 Okay. I think I see most books. Okay, great. All right. Thank you, Bryn. Actually worked out well for all of us, I think. Okay, so. Good. Continue please. Okay. Oh, actually, okay, let me, if you can wait a minute, let me just let. Chair know that we are waiting on her. Sorry. No problem. I did want to just flag for the committee that I do need to leave pretty soon for the Senate floor. Okay. No, I, thanks. I understand that. Okay. So why don't you, why don't you go ahead? Okay. So, um, I know that we sort of ended abruptly there on the new crime. I wasn't sure if there were other questions about that before I moved on to the body cameras portion. Of the bill. Nope. Why don't you go ahead? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So section six. Adds a requirement to title 20 that the department of public safety equipped all of the Vermont state police officers with body cameras or another recording device. And it requires that that device is recording whenever the officer has contact with the public for law enforcement purposes. The associated section is section seven. And it provides that DPS should immediately start acquiring these body cameras and using them. Um, and any ongoing costs that are associated with them. So storage costs. Um, any of storage costs that can't be accommodated in DPS's budget. Um, should be included in their FY 21 budget proposal. Um, that is coming in in August of this year. Um, Brenna, I have a question and then I see Tom and Martin. So back in section six when it talks about the department. Shall ensure that every department law enforcement officer. So again, we're just talking about DPS. We're in this bill. We're not talking about the municipalities or correct. That's correct. Great. Thank you. Um, Tom and then Martin. So what Maxine was just talking about department means DPS. Okay. Great. Well, this is. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Vermont state police officers. This is a requirement. The Vermont state police be equipped with body cameras. Um, Beginning in August of 2020 of this year. Okay. Um, so, uh, Starting on line 16 on section six, that the device recording whenever the officer has contact with the public for law enforcement purposes is, is that pulled someplace else? Because I'm just going to go on memory because it was a, uh, a few years ago talking or first I'll ask, would that be. The cameras are on when they're say at a, at a precinct or a, uh, police station. Uh, when they're inside. Um, I think that it was intended to, to be pretty broad and encompassing any interaction that law enforcement has, um, with the civilian. So I think it could, it could conceivably be in the station. Yes. Right. Cause again, I'm going on memory from a few years ago talking with my son. Um, but I, I remember him saying that when they, they get back to the station for whatever reason, their, their body camps are, are turned off inside. And I don't know the reason why. Uh, maybe there's plenty of cameras in the station that would cover or something like that. But, um, I guess that would go back. Uh, is there. I mean, this is, I'm good. I'm sure your answer is going to be, I have no idea. But it is our, uh, police stations are the state police barracks. Are they camera inside that, you know? Or, or I guess if, if you don't know, maybe not, or could answer it. And then I'm done. I have no idea. You were right about my answer. Okay. Um, Brina, I do see some hands up. Can you, can you. Yeah. Okay. Great. Um, so let's see, uh, Uh, Martin and then Jim, I think that's a nodder. Okay. So, so, um, I mean, I'm very concerned about, uh, all these devices, uh, video requiring devices, getting out there with all law enforcement without. Actually a model policy that's been implemented. So can you point in, you don't have to do it right now, but can you point to where out, didn't you mention earlier that this is gov ops Senate gov ops is, is. Um, considering this, if you could point to the bill and the provision and if it's possible for you to send us what that policy is. I know this is mostly gov ops, but, but there are issues that overlap with, uh, judiciary, such as privacy concerns is something that we've really looked closely at. And there are definitely privacy issues with respect to the use of these, uh, cameras. Um, so if we could get that information. Um, and then, um, I think that's a good point. Um, I think that if this is, if this seems to be moving at the same time, then I'm fine with it, but, but putting a bunch of devices out there with actually without the policy seems to be a bad idea. Absolutely. I can send, I'll send the committee a link to, um, the LAB model policy. Um, and also I'll see if there's something that's been posted to Senate gov ops. I believe that this is in the works like. Uh, I think that's a good point. Um, I think that's a good point. On what, what the policy should be for the use of these body cameras. So I can get that all to the committee as soon as the Senate's off the floor today. Thanks. Yeah. And we, we can also think about, you know, the effective date and. If that. You know, helping if moving the effective date might. Reliviate some concerns. Uh, okay. Let's see. So Jim, not our Barbara. And again, Bryn, let us know when you. When you need to go. So, Bryn, on the, uh, and I apologize. We got back on late, but. Um, every law officer and contact with the public. Um, so for example, uh, a DMV. Inspector is a law enforcement officer. If they are doing a, um, Truck check. And they're getting underneath the truck. Is that what they have to have the, um, The body camera going. No. So this, this would only apply to the Vermont state police. This require the specific requirement only applies to Vermont state police. So, and again, I'll just say that the, um, language was intended that requirement that it always be on when, um, the officers interacting with the civilian. It was intended to be broad and sort of general with the idea that Senate go ops was working on the actual policy. Um, that may provide some more specificity about when the cameras need to be on. Okay. Um, so moving at the same time, there was some, um, there was quite a bit of conversation about should they dive deeper, should the Senate dive deeper into when the cameras need to be on and the decision was made to leave it, leave it broad and general for now. Um, with the idea that there will be some requirement of, or model policy that is imposed by the state. Um, So, so I support the body camera language. I'm just wondering if maybe. It references a policy and push the date out. Uh, to that policy is adopted that the, um, the board puts together. Just a suggestion based on some of the prior conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So I see. Uh, Barbara not, or I don't see your hand anymore. Uh, but I see Barbara and then Ken and not, or please correct me if I should be seeing your hair at your hand. And then up. Okay. Rob LaClaire and Bryn again, just let us know. Cause the questions are coming. Thank you. So, Bryn, I think my, I have two, I think quick questions. One is. Um, Um, To, uh, several points that have been made already. There's been reference to the fact that we thought, um, the law already required the model. Or the body, um, camera policy. So I wondered if that could be put in with the conditions of being eligible for grants in addition to putting the data in is. Um, policy because body cameras without policy don't do us any good. So I don't know. Bryn, if that. Suffices from what we passed a few years ago to count it as something we've asked law enforcement. To do already. So what the requirement of that bill was that the law enforcement advisory board established, um, come up with a model policy on use of body cameras and report back to the legislature with, uh, recommendations on, um, legislative action that should be taken on those. Okay. So there exists a model policy and this is what I'll send to the committee as soon as I can, um, a link to the model policy. Um, but there was not a required. They're currently is not a requirement. Um, that that law enforcement agencies adopt that policy. And that is what the Senate government operations committee is working on now. Thank you. Thank you. My other question is this, when you talked about, um, Having the first, sorry. So one enforcement had asked about, um, Locally sanctioning. An officer first before it went up to the council. Right. For the first front for the first offense. I think it's the first offense. I think it's the first offense. I think that 20, I think it's 2307 entitled 20. Yes. That's my understanding of the history of that existing law. So what if law enforcement didn't give. Would it still be eligible to go up to the council or it only is if a sanction was given. Will you say that again, if it's a first defense, did you say, right? And so law enforcement agency chooses to just. Give any kind of written. Sanction. What happens at that point or what can happen. Can it go up to, can it go up to the council for them to. Decide what if they think there still needs to be a licensure. My understanding is that if it's a first offense, it's an agency to deal with that complaint. And it does not go to the council. Except for as the bill provides, there's an exception to that rule for the new two types of category B conduct. But as it, as current law stands right now for that category B conduct, it is for the agency to discipline that officer. It's up to the agency and it doesn't go to the council. So if they don't discipline the officer and then there's another one, is it considered a first offense because the first one wasn't written up. It's a second offense. I think it's a second offense. No, my understanding is that after there, there is a record of the first offense and the second offense has to go to the council. Even if they, if the local law enforcement didn't take action, there's still going to be a record of it. That is my understanding. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Ken. And I think I'm forgetting somebody else. I don't see any hands up anymore, but. I think Rob LaClaire, maybe did you have your hand up before? I did add my hand up madam chair, but I got my question answered. Thank you. Okay. Great. And Ken. I'm all set. Thank you. Okay. All right. Great. So I don't see any hands. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Bryn. So that concludes the S two 19. We've got the effective date section, which I think I mentioned as we went through. We've got the effective date section. And then we've got the effective date section. That, that contingent, that grant funding being contingent on law enforcement agencies reporting their data. Takes effect in January. And the requirement that BSP be equipped with body cameras takes effect on August 1st of this year. And the rest of the bill takes effect on passage. And then the title of the bill is, is renamed. But that's it for S two 19. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Will you be able to join us? During our new into two. Yes. Great. Okay. So why don't we let. Bryn go. Thank you so much. Really. Thank you. I'm sorry that I have to leave before you. Absolutely. No. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So committee, I'm going to. Change what I said. Given. Given that we don't have a brain to do a walkthrough of the commission. I'm just going to. I'm just going to say that we have, I'm hoping that we can take some testimony. On this bill. And. The commissioner DPS commissioner is here. Be great to start with you, please. I can have a commissioner. Are you, I see you here. Just give them a minute. I am here. Madam chair. Okay. Thank you so much. Did you want me to start in any particular place? There is an enormous amount of ground to cover. I know there is. Yeah. So. No, I just said you're, we'd appreciate your comments on. The commission. I think we're going to have a meeting next. Two 19. And then hopefully you'll be able to join us at noon. I know it's not the most optimal way of doing it, but at least we could, we could start the conversation. I will not be on at noon. We have a COVID. Actually, it may be on at noon. But, but only briefly. We're meeting from noon to two. So. I guess let me start with two 19 and go. I also have some notes on some of the questions that committee had. That'd be great. Okay. So section one. Grants and reporting. No issues there. I would only flag for the committee. You know, we've suggested in our. Collective 10 point strategy that. This policy should go further. That, you know, the, the number of grants the state gives to local law enforcement agencies is fairly limited. So I'll just flag that for the committee. Collecting data on the use of force and stops. Again, we're going to go quite a bit further beyond what's memorialized here in statute. We're going to go with a new. What hopefully will become a statewide data collection system. To collect use of force data on all encounters, not just traffic stops. So no issues there. The physical force definition, I would suggest a more simplistic approach. In the best policies out there. I think that any force is generally defined as something beyond. Any force beyond compliant handcuffing. So it's a would catch a wider range of things. And not allow for. Any. Anything to fall between the cracks. I think it's over defined. In paragraph five. There was a question in race data collection around probable cause and collecting data around that. The reason that's not collected in race data collection is because it's qualitative, not quantitative. There is no way. To check a box and measure the types of. Of probable cause because it's dependent on facts and circumstances that change with the encounter. So that's why it's not collected. In section. Four. No issues. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. With. The types of things that would go to be reported to the council. I do want to raise one very large red flag and the definition of a prohibited restraint. It is. Not there is no carve out for a circumstance where lethal force would be warranted. If you're in a. A fight for your life. Or you're trying to defend someone else that actually recall back. These things are so infrequent that you have to go back a ways to get certain examples, but if you go back. 25 or 30 years, we had a man wielding a knife on the marketplace in Burlington and based on that. The environment we were in using a firearm was not possible. We were able to do that. We had officers assigned that if they could get close enough. Lethal force was authorized. Using different kinds of methodologies like batons, or if you could actually get close enough to them. A neck restraint. In that particular circumstance. Would be a valid tactic. So we would strongly suggest that. These things are prohibited in any instance where lethal force is allowed to use a firearm against someone else. But you have to have that carve out because the way it's written now. You could use a firearm against someone or you could hit them with a car. But you couldn't use a neck restraint. And so it's incongruous with the operating environment. So that carve out, I think is, is essential. To make this a functional. So that's what we're going to be talking about. Excuse me. So I see a Martin, you have a question. Yeah, I actually wanted to. Back up. Although what, what this conversation is pretty critical. It seems as well. But so I'll ask a question about that first. And then I have a question about. Section three. So, so how did, did you have language that you would be proposing for that? Commissioner. Yeah. I think that's a good question. For the, for the prohibited restraint, what you were just talking about the, the, the carve out. I think it just needs to say something along the lines of, unless lethal force is appropriate. Okay. All right. So just backing up to, to section three. You talked a little bit about probable cause and such and check in a box, but. I think you could explain the reason for the stop and would that encompass the probable cause possibly or. It's reasonable grounds to, to make a stop. Not probable cause threshold. Different threshold for subsection B, the reason for the stop. Yes. And the reason for the stop can be briefly articulated with a check box. So a moving violation and non moving violation. A third party report of erratic driving. A stop for investigative reasons. You know, the car was suspected of just doing a drug deal. It was suspected of being involved in a burglary three blocks away. So doing a quantitative analysis using a multi select kind of scenario is, is what is set up now. To articulate what probable cause led to a search that the nuances of that is not possible to do using check boxes and a quantitative analysis. It would be a qualitative type of explanation. Okay. I understand that. All right. So the, one other question I had was the meaning of effectuating the stop and, and whether we need to, it sounds like law enforcement understands that that includes the reason for the stop. Not just getting the person pulled over, but whether we should have something a little more, a little clearer, like effectuating or during the stop. I would submit that effectuating is a jargony term that doesn't shouldn't exist anymore. It's just the reason for the stop. Okay. So it sounds like we should maybe add some. Non jargony clarifying language there. All right. Thanks. So the, the more that whether it's policy or statute or allies less on jargon and more on simple English is better. Thank you. Yeah, I'm not seeing any hands so can continue please. In section five. We create a new crime. This already exists. It's called aggravated assault. If you do something illegal and cause death or serious bodily injury to someone, it's aggravated assault or it's murder. There, this is a duplicate. I'm not sure what its point is other than to make a statement. And so I would urge the General Assembly to shy away from making a statement, especially as it relates to responding to something that did not happen in Vermont. This just strikes me as over politicizing an issue that we really need to focus on and driving a wedge versus being productive. And I'll just leave it at that. Video equipment. As I've testified previously, it's unnecessary as we're on the precipice of signing a contract that actually may have deleterious effects on our ability to negotiate with a vendor that kind of boxes us in. So I would suggest striking it. But at the same time, it doesn't. Other than potentially costing the taxpayers more money, there's no downside to specifying that we deploy these in the state police. Relative to policy. I think there's a lot more work that needs to happen. And I would not suggest codifying when cameras are used. I'll just give you a couple of examples. As it's currently written. There's a direct conflict with constitutional law, both in a federal level and in Vermont and when we're allowed to record people without their permission. And I don't know if you officers find themselves in places like public restrooms. I don't know that Vermonters want cameras on in public restrooms when we're in there. So a, again, this is a, I go back to some of my testimony a week or so ago. That directing the implementation of best practice. Is the right balance here. Not. Not specifically articulating what the policy should be. Not only because you can, the policy has to evolve. Sometimes on a weekly basis, we're making modifications as best practice evolves. And as we learn more, not only from what's happening here in Vermont, but on a national nationally. But because there are unintended consequences like conflicts with the judiciary and some of the things that they've laid out in terms of privacy considerations. And then there are unanticipated things like walking into public restrooms that you in a, in a rush to try to get something out the door, we will not be able to vet thoroughly. I'm commissioner. Okay. Can you please talk more about the conflicts with, with federal law and constitutional law? Sure. One example, we can't enter a house in Vermont without, and record without getting permission from the people who are there. So we have to say, do you, is it okay if we record this and we come inside and so let's create a scenario. It's, it's today, there's no one to record. And it's on the outside of the house, the house is 94 degrees or it's January and it's 12 below zero. And you're trying to speak with a, what doesn't matter. I guess, let's pick a domestic violence victim. And you need to go in the house and they say, no, I don't want you to record. Well, now you've got a statutory overlay that says you have to record and you've got a case law overlay that says you're not allowed to because they have a constitutionally protected area that that would be an illegal search. So that's one example. There are a number of others. Thank you. Tom, Representative Burdick. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I'm going to assume that if there's a warrant, you can probably record or would it have to be specifically spelled out in a warrant that may happen, that it could happen or will happen? We would normally put that we would write that into a search warrant to record and take photographs inside a property. But if there's someone there, when we execute that search warrant and we're wearing a camera, we still have to comply with getting consent to record them inside. Huh, okay. I didn't see that coming. There's a pesky couple of constitutions in play that give us the parameters around which we we operate in the overwhelming number of circumstances. Yeah, we've said that many times in this committee that pesky constitution, but you know, it's in place for a reason. So. Martin. I think Selene was before me. I'm sorry. Selene. Order order. But my question is about body cameras. I've just been reading a lot about the case for and against body cameras through a lot of different lenses and this statutory provision aside, Commissioner, I'm wondering if you could talk more about the goal, the goals that you have for the implementation of using body cameras that you said is already in the work. Yeah, so to clarify where we're at, we're in final negotiations with a selected vendor now and funding is in place. The body cameras are not a panacea. There is no panacea to what happens on the street. And actually, I should take this opportunity. I keep neglecting to do this because there's so much to cover for anyone who has not spent a shift in a police car somewhere in Vermont. I cannot urge you strongly enough to go do that, particularly in places where the call volume is more substantial in our small cities in some of our larger towns. It is essential to see how things operate on the street and the scope and depth of the challenges that Vermont faces as you're making these kinds of policy choices. So with that said, cameras are not a panacea. They are one tool that helps to create transparency. In some cases, clarity. In other cases, not as much. You've all seen body camera video that's shaky and out of whack or the cameras on the ground. Well, the officer is not or the officers on the ground and the cameras in the air, one or the other. It is just one more contemporary tool to create transparency in the most visible arm of government operations, which is policing. And it supplements other video, which in more urban areas is more common, but it is incredibly common to have video of law enforcement operations that's taken by third parties or surveillance cameras, historically dash cameras, and now increasingly body cameras. So I think that's the best description. Is it going to solve anyone problem in its entirety? No. Is it going to create additional challenges? Yes, including the privacy challenges that we're talking about today. But I do believe that we're at a stage we're at a stage where cameras are like any other critical tool that police officers carry on a day-to-day basis. It's something that we're not too far away from officers saying, hey, I'm not comfortable going out on the street because my camera is broken or my camera battery is dead or something along those lines. It's an essential piece of 21st century policing and transparency. If I could just ask a really quick follow-up question. So I'm really hearing you talk primarily about the goal of transparency, which I'm happy to hear. But I think there's also some research I'm seeing that says that body cameras may in some instances actually increase arrests, prosecution, and guilty police. And I'm wondering if that look, do you see this as just another tool for police to also get the job done or is the or is the goal for DPS primarily that transparency piece? That's a great question. I don't actually think in Vermont my experience has been that we've seen the opposite. You may have clearer evidence on certain kinds of cases and whether that results in more guilty pleas. I don't know the answer to. But in many instances it actually de-escalates this scenario. People who are not influenced by some other force like substances or something else often, not unilaterally, but often will de-escalate when they know they're being recorded because they don't want that captured and plastered all over the news or social media. To be clear that I was looking at was not, it was not localized data. It was from like actually international studies even. Yeah and those studies continued to come and I haven't looked at a use of force study with body cameras deployed recently but the most recent ones I'm aware of that are a couple of years old showed dramatic decreases in the amount of force used and in large part when you then go back and unpack the, you can actually go into because Vermont is so small when you look at that you can look at who force is used on and I know it's going to surprise you to find out that sometimes it's the same people over and over again and repeated encounters but sometimes those folks, the amount of times that force is necessary decreases because of body cameras and the fact that they're being recorded and they become a little less combative or belligerent as a result. So that's a piece of the puzzle. I think there's an oversight component for police officers. That's a piece of that puzzle as well but by and large I think the national experience with cameras has been has been positive. Not uncomplicated but generally positive. Thank you very much. Martin your hand is down now. I'm sorry was your question answered? Yeah I'm fine. Okay and Natter. Thank you. Commissioner quick question and I apologize if you've already touched on this but regarding section six can you talk about the cost of storage because I know that that is something that's been brought up in the past and right now would the way it's written being rather broad and basically recording almost everything that the officer is doing would storage and the cost of storage become an issue? It could that's a great question. The cost of storage has come down exponentially. The cost of units has come down exponentially but they're still expensive and the ongoing software as a service and cloud storage is the bulk of the cost. I would have to go back to our numbers and the estimates that we put into our negotiations to see whether there's an impact. There is an impact the question is how much but again as a piece of policy I don't think that that is going to work. As I mentioned there are conflicts in a variety of places so again I would urge the the General Assembly to direct the implementation of best practice policy but not to go line by line and and say what that policy is. It would be stale as well the draft you have would be stale immediately. Any draft that you might try to create in its wake would likely be stale within a few weeks because we're constantly changing the key policies to stay current. Thank you. Great thank you. I'm seeing any other hands. Okay thank you. Anything else commissioner? On 219. Yeah I'm just looking at the senate amendment to see if there's I think it's it's more intent than anything. I think I've addressed most of it. I'm going through the questions. I think I got most all the questions I wrote down while the committee was talking I think I addressed. Okay I do see a hand up Ken and then committee members I'll ask you before we adjourn to go to the floor if you if you do have any other questions. Ken. Good morning commissioner thank you. This bill are we making it so difficult that law enforcement is putting their lives more at risk. There are some components of some other bills that you're looking at that I do fear are going to create potentially decades of confusion as we wait for case law to evolve particularly with the the creation of a statutory overlay for the use of force. So I'm happy to get back into that a little bit further. You know I'd stop short of saying it's going to put people's lives at risk. I think it will put it'll put a lot of different things at risk and at and with more question marks I guess than the known risk because it's really difficult to predict exactly what's going to happen. But you know there are many areas where we've got to make immediate progress and the last few weeks have provided an opportunity to accelerate that progress and modernization that we've been talking about for years and have even put a variety of strategies on the table in January for consideration. So important to balance you know there's a few fragments I think that have been floated that are are frankly more political than they are operational they're not really going to do much for Vermont their response to things that are happening in other places in the country and while I understand the desire to respond to those things there are many things we can do here in Vermont including the 10 points that we've put forward in addition to the modernization strategy that we talked started talking about in January all of those things many of which go way beyond what's being discussed in legislation are things we need to act on now not let this moment pass so that I know that doesn't answer your question directly but it's a long way of saying you know I think there's a few things that are on a page right now that are either unnecessary or potentially hazardous but there are more things that aren't on the page that we've got to do so I go back to my suggestion which is the the power of this body is to direct us to make progress in certain areas you don't always have to spell out exactly how that progress needs to be made but put a timeline on it and not only tie it to grants but I would say tie it to any state support for your operations at all no academy no training no basically we're just going to neuter your ability to operate if you don't comply with best practice in these 10 key areas and potentially beyond that so so I want to be perfectly clear a couple things I think I think first of all I like your 10 points that that you brought up I think that's critical one of my biggest concerns about this whole thing is by you by by legislator not letting or putting more restrictions which some need to be don't misunderstand me but I feel that we could be putting more innocent people bystanders whatever at risk because there could be more of an altercation of of different things happening that's one of my big concerns I think you've already touched on it that people are going to resist arrest they're resisting more arrests all the time now when the anxiety and stuff takes over the body people do crazy crazy things and that's a concern that I have and and and and a question I just really want to ask because I know everybody's for time but are we rushing a lot of this legislation too fast I think there's a couple pieces that are rushing in response to wanting to be on the map of you know whatever national publication says these states did x and I want to be really clear we are firmly in the camp of embracing oversight embracing more restrictions really on or more parameters around how law enforcement operates on a national scale and to the extent necessary in Vermont it's how you do that we've got to find the best mechanisms to do that it's not a question of whether you do it it's how you do it and again I think there is a framework for doing this that can yield really positive results for Vermont and without creating uncertainty and I think there's a couple of areas that are again we haven't really gotten to yet with the exception of this new criminal penalty specific to law enforcement which is is just it's just not necessary it's called aggravated assault spent on the books for decades but there are a couple of others that that are not right in my opinion not ready for primetime are going to create more ambiguity and confusion potentially again for decades while courts try to figure out what certain words mean then we have now which is a very well constructed constitutional standard for the use of force it's how we create policy from that is the area of opportunity that we've got and I think the general assembly is in a place where you could direct that and create more strings tied to that that would really be meaningful thank you sir Martin yeah real quick if you uh commissioner if you could send that your 10-point plan I guess we call it to to our committee assistant so we could have it posted that would be appreciated certainly uh which assistant sorry to Mike Bailey got it okay thank you on that I would say both because I saw uh representative Copeland Hansa shaking her head yes yeah all right both yeah thank you thank you so much Andrea Hussey can put it up on the gov ops committee page as well thank you got it okay any other questions and when I say committee I mean both committees we're one committee for now right now uh I'm not seeing any hands Sarah anything you'd like to add or I want to thank the commissioner for being with us and and urge you to um to send someone who can help us again this afternoon uh where our agendas are evolving rapidly as we adapt to when legislative council is available and we do have two bills that we're trying to get through here today and tomorrow so we would really appreciate having uh having your participation in all of these conversations so thank you great and I would like to echo that as well um and to folks who are quite you know so to speak in the room um we're going to testify I'm sorry we we didn't get to you um but we will uh this afternoon and I think it's helpful for everybody to hear the questions and and testimony uh moving moving forward so thank you everybody and I appreciate your flexibility and uh staying staying here and and uh I know we are on the floor so I will uh adjourn and we will go off record