 So Tim Newton, you are joining us and I hear you're retiring. I'm retiring in a couple months, right? That's a big loss. Now I know where people say you get busier as you get closer to retirement and I'm real busy. Well, thank you for joining us then so do you want to weigh in a little bit I know we heard from you last year when we did this. Yeah, I, as I understand it, the bill would basically make the judiciary act the same as a state employees that. So, I didn't have any prepared testimony as such the laws are pretty similar. And I would say the existing laws are different and that under the existing judiciary act the parties can agree to go to. arbitration instead of coming to the board. And I think that's always been the case since the law passed. We've never had a dispute. I don't think the parties have ever gone to arbitration. And I think the differences I understand that the practical difference here would be instead of the parties agreeing to go to arbitration. The board's side can say, we'd rather go to arbitration. And if they say that that that's what would happen if the party takes that position, which is I guess they would be similar to the state employees act provision right now. So, I assume everybody's aware that under the state employees act the board has decided numerous last best offered disputes over the years. Many we probably have decided about 10 between state and VSE a executive branch, state colleges and the faculty Federation, we have not had any with UVM, although that's possible, could happen but we haven't had any. So, I mean what I would testify to is the board has had a lot of experience in last best offers. We have always stayed within the timeline set up by statute. I can testify to that the 30 days provided by statute. And I certainly can answer any questions about the board versus arbitration anything you want to know or have questions about as to what the differences may be with respect to going before the board, as opposed to going to arbitration. I think I testified to that last year to some extent in response to question so perfectly happy to respond to any things that may have come up I haven't heard any of the testimony. And I do apologize, I had an unavoidable training session actually involved in judiciary employees and manage judiciary supervisors in VSE a stewards we had a training session today for that group. So, that's where I was. So I was involved in judiciary issues before coming here today. But, again, I'm perfectly happy to respond to questions. Any questions that came up. Senator Clarkson. Yeah, no, I'm sorry I thought Steve said, just before we went on break that that one of the arbitrator that had to be mutually agreed upon and Tim you just said something that seemed a little different from that. Okay. What I was referring to was, one, one side can say, we'd rather go to the arbitrator to the board to go through the arbitration process. Instead of going to the board, and one party can dictate that results. That's what I meant not the particular arbitrator. Senator Clarkson that's a you're referring to that the parties typically would agree to an arbitrator. And if not, is it the triple a the parties go through the triple a to. Yeah. Yeah, so, so it was just different. Is that clear Senator Clarkson or the different distinction was it's whether you go to the labor board to go to arbitration. Once I can say, we want to go to arbitration and that's what happens. The arbitrator is has to be agreed upon by both parties. Yeah, the arbitrary once you get to once the party makes that selection, and they it's been decided to go to arbitration then it would be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Right under the existence statute the difference would be it would come to the labor board. And, and, or the parties could agree to go to arbitration, mutually agree to go to arbitration, as opposed to come into the labor board, I'm not trying to confuse it. But that's the that was a distinction that I was if if I may just very briefly, if the the the private arbitration process does not always operate on the basis of a mutually approved. Arbitrator, you try for that. But the, the triple a process is such that if you can't agree if the two parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, you're given a list with a number of names on that list. And you rate those people in descending order. And the individual who is closest to the top of both lists is the is the person selected in that situation so it could be let's say the employers fifth choice and the employee groups third choice. But that's the way it works because you can't always agree on who is the appropriate arbitrator for the matter. Excuse me a little bit like rank choice voting. Madam chair if I might, if it's okay with you. Yes, if I could just clarify. So Senator Clarkson what I was talking about is currently the governor chooses the labor board members so one person chooses who's going to be on the panel. And in an arbitration situation, yes, a single party can decide to go to the arbitrator, but, but both parties have equal power in choosing who the arbitrator would be in the system that Mr. McNeil just described is essentially a role that would not exist when to the labor board we would not have any say about that that would be a decision about the governor, the governor made previously so it's much more of an equal position when both the workers and the management can decide who the arbitrator will be. Does that answer your question, Senator Clarkson. Yes, thank you. Any more questions for Tim. Question for Tim and I should remember it, but I asked it before the break and so I'm going to ask it again just because I know so much of this stems from our concern two years ago with the appointment that I actually was responsible for but had to confirm. When was the last time Tim that the, that the VLRB was overhaul, you know, we took a look at re rework the VLRB. The last time it had any sort of structural change or improvements made to it or, and as you think about departing I would love, you know, it would be great to hear from you about what we could do to improve the VLRB. The last time there was a significant change structural changes 2006. And after that you had a five member board appointed, essentially by political party basis, not have more than three members of the same political party. You had a panel system of three members. No more than two members could be at the same political party in practice. There were, it was not unusual to have a significant percentage of the board be independence. The way it really in practice the way it played out that they were not. They not that they did not denote themselves as either Democrats or Republicans but as independent so, so you pretty much had that kind of a mix there you have Democrats or Republicans and you had independence, and then in oh six. It was changed to have two members with a neutral background, two members with a management background two members with a labor background, a six member board. But you had a panel of three, typically that here's cases and panel of three will be one member with a neutral background one with the management, one with the labor. So that's that was the most significant there are other parts of that but that was the major change. Right. That was the change. At least party designation to what is called tripartite that you would have representation in this tripartite manner. I believe I reported that bill on the floor because I think it came through gov ops because it was a board change. You got a better memory than me. I think that might be the case. I, because I can remember. Yeah, the other, the other thing I about. We always say that no more than one or two or something should be of the same political party but that is in Vermont kind of almost a joke because people don't register as in a political party so it's really unless you've run for a political office as a partisan. You can say oh I think they're Republican or I think they're Democrat but so anyway, that's just an observation about most of the time when we put that in as a provision. Any other questions for Tim, or anybody else. So what did you decide about the vote, Senator Polina. Well we didn't decide on a vote we decided to wait till you got back. If someone wants to make a motion we can take a vote. That's where I would look at it. Yep. Is anybody, does anybody want to make a motion. I'm happy to move this I think I think it's time to call it to question, especially with other witnesses waiting and. Yep. We need to hear. So, I would move as 78. And is it as introduced. We made any changes. We haven't made any changes. Okay, do you want to call the role. Sure. Senator Clarkson. Yes. Senator columnar. Yes. Senator Polina. Yes. Senator Rom. Yes. Senator White. Yes. And the committee has passed as 78 as introduced on a vote of 500. Thank you. Who would anybody like to report this? I'm reporting the elections bill in the juvenile bill. I'd be happy to do this one also. You've got too much on your plate. Senator Rom, do you feel comfortable with this? Yes. Yes. I'm happy to do this. I'm happy to do this. I'm happy to do this. I'm happy to do this. I'm happy to do this. This is my first bill to report out of the committee. So I'd be happy to. And it might be one that. Wouldn't get you hazed. You know, Now with economic development anyway. Okay. Okay. I'll be done with, with the hazing sooner than later. And there hasn't been any hazing yet. It's been pathetic. No. Well, it's hard. It's hard in this. In this environment. I agree. I'm the same. Yeah. Yeah, I shouldn't have said hazing. I think that's probably illegal. Probably made it so. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you committee. Thank you. Thank you. Patricia and Joe. Thank you very much for your consideration. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Take care. All right. Should we move? Yes. Corey, Senator parent has to leave somewhat soon. Senator Benning on the other hand, there's nothing else to do today. So. I know he said that. He's, he's put the gun ice fishing sign on his door. So I'm just suggesting that we, we talk with Senator parent first and Senator Benning has all the time in the world. So. Senator parent, I have not seen, do you have the, do you have language yet? Or are you just going to talk to us about concept? So I just got. Discussionary language. I would, I would probably look to make some changes in this before officially submitting it to you folks. But I can talk and concept. Okay. And I'll, I'll. Tell a little story about town meeting day. Last week, I think to highlight. The city of St. Albans. Where I'm going. So in my day job, I actually worked for the town of St. Albans and we were, we look very similar to the city of St. Albans. We both share the same name. We both have 5100 registered voters. Last week, the city of St. Albans had 827 voters. To the town of St. Albans is 1880. The city of St. Albans did not. We gave him that piece. And I, and I think, you know, I commend you on S 15. That the goal to increase participate, participation in our democracy. I think Vermont's been known for that. We have a long. Rich history of town meeting day. But times are changing. You know, more and more Vermonters. Are like Senator Rahm and I were younger. We're busy. We work. We're busy. We're busy. I've never lived in a community that had a town meeting, but as a senator, I visited some and they're in the middle of the work day. And, and it's harder to see young people. At those. And so while I, I support where you're going with S 15, I think it needs to include all elections. For example, you know, the weekend before I was. I was on Tuesday and I go, well, city hasn't mailed us our ballots yet. And I go, well, they're not going to, and they go, well, they did in November and I go, but they're not going to for these elections. So you need to go or, you know, Monday, boat earlier, go Tuesday. And they went and voted. Uh, uh, Tuesday. So the piece I want to bring up too is. So I, I'm a numbers nerd. And I've yet to be on a committee that really plays with a ton of numbers, except Joe's committee in the afternoon this year. So, um, most of the legislators don't know where I dig into things, but, um, before this election, non-presidential primary town meeting day elections in St. Albans town for the last decade, average 1,010 voters. Um, even with a standard deviation of about 82, which that means statistical practice would tell you, there was a 99.7% likelihood that turnout was going to be between 750 votes and 1,250 votes. And in the last decade, our, our last year, we have a 1,880 outperformed our statistical high watermark by over 50%. Um, it increased turnout on town meeting day by 85%. Um, our select board obviously saw the value in doing that. Um, so my amendment I'm putting forward is that we expand vote by mail to all elections in the state of Vermont. Um, I think one caveat I did because I understand this is where it become a hot potato was only for towns on town meeting day that already choose to vote by Australian ballot. I think we can have a longer discussion about what town meeting day looks like in the future, but understand that might not be the right time in this bill. But I think communities like St. Albans city and St. Albans town and a lot of larger communities in the state who choose to vote by Australian ballot for all elections. Um, so, so that's, that's the language I would be putting forward in a nutshell. Um, I think. You know, the importance too is while we might think the November elections most important because that's how we keep our jobs. I've always found town meeting day to be probably the most important for Vermonters. It's what their school budgets decide. It's what their school budgets decide. It's what their school budgets decide. It's what their school budgets decide. It's their local does the town going to go $6 million in the debt for a new pool? Are they going to build a new town hall? Are they going to buy that fire truck? All those things are decided on town meeting day ballots across Vermont. And I think are very important to Vermonters. And it's historically been low turnout. And I think we need to do everything we can to, to increase that. Uh, so the city of St. Albans, the town of St. Albans and Fairfield also sit in the Maple Run school district. Well, we, town to St. Albans end up mailing school ballots with those versus the other ones. So. Does the resident in the city of St. Albans and Fairfield have an equitable access to their ballot. If this goes forward without having some kind of standard form. because one select board chooses to do this versus another. You know, and then, you know, one school board may versus another, you know, we're not providing all the monitors that equitable access to a ballot in my mind. So I think I applaud what the committee's doing. I anticipate supporting it on the floor, although I wish it would go further. And that's why I'm in front of you right now. Thank you. There might be some questions, but I'm going to raise a couple first. First of all, my goal always is to give towns more flexibility than less, not just in elections, but in almost everything. I think that we dictate like parents to towns, and I would like to have us move away from that. So that's the first thing. And then my second comment would be, so what do you do in my town? We vote for the officers by Australian ballot, but everything else is done on the floor. So would we mail out just the Australian ballot that all that does is elect the select board and the school board members and the high bailiff and that kind of stuff, but all the other stuff is done on the floor. I would argue, yes. I mean, all the November election does is elect you and I to come down here and vote on state budgets and other state rules. So yeah, I think you would do a mail for your 150 representatives and the... No, no, no, no, that's not Brattleboro. No, my town of Putney. Yeah. But so we would have to mail out ballots to people just to vote on that, but then we'd still have our town meeting and all the other stuff would be voted on a town meeting. Yeah, I mean, I think that's up for your select board to decide, but I think with the Australian ballots or Australian ballots are required, I think they should be mailed to Vermonters. I think the whole goal of this legislation is to increase participation and we're telling you, I mean, I think we could look at... I would anticipate at the very least that this bill would include a change to study the communities that did vote by mail in this last town meeting day and look at the increase in turnout. Because to me, in all honesty, the hardest part I have with the bill is written. It looks very partisan to me that a bill that you have an election that is only a partisan election in which where you require a vote by mail, but there are other elections. Would you say, no, no, we're just not gonna do that because it doesn't have the partisan elections necessarily on it. So I think it creates, I think it puts fire in the argument of people who may not support the overall mission of this bill who don't like vote by mail. I'm someone who's voted early or by mail every election since at least 2016. Might not sound long, but I've only been voting an election since 2008. So I just think it just needs to go further. I think it's gonna actually have the opposite effect. I think you'll have high turnouts in November, you'll have lower turnouts on town meeting day because people will get confused. I think it'll cause a lot of mess if we don't have a standard piece. And I totally get your point. I'm a small government Republican but I think sometimes you have to have consistency across the board because that changes with town clerks and select boards if we have that flexibility as well. And where are things prioritized? But so would people be confused in Putney if they think they're getting a ballot in the mail and they get a ballot that only elects the select board and school board members in the high bailiff. But there's 23 other articles that they have to vote on and they're not getting information on those. So anyway, I get your point. And my last comment would be, you do not wanna extend this to primaries. I wanna extend it. I think you do. I think you need to. I think you do it for one election. I think you have to do it for all elections. Okay, got it. Other committee members, Senator Clarkson. Corey, thank you. I appreciate you bringing this. I'd love to get the final tally on all the towns that did do mail out voting because I know there were quite a few in Windsor County that did on town meeting day. Did you get a sense of the cost that the towns, how, whether the clerks association would it all be supportive of this just because it will be an increased cost for towns, obviously, and not a great town. The increased cost was for the town of St. Albans. What was it? $4,000. Was not, I mean, it's not a $5 million budget. I'm assuming budgets are gonna be about the size of a town, but I don't have budget making in my portfolio to town, but I can argue with you, we're gonna apply for the state money this year, but I don't think $4,000 is gonna make or break our budget. Right. It's just good to know what it was. I wasn't, I mean, the ballots themselves were like $1,800 extra dollars. It wasn't, it's the mailing, the Castlemore, but it wasn't, you know, it wasn't. It's the mailing and the postage. Well, that's the postage, and I guess you could go to the piece. We actually staff members each took a half day to go and stuff ballots and label them so that our town clerk didn't have to do it all herself. So, you know, we say, you know, there's staff time included there, but, you know, we actually, it was nice to sit in a conference room and stuff ballots and, you know, and be a part of the team to get it all out and make it work. Other committee members, Senator Polina. On the one hand, I like the idea of mail-out voting because it works, I mean, in terms of increasing the participation. On the other hand, what I don't like about this idea that we're talking about is that it could mean the end of town meeting, you know, not only as we know it, but basically the end of people getting together to discuss these things in person. And I understand that may be the wave of the future. We might just start doing town meeting on Instagram at some point or something, but it just worries me. I would have to really think hard and long before I would be willing to do something that I thought was going to basically put the kibosh on town meetings. Although I appreciate the participation part. I really do, but I just, it doesn't feel right to make that kind of decision at this point in time. So what I would have done with language if I may, I would have submitted to, and my goal was if we had language was submit two amendments, figuring this one, if it didn't pass here that I would draw on the floor, but also offer that we at least at the very least set up a study committee to look at that future of town meeting day and extending this out there. And then the meantime requiring at least town clerk's mail absentee ballot request for these elections. I think we need to continue to progress. And I think it's easier sell to Vermonters to say we're still figuring out what to do a town meeting day and primaries and other elections. We have this committee. We've known with the November election worked okay, but we're going to study and come back and address this. I'd feel more comfortable. What I worry about is we're going to do this bill and then we're never going to touch it again or it's going to be five years before we touched again. And I want to keep the pressure moving forward because I think it's, it's good. So since I don't have language, I kind of have to show my cards a little, a little more. But I would submit to the very least, you know, with probably without Senator Plena support on just increasing vote by mail, I would submit that at least we put together some language to put a study committee together to see how, and it could address just how meeting day happened later in the year. Does March still make sense? Does, you know, you can't go out and talk to your neighbors in the cold winter, like weekend in the summer when we're campaigning. You know, there are a lot of issues, I think, with where town meeting day is, especially with our legislative calendar, we can't make adjustments early on in the year that can impact a tent. So I think a study committee at the very least would be helpful to this bill. I actually, Senator Rom, I'm going to call on you in a second here, but I love the idea of studying how we can improve town meeting because, but I think you and I would have a very different approach to how we would do that. But I do like the idea of looking at how we, how we improve the participation in town meeting. So I'm happy if this committee would support to work when working with Ameren to put together language to at least study that and add it to this bill. So Senator Rom. So I actually think both are very much called for. I think it makes sense to increase access to the town meeting day ballot. I don't want to put the Secretary of State's office on the spot, but they just put a tweet out today that was retweeted and circulated that said we're increasing access to vote by mail. And that's just going to confuse people if they don't realize that it means only one of the two major elections that we look forward to every year as Vermonters are every other year. And so, you know, I do think there's a way to increase the opportunity in places where there's Australian ballot and in areas where it helps people access their ability to participate who do have to work, who can't participate in a meeting in the middle of the day. Often it means that certain candidates, you know, are disadvantaged if people that would support them can't go to town meeting in the middle of a work day. And so I think we have a reason to look at town meeting and how accessible it is anyway, especially coming out of a pandemic where we've seen that a lot of people said, I'm really grateful to have more opportunities to engage digitally than to have to go into a big meeting hall at a specific time of day. So I really would be inclined to support both amendments in fact, but I know that the vote may not ultimately go that way, but I would advocate for both. Yeah, I don't know, but I just, I think about my town and if you're talking about real decisions, all you're doing by Australian ballot is electing your select board members. That you're not, whether you're gonna spend $2 million on fixing the pool, that isn't gonna be on the ballot. So I think who makes the decisions about what is up at town meeting day is so much about who's on the select board. And that is gonna be really inaccessible if you can't vote on that by Australian ballot if you have to be there in the middle of the day for that. You can vote by Australian ballot by going to town meeting anytime you want. It isn't, you don't go in the middle of the day to vote by Australian ballot. You go and so you vote by Australian ballot up until seven o'clock. So you stop there and vote. And then the, and what goes on the town warning is up to the select board, but anybody can get a petition put on this warning. Anyway, I don't wanna prolong this but I can't support the first one here. I don't know about the other committee members, but Allison. So it's big, it's complex and it's there are 251 different solutions to town meeting. So I would say that to do an amendment about town meeting voting at this point is a way premature because the parties that need to weigh in are a lot of, and so I think that's a little premature, but I, and it's a big, big complex. And as you can hear, I mean, cause Kasia's never lived in a small town like Putney. Putney, you know, Putney town. I will now have town meeting in the town of Shelburne. Oh yes, you will, but so I think that going to a study and looking at the viability at town meeting generally with elections as a piece of it, but just looking at the future of town meeting would be a great idea. We've all bemoaned the decreased participation in town meeting and yet we all treasure it. So I think it is a great idea to study it and this is a good prompt to do that. But I think for us to do an amendment requiring this for town meeting is way premature and we do not have the time before crossover to take the testimony that would be required from all the parties. And there are a lot of parties involved in this. In fact, there are 250. Yes. Senator Colomer, have you? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would support both of Senator Karen's amendments. I think you could, if you're worried about people being confused when they get the ballot and the mail about the select board races, I think you could easily include a piece of information in that same envelope that says, by the way, if you want to weigh in on the money matters, you need to come to town meeting, which is whenever it is. I don't see that as a particularly significant obstacle. And I think the study makes a lot of sense. So I would support both. All right, so, yeah, Senator Rom. Well, I just want to say one more thing to be fair to larger cities as well. You know, Burlington does obviously do everything by Australian ballot. I was the Civic Engagement Director and we have neighborhood planning assemblies and they have to go to every single ward and talk about what's on the ballot. And everyone says, I always wanted to live in a town that had town meeting, but at least we get to have town meeting every month and go to our local neighborhood planning assembly and hash out all of the things that will be on the ballot, have every city department head come and talk about it. So, you know, our big little city of Burlington has constantly thought about ways to have a more participatory process leading up to election day. And I just don't want to discount that our slightly larger communities are also thinking about ways to make sure people feel connected to what's on the ballot. I agree. And I think there are many ways of increasing participation in town meeting, but they're probably not the same ones that Senator Parent would suggest that, and so I'm okay. Who would we put on this study committee? I think the League of Cities and Towns, the Town Parks Association, the Secretary of State's office, the a couple of select board members, school board, I mean, because, you know, it's a municipal part of this. It's municipalities. It isn't, you know, town meeting, you know, it's also schools, because school budgets are what we go to town. School meetings are separate than town meetings. I know, but they, for many of us, it's at the same time and it's the same ballot and it's got the same issues. Yep, but I don't, I guess I don't want, because now we have school districts that are different than the municipality itself. So I don't wanna, I don't want punny town meeting to be confused with the our school district meeting because they are different and they're not at the same time anymore. Because we have their separate municipalities separate. So anyway, I will look forward to your language. And see anybody else wanna comment on this, Chris, you are muted. Try that again. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you committee members for the record, Chris Winters, Deputy Secretary of State. And I do just wanna say we agree these are issues that ought to be studied. We wish that we had all the time in the world to do a study like this, but I do just wanna to say that we came, just came up a really challenging election year with less staff than we need. And as we know, if there's an additional staff member in this bill before you, and with vote by mail passing, if it passes, we're gonna have a lot of work in front of us to put the procedures in place, to put new software in place. Plus we're going through an RFP process for new tabulators. So I do just wanna make sure that the committee is aware that this is a great thing to study. We think it's a little bit early. And if you do wish to do some studies like this that we push them off appropriately to dates in the future that would make them doable for the amount of work in the amount of staff that we have. Thank you. Anybody else wanna weigh in on this, Paul? Can I ask a clear-run question of Chris before we move on? I don't wanna put you on the spot, Chris, but I couldn't tell if you were against the study or the change to the election. If you were sharing that, you feel like there's not enough time to make this change for town meeting day or you don't have the capacity to do the study. Sure, thank you, Senator. It's actually on both. It's the study that we would wanna put that off to some date in the future once we've got more vote by mail in place. Remember that we came through this baptism by fire doing it by the seat of our pants in 2020 and luckily it came off really, really well. We wanna make sure we get this vote by mail bill into place and running smoothly for the general election. So I would also say that on behalf of the Secretary of State's office that it's too early at this point to expand it also to the primary into town meeting day as some kind of mandate because we haven't studied those issues enough yet either. We're trying to take small steps forward for successful vote by mail. That's why what we've recommended to put in the bill and the committee has agreed with for the most part are small achievable steps to do what we did in 2020. Once we get 2022 under our belts, we'll know how that work. We'll have more data on how it increases participation, what goes well, what doesn't. And then I think we'll be in a better position to assess in a couple of years. Do we expand it to the primary? Should it be more expanded for town meeting day in school and annual budgets? And the study could be a part of that. Paul, did you have your hand up? Yes, for the record, Paul Burns, Executive Director of EPIRG. And I wanted to say echo some of the same sentiments I think that Chris Winters just had but I would say too, I want to express a lot of interest in what Senator Parent has brought to the table here and these issues of providing equal access to the ballot for or to the decision-making process for town meeting day is absolutely fair. I mean, totally legitimate issues that Senator Rahm and others have noted as well. So at some point, I think that's worthy of consideration. I don't think we would not support trying to put it into this bill now for the reasons that you all have been discussing but because we want to move this forward, you may recall at the beginning of this process, we also called for more study recognizing that you were not going to have the opportunity to do everything that we thought was a great idea with universally mailed ballots. So the idea of addressing or considering ballots that are postmarked by election day, for instance and requiring clerks to at least record the number of ballots to come in after election day. So there are other things that you could look at over time and the next thing that I think we would want to see you consider or the state to consider would be looking at mailing out ballots for the presidential primary in early 2024, for instance but you'd have a chance to do that after the 2022 election as Chris Winters said. So yes to the study, totally legitimate and I think I might support both what Senator White wants and what Senator Parran wants in terms of things that you could do to encourage more participation in local elections. So maybe we can find some common ground there. So I'm just gonna add one thing here. When we're looking at, I happen to love town meeting and but I think that town meeting and I'm gonna say this cause I always have to the town meeting doesn't have as much significance as it should because we as a state take the decisions away from the towns. And so if we allowed towns to have more but maybe we can't have 250 different governance units for our towns, maybe we need to read Frank Bryan and John McClaury's Vermont papers and go in that direction. I mean, if we're really looking at town meeting and what it means and how we have more participation and how we have more real decision-making power in those towns, maybe we need to not just look at the issue of should we mail out ballots or shouldn't we? But we really need to look at the whole institution of town meeting and what it means and how for the 21st century. That's my little speech for the day. So we'll look forward to your, yes, Allison. So I don't believe if we did a study whether it's this year or I mean, we could do was phase one and phase two. We can't actually, correct me if I'm wrong but we can't actually do anything about it next session. We would have to do something about it in January of 23 because that's the next time we'll be able to make election law changes, correct? The question, I guess the question is how is this gonna be worded? Is it a study about how to increase how to make town meeting more meaningful or is it how to, should we mail out ballots or shouldn't we mail out ballots? Because they're very different questions and how do we make town meeting more meaningful to the towns and to the people who are making the decisions is a very different question than should we mail out ballots or not? I agree. I agree that part of why I'm asking this question. We can technically do this enact changes in election law until the next time we could do it is in 23. Yes, but my question wasn't a change. I know, so let me just finish my thought which is, I think that there are some big questions about how do we help keep town meeting resilient and viable for the 21st century? I think those are big questions that could be addressed right now. Well, sorry, did I miss? They can, but we're not gonna do it in an amendment to this bill because I believe that if we're going to really look at how we study town meeting, we have to have before we even come to a decision of what the wording should be, we have to have a conversation with those players that are involved in town meeting. I mean, I don't know what the, Cory, I don't know what your language is going to say, but I very much fear the more I think about it, setting up a study to look at town meeting that's gonna, we're gonna ask for to be done in four months or five months because I think we've been trying to figure out town meeting for years. And I think it needs a real thorough look. So I'm not opposed to doing a study, but I don't know what the study would look at and when it would be due and how it would be administered. I mean, I don't know what our timeline is for this bill going on the floor, but I think if I had a day working with Amran, I think I hear what you're saying, Madam Chair, and I'd be willing to put language that I think is as neutral as possible on what the direction of town meeting day is, but as to consider various options include, a lot of times like we do, the question could be, how do we increase participation in town meeting day? A, consider what the impact of vote by mail would be, consider these, let the group go where they may go and wander and come back in a year, year and a half. And no, do I, I'm not saying we need to fix it for next town meeting day or 23, but I just, I think, I think you're gonna just, like I said, at the end of the day, I think you're gonna see a depressive effect on elections that don't mail ballots when we have mail ballots and you're gonna get the counter-argument, you know, what you're going for, which I think at the sole heart of all this is we want more Vermonters to have more say in how they're governed. Yeah, I agree with you. That's the question. Yeah. So I would suggest that you work with Amaran and come back to us. We haven't scheduled anything for Thursday and Friday. Okay. And well, well has his hand up. Yes, I see that. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Will. Thank you. I didn't mean to interrupt, Senator White. Can I just make one clarifying point that I think will help as people go their way and are thinking about the subject and it's specifically to respond to something Senator Rahm mentioned. And I just want to make clear that the decision right now of whether a town conducts either all or part of its business by Australian ballot instead of the floor, right? Instead of a floor meeting is a decision squarely right now under current law in the hands of the voters, not the various select boards. Yes. So it empowers voters to decide to switch to Australian ballot and on what subject matter within the meeting to do so, budget, officers, other public questions. They can force a vote on that issue by a petition. That's a petition that a board would have to honor because the voters are specifically empowered in statute to make that decision. So if they get 5% of signatures and ask their board to vote on moving to Australian ballot, that's 100% doable right now and it can be reversed by the voters. They can say, oh, we really didn't like that. We're going back to the floor meeting. I just wanted to put that out there. So I actually, I appreciate sort of a suggestion by Senator Parent that if this ever was going to occur that you would write it in such a way that it only applied to those places that had already decided to adopt that Australian ballot system. And then I think you're less having the discussion about whether that choice of mailing, whether you ask those municipalities to mail their ballots proactively is an affront to the actual institution of the floor meeting because these are in places where they've already decided to conduct this business by ballot. That being said, I think I support everything. Of course, Deputy Secretary said and that this needs serious and significant thought. And so I think a study is the right way to go. And just if I may, I think somebody threw it out there even Senator Parent, you said maybe not 22 or 23. When you really think about the elections calendar and your legislative calendar, it does no good to have a study come back next January on this because we're not gonna get it in place for the 2022 meetings. Then I just have to put out there that then me and my staff are in a general election throughout 22 and it will be very difficult for us to put a lot of attention on this as we administer the first vote by mail election in 2022. So I think as far as a deadline for a study committee goes, I would appreciate the committee thinking about 2023. And in that case, potentially July of that year would make sense. All right, so we'll, I'm gonna just stop for one minute here and ask Dale. Dale, I see you have your hand up. Is there something we need to know? Yes, Madam Chair. You are wanted in Senate Finance at 415. Oh, okay. What time is it now? It's 411. Okay. I have to step off, but I appreciate your time and I'll be in touch. Okay, great. Thank you. And now we get to go to Senator Benning and Anthony. What I'm gonna do is just he, we have the language and it is posted. And this is not as much of a philosophical change as I see this more as a technical change that Senator Benning is bringing to us. And I think that, so I'm gonna let you take over again. And I think that we want to have the Secretary of State weigh in on this as well. Is that okay? Sure. I'm going to now defend giving the cannabis money to towns. Let's go for it. I'll see you later. Bye. Senator Benning. Where are you? There you are. Joe Benning, Caledonia County State Senator from the wonderful town of Linden population, a little over 5,000, where we've battled the issue of town meeting for ages. And I'll tell you a little bit more about that when I conclude. I'm bringing an amendment which I hope you all have seen. I would like to start by saying, I see Senator Clarkson has her hand up. It's not on our webpage. At least I don't see it on the webpage. So. It's on the webpage. It is. On today's date, I don't, I don't see it. I mean. It says proposed amendment ballot collecting. Oh, okay. Got it. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So let me say first, Ameron, I want to thank you. We've never officially met before and you did some work for me when we were just emailing back and forth. It's a pleasure to meet you for the first time. And vice chair, Polina, it's a pleasure to be back on the committee for a little bit. Just watching all of your facial expressions has been quite entertaining this afternoon. But I did send Corey a note saying, remind me next time, never to let you go first. It is also nice to see Chris Winters who I had not recognized until they started speaking. It's nice to see that both you and I need a haircut. And Will's setting. Nice to see you again. It looks like you put on a pound or two since the last time I saw you. The rest of your committee probably doesn't know it, but I used to goof around a lot with these guys when I was on this committee and it's a pleasure to see you all again. And I fully anticipate them responding in kind shortly. I've brought an amendment because way back in ancient times, specifically May of 1983 when I graduated from law school, we had a list of things called ethical rules. And one of the ethical rules that we had been required to memorize before we actually graduated was this term that a lawyer should avoid the appearance of impropriety. Now why would that be significant at this moment in time? I commend the committee for convincing me with the mail-in ballot system that we now have had in place in the 2020 election that it actually did increase numbers in my town. And my town clerk who is as Republican if not more so than I am, we had discussions about that prior to its being implemented and our concerns about whether or not that might lead to some fraudulent activity. We both agreed that we had no proof that that would happen. We had concerns that it was an invitation for something to happen, but afterwards we were both very pleased that nothing actually did happen. So as a result, I've turned a corner on how I present myself on this issue. And in fact, the last time around, I was very much opposed to it. The one thing that had me concern was I was hearing about legislators who were going around collecting ballots from various locations. And in my eyes, that is something that does not avoid the appearance of impropriety. So I said to Amron, I'd like to have some language in this bill as an amendment, hoping that it would be considered a friendly amendment and that it would actually make very clear that the Senate was taking a positive position on the fact that legislators should not be participating in the retrieval of ballots from various quarters. So she came up with this language and you might wonder why it appears here the way it does. And I can assure you it was not pulled out of thin air. And I'm watching for Chris Winters and Will Sunning to see which one of them first says, huh, I've seen this language before. Well, that's because the Secretary of State's office actually had this very language sent out to all of the clerks in the 2020 elections directive. This is not my personal language. This is actually the Secretary of State's office language that went out to all of the ballot clerks, as I understand it. So it's really kind of simple. It is saying that if you are a candidate, you should not be going around collecting ballots. And if you are a candidate's campaign staff, I'm happy to hear if any of you actually have that kind of a person working for you, because I certainly don't. But if you do have a person who is a campaign staffer, they should not be going around collecting the ballots either. The language is not that complicated. I'm happy to read it to you or have Ameren read it to you and explain it to you. But that really is the upshot of what the amendment seeks to do. I'm gonna pause here before I go into my closing story, but I'd like to know if anybody has any questions, thoughts or concerns. I'll say that it in my eyes is a positive statement. And I'm saying this as the Chair of the Senate's Ethics Committee. This is something we can actually hold up to the public and say, look, we're trying to be squeaky clean in this process. So I leave it at that and take questions. Are there questions or if not, I'm gonna ask for comments from Secretary of State's office. Senator Rom. Thanks Senator Benning. First of all, I feel personally attacked because I usually do have a campaign staff person. And I just really like paying young people to get involved in the political process. So I hear you on that. That was not meant to be a direct attack. No, it's fine. I was just very happy if somebody actually did have that. Yeah. Well, you're actually, your district, your Senate district is so different than the rest of ours gets an exemption. Right. Well, so, but actually that is part of my question. I also wanted to say I as a justice of the peace when they put out a call for help from Justices of the Peace that I cannot participate in this because of the conflict as a candidate on the ballot. I don't have your language in front of me. Do you distinguish between, how do you define a campaign staff person because some people pay stipends, some people pay an intern, some people have an unpaid intern? The language is just skimming down through, it's probably quicker for me to just read this. It's only like two paragraphs and they're very short paragraphs. The candidate whose name appears on the ballot for that election or a campaign staff member of any such candidate may not return a ballot to the town clerk or to secure ballot drop box unless that candidate or campaign staff member, one is returning the candidates or campaign staff members own ballot, two is returning the ballot of an immediate family member as defined in 17 VSA section 2532, including a person's spouse, children, brother, sisters, parents, spouse's parents, grandparents, spouse's grandparents who has requested their assistance with the return of that ballot. Three is returning the ballot of a voter for whom the candidate or campaign staff member is a caretaker and who has requested their assistance with that return of the ballot or is a justice of the peace performing his or her official duties pursuant to 17 VSA 2538. The clerk or other local election official accepting the return of ballots shall not be required to enforce the provisions of subsection E of this section but shall report any suspected violations to the secretary of state's office who shall then refer them to the attorney general's office for investigations, candidates violating this section may be subject to penalties pursuant to 17 VSA section 2017. It doesn't actually define, it kind of comes in the back door to explain what that person might be eligible to do but I can't, I don't have any language here that offers an exact description in case you had to answer your question. So I would say two things. One, I don't think the candidate, even if they're justice of the peace should deliver the ballot. So when I heard in that language, I wasn't sure if it was a candidate or campaign staff person. Et cetera. And I said, I don't think it's appropriate for me as a candidate, as a justice of the peace both to still go pick up someone's ballot. So I would, I don't know if I can feel about that change. The second thing I wanted to raise is just, I hope this wouldn't include, oh, they're a volunteer in the neighborhood and they're putting a lawn sign on somebody's lawn and they say, hey, are you going to take a bunch of ballots back? I don't know where we draw the line between what counts as a staffer if they're paid or not, if that's the distinguishing line. Well, I guess I would have to turn to our representatives from the secretary of state's office to ask that question because this language came directly from them. I would also say that to me, that's the key question. Somebody is just volunteering around the office and around the campaign. Do they come under this campaign staff definition or do they have to be paid staff? Just what do we mean by campaign staff? It might be an easy cure by just simply putting the word paid in front of campaign staff. And I don't know if the secretary of state's office ever thought of that, but I certainly would welcome that as an addition to this. Yep. Any wisdom from Chris? Sure, thank you, Senator. I'll just very, very briefly. And then I would defer to Will Senning. I was about to say how terrible this language is. I thank the Senator for reminding us that we probably wrote it, just getting there. We did in fact put this into an elections directive in 2020 in response to a lot of concerns that we heard when the bill was being debated the two times that it came through the legislature in 2020. And there was a lot of concern about so-called ballot harvesting and voter fraud and bad things that could happen. And we just didn't think that that was going to happen. And in 2020, it did not happen. We've had a little bit of testimony in the seven complaints that we did refer to the attorney general's office and only one of those being actionable. And it was not related to return of ballot by someone who wasn't authorized to return the ballot on behalf of the voter. So we like the language. We obviously use the language. Will can talk about how we interpreted the language. I think the committee has to decide whether the language is actually necessary given our experience in 2020. I think Senator Benning is right to point out this appearance of impropriety. It's something I talk to a lot of people about in my years as board council to board members and how the appearance is sometimes just as bad as the actual impropriety when you're talking about the integrity of a system. So I've given a lot of legal advice on recusal and appearance of impropriety. And so I agree it's a very legitimate concern and something that we should pay attention to. And with the chair's permission, I'd defer to the director of elections, Mr. Senning and his experience with this language and how it was used in the 2020 election. Thank you. Will. Sure. Thanks, Chris. Thanks, Senator Benning. I'm gonna try to get through this even though I'm trying to get around how self-conscious I am right now about the weight that I've put on over the last year. You do know I was kidding, right? I don't wanna get caught on the carpet later on. And you're free to return the insult anytime. Totally fine. Totally fine. It's also true. So Chris, I think hit on the appropriate point. Senator Benning is right. We did include this language in the first directive about last year's elections in response to concerns that he and others had raised about the issue. I just want the committee to recognize, just know what you're doing, which is this is kind of and would be the only place in the bill where you're limiting the return options of a voter. I will acknowledge that it's a very minor limit to those return options, especially with the exceptions carved out for family members. And so I think it's a minor limit, but it is a limit. I think when we discussed this concept, both last year and then again, this year as we were talking about the permanent vote by mail bill, you did take some testimony from clerks about their experience with folks returning ballots for other people and how that's very helpful in some circumstances for people who lack the ability to leave their homes or do so readily, it just can be a very easy process for some folks to have a acquaintance, family member, whoever that may be, return their ballot for them if they're not able to. I think, I'm sorry, I don't believe that Senator Benning described aside from the appearance of impropriety, which I understand and also learned in my legal education, what I've heard from other folks is that part of the risk that this is trying to address is the possibility of sort of coercion and undue influence on those voters that if a candidate is returning their ballot, they somehow may feel obligated to vote for that candidate. So I think if you would agree that part of the concern as well as just the appearance that that's what you wanna do is you wanna weigh is the limitation on the available means of return worth it to address the risk of that possible coercion and undue influence on voters. And also to, as Senator Benning described, sort of put a statement in the law that we take this seriously and we're trying to address these kinds of concerns. So overall, I think our office wouldn't be opposed to this provision being added to the bill, although we're not convinced that it's entirely necessary. I don't see it a lot of harm that it will cause. And I would just mention, I like that language. I wonder who drafted it that doesn't put any responsibility on the town clerks to engage in enforcement because I think that puts them in a very difficult position. The town clerks may or may not know who all the candidates on the ballot are or certainly who their staff persons are. And also when you think about the allowance for drop boxes that's currently in the bill, there's of course the risk that a candidate or candidate staff could drop ballots off at a drop box without the clerk's knowledge. So putting no responsibility on the clerk for either of those things occurring, I think is important, but that language is in here. And at the same time, it says if they do have a sense that the provision's been violated, they should notify our office and that we notify the Attorney General. So again, Senator Polina, I think we're not opposed to the amendment from the Secretary of State's office. But on the one hand, you're not crazy about it, it sounds. I mean, I think my feeling is that are we putting ourselves on a slippery slope but we're sort of implying that we think there's impropriety and we're reacting to it when in our hearts we know that when the reality is we know that there has not been any that we should be concerned about. So I wonder whether it's putting something on the radar that doesn't need to be there. I'm not taking a position yet. I'm just saying that that's the feeling I get that are we doing something that's unnecessary in order to react to something that doesn't exist. That's not a problem. But Joe? Yeah, Anthony, I was aware of all the conflict and last time around where you had party officials, especially from my side, making arguments that ballot harvesting was going to be taking place, et cetera, et cetera. I think any organization that collects ballots, it's fair for both sides. If VPIRC wants to go collect ballots or if the some entity of the Republican wing decides they want to go and work to collect ballots, I don't really have a big snafu with that at all. What my concern was, I heard that there were actually legislators who were doing this. And I'm not saying that there was any nefarious intent on their part or that there was actually anything ill will on their part. The bottom line for me is all of us as senators, especially, we should not be involved in this in any way and should be taking a positive step to say, we understand that we are expanding the process for people to be able to vote. That is a noble cause, but the candidates themselves should be able to say, you know what, we are squeaky clean in the process. And that is avoiding the appearance of impropriety that I was concerned about. And that's why I brought this language. And frankly, was very surprised the secretary of state's office had also had the same thought process in the 2020 election. So I'll say again, this is their language. I am not suggesting that anybody violated anything or did anything with ill intent, but we as candidates should be absolutely squeaky clean and your bill provides a vehicle for us to make that positive statement to the public. Point well taken. Is there any other comments? Paul, do you have any comments? Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Caldwell. Thank you Senator Caldwell. Yeah, I agree that I don't think it implicates or pretends to suggest any mischief has been going on either. I think it, on the other hand, I take a look at it 180 degrees the other way. I think it reaffirms the cleanliness of our election process, if you will. I think it's out there for everybody to see and it affects only the candidate and the campaign workers or worker. So I don't see it as a negative thing at all. And it's already been out there from the secretary of state's office. So I don't think it's anything new either. So I support it. Other comments? Paul, did you want to say something? Thank you, Senator, for the record, Paul Burns, executive director of EPIRG. I appreciate Senator Benning's tailored approach to this issue and his concern. I'll just say that we didn't support this language when the secretary of state put it forward the first time as part of last year's emergency legislation. So I, and that's mostly because we didn't see the need for it and that as Will Sending pointed out, this is the, this would be the one area of the law that makes it slightly at least more difficult to participate and puts a small burden potentially in front of somebody who wants to have their ballot submitted. It becomes more of an issue, of course, as this underlying legislation is mailing out ballots to everyone. So you're going to have more people with their ballot at home looking to make sure that that ballot is returned and counted. So it's a bigger issue than ever before when we simply had the absentee ballot process. So I'm not convinced that it's necessary and would prefer not to see any new hurdles put in place. But as I say, I appreciate the narrow, the narrowly tailored approach that Senator Benning is suggesting. I appreciated what Senator Rahm suggested and what was heading toward, perhaps a even further narrowing of the language to at least ensure that this is paid staff that it would refer to or maybe just the candidates themselves. But I think the basic, my basic bottom line is that we, you know, I'm somewhat agnostic. If it goes forward as this, we're not, you know, in support of it, we would certainly strongly support the legislation even if it had this amendment in it because it has so much good to it. We just didn't see the need for it and thought that it's a modest new hurdle that would be placed in front of folks to get their ballot submitted. Thank you. Senator Clarkson. So I'll be the last to weigh in on the committee. And Senator White needs to weigh in. Yeah, I like, you know, I had to solve problems and this wasn't a problem. I sort of agree with Anthony. It's, and by calling it out, we identified as a possible problem. And so I'm sort of torn about it. I think it's narrow. I appreciate it, Joe. I mean, and I appreciate it, but I feel like the Secretary of State's put it out as a guidance, sort of somewhat underdressed because of the political fractiousness that surrounded this year's election, last year's election. You know, we didn't have this problem. So to identify it and to call it out to me does exactly that, sort of shines a spotlight on it where there wasn't a problem. So I don't know, I'm a little torn. I'm not sure I'm fully as agnostic as Paul. I think, you know, I feel a little bit more like Anthony, but I'm letting it sit with me for a bit. I would just say, sorry. No, go ahead. I don't know that we wanna wait for it to become a problem. I mean, I just thought the ethical thing to do was really steer clear of any appearance that I was influencing someone's vote by showing up at a senior center or somewhere to say, I'm taking your ballot, you know? So I just think it was, we probably issued it as guidance because it seemed like a good way to build trust in our mail in voting process, frankly. And I come from a very competitive world of politics where, you know, I would otherwise love the opportunity to sort of know I've just secured a vote, you know? But I just, I think the appearance of it is unethical and I would narrow the language to make sure that we're talking about someone paid to work on a campaign and to make sure that even though I'm a justice of the peace, that doesn't give me any more right to be the one as a candidate to pick up someone's ballot. Keisha, if I could respond, Anthony. Sure. I meant to tell you before that with respect to the justice of the peace language, it is my understanding that in the statute, if a justice of the peace goes to collect the ballot, they're supposed to go with one justice from each party. Right. Well, and Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. So there's at least some insulation there for that concern, but I agree with you, if I was going solely and I'm a justice of the peace, I think that is really dancing on the lines of giving people the impression that I'm doing something nefarious, even though I'm not and I have no intention of doing so. Right, right. Every time they do elections in nursing homes or assisted living, there's always a justice of the peace from both parties or a member of the BCA from one from each party or more. Yeah. I mean, we already have provision for that. So just for the record, Tamara and I'm happy to put the word paid in front of the campaign staffer. And I appreciate all of your time. If I can get Paul to say he's agnostic on something, I think I've really come a long way. And I'll close out with something you said earlier, Senator Polina about town meeting. I'd fight hand, tooth and nail to keep town meeting if at all possible in any way, shape or form. And my history with that goes back to October 28th of 1986 when the town of Linden first talked about moving portions of its town meeting into an Australian ballot system. And I fought so hard against that. You may wonder why do I remember that particular date of October 28th, 1986? Well, because my very nine month pregnant wife was sitting next to me as I did that and she went home that evening and went into labor with our first child. So that's a day I'll never forget. The town meeting day story. Yes, indeed. And what I'm just curious, where is Lindenville now? Lindenville has moved more towards the Australian ballot system. And the person who has been arguing for that the longest is a person who was convinced that the school budget would be shot down. If they had more people voting. And they were wrong. We have never shot down our budget and it is really frustrating to watch the evaporation of what I consider to be one of Vermont's most cherished prizes. And as Joni Mitchell once said, you don't know what you got until it's gone. Until it's gone. It's true that. Okay. Thank you all very much and nice to see you guys all again. And I would say, I mean, adding the word paid makes a difference for me as well. It moves me in that direction. We're not going to take a vote now because we should wait for Jeanette to come back and do that. So we'll probably do it tomorrow. I assume we're going to take you a nanosecond to put paid into the bill, into the amendment. And we can just find some time tomorrow to make a decision. Okay. I don't think you- Nice to see you all here guys again. Appreciate you and feel free to send me back nasty emails and comments and response. Thank you, Joe. That was great. Good night guys. Thanks a lot.