 Good afternoon, Mr. and Mrs. Vermonter and all the canoes on the Connecticut. This is the Vermont State Senate Committee on Institutions. We are going to be talking about a document that will be explained in a moment that is an agreement between three specific parties. And I'll begin by saying I'm Joe Benning. I am your host for today's activities as chair of the institutions committee. We also have Senator Ingalls from Essex, Orleans, Senator Mazza from Grand Isle, Senator Parrot from Franklin County, and I see Senator McCormick is now joining us from Windsor County. By way of a little bit of background, there is a memorandum of understanding, otherwise known as an MOU. By the way, I'm speaking down at the grassroots level just so that anybody who is brand new to this committee or has never been involved in this process before happens to be watching us on YouTube to bring you up to speed. There is a document called a Memorandum of Understanding that has to do with the capital complex security. Specifically, this memorandum of understanding is between BGS, its buildings and general services, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Capitol Police, as well as security for the judiciary in this state. We have, in addition to our normal committee members, we have Representative Scott Campbell joining us. The issue is that Representative Alice Emmons, who chairs the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions, and I happen to serve on the Capital Complex Security Committee, which involves all the particular players in Washington County who may be associated with providing security to the capital complex. This memorandum of understanding is going to be explained by our legislative counsel, Rebecca Wasserman, and I think, Becky, I'm going to leave it at that for the moment and turn it over to you to talk about what is supposed to be there, what's not there right now, and why we need to resolve this and hopefully be done with it by the end of the month. Before you start speaking, I will say to all the players, my intention is to have this resolved before the end of the month. I do not envision it to be a one-day discussion. I do anticipate hearing from everybody who wants to speak on it and then have Ledge Counsel working on trying to commit a final draft to all of you for approval. That's where we are. We're still in the beginning stages of learning what this is all about, so with that, Becky, I'll turn it over to you. Good afternoon, everyone. Becky Wasserman, Legislative Counsel. So I should start by saying that I have not been involved in the negotiation or the drafting of it. What I wanted to go through right now with the committee was the statutory requirements surrounding the MOU as well as I pulled up some statutes that are just related to the jurisdiction of security within the capital complex because I think that is just helpful context for this conversation and why we're sort of having this conversation. So I prepared a document that I can share if I have... Oh, I do have the ability to do so, so I will bring that up now. So are you all able to see that? Yes. I'd enjoy having it bigger. Yeah, I'm trying to... There you go. That's better for me. Thank you. So I tried to put in this document the provisions that relate to both capital complex security as well as the MOU and I just highlighted in yellow the ones that specifically deal with the MOU and you'll see they're actually pretty general. They don't have specifics about what needs to be in the provisions of the MOU. But first in title two, section 70, this is the statutory section related to the role of the Capitol Police Department. So the MOU is actually mentioned under this section of law and it's about the coordination of the Capitol Complex Security. So it says here that the Capitol Police Department shall provide security within the state house and assist the commissioner of BGS in providing security and law enforcement services within the Capitol Complex pursuant to the MOU and it cross references the provision of law where that requirement for the MOU is provided. And that cross reference is to 29 VSA 171 which is in the sort of BGS section title for state buildings and under this section it's the responsibility for security. So I just wanted to provide... This doesn't all have to do with the MOU but I wanted the committee to have some context for how the jurisdiction is divided up in the complex. So generally speaking you'll see in subsection A that the commissioner of BGS has responsibility for security of all state facilities and then there are some exceptions listed in subdivisions one through four. So one is it's clarifying that where there's a state owned or state lease building that house the house is a court plus one or more other functions that's under the jurisdiction of BGS. When there's a building which functions this is subdivision two exclusively as courthouses that security is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The space occupied by the Supreme Court is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and then in subdivision four in the state house security is under the jurisdiction of the Sergeant at Arms. Subsection B says that BGS has to come up with a security plan for each facility under their jurisdiction except for those sort of exclusions in that list. So the Supreme Court comes up with plans for for their facilities in the Sergeant and Arms for the state house but they all are supposed to work together to come up with these security plans for the facilities. And then moving on to page two this is in that same section of law about responsibility for security. This highlighted language is what specifically lays out the requirement for the MOU. So this says that the commissioner of BGS the Sergeant at Arms and the court administrator shall execute an MOU to coordinate the provision of security plans and law enforcement services within the capital complex and that MOU shall incorporate any existing agreements related to the provision of law enforcement services or security in the capital complex and then there is a definition of the capital complex which I've included below. So it's pretty general except to explicitly say that it has to incorporate any existing agreements related to law enforcement or security in the complex. Becky can I stop you here for a second? The actual definition of capital complex has a definition of the actual boundary lines. I'm not looking at a Montpelier map am I safe in assuming? I put one here. Very good thank you. To try to uh so there's a yellow line here that doesn't that's not actually part of it but um um uh so I think it it starts at let's see the uh Juncture of Taylor Street um sorry did you have a specific question about? Well I just wanted to make sure that both Aiken Avenue and um forgotten the other side. Yeah is that Bailey Avenue? That could be. So I think I'm pretty sure this is Bailey although maybe someone can correct me on that. Okay so from the bottom of the picture the river is one border as I understand. That's right. And the um that looks like Bailey Avenue that's partly in yellow. Yeah and how far up does that go? I believe it goes up to here to Terrace Street. Okay so we're now up behind the actual stay house. Right. And on the other side we have I can't read the writing. Um so this is Court Street here uh it's it's not the greatest map but it was I think it's the one that is um attached to the commission website so uh let's see it says that crossing state street and continuing um on the extension of Taylor Street crossing Court Street at an angle to the westerly line of Greenwood Terrace so um I'm not sure where that angle is but here is Court Street. And do we know where Greenwood Terrace is? I think it might be this area but I don't know if anyone at BGS can pipe in. Mr. Chair I have a map if you'd like to see it. It looks a little different. I'd be happy to Matt when you get there I'm just trying to get a general idea and I don't know how difficult it will be to cross what Becky's now got on the screen with whatever you were able to bring up at the same time so I think I want to take this one step at a time. The idea behind my question here Beck is that the southern border is the river the northern border is apparently some distance behind the state house that's right but it does incorporate um incorporate 109 state street which is the pavilion building yeah over here on the one side and then all the way up Bailey Avenue on the other side which it would include Baldwin Street and the buildings there on. That's right. Okay so we have a general idea of where we are. Okay and then section 172 was the only other provision I wanted to go over which says that for specific to the capital complex security so it says that Commissioner BGS is responsible for all security operations pertaining to the lands and structures within the capital complex except the interiors of the state house and the space occupied by the supreme court. So I'm going to stop you again and say that I have title 29 section 171 in front of me subsection C reads that the commissioner of buildings and general services may delegate the responsibility for security to specified or at specified facilities. Do you take that to mean inside buildings as opposed to the front lawn of the state house? So I I think that that is oh I think that the lands I have to pull I have to read that section but it seems like in the section of law that they're making a distinction between lands sort of outside versus within a facility so I don't I don't know if the intent there was to allow for that but I think the MOU specifically with the the sort of lands and structures in the capital complex is meant to address that where BGS can coordinate responsibility. I have a similar reading I'm just a little curious as to how the MOU seated BGS's responsibility by stepping one step further than what the statute actually says and I'm I'm thinking that's probably something we're going to need to try to clear up at least with the players to the MOU to make sure everybody's on the same page whether it needs a statutory fix I guess we can also talk about. So I don't think it's seating there their responsibility because MOU is specifically just about coordinating security it is not it is not delegating responsibility. So there's a difference between those two words okay. I mean that being said I think the the folks in law enforcement on this in this meeting can can speak better to how they you know coordination might involve having you know one entity take over in certain situations and that could be part of an agreement but I don't know that under the statutory language that it's necessarily delegating full responsibility for security in the MOU. Well when I was reading the current memorandum of understanding under the term jurisdiction says the commissioner hereby conveys upon the sergeant of arms and capital police the authority to act in his or her stead to enforce any rule regulation or guideline promulgated by the commissioner for using the outside land and grounds of the state house. I understand that is the intent I'm just questioning whether given the statutory definition that technically steps a little bit beyond what the statute says. I know that's the subject of conversation and where people need to be eventually resolving this issue. I just want to make sure the statutes are in line with allowing that to happen. I think that that is an area that can be clarified in the statute if the MOU is meant to be more delegating authority then then that subsection F could be clarified to to provide for that. Okay carry on. Well that's all I had for the statutory provisions. Did you want to introduce us to the MOU? So like I mentioned I've actually not been as involved with that so I think maybe BGS or Janet or the chief sorry the sergeant of arms or chief Romy I might be the better folks to speak to it. Okay I'll pitch out this question and anybody who wants to can let me know but I'm trying to rebuild this from scratch. At some point somebody was given the task of drafting an initial MOU and the current one is dated from 2016. The statute as I understand it requires that it be updated every two years. That's my understanding of the statute and Becky I'm going to have to rely upon you for the statutory interpretation. If I am wrong in that understanding do let me know. So the statutory language doesn't include that two-year update it just has that they execute an MOU. Okay my recollection just going back a little bit was that this what there was an MOU that was in place and it had not been updated in a long time so the motivation for the sorry the 2015 or 2016 revision was to sort of address the fact that had been a really long time since it had been looked at and that I recall that the MOU that was in place was just maybe like one or two sentences previously so it wasn't very helpful for figuring out how to proceed and on who had responsibility for what situations. Just so that everybody is on the same page I have a document in my hand that's called a Memorandum of Understanding between the three entities which claims to have been updated in March of 2016. I'm sorry updated in November of 2016 is that everybody's understanding of the document that is currently in play. Anybody disagree with that? I see a lot of shaking heads yes so I'm going to assume that is the case. I also understand that a document was prepared as a proposed redraft or update that was discussed in September of last year and that the parties walked away from that conversation with an understanding that that's what would happen. I am sensing that at some point at least one party decided that was not enough or correct or whatever the case may be and another proposal was made. I'd like to get to the bottom of what changes are being proposed and who is responsible for drafting the document and I don't know who drafted the original document does anybody know that? Not seeing any positive okay Matt? The center bidding the best I could tell there's a Matt you probably ought to identify yourself first. I'm sorry Matthew Romiachi, Police Capitol Police Department. There is a previous MOU from 2000 that was it was only between BGS and the Sergeant in Arms that has looked structurally very similar. I do not know if there was an intervening document in those 18 16 years but it looks substantially similar or at least structurally similar and I don't know Janet or Commissioner Fitz might might have some knowledge about what happened in those intervening that intervening time. Jennifer if you could start by introducing yourself please. First can you hear me because my computer has a hard time with sound? Yes. Okay so my name is Jennifer Fitch and I am the BGS Commissioner. I can speak to the 2000 MOU and the 2016 MOU and where we stand today. So everything that Becky said was correct. There is something in statute that indicates that we will develop an MOU BGS between the Sergeant of Arms as well as the judicial branch specifically the court administrator and the last update on that MOU was in 2016. The two years that you're referencing Senator Benning is the within the MOU it says that it will be evaluated by annually and so that's where the two years is coming from. Inside the current MOU it basically states that you know we're going to coordinate our efforts together all three branches the legislative branch or the people that I mentioned and then we're going to coordinate our efforts and basically I'm not delegating my authority but I can request assistance from the Sergeant at Arms to help basically enforce the rules in which they're referencing mostly the state facility rules that have been established by the Commissioner of BGS and so things like request to state facilities there's a bunch of state facility rules that applies to that process so for example I could call on the Sergeant of Arms and say hey Sergeant of Arms I could really use your assistance in this particular matter on the State House lawn and the she could come and say we'll help you or she could come and say we're not but it does say you know we'll assist the BGS Commissioner and then in terms of the judicial branch it's really speaking to the Supreme Court at 109 and that basically they have authority inside the Supreme Court which which they do so again it just reinforces what already exists in statute in terms of the starts and stops on revising or evaluating the current MOU which is the 2016 MOU there was an attempt Paul McManus who was the prior director of state safety and security for BGS made an attempt in 2017 unfortunately due to health issues he could no longer fulfill his job duties at BGS we had another interim director which was only with us for about nine months and then Bill McSullis joined us recently he made another attempt to draft an MOU unfortunately I don't think that he had all the assistance that he should have been given to try to make that happen my understanding and speaking with Bill is that he shared it with the Capitol Police Chief Romiai Chief Romiai had some things that he wanted to revise Bill then sent it to the Commissioner Cole at the time of BGS in December Chris was not able to to get to that unfortunately we have a lot of priorities going on within BGS and then the pandemic hit so Janet and I have had multiple conversations about the MOU we have both agreed and committed to to redrafting an MOU which further clarifies the roles and responsibilities and I would add that in addition to the Sergeant at Arms and the Judicial Branch that we should also pull in Vermont State Police because they also plan and respond to events on the State House lawn as well as Capitol Police I do have to look more into statute in terms of whether or not we can include the Capitol Police inside of an MOU with the state that I'm not sure about but if we can't do it inside the MOU there's other vehicles that we could use but really if we're going to go back and readdress the MOU I think it's important to have everybody that again plans and responds to events that necessitate law enforcement to be included within the MOU and so I'm committed I really want to do that great work as you know Senator Benning BGS is one busy department we have our normal operations we're dealing with the pandemic and because we do so much in terms of supporting state government much of my much of my resources are pulled into that which includes bill shop in the Office of Safety and Security and and then we also have the legislative session that's ongoing as well so I'm fully committed I've been fully committed Janet and I have had multiple conversations on that and I would like to work on that MOU I'd like to pull in all the players but I'd also like to be able to do it at a time where we can have dedicated time and attention to really focus and make sure that this MOU really represents all the roles and responsibilities and get everybody around the table to coordinate that together in a collaborative manner in which is best for providing safety and security to Vermonters and everybody else that comes to enjoy the statehouse lawn so I appreciate that explanation there's a couple of things one is that the statute definitely limits the parties to the MOU and as I'm reading subsection F of 29 BSA section 171 it specifically directs BGS the sergeant arms and the court administering her to be the parties in this MOU I don't know if anybody has any objection to another entity being brought in if so please speak your piece now but whatever entity is brought in really ought to be placed in the statute as well so it's all coordinated that's where we're going to end up coming into the picture and Becky I guess the first request I would have a view is that if we can at least get an understanding of who the parties are going to be we can move on a bill to have that happen so let me ask the question is there anybody that objects to the state police being brought into the discussion and I'm looking to Janet Jennifer and Robert Schell you're also in that but Janet you have your hand up yes thank you Janet Miller sergeant arms here at the state house I don't want to minimize the state police's role and all the help that they give to us but I think the MOU already addresses the three branches of government as far as the court administrator and the buildings in general services and as Jennifer was saying we have talked about updating the MOU and unfortunately or unfortunately Jennifer wasn't at the actual commissioner to about three weeks ago or so so now that's all a good step forward into finishing the MOU I think we have to consider all the police entities are here and I'm not an expert on this but I think we all have people working for us that are actually doing the work and those are the people initially who had been out there in the front working together on how this is actually going to work with security versus law enforcement versus the mutual aid agreement that is out there for police in Washington County and I excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure if the is the state police as part of the mutual aid agreement that would be a question that I would have but I also think that when we kind of punted a little bit to the chief and Bill X Alice and also Rob Schell the reason we did that or the reason it was in my mind why it did it is because they're the actually people that are coordinating this and the law enforcement I'm not saying I didn't have a big bigger part in it because I do and I go step by step with it after it's explained to me but those are just some points I'd like to make do I hear you correctly Janet that you don't want to add the state police not necessarily but I also I also think they're represented through the administration and whenever they think that it's relevant that they should be part of the discussion or part of the planning does that make sense I'm trying to swallow all of this and make sense of it so Jennifer you had your hand up I'm curious I can't hear you for some reason I don't know why can you hear me now yes okay I'm sorry I have to have the agency of digital services fix my computer so I apologize I consider myself to be the new kid on the block and what I can just recall to you senator Benning is that I had the opportunity to sit in on unified command planning meetings for the most recent security planning event which involved sort of that week around the presidential inauguration as I'm sure many people are aware there were threats against state houses across the country during that week so obviously this rose to unified command I will tell you as an outside observer looking in I thought it was coordinated really really well I thought everybody worked really really well together but when we do unified command VSP takes the lead in unified command and so I do think that in my personal opinion whether they come become represented through BGS and they get to sit around the table and they get to be added to the MOU because they're coming through to support the BGS commissioner or whether they're not they're laid out in statute as being one of the members of this MOU I do think that they should be reflected in this MOU because they do play a really important role even when we had the event at 133 right that was an umbrella that somebody thought was a long gun VSP also responded to that event as well so VSP is a big partner for us and if we need them for additional support on the state house lawn we give them a call and they and they come to our aid so I just I guess my piece of the MOU is I believe everybody that plays a role in providing support and enforcement on the state house lawn should be represented because that's how we clarify roles and responsibilities and if there's one place where you want to make sure that roles and responsibilities are super clear it's during an emergency event right when things aren't clear things get confusing and bad things can happen as a result so all I'm saying is I think it's important that we have all the partners that do respond to the state house lawn as part of the MOU and that we clearly define all roles and responsibilities so I see Robert shells hand up and before I turn to you Robert I'm going to ask Jennifer is Vermont State Police under your jurisdiction in this case I'm going to look to Becky because that's a legal question I don't think that they are because they're they're a different agency but I I don't want to speak to that because I don't know for sure but I don't think so do you know the answer to that Becky sorry if they're included if Vermont State Police is under the jurisdiction of BGS in this case no I mean I think my understanding was that the connection with the state police would would be through an aid agreement but BGS is I don't think BGS goes to them anyway they're not they're not in statute as the ones providing security for buildings that are under the jurisdiction of BGS okay major Whitcomb I'm going to ask you to kick in in a moment but I want to switch over to Robert Shell for just a second Robert first please introduce yourself if you would thank you Mr. Chair I'm Robert Shell I'm the Director of Safety and Security for the Vermont Judiciary I'm desperately looking for somebody who's been involved in this conversation long enough to be able to tell me how it all started and how we ended up with three players as opposed to all of Washington County's law enforcement wrapped up in this MOU discussion yeah it is a good question and there's really two reasonable answers to it one is just I should speak about the judicial needs as part of the MOU quickly and again we have essentially a courthouse in the complex and we provide courthouse level security within the inside of that building and we are and I typically say we are consumers of security when it's outside the building so we are dependent on external security support and we do on occasion certainly not now request the capital police to come down when we have escalated people on the first and second floors which is not common but it's also not uncommon so our rule as the court administrator requests that we our purview is within the building as part of the MOU agreement so my history here is an interesting one in that I came over from public safety after 17 years in emergency management and home security and I worked with Janet and many of our routine team players in in multiple events surrounding planning events around the capital complex and as part of that unified command discussion there there are two ways to look at that and and Unifan Command really is an operational response classification so in Vermont we're rural state we have limited resources everywhere on a given business day we don't have enough routine resources to respond to a flash event that occurs at the state capital without bringing in many many resources and I know chief Pete worked exhaustively at Montilier to bring in mutual aid resources as far as Orleans and others over the course of that first week in January so the operational needs of the complex in terms of a unified command is something that's established near or during the time of the incident where any number of resources from state local county respond to an incident and approach the event we had multiple meetings for for quite a few years on state state state the budget and other events that have occurred that where we're able to script incident action plans which is the support document for Unifan Command and all the players have played well for years it's a seamless you know there's nothing ever seamless but everyone is coming to the table with the same mission and same support direction that we need to support you know a capital incident if anything bad occurred no maybe we it's due to our planning that's pointed out to a public that you know we were safe and secure in the capital complex area so that element of the unified approach is something that's generated as part of an operational response in terms of the MOU I think we we need to just make sure our rules are clear the existing one meets those needs the reality is if a big event planned shows up or is a flash event the amount of resources are going to be drawn from everywhere so there's not going to be a way that we can certainly list or incorporate into a specific agreement everyone's role as it pertains to the complex so um but important messages are is that the current operational response works well and it's a very much unified command approach and I think we just need to address the 2021 issues that are now before us that have dramatically changed the landscape you know in the years that I've been in law enforcement or emergency response and everything else so any questions I can ask at any time you know certainly no so as I initially read through these documents I had a general understanding that the sergeant at arms was responsible for what went on inside the stay house that you were responsible for what went on inside the courthouse building bgs has a general overall umbrella responsibility but I didn't see bgs as being responsible for people to people confrontation and I thought that that from what I had read that bgs had basically delegated that authority to the sergeant at arms in your case the judicial security branch and I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that we've now got a as I understand in a Washington County law enforcement understanding that in any given occasion various law enforcement agencies could come running and I'll use the front lawn of your courthouse as a classic example if there is some kind of an incident out on the lawn in front of your courthouse who would normally be responsible for responding to that event in the events over the summer for example where we had resident populations living on the complex area we would utilize the Montpelier police we utilize the Capitol police for those small incident responses and those could be during the business day or over the weekend that would be the typical municipal response one thought on the mutual aid agreement is that that agreement is just a resource structure that can be initiated and pointed at anything so if a train derails if a plane crashes if there's you know public discord in anywhere in the county that's I believe how that that applies chief runway I think can speak to that much more effectively than I can so and then the role of bgs on the on the complex grounds of the commissioner is certainly you know the primary source on that to best understand so somewhere along the way before I became a state senator somebody decided that three entities needed to be part of an mou I don't know if anybody has any understanding why it was limited to those three parties perhaps senator maza if he's uh he was back in 1999 I think he was a state senator I don't know if he recalls anything about this conversation I don't I know they talked about the complex many times I don't know the details about how that all well if we're going to be trying to work together to resolve this question it seems to me we all be all ought to be on the same plane as to who the parties should be because we're going to have to adjust the statute to accommodate that um I guess major I'm going to bring it over to you and chief Pete don't think you're getting out from under this conversation I think we're going to have a great time with you being introduced major I'm sorry I have a committee member who's raised his hand senator mccormick you're just so I'm going to want to know eventually and maybe it might come out and in the pending testimony which is is there always clarity as to who is the top doc who is in charge and who is answering to home in particular in hot spot emergencies you don't want some doubt about that that's just too many you know the too many cooks spoiled the broth so however many people are involved who's in charge and if that comes out in the testimony that'll be good yeah I see Janet raising her hand I see chief Pete nodding his head as a defense attorney of 37 years let me say I've been very impressed with how you guys actually all play in the sandbox at just the right time but the uniform command structure seems to be and correct me if I'm wrong that the highest ranking officer at any given moment is usually the one who is placed in charge and I'm perfectly happy to stay out of that conversation altogether but it seems to me if you're going to have an MOU you really ought to have some kind of language that reflects that chain of command so to speak and so I appreciate your question dick I think we were identifying some things that are going to require a little bit of tweaking here both in the MOU Mr Chairman you and I share having been rock and roll musicians at one time and we have all dealt with bands where the drummer thinks he's running the band yeah until the lead singer walks out Becky so I think I think the language and statute is trying to address what is in the mutual aid agreements by saying that it's it's going to incorporate existing agreements related to the provision of law enforcement services so I think that was sort of a nod to those agreements in place and that command structure of how that is normally done it's just not as explicit in the statutory language right at the end of the day I would like to have two things accomplished one is that we figure out who the parties are supposed to be in this MOU and the other is we have some understanding on who's going to be drafting initial language so that we're not having drafters at cross purposes Jennifer before I turn to major Whitcomb I just have a question and maybe it's for Bill McSales too when I read Bill's proposal and this is dated January 28th of 2020 I saw in capital letters something called state safety and security is there such an entity that exists because it doesn't appear anywhere else other than in that letter and I don't know whether there was an intention to create such an entity no can you hear me I just want to make sure okay you can hear me sorry a couple of things so the office of state safety and security is an office that falls underneath buildings and general services so really and remember this is an excuse but Bill was new in his role when he was asked to draft that right so really this is an MOU between BGS and specifically the commissioner of BGS right between that the sergeant of arms and the court administrator that's specifically what is outlined in the 2016 MOU and I believe what's also outlined in statute in terms of the MOU in terms of whose responsibility it is to draft the MOU I would say it likely falls under BGS because again the the state house grounds and all grounds right and buildings that fall underneath my jurisdiction are my responsibility both for operations and maintenance and also safety and security so I'm certainly welcome to to having assistance and if if assistance is being provided I'm happy to do that but I do think that jurisdictionally again the state house lawn falls underneath BGS just like all grounds do and just to clarify I believe one of the reasons why it falls underneath us is because we are responsible for mowing the lawn shoveling the walks salting taking care of all the gardens and the trees so there's a lot more than just safety and security that goes along with grounds right and then we also have the request to use state facilities process as well so a couple of things I don't know who does your drafting but one of the things that's going to have to dovetail off of your drafting is our changing of the statute to reflect who's going to be in this document and I don't know whether whoever does your drafting has ever coordinated with our legislative council before I think we can give Becky direction to coordinate with whoever is on your end but I don't know how that works in reverse so I'm going to suggest Becky if you're willing to do that and you tell me if you can't I would suggest that whoever is involved in BGS drafting coordinate with you in order for us to make sure both the statute and the MOU are lined up with each other. Jennifer I have two questions for you one is there a difference in an MOU between planning for an event and reacting to an event that wasn't planned for because I see BGS's role in the first case being pretty understandable the second case I'm not as comfortable with. That is an excellent question Senator Benning and you are right there's both planned and unplanned events and to Janet Miller's point and I agree with her you can't you can't plan for every single event inside of an MOU and I completely understand and support her on that I do think however that you can plan at a high level in terms of how it's going to be implemented at the time so whether it's planned or unplanned I think we can address both of those inside the MOU and to your point earlier when we talked about unified command and again I go back to the 133 incident to your point it is in many ways sort of who is the highest level of authority at the time of the incident and so so you are correct that we can't address everything within an MOU but I do think at a high level we can address both planned and unplanned events in general terms and then to your point in the current MOU it talks about us coordinating right coordinating communication coordinating safety plans and I think that in my mind that's another area that we can improve upon even outside of the MOU being more proactive with all the different parties that respond to the state house lawn throughout the year whether we're doing a tabletop exercise or something else again to make sure that whatever we have planned for right when we try to implement it how does it work I'm gonna do an after-action review and how can we improve upon it so I think there's work to both be done within the MOU but I also think there's work to be done outside the MOU as well okay so my second question to you and I think it's already been answered but this entity called state safety and security is not something that should be classified as a party in the MOU it should be the BGS commissioner okay major Whitcomb I'd like to hear your opinion about the state police becoming involved in an MOU of this type well thank you for having me major Jim Whitcomb state police I think it for for us it's a reflection on our on our past involvement with our partners here these are positive experiences for the Vermont state police we are certainly we're blessed with having a good relationship with everyone involved in response and they're all here on the call so we do see ourselves as being available with specialized units and personnel and expertise to come in and be part of a mutual aid response and what that looks like can be anything from a small response pre-planned for something that we know about which requires maybe of our bomb squad to come in and do a review or a canine review of an area all the way up to a major incident response that is reactive and we're we do both and we've also been involved in planning for response like we did last month so for us this has worked because of the the partnerships that have been developed developed over time you're going to put me on a spot I think to ask whether or not we should be involved in the MOU let me just say that this is only the first day of this conversation so if you feel like you need to reflect on that a while or talk to other folks that might be over you perhaps that might be a good opportunity to say you don't need to answer that question now but I definitely would keep that in mind for the next conversation I appreciate that time I do think that it's important for me to highlight that the team works right and and I imagine that Montpelier police department also will have some comments on that also who I was going to turn to next chief Pete I don't know if you've ever actually testified in a committee before but welcome and you've been listening all this time so I assume you have some thoughts about whether the Montpelier police department should be involved in this MOU conversation or not uh well good afternoon everyone my name is Brian Pete I'm with the Montpelier police department I just would just echo that does you know again with in regards to reactive and proactive or or off planning Montpelier police is going to be there anytime called there are a lot of other intricacies in this like for example we share the same radios with you know we dispatch for the Capitol Police Department we have a very good relationship with Bill McSales with Major Whitcomb with Rob Schnell so we're going to come be there anytime necessary um so you know the only thing I would just say is just whatever the clearly defined roles are going to be um it they are what they are I have no interest of uh of basically my only interest is just the safety and the security of the complex the people the city I don't have to be in charge of it I just have to I just need to know uh what what parameters that that that folks want us to operate in based on who's going to be responsible for what if you became involved in an MOU would that be something that you would have to clear with the town authorities to allow that uh your participation and signature on that document I would definitely go back to uh to my boss Bill Frazier um and then however he he is going to communicate those issues with uh the the the city itself because then it also could boil down to issues of liability concerns so um again in emergency situations we all come but when we're looking at issues that that may involve liability or responsibility or injuries or those those things uh we have to we have to make sure that we have those those clearly defined roles but yes we're we're uh Bill Frazier is going to you know very supportive and and we're ready to go um I'll ask both you and Major Whitcomb in the event that something happens on the capital grounds in a phone call is made to one or both of your offices and a sergeant from each of your departments shows up on scene and is the highest ranking officer who takes charge of the conversation from that point chief if you have uh you want to go ahead I think it's just based on the based on the scene in the in the understanding of who was first there and what type of resources are being used so from the most part it you know it's a very uncomfortable answer it's not fair but it it's it depends and um whose resources the area uh you know are we looking at a consolidated so if it's if we're responding to a to an ongoing incident then it's going to be a collaboration it's going to be who's ever calling the shots of that particular incident because somebody may there may be somebody from state police that was first to arrive on the scene and has more information and they can make the more decisive decisions as to who needs to go where how we're going to surround or contain the incident who's going to go in to deal with it if it's an active shooter say um but then as time continues on and the scene still goes that's when the brass quote unquote shows up to screw everything up and so so that's where we need to make sure that you know when when we talk about unified command who is going to we're looking at the allocation of resources and the collaboration so that unified command is what resources do we have available have we thought of this have we thought of that I think we're all in agreement this is what we should do next that's when we have the luxury to make those decisions so commissioner this is part of my thought process um I am sure that if an incident happened on the state house grounds and a sergeant from the Montpelier police and a sergeant from the state police showed up at the same time that someone from your office would not try to supersede their activity at that point so I'm I'm kind of seeing a difference between a planned operation in other words where pre-planning takes place for a given event and command in control of that kind of a conversation versus command and control over a an emergency situation and I'm only making that distinction because it's possible we want to divide those two issues in an MOU I'm just rolling that through my head and asking you to think about that going forward we are going to come back and have more of this conversation Janet you've been listening for a while I'm anxious to hear where your thoughts are at this point well thank you senator benning I for the the uh six years that I've been sergeant at arms the same subject comes up over and over again about who's in charge in an incident command and through the capital complex security group for lay people as myself who aren't involved in law enforcement who aren't initially a part of incident command it does work and I don't think egos really get in the way when everyone's working together because if this if chief romii starts it and then the tactical team is called in then of course you know you hand it over they hand it over uh so I don't think it's necessarily a problem with law enforcement they know how it works and I think it does work but if anybody would like to tell me different I'd like to hear that but the other thing that I just wanted to point out uh senator benning is when things happen on the statehouse lawn you know where does that who is that reflective upon and I think it's reflected upon the statehouse and the legislature now the governor has his office in the statehouse and a lot of people think that he's here in the statehouse all the time but this is the legislator's building and we welcome the governor all the time but when it's the lawn do we want to differentiate like whose territory it is it's it's everybody's I understand but is that something that the committee might want to clarify the the posture of the lawn is reflective is it reflective on the legislature or or is it everybody together and when you talked about I'll just go back to the end everyone on the mou is representative from the three branches of government that seems to be the same question could be asked though if you're over on the north bank of the wanuski river um the same question pops up who is actually in charge of that area of the capital complex the last thing I'd like to see happen here is that any mou designed screws up the ability of all these agencies to be able to work with each other and the fact is they've done a very good job of doing that but somewhere along the way somebody in the statehouse decided three parties had to be part of this mou I don't have any idea why that came to be but since the statute also uh suggests it should be looked at from time to time and we're in the process of trying to do that I want to make sure a we have the right players in the conversation as signatures and b it doesn't screw up whatever ability all these agencies have to work with each other um I guess I'm going to leave it at that for the moment chief rome I haven't heard from you recently I can't imagine you're not sitting there thinking about something I'm just thinking about when the covid test results for my three kids are coming in this afternoon so they can be released from quarantine and I no longer have to work from home and try to juggle uh elementary school education uh for them as well um senator to your uh to your point about why and and I I'm not sure that I can adequately defend this next statement so take it for what it's worth but in the informal conversations I've had with some former members of the the senate and the house I believe that the three uh the the division if you will came from the staunch nature of vermont's separation of powers idea that um you know the the sergeant and arms would not direct security functions in an executive branch building and vice versa there's also the added complexity at least in the state house of the enforcement of legislative rules and capital police function as a deputy sergeant and arms to be able to enforce those rules um and I am nowhere near the pretty to talk about when rules trump statute but there are a a few cases out there and um it's um those those become some complex discussions um I would just note that uh you know in the last four years we've had a really good process put together um a lot of it most of it predates me but but the the various parties at the table bill is has not been a stranger to that planning table uh we currently have a 10 page general public safety instant action plan drafted uh rob shell talked earlier about the plans and the documentation and we have one of those drafted it's in a shared online resource so that we kind of know the general idea of where we're going to start on incidents or or events uh there is a difference in the planned events versus the uh incidents that that tend to pop up um I would also note there's a a fundamental difference between security and law enforcement activities not that they don't cross over but um you know there's some limitations to where we can act in a security standpoint and there's some limitations where state security can there's some limitations to where they can act uh moving into the law enforcement arena um I will say that uh despite the fact that I think we pulled it off pretty well there the planning process for the these last events in January was actually a deviation from the norm um where uh we had a lot more people at the table than we usually have for those uh those things and um you know I'm I'm hopeful in the next month or so we're going to kind of kick around some things that didn't maybe go as well as they could have uh leading up to those those events um I would also just note that you know as a law enforcement officers we we have a duty to act and we we've had some experiences here in the last uh six or eight months that lead us to think that we're still in for quite a quite a ride in dealing with things that are going on out on the state of the house long um with all props a major welcome I don't think he wants uh to own any more of it than he has to uh out there because there was a there's a time period I think where uh Chief Pete and I were out there almost every Saturday for a month and those things are continuing to to uh uh to develop and you know quite honestly uh the the parties that play in the sandbox or I mean we've gotten good at it because we've done it so much um as to the MO use itself it incorporates by reference the Washington County Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement which uh the two state agencies that are part of that are the Capitol Police and the Vermont State Police and that drives the deployment of resources uh both into and out of the Capitol Complex uh we've been out of the complex to other law enforcement agencies uh not only Montpelier but Berlin and Northfield just in the last year so um we want to continue to be part of that team you know Vermont is nowhere near uh blessed with law enforcement is maybe we need to accomplish some of those goals in the uh in the unified command stuff I know Rob talked a little bit about it earlier but typically what you see with that is um you know unified command doesn't mean there's a group of us leading by committee it still ends up with uh one typically one person out of each um discipline making decisions for the group and then what we usually look to when we have the state police down to assist is they bring a lot of those specialized units so it's not um an instant commander's job to tell the bomb squad how to go deal with the package it's their job it's that instant commander's job to point the bomb squad at the package and say do your thing um you know with the the overarching incident goals of mine so I think as long as we you know continue to work uh cooperatively as we have I think we're going to be in a good place I think we have a a good and improving relationship with Montpelier police as we go forward uh we're we're comfortable working with them I do think we're looking for some clarity on responses within the complex and I know chief Pete and I've had some discussions about that Bill and I've had some discussions about that you know we want to know what we're responsible for so that we have an opportunity to um be responsible for them we don't want to get um you know I was reading chief's son the recently departed chief of the US Capitol police was reading a letter that he posed um or that he sent out a couple of days ago and you know I kind of feel for the guy because he was responsible for something and was not given those assets and tools to to meet the to meet the challenge uh despite him asking um several times and several days in advance so um you know we'd like to have some clarity on what we're responsible to do and um what we can depend on other agencies to do for us um and in our place so the state house lawn seems to be a central focal point for question but Matt I don't envision you having the same question about being over on the North Bank of the Winooski River am I safe in that assumption? If if we have to go to the North Bank of the Winooski River to handle a problem and it's within our ability to do it we'll do it typically that um well and it's funny you mentioned the North Bank of the Winooski River there's a um what is that thing called over there Brian's the pocket park um that is a a um a concentration of issues in the summertime and uh Montpelier has uh gladly not figured out that that's in the capital complex yet um but you know if they if if we need to go over there to handle something we will we've handled things in every major building in the complex within the last 18 months or so we've been to to issues in that sense in every building so I'm hesitant to call it a battle line but is there some um place in particular right now that is not clear enough as each party looks at it is there a conflict about we'll take the state law as the prime example um is there something that needs to be talked about and resolve well you know senator you mentioned earlier when we were talking about the um the map in the um of the complex and I I sent the one that we had over to Denise so she can share with you as uh as you want it but the um the interesting division or the way that statute reads Governor Davis Avenue that is next to the pavilion is outside of the complex as is the pit parking lot where a lot of legislators and where the supreme court parks and where um uh administrative officials park um it's not that we mind going over there but you know if we're if we're talking about the capital complex if that's our charge and statute to assist the commissioner buildings general services with the delivery of security and law enforcement within the capital complex if that's what we're basing our mission set off of um you know that area may need to may need to be uh re-looked at as far as um the state house lawn you know the MOU conveys the authority to enforce rules but we have always taken direction from the commissioner about whether or not to enforce them and we did that the the big thing that comes to my mind was back in 2018 when we had the three-day four-night in or four-day three-night encampment on the lawn with Extinction Rebellion the decision was made not to enforce that section of rules by the commissioner and we're fine with that we just want to understand um what and when and I I don't know that I don't know that that waiting on the call is necessarily the right thing to do we we had to parallel incidents late winter or late fall early winter this past year where we had confrontations between groups on the state house lawn one of them we had planned to be there because we knew that the event was coming um and the other one was a spontaneous event and they had two extremely divergent outcomes even though it was largely the same uh the same people on both sides for each event so I would I would just bring that out it's not our intention and it's certainly not my desire to take on any other responsibility because we are we're we're we're struggling with what we've got now but we want to be that law enforcement resource for for the area for the complex uh as we can deliver those services senator maza you know mr chair I think I think we're uh treading in territory that uh it seems to be working so well I don't know why we want to get into something that's going to separate of all the years that I've been here I never heard any issues that were I think uh Montpelier police department steps in when they're supposed to the state police come when they're supposed to the state house does what they're supposed to and if we start separating this and this is this responsibility we're going to get in a mess here that isn't going to work I if there was a problem I'd like to solve it but I don't even see a problem I think we're trying to look at something that that we're trying to correct a problem that's not there I mean that's simple to me but I don't know maybe that's what I'm looking at I don't know why we want to get into that language that's going to mess it all up because the minute we dictate he's in charge or she's in charge or they don't charge uh we're going to get in the mess and I I boy if it ain't broke why fix it well for some reason or other um they haven't been able to agree and I'm trying to get to the bottom of that and see if we can't make that happen who hasn't had to be able to agree I haven't heard that yet today I have an understanding that there was an initial proposal that was backed up by another proposal and the parties haven't sat down and signed an agreement and I think that's where we are right now which is why we're having this conversation so we need an agreement I guess what you're saying I don't I I hope someone steps up and say we need an agreement because I don't sense that maybe maybe what am I missing here who wants to hear that disagreement was brought to our attention and asked us to try to resolve it and I want to make sure I mean is that a good source and is it a legitimate source that brought this to you oh yeah and boy I wish they stand up at least two of them are on the screen with us right now so I want to make sure I get to the bottom of okay all right that we've got some responsibility Janet okay maybe I can clarify just a bit uh senator maza I think you know when the Capitol Police responds to an incident they respond when they can as far as like not leaving the state house vulnerable so if we had two officers on or like the incident that happened at 133 I think at the time there were three two two went over to 133 so we're not leaving the state house vulnerable but my understanding is that if something happens on the lawn then it goes out over the radio and some police that one of the police officers can correct me if I'm wrong but more than one person is picking up that call so if Montpelier police is out on a call somewhere and they don't have immediate coverage it's not their responsibility to be here first I don't think if there's an officer in the state house that could go out and address it to me that's one thing that I feel is a little bit of uh like a hole in the MOU or an understanding is that and Jennifer you can reply to this or not when that call gets made do you have a problem that if Capitol Police responds or if Montpelier is not here first I just no I mean when there's an occasion when there's an incident on the state house lawn it's it's my hope and my expectation that whoever can respond as a law enforcement entity respond as as quickly as possible regardless of who they are right is that the same uh what do you have the same idea about that in one of your in one of the buildings for in the area in the complex if something in the DMV is going on and we can spare a person in the Capitol Police or I'm sorry the Montpelier Police is not there at the at the moment yeah I mean absolutely if there's an incident that's occurring regardless of who is the law enforcement entity that is available at the time we would hope that they would help us respond case in point we didn't have an incident but we needed support one day in DMV and DMV has law enforcement officers they happened to be in the building at the time and they were willing and again it wasn't an incident but they were willing to support us in what was going on in that moment and that was somebody had a gun in the in the DMV building and we wanted to approach that person and just let them know hey you know state rules say you're not allowed to have a gun in the building please remove it but when we did that you know we wanted to make sure that we had DMV enforcement with us as part of that conversation because you know you don't know anything about that person right and so um so we just felt that we we we wanted that support in that moment and it worked really well but that's an example Janet where I don't have a particular agreement with DMV enforcement but they're happy to help us when we ask them and so I just want to echo what everybody else has said here today which is and again I know I'm the new kid on the block so take take it for what it's worth but from the new kid on the block my perspective is that it does work really really well so I am I Janet I have committed to you and I and committed to this committee that I'm happy to take the MOU and and if there's areas where we need to further clarify roles and responsibilities I am completely dedicated to doing that at the same time I just do want to echo everyone and say that I think we do a really good job working together um and again that's from my perspective you know I can't speak for everybody else that's on I think it's there because like I said the state police we only call them on certain issues because they don't they're not available in in the community they're they're busy elsewhere so uh but between the local and the capital police the state police on special missions they call them but uh they're not downtown right away I mean they're they're doing your thing on the interstate and everything else so I don't know I'm just worried about trying to have too many policies that we're going to mess this whole thing up so I wish I knew specifically who we're trying to address here because I'm not comfortable with setting laws if someone calls the Montpelier police department with a complaint what are they supposed to call the state police next so they call I mean whoever gets the call I would say I would assume it would address the issue I don't know well sir if I made like one of the confusing points for me is as I'm getting here and I'm trying to learn more the more the the processes it's it's it's if something happens on the complex is the Montpelier police department the first to respond or is it going to be the capital police so is uh so if we don't have the resources available right we're getting we're getting the priority calls so if the call is coming in to us the capital police here is about on the radio and then it's like who's going to dispatch so that those are things that we have to amongst ourselves figure out is to is to what that primer is going to be but from my observation I think that process has been working really well and I think that I mean I don't want to speak for Montpelier PD and capital police but from what I've seen you guys work really well together and when the call comes in to your point Chief Pete it's who can respond most quickly you know who has the resources and who can respond most quickly to whatever type of event is occurring so I also just want to say thank you and acknowledge all of the law enforcement entities that do come to our aid at BGS we are very appreciative of all of the support that you provide to BGS so I would be remiss if I didn't say thank you and show my appreciation for all of the great work we all do together and for all the support that you offer to BGS so thank you very much I just want to make sure that I said that today so if I can try to keep the the kumbaya tune going I'm sensing that what we've got here is an MOU that ought to remain limited to the three parties it currently has unless Chief Pete or Major Whitcomb tell me otherwise at some point my guts are telling me that we need to make clear the MOU between BGS judiciary and the Sergeant at Arms I'm also sensing that perhaps the conversation is narrowing down considerably to a more thorough conversation about the statehouse lawn and perhaps the two side streets that run alongside it I could be wrong on that but that's what I'm beginning to pick up on so I'm going to ask Denise to schedule us again next Thursday you're all going to be invited to come back if you choose to Major Whitcomb Chief Pete I don't think it's necessary for you to be involved in that conversation unless you really decide you want to be knowing what's happening but you're welcome to come and join us if you want I'm sensing that Senator Mazza may also be quite correct we don't want to screw up something that is working and my goal here is to make sure that everybody walks away with a familiar understanding of what's going to be in the next version of the MOU with that I'm going to call it for the afternoon I promised the committee we were going to be out by three and Robert Schell I should also say to you you're going to end up having to be a signatory to the MOU that comes out if you have any additional thoughts along the way please don't hesitate to let me know and we'll try to accommodate that conversation the next time around thanks Senator happy to do that the court administrator Pat Gable ultimately will have to sign off on this but she and I work in tandem so I'll certainly be keeping her informed okay so for now committee hang on we're going to let all the witnesses go and Denise will cut out of YouTube and thank you all very much for coming today and hopefully we'll keep up the good work