 Welcome back. This is House Rules Meeting Tuesday, December 28th at 3.40pm. We took a brief recess to get an updated draft of our House 2022 policy for the chamber live streaming recording and archiving members have the updated draft in their email and is been posted as well. So we will have our clerk walk through the changes like me to share screen. Yes, here we go. Alrighty, great. Just just the window here. Okay. Thank you. So at the top, it would just be entitled House 22 policy for chamber live streaming recording and archiving. And then I have only highlighted within the text where we made changes, or where you had requested changes. And that starts on page two in the specific procedures in section a three in regard to the transcription chamber session that shall be transcribed by zoning captioning. And then we move down to be in regard to the newly entitled protection of live stream recordings. In the new revised language would say live stream recording shall not be trimmed, except that if a live stream recording contains non legislative business and air, or as otherwise required by law. Parliamentary staff may request that leg it train specific portions of the recording in order to remove that non legislative business. I wonder, do we need to change that non legislative business just thinking. Well if it would be otherwise required by law, maybe that was actually a bit non legislative business. Thank you for allowing me to talk that through myself. And then after the parliamentarian consults with the House committee on rules, if the parliamentarian conforms to third authorities leg it trims that earliest portion. And then otherwise, no other changes to the rest of the document. Does that reflect what the committee. I just see for changes. I'll give numbers just another minute to take a look and review. Do I see a question. Small one and just. It says, let's see. Section one that the parliamentary staff goes to it and then it has to come back to the parliamentarian. I wonder why that the parliamentarian staff wouldn't go straight to the permanent parliamentarian first, and then go to it. I think in practice for our staff, we would be discussing together, and I believe, just if I'm recalling correctly the discussion and joint rules, it was just a conversation back and forth between parliamentary staff and the legislative it team to make sure they're doing process wise this is easily done. So I think that creating extra steps for you or your staff. I think we'd be fine. I think our staff would be fine for a good. Okay. I think it would work in practice for our process for parliamentary staff requesting the ledger it to trim, and then I try to just consulting with the parliamentarian. And I revised language parliamentarian with consult with this committee, and then confirm authority to thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions points clarification representative Donnie just just clarification on the zoom closed captioning as we reference that's going to be an ongoing decent and I just mental footnote that I think we when we sort that out, we may want to look to that creates a process that allows not editing a sense it can't be editing but footnoting of blatantly erroneous transcription. Like when I say I committed a robbery. Last weekend, according to the transcript. You know that we'll need. Yeah, we're still going to need to work all that out so adopting this. By that understanding doesn't mean we're locked into it because we can correct and into demo line right absolutely this is evolving and we do have at the top pending any further long term. All good. Great. Any other questions. Okay, I have a motion to adopt the house 22 policy for chamber live streaming recording and archiving. So move. Thank you representative look there any further discussion. All right, seeing none I'm going to call the role. As amended. Yes. Yeah, sorry this doesn't have the updated timestamp on it but yes to be clear, the amended version. Representative long. Yes, representative McCarthy. Yes, representative Barthamia. Yes, representative McCoy. Yes, representative Leclerc. Yes, representative Donahue. Yes, and I am a yes, the motion carries seven zero zero. All right, thank you for all your help and feedback on that. That is great we have been working without a policy this time this entire time so it's good to have a policy in place moving forward for the session. The next on the agenda, we have the follow up to the joint rules meeting today about how we start the 2022 legislative session. And recommendations given and our house clerk has put those recommendations into a draft to get us started for this conversation so what I would like to do is to have our clerk share screen and walk through this draft and then we'll open it up to discussion. One more, please, while I pull up share screen again. Okay. So to recap the discussion in the joint rules committee there was discussion of a that committee recommended that the chambers operate remotely until Tuesday, January 18 in light of the current conditions of the coven. What this draft has a first draft to get you started would do it would be to allow remote operation of the house and its committees until that date. Right now it is set up as having one whereas pause and to resolve clauses but I can edit it as you see fit. We have a sponsor at the TVD, and the language would begin as follows saying that whereas the ongoing coven 19 pandemic, and in particular, with the highly transmissible on the front area currently poses a risk to the health and safety of House members legislative staff and members of the public. The House of Representatives and its committees operate in person now therefore be it resolved by the House that the House of Representatives and its committees shall operate remotely until Tuesday, January 18 2022 and be it further resolved, but the House and its committees shall continue to live stream their remote proceedings in order to maintain public access to the legislative process. Thank you. Right. Opening up for discussion and feedback. I am just so thank you I'm just emailing it now to and I'll have it to Rebecca. Thank you so that it can be posted thanks. I think I know the answer so I probably shouldn't ask but just to be clear, we have to come back in person on the designated date to pass this resume. That's correct. That's correct. But if we discover that we can't return in person on January 18, we could make that resolution only. We wouldn't have to come back on the 18th to pass that is that correct. And we are going to be working with joint rules to ensure we have a plan so that there is clear direction and on how we're, we're coming back on the 18th, which we would be having those conversations remotely. But then we would come back on the 18th to have that vote if we needed to have a subsequent. If we can't come back after the 18th to in person we would have to come back to vote this resolution is that that's my question. Not if you did it the Friday before. Right. Yeah. That's true. Yeah, I think that's the end. Did you have any fellow. Okay, do you represent. All right. All right, I'm looking down at the end of the table slowly. I'm sorry to add. Yeah. Go ahead. Did you. Sure. Yeah, I. A couple of things, you know, there's been a lot of talk about the need to do this to wait two weeks because of this. I sat in on Senate rule so I heard about the freight train about to hit and it's huge risk and just want to point out that. I mean this this is pretty speculative at this point. I listened to the press conference this morning and one of the things Dr with him said is actually the CDC has corrected its data and the on the crime in the northeast is represents 11% not 30% of current in cases I mean so it's even it's that fluid it's substantially less. We don't know yet what's going to happen to Vermont, given its different environment, different vaccine levels and so forth. We talked, there was talk last, the last rose meeting about the fact that we really needed to look at assuming we were back in person we needed to look for a trigger that would indicate. Okay, here's, here's where we safety dictates that we shouldn't be coming in. And unfortunately we don't we don't have that today. But, you know that's the kind of thing that's when we talked about being science based. That's the kind of thing that prevents us from acting on gut. I think right now we're acting on the gut that there is a risk and, given the lack of trigger. Of course, the concept that we need to do that for a two week period but I don't think we should be identifying and saying things that really don't have evidence other than anticipations or potentials. I also think that, as was discussed at the joint rules committee, we need to develop that trigger. As representative Bartholomew was saying, well, how are we going to make that decision that in fact, maybe it's not safe to come back. I don't want to see that being a gut again. I think, and so I think it's really important to identify that in the resolution that we are going to look to hear testimony as rules committee and predicate that potential of a delay in return, not just on a new gut that well actually we haven't hit a crisis that must be still coming or whatever else that we really do it on the evidence in the last two weeks in Vermont. I mean Dr Levine pointed out cases sound scary but cases are not what actually represent anything we can go to the bank with because cases don't tell us how severe they are cases only indicate how many people showed up for testing what matters is hospitalizations what matters is ICU level. We have gone down by 25% in the last two weeks in our hospitalization rates and by 30% in our ICU rates. We anticipate that might turn around again. And so I think we have to do wise decision making, but the reality right now is that is that things are looking better that's great. It's fluid it's unknown, I support the remote decision but I would really like to suggest some changes and a specific addition about that future planning and identifying a way that we would potentially recommend a delay in returning so that we're not at the last minute. Going on a going on a gun. I did start work on some notes. In the whereas. I would suggest saying, whereas the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in particular the and I would add anticipated impact of a highly transmissible omicron variant. It potentially, as opposed to currently poses a risk to health and safety of, etc. And therefore it's if it's committees operate in person in the first weeks of January. So we know that potential is there if we meet in the first weeks of January. And that's why we're saying we're going to operate remotely until the 18th. And part would be to add another result and I still playing with wording this is not the right wording it's just the concept resolved that any potential any future potential delays in returning to in person proceedings will be predicated upon developing a science based trigger to identify inability to return safely adopted by House rules. And there's something along those lines that indicate, you know, there's been discussions around, you know, hospitalization rates if we see a change that indicates percentage is going back up, or in fact, legislative. I think that our back in session and all of a sudden legislative rates are showing up that that that would be a cause for alarm that would be a trigger that would say, we should be going back to remote but I think we should articulate in this that that is the intent for future decision making that it not just be on our, our perceptions. I was surprised in trying to look back at some of the joint rules proceedings. As much as we talked about science based it wasn't much testimony from medical folks or epidemiologists or any of these folks about what are the actual projections or risks of meeting in person and you know, I don't need to repeat this because I know everyone agrees it really is fundamental to our process to be here in person there is, there is so much that we lose in every aspect of the quality of our work. So, I guess that's it for now. I thought that was pretty clear around the trigger language. I represent McCarthy and then representative Colbert. Thanks madam speaker. So, I really appreciate representative Donahue's suggested changes to the whereas language, I think that is a little more accurate actually. I'm a bit concerned about us moving forward and presenting a resolution that commits to a specific science based trigger, not because I don't think we could potentially come up with one but I think we've already said, but, you know, in joint rules and I think we're going to consider that we are going to take more testimony that we are going to consider public health and safety in terms of all the latest science that's available. But then on top of that, as the speaker said earlier I can't remember in which context, but we have to look at the space that we're in and the unique things about us being here, and we have we are going to have to make decisions, but in the future we choose if we take a specific, you know whether it's ICU beds or whatever data point we choose, we're going to have to look at that through the context of whatever is happening at the point we're making the decision. So, it doesn't seem to offer a lot of clarity to our colleagues and to the public to me to resolve that we're going to work on a trigger. And that is for us to just say right now, we would like to have more consensus around what triggers our next decision point, but I just don't know that we're providing a lot of clarity to anybody by saying oh yeah we're going to, we're going to, we resolved to develop the trigger, because I think whatever trigger we come up with, we're going to have a really hard time, not saying, okay, yes there's that number and then there's the context of whatever new information we get me like I was a biochemistry major. I believe in science, you know, and the scientific process, part of that is that the information that you get is constantly changing in an environment like this there's, there's not a whole lot we're totally sure about representative Colbert. Thank you madam speaker, and just want to say again to the rules community really appreciate the opportunity to be part of your discussion on this. And, and two things I wanted to say one is I really want to echo representative Bartholme used kind of questions about just getting to real clarity about whether this resolution requires us to come back on the 18th. We're in a situation where we think we need to extend the time period where it's advisable to work remotely and just trying to really add as much protection as possible. So that we're not in that situation, or we're not in a situation where. I just think so, you know, maybe that's as simple as roles committee, like putting a new resolution to the whole body before the 18th, if you all feel that we need to extend this time but that, you know, that's not a like a huge quick turnaround especially for the kind of testimony that you're talking about. So I think that's just one open question that I have about this resolution is whether it gives us enough leeway to extend the period if that becomes advisable. And the other thing I would say I think I'd like to echo representative McCarthy's points about just the challenges of finding, you know, this one perfect scientific trigger I mean I certainly appreciate representative Donna Hughes desire to make this just informed on just some kind of feeling that we all have. And I think it is really advisable for the roles committee and other committees to be taking testimony about the safety of meeting in a unique way that the legislature meets. I'm just thinking about like the idea of using hospital hospitalizations as a trigger, you know, I'm home with my third day of cold symptoms after having multiple kids being close contacts waiting for my PCR test results and I'm very happy to have the opportunity to communicate remotely with you today but wouldn't have felt comfortable coming in person so I think it's not the the the whatever trigger points here about case numbers versus top hospitalizations it's also just about what kind of equitable process we can create in the legislature for our ability to represent our constituents. You know, and so there's, there might be a lot of different data points there like maybe this new variant is milder but if there's a certain amount of quarantining involved for those of us who have school aged kids where, you know, if, if, and there's an in person requirement to participate and vote. That's going to be really, really challenging and the hospitalization rates might be really low but it there still might be some real barriers to having a full and equitably functioning legislature in that that requires in person participation. Yeah, go ahead. Just to quick. In terms of the the trigger, which, you know, I assume developing something that does take our setting in into account and I think this is potentially more a discussion about wording which I said I'm not comfortable with my own wording than the concept perhaps. But I think representative Colburn your comments I think you were possibly mixing towards the end in particular a little bit more mixing up the, how would we make a decision to return in person versus the process if we did when you were referencing things like equity because I think we will need a future discussion on given the the ongoing pandemic. If we are in person. Are we going to have any special recognition or accommodation about issues of voting. I think that person has tested positive for, you know, that that kind of thing so I, I think that may be a little bit of a separate question that is something we are going to have to be dealing with when we come back in person. Representative Murphy. I appreciate the opportunity to speak because I'm not appointed member of the committee, but I just want to speak for the five of us that don't have leadership and share that it was from everyone that raised their hand and spoke to me. There is a huge desire to be in that building so I really appreciate what representative Donahue has has put on the table and do feel that the two week delay is a hard stop that we're looking at delaying two weeks it's not and then we'll decide whether we come back it's that we are coming back at in two weeks rather than on January 4 and potentially there could be a world crisis that causes us not to do that but the goal that the intent not just goal but the intent is we are back and I, I just would put that on the table and appreciate that you all are looking to that. I'm just looking around what I'm wondering is that we start with representative Donahue's first ideas or amendments in the first whereas class. So representative Donahue. You have in the first line anticipated impact. The, the anticipated impact of the highly transmissible. Okay, and then there's a second one. Yeah, the second one was replacing currently with potentially. And then the third one was, if, if the House and its committees operate in person in the first weeks of January, or in the first two weeks of January if I want to be specific to what the resolution is doing so. So we have an amendment on the table with these three instances. You have any feedback. That's representative Barthony. I'd like to speak in defense of the first clause as it's written I see nothing inaccurate. I'm happy with the proposed changes except for the second one where potentially poses this is saying the current pandemic and the Omicron. They definitely it's not potentially it definitely poses a risk. And this says nothing about the morbidity or mortality, or the disparity of infection. This is opposing to risk it does. We know it does so why say potentially. There's one. It says, it says, currently poses a risk if we return in person. We had made the decision to return in person. And in terms of current data. The only thing that's changed is that there have been fewer hospitalizations, fewer ICU. So, I don't see how we can say it currently poses a risk. We think it's going to. And I, I'm totally in agreement with the fact that there may be, you know, a good chance that it potentially does pose a risk but current facts have not changed from when we decided it did not present enough of a risk to come in person. The only reason we're changing is because of what we think is going to happen not because of what's currently occurring. That was why I felt it should be potentially. And it's not that there isn't a current rate of risk but in terms of the current risk if we return. It has not changed from when we made a decision that it was acceptable in terms of safety to return. I would just say it's still posed a risk we were a calculated risk and we were going to accept so we could return but every time we go out of the house go to the grocery store. There's a pandemic out there and it currently poses a risk where we're moving here. So to say potentially just makes it an accurate to me. Just that piece the other two pieces you suggested seemed fine to me. What if we just leave it it poses a risk. Currently and potentially live with that. Great. Solid collaboration. Okay, is everyone agree with that change yes I'm seeing head nods okay. All right. Any other feedback or points on the other two instances of a minute. I'm seeing none. Do you need anything further from us on this one. No, I would you like me to read about you. Okay, or would you like me to share screen. Sure. That would be great. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have had offer if you're moving toward offering this I've added the committee on rules as the sponsor pending final approval. This new revised whereas clause would say whereas the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in particular the anticipated impact of the highly transmissible on the Cron variant. Poses a risk to the health and safety of House members legislative staff and members of the public if the House of Representatives and members of the Cron variant. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any flags there. We good to move on. All right. Same thumbs up here. Good. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. So let's move the discussion to. Whether there are certain language around. The decision of how we talk about a trigger or not trigger or. Not a trigger. I'm trying to play with it while listening. So. Instead of, instead of using trigger, which can be really hard to sound to say what do you mean by a trigger. So resolved any future potential delays. In returning to in person. Will be predicated upon the rules committee presenting facts based upon testimony of. A trigger or not trigger. A trigger or not trigger. Demonstrating an inability to meet safely. So. Trying to make it that whole context of that bringing in. You know, science-based information. That would. Demonstrate that we could not meet safely. As a. Assumed component or required component of. What we're trying to get away from. Right. Trying to get away from. What people feel or think in and pull it into. An actual assessment of the. Medical and scientific facts. All right. So let's talk about it. Representative long and then McCarthy. So. My concern is around. Limitation. Of what we're potentially facing. So I'll just throw out an idea that just popped into my head. What if. The governor declared a state of emergency. You're saying that we would automatically then. Well, we. We have to vote ourselves. Right. Act on that. And so I'm just saying this would limit us to. To help them science-based or whatever. Right. I'm just saying my, my, my, my first statement. Right. What I'm following up on, and that is limiting ourselves to. Something. Very valid. And something that I absolutely know we are doing this for. But what I'm worried about is the unknown that we aren't anticipating right now. And not wanting to limit it to that. But that's what if it wasn't an or. Either we do this or that there's a. One of the problems with state emergency is. It can, it can be declared for a very limited basis. It's a dance. Good home up on the state of emergency thing. I was throwing that out as an example. But I think it's good. I mean, I think it's a good. Brainstorming. I think it's. I mean, it's, it's getting at my concern. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. You know, that. You know, that there isn't anything. Concrete. You know, I don't feel this decision is. Well-based. I really don't. And. But I'm willing to go along with it. As long as we have something in place. That the next decision. If, if we postpone coming back is well-based. So. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. On articulating it. Very well. But that's what I'm trying to get at this. Let's keep working. I represent McCarthy and then represent. Yeah, I think we're all committed to making sure that. When we have to come back together. To make the next set of decisions that we're going to use. You know, I don't know if it's a good thing to do. You know, consult. Public health officials and experts, but I. I also was concerned. Similar way to represent it long. What happens if we adopted that proposed language from representative Donahue and then. You know, we have 20 and 30 legislators that. Tested positive. And they're home. And we're making our decision based on our internal. about the advice we get from public health officials about the safety, it might be safety for 120 people in the house to return and then maybe we would all have to in person and then we'd be denying those 30 people the ability to participate. This has changed the present effects to the body. The rules committee is not making the decision the way I was resuggesting it. So it's not, you know. Yeah, I just, I don't know, I don't know why I still am not convinced that there's an additional value that we're providing by having this further resolve. Like today, what we're saying is that we're coming back on the 18th barring some other thing, right? And that's really all we're trying to do here. Well, today we're saying we're not coming back on fourth. And I don't think we're doing it on the basis of any good or solid basis. And so if we're leaving it, in the same condition, then I don't know that we're coming back on the 18th because we could make the same, not well informed decision. Representative McLeod. Yeah, so I think that's the concern that today we're acting on a anticipated impact of the Omicron virus to the body. We're anticipating that it's coming. So I think what Representative Donahue is trying to say, come January 18th, we don't wanna anticipate again. We wanna have some type of a science-based thing that says this is what we're gonna look at, not some kind of anticipatory, well, we think it's gonna come again. I mean, I acquiesced as I've said to the speaker that I will do it this time. But I think our concern is that we're gonna continue to anticipate something instead of basing our resolutions on fact or some type of a, we're gonna look at ICU numbers or we're gonna look at hospitalizations or we're gonna look at members of the House and Senate to see where they are as far as how many have contracted COVID or not. Something that we're not always anticipating something, but base it on some type of knowledge, fact-based. And I don't know how to word that either. And I know that we've all made a collective agreement to come up with that. But I think what we're looking for is, yeah, we've made a collective agreement, but it's not in any resolution anywhere. It's not in, like, you know, I think that's there and where lies the problem for. And I don't know what the solution is. I don't think anybody knows what the solution is. We're all, we're running together to, you know, but I think I would be very uncomfortable to come back to the table and say, yeah, you know, we anticipated it didn't come. So we're gonna anticipate again come January 18th. That is just not, I am totally not comfortable with that. So would it be, again, we're all brainstorming, throwing ideas on the table here. What if there was a letter or a memo that I sent out to all members that would be outlining our conversation and joint rules and house rules, talking about how we're gonna come up with this process and lay out the kinds of experts we're gonna bring in, talk about how, you know, we're reading things about hospitalization and ICUs, but also need to take into consideration what's happening with our own membership and put some, and kind of lay that out in a step-by-step process so that all members have the understanding since not everybody's here with us or aren't able to join us to follow along to kind of tell the story of how we got here, who we've heard from, and then the next steps with joint rules and house rules that lay out who are the type of people we're bringing in, when are we gonna meet and just have it laid out step-by-step. Results, see it to end them attached. I would just, I would be comfortable with that because that actually lays out in language really what we were discussing in joint rules, frankly. I mean, I don't think there was ever any anticipation of us just saying we may or may not come back. I think we said we were going to reassess and the reassessment was looking at all of those things you just described. I would be fine with that. And it's pretty good in writing. And it's put, that's actually articulated in writing without further ado. Madam Speaker, I have seen the kind of memos you put out and the kind of detail and thought in how you have articulated steps and processes to members of the body. And given that, I think I could take a lot of confidence in feeling that that would be a very explicit commitment to the kind of informed decision that would happen if we were to need to consider a change in the commitment currently to returning January 18th. I'm just looking around the table to see if there's consensus around that. Representative LeClaire. Thank you, Matt. I also agree, I guess my question would be is if there's any clarity required after the fact what would be considered the governing document here? Is it the resolution or is it the follow-up letter that you'd sent out? We'll be sending out to address some of the questions, but if there's an area that isn't either clear or addressed. Oh, I guess. So this resolution will be up for debate on the floor on January 4th. Yes. So I guess we can additionally reiterate on this. I don't know if you're going to have this memo available ahead of time so that on January 4th it's available. Yes. I think to ease that we would absolutely get that out. So I think that would make a big difference for people to actually see that in writing and say, okay, we'll vote on this. And knowing that there is this memo that they have been able to digest and read prior to voting on January 4th. I think that would allay some fear. Yep. Okay. Be prepared to get a draft requesting feedback. Okay. All right. Are there any other potential amendments that anyone else would like to put on the table? Okay. That's the answer. How much time do you need to update the draft? I think I had- And write the letter. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. One minute to share screen again. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We are here on what's labeled draft 2.1 and it only contains the changes that you requested to the first whereas clause that we already discussed. No changes to those and no changes to the original two result clause. Any questions? I just want to make sure everybody's seeing this. So I'm just going to give it another moment. But you sit with it. And you'll see it on your screen. Here we go. I got it. Okay. The new email hasn't arrived. Thank you. Take a moment. There we go. Okay. Does everyone have it? No. Okay. I'm not the new one. I haven't said I can email it yet. Oh, wait. I can look here. I didn't really, I thought it had been emailed. I'm just doing it on the fly here. No, that's fine. Okay. Okay. 2.1. 2.1. Great. Folks. Like they're scrolling or reading it. Does anyone have any. Any comments on this point of clarification? So I just have one. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. So we'll. Joint rules work on this and then it. They make the recommend to both house and Senate rules or will we as house rules be dealing with. That's right. Yes. This is the next step on the decision to make and train. All right. 18th. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We'll move on to the 18th. You're at your question related to what happens after the 18th. No, my question was. Yeah. Yeah. The 18th. Would we be working on the memo that. You know, we're, we're looking for trigger. I'm going to use the word trigger, but we're looking. Yeah. We'll be working on the speaker articulates. We will be the ones working. So we will work in conjunction with joint rules as well to make sure that we're all coordinating, but the, the entity that makes that decision for the house. Great. Everyone has read it. I have a motion to adopt. Well, we're going to operate by the house rules committee. Oh, that's a good question. I made that assumption that was in the draft. Is that last draft. Our members Alaska. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I'm just looking at TBD. I'm right. Sorry. And I did email it to members just so you have it handy, but I can put it back on the screen. No, that's fine. I believe it. Okay. Is everyone. Good to go with that decision. I'm seeing heads. Notting. Any objections. May I please have a motion to. Second. Second. Present. Further discussion. Members ready to vote. Okay. Representative law. Yes. Representative McCarthy. Yes. Representative Bartholomew. Yes. Representative McCoy. Yes. Representative Leclerc. Yes. Representative Donahue. Yes. May I explain my vote? I haven't heard that in a while. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I already did. Yes. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you. We just did a lot of work. And it's short period of time. And we are on time, which I also appreciate. So. Members, I really appreciate your work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be following up with you all to get your thoughts and feedback to make sure it's clear. As possible. And detailed as possible. The goal will be able to get that out in the next couple of days. So that folks have enough time with it. And we will. I will also in addition, send out an update to all members. What happened today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There are any particular reminders that you want me to put in there? Let me know. Since I know you are all talking with your members a lot. And with that, are there any. Request for further agenda items. Or any. Including thoughts before we wrap. Representative Colburn. I just continue to think again, I think it's going to be complicated. But I think it's going to be a good idea. I think it's going to be a good opportunity to dig into the question of remote voting. For when and if we are. Have returned to in person and. Yes. Represented Johnny Hughes earlier points. Some of my earlier comments. About sort of how to conduct business equitably. Certainly. I think that's a good policy on that. I think there you're going to continue to hear concerns, at least for me on behalf of my caucus about. About this question. And it seems like a tricky one to figure out. So I just encourage you all to dig into. Figuring out that policy sooner rather than later. Any other. Thoughts. Or future agenda items. All right. Thank you. Thanks everyone. We'll adjourn and. Next step. Thanks.