 We are now live on YouTube. Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Vermont State Senate Committee on Institutions. Today is April 28th, 2021. I am your sometimes reluctant host of this event, Joe Benning, the chair for this committee. I am from the Caledonia County District. We are meeting today to talk about the Capital Complex Security Advisory Committee and language in a bill that has not yet made its way through the State House, much less to the governor, but we'll talk more about that in a minute. For the instant purposes, I'm going to also introduce Senator Mazza from Grand Isle, Senator Inglis from Essex Orleans. I am anticipating Senator's parent from Franklin County and Senator McCormick from Windsor County in the not too distant future. To the task at hand to all witnesses, I would only ask to remind you that we are live on YouTube. Most of us know each other in one fashion or another, and we are commonly using terms that people in the general public may not know about. So if you get interrupted while you may be speaking, it may be simply to identify what some statement is or name of an outfit is that you're talking about so that the public in general is aware of what we're talking about. We on this committee like to believe there are millions of people out there in the YouTube world that are actually anticipating this conversation every single day. So in the off chance possibility that there's at least one, we like to be respectful to people who don't know much about this system. I'm talking today specifically about a bill labeled S30 which had to do initially with the possession of firearms inside hospitals. There is a second part of that bill which would make this committee responsible for a report due back to the legislature with recommendations about what if anything to do by way of potential legislation with respect to firearms in the capital complex. For the public's edification, most people think of that as the state house and the front lawn that is not the case. The capital complex is actually a fairly large area that incorporates at least some private homesteads and the language in the bill itself. I've asked Denise to have presented on the screen so that we are all familiar with what's going on. The purpose in having you folks called here today is to let you know that there is a deadline for this report to come back. The bill has not made its way through the state house. It has not made its way past the governor. One of two things could happen. The governor could sign it or the governor could reject it in which case we would be coming back as a legislature, I believe it's the end of June which further shortens the window of opportunity for making a report as has been requested in this language. I wanted to first alert all the committee members to that responsibility. Denise, do you happen to have that language you can pull up? Yes, just a moment. Okay, while Denise is trying to pull that up when she does, I will lose most of you on the screen. So if anybody has a question or a comment, please shout out because otherwise I won't know that you are out there. Allison, in direct question, direct answer to you, the question that you posed earlier, I don't remember whether we were live on YouTube or not. The question about extending the ability of this committee to meet and perhaps getting some money to conduct the investigation that may be required pursuant to this bill. We're gonna have to have conversation about that because I am not sure as I sit here whether it would be coming through the capital bill or having to come through appropriations in some different form, but we've already agreed to the dollar amount that the capital bill is spending. So having to adjust it in the capital bill could be problematical by itself. There is another component here is we don't necessarily have an investigative team associated with this committee, which would be required to get through this report process. And if you take a look on your screens, you can see that we are expected to make a report on or before December of 2021. Our committee here is essentially limited in the number of times that it has to meet in the off season. And I believe it's two times. If Alice, you disagree with that, let me know, but we are expected to summarize how the possession of firearms at the capital complex is currently regulated. We are supposed to describe situations when persons have impermissibly possessed firearms at the capital complex in the past and how these situations are typically handled. And then recommend whether and how the issue of firearms at the capital complex should be addressed in legislation. I will be honest and say, I'm a member of the judiciary committee. I did not vote for this bill. I heard testimony from several of you during that initial stage of the bill working its way through the judiciary committee that the language that had originally been proposed prior to this report section being put into the bill dealt with firearms in the state house, a much narrower discussion point. This language came out of judiciary in sort of an attempt, I guess, to try to reach consensus we can agree or disagree on whether consensus was reached from my perspective, consensus was not reached and the real issues of what it meant for this committee was not properly thought out and discussed to the point where we understood exactly what we were getting into. Those of you who came to the judiciary committee to testify, I clearly came away with the impression that language regarding the state house was not necessary due to what we currently have available to us by way of signage and an unlawful trespass charges, someone was to disobey that signage. You may have a different opinion on that subject but that's at least what I came away with. Now that we are being potentially told to make a much bigger report, this is a completely different area and I wanted all of you to be brought into a conversation, a round table if you will, to give us some thoughts to think about as we work our way towards the end of the session and what other things may have to come into play here for us to be able to accomplish what this language is asking us to do. So I don't know if anybody needs to have that still up on the screen, but I'd like to take it down at this point, unless somebody objects, you know what it says, basic terms. So Denise, I don't hear anybody objecting. With that, I would like to throw it wide open for conversation because we have to at least begin the process of thinking about the possibility that we may have a very short window of time to come up with an answer to that. I suppose I will start with Matt Romy-Eye and ask you, what do you think in response to this language? Well, Matthew Romy-Eye, Capitol Police Chief and Senator, when we were anxiously awaiting your arrival earlier, Commissioner Schirling mentioned something that we've talked about that relates to this, that there's a much bigger picture to the safety and security concept for the Capitol complex that really needs to be dug into. Things that have happened this year have brought some of those issues to light. And I think this is a part of that bigger picture. So the particular language that is existing right now in this bill, if we are to generate a report, I might suggest that the easiest way to do is to split it amongst areas of responsibility and will draft something that deals with the legislative spaces that are subject to the joint rules. Commissioner Fitch's shop can draft something up that reflects the things that fall under her responsibility and Court Administrator Gable and her team could pull something together that deals with the space in the Supreme Court. And I say that that way because there's three completely fundamentally different sports, to be honest with you. It's not just a different ball field, but a different sport as to how things can and maybe should happen in those separate spaces. And that might be a place to start for a draft of a report if that's something that you want. My two cents, your mileage may vary. No, I appreciate those comments. And since you're the first speaker, I'm gonna turn to Janet and ask if you've got anything you'd like to chip in there. You and Matt obviously would be working together for your particular jurisdiction. Yeah, I mean, we did discuss that earlier what Matt had talked about and I'm in agreement with that. There are other issues that probably come into play that need to be discussed. And then we do have the rules already set here at the State House regarding the trespass as you spoke of before. I will say that I suspect the prime sponsor of the bill is anxious to have a conversation about being more specific when it comes to firearms on both the State House lawn and inside the building. There's already been a bill introduced, I think today, that talks about open carry in those areas. And so that part of the conversation could get a little bit more substantive just to give you a heads up that there are movements of foot talking about that issue. And I do understand that it could potentially bring into play are we now calling for security at each door and metal detectors, et cetera. But it's a much more complicated discussion. And I'm not sure, frankly, how we meet that December 21st deadline to have that discussion properly fleshed out, but I'm willing to play along. And just to give you that heads up, there may be a bigger part of that conversation when you guys, you two come back with your section of the report. That's nothing we were aware of at this time. So that's good to know, thank you. Commissioner Scherling, I see your name up there. I didn't see your face, but I would like to turn to you. You were one of the people that had come to testify before the judiciary committee. And I'm interested to hear your reaction to the language that's presented here and the timeline in which we are expected to do something. I'm asking that question with full knowledge that you in particular may have a much bigger role in coming up with the answers to this report due to the fact that it covers the entire complex and not just the state house in the front lawn. Thank you, Senator. The language relative to the report is relatively straightforward. I think we believe collectively between Commissioner Fitch, Chief Romney and I that on items one and two, we could provide that information pretty much instantaneously relative to the policy implication that's contemplated at number three. That's a much more nuanced and potentially robust conversation that's needed. And as was indicated earlier by Chief Romney, I would, we believe at public safety, it's a piece of what should be a much larger conversation around security and not just related to the potential possession of firearms in the complex or more specifically at the state house. So there are a variety of things from finding better mechanisms to share intelligence where that intelligence won't become public facing to just the overarching security profile that may be necessary at certainly things that should be contemplated here in the 21st century as things have shifted quite substantially, particularly in the last three or four years. So I'm gonna ask both you and Chief Pete who's on the line, this capital complex incorporates several private homes. I don't know what the statistical information is that is available regarding those homes because the way that I read this language, we're supposed to come up with a report about what's going on in those homes over the past, however many months or years we wanna talk about, but is there any way that we can reproduce that information? We can search our record systems to determine what the particular calls for service are in the geographic footprint that's contemplated, whether that's as narrow as the state house or as large as a complex or city wide or state wide for that matter. Okay. Chief Pete, thanks for being here. I don't know if you've got anything you'd like to add to that conversation. And I pretty much would echo everybody else's current sentiment regarding what was previously discussed that obviously I wasn't there for that, but regarding what the commissioner just said, I do think that this is part of a bigger picture, bigger larger concerns, all the moving parts, the external moving parts to this. But in regarding to getting that information of those private residences or properties that do surround or that are part of the capital complex, that's we can geofence that out of Alcor and provide that information as well. Okay. Pat. Hello. Hi. Yeah, I should be going through the formal process and asking each of you to identify yourselves before you chat, because we are on YouTube. Sorry about that. So I'm Patricia Gabel. I'm the state court administrator. And I agree generally with the comments that have already been made, both in terms of a way we might start with a report, which is for each of our branches to start with the frame of how we do things now and that could lead to further discussions regarding communication and collaboration. And I also agree with the suggestion, if it's possible to maybe expand the number of meetings we have, so that we can take the time to put together a thoughtful report. And I also agree with Commissioner Sherling's comments that it's really a, there are many transformations that have happened. And one of the transformations is, a little bit of a reboot about what it means to provide security for our citizens when they're coming into one of the buildings that are in the capital complex. So that's why one of the reasons I think we probably need to have more meetings at least in the coming session. I completely agree that we need more meetings. My ultimate hope is that we extend the date for the report being issued by at least another month because at that point, Alice Emmons takes over the chair position of this committee and I wouldn't be responsible for it anymore. Joe, I think it's reversed. I looked in the statute. The first year is the chair of corrections and institutions who has chaired this committee. And then the second year, it's Senate institutions. I asked this question at least three times of legislative council. Came away fairly depressed thinking that I was stuck. Well, it says here, and I asked Becky in the statute because I was curious myself, it said in the first year, the chair of house corrections and institutions shall service chair of the committee and the chair of Senate institutions shall be vice chair. And anyway, thereafter, the offices of chair and vice chairs shall rotate. I think Alice that led council was taking the position that the first year is when the body is reconstituted, not the biennium first year. So when we had our very first Capitol complex committee meeting might have been the second year of a biennium and then that takes it off. I think that is quite possible. And believe me, I would be happy to hand this off to you right now if you would like to take it. I just want clarity. It says in the first year and we'd have to go back to when this committee was first established. It was added back number 88, 2015, effective May 6th of 2016. So that's an election year. Right. So that would have been in the middle of the biennium. So in the first year Look at Colleen. It's going to have heads on both sides and I'm calling heads. Well, we'll iron out the details of which one of us is ultimately responsible Alice, but my, my thought is the bill itself is now on your side of the building. And if amendments to the bill itself granting us more time have to be plugged in, you might as well throw in the monetary question on top of it to make sure that we have adequate resources to come up with a response to all this. So far I haven't heard anybody tell me they need to have money to issue their portion of a report. But we still have to have somebody drafting the ultimate document and whether we have that resource available is still a question in my mind right now. Right. In the statute for reimbursements, it's only the legislators that get reimbursed. For, you know, for expenses. Yeah. I'm a job for you, Joe. Yeah, but it's, it's the, it's, if we have to go out for expert advice or information that we might need for this report, what happens? I've got a question, a two-fold. What if S 30 doesn't move on the house side? Then all of this conversation is not relevant until they move it. If they do. Or if the governor vetoes it and his veto is upheld, then it's irrelevant. The problem that we both have right now is, if it goes through, we have an extremely limited window of opportunity to get an answer by December 31st. That's why we're having this conversation. So one thing that we could do is put language in somewhere. If as even, well, put language in for up to four meetings instead of the two meetings, and deal with if there's any extra expenses for that. If S 30 doesn't go through the house, doesn't get taken up. Is it worth it for us to meet as a committee to talk about the security issues within the capital complex, the chief from EI and commissioner, that's the issue that we need to talk about that first. And then, I think that's the issue that we have to consider as a product. Is that something we should consider? Meeting on to begin with. Regardless. Of S 30. Sure. I would argue that the reason this committee exists is to have those very conversations. And certainly there is ample evidence that things are changing on the ground all around us. was meeting this December 21st deadline and we can plan accordingly one way or the other. I want to continue going around the table though. Juan Manoli, welcome to Senate institutions. Long time no see. It is a pleasure being before Senate institutions, Chair Benning, and thank you for the invitation. So, I would agree. Your official introduction is? Oh, I apologize. I felt like I did that earlier. So, my apologies. Juan de Manoli, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles. And with me today, I have Director Fakos, who is the Director of Enforcement and Safety for the Department of Motor Vehicle. So, Tony and I are here with you today. I'll just, I'm going to concur with what Commissioner Shirling said regarding the policy, especially around the security within the capital complex, the communication, and the just the overall security, you know, and I think especially for us, it's really important to be involved because I think sometimes we don't think about this, but located at 120 State Street is a division of law enforcement. And we are in this building and I know that my officers and my Director of Enforcement have a responsibility and want to be incorporated into it. I'm not offering that they take over the security in any way within the complex, but there is a role and communication, especially from that law enforcement side and supporting everyone within the complex is really it's extremely important, and it's their responsibility. I also would just comment on the appointment that you just made, Chair, in bringing back the advisory committee for security in the original language. And we would agree with this that its purpose is that continual review of coordinating security within the complex and enhancing communications and the efficiency. So I think there is real opportunity within Title II and bringing that back in to be engaged in that, especially in light of everything that has been we have dealt with, especially over the last year. So with that and your permission, I would also like to just ask Director Faco, so if he has any comments to add to mine and if you have any questions. You certainly have my permission, but I don't see him on the screen anywhere. Where did he go? I think he left. If I may, I'm just going to step out and ask him to come in. Hold on. Well, I hope you all had a good time telling lawyer jokes or something while you were waiting for us to assemble. We're trying to figure out what to do. I think you enjoy being lawyer today, Joe. So he has stepped away, so I know he will agree with most of everything that I said. Thank you, Chair Benning. Sure. Well, I don't know if we have reached the point where we're in need of talking about metal detectors and security guards at the Department of Motor Vehicles, but it is something that there are some people in the building talking about. And so I'm not asking you to give a response now, but it is something that we as a committee are going to need to start talking about in a more broader sense, because traditionally we've been talking about the State House, and this is much bigger than that as I see it. Bill McSales, I didn't want to skip over you, but I got the sense Pat was never mind. I'll rethink that. I want to see who's going to win out this battle. You were the commissioner. I defer to the commissioner at all times. That's what my good sense tells me to do. I'm only going around my screen clockwise, so you were on the next list and I happen to have Commissioner Fitch at the very end of that clockwise rotation. So Commissioner Fitch, welcome. Because you're saving the best for last, is that how this works? In the world, we have this thing called the Fifth Amendment, and we're entitled to invoke it when necessary. But anyhow, welcome to institutions. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. So for the record, my name is Jennifer Fitch, and I have the honor of being the BGS commissioner. Thank you for having me here today. Bill is here with me as well, so I will yield my time to him in a minute. But all that is to say that our goal here at BGS is to support programmatic outcomes, and we are charged with safety and security in state facilities and grounds that are underneath the jurisdiction of BGS. We also feel that we can provide the information. In fact, Bill has already pulled it for us in terms of the number of incidences that we've had in the complex. It turns out that since 2016, we have two that were recorded, and only one of those that was an actual gun incident. The other one was in 133, the umbrella, as we all remember. The other one was at 120 in DMV. Somebody had a gun on them, and we worked with DMV and our staff and just reminded the gentleman that he's not allowed to have a gun in a state facility, and he was very kind and nice, and he walked back out of the building and secured his gun in his car. So we believe things have been going well, but that being the case, we're always happy to collaborate with our partners. Our number one goal is the safety and security of state employees and our visitors, and we want to do everything we can do to meet that goal. So we're happy to collaborate and work with everybody on that. And then in terms of sort of technical expertise, I'm not a law enforcement officer. It's not my background. And so I take my cues and recommendations from other folks, such as Commissioner Schirling at BSP, Chief Romy and I from Capitol Police, Chief Pete from Montpelier PD, as well as happy to bring in Wanda's folks from DMV and enforcement as well. So we're happy to partner. We're happy to be at the table. I agree that things have changed. The landscape has changed, and we should continue to focus on those tools and ways in which to provide that safety and security. If it's okay with you, Senator Benning, do you mind if I yield to Bill to Bill and anything that I might have missed? Bill, welcome. Thank you for having me. My name is Bill McSales. I'm the Director of the Office of State Safety and Security. A few years ago we had a database that recorded all these different safety and security type events. We found that that database wasn't robust enough to track the way that we needed to do things. So we developed a new database called SSIR Safety and Security Incident Report. And we have about 500 different events in that database within not quite a year. And I looked through those databases and I found that, again, we've only had a few very small incidences regarding firearms within the Capitol Complex statewide. We have a very few events regarding firearms. We have more with knives and clubs and other things, and particularly a few buildings. And I also have specific reports of those particular events that I'm happy to pull for this committee. So if you want the details as to exactly what happened in people's names and description of the events, I can provide that for you. But I only kind of have a summary today. I don't have the exact of reports with you, but I can. Bill, can I ask you a couple of questions? How far back does your database go? Right now I easily could pull data back to 2016. But only the last year have we had this much more robust database that's more specific and allows us to really pull good reports. Before that, I can get you some information. But I can't say that it's as reliable as I would want it to be. Another question is the extent of your database. If an incident was to take place between, say, the back door of DMV and the north branch of the Winooski River, would your database include that information? What we could do is we would, I could search by location and generally that generally those locations are specific addresses. But if we search for all those different addresses, if there's any in the area in question, we could read the actual report and it very well may say that yet we attributed the event to, for example, 120. But in fact, as you read the report, it might say that it actually occurred in the rear parking lot or something. So I think we could still determine where things might have happened. But it may take a little research to do that. Same question would be for Baldwin Street at one of the residential homes on that street. Would your database incorporate that as well? Or would I have to turn to either Montpelier or Commissioner Shirling to get that information? Well, frankly, we could search the database to determine whether or not we had a report of any kind of event at that particular place. But generally, unless we knew about it, residents in those private residents wouldn't know to fill out an SSIR report. And unless our officers came across some security concern there too, they wouldn't. So it is possible that some event could have taken place. We just may not have a record of it. Okay. Anything else you'd like to tell us? I'm happy to be here, sir. Thanks. Okay. I think I've exhausted everybody that was on the screen, although Catherine Benham's hanging out there wisely being silent. I don't know if Catherine, you wanted to add anything to the conversation? No, thank you. I was just, I was here. I was invited to talk and just listening. Okay. Chief Romney? Well, Senator Benning, since you posed that question to Bill, I did just want you to know we pull a geographically segregated report every year. And it's part of the information we send up to appropriations. And it's department agnostic. So it picks it up if DMV goes down and deals with a disorderly person at the DMV counter, it picks that up. If mob failure deals with someone within the complex, it picks that up. What we don't pick up right now are the state police calls, but they're kind of black swans right now. If they're down here on the call, one of us is usually there with them. So they get picked up in another way. And we've been tracking that for the last four years. So it might not pick up things that are security only that don't involve law enforcement, but if it rises to a law enforcement call for service, we pick that up in that report over here. So for one of the private homes on Baldwin Street, if there is, say, an aggravated assault with a weapon, where would I normally find that information in a way that we can get it consolidated into a report? We can pull that through Valkor. And I can tell you, those are exceptionally rare. I would like to think so, but I want to make sure we're covering all the bases that we're expected to in this bill. Well, I think we've exhausted the list of witnesses. Alice, I'm happy to hear your thoughts, your comments, your desire to get out of here. What would your preference be? Well, I do have a committee that's meeting right now. So I do have to scoot here in a little bit. It's a very interesting committee, by the way. Yes, it is. It's quite a mixture of personalities and folks. I think that we just have have to figure out how we're going to move forward. I think it might be good to see if we can get some language in somewhere to see if we can meet up to four times when we're out of session this year. I think if S-30 does not pass, does not become law, I think we still have some work to do as a security advisory complex committee, whatever it's called. And I think we should just pursue with four meetings, off session, and see if we can find some place to put that in language. And right now in terms of S-30, I think we're in a holding pattern at this point to see what's going to happen to S-30. What I've heard on the House side, it is still on hold. It hasn't been, I don't think they've had any testimony on it or anything at this point. So I don't know what the plan is on the House side to move S-30 or not. So I feel that on that we're kind of in a holding pattern right now. That bill was never needed in the first place. So I can't imagine they're going to act too fast on it. Yeah, I don't know. That's above my pay grade. Commissioner Fitch, there's your hand up. Thank you, Senator. This is just a question. So it sounds like there is a willingness and a desire from all of the folks that you just asked to work together to think about opportunities to improve the safety and security within the capital complex. I guess I leave it to everyone to say if that is something we all have a desire to do, should we be doing that regardless of the bill? My response would be definitely yes. The conversation is certainly part of this committee's responsibility, whether there's a bill or not. Part of the rationale for getting everybody together this soon is to make sure that everybody's on the same page and knowing that we have information that needs to be collected. Whether the bill passes or not, that information will be used by all of us when we start talking about the larger subject of what to do going forward as this committee normally does. So yeah, I appreciate that. And that is certainly a seed that needs to be planted right now. So we are all coming back the next time with a little bit more under our belts to talk about. I didn't know whether you had anything more you wanted to say, Alice. I didn't mean to cut you off. No, I just think, you know, should we meet in a couple of weeks just to check in on the way of the land? Maybe yesterday we'll have more information. Maybe, I don't know. I'm not sure it would be necessary for the entire committee to meet, but certainly you and I need to meet to talk about where the legislation stands because it may require us to get this group back together again sooner rather than later. Right. This group, are we Mr. Chair? This committee will eventually be deeply involved in the conversation if decisions are being made about what specifically is going to happen in the capital complex. For instance, is it time to talk about metal detectors at the front doors of the state house? So you're not necessarily on the committee, but the institution's committees will be deeply involved in that conversation as soon as this group makes recommendations. So that's up to your committee to make recommendations to us. That is true. Okay. Okay. Anybody else have anything they want to bring up? I will again apologize for not having the ability to know when the Senate is going to adjourn for the afternoon. Hopefully next time we meet we can, we'll do it on a day when the Senate is meeting in the morning. How's that? In the house meets in the afternoon, but maybe we'll be shifting to the morning. Who knows? My ultimate hope here is that we can meet again after the session has adjourned because we don't have the time crunch under us. But thank you all very much for coming to Senate institutions today. And committee, I'm going to ask you to hang on the line. Denise is going to keep us on YouTube and we'll say goodbye and have a great day to the rest of you. May I just briefly, before Representative Emmons leaves, can I call you later this afternoon? Yeah, probably after 5.30 or 6. Thank you. I'll do that. No problem. Thank you. I'm off to my committee. Thank you all for coming. Nice to see you again, Wanda. Nice to see you. So committee, before everybody disappears here, I want to make sure first you've all got your summaries for the report tomorrow. Don't see Senator Parrot joining us yet. Anybody have any questions about where you are and how to make a presentation? Senator McCormick. Thanks. Summaries, has someone written up a summary for us or are you talking about we should have prepared our summaries by now? Rebecca Wasserman sent each one of us a summary of what the Senate has done to the House bill. And by the way, when you're talking on the floor, you should know what the House bill says in regards to your particular section report so that if you get asked detailed questions, like for instance, I had Ruth Hardy contact me after the floor and say, what's going on with the mental health facility? What are we doing? Well, our committee did not make any changes to the House language regarding the mental health facilities. But you may have to answer the question of whatever substantive area you're covering as it's written in the House bill. That's what I'm calling Alice about. That's what I'm calling Alice. No, that's a wise move because I'm sure there'll be questions popping up. And there are things we did touch on in our committee, but there are other things we did not, but you're still responsible for covering those sections. Catherine. Let's go by the bill as passed. And yes, all that. Okay. Becky sent an email last night at 7 12 p.m. Thank you. And you should be able to find it that way. It's a section by section summary. So that would that should help you as well. There is one other thing we've got to talk about, and that is Friday's conversation. I had overnight mail express sent to all of your houses. A report from the architectural firm of Freeman French and Freeman talking about options for going back into the State House, both short term and long term. We are going to have the architectural representative, Jesse Beck, come and talk to us on Friday about that report. The report you will notice has options A and option B. We are not wedded to either of those options, but it is a starting point for conversation on how, when and if we're going back into the State House under what circumstances, etc. But that will be a conversation for Friday. So if you check your normal mailbox, you should have a cardboard envelope with that document in it. I got mine at 10 o'clock this morning. So hopefully you're all getting it or have it by now. And so you should be prepared to talk about that, review it on Thursday night or whatever. Other than that, anybody got anything they want to talk about? Everybody knows who they're handing off the sections to for the next speaker. Okay. I know Denise sent out a schedule of who the speakers are on what section. So if you get that single page document, that'll tell you who you're handing off to and who's handing off to you. Senator McCormick, I sent you Ms. Wasserman's email just so you have it. Thank you, Senator. I got it. Thank you. You hand off to me, right? I hand off to you. Can I go to parent? Okay. Yeah, I hand off to Senator McCormick. Okay, guys. I think that's all we got. Denise, if you can hang on the line. Let's say anybody else got anything they want to talk about. We're almost done. By the way, the statehouse conversation about when we're coming back under the Freeman French suggestions, that conversation will continue into next week as I ask stakeholders to come in and just offer their thoughts. We're not committing ourselves to anything. We're just beginning the conversation to listen to all the people who run into that building and work there. So for instance, I'm asking the press, I'm asking the staff to come in and talk to us about what their thoughts are and how we come back. And that will be the last of our conversations, I hope, for the year. What's the press coming for? Because they come into the building frequently. They will have specific thoughts about how they want to interact with us inside the building. Those are conversations I think we need to be able to have with the stakeholders who come in and out of the building. Look on the bright side. Maybe they'll have you on the screen, Dick. We lost Senator Monson. I'll bet you he hit the wrong button. Well, in any event, that should close out our conversation for the year. Works for me. Okay. We will see you guys tomorrow.