalized, parents were incarcerated, family connections were severed, and the sense of kinship and community was lost. And whereas the devastating impact of these eugenics inspired actions in the lives of the sterilized individuals and severed families was irreversible, the one change there is I added hand severed families. The last clause remains the same as you saw previously. The resolve clause though has changed as is the title. That the General Assembly sincerely apologizes and with humility expresses insolvency and regret to all individual verminters and their families who are harmed as a result of state sanctioned eugenics policies is an extra hand in there that shouldn't be there. We'll get rid of that. State sanctioned eugenics policies and practices. And that after adoption, the title of the resolution being meant to read joint resolution sincerely apologizing and expressing sorrow and regret to all individual verminters and their families who are harmed as a result of state sanctioned eugenics policies and practices. And that's where I stand right now. I appreciate the shaping of the language. Line 16, page one, thoughts from anyone else? I might get Lisa. I just still don't really think humility is the right word, but the rest of it is great. That's always up for debate. I included humility at the direction of the committee. Absolutely. Yes, I understand that. John, just two tiny tweaks, I think. When we say defective, delinquent, and depraved, I think those should be in quotes because those words from the studies are not from Austria. They may have been. Yes, they were the 3Ds. Yeah, the 3Ds, right. So I think because those words like, I think putting in quotes makes it that they were saying this. It's kind of an origin to the right. It's not us saying this. It's not us saying this. Yeah, I get your point. So am I being directed to put quotes there? I know there was discussion, but I initially did because we generally don't put quotes unless I'm actually quoting something per se and attributing it to the quote in some manner. Where did the 3Ds come from? Is it from this act of prohibit measurement by voluntary sterilization, or was it from the book, the Breeding Better Vermonters book? I don't recall. I could look. I probably should have brought the act with me. I had it in my office. But I kind of attest to that without actually having the paper in front of me. Yeah, it was anti-gallagher. Yes, she said that, but we don't know where she got it from there. Was it her book or the original act? Yeah, I agree. So it would be lines 10 and 11, and then again it is... And then I repeated a couple of places. So anytime it's... And then what's the other slight thing? So am I being directed to add quotes there? It's just a man. Hold on, go. Scroll back up, please. Bruce got this. I think putting quotes around it in online 16, or line 17 I think would infer that it was coming directly from the act itself and I don't think we know that. So perhaps a suggestion might be so-called, putting the word so-called, the purpose of eliminating the... I'm sorry, the genetic pool to tendency toward so-called defective delinquentum depraved behavior. I could, Mr. Chair, what I potentially do on that score is I can tell you once I get back it'll take me all of about two minutes to pull the book off the shelf and determine whether or not it came from the act. That helps. Yeah, it would. It'd be powerful those quotes, but so-called would work. And then that would be the default that you could add online 10 as well and measure evidence of so-called defective delinquentum depraved behavior. So-called if it's not in the act. If... And that just, I think, is a blanket or an umbrella statement that that's what it was described as. If it's in the act, then I'll add quotes. Yeah, it seems to be the direction I'm getting. Yes. Am I hearing that? Yeah, I think so. Okay, that's easy for me to do. It's no problem. What's the matter? Then my second quick would be on page two and it would be on four and five. Four and five, okay. I just... I don't know the history, but how I read this is surely we're going to move from families that are institutionalized. Parents were incarcerated. Also institutionalized? This is just... I like to say, children moved from families. Parents were... Were individuals? Were they institutionalized or institutionalized? How about individuals? Okay. Individuals... Includes, to me, incarceration. So I... Or we could have it, but... I mean, it covers emotions. So that's all I... Parents then goes and were incarcerated then goes. Or you could say individuals were institutionalized and incarcerated or incarcerated. Families and... From families. I mean, the children were incarcerated as well. I mean, were institutionalized as well. I mean, both of those terms in there. Institutional, at least if I may, Mr. Chair, when I think of institutionalized, I tend to think they were sent to Waterbury as opposed to the state prison. Or Brandon. Or Brandon. Yeah, or Brandon. So how would it be if I did the following? Children were removed from families in common. Individuals were institutionalized or incarcerated. Family connections were severed in the sense of kinship and community response. Is that okay? I will make that change. I will make that extraneous conjunction in the first result of us. Do we want to make that institutionalized and incarcerated or... Or incarcerated. Or incarcerated. Do you think so? I think so because you're trying to deal with two different those who were sent to Waterbury and Brandon and those who ended up in prison. They were one or the other. Now it's possible that somebody unfortunately wanted to do both, but I think you wanted to be an orphan on an end there. Okay. It really seems stronger than what we've got. Yeah. Initially. This language is based upon the discussions I heard on Wednesday. Or whenever it was, we lost had this discussion. Some other 24-hour section of our week. Yeah. I was only here 13 hours yesterday. So John scrolled down again. Just down page two a little bit. Okay. I see a hyphen, and now I have a long mindset. Where are you referring to? The mindset and the devastating, that's a proper hyphen, is the eugenics for us. I will... I'm going to ask the editors one more time if it belongs in or out. And I would, as I told you previously, on questions of hyphens, I refer... I feel strongly about, should or shouldn't be, I have a conversation with the editors. Don't always win, but I try. But in the case of a hyphen, I defer 100% to the editors. That's fine. So whatever you see in the next version, it's whatever I was told from the editors. My personal preference is eugenics inspired rather than eugenically. Oh no, we'll be eugenics inspired. Yeah. We'll leave it eugenics inspired. Okay. And let's just put humility on the table. Is that okay? I mean, I'm... I asked for a view to see how it read and how it felt. If it's not... If it doesn't work on my consensus with the committee, then we can delete it. I think my objection to humility is that it's the act of being humble. And when you look into the definitions of being humble, it's all about making yourself the smaller person or making yourself insignificant in comparison to others. I'm not sure that's what we're really trying to convey here. We're trying to convey sincerity and regret. And I'm not sure that humility covers it. So that word is still sticking. Thoughts? Other thoughts? So am I leaving it in or out? That's what we're chewing on. That's what we're chewing on. How do you think it brings those thoughts without it? It calls less attention to us. Right. So this one example is like letting... What is being an example of humility? Letting someone ahead of you in line when you're in a hurry but you're letting them ahead from in your office even though you own the company. It's not firm. No. The definition doesn't have the stature. Right. It's a situation that has a bunch of different definitions to... Again, I believe and I was also clicking through flashing back to the college days of taking a Catholic philosophy course where Catholic humility is actually not a respect... It's this not one of... It is on the level of ways of being but it is not... I think it fits more in the category where it calls too much attention to one's self. So let's just say sincerely apologizes and expresses its sorrow. Is that satisfying? Yeah. I think it fits better. Could you give me a second to make sure I have it correctly now? Sincerely apologize and express its... Okay. It's gone. Do we need its sorrow? That's the general sentence. Sincerely apologize and express its sorrow. I put in the it's because it seemed to be... Could I leave that to the editors? Mm-hmm. I have a question mark over it and I'm going to ask the editors. I'm the one that I will take responsibility for putting the word in it's I thought it was necessary the editors left it alone but I will ask the editors again whether they think it's extraneous and we default to whatever they say. Well, can you scroll back down for a second? Of course. No, on line 16. On which page? On page two. On line 16 is that and supposed to be there for states? No, I already mentioned earlier that I was cognizant that it was extraneous somehow it was in there we didn't catch it and it's already crossed out in my draft it will disappear in the next draft you see. It is extraneous, yes. So committee, where are we at with this? Are we satisfied with the wording of this bill and with the changes that are made? Mm-hmm. Yes. So we won't vote on this today we will vote on this next week we are going to have another session where we've invited members from the affected communities to come and speak if they would wish and we then, part of this process will also possibly include and it may require a piece of further legislation we talked about I don't know if making amends is again not the right phrase but it's just the idea of being able to do the next something and we've talked in the committee about Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a possibility and I, when I look at and then when I look at there's bills requested by authorities for the Native American Commission some of which are on our wall some of which are in a different committee and I don't I'm coming along with this saying that the apology stands alone there's nothing to be attached to this even though it's a bill we're not going to put in the resolution that we're going to work on this, this, this and this but the idea of also methodically what is it that we can do and I think a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is there is legislation that we can consider that we have on our walls some of which we've heard some of which we haven't but getting this idea of a Reconciliation Commission is actually there's to me it's a two step process it's a who would we put together to even decide what does a Truth and Reconciliation Commission look like like that would be our role and then enabling that commission to do work and because we have to take a half a step more than a half a step back we can't be on that the government should not be on a Truth and Reconciliation Commission or is that my impression I envision just and this is all out to to imagine here now the idea of having another organization whether it's an academic institution or some other organization that would host this in some way but I but I keep coming back to well that should be something that a study committee of some sort puts together that makes a recommendation as to what it should be and in terms of timing and everything it just becomes a question of what is it that we can do that's next that either coincides with this or that follows this up in a way that expresses our bonafide effort to move forward so that's and so I wonder and I apologize for being here the last time that we talked about this but I wonder if we have a line in here that indicates that forward movement so it encourages the establishment of committee to examine next steps or of action or that I think that's the closest I can kind of get or or does kind of get a step closer to that language of setting up a committee to analyze what next steps are so not even using the word truth and reconciliation but saying identifying the intent of taking in a continued action and so if we look at the parallel of the UBM letter that in their apology letter they said we are setting up a committee to examine renaming the library well if I may representative you could certainly have that type of language but you couldn't say we are doing something politically because this is only a rent something to be supportive of you absolutely could do other than as I always remind everyone other than to address the internal operations of the general assembly you can't use a resolution to take a positive and structural action of that sort that has to be in a bill so again that nod towards setting up of and that can be cannot be done I'll ask the question rather than make a statement can that be done either through real legislation that we were able to say from our purposes you know if we follow up again we are allowed to do a committee bill we can that establishes what the you know again establishes what the next steps are that's we can I mean because we can include in when we write our budget memo we can include in our budget memo we expect there to be this situation but we have no way of saying I don't think between now and crossover or a week after crossover which would be if we got dispensation on something like this to determine who would be in that kind of commission is it the Vermont Historical Society again is it UVM who hosted the eugenics survey well that's not a great look necessarily but it might be NVU has you know in Johnson Johnson has a tie to the has has a professor there who's who's been a very active part of the Abenaki academic community Middlebury is hosting language less you know language study there may be any one of a number of organizations that are not the state of Vermont government we have yet to contact them we have yet to contact historians or others who would be able to manage and manage what are the points of the commission so there's also the practical thing of you know which wouldn't be addressed in here where the speaker might say the bill that's in fishing wildlife that would allow fishing licenses is that something that we can pass out in good faith and not just as a SOP you know is it something that is addressing their priorities is place names repatriate we have two bills that came to us very late repatriation of lands for sacred areas those are very different kinds of discussions that can't be decided in four or six or eight weeks well the bills currently other committees about not allowing the sterilization of people with disabilities because that's something that continues so I mean there's when we frame this bigger thing there's a lot of things that are going on around us that are permanent so there's a question how do we forward this and Michael I think I'm hearing from Michael that it doesn't have a place in this what's different to what Michael was saying is that we cannot say we've been established but that within a resolution framework we can indicate our encouragement we can indicate our intent and that's that's what I heard in our discussions that we have this clear intention of not just apologizing about taking an action but an appropriate well testimony embedded and flushed out action and so I wouldn't want to indicate a particular action because that not only is it beyond the scope of the resolution but it's beyond our time and I think that apologies have more meaning to them when there is the indication of an action beyond the apology while you've been chatty you've noticed I'm scribbling and this is really rough but the general as an additional result plus I think this is where it would go the general assembly recognizes that further legislative action is required to address the aftermath which may not be the right word the aftermath of the state sponsored eugenics policy something along that line I don't like required I don't like to bind people in the future advisable maybe necessary a follow up to should be considered that maybe should be considered should be considered that's not fine well it's an interesting thing because I don't really know about truth and reconciliation conditions it has to be independent outside the legislature and if that's really the way and I think you brought up first that's the way we want to go our committee can put a study bill out calling for that and you can have that study committee but is that that's quite about legislative that's what I don't know legislative means to establish if you decide you want to establish a committee it's still going to take a bill to establish it in the first place regardless who's sitting on the committee the way the committee is I agree you know later on the spring we'll be clear what is the next step we'll take and so playing devil's advocate I will just ask the question does that does that strengthen the whole apology I think it strengthens it I think it makes a statement that we as a legislature are not sure this goes far enough and that we would like to consider we forward on other research and development or research that would yeah I guess my question is to it we're not only addressing the attitude we're addressing the whole community of people who are involved you're a very important part of it and they as just had a part of my lunch with the head of the Native American Commission and she all expressed this continuing distrust of the government and of course we can say what we want I mean this is an extraordinary step we're taking an extraordinary step here simply by apologizing the question is are we going to promise something we can deliver or is it something we can't deliver and we can't bind on one hand we can't bind a future legislature to say oh I suspect that if we're all here next year we're going to do something that's there's no weight to that but if so is it by including this into a document that will at the very least live in the white books right if this passes both houses it will go through the white books so that's a stated that's about as deep of a stated promise as we can do without taking action on anything and if we have a limited ability to take action this year I mean we can advocate within the building to pass a fishing license bill we can consider a place name bill things that will require work and study but what is it along the lines of building a relationship with the communities that have been affected you know will so what we proposing for this is that sufficient that's my question is the let is anything that we can can we put anything in here that expresses future actions or future intent that will be sufficient truthful meaningful in this document that was kind of like what I was thinking was as much as I feel it's important to address like future action the limitations of the language we can use in this doesn't make it look kind of like benign words you know what I mean we understand what we're trying to convey what are people reading it going to maybe read it almost as like an empty promise you know what I'm saying because of the nature of the language that we are forced to use I'm just throwing that out yeah I don't want to make horrible promises and then have these communities that have been affected say well you know you promised you wouldn't do something but you didn't do it I don't like empty promises so I I'm making a promise and then you can't in this structure yeah that's what I'm saying it just would sound well I think what about along the lines though of recognizing again we recognize the Avanacians on a state level we don't do it they're not allowed yet to be a federally they may never be a federally recognized bands they're just the way that our federal laws are however there is this idea of sovereign to sovereign relationship that happens specifically with a federal on a federal level is there a way then or would a less hollow thing say that it's our intent to foster better some kind of sovereign to sovereign type that may not be the right word but some type of relationship between Avanaki in particular view themselves as all natives do as their own and so it's our it's a relationship which we've clearly destroyed over the years and tried to make it extinct but is that a way to go that we want to foster a better relationship between these groups that have been damaged or I don't know if that's the right way to go or not or if that's or if that's for a verbal apology during a ceremony there's some people a lot who are a lot too random so I think not because this apology is so including all of these people so I wouldn't I would hesitate to do that as a way because it is I know people in their 70's who were locked up in the branch sitting in the family just try to talk about it so I think this statement the point of this was an apology and I think that we have done a very strongly worded document here which absolutely stands on its own for the intention that we had I think to go any further it would muddy it I think it would muddle it and to proceed in some way within this resolution no matter how it's worded could be interpreted as a quasi promise even if promise the word promise is never used even if it would be it would be the intention of and we don't have any we don't have any power over that any future things so what I do think though to do a study to see what the appropriate how this appropriately could be studied further well by whom I should say to strengthen that position the resolution could in that regard I think strengthen the position to do something further can I explain that right? I think Mariana in terms of the language that Michael you offered could legislative action could include a study and so I think the vagueness that Michael offered in terms of captioning that was a really rough 30 seconds absolutely until we'd have to actually work to make it but in terms of what you were just saying Mariana of maybe a study of what the appropriate thing to do is would really be in that and really looking at I'm saying a study I think is beyond the scope of what we could do in a resolution but no I'm not saying no I'm not saying mention a study in the resolution I'm saying that do leave the resolution the way it is but we could make a recommendation for a study could we not? we could do a bill that would have to be a separate bill this is action over words do we want to put an action do we want to put into motion there are very few solid things that are out there in terms of what in the case of the Abenaki that they have requests for that are part of priorities just like any other constituent that there are things that we can act on or not but I think what is the act I mean that's going back to the beginning of this conversation what is the action we want to take next and if the action is a committee bill that forms a committee to determine what reconciliation commission will be it could be a committee that could determine what all the next steps are going to be to work more closely with the create a list of priorities is it the long standing office of Native American affairs is it simply place names is it fishing rights or fishing permits whatever it may be and just that could be the road map that follows this wouldn't that be the purpose of a study committee in order to look at all the different we would be putting something together that suggests that there be a committee that issues the report on what the next steps would be in terms of any what's practical what's next but it would be and then of course we have because it would then have to take a bill further things would have to take a bill form we have to act on this in the next legislative session whether they were individual bills or that had to do with specific priorities or whether it's for a larger commission truth and reconciliation commission yes Randall so yeah I'm interested in this discussion and like I get the empty promise thing and these are both overframing I don't think that what has been suggested was an empty promise so we're kind of looking at an empty promise versus a hollow apology and neither one of those are fair framings of the two alternatives I don't think anybody is suggesting a hollow apology or an empty promise just to frame the polls the polls in it I've had to do unfortunately a lot of apologizing in my life and usually it's helpful I have found that if you acknowledge that the apology is not enough I just don't know within the framework of a resolution I mean I think that's part of what we're struggling with is that I think we all agree that it's not enough how do you word that in some way because I don't think that weakens an apology to include some kind of language that acknowledges that the apology isn't enough I think it strengthens it because you're saying we're apologizing and we realize that we're not that apology isn't going to just allow us to wipe our hands and move on but we may not be resolvable in a resolution to kind of put that piece in so the question again is it something that goes included is it possible to include it in the apology, the resolution or is this the verbal the vision I think would have of what this ceremony would be is a reading of a resolution followed by the words of the people who are signing it so Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, maybe the President Pro Tem who then issue the verbal of just being able to say we know this is not enough and even a speaker promising something isn't necessarily everything but it's a lot more powerful in some ways than the confines of the ceremony so that's a balance between trying to get everything we can into something and then just saying but if the apology is just the apology and it stands by itself is that okay for that and then again what do we follow that with it doesn't have to be embedded in the resolution itself as long as that gets expressed whether it's in the I would envision that there would be an official statement done and again and if eventually again who would read this who would say something afterwards on behalf of the General Assembly and the three people are the Lieutenant Governor of the Senate Pro Tem and the Speaker of the House the executive branch is a different would be a different place to be so I'm thinking that this would be done as a joint assembly and everything could be generalized in terms of the words of the people who would be be the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor whoever to convey that the apology is not stopping here that there are other right that's that's part of this that gets at the level of stage managing what the ceremony will be but I think that's included in I think that's fair there's a written record then somewhere of what is said at the ceremony by people in power right and just to point out the unique quality of what we're trying to do I asked Michael or I might have asked I don't know who I asked might have been Bill McGill as well but just the notion of okay this is a bill passed the bill the Senate gets it they passed the bill right but we know it's a resolution that's meant to be read in public and then commented upon so what is the mechanism is it a joint session where is it a joint session where all 180 of us are in the room and then rather than having the dignitaries who are usually out of Governor's speech sitting at the page in the page area of the House perhaps it's families of those it's a unique circumstance we haven't done anything like that before it doesn't mean we can't but it's something to figure out procedurally if I may without taking a side one way or the other procedurally for something for an extra joint session beyond the usual joint sessions to happen you would have to need to buy in of the leadership of the two houses oh absolutely I mean that's it's a joint state I'm not speculating what the answer would be or how I'm just simply saying that you would as a first step need both the speakers and the pro tems buy into an agreement to schedule it not necessarily Lieutenant Governor from the Senate side that would be the pro tems right I just include him because he's a signatory on the resolution and he is when we are in joint session he provides yes those are all things to be talked and worked through and our leadership is aware that this is a unique I won't even over qualify it but it's a unique situation to this body and so what's that overdue yes that's my piece so that's so I think we just talked about a great number of different ways of what's important to us as the committee getting to this point but we will also bring in we will also bring in again families of the individuals who are directly affected and make sure that that's okay you know to make sure that we do another listening session that that we make sure that anything that we do or say here or the way that we would present it is not offensive to anybody inadvertently in this case at this point and make sure that what we do is correct and I think when it comes to an apology taking on whether it's empty or hollow is really up to the recipient of that apology and we have to present it as truthfully and as honestly as we can and I think to Randall's point I think it's true it's acknowledging that an apology is not enough is an important personal and humanistic thing that should be part of that should be part of the whole thing Mr. Chair now I'm a little bit uncertain am I including something comments in both directions and I'm not gathering a consensus whether I should be adding an extra resolve clause or not or another option if I may just suggest I can create something outside the document and then next week while you can decide whether or not you want it it's your call obviously completely John you got a comment I feel like we have total consensus what we've shaped is one concluding phrase or this one phrase we can look at it and if it's including to just strike that phrase we're not going to be we have everyone love this and we just want to make sure this hits the right tone or not so it's really this one phrase so Michael I would say if you could just draft that at sort of the end of that and look at it next week I would draft it separately I mean I would like to be able to say for today it sounds like by consensus we're not going on this it sounds like by consensus we are happy with the language as revised and it's corrected we lost our father so that if we move forward I mean if you can draft a whereas that's separate well I think it'd be a resolve clause is what you want not a whereas and just keep it aside and just we have until Wednesday before we will hear from folks on Wednesday and we will presumably unless this blows up somehow have a vote on this on Wednesday perhaps as late as Thursday depending on how we want the calendar to go and all that other scheduling stuff but again that would be just the next step we would take this onto the floor but we would make a final decision on that language what I can do Mr. Chair is the following in addition to making these various little changes that you discussed I will create a separate document with that one clause when I submit it back to email it to Ron I will send it as a separate document and then you'll have it and then you can put it up and decide whether or not you want we do paste it into the document and then you can do it yourself okay or change it whatever when it came to the question about sponsors is that something we still need to check with Bill McGill you did sign the list you definitely signed that may be a typo but I think I was thinking about this more you need to have a conversation with Bill I did check yesterday into the list right in here and you and to reconfirm this so there's no misunderstanding whatsoever actually should probably have signed too no you didn't sign I didn't I know no no Representative Stevens did sign I'm now looking at the sheet I signed something I don't I'm looking at the sheet right now you're welcome to look at it yourself I believe you if I'm not on the list but I signed not this I signed something handed to me by Kate Webb so anyway I'll talk to the clerk you better see what you signed up for wait I mean yeah this is definitely the right sign shoot okay win that's for the repeal back 46 is it no no no this is not the the right sign sheet I will figure out what's going on but this is not the right sign sheet hold on again yes you did sign I take it back I take it back my apologies no no I apologize Representative Browning you did not sign and that I can confirm when I was looking at the reason I had the moment of hesitancy and concern there were two pages to this sign sheet or two separate sign sheets something that we generally try to avoid in the council because of exactly that type of situation but they're stapled together and Representative Stevens indeed did sign the top page so speak to Bill McGill alright maybe perhaps he can create a new original that's what I was hoping for you told me you could put it on electronically but not at at my name at least because it wasn't well that's because yeah but in the case of Representative Stevens he did sign and you can tell Bill that I have the sign sheet with your signature on it proof positive I'll get this for now alright thank you please so Michael you will be ready to go next oh absolutely I could have it to run sometime on Tuesday that's fine and then on Wednesday we will have and I will be here at 10 30 to do any final drafting that you change as you want or just to read it go through it one more time and then you can decide how additional clause whether or not you may want to have it at all and B if you want me to make further changes to it okay thank you you're very welcome thanks so if the microphone is yours thank you thanks for your time folks for the record Eric Monica testifying on behalf of the Fortile Housing Coalition and yeah I really appreciate the time as you folks are looking at your budget recommendations folks next door realizing that there are a lot of constraints but also I want to make sure that you have a full understanding of what we see out there as the needs and I'll just there are really quite a few places in the budget where housing appears you've heard from other witnesses about a number of them and so some of this will just reinforce and refer to to some of the other witnesses but there may also be some things in here that you haven't that I'm going to mention that you haven't had a chance to spend a lot of time on so I want to make sure that they receive your consideration as you're looking at the budget memo obviously priority number one for us is creation of additional housing of all varieties and the way we do that is through the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board you've heard multiple times from Jen and Gus at BHCB our A number one priority is to get more capital small C capital dollars, bricks and mortar dollars to create new housing, to renovate to create permanent supportive housing for people with multiple needs and as well to address some of the infrastructure needs in mobile home parks which I'll go into in a moment I know there's a lot of discussion downstairs about a second housing revenue bond there's traditionally been a lot of discussion in this committee about full funding for BHCB and how BHCB is not getting what it's supposed to be getting under the statutory formula all I can say is however you all decide BHCB really needs a major new infusion or additional infusion of funds I don't have to I don't think convince you folks that we have an ongoing affordable housing crisis in the state and it ranges from people with multiple needs that are homeless or have mental illness to folks who are working poor to folks who are working at regular jobs that simply can't afford housing to people who are trying to get into home ownership they can't afford home ownership and BHCB supports that full spectrum of need so however however it comes about whether it's through a bond through additional funds all I can say is the current need the last bond that you all approved is basically spent we're going to start falling further behind again and it's to be clear when you say BHCB you are the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board sorry you're talking about the Vermont Housing and Conservation Fund specific the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board yeah I'm sorry is there a distinction when it goes to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Fund right which funds BHCB the projects that BHCB does okay it's just a clarification that this is not direct funding to BHCB this is a special fund that provides money for matches for housing projects of all kinds conservation projects of all kinds I just want to be clear indirectly this is a fund for them right BHCB operates and raises money for administration through maybe through some of these fundings but they don't do this money the property transfer tax specifically goes to the housing and conservation fund trust fund it's a special fund within the state's array of special funds the work that the BHCB does through state dollars obviously they as you heard from Jen and Gus they receive some federal funds that match with that as well and their state funds help leverage that as well as the federal tax credits and so forth so yeah that's thank you for the clarification I was kind of using budgetary shorthand so one aspect that I know you heard a little bit about is mobile home parks and the statewide infrastructure needs and other issues that mobile home parks have at the state I wasn't here for Gus and Jen's testimony so I don't know to what extent they were actually able to get into that but we've convened the affordable housing coalition convened a group to focus on mobile home issues over the last 6 to 8 months based on a needs assessment that the commission board commissioned by a private consultant looking at all of the publicly funded mobile home parks in the state and looking at their needs and what was identified as a result of that consultants report and again this is limited to the mobile home parks going back 30 years to the late 80s to the beginning of a BHCB that BHCB has funded that are in either non-profit or cooperative resident cooperative home ownership so over a 3 to 5 year period there is an unmet need for infrastructure improvements that range from water and sewer improvements to road improvements to replacement of aging dilapidated mobile homes to replacement mobile homes that have been abandoned which there's quite a cost associated with that as well and there's one specific park that you did hear from on housing and conservation day in Brattleboro, Tri-Park mobile home park I believe Kate from the board president testified they probably have the single largest infrastructure needs, they have to relocate a number of their lots that were impacted by Irene, there's still recovery from Tropical Storm Irene and a number of their lots are in the floodway need to be relocated, they're losing they've lost other lots as a result of Irene and they need to prepare additional lots and then place homes there they also have bridges that were washed out by Irene damaged by Irene that need to be replaced and sewer system issues so in order for this for Tri-Park and these other parks that are currently in non-profit ownership as well as cooperative ownership to remain over the long haul as affordable housing resources the overall needs identified in the consultant study over three to five years is about 30 million dollars with a reasonable estimate of other federal state resources that can be brought to bear there is still going to be a remaining gap of about nine million dollars over the next three to five years to make these parks sustainable well into the future and I'll just say that some of these parks that have been funded by VHCB sometimes there's a crisis of the park is going to be sold by private sector owner and the focus is on getting it into a non-profit or cooperative ownership so that the residents or a mission-driven non-profit has that ownership and the park is converted to another use and folks potentially displaced in that process sometimes what is addressed is some of the infrastructure needs so some of what we're seeing here is remaining infrastructure needs that we're not able to be taken care of during the transition of ownership one question yeah so is there assistance for residents of parks to to take over ownership to cooperate some of that is anticipated in the overall needs that I'm identifying this is a large need that is clearly not going to be able to be funded by VHCB's normal annual appropriation which the governor has level funded in his budget proposal and so this goes towards the argument that VHCB needs an additional infusion of funds to in part help address not just the whole affordable housing shortfall and homelessness around the state as I've described but it has a special subset of need that's been identified over the last year for the mobile parks around the state that we already have significant public funding and again it's not that VHCB is going to do the whole amount there are significant funds there's agency natural resources funds that can help with sewer and water improvements there's federal USDA development funds part of this package is also this agency has worked on coming up with an interest rate subsidy that could help transition new parks to resident ownership so it's we could certainly come in and provide greater more detailed testimony on this subset of issues I just wanted to make sure that as you're getting into writing a budget memo you know having heard from Kay Curtis on Housing and Conservation Day in probably the eight or nine minutes of testimony that she had just wanted to make sure that you were aware that there's a larger issue that TriPark is kind of the poster child I would say for but it's a statewide issue for mobile home parks around the state and I'll also add that you know given that there are is the potential for some one-time investments due to the revenue picture and the increase in projected revenues and the January revenue forecast this is a great place VHCB generally is a great place to invest one-time funds because these are capital dollars that will provide investments that will return that will provide returns on that investment to the state for decades to come as would these with mobile home parks so whether it's directly for mobile home parks through VHCB or just a broader special appropriation to VHCB if there is an opportunity to invest one-time funds housing and mobile home parks is a great place a great place to invest those because they're not necessarily ongoing so just to be clear for folks your this consultants report again only talks about nonprofits and cooperatives which is not basically my understanding mobile home parks in general that are owned by nonprofits like where say housing for Monta's a partner it has to be a municipal sewer there has to be some form of of pretty mature wastewater treatment along with water provision is that right they're not necessarily a municipal water sewer no I mean that's part of the issue with parks is that you know many of them were created in the 50s and 60s when there were different environmental standards and so they have aging infrastructure and some of that infrastructure has not been taken care of and also a lot of the mobile home parks are in the flood plains because that's the case with Tri Park and people just said build them down there which is the case with Tri Park in Brattleboro and you know when we had tropical storm Irene the mobile home community was probably disproportionately the largest affected community housing community in the state from the damages of tropical storm Irene precisely for that reason because parks sometimes a part of a park like in the case of Tri Park or an entire park is in the floodway and what happens with Tri Park is every time they have an ice dam on you know the river that they're located next to the park floods so will there be the ability to renovate water and sewer and these that's part of the analysis that's part of the analysis is that you know some of this nine million dollars of unmet needs would go to water and sewer improvements in the case of Tri Park it would go to relocation and preparation of new lots outside of the floodway Tri Park's three highest needs they actually had three parks down there two of the parks needs sewer improvements and their third highest priority is replacement of a bridge that's an essential transportation connection within the parks and their Tri Park as a whole is about 10% of the population of Brattleville it's a large it's about 300 330 lots collectively it's the largest park in the state it's the oldest co-operative it was created back in the late 80s through the efforts of the Vermont State Housing Authority by your lot it's co-operative ownership which is a little complicated so the corporation owns the land the corporation owns the infrastructure and you lease you lease your you have a share you're a co-operative you're a member of the co-op the corporation likes a board it's a democratically elected board by the residents, the shareholders and you still lease your lot from the corporation that you co-own with your with the other residents so very you know we as a rule in Vermont regard mobile homes as an integral part of the affordable housing portfolio even if it's to our chagrin at times but it's because that's what's there and it's given the fact that when we're talking about very old mobile homes we're talking about pre-1978 of which there are many and so it's just I just want to give a broader picture I haven't seen the consultants reporter I haven't seen it for a while it doesn't ring a bell to me but every 10 years we seem to revisit this but this is different this isn't a this is a particular revisiting of a smaller segment of the mobile home population yes and there is clearly a lot of background that I'm presupposing here we spent your committee you all have been very busy with a lot of legislation a lot of different work if there's a tight timeline with getting a budget memo out and deciding what you want to put into that if there is time or worth time we'd be happy to come in and you know someone from the department of housing development like Arthur Hamlin could come in and provide that basic background on the extent to which mobile homes are a huge part of the affordable housing network and resources we've decided on the housing stock in the state of Vermont at this point we do have at least one piece of legislation on here that talks about but let's just move on but that's the larger it's a huge vein of subcategory in our housing kind of position and it would take some time to fully get into this we spent some time in senate economic development because unlike your committee from Arthur and from DHC kind of broadly setting the context for mobile homes they hadn't had that so we were able to spend some time with your camera parts in the senate but the report is pretty extensive it's been analyzed in a massive spreadsheet that includes I think 87 roughly mobile home parks around the state and it's a really major piece of work assessing in the parks what percentage of mobile homes are in the parks as opposed to just on moms that's a really good question that I don't have at the top of my head again another important subcategory is conversation because not every mobile home is in a park correct and not every mobile home park is in nonprofit cooperative ownership right clearly so moving moving off away from the Vermont Housing Conservation Board you know there are a number of areas within the agency human services budget that have an impact on housing and homelessness and I'll mention a couple of them that have been priorities of ours for the last couple of years and this gets back to I know I've been in this committee talking about the proverbial three-layered stool of housing investments we have bricks and mortar we have financial housing related financial assistance which can be rental assistance or rental arrearage for folks who are in danger of being evicted because they can't pay the rent and then we have supportive services for folks with the greatest needs that can't just give them a voucher to succeed without some form of support so those are sort of the three basic legs of that three-legged stool in housing investments and the second and third legs come through the various aspects of the AHS budget one, and I know you heard from Sarah Phillips about this, I expect you did I was not able to be here for testimony, Sarah Phillips from the Office of Economic Opportunity on Wednesday, one proposal they have is for an increase to family supportive housing which a number of our service providers use to support families over longer periods of time in housing, these are families with multiple needs that again need those levels of support in order to find and then maintain their housing it's long been a priority of our coalition to expand that from the currently currently only serves seven counties so we would like to see it expanded statewide and in the counties where that are currently served there is definitely a need there's additional demand for additional services because of homelessness, especially family homelessness their proposal is to remove funding from the program that's run by the one family center in Chittenden County and also to take $200,000 from the remodeled subsidy program and put it into an expansion we use that to download, to pair with Medicaid dollars and get it to family supportive housing I would say generally we support the expansion of family supportive housing somewhat concerned about the risks of the funding again we're kind of a we're in a zero zero sum game nobody wants to raise revenues and we don't have a lot of growth in the overall general fund revenue picture so I see why they're taking from two programs to fund another program that they're going to get they feel they can get bigger bang for the buck on that I know you have a subcommittee if you will looking at that we've certainly spoken to Representative Colackey and Representative Howard was able to be at the meeting we support the expansion of family supportive housing but have some concerns over where the money is coming from to do that and the defunding of the one center they're housed in a development that's owned by the square corporation in Burlington and Cathedral Square Corporation would need some time to transition and this is setting aside what's going to happen to the young women that are currently being served by that program it's also setting aside who's going to serve that spectrum of need in Chittenden County so setting those two things aside at a minimum we need an additional Cathedral Square Corporation needs some additional time to repurpose those seven units for a different purpose than for single moms that are on TANF and that are that need additional additional supports so family supportive housing is something that I hope you'll address in your budget memo and I hope you will recommend an increase again just have some concerns about how they're funding that the other thing within the other program within the OEO budget that's served homeless for monitors is the hot program housing and opportunity grant program and part of what that it funds a whole array of different things but the two things that I wanted to focus on one is again supportive services and you heard last year for from a variety sources about both rental assistance vouchers that will be left on the table and underutilized for specialized populations that have supportive service needs and the reason they're being left on the table is because we don't have enough supportive services for the families that can't just succeed in housing with a voucher and need those services as well. Both the family supportive housing program provide some of those services to pair with both federal and state vouchers so that folks have a greater chance of succeeding remaining in the housing and coming out of homelessness. So that's one aspect of HOP based on the AHS study that I don't know if AHS reported on that report it was a legislatively mandated report to look at the underutilization of specialized housing vouchers and the need for additional supportive services and so that one of the recommendations in that is for additional funding for supportive services and two of the conduits would be family supportive housing and the housing opportunity grant program both administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity. Can you tell me what supportive services are not to have families take advantage of these vouchers? What's missing? It's a great thing. Certain programs and what programs maybe? So we're homeless shelters that provide case management in some instances ongoing case management for families that are coming from homelessness and they may have multiple issues and multiple intersections with the agency services it can be family that has a memory recovery it can be a family that needs job skills it can be a broad array of issues so that's one example another example some of those vouchers or vouchers they're specifically targeted for chronically homeless individuals that experience chronic homelessness and severe persistent mental illness the types of folks that are served by pathways remote through their housing first program so they make very the greatest possible use of federal vouchers but they only have so much capacity to support those folks and so some of the vouchers that could be available to them if they had more case management services within pathways paired with those federal vouchers they could provide we could be housing people who are experiencing chronic homelessness with severe persistent mental illness and also often with occurring substance use disorders so families chronically homeless individuals those are probably the two best examples and it's not just the homeless service providers the parent child centers provide some levels of support to homeless families as well and it's varies by county for instance here in washington county family supportive housing is not done as much by the homeless shelter it's more and by their case managers more by the parent child center so it's a different patchwork depending on the county and who is sort of a lead agency in the county for that and then I mentioned housing first you're testimony from pathways remote and so they have a high success rate with the most difficult to house population in the state arguably and again if they had greater funding especially in underserved counties they don't serve rottland they don't serve bennington those are two high needs counties that have been identified where pathways could if they had the funding could serve those counties and could serve a population that is not being served in either of those counties I'll just anecdotally mention tragic death of a homeless person in bennington some of you may have seen in the bennington manner I actually went down to bennington just before Christmas to meet with the greater bennington interfaith group that had a very strong concern about 10 or 15 homeless individuals that were living under a bridge about 150 feet away from their offices and these are folks that could easily have been served by pathways of remote through their housing first program if it were available in bennington county and the person froze to death the person froze to death under the bridge this was someone that I'm not reading I haven't talked to them directly yet I just got the clipping somebody forwarded me Morgan actually forwarded me the clipping the other night Morgan Brown whom you heard from I think it's the individual that they mentioned to us who literally had been discharged from the hospital you know open wound on his foot and was walking in the snow living outdoors with bandages that were getting wet and I believe it was that individual so these things can be prevented this is not rocket science it's a matter of the resources and the resources to bear I also know that you have a subgroup that's representative clackie and howard are looking at the general systems emergency housing proposal that the administration has brought to you and is asking for approval through the budget process I would just quickly say that there is a broad array of concerns we've convened homeless shelter executive directors of several homeless shelters around the state there is a very strong level of concern there is a spectrum from please don't do this to well we'll work with the state to make this work at the local level but I think the universal message is that they cannot operationalize this by July 1 and they need this proposal to basically be deferred for a year so that they can work on a regional case by case basis with DCF on how to make this transition work so it's not a disaster when it gets rolled out and so how they can in each of the different regions of the state figure out what the best local solution is to take on the emergency housing program remember this is the motel voucher program that provides basic it's a basic safety program when the weather is freezing cold outside for vulnerable populations of people who have been who've lost their housing through no fault of their own and the DCF proposal is for local groups to take over the motel voucher budget and run it on their own and the concern is this is safety net this is the state no longer taking responsibility for this it'll still fund it but big question also is what is the funding level going to be like here and currently there is an existing body of rules that have been promulgated over the years by DCF around general assistance a part of the proposal is to take housing emergency housing out of those rules so that there isn't there aren't firm guidelines there's no firm appeals process or grievance process for someone who's denied the benefits we urge you to to basically recommend to your appropriations colleagues that this would offer a year so that DCF can work through the local issues with everyone but right now people don't even know who in which area we're February 14th the appropriations bill at best would be signed and finalized and signed by the governor in mid-May which would give them literally one month to operationalize this DCF is saying we're going forward with this they don't even have approval for this yet from the general assembly through the budget process and they're telling people they have to make decisions by March 9th who's going to do this at the local level and start operationalizing something so that people at the local level can start issuing checks for motel vouchers Archibald 1 well I want to remind that we all heard from the Washington County mental health person and she had I think a good analysis of some benefits that may come from the county but then there was all these questions about how is this going to work and what's the emergency and I think the central policy is currently right now the state is responsible for that final bit of housing and in this emergency housing and if these 12 regions now are getting money from the state and they run out of money in February for motel vouchers there's no guarantee of that that's a policy issue we have to and I've been talking to folks of course in Chippin County just to see what the impact is and because Sarah said she was going to get allocations to the 12 different centers and it's $500,000 less than the proposed for the Chippin County groups to get money from the state so the question is not that it's worn this change is kind of interesting to think about but I think this transition time and the non-profits are saying well we can't take this additional stuff on if there's not adequate infrastructure support and it's not clear yet what the infrastructure support is and what all these pressing needs are because when we can't fund someone level and the connector take on this new stuff so I've been hearing as I've been talking to the different non-profits about this some say it's you know like COTS does not think this is a good idea I was just talking to them and others are saying well this is kind of an interesting thing to think about how do we operationalize this and then who is ultimately responsible for this emergency who shelters people in February and so I really hope that we can find a way to encourage further conversation with the administration and the field because it doesn't seem possible to operationalize this by July 1st to take these same programs and give them to the 12 regions and have to be successful you know I know that Sarah presented a first year transition year that did have a lot of motel voucher money still in it but it then remember she said there was going to be a 34% drop in motel vouchers in the second year which is interesting because the money moved to this more family centered kind of stuff but none of the partners none of these 12 partners have been in conversation with the administration to believe any of it because people aren't really sure how to operationalize it so it's not a bad idea it's just not a fully formed idea what do you say I have no comment about whether the delay is a good thing or moving ahead is a good thing but Sarah did say to us that they are going to hold back money so that next February rolls around they will have money to release for those emergency vouchers so people won't be looked out and pulled for the first year for the first year and I'm quite assumed that you were worried about upon this level who's ultimately responsible are these 12 consortions responsible for these emergencies that happen or is right up till now the state has been responsible and now one of the big shifts of this is each of the 12 regionals will be ultimately responsible and the state is saying well maybe they can better integrate all these services so we don't lose those and I don't hear anyone saying that's a terrible idea it's like well how do we do this so that's why I'm hearing people really are asking for a more thoughtful transition planning in this and to get real input from the field about this that's really what I'm hearing from people so I'd like to just make a comment that this is the first that I've heard that my colleagues on this committee are actually working on outside groups that are crafting policies and shall I say holding meetings with various stakeholders and I feel like that information would be very helpful for this entire committee to know as you're going about that process and I don't know anything about the protocol of that and I understand it's probably political who gets to be involved in those groups but to hear the feedback would be helpful so then when we listen to a witness we're like oh I know what he's talking about I've heard about that from my colleague John who happened to say at a meeting the other day that this came up so those types of outside conversations don't do the rest of us any great benefit if we're not hearing about them I would love to hear more about these issues so I just wanted to put that around the table that at least how many conferences are we all in the climate caucus, the women's caucus there's a specific issue that I can talk to you about about how these things had been assigned last year and they probably happened to join us so but I would be happy to fill you in on what they are so do your heart go ahead I mean we're going to try to work locked in it's Friday afternoon but to represent Pango's point my understanding is that that holdback is about $400,000 that's what I thought I heard around this year they went into budget adjustment they were over $2 million in budget adjustment this year because of the hotel vouchers because of the hotel vouchers program specific it's actually $2.7 million they had $700,000 in carry forward from last year so there's a long history of the commissioner of DCF coming in and asking for more money for this program because they were optimistic that they were going to be able to do the overall dollar amount from hotel vouchers to community investments and we did hear from Mike Smith that something had to change and there have been efforts before anyway let me just move on the one other thing I wanted to highlight within the AHS budget that really impacts housing and your institutions corrections and institutions committee is beginning to hear a bill called the justice reinvestment 2 bill that is being generated in the senate in judiciary that has an array of recommendations around reducing dealing with criminal justice reform but the part that we focus on is re-entry for folks coming out of prison to have a successful re-entry into the community and the components in that is housing and there is an appropriation in this bill that would help folks who've served their time presumably have discharged their debt to society for crimes committed and we have a significant number of folks that are in prison have served their minimums they're nonviolent and are there but for approved housing on the outside and so the DOC has a transitional housing budget that assists with this re-entry again housing first and pathways from is one of the conduits for that to help folks re-enter the community but there are also other things that are funded through that and so this bill is hopefully going to continue to have an appropriation and it won't immediately get stripped out but the prisoners coming out of jail need the housing and community supports in order to be able to succeed and not recidivate and wind up going right back into prison costing the state $60,000, $70,000 a year that's the last piece in AHS that I'll mention you have already heard from the rental housing advisory board which just a reminder I sit on with Wendy and Sarah Carpenter and other folks that you've heard from and seen in the committee on that bill there are a number of recommendations in there that go to budget there's from Ikerosha the other day there's the fire safety the need for approximately $600,000 in the first year to increase their both their inspection staff and to purchase new cars laptops etc and all of that could be defrayed an apartment registration fee although what I will also say here is that for a first year again if there are one time funds that are available to be invested you could look at this you could look at that source as a way of funding the first year costs and you could postpone the registration fee for years an incentive for landlords to sign up and register their apartments so they have like a year's pass that's one of the things that was discussed at the rental housing advisory board in anticipation of there being the potential for one time funds available for investment likewise there's some funding that would be associated with starting up the statewide database of housing rental housing and in that proposal also is the governor's Vermont housing improvement program which will provide some incentives if the code enforcement is sort of you know the state we want to make sure there's a carrot for landlords to improve their apartments which they can do through the Vermont housing improvement program and then lastly that group is also recommending an additional funding for the back rent program because one of the things that landlords face is low income often working folks or people on fixed income that can't pay the rent and they have to eviction for nonpayment and the back rent program which is underfunded within housing opportunity grant program it's underfunded and more funds for that could help prevent evictions and as you heard from Jessica Radboard the other day from Vermont Legal Aid prevent folks from spiraling into homelessness at greater cost to the state and other areas of the budget. So that budget is presently about 800,000 is my understanding I think Legal Aid's proposal is for about 800,000 dollars and that's an increase or that that would be an increase. The overall program which I think you heard from Sarah Phillips on Sarah administers this through OEO is just on it's around a 7 million dollar program that includes some federal funds and provides things like basic shelter operations so rent and utilities and staffing for a shelter for example. So it's a very broad program it also has rental that local providers apply for through an RFP process basically a community action agency or a homeless service provider that would put in an application and say here's what we need 200,000 dollars for rental so much to run our shelter so much for the food shelf and maybe not the food shelf but so much for case management to provide supports to homeless families and that's just an example different regions and different providers through an RFP process apply for a broad array of benefits and if you increased the hot program with a specific idea towards designating a portion of that for rental rearages that would then go to regions different providers in the different regions to enhance their ability to prevent those evictions. From what I heard that that's a very successful program that landlords in particular are the mitigation that takes place in trying to or the that takes place in trying to pay these rears because 9 out of 10 I guess people are put out because of non-payment rent so when League League was here yesterday I had a long conversation with one of those folks and he talked about how this has worked very well around the community that's the full, that's the laundry list do you have an electronic one? I can send it to you electronic great thank you I wasn't sure whether you guys prepared to write it out you can send it electronically this weekend that would be great I will do that thank you for being here Tuesday I will be out of the office again I have to run to Boston with my wife Chip will be in charge so vote out whatever you want to vote out everything we are going for check check check take down the wall take down the wall we will be here you will be hearing more testimony at S83 that was the reminder today of the split on S83 which is a pretty interesting difference of opinion on whether or not that language would be worthwhile but we will hear more about that on Tuesday and then I believe we also have scheduled on Tuesday the gender bathroom bill enforcement Ron do you have the rest of the schedule? I do so yes gender free bathrooms 3 o'clock on Tuesday Wednesday we will hear concluding testimony on the resolution of Gardening Genics and presumably we will vote on that there will be more discussion on the budget for the rest of the morning on Wednesday then in that afternoon we have a walkthrough with Damien on H428 dealing with collective bargaining sometimes called cart check on Thursday morning we are back with at 9am the bill of rights to look at language that you have been hammering on followed by the recovery bill and the committee discussion on that then there is a joint assembly for electing trustees from Mont State colleges and then in the afternoon a new bill with a new attorney that we haven't had so far this year and that's collective bargaining rights for teachers that's H805 we will be hearing a walkthrough and a witness testimony Friday please take note we are meeting before the floor at 9am for budget discussion so that's a change and then the floor and then after the floor we will be hearing from Commissioner Boleo from the Vermont Department of Taxes and then in the afternoon we will return to the recovery residence again possibly a discussion of us I will try to have the beginnings of a draft for the budget demo that will hit on at least not only our comments about the proposals in the budget but also to discuss potential wishlist items so many of which Ehrhardt just covered as well but precise timing of events changes please check next week also promises to have more action on the floor than what we've been accustomed to so far this year we're starting to get pretty big bills coming out of committees and so be prepared to be flexible on that as well and members if you want to track budget related documents you know the committee information page you select other documents and there's a heading there for Governor's proposed FY 2021 budget and anything that's submitted to me that's budget related regardless of the date that it comes in so Sara Phillips festival this week will it be better? it'll be there under the date that it came but it's all there that's the folder it sits in and that's identified so if Ehrhardt sends me something this weekend if I post it this weekend that's for real if I just provide one additional as someone who's followed the budget for 20 years can say if there's anything else that you want to dig into in the budget you go to the JFO page there's a every department has come in to submit to your colleagues next door a presentation with their budget error review and within the agency and services referred to as the crosswalk for the ups and downs sheet of every department of the agency and it shows what their proposed increases and decreases are because of the last year's budget so it's JFO of that FY 2021 budget and all the documents are also there thank you everybody a lot of really hard work this week thank you for your patience and for your stability