 Welcome back folks you are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are going to meet here for a little bit this morning have some committee discussion about S 25. I think it's helpful for us to just sort of frame up the context in which we see this bill needing to move and and so rep Ganon if you have thoughts to to help us frame up this conversation I will I will turn this over to you in a moment but I think in particular what what is most important to move in this bill are the pieces of the cannabis legislation that are necessary in order to keep the program moving forward. We've got some, some must pass sections that we have heard testimony on. And then we have a few other things that are very important I think, and we're going to try not to weigh down the bill with with things that could wait to be done in January when the cannabis control board is is up and they have their executive director and their staffed and they can, you know, sort of way back in with us on on the things that really, you know that we had always envisioned would be done by the cannabis control board. And so, Mr Vice Chair any other context setting that you think is helpful for us as we sort of discuss and filter what we're going to do with this bill. I think that capture it very well. So, because you are the keeper of the cannabis legislation. I thought I would let you go ahead and go through, you know, some of the, the suggested changes that you that you are working on just based on what we've heard for committee testimony and what we know is going to be important and and also in keeping with the direction of the original act so I guess there are committee members who are dying to to ask a particular question I think I'll go to again and now and have him go through some of those changes. Nobody is diving for their hands so go right ahead. Okay, so I'm going to just run through a list of proposed changes most of these have come up in testimony before committee this week. Such as section 17 with respect to the Vermont criminal justice training council, Sarah and I had a discussion with the new executive director and Cindy patch and so I'll explain that discussion and why we need need to make certain amendments to section 17. And so I'll just start. I'm going to try to go in order through the bill and then there are some new sections that I think need to be added to the bill and I will talk about those at the very end. So the first proposed change is in section one on page one, which is eliminating section 863 subsection three which puts a date into which towns if they have not voted to add a retail store will be deemed to have agreed to allow retail that is consistent with the original house position in the bill that we pass that is now act 164. And I have received, and I think the chairs receive feedback from the substance misuse prevention oversight advisory council, who opposes this as well as prevention works. So I think there's no we heard from Gwen Zach of with the LCT that she would not be opposed to eliminating that subsection. So that's the first proposed change. Any questions. I guess I should just invite folks as we, as we ponder each of these recommended changes. If there are any questions or, or concerns, we can talk about them as we go representative Anthony. Thank you, John. Just a procedural question. Do you want to thumbs up or something as we go section by section. In terms of the, the, the notion, as John just did for section one, recommending that that be eliminated or do you want to wait till the end. Because I'm sort of mixing both reaction to each section, and also mentally trying to figure out what is it that has to move right now, as opposed to January. And I, I, I'm trying to juggle those two ideas or, or filters as it were. I think that we could probably to have just a little committee discussion on each item as we go through it and if folks have worry or concern or disagreement with anything that the vice chair lays out we could certainly have that committee discussion. So, you know, I'm, I will call on people as they, as they raise their hands and we can talk about each item as we go, we will, you know, when we see the language as drafted then we will will go through and actually talk about the changes as we, as we go through the next draft of the bill. Right now this can be just for committee discussion representative with faith. Thank you I just wanted to say that I did support what representative again and just over here. Okay, thanks. Any other conversation about the elimination representative okay. Sure. I totally support this coming out that was a major source of discussion in the conference committee, and it was also one of the concerns that the governor had expressed last time. All right. Any other discussion on this. Onward. The next change is in section two on page two. In section 843 C4. I would propose to eliminate the advisory committee's removal authority of a member of the cannabis control board. It would be highly on you, we just didn't come up in testimony but it's something I noticed it would be highly unusual for advisory committee to have the power to remove a member of the board that they advised. I'm not sure of any other advisory advisory committee that would have this power. That's in law today. So, I mean, so it's just very odd that an advisory committee would have that power over board representative look there. And I have to agree with that as well because if I recall the initial conversation around this was that this advisory committee. It's going to change over time as far as who's on it, depending on what the needs of the board are. So, I do agree that an advisory. Committee, having that sort of authority just it doesn't fit. Okay, the next change is also in section two on page three, and is in section 843 H which is the members of the advisory committee, and I'm proposing adding two positions to that. One would replace one of the positions that's listed, and the other would be a new position so that the new position would be the chair of the cannabis for symptom relief oversight committee or designee. I think we heard testimony this morning about the need to have that that person or their designee on on the advisory committee and I think also James pepper testified with respect to that. And I think along those lines, I want to want to have just a brief acknowledgement that there are probably common sense reforms that need to be made to the cannabis for symptom relief program. But that is, you know, that is something that that's a program that was created and designed by the human services committee and it is more closely in alignment with their area of jurisdiction in terms of human services related issues. And so, while I found it fairly compelling this notion that that in addition to putting folks from that realm on to the advisory committee there ought to also be some changes that are made. I, I think they need to be done, not in may, you know, in the form of a bill that, you know, that is only going to get, you know, a week and a half or two weeks of, of, you know, consideration from here on out. But that we, you know, invite folks or offer to help folks introduce a bill that the Human Services Committee could consider in more depth. I mean, personally, I don't know enough about the science of, of cannabis for substance misuse treatment and but I, you know, but I think the Human Services Committee probably has some, some more deep expertise and knowledge and how to navigate that area. So I just, while I found it compelling, I don't think the place for some of the other things that we heard this morning is necessarily in this bill. Ready discussion. Thank you, Hoski. In terms of changing who or how people make it on to this over advisory committee oversight committee, I'm, I want to make sure I get the language right. I do think that the individual representing criminal justice reform I know TJ has been great on criminal justice reform but we can't guarantee that that will always be the case with the attorney general and so I would still advocate that that be appointed by the ACLU rather than the attorney general committee discussion on that. Feel free to unmute for committee discussion since I've got some folks in line for other conversation. I guess, in particular, what, which, where would that be replaced is there. There is a appointee to represent criminal justice reform to be appointed by the attorney general maybe I'm in the wrong part of the bill but okay. Any discussion about the appointing authority for that person, that individual on the advisory committee. You know, quite frankly if we're looking for diversity of perspective. It's not a bad idea. I would support anyone else want to weigh in on this. I just have a question around that was that part of a conversation this morning that I wasn't a part of or is this just a. James pepper. Yeah, okay, okay. If, if I remember correctly, there is a working group composed and representative grad would know better who's been working on. The criminal juvenile justice reform and all the rest of that. That's a much wider group it doesn't include the ACLU it doesn't include some states attorney. I'm not sure that that group would be a more suitable arena from which a representative could be chosen. I don't want to make this too complicated but the ACLU hasn't has a very particular perspective on this I'm just reflecting on the fact that all along the way the judicial committee here in the house has been accessing that group, which is more multifaceted to to bounce ideas about judicial reform off. And I just throw that out as a, as a wider spectrum of folks it doesn't include the age of representative from AG. It's attorney ACLU. And I'm not sure I can't remember who else, but Maxine could tell you in a moment. Representative grad who that what that group is composed of other committee discussion on this point. Go ahead. Okay. So, basically we're talking about position. Okay, here, right. One member with expertise and criminal justice reform appointed by the attorney general is that basically what we're talking about. I'm just throwing this out for discussion I guess and that my understanding is original intent of these folks is they bring a particular area of expertise to the discussion. And I'm just wondering the ACLU. Do they bring that particular expertise to the discussion that is now being referred to and I guess I'll throw it in there is I don't want this to get politicized. And, you know, our people agenda driven as opposed to expertise driven. And that's just a question more than anything. Second comment. I can too but go ahead Bob. Rob's point is, is worthy of consideration but as you look down the list of the people that are doing the appointing. All political people so you're going to have a political agenda. I don't necessarily fear. I mean that the role of this group is to bring diversity of opinion and thought forward so bring somebody in from outside the realm of government might not be a bad idea. And whether it's Peters comment about an existing group or Tanya is about a particular agent. I don't, I mean, I don't know how much regulatory compliance to treasure has as far as an agency of government as opposed to people that actually do regulatory work. Rob. Rob Colston, are you wanting to jump in on this one? Oh, no. Okay, I have another point. I'm happy to weigh in on why I chose the ACLU and it is because their mission is really around criminal justice reform and that's what we're talking about here. I'm not talking about political because it's not an elected seat like the Attorney General, and they are comprised of lawyers, as is the Attorney General so it was me trying to sort of move out of the elected office space to a to a group that mission is criminal justice reform but is also primarily composed of lawyers so my hope was to bring the expertise without that. So I was actually trying to talk speak to some of the concerns you raise about the politicization. Anyone else on this question? I like Tonya's idea frankly. And I'm sorry I can't take off the members of the group I was thinking of but clearly ACLU comes at this with a perspective but not, not a party based political position thanks. Larry on this or yes ma'am. There, there really isn't anything in this language it would prevent the AG from, I guess, appointing them to this is there. I'm not suggesting the ACLU be appointed I'm suggesting they be the appointing authority. Okay, okay. Anyone else on this. All right, well, I'm, I sense we'll have a little more discussion about it. Rip Colston. Thanks Madam Chair. You know the, the testimony this morning was, was important to me in different ways. But one of the, one of the concerns that it raised for me is just the lack of knowledge about cannabis by so many of our health care providers and I don't know if this is the appropriate time to consider for in January but it would seem to me somebody with health care provider expertise would be an important voice. And maybe it's, it's a backdoor way to bring up the educational level of what this is really about. I just see that as a gap right now, not having that kind of voice and diversity and thought for this committee. So we may want to hold off on that discussion until we discuss the cannabis for symptom relief oversight committee. Because one of my proposed amendments is, is that that that committee was going to was repealed in act 164 of March 1 of 2022. And the recommendation from James Pepper. And I think we heard from people today was to keep that committee alive. And I think that if we do we can look at the makeup of that committee because I think, and we can discuss that in a moment because I think there could be some changes to make up that of the committee that would address representative Colson's concerns. That sounds great. All right. Rep the house. Your hand is still up. Um, yeah, I wanted to ask about some more just thinking about some rate additional racial justice representation on this committee. Do you have a recommendation. So I'm also trying to think of sort of the balance because it sounds like it and I'm trying to wrap my mind around this because it's moved it's been moving quickly but there are sort of two different committees that were talked that I've heard talked about one being this sort of larger social equity committee, and this committee and I'm just trying to, I don't know. No, I don't have any specific recommendations. Thank you madam chair two questions. Is the vice chair proposing that item H be the existing language plus somebody from the medical community. Yeah, I was suggesting we add a new position, which was the chair of the cannabis for symptom relief oversight committee, where there doesn't need. Okay, so. And following up on some of what rep Higley brought up and conversations subsequent to that. I think maybe we might want to look at tightening up since this is probably the only person that's going to have this expertise item C to be somebody with some pretty in depth knowledge laboratory science I don't know what that is toxicology is a sort of thing that we're basically talking about the cusp of chemical engineering here when we get into changing the structure of stuff so I would hope that we make sure that somebody is on this advisory board that has background in that type of area. It's going to be new frontier stuff. There is that position C, which doesn't have that experience and I think the reason we have that person advisory committee is one of the licensees is a testing lab and the cannabis control board has to write rules and regulations around testing. What I specifically was trying to say john is toxicology is a good thing. I don't know what laboratory science means in terms of qualification. So, I say tightening that language up to be something more specific to that field of knowledge would be comforting. Thank you. Is that perhaps intended to reflect a cannabis informed. Pharmacological pharmacological expertise because really what you're talking about is a person who understands the formulation, if you will, of compounds that include cannabis or my off base. Well that and specifically what Mark was talking about with the conversion of an eight to a nine. That's a derivative process of changing molecular structure to some degree and that's well over a lot of heads I suspect. We have now so let's let's see if let's counsel can put some context in this. Hi everyone. So when you created that language last year. You were basing it on I think what what the vice chair already mentioned. So laboratory sciences is a bio is a biology chemistry based kind of line of education that that focuses on lab work clinics forensic labs. And research labs things like that so at the time that was the, I mean I think it still captures exactly what you're looking for here with regard to somebody being able to represent that that particular field. So, unless you're looking at that position going in a different direction I think the existing language addresses it. Okay. Next hand I see is representative Anthony. To do comment from the testimony this morning. I take away that part of the worries was the the testing for part of the phrase impurities but but ancillary elements or compounds that are unwanted. So does that phrase laboratory science testing that capture that in in Michelle or whoever this opinion, because that gets the purity issue that came up this morning of unwanted ingredients being there and being not known to be there. And that's all of it, because there's there's a number of issues that relate to the, you know, the biology and science of all this whether it's testing for contaminants testing for THC levels for requirements around labeling. So that's just a broad category the governor has broad discretion at who to appoint there. So I respectfully I think that you're getting too much into the ready there I think I would recommend that we're not trying to be right. But I would also like to add to the advisory council that if we have heard, we've heard something that's compelling about adding a perspective. That is, that is something that we should discuss and decide whether to move forward on but let's not do too much in the way of rewriting the bill that we've just passed into law, a few months ago representative look there. They're applying language and was it act 164 where the cannabis control board can they have the off the ability to go get more or different expertise that maybe isn't spelled out in this group already. They aren't limited just to this group isn't that correct. So that's helpful framing of the way we were discussing this when we, when we passed the original act. And that is that we, we were hearing from a number of perspectives that we wanted the this cannabis control board that none of us could envision or new, you know, what it would look like, we wanted them to have certain perspectives that that were appointed and asked to come together an advisory committee but that certainly doesn't limit the cannabis control board from seeking out any other expertise or information they might need from other perspectives. Right, because I have a tendency to agree my friend from a new ski, I do think that the medical perspective would be very appropriate. However, whether it's in this form or another one but I just, again wanted to reiterate that I'm pretty sure that the intent was is the cannabis control board will have access to basically any and all resources they need to come up with the the promulgate the rules going forward. I gave a little more thoughts to your question about specific racial justice representation and I wonder if adding a seat for the racial justice executive director or asking them to be the appointing body on item D, which is one member with the same expertise and systemic social justice and equity issues appointed by the speaker of the house currently. And while I agree that the, the council can seek opinions from anywhere having a seat at the table is different than the table come, then being brought the table if the council sees fit. So, another proposed amendment I have which is in the social equity section is to actually have, and this was suggested by a CCD yesterday and testimony, was that adding the, the executive director of the racial equity to the group that will be setting up the social equity program and creating the criteria by that so she would be part of that process. In the proposed amendment that I'm that I'm making, and that was suggested by a CD so with respect to the social equity program we would have the cannabis control board in consultation with the advisory committee. And the CCD and the executive director of racial equity, part of that process of creating the social equity program. And will the social equity program have weigh in on the actual rules because those are different things will set up the criteria for application to that program. I don't have oversight into the larger over into the larger discussion around cannabis rules that the advisory council does, or the oversight council. That would be correct. Other discussion on this. Back to you Mr vice chair. Okay, so I am suggesting that we replace a position which is F, which now currently reads one member with expertise in substance misuse prevention appointed by the Senate committee on committees, and replacing that with the chair of the substance misuse advisory council or designee sensors already a council set up to do that and they've been. They have provided us with guidance and requested this position. That that be added seems like a good link. And because that sets up an imbalance between who the Senate appoints and who the House appoints that Michelle pointed out to me is that we probably should change. I which is one member with expertise in this municipal issues, instead of having that person appointed by the treasure. It should be appointed by the Senate committee on committees. Just to keep the balance between the House and the Senate. I'm always correct in the stuff that the Senate doesn't get right anyway. No sense of humor. Now now remember your, your on YouTube and perpetuity and you don't want to start up. Huffy dialogue between bodies. They already started it. And I say it with a smile. I know we, we know you were just Josh and. I'm curious why the member with expertise in municipal issues wouldn't be appointed by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. Because we needed equal appointments from the House and the Senate. So that takes me back to the systemic social justice and equity per issue person being not appointed by the speaker but appointed by the office of racial or equity I'm getting that office name wrong I know that I am. I think when we were envisioning this back when we wrote when we first wrote the bill. I think the conversation was around the fact that the legislature has created a social equity caucus. And that that social equity caucus is is weighing in and having influence and a number of different places and that we. We wanted the speaker to be able to consult with the social equity caucus in the legislature to to to use their expertise in helping to find someone to appoint to this advisory committee. And I think the House nodding his head rep post and is that is that the way you were recalling it as well I, I spent a year or two. Yes, and, and we, we, we have an ongoing relationship with the speaker in regards to providing that kind of advice. I guess I don't have any questions around that I just. I have more information why, why they would reach out to, in particular the social equity caucus and not the social equity director, in a sense, in the state, I mean, can can somebody explain to me more about that. The racial equity office is an office within the agency of administration. And while I'm sure that there's a lot of collaboration between the social equity caucus and the speaker's office and the director of racial equity. I don't expect that they would be at odds with each other on any of that. But we did want to, you know, make sure that the speaker had the opportunity to collaborate with our social equity caucus on this rep Colston. Yes, I just wanted to add, thank you Madam chair that the social equity caucus is really represents a broad sense of voices. We have about 75 of our members are legislators, most of them are representatives but we have senators, we have a senator who co chairs it as well. So, and then in addition to that we have about 75 community members from around the state who participate in the social equity caucus so we, we have many voices but we have perspectives. And we have a vision of what social equity might look like for our government so I think it's its role in this is an important one in terms of representing the many many voices that are working towards social equity and racial justice. Rep Bioski. Yeah, I really appreciate that sort of background and just looking at the appointing body is it if we're worried about the this being very political it feels like there are a lot of appointees coming from political bodies and so the places that we might be able to hand those out to community organizations and group organizations to bring other voices to the table that might not be engaged as much in the political process I think is important if we're really going to get that diverse set of voices. Other committee discussion on this. We will. Okay, I'm so I'm sorry, I lost a little track so which, which one are we talking here about replacing or changing the which is one member with an expertise in systemic social justice issues. And so I guess I'm just have to ask the obvious question is, do we have examples where we have a caucus listed as the appointing authority in anything. No, no, this is the speaker making the appointment. The debate is whether or some other entity should make the appointment. And I think is as representative Colston explained is, you know, the social equity caucus consults with the speaker on a regular basis, and it's not just made up of members of the legislature, but of groups that have been impacted by systemic racism. I think, you know, they, they would be a good group to listen to that the speaker should listen to in making that appointment. I mean, and that is the first group of people. Yeah, I know I'm sorry I was reading ahead a little bit earlier so, but is there anything about the current language that would prevent her from doing that. No. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Sorry, I'll do my homework better next time. Okay. Yeah, and I hear that there are people other than legislators on the social equity caucus I, I am on the social equity caucus I certainly know that my concern is that people who have systemically been harmed often don't engage with the legislative process and with these official processes because they've been harmed by these processes and I want to make sure their voices are coming to the table. And so it's not simply that it's only legislators is that in all likelihood a lot of the voices we want to hear from aren't going to come to the social equity caucus because there's a mistrust in the larger systems. And I just want to make sure that we're being really thoughtful about making sure we're including even the voices of people who don't come to those spaces. Representative Colston. Yes, I'm going to chair. Well, I would make the different, but that characterization I think one of the unique things about the caucus is that we have attracted those voices and a very participatory process. We set up a social equity caucus work group that weighed in on our policies with regards to social equity. Those were voices that were were never at the table before. So we we go out of our way to make sure that we're different. Thank you. Representative Hooper. Not this particular talk to be madam chair, unless we're ready to transition. I think we probably are I think we will have an opportunity to have this discussion again when we have the final bill language in front of us so let's go ahead and shift gears. Tell me you're going to open up another, another one of the members of the advisory committee to suggest we change the appointing authority. And we've got quite a quite a bit more to go over here folks. No, I'm asking for a little background on how I'm ended up here because their perspective seems to be, you know, promotion or agenda driven where everybody else on the list seems to be sort of advisory actually from expertise. So those following along at home, do you want to tell us what is one member appointed by the Vermont cannabis trade association. Do we know what caused the Senate to want that on there. Council probably remembers that discussion. Thank you Michelle. So that was added by a Senate government operations committee and that association, those are the dispensaries and so they wanted to have the dispensaries be a part of the discussion. Thank you. Onward. Mr Vice Chair. Okay, so moving off of the advisory committee now. And moving to section 12. Page 23 of the bill. And which deals with the social equity program. And so currently it this is looking at section subsection C. The fund shall be used for the following purposes and I'm going to list the existing purposes to provide low interest rate loans and grants first to social equity applicants to pay for ordinary and necessary expenses to start and operate a licensed cannabis establishment and second to pay for outreach that may be provided or targeted to attract and support social equity applicants and three necessary costs incurred in administering the fund. Representative Colston suggested adding a fourth item, which would be to add to assist with job training and technical assistance for social equity applicants. Any discussion on that. Go ahead. Representative Gannon, could you could you give me the section again on that. I lost you a little bit. Okay, so we're on page 23. And in subsection C where it says that which is about a third of the way down on the page the fund shall be used for the following purposes this is the social, the cannabis. Hold on. Let me get the official name for is the cannabis. Business Development Fund. So this will be used for loan. I mean the primary uses for loans and grants to social equity applicants. But it establishes several other things that that fund can be used for. And so I read off the three there in the bill, and I was suggesting as Representative Colston asked us to do is to add a fourth item that the fund could be used for which is for job training and technical assistance to social equity applicants. So I don't know if this is the place for this I think you had mentioned it or someone had mentioned it not too long ago but who's going to come up with the definition of a social equity applicant. I don't mean to add to that, but that the definition would be that's in section 13, but it would be the Cannabis Control Board and consultation with the advisory committee, a CCD, who's going to be running this loan and grant program, and the executive director of racial equity. And a CCD asked to be able to be a part of that because they need to be able to say yes, we can, you know, yes that definition is something we understand and know how to work with, because they'll be administering it. Representative there. I'm actually, I think support that language and that it would make sense that if we're going to head down this path that we want to give these folks all the tools that we can give them to make them successful. I don't know if there's any guard rules with I don't want somebody to think they're going to walk out of this with a for your degree though. An MBA. That's not that's not what you were thinking this would be for. It would make sense to give them as many tools we give them so that they have a high feasibility of success. Representative Anthony. Good afternoon chair. I agree totally with house edition. You may recall yesterday I quizzed our board chair about assistance for folks who are no longer applicants they actually have a license, and they're starting a business, and they may be new at that. I just want to be sure, maybe it's later in rep Ganon's iteration of going through but want to be sure that the support education consultation etc is available, not just for people who are applicants, but people who are awardees. Again, maybe that occurs later in the bill, but this language seems to stop with the status of somebody simply being an applicant. I don't object to it. I just want to be sure that that assistant carries on to the awardee. Back to you rep Ganon. Okay. The change is also in section 12 on pages 22 and 23. And this is the change the language that a CCD proposed yesterday. And I will read it, which is it's in section 988 social equity loans and grants. And this deals with the issue that a CC testified about that they cannot directly provide loans. And the language they proposed yesterday was the agency may procure by contract, all are part of the necessary underwriting execution and administration services required for loans, and grants to be made from the cannabis business development fund to eligible social equity applicants as allowed under this chapter. And the unable to do so the program shall not move forward until the legislature appropriates the operational resources necessary for a CCD to make loans and provide financial assistance to social equity applicants. I think that's from before so rep the house key. My mind was actually to the previous point, and the larger look but I would love to see language included in this section around making a study or a report that really looks at the participation of communities that have been marginalized, you know, minorities people who have been incarcerated and that having that report really include what barriers remain I don't want us to implement something and say we did it and it works but never have the mechanism to go back and look at it and see if it truly is working and what needs to be done to make it work better. If that makes sense. Representative with their I apologize. Could we go back to the section the member from berries just made me think about something as far as the support goes. Along with a member from my new skis recommendation. Are we talking about providing the support to people who are applying or people who have actually been awarded. The language I reference refers to applicants for technical assistance. So, but I think it's important that people who are thinking about applying for a social equity loan and grant be provided technical assistance so they're in a position to succeed in the process. I mean if we do it, after someone is awarded the money. That may not be a successful I mean also as part of encouraging people to participate in this process is providing them with the technical assistance to do so. So, but is the technical assistance is it contemplated to help them in the application process, or after the fact, I think it's to assist them with the process but also with standing up a cannabis establishment whether that's a retail business, a cultivator or manufacturer is to provide them with the experience so that they can be successful. Once they receive a grant or alone. Okay, I guess I understand intent my concern is is does that mean that is it so open ended that everybody who either wants to apply or does apply that we're going to offer them all that type and level of technical assistance. I'm not sure that was the intent but maybe. Well, I think that anybody that wants it should get it. I mean, because you know part of the whole purpose of the social equity section of s 25 is to encourage people who have been disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition to be able to get it and you know open a business in the legal cannabis marketplace. Okay, so that would be the limiting factor them as far as who gets that. Okay, got it. Thank you. I just wanted to voice some support for representative Gannon's proposal about technical assistance and it harkens back to the numbers and the reports that we heard around small businesses and the economic recovery grants for instance right like a different area obviously but when we think about some of the the the businesses that had opportunity to get technical assistance with writing grants had much more success applying I think about like women own businesses had Vermont works for women and they could get that technical assistance and there was a path for them. I think that the best grant writers in the world to be able to get those grants and get that support and similarly here, we're trying to create the ability to use these funds to help the social equity applicants get have success, not only just getting from what represent Gannon said but also in sort of managing their grants me does. Somebody might be really great as a cannabis business owner, but not be the best grant writer or the best applicant here and and that's the problem I think we're trying to solve. All right, Rep. Gannon back to you. Okay, so the next proposed change is in section 13 which is on page 24 of s 25. And this is deals with developing the criteria for social equity applicants and so the proposed change I made which was also recommended or suggested by CCD is, is that the cannabis control board in consultation with the advisory committee, a CCD in the executive director racial equity shall develop criteria for social equity applicants for the purposes of obtaining social equity loans and grants from the cannabis business development fund, to into seven VSA chapter 39. And they should know the next sentence the board shall provide that criteria general assembly no later than October 15 2021. And we get a chance to review it too. All right, onward. All right, so then we're going to move to section 15, which is also on page 24. And we heard testimony about this issue this morning, which is the date when the medical cannabis registry we're transferring from the Department of Public Safety to the cannabis control board. The proposed change is that that transfer shall not occur until January 1 2022, which I think what we heard this morning was they urged us to delay that transfer from what the Senate had which was on July 1 2021. I believe we all heard that and felt that was reasonable. Okay, so the next change is on page 25. And this is section 17 section 17 requires the Vermont criminal justice council to report to the joint legislative justice oversight committee regarding the funding for the requirement that on or before December 31 2021, all law enforcement officers receive a minimum of 16 hours of advanced roadside impaired driving enforcement training. That is required by Act 164. So, the chair and I met with the new executive director of the Vermont criminal justice council yesterday in Cindy patch who is the training coordinator. We had a great, great discussion about this thing and they raised a number of issues is that really, there is a thousand law enforcement officers that need a right aid right the a right training, in that in order to do that successfully. It would take five years actually to train all those people. It could hire additional people at a cost of somewhere between $75 and $100,000 to train people but their concern with doing that was that Defense Council may question so many people coming on board in the right program so quickly that they're not actually adequately trained so they did have concerns that rushing into this would would lead to legal problems in court. And I also deleted the reference to 16 hours based on there are discussions with them because the program may change. There may be additional hours or there may be less hours, but you know a ride is national program. So the certification, they're just going to offer the training that's consistent with the a right certification. And so they did request that we just eliminate the 16 hour reference. And so what I'm suggesting is we delete section 17, but amend 20 BSA section 23584, which does mandate this training. And so that language would be on or before December 31, 2026 law enforcement officers shall receive the training required by this section. So it just extends the date and eliminates the 16 hour 16 16 hour reference representative Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair rep again and I don't, I don't mean to go back but the other thing I heard this is to moving the date. I had back to January one of when the, I guess the cannabis board takes over the medical marijuana system. And as I recall this morning, there was a discussion and a plea by both of our testifiers about the fund that is sort of undergirds the medical marijuana system, and that that collapsing of that fund into the the the merged system also be was that automatically implied in the. Yeah, in the amendment that you articulated. Yes, because the Cannops control board would not have control over the medical dispensary program until January 1 2022. They wouldn't have access to those funds. So the money moves money money moves with the program. Okay, fantastic. Thanks. So I have two additional changes which are not in the bill. And the first one, which is is to retain the cannabis for symptom relief oversight committee. That is repealed in Act 164. So the proposal is to maintain that. So now, and this would be helpful to have a discussion on this. Michelle and I, Michelle Taylor and I had a brief discussion about the makeup of this committee and so I'm going to read the current makeup. And, and, you know, share with you the discussion I had with Michelle about this. So the current medical oversight committee's composition is made up of the following people. One registered patient appointed by each dispensary. One registered nurse and one registered patient, appointed by the governor. One physician appointed by the Vermont Medical Society. One member of a local zone zoning board appointed by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. One representative appointed jointly by the Vermont Sheriff's Association and the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police. And finally, the commissioner of public safety or his or her designate. Now, the discussion I had with legislative council question why we needed so much law enforcement on this oversight committee. Now, with respect to the commissioner of public safety. He manages this program but as we know this is going to shift to the cannabis control board. So one thought is to add the chair of the cannabis control board to the oversight committee, or his or her designate. I am baffled as to why there is a local zoning board person on this committee it just does not make sense to me. And I don't know how other members of the committee feel, but that is, and I understand that perhaps when we were initially standing up the medical program that there was concern law enforcement concerns, but I'm really not sure we need that other law enforcement person on there. So, so one of the things that I suggested is perhaps we want to have a registered caregiver on the committee. Because that group is not represented but we did hear some testimony this morning about the importance of caregivers so, and I really haven't come up with replacement for the zoning person. So any thoughts on that would be helpful. Representative Anthony. Yes, I, I, I too was moved this morning by the testimony which essentially my takeaway was, this is a very rare or unusually situated person, whether on the caregiver side, or the medical advising side with a person who is thoroughly familiar with cannabis as a treatment. And so I'm wondering, in addition to the caretaker, see our caregiver, whether or not the nominee from cannabis dispensary should be required to have some expertise. As we heard this morning in the clinical or treatment side of a cannabis regime, because notice the way the language is now it's sort of wide open. There's no criteria beyond. There's no criteria by cannabis registry. And it seems to me that that's, that's an expertise that we heard this morning in addition to caregiver that is very specialized and quite rare. I wanted to also speak in support of adding a caregiver here and share the vice chairs confusion as to why there is a member of the zoning board that. I don't know why either but yes I would 100% support adding that caregiving perspective I think it's incredibly important and we know that from from throughout history are best things are created when we we include the voices most impacted and I heard very clearly this morning that that was that was a big oversight so thank you for for adding that. Yeah. I unfortunately was not here for the this morning's discussion but I would advocate for either changing the nurses position, or the member of the zoning commission to an APR and a nurse practitioner. And the reason that I say that is they are they have prescriptive rights in Vermont. And as we all know there's a lot of different interactions with drugs. And I suspect that as we move forward here and this becomes more prevalent that those that are dealing with this have a thorough understanding of the interaction between whether it be, you know, smoking it, ingesting it, pincers, salves, whatever I would want to get as much expertise I think there as we could wrap. I sort of was following along what Rob's conversation was but I was leaning more towards somebody from the pharmacy world. Very deep in all aspects of pharmacology and other things, not that I would discount Rob's suggestion but that sort of advances it a little bit higher. Thank you. I could actually support that that we need the expertise. Right, john back to you. Those were all of my proposed changes madam chair. All right. So we probably have a draft in its final stages that would reflect these changes. I think that's why Ledge Council dropped off the meeting since we seem to be doing a fine job of navigating our way through. So if there are other areas that folks would like to discuss before we break for lunch, I will then contact Ledge Council and ask her to send the draft to each of us in our email and get it posted to our committee page so that we can hopefully review the language, maybe during Florida bait and then, and then come back to look at the language again after the floor so rep bannon. I failed to mention one other change that that I proposed which is this is based on James Pepper's testimony, requesting two positions to the cannabis control board, a general council and administrative support position. But I think we're still working with James on that language. And, and I in communication with him. The, he believes that this is all within the appropriation that's already been designated for the cannabis control board so he doesn't need any new appropriation for it. Simply wants to make sure that he has the authorization to actually hire the individuals that they need rep Anthony. So I think we're do either of you know if what we just reviewed is inclusive of the list that really has to get going and, and anything that has not been talked about this morning will await January is that the implication I take away. I think what rep bannon was going through was the changes that he asked ledge counsel to make and so I don't know that that necessarily looks with a strict lens to strip out anything that hat that that doesn't have that must pass but just to the point where we're taking out the things that are either more controversial or problematic and representative Ganon has now disappeared. So, Mary is in the waiting room. Excellent. Welcome back, Mr Vice Chair sorry you've got booted. And there's one thing I'm not going to miss when we're back in person in the building is the ability for someone to get plucked out of the meeting and dropped off into their own little space and then have to rush to get back. So, Rep Yan and did you hear what, what rep Anthony said, and did you have anything you wanted to respond to that. I did not hear madam chair. I was just asking about whether the new draft we're going to see has eliminated everything that is not must pass and and I was saying that that you've gone through each of the changes that that you've asked ledge counsel to draft for us and that doesn't have to pass the strict. These things have to pass. But, but this list is inclusive of, of what we heard for testimony about things that are relatively straightforward and non controversial. But, sound accurate. I feel like he's about to be plucked and dumped out of the meeting again. Representative Cooper and we'll come back to Mr Vice Chair if we unfreeze him. Yeah, I realize I'm about to say a bridge too far but I was particularly taken by the impact of the plant limit and I realize that'll probably be a January thing but it also seems to really have a financial impact on people that are really into the human services service so I would hope we either advance that or put it high on an agenda somewhere. So my, my supposition is that that would crossover into the human services committee realm, and that that would be something that that might trigger a bill being introduced that would head in that direction. And that would remind them created the program and may want to have some influence on changes to the program. I'm like this made that the cost factor of this went completely over my head when we were talking about this as 54 wise and stuff. Looking at the medical system because that's not in our jurisdiction. Yeah, yeah. Does anybody have any other questions. All right so representative Dan and appears to be frozen still, I wonder if we can turn his camera off. Hold on, I'm stopping your video to see if that gets you unfrozen. Can you talk now. Can you hear me. Yes we can. Okay, I forgot to mention two new reporting requirements. This is based on the testimony we heard tomorrow after yesterday afternoon. One is to have the cannabis control board honor before January 15 2022 make recommendations as to whether integrated licensees and manufacturer licensees can produce solid concentrate products with greater than 60% THC for purposes of incorporation into cannabis cannabis products, which other products comply with restrictions in section 868 prohibited products and rules promulgated by the cannabis control board. And then a second recommendation as to whether the board should permit hemp or CBD to be converted to Delta nine THC. And if so, how it should be regulated, and that the board should consult with the agency of agriculture. I didn't think we had enough testimony to move forward with the suggested amendments that were made yesterday, but I did think they were good ideas that should be further explored by the cannabis control board. I would agree. All right. Anyone else want to bring up any other ideas or thoughts that they would like to see incorporated into the bill. All right, I will keep an eye on on my email as best I can while I'm sharing a meeting during lunchtime. So if you have any thoughts, please do reach out to me and Mr vice chair as well. And I will ask the council to get a draft to you via email and posted to our page as soon as possible and it should look very familiar because we have now gone through all of the recommended changes. Any other questions before we sign off for a lunch break and floor. All right, let's sign off.