 Good afternoon. You are in the Vermont house government operations committee. We've been spending some time in the last week or two on each 196. And we took a look at the language in this fairly straightforward bill yesterday and so I'm glad to have Bryn here with us and Bryn if you want to just just to make it official, tell us what this bill language accomplishes and we'll take some questions from there. Good afternoon committee for the record Bryn here from legislative council. I just sent Andrea and updated edited draft of the amendment to 196 I'm hoping she posted that and if you'd like I can share my screen. So you can look at that version. We all have secondary devices so we can follow along. Great. So Andrea, did you have a chance to post that draft one point two. I emailed it to the committee so I'm going to go post it now. Thank you. Okay, so you should have, you should be looking at draft one point two from today. And I don't know if you looked at the draft one point one or not if the committee has looked at that. Have you looked at one point one yet. We did. Okay. Okay, great. So this just adds a little phrase. I'll show you the difference. But this is really pretty straightforward language it's session law adding to new positions to the agency of administration. So it provides that those positions are permanent and classified and authorized in fiscal year 2022 a policy research analyst and an outreach and education coordinator. And it specifies that the positions are transferred and converted from existing vacant positions in the executive branch. And then here's where the addition is is online 15 to support the work of the executive director of racial equity. Just to make it perfectly clear what these positions are for. And then subdivision C sets out the appropriation, which is $250,000 to fund those positions coming from the general fund. And then on the second page is the effective date which is on passage. And that's that sweet and simple questions for Bryn on the words on the page Bob Hooper. Thank you madam chair I apologize for getting to the meeting late I was encumbered by some malty guy who talked a lot. I bring a lot of the conversation that people have been having with me is the independence of this whole office and structure, and having worked in state government for a long time I know it's not very plausible to have a standalone like a board or something like that in this context is, is there in any way something that that makes it more independent under the secretary of the agency than one normally would have. And I know that that's a really poorly framed question but it seems to go to the issue that I've been hearing a lot from people about. So are you talking about the position of the executive director I assume you're talking about that position. I am, I am but in the context of adding to. I mean as things grow people look more and more for supervisory structure I don't know if it's not germane having just had plenty of germane conversations. But if you have an opinion at some point in time I would mind hearing it maybe not in the middle of this particular. Okay, I'll take my direction from the chair, if you'd like me to respond or not. So we have come back to this question a number of times about whether, whether the racial equity director would be preferable in a standalone independent situation versus embedded within administrative agency and I would prefer not to take up that question in the context of this bill. This bill is putting statutory language around an appropriation that was called for in the governor's governor's recommended budget. If we wanted to get into the larger question of an independent racial equity director in Vermont, we would want to do a full analysis of all of the perspectives on on the benefits or drawbacks of having an independent commission versus one embedded in in the governor's administration and, frankly, I don't think we want to slow down the appointment of these positions to allow for time to talk about independence. And I, I appreciate that madam chair, I know that she has had conversations about it and it's it just seems like all of a sudden there's a much bigger deluge of information coming in from the public about that to my mailbox anyway. So I withdraw the question and thank you very much for your tolerance. Thank you. Yeah, I definitely agree with the chair about this issue. I mean, if you look at the statute and the duties of the executive director of racial equity, almost all of those duties rely around coordinating with various agencies within state government. I think we would have to rewrite the entire statute. If we were to make this an independent person, an independent agency in the state so I mean that that would be a lot of work and I would want to have testimony as to why the current operation is not working. Before we moved in that direction. Thanks. And Rob you had your hand up. Sorry madam chair that was by mistake I was hitting something else on my iPad. Well I know you won't be shy if you want to have a chance to ask a question you just jump right in there again. Okay, so other questions for Bryn on the words on the page. And I think by by moving this bill forward does not foreclose a conversation in the future about whether there is an advantage to an independent entity but but in keeping with the timeline of approving the governor's recommended additional positions. I'd like to try to move this today. Sam Lafave has a hand up. Sorry, thank you madam chair. So I know that we had asked previous people that had testified where these positions were coming from and I feel like maybe that was a little bit of a squished answer so can you say clarification again that I understand that we keep saying that they are coming from polls and the executive but where are they coming from a fresh pool, are they coming from the internal pool or from the outside. And can you help orient us to how this all works perhaps. So I don't know exactly where they're coming from this is the, this is the language that I received from the executive branch I didn't receive any specific information about what positions, where the positions are coming from. But I will say that when you set up new positions you do it one of two ways you create new ones or you transfer existing positions that are not filled. So I apologize that I don't have any more interesting information for you. Madam chair if I may, I just feel that we have asked some questions of others I've testified and I understand the importance of making sure that this is out in the timely manner. But I just feel that maybe there's some or it might be I'm wrong but I do feel that some of the committee questions have been asked and that some of the questions weren't directly answered and it might be the same situation where they just weren't had the information. I understand that Miss hair is specific to the language she is presenting to us. But I'm just not sure that all of our questions have been answered. So Bryn can you enlighten us who you were communicating with in the administration to, to build this language that is fleshing out the request that they made. I'm sure so I primarily communicated with the member of your committee representative Colston, who I believe was in touch with members of the executive branch that were responsible for putting forward this suggestion. And there's something else I wanted to say but I forgot hopefully it'll come back to me in a minute. Thanks, Rob. Yeah, I'm thinking back on this and I believe that either I was involved in or part of a discussion where these two positions, even though they're new positions they're coming out of the current position pool. We're not necessarily increasing the size of the number of state employees by positions but because they're coming out of vacant positions that are already there that helps Sam. I think it would be helpful in the larger sense for us to have a little state government positions 101 seminar for the benefit of all of us who've learned it and forgotten it but also for members of the committee who are new. But if this is language that has been recommended by the administration, I'm going to take their word for it that this is, this is how they would like to accomplish adding these positions to the racial equity director's office. Another thing I was going to say which is that because the bill contains an appropriation I imagine that it will next go to the appropriations committee, which will receive, and they tend to receive the finer more granular details about where the positions are coming from in my experience. Yes. All right. How if you are ready, I would entertain a motion. So moved. I have a discussion about each 196 draft 1.2, which is posted on the committee page. When you're ready how I shall begin the roll call. Gannon. Yes. Marike. Yes. The Claire. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Colston. Yes. Anthony. Yes. Yes. The fave. Yes. Higley. Yes. McCarthy. Yes. Copenhagen's. Yes. The hotel is 11 00. Thank you committee. One other item on our agenda this afternoon and that is to come back to Tucker Anderson with respect to the charter amendments. Specifically the aspects of the Montpelier charter on all resident voting that differ from the Winooski Charter so Tucker I know you all were in the middle of a conversation this morning so if I haven't characterized where you left off or what you were expecting to answer you just go right ahead and answer the question that you were left with before lunchtime because. I explained to the committee before that I listened to the morning committee work on my lunch break but I couldn't quite get through the entire hour. I didn't carry your attention the whole time. I was listening to you at two times speed but I couldn't get through the whole hour in the 30 minutes that I had. Did it change the tone of my voice at all when. No it doesn't. It's quite wonderful. All it does is eliminate any pauses that we might put in between words. The committee left off was that the Vice Chair and the committee members had requested that I send along the ledge Council memos concerning the constitutionality of non citizen voting. I sent the most recent version which was from May 2019. It's a 16 to 18 page memo including appendices, and it covers the constitutional authority for the General Assembly to determine the qualifications for local elections and local voters. In addition, I sent along some materials that Betsy, myself and Michael Churnick dug up of historical references to statutes that allowed greater pools of voters than were contemplated by the Vermont Constitution. So there's a little bit of history there that you can go through. And additionally, a memo that was prepared for Senate government operations on this charter amendment by Peter teach out. So those were the primary research materials that were used to discuss the constitutionality of non citizen or all resident voting. Thank you Tucker. Who's got questions. Peter Anthony. Thank you madam chair not so much a question but it seemed to me that the Montpelier version is in at least one respect less controversial because of the specificity of the idea of resident. Obviously, the Winooski's got a bunch of other issues as we spoke over that prior to the lunch hour that will take a lot more time to parse out. I'm happy with the way the Montpelier one is right now, frankly, but I, you know, don't want to be overbearing about it. Robert Claire. Thank you madam chair. So my my sentiment is is that we're, we're quickly coming to a point where we're going to vote on this which I totally support in that. I remember being part of this conversation last year, quite honestly as well. And I don't think that there's any question about the constitutionality of it is it is constitutional. I think that there's also some history there that shows that it was allowed to happen in the past as well. But for me, I struggled with this one, some in that. Well one for me it's kind of a two part process in that if we do have people who have applied to become citizens. And because of the process they are denied the ability to vote. I do struggle with that I think that if they've gone through the process and because of no fault or the wrong they're not able to. But the other part of this for me is that there are people. And if I recall correctly one of the witnesses from Montpelier was a woman who has been living in Montpelier for many many years. And she was currently a citizen of another country and if I remember correctly, it was a country that did not allow dual citizenship. So therefore she couldn't be become a US citizen and not give up her citizenship from her former or all the country she was from. To me that's different in that she's making a conscious choice, whether she gives up her citizenship or not. We couldn't go vote in her country. We do in the US allow dual citizenship. So, for me it's life's about choices. So, unless somebody can assure me that this Montpelier charter changes addressing those issues. I will be voting no on it, somewhat reluctantly because there is a part of this that really does resonate with me as far as people shouldn't be penalized if they're in the process, but if it's going to allow folks that have made a conscious choice not to become citizens, then that's their choice. And the other part I guess, while I'm thinking here is, you know we're talking about people looking on voting on vote, voting on local issues for instance like Montpelier if I recall correctly. Montpelier is a unified school district, they are Montpelier and Roxbury. So, if these folks are given the opportunity to vote, they could not vote on school budgets, because it's a unified school district. So, I just see this process fraught with all sorts of logistical issues. And there's some budgetary concerns as well because we do have a statewide education funding formula that these things all play into. So, I will be voting no, but for those reasons not because I don't conceptually agree with them if they're legally going through the process and just haven't been able to get through it yet. Thank you Madam Chair. Bob Hooper. Thank you Madam Chair. 17 years in some Scandinavian country as I recall but I have a question I guess for Tucker I, I am under the impression that we do not allow dual citizenship and that our oath of citizenship has something in it that basically says renouncing all others. You know, would I guess fall to Rob's point at some degree but frankly we're the country that landed the free home of the brave and everybody's welcome. I don't think at this level that granting the right to vote no matter what the reason if you're paying taxes you're living in a community. I support this fully and I'm proud to stand behind it. John Gannon. Ford. Thank you. I just want to remind people that none, but and John Odom sort of testified about this that non non citizen voting has actually been the norm for much of the United States is history. Non citizens voted in every presidential election until 1924. So, I mean, this is not something that's new to this, this country, and it's not new to Vermont, Vermont allowed non citizens to vote before it even became part of the United States. So this is part of our history. Unfortunately, because of nativism and racism. And I don't think we should continue with those types of policies that are racist and nativist in nature. Thanks. Mark Higley. Yeah, I object to john's clarification that for some reason if I or anybody votes against this, we're somehow racist. I'm getting tired of that mantra regardless of of what your position might be. And I will not state all my reasons for not voting for this but I will not be voting for this. Other committee discussion. I just want to apologize to any member of the committee I was not saying they were racist or nativist I'm just saying the change in policy in Vermont, and the United States was driven by racism and nativism. When those changes were made. So I apologize to any member of the committee that thought I was intending to consider them a racist or nativist. Thank you john for drawing that distinction that was my understanding of what you said as well. And I think it's good of you to point it out. Mike Marwicky. Just to clarify, one of the highlights here, we are looking to approve people to vote only in municipal elections right nothing beyond that. This representative Marwicky that is correct. It is strictly city elections and the Charter amendment calls out that non citizen voters are prohibited from voting in federal state county special district or school district offices or questions. So they're not allowed for to vote for example in the unified school district votes and they're not allowed to vote for water and sewer district votes things like that should strictly be city elections and questions. Thank you. Mike McCarthy. One thing I just wanted to point out is that unless things are very different there than they are in my municipality, the school district and other district ballots happen on a completely separate ballot so the, I think there was a little bit of an implication in the comment about there being, you know, budgetary logistical issues the elections and I think we heard pretty loudly from the clerk that, you know, they had thought through the ramifications and that they were pretty minimal in terms of having the two separate checklists and being able to accommodate the non citizen voting so I'm definitely going to be voting yes here. Okay, any other committee discussion on the Montpelier Charter, Sam LaFace. Thank you madam chair, and I guess I'd like further clarification while they may not be voting in the unit, you know the unified school districts, some of the questions within the city, maybe opting into money's questions correct. I think it is an issue on the city ballot which would include budgetary items at the city's annual meeting then non citizens would be able to vote on them. I'll cost him. Thank you madam chair. I will be supporting this bill, and I was struck earlier by a comment made by representative Mary Cooper and and her reason for supporting this is because it builds community. And that's a good thing for our democracy. Thank you. Right, any other committee discussion or questions for Tucker on each 177. Montpelier Charter amendments. All right, I would entertain a motion. So move manager. Thank you Rob. I appreciate it. How when you're ready. We need you to unmute. I shall begin the roll call. Gannon. Yes. Ricky. Yes. The Claire. No. Cooper. Yes. Colston. Yes. Anthony. Yes. We hope ski. Yes. The fave. No. Higley. No. McCarthy. Yes. The vote is eight. Three. Zero. Thank you all.