 On the agenda is a walkthrough of H-244 relating to authorizing the natural organic reduction of human remains and we will welcome Katie McClendon from Ledge Council and for the first time this year and good to see you, Katie, wherever you may be. I don't see you on my screen, but that doesn't mean anything at this point. Good afternoon. It's nice to see you. There it is. Are you ready to go? I sure am. Yeah, nice to see everyone. Okay, that's yours. Let me ask, do you prefer to have the bill pulled up on the screen or do you prefer to just use your own devices to see the bill? We generally put it up on the screen. You like it on the screen. Okay. That works for everyone. Okay. Let me get ready to do that. Before I do that, let me just give you a little introduction to this bill. So as you'll notice, this is quite a long bill and the main purpose of the bill is to incorporate the concept of natural organic reduction, which means the conversion of human remains into soil at an accelerated pace into our statutes. However, if you've had a chance to read through the bill, you'll notice that this does more than just that. This also, in a lot of respects, is maybe a cemetery cleanup bill. There's a lot of terminology that was inconsistent and as the bill was being put together, there was an effort made to have the more consistency across the terminology. So this bill draws from three different chapters in statute. Two of them are in the same title, Title 18. Two of them are in Title 26, which is our professional responsibility chapter for obvious reasons because we're kind of creating a new type of profession that would need to be licensed under the way this bill is structured. And because we're making changes across different subchapters and chapters, they were probably written at different times and therefore they use slightly different language that needed some cleaning up. So you'll see that a lot of the bill, we're making one or two changes in a section and those changes aren't necessarily related to natural organic reduction, they're related to cleaning up that terminology. And I can give you a few examples. One is that the term burial ground is used interchangeably with cemetery. Burial ground is not a defined term in statute unless we're talking about a natural burial ground, which is a defined term. So an effort was made in this draft to use the word cemetery instead of burial ground or that appears. Another example is there was a lot of discrepancy across the three different chapters, whether a crematory was crematory, a crematory establishment, crematorium. So there was an effort made to use one consistent term throughout the three chapters at play here. So you'll see that that is some of the change that's happening. And I'm happy to flag those for you. And if you feel like where those are kind of bogging us down in our walkthrough, those more technical changes, I can speed up. So if there are no questions so far, I will pull up the document. Can we, can everyone see the document? Yes, I'm seeing that. It's great. So what I might do is fast forward us in the bill to page, let's see, 16. And then I'm going to walk us back to the beginning of the bill. But because we're talking about three different chapters in statute, the bill is organized in order of the statute number. However, all of the definitions that sort of govern the changes that are being made are halfway through the bill. And I think it makes sense to start with the definition so we all have sort of a common understanding of what, of what we're talking about. So I'm going to fast forward for the moment. I'm on page 16. And this is this section eight is the start of a new chapter before, before the language with the ellipses around cemeteries, we were in a different chapter. So this is a new chapter. And this chapter has all of the controlling definitions. And you'll see, and the other chapters that are being amended, we're referring back to these definitions. So that's why I think it makes sense to start here. So we have some language that isn't being changed. There is a new definition of alkaline hydrolysis, meaning the reduction of human remains to bone fragments and essential elements in a hydrolysis facility using heat pressure, water and base chemical agents. And there is also a companion definition of an alkaline hydrolysis facility, meaning a structure room or other space in a building or structure containing one or more hydrolysis vessels to be used for alkaline hydrolysis. And we'll see this term again used in the definition of cremation. So we have a definition of cemetery and existing definition, but you'll notice that we're using the term permanent disposition instead of disposition permanently. This is a change that you'll see throughout this whole bill that we're again trying to use common phrases. So the phrase permanent disposition is the phrase of choice that's being used throughout. And there's an addition here. Currently, it says that a cemetery means a plot of ground used or intended to be used for the burial or permanent disposition of the remains of human dead in a grave, mausoleum, columbarium, a vault, and this adds a scattering garden or other receptacle. And we do have a definition of scattering garden later on. In subdivision five, there's just an editorial change. Subdivision six, columbarium, again, we're using the phrase permanent disposition. And you'll see that we've struck through cremated. The reason is this, if we're not specifying how human remains were processed for lack of a better term, then using permanent disposition as a broader term and would include the use of natural organic reduction in addition to cremation here. So that's why a broader term than just cremation was used there. No changes in subdivision seven, subdivision eight, cremated remains. So this is where we refer back to the alkaline hydrolysis. So this definition states that cremated remains means the remains of a deceased person after incineration in a crematory establishment or decomposition in an alkaline hydrolysis facility. Both processes would be considered cremation. And you'll see that's reflected again in subdivision nine, on line five. And also, we're adding scattering garden in here also. So cremation means reducing the remains of a deceased person by the use of retorts or alkaline hydrolysis to cremated remains and the disposal thereof of a columbarium niche and mazolium grave scattering garden or any other manner, not contrary to law. In subdivision 10, the term here had been a crematory and you'll note that I added establishment after it. That's because we had different terms used across the three chapters. This is an effort to be using a consistent term across the three chapters. No changes in subdivisions 11, 12, 13, and we have some changes at the end of this section. So as I mentioned earlier, this bill, really the main focus of this bill is the natural organic production. So our working definition means the contained accelerated conversion of human remains to soil. And then we're also referencing a facility, a natural organic reduction facility, means a structure, room or other space in a building or real property where natural organic reduction of a human body occurs. And you'll notice that this sort of mirrors to the extent it can the definition of a premature establishment. And then in subdivision six, again, we're trying to use broader language in line seven and then just cremated to account for the fact that there might be other processes by which human remains are processed after death. And then we have the definition of scattering garden, which I referred to earlier, means a designated area in a cemetery for the removal of human remains from their container for the purpose of scattering the remains in a lawful manner. And then we have no change to subdivision 18. So those are sort of the working definitions of what you'll see throughout the three chapters. I brought us to the middle of the bill. So now I'm going to bring us back to the beginning of the bill and now that we've sort of had a chance to go through the language or the terminology. So if you have a question that I'm not getting to please let me know. Are there any questions at this time? I can't see anyone. Representative Kalaki has his hand up. Okay. Representative Kalaki, please. Hello, Katie, and thank you for work on this. I find this bill very compelling. And I'm interested how we put this kind of organic process that is speeded up is the same as cremation, which his body is incinerated. And why not have a distinction? Or if I understand, you put those sort of together as one process. Is that correct? Not as one process, but in the rights that a director of a facility would have in terms of we're next going to look at the transit permits. So in terms of the type of permits that somebody would need to move to transport a body, the type of contracts a director could enter into with a family, for example, to handle the remains, the type of license that a person would need to get is similar in amount and process than the type of license. So it's not that the two processes are the same. It's more that they're being treated with parity in terms of the rights and duties of the directors and the facilities. And whether the remains were reduced through cremation or through natural organic production, how the remains could be maybe scattered in a scattering garden would be treated similarly, if that makes sense. And just my second question, and then I know there's a lot to go on this bill. Why was it necessary to add scattering garden into statute? My honest answer is I can't recollect this bill was introduced in the previous biennium. And so most of my work on it dates back about three years now. So I really can't recollect the specific rationale or if the sponsor requested it or if there was another reason. But it aligns with where any cremated ashes could be scattered as well. Is that correct? Yes. OK, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. It does look like there's a hand up. Oh, I don't see it. Who's that's JP? No, OK, JP. Good. I'm glad you spoke up. Please. The mic is yours. I just want to take a minute if I can to go back to the scattering garden. Just so I understand exactly what this is. My initial interpretation of the term or the place scattering garden would be or is a place allocated, I guess, somewhere in the cemetery where somebody take their remains that had been cremated and scatter them in a scattering garden. And what I wanted to tell the calendar had to be a yes or no answer. Is that correct? It is also my understanding. Yes. OK. And that's what I anticipate. That's why I said yes or no. So having anticipated that and having you confirm it. And this is this is bothering me a little bit, obviously. Somebody could take their family. Members ashes scatter it into this place. Along with or on top of other family. Members ashes or is it a specific little pot in that scattering garden that you get? And that's you can see what I was bugging me a little bit. It's bother. Yeah, I hear the question. And I think that might be a better question for some of the witnesses, how how scattering gardens are are managed, whether it's more of a communal area or if it is individual plots. I the language as drafted in the bill does not address that issue. But it doesn't mean it couldn't be addressed if the committee chooses to weigh in. OK, all right. Thank you. OK, there's one more handout. I'm sorry. Representing the angle. That's her hand up. I'm not sure. Thank you, Representative Murphy. I'm not sure if this is a question or just a comment that section six regarding fetal remains really disturbs me. And I I would have to really look at this in depth. But the fact that. Permission is needed from only one parent if the parent is competent, bound to be competent, is in here somewhere and that just, yeah, permission shall be obtained from one of the parents if competent for disposition in all cases where funeral director is not involved. I I don't know. I think that opens up some ethical questions for me, ethical and moral questions. So I'm just going to, I guess, leave that hanging for now because I don't really want to get into the particulars of it. At this moment. Thank you. So we haven't quite gotten there yet, but I'll make sure that I'll I'll go through that in detail when we get to that. And that's existing law. There are amendments to it, as you noted, but that that is existing law and I'll go through it so the committee can can take a look and weigh in when when we get there. So I'm going to go back to realize that we were not discussing the whole bill, that we were just taking certain parts of it. Sorry. Oh, that's OK. I started in the middle to make sure we all had a kind of common vernacular with the definitions because the bill doesn't start with the definitions. It just cross references them. So now that we've sort of gone through the definitions, I'm heading back to the beginning of the bill to go through the different sections. So I'll start here. So we're starting with our first of the three chapters, which is the death, burial and autopsy chapter. And you'll see that we're adding a definition section. There wasn't a definition section before, but you'll also notice that all of the definitions are cross referencing the definitions we just went over, which is why I wanted to start in the middle of the bill. So you saw those definitions to begin with. So we've gone over those definitions already. And then we start moving into existing law. So this first section, existing law, pertains to permits for the removal of bodies, cremation and in in the in order to ensure this idea of parity between cremation and natural organic reduction that's been added to the heading as well. And then also we have information about the waiting period here and investigation into the circumstances of death. So the first subsection has to do with a burial transfer permit in existing law that directs that a dead body is not to be buried and toned or removed or otherwise disposed of without this permit that's issued and signed by the municipal court, clerk, a county clerk or deputy clerk for the municipality or town in which the body is located and a funeral director licensed in Vermont, an owner or designated manager of a licensed crematory establishment. So again, we're making that change to have the consistent terminology or the natural organic reduction facility. Again, we're adding it in this parity between how we're treating crematory establishments and natural organic reduction facilities. So those are the individuals. And then we have a similar change in subdivision three. This directs that a funeral director or a crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility in Vermont that's registered to perform the removals of the body may issue a burial transit permit for any municipality or unorganized town or gore at any time, including during normal business hours. So again, there's this idea of parity between other providers of these services and subsection B. We have some sort of editorial changes by flipping the no here and putting the negative over here on line 12. But it states that an operator of a crematory establishment shall not cremate or allow the creation of a human body. And similarly, an operator of a natural organic reduction facility shall not process or allow the processing of a human body until at least 24 hours following the death of the decedent. And so again, if it's not underlined, it's existing law. But the change that's happening here again is either to make the language consistent or in the case of the natural organic reduction facility to create that parity as to who as to which providers can do what. And then we go on to have some language about communicable diseases. So we can't process a body until at least 24 hours following the death. Unless the person died of a communicable disease, then a health department rule orders require order, excuse me, a rule or order requires the cremation or natural organic reduction to occur prior to the end of that period. So it could be that if there's a communicable disease, then it makes sense for the body to be processed within a smaller time frame than the 24 hour waiting period. If the attorney general or state's attorney requests the delay of acclimation or natural organic reduction, again, that idea of parity and types of services based on reasonable belief that the cause of death might have been due to other than accidental or natural causes. The cremation or natural organic reduction is to be delayed upon request. And subsection C, the person who's in charge of the body is not to release for cremation or natural organic reduction. The body of a person who died in Vermont until the person in charge has received a certificate from the chief regional or assistant medical examiner that the medical examiner has made a personal inquiry into the cause and manner of death and is satisfied that no further examination or judicial inquiry is necessary. Again, this is all existing law, except for where we're kind of creating that sense of parity between the types of services. Upon request of a funeral director, the person who's in charge of the body or the operator of a crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility, the chief medical examiner shall issue either a cremation or natural organic reduction certificate after the medical examiner has completed the autopsy. And the certificate is to be retained by other the crematory establishment operator or the natural organic reduction facility as applicable for a period of three years and that the person requesting cremation or natural organic reduction is to pay the department a fee of twenty five dollars in subdivision D for all commissions or natural organic reductions requested for the body of a person who died outside of the state. The operator of either crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility is to do the following before they can proceed. And then we sort of have a list here at the top of page five of division A and B. And you'll notice that in line one, the term permanent disposition was chosen instead of cremation as a broader term to cover more ways to to process the remains than just cremation. So it's supposed to be more of an umbrella statement or term than just cremation. Could I ask a question? Your vice chair is muted, I think. Chip, you're muted. Who is that speaking? I can't see you on my screen. Who's asking to ask a question? My name is Chris Palermo. I'm the Vermont General Directors Association. I'm just looking for a point of clarification because I'm a little confused by this particular statute or piece of the statute. I understand the process in Vermont where you would get a Vermont medical examiner's permit for both cremation or natural organic reduction for somebody that is out of state getting a medical examiner's permit the same New Hampshire where they don't recognize NLR as a means of disposition. How would that work? Is this going to pertain just to Vermont deaths? Or are you indicating that if Maine or New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts wanted to come to Vermont to use a facility that they would need to get a medical examiner's permit there? But if it's not a form of disposition, how would they be able to issue a medical examiner's permit? I think that's a great question. I think it would be appropriate for the committee to hear from the Department of Health and from the chief medical examiner as to whether they think this piece is operable. But I think it's worth flagging for further discussion, certainly. Sure. And that's the only reason I bring it up. And I have talked with the chief medical examiner, Elizabeth Bundock, a little bit about this. So I think she and I've sent her the copy of the bill. So when you reach out to her, she's somewhat familiar with the language. OK. Thank you, Chris. Sure. Katie. OK. So we've made it we've made it through one section so far. And now, oops, we it appears vice chair that you have another question from a witness, I believe. I would ask that the witnesses hold their questions for now. This is a long bill to get through and we will get to you as soon as we can. I appreciate that. And I'd like to continue the walkthrough. OK. So we're on section three and this section, again, existing existing language about a certificate that's furnished to a family and we're still talking about the burial transit permits. It governs the death certificate being filed with the person issuing the burial transit permit. So I'm the changes in the second sentence, the certificate is to be filed with a person issuing a burial transit permit obtained by the person who has charge of the body. Existing language before such dead body shall be buried and tomed or removed. And so this again changes it to have to be the body before permanent disposition or removal. And again, this is meant to have sort of a broader terminology, a broader term instead of more specific terms for for how we handle remains. The next section we're still talking about permitting removal permits and we're making a similar change here. So if you look down at the bottom of this section, there is language that talks about a permit for burial or entombment. And again, a broader term was used on line 10 of permanent disposition. And you'll see online 11 that the phrase burial ground was removed. As I mentioned earlier, the statute doesn't contain a definition of burial ground, only a natural burial ground would be the defined term. So the idea here is to reference a cemetery and not use this phrase. That's not defined in statute. Section five. We're we're still here. Trayana. Yes. It's representative Murphy. Yes, you have a question. I do. And just looking back at that. And again, we can file this for more information later, if this is not a good point to stop and discuss it. But I do have a concern about striking burial ground if we're looking at some in early ancestors spaces that may not be properly defined as cemetery. I'm just curious if it's something that's dealt with where there could be ancestral remains in places that are considered burial grounds to those who are connected to it, but that aren't official cemeteries. And I'm just curious of an impact if we remove this language. I had the same thought myself for representative Murphy. But I what I would ask is that that be a part of our committee discussion and that we continue to make a note of that and we'll continue with the walkthrough. Thank you. And if that's a particular concern, which it sounds as though it is, it might make sense for the committee to at least consider what a definition of burial ground might be and whether they want to add one to kind of capture that right now. It's sort of a term without a meeting, except as related to a natural burial ground. So I think that could easily be added to the definition section and maybe we could flag it and continue to discuss how to treat that term. But you'll see throughout the bill, often it's not a list like this with serious cemetery burial ground. It might just reference a burial ground, for example, in the chapter on cemeteries and the term in this bill has been changed to cemeteries. But perhaps it's the committee's choice to to address that a different way. So you'll see that it will kind of continue to come up as we walk through this bill. OK. Thank you. Mm hmm. OK. Um, we're having in section five, there is a similar change where we're using, again, sort of broader language of permanent disposition versus talking about the particular way that a body is is disposed, whether it's buried, cremated and toned. So you'll see online, 15. We're replacing, sorry, we're replacing the phrase, where such bodies to be buried, cremated and toned with the location of the body's permanent disposition to have that sort of broader terminology. OK. Disposition of remains. And we're also talking about permits. And this, I believe, is where the question came up earlier. So this is existing language, but we do go in and amend amend it for the purpose of including natural organic reduction. So the existing language is that the fetal remains shall be disposed of by burial or cremation unless released to an educational institution for scientific purposes or disposed of by the hospital or is directed by the attending physician in a manner that will not create a public health hazard. So the change that's happening here is that the fetal remains could be disposed by natural organic reduction instead of burial or cremation. So it adds an additional manner of handling the remains. And then the change on line six is, you know, a dramatic change. And then on line 11, you'll see the word final is struck. The phrase had been final disposition. And this is one of the places where we're changing to permanent disposition or the proposal is to change to permanent disposition to have more consistent terminology throughout the chapters and subsection B. Again, we're amending existing law when the funeral director is involved or when the fetal remains are to be privately buried or disposed of by a crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility. The funeral director or other person taking charge of the remains shall obtain from the hospital and physician the disposition permit portion of the report and shall revert revert it to the sextant or other person having care of the cemetery tomb vault, crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility. So again, where we're referencing a crematory establishment, we're also bringing in the natural organic reduction facility as an option. And then you'll also note that the word commercial is struck on 13. And I'm honestly, I'm trying to remember trying to recollect the purpose for that. My guess is that it was to be consistent. I don't know if there are any non commercial crematory establishments so that should now that we're talking about it, I think we should at least flag that as maybe an item to make sure that the committee is comfortable with that with that change. OK, seven. This is a sub chapter of the first. We're still in the first chapter that we had been looking at here, but we're now in a sub chapter on the rights of family members, other interested persons, funeral directors, operators of a crematory establishment and also the of natural organic reduction facilities. And so this section has quite a bit to do with who who has the authority to make a decision about the disposition of human remains. And you'll see online, 14, there's an ellipsis. That means that there's language missing that isn't being amended. It's existing law that isn't being amended, so it's not shown in the bill. But that's a list of the order in which persons have right have a right to make a decision about the disposition of remains. So we don't have persons, you know, one through eight. Once we get to nine, subdivision nine, it's the funeral director crematory establishment operator. And then that sense of parity, the operator of a natural organic reduction facility with custody of the body in subsection C. If the disposition of the remains of a decedent is determined under subdivision A nine of this section, what we just looked at here and the funeral director, the crematory establishment operator or the operator of the natural organic reduction facility has cremated or processed the remains is applicable. The funeral director, crematory establishment operator or operator of the natural organic reduction facility shall retain the remains for three years. And if there's no interested party listed in that list that we omitted, one through eight of this section that claims the decedence remains after three years, then the funeral director establishment operator or the operator of the natural organic reduction facility is to arrange for the permanent disposition versus the final disposition using that common terminology, excuse me, terminology of the remains. And you'll note that on line eight, this phrase, the cremated is struck. So now we're just saying disposition of remains. So it doesn't necessarily mean under this proposal that the remains would have to be cremated. In subdivision eight two, we're saying notwithstanding what we've just said, a funeral director, crematory establishment operator, the operator of a natural organic facility may determine that the unclaimed remains no longer cremated because this anticipates other ways to dispose of remains. So the remains of a deceased veteran will be interred at the Vermont Veterans Memorial Cemetery if and then we have a list that applies. So again, this is existing law, but we're adding in the natural organic facility everywhere that a crematory establishment is already in law. So I will maybe not read through each of those. And then in subdivision C, the funeral director, crematory establishment operator, operator of a natural organic facility has confirmed with the Office of Veterans Affairs that the deceased veteran is eligible to be interned at the Veterans Cemetery. So again, existing law, but it's adding in that layer of the natural organic production facility where the crematory facility is also mentioned. Excuse me. Next in subdivision subsection D. If the disposition of remains of a decedent is determined under A-10, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is to contract with a funeral director, crematory establishment operator, or the operator of a natural organic reduction facility to cremate or process the remains of the decedent as applicable. So again, that parity with referencing both types of providers if the cremation and subdivision to A, line 16, if the cremation or the natural organic reduction of the decedent is arranged and paid for by DCF. So there's language in DCF that if a person, if the burial expenses are covered by the state through GA. And then we're saying we're getting rid of the word cremation as to describe expenses on line 18 so that that kind of broadens up the type of services available that the remains could be treated through cremation or natural organic reduction. Katie, can we take a question from Representative Kulaki, who has a stand-up right now? Please, John. Thank you. Thank you, Chip and Katie. I just, there's a lot of dense information, so I'm trying to keep up with you. But if I could just get clarity, last session or last biennium, this committee did pass a bill in the House of Brute and the Senate did and the governor signed it for the dissolution of the bill. Going, being guaranteed that they would have a place at the Veterans Hospital. I mean a veteran cemetery. I just want to make sure that the time frame of that bill or that law is congruent with this and the disposition of the remains. Well, I didn't staff that bill. So I'm not, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Well, I didn't staff that bill. So I'm not completely familiar with it. Probably, was it Tucker that staffed it? I don't know if the committee remembers. I can check in with Tucker and run the language by him. Were I to guess? Probably the change was somewhere in this section. You'll note that this is a 2000, well, 2021 bill. Meaning that when the statutes were pulled in from the database to draft this bill, it was the first year of the biennium and it wasn't updated in 2022 because the bills can stay on the wall for two years. So if this committee has made changes to this section, we will have to pull in the most recent language from the database that was passed in 2021 when the committee takes this bill up to amend it. If that makes sense to you. Yes, it was not in the, we did this, we passed this bill not in the first year of this biennium. It was in last biennium. So I think you're saying that this would account for that if it's already in statute. Then it would account for that. I mean, the correct language would be pulled in from the database. If it was, let's say it was a 2020 bill and this was drafted for 2021, then the database would have pulled in the changes that were made in 2020. Okay, thank you. So at this time, I would like to stop for a second here. It's obvious that we will not get even close to the completion of this walkthrough between now and the next 50 minutes when we were due on the floor. So my question is, committee, can we wave a break until just before floor to continue taking, is that, yes? Three o'clock. It's like a 10 of three break. Yes. I think you said before floor, not before floor. Yeah, floor, right. That's a good thing. Yeah, I think you're getting it from the room. We're willing to wait until 10 of three. Okay, now my other question is to our witnesses, you have come here today expecting to testify. Can I get an idea of whether or not your testimony will be relevant to the first 10 pages that we've walked through so far? And, or if you're able to come back at a later date when we have more time to consider this bill. Yes, Chris? So yes to both questions. And I just wanna say that the Vermont Funeral Director's Association is very supportive of this particular type of disposition and allows Vermont families another choice. And we look forward to partnering with folks as we walk down the path of providing this type of disposition. In terms of pages one through 10, I just wanted to point out that the Vermont Veterans Memorial Cemetery, they're the only cemetery in the state of Vermont that has jurisdiction under Act 250. And I'm on the Cemetery Advisory Board and work closely with Bob Burke, who's the director of the cemetery. So I reached out to him for clarification. Their Act 250 permit allows for earth burial of cascaded remains in a crypt or the earth burial of cremated remains, but does not allow the provision for scattering ashes or now natural organic reduction. And so to have that information in this bill may lead people to a false sense that under the current regulations of the cemetery that this may be an auction. Now, not to say that if the cemetery applies for an Act 250 amendment to allow for scattering of ashes, green burials, and to be able to accommodate natural organic reduction, that may be somewhere down the path, but I don't want to speak to that. But currently, that's not an option because of their Act 250 permit. So- That's a very good point, Chris. I, we appreciate that, yes. Okay. And that's something we will take part of in future discussion. Katie, is it okay with you to go for a little bit longer? Let me ask Patrick Healy is here. Yes. Patrick, are you here? Yes, Patrick is here. Yes, sir. Okay, so same question to you. Would your testimony be relevant to the first 10 pages? If you'd like to make a contribution, a brief contribution right now, and would you be available to come back at another date? I'll answer the latter first. Yes, I am available to come back at a later date. And I'm just here to answer any questions. And the Vermont Cemetery Association is in favor of natural organic reduction. Great. Very good. Thank you. And we have Carolyn, say your last name for me, Carolyn. It's Mayzaz. Mayzaz, it is. Okay. Well, welcome. And I know you had a question before that I put off, but the same questions to you, would your testimony be relevant to the first 10 pages? And we would welcome a comment at this point. And oh, would you be available to come back at another date? Yes, and yes. And I was just planning to make a comment about the question of transferring across state lines. Okay. And we'll do some further research on that if we come back at a later date. But just as a point, this many bodies have been transferred from states that do not currently recognize natural organic reduction to the state of Washington successfully and have not required additional certifications from our medical examiners. But it does come down to the individual state law. Okay. Great. That is good to know. That's what you wanted to contribute before I take it. Okay. Thank you. So committee, we will continue with a walkthrough right now with Katie until 10 of three. Is that agreeable with everyone? Yep. Yep. Okay. Yes. Katie, back to you. Okay. So let's see. We were on D. Yes. So this is the language chief medical examiner language that the disposition of remains of a decedent as determined under a 10, which is the refers back to the officer of chief medical examiner. They may contract with the funeral director crematory establishment operator or operator of a natural organic reduction facility to cremate or process their mains. As applicable and subdivision to a if the cremation or natural organic reduction of the decedent. Oh, I already covered this. I'm sorry. This is the GA when DCF is covering the expenses. So on line 18, they'll see the term cremation in front of expenses and is it removed to open up the type of service available. Same thing is happening at the top of page 11 on line one. Instead of if the cremation of the decedent and now says it's the permanent disposition. Again, that's a broader term. Same thing is happening in subdivision three on line five instead of specifying that we're talking about the cremated remains. We're just talking about the remains. Shelby returned to the office of the chief medical examiner and on line nine, a consistent change instead of final disposition using permanent disposition. Also on line nine is removing the word cremated before remains. So we sort of have more services available. Let's see. Subdivision four notwithstanding any provisions, the office of the chief medical examiner may determine that unclaimed remains for getting rid of cremated. Again, to open up the services of a deceased veteran Shelby intern at the Vermont Veterans Memorial Cemetery. I take it that this is an area that we might need further testimony on. So I might just skip by this for the time being now that we've flagged that we have to figure out what's happening with that act 250 permit for the veteran cemetery. Okay. So I'll move us right along to section five, two to eight. This is forfeiture. An individual who's recognized under the previous section, that's the section where it lists the order of who can make decisions about a disposition. They forfeit that right. If the individual is identified by law enforcement agency as a person of interest and likely to be prosecuted or is under prosecution for first or second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter and connection with the deceased and staff. So that's all existing law. What we're doing in the latter half of this subdivision is saying if the status of the investigation or the prosecution is known to the funeral director crematory establishment operator or operator of a natural organic reduction facility. Again, having that parody then except if that prosecution is not pursued or the individual is acquitted of the alleged crime before the remains are disposed of, the individual shall regain that right. Okay. Cost of disposition. So the cost for disposition of remains and funeral goods or services shall be borne by the decedent estate subject to the limits for insolvent estates. I'm gonna skip by that because we don't have a change in that section in that sentence. The change is in the second sentence. Nothing in this sub chapter shall be construed to require a funeral director, crematory establishment operator or operator of a natural organic reduction facility to provide goods or services for which there is no payment. So again, the same sort of rights of not having to provide those without payment, provide services or goods without payment. In section 50 to 30, we cover the rights of a funeral director, operator of a crematory establishment or a natural organic reduction facility. So the terminology is just being updated for that parody that we've been talking about over and over again in each section. In line nine, again, replacing final disposition with permanent disposition to be consistent. And you'll see that again on line 12. You'll see it again on line 13. And then on line 20, there's language that a director or an operator. So we're again sort of using broader language. If a director operator has actual knowledge that there is no surviving member, guardian or individual appointed to arrange for the disposition of the decedent's remains. Again, we have the same change in subdivision B using the terms director and operator versus having specificity, trying to open it up for more services. And then in 52, 31, there's language here about civil actions. So you'll see on line 14, the same change we've been seeing throughout changing final disposition to permanent disposition. So we have that one sort of common phrase throughout. In subdivision D one, a funeral director or crematory establishment operator or operator of a natural organic reduction facility may refuse to accept bodily remains, to enter or otherwise dispose of bodily remains or to complete the arrangements for the permanent disposition until such time as the court issues. So again, making changes consistent with other changes you've seen so far. Subdivision two, again, you're seeing similar changes to what we've seen before using the term director and operator to kind of have a broader language and the type of services that can be provided and using permanent disposition versus final disposition. And you'll note on line three, removing the word crematory before operator again. And you'll see that on line six and on line seven, again, the use of permanent disposition versus final disposition. You'll see the same changes in subsection E, updating to have broader language around director and operator and on line 15 using permanent disposition versus final. On line 19 and subsection F, just grammatical change, capitalizing probate division. And that brings us to page 16. And we have language here again, consistent with what you've already been seeing that a funeral director, crematory establishment operator, operator of a natural organic reduction facility shall not be subject to civil liability or subject to disciplinary action for carrying out the disposition of human, excuse me, of remains if he or she relied on good faith on the funeral service contract or authorization or for following the instructions of an individual who the director or operator reasonably believes or believed held the right to disposition. So again, existing law, but having that sense of parity with the protections that are already given to the operator of a crematory establishment. So that brings us to the end of the first of the three chapters that sort of deals with this topic. You'll be happy to know that we've already covered this next section eight. This was the definition. So I'm gonna just move right past that. It brings us to section nine, perpetual care funds. And here you'll see we're adding the phrase scattering guarding. So just to give you a little bit more context here, this section states that an agency that's engaged in the cemetery business is to have the right to acquire a gift of eyes, otherwise land or property have every name and nature and to set aside surplus funds to be held in trust as a perpetual care fund. The income is to be used according to the directions of the trust where such directions are given where there's no specific directions or where given and the purpose is incapable of performance or there's a surplus of income after the directions of the trust have been performed to use the same for the purpose of building, repairing, maintaining, adorning and beautifying buildings or parts thereof, fences, graves, vaults, mausoleums, monuments, walks, cemetery, lots, grounds, scattering gardens, drives or avenues. So that's how you can use additional funds and scattering gardens is added there. Section 10, records available to the public. So in this line 17 and 18, the existing language is that the record of burials and termines and cremations shall be reasonable and open to the public. So this language of a record of permanent disposition of human remains as broader language that doesn't specify how the human remains were handled. Section 11, thanks, Chair. I see we have a question from a member of the committee. Would you like me to stop or should I keep going? Yes, Representative Kalaki, question. Yes, thank you. Katie, I'm getting a little confused in the permanent disposition and that it's held because with the organic remains, if they're in a scattering garden, they will just disperse into the ground. There's really no container for them. And so how are we holding them? How are we holding that record that those organic remains of me, if I chose that, would exist anywhere in a year? I think that's a great question. We might wanna see how the records are handled now for, let's say, if the ashes were scattered and what the records would sort of indicate for that. But I hear the question and I assume there'd be some parallel there. All right, thank you. You do look like you have a witness that might be able to offer some help on that particular issue. And that is, I don't see. Chris. Chris, okay, sure. So when an individual is cremated at a crematory, when you receive the ashes, there's a certificate of cremation that accompanies the ashes in their container. That certificate of cremation goes to the cemetery if the family chooses a cemetery for final disposition. That certificate of cremation goes to the sexton of that cemetery and that is filed as a permanent record, just like a burial transit permit is in the town clerk of which the cemetery resides. My presumption is that the same thing would happen if the NLR is placed in a cemetery for final disposition, that a certificate would be accompanying those remains and in turn would be filed there. So there'll always be a permanent record of where the disposition took place. Now you don't have that if ashes are scattered on private property, the same thing with natural organic reduction. There's no record of it, but if it goes into a public cemetery, then there's a tracking mechanism because in Vermont cremation is considered final disposition where you keep the ashes, scatter the ashes or bury the ashes, the final disposition where you took place. All right, thank you. Thank you, Chris. Katie. Okay. It brings us to section 11, sale of property for other than burial purposes and disposition of proceeds. The language here that either before after the recording of the plot, is provided whenever it is determined that such lands acquired for cemetery purposes, except those acquired by condemnation proceedings are unsuitable in the languages for burial purposes. And the proposal here is to change that to the permanent disposition of human remains so that there would be again recognition of other services provided. Such lands may be sold for purposes other than instead of internment, again, permanent disposition. In section 12, a public highway or railroad shall not be laid through instead of such a burial ground, a cemetery. So again, this raises the question that came up earlier, is what do we mean by a burial ground? Do we want to have a specific definition to mean something different from cemetery? And it's interesting here because the heading, the section heading refers to a cemetery, but then the language in the section itself refers to a burial ground, which maybe indicates that the term was being used interchangeably, but if that is no longer the committee's intention, then that is something that the committee at least might want to flag for further discussion. Section 13, disposition of remains. So we have language here that the permanent disposition of human remains shall be by, and then we have a list. So we have internment, cremation, and then at the end of the list, there's a new subdivision E, which is natural organic reduction. On line 11, that's more of a grammatical change instead of so long as provided, but that's just to be consistent with our kind of drafting conventions. Subsection C, the existing language is no deposit of the remains of the human dead shall be made in a single chamber. So this is rewritten so that with the exception of human remains processed by natural organic reduction, the permanent disposition of human remains shall not be made in a single chamber, vault or tomb, recognizing that remains processed by natural organic reduction are likely to be scattered. In subsection D, we have language of the remains of a human body after cremation, and then adding in our natural organic reduction may be deposited in a scattering garden. That's an addition. Previously, it said only a niche of a columbarium or a crypt mausoleum buried or disposed of in any manner, not contrary to law, so that includes the language about the scattering garden. Section 14, again, right in the section heading is that same conversation we keep having. What do we mean by a burial ground or a cemetery, which is meant here? So all of the changes in this section deal with that issue of burial ground and cemetery. So I maybe won't go through the details right now since we have a lot still to get through and just flag that that is a point that the committee wants to discuss further. In section 15, here's another one. Line seven, in order to enter a graveyard. Graveyard is a new term that is in new term meaning, new term in this chapter. It's not defined what do we mean there? Do we mean a cemetery? And if so, we should be consistent. Is something else meant? Is it a burial ground that has a specific definition? So that is kind of related to this conversation of what label are we giving to things? Section 16, appropriations and regulations by towns. A town may vote sums of money necessary for purchasing, holding and keeping in repair suitable grounds and other conveniences, the existing language for burying the dead. So burying here is replaced with permanent disposition to reflect other types of services. And then similarly on line two, that issue of burial grounds versus cemeteries. Section 17, repair current language when lots or walks in a public burial ground become unsightly with weeds, et cetera. So again, that issue, burial ground or cemetery, or both. What is meant? Representative Murphy, raising my hand, waving. Trey Treyana, can I just step in? I know we want to hold this conversation, but it's just a thought to put forward as it's being further delved. I see public quite often next to that burial ground that we're removing. And so that's why I think it could be critical. I think there are per chance private burial grounds or prior civilization burial grounds that we might want to also be considering. So anyway, just dropping that in. Thank you. Great, thank you. If you would keep that with your other piece, Representative Murphy, that would be good to hold it as a marker for us. Yes. Okay, section 18, we have that same issue. Online 17, 16, we're adding language when the select board or board of cemetery commissioners. And we have that change elsewhere, adding board of before cemetery commissioners. Section 19 damages for lack of fence. Again, the issue of cemetery and burial ground. Section 20, same issue. And again, adding in the language board of before cemetery commissioners. Section 21, same issue, burial grounds and cemeteries. I will skip over this for now. Sounds like we'll be coming back to it. Section 22, same issue. Section 23, same issue. Section 24, same issue. Also adding board of before cemetery commissioners. Section 25, same issue. Section 26, adding after board, clarifying board of cemetery commissioners. The burial ground cemetery issue again comes up on line 14. And then on line 14, we talk about conveying lots to be used for burial and burial struck through, replaced with permanent disposition. So it's a broader language, a broader terminology. Section 20, again, we have the same issue with the burial grounds and cemeteries on line six. And on line seven, we're adding after board, clarifying board of cemetery commissioners. That same change is being made on line 14 in section 28. We have the issue of cemeteries and burial grounds on line 15. And then on line 15, we're also replacing internment with permanent disposition. Same thing is happening on 19, replacing burial with permanent disposition. Section nine, adding of cemetery commissioners after board. The issue of burial grounds versus cemeteries. Section 30, same issue with burial grounds and cemeteries. So I'll keep moving over that. Section 31, same issue. Section 32, same issue of burial grounds and cemeteries. Section 33, we have a grammatical change. On 15, we have language applicable to the cemetery associations in respect to the sale of burial lots or burial spaces. This would change it to the sale of lots or spaces for the permanent disposition of human remains. So again, using that broader language than just burial. Similar change being made in section 34, removing burial. So it would be the sale of lots, spaces, crypts, or niches for the permanent disposition of human remains using the broader language. And then also, so we're talking about income, the income of the cemetery association derived from the sale of these lots shall be exclusively applied to paying for the land or for other cemetery property, preserving, protecting, embellishing the cemetery avenues, buildings necessary for cemetery purposes and establishing a fund to care permanently for the cemetery. And then the repair and upkeep and scattering gardens is added here in addition to mausoleums, waltz, columbariums, crypts, niches therein. And this last sentence, beginning on line 19, we're flipping the sentence again, instead of no part of the proceeds from the sale of lots, spaces, crypts. This says that the proceeds from the sale of lots, spaces, crypts, or niches for the permanent disposition of human remains, again, getting rid of burials, shall not. So flipping that sentence to be more consistent with our drafting practices. And then again, the same change that we've been seeing on line five, instead of conveying burial lots, we're conveying spaces, crypts, and niches for the permanent disposition of human remains. Section 35, we're seeing that change again, replacing the specificity of the type of lots or spaces and indicating that they're for the disposition of human remains. Section 36, the solution of cemetery associations. Again, we have that issue, burial grounds and cemeteries and what is the correct terminology. Section 37, that same issue. Section 38, that same issue. Again, on page 35. Section 39 is the same issue. And section 40, enlargement of cemeteries by associations. You have the issue of burial ground and cemetery. And again, that kind of discrepancy between the lead in language using cemetery, but the text itself using burial ground and what is meant. So the committee has flagged that. And section 41 is the same issue. So you have flagged that. Okay, so now we're transitioning to the final chapter. We've moved out of the cemetery chapter and we're moving into a chapter in title 26, which is our professional regulation chapter. And vice chair, I see that we have another question. Yes, we do. I see Representative Kulaki. Thank you. And I apologize for asking so many questions, but this is a new area for me. I love being in a house general. But so in this particular section, you've been walking us through Katie. There has been discovered that there was a black burial ground in Heinsberg that is now completely in the woods. That there's a few scattered grave stones, very few, but most of it's completely broken down. So in this chapter, would that mean that the town of Heinsberg is responsible for the upkeep of that particular plot of land? I'm not prepared to answer that question right now. I could do a little bit more research, but I think it depends on when the establishment of the cemetery, who had been, had anybody been responsible for it? And up until what day? I think those issues sort of matter in making that determination. Okay. But I'm happy to look into that for you. No, no, I'll... I'll do a little bit more research. Good, I'll get some more data about that. And then the other issue, which is earlier on, is cremation defined. It's a defined term. Okay, because I spent time in Tibet and in India, and I witnessed many open-air cremations, or when some of the monks at the monasteries were cremated, there was an enclosed thing, but the whole community gathered as the body was burned. So would those kinds of things fit in our definition of cremation? Let me flip back to the definition. My cremation, it means the reducing of the remains of deceased persons by the use of retorts or alkaline hydrolysis to cremated remains and the disposal thereof. And then it says, not in any other manner, not contrary to law. So what I would say is the statutory language is not restrictive, but I imagine that there could be some like industry practices that might be in play. And I also don't know if, for example, OPR has any specific rules governing this. So while the statutory language itself might be open or less prescriptive, it's not the only set of regulations in play. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Okay, any other questions from the room? I can't see you. Okay, Katie, if you would continue. Okay, it looks like I have six minutes to finish up this last chapter. We'll see what happens. Okay, so title 26 is our professional regulation. We have definitions, this is existing Laura. Crematory establishment is a business here, registered with the office, meaning OPR. And then we also, sorry, office conducted at a specific street or location devoted to the disposition of human remains by means of cremation, alkaline hydrolysis or another type of human reduction acceptable to the director, I mean the director of OPR. We have definitions of funeral directors, also a licensed person, a funeral establishment. The practice of funeral services is defined by all existing law. And then new definitions to reflect, to reflect this sort of new type of service is the natural organic reduction. We're cross-referencing the statute we looked at earlier and then a natural organic reduction facility. You'll see that this definition sort of mirrors the crematory establishment definition meaning a business registered with the office conducted at a specific street address or location devoted to the disposition of human bodies by means of natural organic reduction. Notwithstanding this section, crematory establishments and natural organic reduction facilities and their personnel may engage in the listed activities and subdivision A6 below. So again, that sense of parity and specifically personnel at a crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility may. This is what they may do. They may provide for the disposition of dead human bodies by cremation or natural organic reduction as applicable. They may enter into contracts without taking prepaid funds for the provision of dispositions by cremation or natural organic reduction as applicable. They may arrange, direct or perform the removal or transportation of a dead human body provided that removals are performed by a licensed removal personnel, et cetera. Section 43, advisor, appointees, director duties and rules. So here we have language. The secretary of state is to appoint four people for five year staggered terms to serve as the secretary's advisors and matters related to funeral services. Three of the appointments goes into terms. Appointees shall include three licensed funeral directors, one of whom is licensed and bomber, one of whom has a training or experience and the operation of a crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility. So that makes it possible for somebody providing this service to be part of this advisory group. The director shall, meaning the director of OPR, shall adopt rules regarding minimum standards for crematory establishments and natural organic reduction facilities. So again, getting back to representative Khlaki's question about what standards are in place for where a cremation might occur, this language and existing laws directing the director to adopt rules regarding crematory establishment. So there might be some parameters there and this language would further direct similar rules for natural organic reduction facilities. Section 44, inspection of premises, this gives the director the ability to inspect funeral establishments, crematory establishments and a natural organic reduction facility. Each funeral establishment, crematory establishment and natural organic reduction facilities to be inspected at least once every two years and inspections of the establishments and facilities to reflect natural organic reduction facilities shall be provided by the director. Section 45 has to do with licensure requirements. So a person, partnership corporation association or other organizations shall not open or maintain a crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility unless the establishment is licensed. And then in subsection D, except as otherwise permitted, a person employed by a funeral establishment, crematory establishment or a natural organic reduction facility as not to perform a removal unless registered with the office. And then we have qualifications. Subsection D applies to crematory establishments or natural organic reduction facilities. A person, partnership corporation association or other organization desiring to operate a crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility is to apply in writing to the director for a license. Again, this is existing law. We're just adding the natural organic reduction facility to the list, people who have to seek this license. In subsection E, instead of just having this applied to crematory personnel, this applies to personnel of a crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility. Again, a person who desires to engage in the direct handling, processing, identification, cremation or natural organic reduction of dead human remains within a licensed crematory establishment or natural organic reduction facility is to register with the office and pay a fee. So we're just adding this new service to the list. Katie. Yes, you have to go. Yeah, I hate to do this. We have made better progress than I imagined we would, but I would like to get folks a break before you go on the floor. Sure. I appreciate it. So I've not had 43 out of 50 pages and like mostly language changes from here on out. Your last section is just fees to parallel what's happening for the crematory license and facilities. Okay. And it should be able to have you available in the near future. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Who's that, Matt? Okay. So witnesses, you have agreed that it would be, yeah, it's very good. Thank you, Katie. We can see everyone. I can see everyone. Thank you. You have all agreed that you would be available to come back and give us some testimony about this bill. It's a very interesting bill. And I'm sure all of you have a very constructive and important things to consider in this bill. And I was glad to hear of the support that we have here in the room. So on that, thank you for coming. We will be in touch with all of you, the witnesses, and I'm sorry that we could not take you today. I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but again, we look forward to your input on this bill. And anything else from committee? No, thank you. Thank you, Katie. Sorry, it's a reminder. A reminder.