 Welcome back to the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting this afternoon with legislative council to go through a draft strike all amendment to s25. It can be found on our committee page under today's date and under the name Michelle child so welcome Michelle thank you for your work on this and if you could take us through what's contained in here. It should sound familiar to committee members because we've talked conceptually about all of this and there are probably a few decision points and a few. I think perhaps giving you a little bit more guidance on that that will need to do while we go through the bill here and then I'm hoping that we're narrowing in on some final language. So welcome. So I did highlight language that indicates where it's different from the Senate version. So starting in section one so this is with regard to the regulation by local government. And so you will recall that the Senate version had a date in the future that essentially if the town had not taken a vote they would be considered to have opted in. And that's taken out and so the only part that remains in section one is just this technical amendment just clarifying that when you created this section last year and you were talking about a town needing to vote to approve retail sales. And so you'll see about it the retail portion of the integrated licensee not necessarily the whole integrated license. So section two so this is moving down to cannabis control board advisory committee. So you'll see the top of page to the Senate version had language in there allowing the board member to be removed by a two thirds vote of the advisory committee and that's been removed. So we obtained the language. That's on lines five and six that's clarifying that the board should adopt rules through the APA process that define the basis and the process for removal of a board member. So going to the list of folks on the advisory committee. On top of page three, you're substituting the chair of the substance misuse prevention oversight and advisory council or designee for the member with an expertise in substance misuse prevention appointed by the Senate committee on committees. As the vice chair mentioned, you know, I think it makes sense to have the it equal between House and Senate appointees and so we've just changed subdivision I out for the expertise in municipal issues instead of the treasurer would be the Senate committee on committees, doing that appointment. And then you'll see online 16 adding the chair of the cannabis for symptom relief oversight committee or designee. And I just on that issue. There's another section I'll show you and I think there's some decisions that have to be made there about whether or not to I had changed the name like for resurrecting this committee I kind of changed the name a little bit. And so you'll want to talk about that when we can do it when we get to the later section there, but we'll just want to make sure it's the same subdivision to. And when you initially passed this they the board was supposed to have the advisory committee, the appointments to be made by May 1 all the all the varying appointing authorities. So that obviously is impossible to happen and so that's been moved out to July 1. And so just bumped out two months to accommodate the late start of the of getting the board, the board appointed. So page four cannabis control board. I'm going to skip over the sections you're not changing unless somebody tells me, or has that you'd like to talk about it or has a question. Committee members let me defer to you do you want to have more of a fine tooth comb here or are you comfortable with the fact that we have already reviewed the, the things that are not highlighted. So I think we'll just continue to go through the highlighted changes. And I can just mention what they are that way, it keeps people into it so section section three is just adding advertising review fees to what goes into the fund, because that's you're adding all the advertising language in. So page four is amending act 164. And this hasn't changed so most of the language is just what the Senate did because it's, it's paired with the next section having to do with the joint fiscal committee looking at the fees instead of the report to the legislature. And I haven't talked to the Vice Chair about this but I just added in there was that. So you see this date is already passed. But initially, the board was supposed to come to you by April 1 of this year with a proposal for positions and funding etc for FY 22 and 23 and I just thought. So this considering where we're at with the board just trying to play catch up. Just, you know, they're they are coming to you right now basically with the with the FY 2022 stuff because they've asked you for those two new positions. And my understanding is that because of the late start of the board, you don't need an additional appropriation for those two positions and then in terms of what they're going to do for for funding FY 22. I don't think you necessarily need that. You mean you do 22 but 23 will come along I don't think you need to worry too much about them and I think it just. Makes it really hard for, I think the chair to be able to look out to 2023 right now and get it to you and said, you know, because it's they're already behind schedule. So that was just my suggestion is just for this you just have it for this year which is what he's working on anyway. That makes sense. Thank you. So, page seven section for a no changes to this section. And, you know ways and means will be working on this in more detail but this is the alternative to what you had an act 160 with the board reporting to you on suggested fees. And by April 1 is now it would be doing it to the joint fiscal committee September 1 and there to basically be a dialogue between the two and that the fees on a temporary basis would be approved by joint fiscal committee those would at least get the term off the ground and going and then what's going to happen is it's just going to revert to the normal process where the administration, you know, proposes the fees and then the legislature adopts the fees and the fee bill. So page nine section for be this is a new section, new reporting section, just to make sure that kind of his control board has a busy summer is. So, this is for November 1. And the date you'll see sometimes with this November is because I think I've gotten a couple different places is because you're going to be in the second year of the biennium so you have earlier drafting times for that and and so you want to make sure that you're getting that information early enough so that you have time to look at it consider it talk to me or whoever and develop legislation anticipation of January you don't want to coming in in January. So they are to report to you on recommendations as to whether integrated licensees and product manufacturer licensees should be permitted to produce solid concentrate products with greater than 60% THC, as long as they're incorporating them into other products that otherwise comply with a section that you adopted last year. And then the second one is recommendations developed in consultation with the agency of agriculture as to whether the board should permit hemp or CBD to be converted to delta nine THC, and if so how they how they should regulate that that should sound familiar to folks. And then the fourth C this is the creation of the two new positions so two new permanent positions in the cannabis control board, one full time exempt general counsel, and one full time classified administrative assistant positions. And as I mentioned, and you might have heard from the chair as well. They think they can at this point right now absorb that within their budget because because of the late start of the board. And I think I have not. You didn't make any changes to the advertising, likely because it's your language that you passed out a committee last year so you're pretty familiar with it already and so I'm just going to skip over that. And just talking about just to note that it's there is that on page 20, you have the cultivation piece that's where between August 1 and October 1 of next year, when you have integrated licensees that will have applied in the spring. When integrated and are selling to the public, probably between those dates but without any competition from retail from retail licenses at that point that during that time 25% of any cannabis flower sold by an integrated licensee should be obtained from license small cultivators, if available. That makes sense. Thank you. Next is on social equity so section 11 so when reporting to the General Assembly regarding fees for licensing. And you know what is I want to realize that I need to tweak that just in the next version and instead of section five. We're going to reference the new sec, we're going to reference the new section, because that's going to be where the board is going to be working with joint fiscal committee so I need to tweak that but essentially, they're going to be looking at reduced or eliminated fees for folks who have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition or individuals directly and personally impacted by prohibition. So section 12 as just creation of the new chapter for cannabis social equity programs and the establishment of the canvas business development fund. If you look at page 24 and you're looking at what the fund is to be used for and you'll see the new subdivision three which is to assist with job training and technical assistance for social equity applicants. Next section and section 988 on social equity loans and grants, I've added the language that was recommended by a CCD. So you'll see that starting online on 20, the agency may procure by contract all are part of the necessary underwriting execution and administration services required for the loans and grants to be eligible social equity applicants as allowed under this chapter. The agency be unable to do so, the program shall not move forward until the general assembly appropriates the operational resources necessary for the agency to make those loans and grants available. Next is section 13 social equity applicants and the. I'm actually now looking at this section 13 I probably tweak the title a little bit because of the change there so what it would be is that the cannabis control board and consultation with the advisory committee but also a CCD and the executive director of racial equity are going to develop the criteria. So I have that twice hasn't been through editing yet I was working furiously this morning, multitasking so if you make any more changes and we'll send it through editing and get a clean copy for you as soon as you can. So just tweak the title there and then just the little typo that I have there but essentially it's going to is the addition of a CCD and the executive director of racial equity are going to be working on the criteria for the social equity applicants. So what I mean is, is the money the appropriation there's no changes to that your call for the cannabis business development fund. There's $500,000 appropriation to that fund, and then it's also made up of, of up to $50,000 50 I think $50,000 for each integrated agency would pay into that fund and so you have like a potential starting out of $750,000 in that fund and this is just the straight up appropriation from the general fund. Page 26 medical cannabis program. What I remember is that in Act 164, it's supposed to move over from the Department of Public Safety on March 1 of next year. Senate changed it to July 1 of this year, and y'all are proposing January 1 of next year. So, a couple months earlier than them was proposed and so they will be operating under the old statutes or current statutes and rules. They will close those two months later when everything else kind of takes effect. Next there's a new section 16 a, and this is where I was kind of thinking through about what the oversight committee might look like in this new world and so I just called it a medical cannabis oversight advisory panel. So we have the board. We have the advisory committee, and then how I thought I was trying to come up with another word for board committee panel so that we don't get confused between them all. And then I think when I wasn't in committee this morning. Perhaps the vice chair started to talk to you about the makeup and of that committee and issues because we're taking a look at it. It's clearly dated in the sense that it was created, you know, a decade ago when there was a greater where cannabis was illegal across the board other than the medical program and, and hadn't been even decriminalized at that point and so it's pretty heavy on the law enforcement and of things. And so the question now is, how do you make that come how do you retain that committee because I understand that there's a strong interest and having some version of that committee continue, but perhaps not necessarily and exactly the same kind of break up or duties or things like that because the cannabis field has evolved so much over the last decade so I just put a placeholder there and maybe I'll just finish walking through the rest of the bill and then we can come back to anything I want to come back to, if that's okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you for your safety and Senate put this in because the governor had mentioned it in his letter when he didn't sign. Act 164 wanted something in there but I think you know the funding is I think fairly, I think I settled from from a, you know, federal grant perspective. Question 17 here is what you have is you'll see that this is a mending existing law entitled 20 under the criminal justice training council and you'll see the language that struck it says right now on or before December 31 of this year law enforcement officers shall receive a minimum of 16 hours of training. This bumps it out and says honor before December 31 of 2026 law enforcement officers shall be received for training. Folks remember that discussion from earlier today. I think it's worth just considering for a moment that we heard pretty clearly from the criminal justice council that that it would take them I think a significant effort and appropriation to accelerate the timeline because it's not just a matter of. It's not just a matter of of of revamping, you know the basic training it's actually a matter of them needing to add more instructor time, you know at the pace that they're currently able to do this training. That's this is how long it will take them and if there's a need to do it faster. It's going to require them to train the trainers and accelerate that case. Did we hear at all how they would prioritize who gets trained and in what order. I don't know that they talked about that. They didn't really talk about priority prioritization I mean there are several training a right trainings every year. And there's approximately 1000 law enforcement officers that don't have a right training right now 500 of those don't have a DUI certification which you really need before you should take your right training. But one of the things they did mention is not people who should be prioritized but people who who may not need the training because of their position, or who may not be able to qualify for a right training. These are people like the investigators in the office professional regulation, the investigators in the Attorney General's office which are technically law enforcement officers, but aren't, you know, out patrolling our streets or in highways, and aren't doing roadside stops. So I have reached out to Cindy patch tailor to see if there's a carve out for those people, but I'm not heard back from her at this point. I think my, my concern is simply if we have people, you know we know we have an equity base into our systems and if we have people without best practice training making calls like I just, that gives me pause so. Okay I'm going to move on so next sections have to do with the substance misuse prevention funding in act 164 it was session law it was not codified section 18 is codifying that language. Section 19 is repealing the session law, and then the effective dates are not changed. So, so I think with respect to giving any final instructions before we send what we think is a final draft off to editing. I just wanted to come back to talk a little bit about the cannabis medical cannabis oversight panel. And whether it makes sense to recommend some changes to that now. And then, are there any other sections that folks wanted to talk about Mr vice chairs or anything else that we didn't get done that you would like us to to talk about now before we go to. No madam chair except for the, the thing I just mentioned about the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, and getting a curve out, and I should just add for representative the host keys. So that question. The Department of Public Safety is also supposed to report to the General Assembly about the, the geographical diversity of a right training so that we have a right train law enforcement officers across the state so they do that in March of 2022. So that is is a report they'll come back to us. I don't know if it goes directly to your question but at least it goes the question of where we're a right officers will be representative Anthony. Thank you madam chair, if it's okay I wanted to go back to the discussion about the advisory panel I think is the way Michelle renamed it. She has a legacy, if you like, arguably heavy representation by law enforcement, and I wanted to remind my colleagues you all. I was particularly fetched and I tried to admit being clumsy, trying to find a place for the lady this morning who's an RN, who talked to me. In a compelling fashion, that the kind of expertise involved in formulating for a patient, a cannabis regime that works is a very specialized skill and rarely found and I don't know where to emphasize that the board should access that kind, particularly after the medical marijuana and the retail systems are merged. And I thought well. Again, admittedly clumsily, where, where would that kind of representation or access to that skill be most valuable to this whole enterprise maybe the panel. I found the testimony this morning very compelling, and I haven't figured out where it is that a person like herself, not necessarily her, but from the nurses association, who has that expertise. What role would that kind of person play and where in this structure. Michelle, do you have a thought on on changing the makeup of this advisory panel. I was just going to suggest that, and I know you don't love the screen sharing but that I, I pop up the current law with regard to that oversight committee so you could see what it looks like because, and then you can help who you sub out. Because I think that that is what representative Anthony mentioned, it does make the most sense that it would go into on this oversight committee and but I think you want to look at who's on there now. What is that. Yep. Let's see if we can get our meeting host there you go. Now you have it. Okay. Sorry, been too many tabs open. Okay, can everybody see that. So we're in title 18 section 44 j74474 J. So establishing the cannabis for symptom relief oversight committee so you see the current members so one registered registered patient appointed by each dispensary so you have so you have five patients. A registered nurse and a registered patient appointed by the governor. So a physician appointed by the medical society. A member of a local zoning board appointed by the league, and then you have law enforcement appointed local law enforcement on E, and then state law enforcement on. So, so I don't know so I represent Anthony were you saying that it should be or was your proposal that it should be someone from this, like a particular organization of caregivers or I mean you there's a lot of things you could you know do on here in the sense that you could actually doesn't have to be a medical professional you can appoint somebody who's a registered caregiver on the registry could also appoint somebody from this nursing group or, you know, I mean, I think things you can do here. I certainly agree. And I thought we agreed already to include a caregiver with life experience in this area, like one of our testifiers this morning. The other young lady would appoint that caregiver. Wow. I almost think the organization to which the other young lady, the RN. She, if I remember correctly, she was not only a vice president of the ANA for Vermont, but she also I thought was a member of a specialized group, having to do with cannabis and I've lost her, her title so to say, in my mind, but my point is that which she belongs might be the good appointing body for the caregiver slash life experience patient or cannabis person familiar with cannabis therapy. I mean, another thing is that, you know, you could look at having the board, or do you know do appointments as well you don't necessarily have to go elsewhere, you know, like go outside and have, you know, I'm sure be consulting with with these different groups and figuring out. If it's easier. And now that you've gone through the existing list. I share my colleagues puzzlement with the numerous public safety folks, PD folks, and the zoning administrator zoning position. One is anomalous. One is too much in the others anomalous and so that frees up a couple of spots, which I would think from the therapeutic community, the caregiver community, they lived experience community ought to actually bring that roster into contemporary cannabis. That would be my thought, but you're right, who's the appointing authority. I, I suppose probably the board. As you suggest, I don't know how to, how to nudge the choice to that universe of folks who are very familiar with cannabis therapy, either because they're patients, or because they are an administrator of that therapy. Any thoughts on that from committee members. I'm cognizant that this is skirting close to the policy areas that that would be more human services committee related and so I, you know I don't really want us to get into completely re configuring this. In a vacuum. And so, I, I recognize you probably can't see me because we're sharing. Go right ahead. I share representative Anthony is concerns the other thing I really heard this morning that I worry isn't adequately represented here is the, the cost the health care cost. And I want to find and I don't know how but a way to ensure that we're bringing not only the people who can afford to use dispensaries but the individuals who cannot do not have the privilege to afford the thousands of dollars a month that it costs to use the dispensaries. I think that as we're discussing therapeutic use we need to discuss health care cost. I wonder, here's a suggestion I wonder if we might go ahead with the naming, or the renaming, but that we leave for an amendment to the bill when it comes to the floor that that a subset of our committee might work collaboratively with the Human Services Committee to, to offer on the makeup of this panel. You know they didn't hear the same testimony that we did, but, but we could certainly develop. You know reps me Hoski and Anthony if you were interested in being the, the captains of this project you could certainly develop a recommendation. Bring it back to us and then take it to the Human Services Committee and and see if they feel comfortable with it. And that way, if you know that that will keep us more in the realm of this is, this is the policy area of our committee that we heard compelling testimony and we'd like to, we'd like to have you tell us what you think that makes sense. It does so we should figure out on how to nuance the membership issue which is the policy side. I would tell you this issue about trying to suggest where cost sharing subsidy, I don't know how you, how you would configure this. How would that financial assistance to participants be where would that go or where would that come up or how would that be advanced. I think that it's necessarily the place of this oversight committee to to be the keeper of some form of financial aid or financial help but I think if we put, if we put voices in that mix that represent the registered caregivers the people who are growing with other people, they are going to know, you know, that it's that, you know, the reason they're growing for another person is, as the nurse this morning told us, is that they, the people she grows for can't afford to buy retail at one of the dispensaries so you know if we can add a couple of those perspectives and representative Ganon and then Michelle's got a thought on that as well. So one of the duties of the oversight committee is to is to make recommendations concerning the effectiveness of the registered dispensaries individually and together and serving the needs of qualified patients and registered caregivers including the provision of educational support services. I mean, perhaps that language could be tweaked a little to get to the cost. That that's really almost spot on. Thank you john. Michelle. I was just going to mention. There are parts of the statute member this statute is is currently in effect and will the existing one and until March 1. So that oversight committee is going to exist until then. There's the makeup of the board but there's also probably some little tweaks that should be made to or, you know, more thinking about what that oversight committee is going to do in light of the fact of the changing landscape because one of the things that it says is, you know, putting it's something around there putting safeguards and making sure that only people who have are on the registry have access to cannabis, you know, which is, you know, there's other things so I think they're I think that section should I have a little pause about adopting that section new with language that you may not be wanting in six months something. And so I just put it out there for you to consider is that because that that oversight committee can still keep meeting, you know, and exist through March. You know, you do, you can spend some more time during the off season and put, you know, have a proposal ready to go in January. And we can just put it on budget adjustment or, you know, something that's moving quickly that there wouldn't necessarily need to be a real disruption but I think that there's going to be some disruption regardless because if you're going to make up of those committees right so it's like in some ways it's actually cleaner if you repeal the old that goes away and then even if just, you know, week later, the new board the new advisory panel comes into being based on legislation you know, the first half of 2022, you know, and it could be some of the exact same people, right, and a lot of the same charge but more accurately reflect what you want them to do now as opposed to how they were envisioned 10 years ago. And so I just kind of, you know, you can certainly move ahead with, with enacting something in this and just changing the membership but I guess maybe I kind of feel like it's because you're enacting a new statute. I do you really want to enact a new statute that has things in there that you don't really like. Right. It's a, it's a larger project. Right. Thank you. Thank you. My question is not related to this, so I will present it to Anthony. Thank you. I, is it, does it make any sense for us to anticipate when we would have ready a replacement section and simply put a sunset in in this statute in this light legislation. I think it would make sense to do that and literally then we already know when we have to have formulated the replacement body membership and section. I think I think under normal circumstances that would make sense, but because you have a statue that's going to be in fact until March 1. I think we should adopt something now that is in effect for two, you know, I mean, like have one thing until March 1 have something for two months and then change it on July. Okay, I got you. So, you're right. Okay. Anyone else on this topic. We have a sense of how we're moving forward. I mean, if it's important to you and I know the, I think the chair of the board testified about the value of the oversight committee and I think there's certainly interest on this committee about moving forward, instead of actually adopting the statutory language in order to signal to people that you, you're not failing to address this issue you're, you're coming back with a more thorough proposal is I can just add a little something in that section, saying that, you know, it's not always intent to establish this panel and ask the board to sub, you know, to suggest recommendations to you about the composition and duties of that panel in the fall if that would be helpful. Or I mean it doesn't it's not necessary I was just kind of saying at least you can address it and people might feel more comfortable. I think that makes sense. I totally agree. Because it really plants the flag for a revisiting of that whole section and the board and its function and membership. Right. Thank you. Thank you. I did want to come back to the social equity section, I feel pretty strongly that adding a task in here of reporting back the percentages of minorities that are taking part and actually being supported by this so that we can look at it and see is it working. Do we need to make changes what are the barriers that still exist at a later point is really important. I think we need to do this a little bit more this morning. I think it was this morning maybe it was earlier this afternoon. Well and legislative council has been in and out because of her other duties as well so if you want to speak a little bit more about what you're looking for that might give her a better sense of what. Yeah, absolutely. So what I'm hoping to see in I'm looking I don't know if it would be an additional task, or an additional space we could use the fund, but what I'd like to see is some sort of date for a report that really looks at individuals who've been harmed by prohibition in the groups that were really trying to help with the social equity fund and reporting back you know are they accessing it what are the barriers that still exist. What is the percentage of these groups that are actually owning these businesses and really so that we can not say hey we did it and it's done but recognition that this is an ongoing process and that we're going to learn, learn from what we're doing now and make changes in the future based on that information if that makes sense. And what you have. Are you envisioning that this would be a report from the board or from ACCD because they're administering the the loans and grants or they would do it collaboratively or I think those are good questions there is within this I'm trying to scroll through really quickly and I'm kind of losing my place there we've set up a social equity advisory committee yes or am I making that up in. Sorry there is the it's the it's the board work with the board's advisory committee which is that wide ranging group of folks and a CCD and the director of racial equity. There are four entities or persons who are coming up with the criteria for who qualifies as a social equity applicant. You know so I mean you could have the you know the board and consultation with those other three coming back to you with just some. And I think, unless you guys, which I'm totally fine if you want to dictate to me the specific data points here otherwise I think on from my part I would just kind of use some general language on coming back to you with information on how the program has been rolled out and and who's applied and who's getting the loans and the grants and recommendations for tweaks to the let you know to the program things like that and just have it real general again, I have a lot of confidence in the chair of the board I think you know he's well steeped in these issues and I think he's going to be on top of it so I don't feel as though you have to be extremely prescriptive but. I think that that group sort of working in conjunction or would be fine I think the other way that I could see it going would be designating it to the office of the director of racial equity I know they're bringing on and and I'm not going to search but I think that your original proposal of really having it be the board in conjunction with the office of racial equity and a CCD would be fine. I think the one piece in addition to the sort of thing. The general language you have given me that I would like to see is the identification of barriers that continue to exist for social equity applicants. Okay. All right. Representative Anthony. Um, I just would suggest that while resisting being prescriptive in terms of the actual measurements is wise and leave it to the board, I would suggest that you what you really need in the end is something that you can track over time. That is is a quantitative metric that does reflect the excess of those identified communities who are participating compared to the potential universe of folks who could have participated but aren't so you end up with percentages. And, and the other quantitative metric is so what's, what's the average assistance for people, essentially, who are applicants for license, compared to the perceived need of those folks in order to succeed. It's sort of making a judgment of whether you've adequately helped. And as Tonya says, how about the people that you have failed to reach. What's your strategy for essentially succeeding in improving those metrics into the future. Just off the top of my head, but I think quantitative data that you can track over time is really important. Any questions, comments, suggestions on this topic, or any others. All right. So Michelle I feel like we are at the point where, where we've given direction and guidance on on final edits and are ready to give you a break to go make those changes and send this off to editing. So what is the timeframe. How long, how long of a break should we take in committee to allow for that to happen and come back and do a final walkthrough. Um, so I at three I'm in another committee in the Senate. But you're you're talking today. Right. I think we're ready to move this out today. And I would. Okay, I won't be able to have an edited until probably tonight or, but I can probably do the new language. Um, so maybe, you know, and then I'm in another committee at 430 so I can do this I'm just, I just have a lot of, I'm not sure just yet actually. So, because the other committees mark up to so and trying to vote something out. So are you are you guys continuing to meet this afternoon and then I can let you know where you're not going to meet until you come back on this. My thought was that we would take a break and then come back to this. So if we can find a window in there where you think you'll be done and not needed in another committee then we'll come back to it and okay if I check so. Sorry. I'm just not sure without checking with the other committee of how close they are. So how about we say it's three now how about we say, I actually I don't know, I'm sorry. Yeah, I don't want to commit to something when I'm already booked with them. I. Um, can I just email Andrea and let you know as soon as I was because I'm about to go into Senate Health and Welfare and I can see where they're at and they might be able to move quickly and then you can have me the rest of the afternoon once I write this up. Okay, sounds like a plan. Nope. That is quite all right. I mean, realize that you have to be in four places at once. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. All right. We'll let Andrea know as soon as I can. Super, we will keep an eye out. Okay, thank you. Thanks. All right, so committee we are. We are ready to take a break for a few minutes unless there are other things that that folks have on their list. So I think we could get an update on the nurse licensure compact path as well as how S 15 is coming along. Go right ahead. Did you want to hear about the ways and means. Yes. Well, they haven't finished work on it yet. There's a discussion about fees for nursing licenses. And where it looks like they are landing is a to two levels of licenses. One just for Vermonters who want a Vermont license and are not interested in getting the license. And then the other option would be to have the Vermont license and or the license that's covered by the compact including Vermont. There's there's a lot of concern. They're making Vermont licenses even more expensive than they are now since they're already very high compared to other states. The challenge is though that the, that has Lauren pointed out that the fees are based on what they need to, to make the, the books balance there. There's a lot of back and forth on, on what happens, what happens next there that they don't want to run up a deficit for OPR but they don't want to raise the fees too high, either. Sounds like they have the same concerns that we did. Yeah. Questions for rep Mariki on this. Madam chair. Go right ahead. Representative Mariki was a Lauren Hebert. Was she. How shall I say, consistent inner testimony. When we reviewed this question in the sense of giving some assurance that it would be at least a year. Maybe it was to before frankly that that decision had to be confronted. And if so, why would the ways and means not simply allow a revisitation of that at some some date, certain in the future. Well, Lauren was consistent. I'm not even going to attempt to try and answer for ways and means as to why the various members were going in the direction they were. We assure them though that there are, there are ups and downs in the collections of the, of the fees and but there seem to be a lot of consternation about running up a deficit and then having to come back again. And having to change or raise fees at some point in the near future. Well, if you had your hand up before, did you have a question. Thank you, Madam chair, Mr Anthony asked my question. All right, so we will stay tuned on that one and then do our best to, to hope we find a path forward. So let's see who else has been spending time in a money committee representative McCarthy. All right. I know that I just found out that the Appropriations Committee did vote out S 15 are vote by mill and ballot curing bill 830 this afternoon. And so we'll be seeing they also have an amendment that's coming and I think that representative Townsend will probably come and talk to us but it just talks about where the one time money is coming from. So they're adding a new subsection that just clears up exactly where they want the secretary of state to find the money for the things like the drop boxes. Madam chair, do you want me to give a little summary of the couple of conversations we're having with folks. Okay, I think that would be helpful. So, there's been some feedback now that we've got the bill out and it's heading on on its way to the floor next week from some clerks, including representative Piala, who just brought up a couple of, of issues so one, which I think should be pretty easy to take a look at is the fact that in the bill around the secure drop box language, there's a requirement that the secure drop boxes be closed at the end of business the day before Election Day. And so there was a request in a conversation amongst a lot of town clerks we got a lot of email feedback that they said well why can't we just keep those open later and so director saying is working on some language and with us around just adding a new line that the DCA to vote to keep those drop boxes open as late as the close of the polls on Election Day, which is the practice that some towns did in 2020. It's my understanding so looking at that as a potential amendment and then the representative Anthony has his hand up I don't know. Well, I just recall clerk Dawes is understanding part of the problem was in jurisdictions which have multiple boxes. The staff may not be able to get to them all. So, all the boxes that is, if it's not the day before one suggestion, I recall that she made to me in the context of our community. And the box that at the clerk's office, whether it's integral to the front door, or right outside, at least allows a compromise, and you don't have to go chasing around for boxes that are maybe scattered all over town. Because the clerk would essentially check that box last, so that if that could stay open till say noon or one o'clock on Election Day, that would probably fix it. Yeah, this, what we're considering and what I hope to present to you as a possible amendment would accomplish that but it would really be permissive and allow the locals BCAs to do that. So I think it accomplishes the same thing without us, you know, doing a whole nother page worth of legislation to spell it all out. But recall that in the vast majority of towns the secure dropbox is going to just be at the polling place, which is the clerk's office. And that there will only because so many of our towns are so small they'll likely only be one secure ballot dropbox in a lot of those towns. And then, and then the second issue is a little trickier. So we've received some feedback and want to really be open to the concerns from some clerks regarding the language that we had in the five day window before Election Day for ballot curing and that's I have it in my notes here where is this exactly. So this is in the notification requirements section. So this is in section 13. And right now the language says that a clerk has to make a reasonable effort to contact the voter who to notify them that their ballot was received but defective. And that they do it from any information that they have on file and there was some concern from clerks that voters might get treated differently. That that it that it's unfair that if it's somebody that the clerk knows or has a lot of information at the clerk's office that that voter might be contacted but that in a similar situation. Another voter who didn't happen to have a phone number or an email on file wouldn't be. The director setting has been really great and in terms of talking with us about how they're going to do a campaign to try to get even more folks to put their phone and email in the my voter page the online management system and to tighten up that language potentially and satisfy some of the clerks concerns, but still have there be a requirement that there be a reasonable effort made to contact folks within that window where a postcard probably wouldn't get to them in time for the voter to be able to cure the ballot. And just as a tying into that. I'm guessing where many of us are hearing from our town clerks and I have three of them that I represent one of them is sort of okay one of them is just fine and one is just not happy at all and and suggesting that this is going to cause so much work they're going to make sure that they're extra staff. So, I guess there's a spectrum of of chatter out there and not sure everybody's going to be happy but I appreciate that we seem to be trying to listen to that and do what we can. Yeah, I would I would say a couple of things representative row wiki that I've had several members, you know, email me or our chair here about concerns and there is a spectrum of opinion among clerks and I think we heard a lot from their Association representatives. Very much in favor of the bill of course right so we heard that loud and clear. Like any big organization there's a diversity of opinion. The, you know, a straight reading of all of the these new instructions for clerks if you just read the language for the first time you might go oh my gosh there's all the stuff to do. The reality is and we took testimony about the numbers of defective ballots so in all of the state, all in the entire, you know, with all of the stuff that happened last year that was new. There were only about 1500 defective ballots that were reported. And so that's not an exact number it may be a little more a little less but you know in St. Alvin city, which is, you know, pretty large by Vermont standards 1000s and 1000s of ballots cast in both the primary and the general my city clerk only saw 30 defective ballots and most of those were during the primary where there was a relatively low number of total ballots returned compared to the general. So the idea that it's going to just mean so much additional work. When the number of ballots that are actually received defected and might need to be notified as as needing to be cured is pretty low. The majority of those are going to come in before that five day window before election right so the experience that we heard from the clerks is that you know they'll be able to just mail the postcard and that'll be the way that they notify folks and you know put it in on the my voter page so if people are tracking their ballot they'll be able to see oh no there's a problem with my ballot and have time to cure the defect. Any other questions for Brett McCarthy on what he's been working on. Well thank you for your great work on this, and I appreciate that that you're, you're taking the lead so far outside the, the committee so that I could be here and and help continue our work on as 25 so. Thank you for being a good, a good team player on that and taking up a little extra slack I appreciate it. All right, so I am going to recommend that we take a break and get off the computer for a little while, and I will keep an eye on on email. And we will use email to signal when we're coming back into committee. Obviously if this turns into something that you know it looks like we won't get started until 430 then we can push this off till tomorrow. We can get back into committee before 430 I think we're ready to do a final walkthrough and vote on this bill so that is my aim and so keep an eye on your email. I'll try to poke you by text as well if I, if I have your cell phone and we will see if we can finish this. That's the last major bill of the year for us. All right, see you in a little while.