 Welcome to the Vermont house government operations committee. We are meeting to consider the bill h 48 that was introduced and referred to our committee earlier today. This is a bill that that has had a great deal of time and attention paid to it as we are trying to very quickly get some certainty out to our municipal entities about how they can safely. Attend to their annual meeting business during this pandemic so we are going to meet right now until noon. And then we need to break it noon for for folks to go to caucus and to attend to other duties. And then we will come back as scheduled this afternoon, recognizing that that there may be some uncertainty with the house floor schedule this afternoon. So we want to try to get through this as quickly as possible. So first I'm going to ask Tucker Anderson to walk us through the bill. I don't know if you want to share screen or if you'd like one of us to call up the bill and share screen or if you just want us to be able to see your, your freshly shorn face. And we appreciate you being with us. Thank you and good morning for the record Tucker Anderson with the Office of Legislative Council. I'm going to share my screen and start by walking through h 48 is introduced. And if there's time we'll move on to some general questions that have come up since the inception of the bill and try to work through some of the general answers. So let's test my technological competence here. All right. The first section of the bill that we're going to move through details the legislative findings intent and purpose. This is going to provide some background framework for the operative provisions of the bill, and T up those operative provisions in case there is a need for legislative interpretation around them. There are two general findings in the bill. First, that the continued spread of COVID-19 has the potential to jeopardize the health and safety of Vermonters were voting at the 2021 annual municipal meetings. That despite some of the work that this committee, the House and the Senate did together in the fall to pass Act 162 concerns persists around 2021 annual meetings. In particular, that in municipalities that choose to apply the Australian ballot system to their voting general law will still require that voters apply for an early absentee ballot. Or otherwise that the municipality provide polling places. And to refresh everyone's recollection Act 162 was the act that permitted municipalities to convert through vote of their select board to the Australian ballot system for the 2021 annual meeting. Additionally, there are many municipalities that want to continue their custom of conducting annual meetings using floor votes. The intent here is to protect the health and safety of Vermonters while allowing voters the opportunity to participate in annual meetings, and that second part really tease up why the operative provisions were designed the way they were. The purpose is first to permit municipalities to move the date of the 2021 annual meeting to a date later in the year. Second to permit municipalities to mail out 2021 annual meeting early voter ballots to all active registered municipal voters. And third to authorize the Secretary of State to order a permit supplemental elections procedures related to these provisions. Section two contains the operative provisions of the bill. I would note that starting in subsection a first these are temporary provisions that apply to the year 2021. And a second important thing to note about that lead in in subsection a is that it is setting aside any law to the contrary. A point of confusion that has come up is that this applies additionally to municipal charters. This is setting aside any contrary provision of law that is contained in a municipal charter or general law. The first operative provision a municipal legislative body may vote to move the date of the municipalities 2021 annual meeting to a date later in the year 2021. Second that the legislative body may require the clerk to mail out ballots to all active registered voters in the municipality for the annual meeting. The third piece here is specific to the town of Brattleboro. The town of Brattleboro is the only municipality in the state that holds its annual meeting as a representative annual town meeting. And subdivision three here permits them to do so through electronic means in 2021. The fourth subdivision provides authority to the Secretary of State to permit as applicable alternative elections procedures that supplement and relate to any municipal authority under this subsection. So again, it allows them to supplement and permit alternative procedures relating to these subdivisions and the authority contained within some examples to help clarify what that might be. And of course this does not mean that they will be used but they are examples that may have come up in the past, creating ballot collection stations, allowing clerks to begin counting ballots in a window proceeding the annual meeting, or potentially permitting drive through collection of ballots. These are some of the supplemental procedures we're talking about. Subsection B, we have a bit of a saving clause here. In any municipality that moves the date of their 2021 annual meeting, municipal officers that are currently in office shall serve until the annual meeting and until successors are chosen. This makes sure that no terms will expire if the municipality moves their annual meeting date to later in the year. And for some reason there is a charter provision or a piece of general law that specifies a specific date when officers shall take office. And an example of that that comes to mind whenever this is discussed is that all officers of an incorporated school district are mandated to assume their positions on July 1. It's very specific. Subsection C provides that for any election procedure that the secretary of state orders or permits under the section that the secretary shall also adopt corresponding procedures that ensure that the public can monitor polling places and the counting of votes. I have to stop sharing hairs that I can click on the next tab. Give me one moment. Are there any questions that have come up so far? I've lulled you all into a false sense of security. Representative Higley has a question. Yeah. And again, you know, I haven't been involved with this bill up to this point, but one of the questions I've got is when it talks about allowing the municipalities the time to move the date later in the year. Is there an end date to this? Is there a must stop date to this, which I don't see in the bill? H48 does not contain a deadline or a must stop date as you put it. That was discussed during the early discussions around this bill, and ultimately the decision was made to leave as much freedom as possible with the understanding that there are very serious practical limitations on how far out a municipality can push this. So there are a lot of other deadlines associated with the annual meeting date that will not be extended. And some of the more serious ones that were discussed early on are those related to education property tax liabilities to the state. Okay, thank you. I guess if I could follow up, maybe. So is there is there going to be any word that goes out to municipal elected officials regarding that saying that, you know, you need to make sure that you understand there are other dates that are critical in your making a decision as to when to hold your town meeting. H48 does not direct any state agency or group to put out that word, but you do have quite a few groups in our virtual room right now who could potentially do that and you could coordinate with them. Okay, thank you. I think that would be very important because my select boards are pretty much up in the air as to what's being considered or what they can and can't do. And anyway, I think that would be helpful. Thank you. So I'll move through a set of frequently asked questions that we put together. Okay, can I just interrupt you for a moment to say that Mike Marwick he has his hand up. Was that a cue for me to ask my question. Madam chair. Well you have your hand up so I wanted to make sure we called on you and rep Higley if you're done would you lower your hand. Sure. Not sure if this is the time but it's a question I raised yesterday that at least I want to put in a parking lot here. What I'm hearing from the three towns I represent is that there's confusion about the idea of meeting signatures to get a ballot question on the town meeting warning. I don't have any candidates, but for instance, should this or that nonprofit be allowed to operate as a without paying tax for the year, or should this question be put to the voters about whether the town supports an idea. In the past, they've had to get X amount of signatures. My understanding from last session was that this had been waived, and that select boards do have that. But I'm not clear about that. And I'm looking for clarity I see Jim condo shaking his head. I'm looking for clarity that I can bring back to my select boards on this concern. So, thank you for putting that in the parking lot. I will meet you there. It is the last question and the frequently asked questions document, but I will quickly note that what was waived and act 162 was signature requirements for candidates for local office. No waiver of signature requirements for petitioning an article to be added to the warning at the annual meeting those signature requirements remain in place. However, there are other avenues for an article to be put on the local ballot. And when we get to the bottom of the FAQ, we can discuss that. And I'm assuming that there will be lots of input from others who are with us. The first frequently asked question that came up which is, which municipalities are authorized to use these alternative annual meeting procedures. So the bill authorizes broadly palities through their municipal legislative body to use the alternative procedures in the bill. The general definition of a municipality includes a city town town school district incorporated school or fire district or incorporated village and all other governmental incorporated units. So we can say broadly that any incorporated unit of local government has the authority to use these alternative annual meeting procedures. If a municipal legislative body votes to move the date of the annual meeting. Is there any requirement for meeting to be held on the first Tuesday and March. So this question did come up a surprising amount. If we vote to move the annual date do we still have to meet on the first Tuesday and March and do something. Whether that is open a meeting and then hold any questions in the meeting until the later date. The answer is that the temporary authority that is provided here does not require the legislative body or the voters to gather on the first Tuesday of March, if it has been extended to a later date. No need to meet. Does the bill automatically extend other municipal deadlines. And there is a two part answer to this. First, if the municipal legislative body votes to move the annual meeting date deadlines that are tied directly to the annual meeting date will be adjusted as well. And an example of a deadline that is tied directly the annual meeting date is 24 vs a section 1681 a one, which requires town and auditors to meet 25 days before each annual town meeting to examine and adjust the accounts of all town officers. If the annual meeting date is moved to a date later in the year, the auditors would be required to meet 25 days before that later date. This deadline moves with the annual meeting date. It is not likely that age 48 will extend or suspend municipal deadlines that have specific dates established by statute and that do not directly reference the annual meeting date. As an example, 32 vs a section 5402 sub b3 automatically triggers the calculation of an interim homestead education tax rate. If a district has not voted a budget by June 30. That June 30 specific deadline is set and this bill would not extend that express deadline. Who is responsible for holding the annual meeting and budget vote of an incorporated district. If the member municipalities have different annual meeting dates. This was the most frequently asked question. In general, the district is responsible for conducting its own annual meeting and administering a district election or budget vote. And this answer is going to be a bit general because we have many kinds of districts in Vermont. And prior years incorporated districts have been able to coordinate with their member municipalities to administer district elections or budget votes on their statutory annual meeting date. Under the temporary provisions in age 48 member municipalities may have different annual meeting dates. Municipalities are going to be able to set their own meeting date. It's going to be a decision that may end up staggering the meeting dates of member municipalities. The law directs municipal officers to assist an incorporated district with all or part of an annual meeting or budget vote. The incorporated district and its officers are responsible for conducting the meeting and the vote throughout the district. So it falls to the district and the district officers unless there is something else that directs municipal officers to assist. The deadline by which a municipal legislative body must vote to apply the Australian ballot system to the annual meeting. So under Act 162, any municipal legislative body can vote to apply the Australian ballot system to its meeting. Neither age 48 what you have in front of you or Act 162 contain a deadline for the vote of the legislative body. However, general law sets the deadlines for the preparation of local election ballots and an example of one of those deadlines 17 vs a 26 to 81 a requires that local ballots shall be prepared not later than 20 days before the local election. If you want an idea of the scheme of deadlines associated with ballot preparation, I encourage you to ask those that are here from the Secretary of State's office. Does age 48 suspend signature requirements for petitioned annual meeting articles. No, age 48 does not suspend signature requirements for those articles that are set by 17 vs a section 2642 a three a. However, any voter may ask the legislative body of a municipality to place an article on the warning on the legislative bodies own motion. The legislative body of a municipality has the authority to add an article on its own motion to the warning. This is one of the avenues that is available. There was discussion around potential conflicts of law here, tension between the potential inability to gather to collect signatures and the requirement in place for wet ink, as we call it physical signatures on petitions. In those discussions, it became clear that there were voters and groups in municipalities that had come up with alternative ways to collect signatures mailing out petitions posting petitions. And that in many municipalities, it was the case that the legislative body was going to on its own motion, add articles to the ballot. And age 48 does not contain a waiver of the petition signature requirements. That is all I have unless you have more questions. Thank you for listening to my monotone for so long. I'm sure it's a great way to start the session. It feels like we never left. Thank you Tucker. Samantha Lefebvre has a question. So I'm not sure if this is also the right spot to ask, but a couple of my towns all have the same questions. The first one would be is if you know this goes out with the secretary of state be able to override what the town wants to do it would that be part of that the secretary of state has the power to change some of the stuff. And also is in person voting or gathering going to be forbidden. If this is passed. And then is there a penalty or what would the penalty be if the town is not apply. Sorry to take a second to write down the questions. I'll start with the secretary of state peace the powers that are being granted the secretary of state to are to supplement the alternative procedures here. And to support them. There is not authority within that subdivision for the secretary of state to override or suspend the authority that is being granted to municipal governments. Second, can you repeat the question about in person voting. If this is successfully passed will in person voting be forbidden. So, or gathering so I know the town of Orange does all floor votes, and like, and so would they be forbidden for gathering. I would not be forbidden, unless there is an ongoing prohibition on some sort of large gatherings. The purpose of one of the powers that's being granted here is to allow the municipality to move their annual meeting date to a later date in the year, when it may be for people to gather and hold their floor votes. If you go back to the purpose and intent section one of the things that's covered there is that the General Assembly is acknowledging that there are many municipalities that want to continue their practice and custom of meeting in person and holding floor votes. So that's one of the interests that the General Assembly is trying to protect here. And you asked what is the penalty for what's the non compliance with if they didn't, I think it was more of if the secretary of state could say, you know, could shut down like let's say they wanted to remain in person. Let's see if that does occur. I guess they, I guess I should have asked for more clarification, but I think they were going off of the basis. If it was forbidden to meet in person. What is the penalty for them, if they do so. Moving away from, you know, we resolved in the answer to the first question that the secretary of state under the provisions of this bill doesn't have authority to override the municipality's decision. I'll highlight. It's not a penalty but it is a risk. One of the risks of not appropriately conducting your annual meeting is that you could have a challenge to one of the votes or decisions that's made. That's something that municipalities always have to be aware of. And here when they're choosing what they're going to do for this particular particular annual meeting, something that may want to pay more attention to. And you have the secretary of state's office in the room. I'm sure you could speak with them connect them with your municipalities and try to figure out a safe, non risky path. We haven't had an opportunity to really do some of that baseline committee testimony about how all of these parts fit together. I think I would just ask Tucker for clarification that a challenge to to a meeting that was held, perhaps in person when, when there was a state of emergency would be made by a citizen of that town. That's not something that that necessarily a state entity would would be able to do. I would say that would be the most likely source of a challenge. Yes. Great. Any questions for Tucker on either the FAQ sheet or the bill language. All right, feel free to put your hand up if you do. And I'm going to go now to Secretary of State Jim condos. Thank you for being with us. Thank you also for spending time and and bringing your staff members with us so that we could develop the language. In order to allow municipalities to safely hold their annual meeting so share your thoughts please. Thank you. Thank you representative Copeland answers with me today is will sending our director of elections and Chris Winters, the deputy secretary of state. I will be brief, and then I have to get off because I've got another call that I have to make. So I'll let them pick up where I leave off. First of all, let's just back up a little bit for a little bit of background here act 92 and 135 were the two acts last year in the spring that allowed the secretary of state's office to adjust as we went forward with the election season, recognizing that we had the election and I think at that time, nobody thought that this would go beyond the end of the year. But I think what what's happened since that and by the way, we had two overarching goals that we were following. And some of you have heard me say this before but the two overarching goals were one to ensure that we protected from the Monters right to vote and to protect the health and safety of not only our voters, but also our town clerks and our volunteers who help at the polls, our poll workers. So those were the two premises that we used for every decision that we made. And as the year went on. And frankly, it was a very successful election, it was probably are one of our safest and most secure elections that we've ever held. We had a lot of work that we put into it. Literally, we Vermont has the smallest elections team in the country. We have five people in our elections team. I think my deputy myself and chief of staff were made honorary members of the elections team, because we were literally working six and seven days a week, 1012 hours a day, starting back in April right through to November, and actually since November. This has not ended for us. Going forward, we've had many discussions with the LCT with town clerks with legislative leaders with the administration about what do we do about town meeting day. Now, of course you guys in act 162 did, or the previous legislature did take care of signature verifying signature, I'm sorry, signature requirements for candidates, and not for articles of for the ballot. And that was determined because there was already law that allowed for that to occur. So we've, we've got these pieces in place, but what we didn't do through no fault of anybody is, is decide what to do with town meeting day as it as it started the fast approach. So I'm just going to give you some quick dates. Town meeting day is March 2. We have to do a lot of this stuff. Before that time, the deadlines come upon us very quickly. For instance, ballots have to be prepared by the towns by Wednesday, February 10. That's in statute. The last item has to be published by January 31. That's the end of this month. Candidates filing to get on the ballot have to be have to file by January 25. The last item is the article petition filing. So if there's an article that wants to be added to the ballot. That is January 14. Well that's next week's folks, and we knew we recognized as we were discussing this with Tucker with with legislative leaders with the administration that we didn't have a lot of time so we had to come up with a bill as possible that would be as brief as possible to try to get something through that we could all agree on so that we could move it as quickly as we can. This literally has to be on the governor's desk sometime next week. And we took steps as as representative Copeland hands this is aware, we took steps to add some funding for reimbursements to towns. The joint fiscal committee just this week met and approve $2 million to come to our office. It was funded by VLCT by legislative leaders by the town clerks to help us reimburse town clerks and their various towns and entities around the around the state. I will ask after much discussion was a 1.5 million. The joint fiscal committee felt it was it was prudent on their part to add an additional 500,000 so we now have $2 million that have been deposited from CARES Act money CRF money to ensure that we have the funding available. I'm going to tell you, we don't know if that's enough. If we had added money into this bill. Then it would have had to make at least two more stops would add to gone to have gone to the appropriations committees in both House and Senate. So it would have held up the ability of this bill to move forward in a timely manner. We are ready to take this upon ourselves to work to meet the requirements that the towns have. Obviously, probably the best solution is to move town meeting day further out to provide a little more funding a time timeline for the towns, but we know that that's not going to happen across the state. I also want to bring up the different types of Tucker did start to bring up the types of districts that are out there, or what we call municipalities. You have town and cities departments, you have school districts, you have water sewer, even waste districts. Some of those are local. Some of those are multi town. And for instance, with some of the waste districts, it could be 40 to almost 50 towns in a waste district. So the, well, what we are going to encourage. I don't know that we commanded it, but we, we are certainly going to encourage all these municipal entities that want to take advantage of this to try to consolidate and coordinate their deadlines and their, and their, their ballot can be on one ballot. If we have 14 school school districts and all the towns in the state. And then we have solid waste districts and water and sewer districts, because they're multi town start to want to do this on their own. We're out of money. We won't have enough. So it's going to be imperative that that all these different municipal districts try to coordinate and bring their, their votes together. I was a former solid waste district representative and actually vice chair for the chicken and solid waste district. We had 18 towns in our district. And we always put it so that we could have one vote. One ballot question on the individual ballots. Just trying to think what else our office, and I think that you've got a couple of town clerks on this call as well. But our office does not have administrative responsibility over cities and towns or any of these municipal districts. It's just provides advice, we provide interpretations of law, we let them know what, what the requirements are. And that really is, is the extent of it. And so we're actually taking a further step here. And there is no authority at the Secretary of State's office that oversees and regulates the city's towns and municipal districts. So, with that, I'll entertain any quick questions. I think representative Mariki your, your question about articles for the ballot. It's one that we've, we've had. There are other options. There are also options that someone in order to get those wet signatures that they could email out a petition to a list of folks and have them sign it and then mail it back in or drop it off to get the required number of signatures and I don't know what the size of your towns are but I know there are some towns where in order to get a ballot question they only need, they need less than 100 signatures. So I think, I think there's ways to get to that. We're not ready to take this to the next step where we allow for electronic signatures. That's starts to bring us into a different realm and a different area of possibilities that have to be looked at requirements, basically. So I'll stop there, answer any questions and, and then I'm going to have to go and Chris and will can fill you in from there. Secretary condos, I don't see. Oh, I see rep Merwicky, but I just want to remind folks that we do have some committee members who need to go to caucus at this moment. So if it's a quick question go ahead and otherwise we'll come back to it at one o'clock. All right, Mike. Could be a question for Tucker to is this session law, or will this go in the green books. This is session law. Thank you all for your flexibility this morning I apologize for the for the up and down but it's the nature of the business and we will see you all back here at one the same zoom meeting invitation that got you in here we'll get you back at one o'clock and we'll pick up where we left off.