 you're back with the House Judiciary and Government Operations Committee. Uh, we are here considering an amendment to S219 that Legislative Council is going to run through with us right now. So thank you, Bryn. Sure thing. So for the record, Bryn here from Legislative Council. Um, you have an amendment, uh, instances of amendment here to present before third reading. Um, because it's a floor amendment to be offered, has to be offered by an individual or a number of individuals. So Representative Hashim is presenting this amendment. Please let me know if you'd like that to change. So it's three amendments here to your, to the House version of S219. The first is changing, um, that legislative intent section that indicates that the House is committed to working on, um, resituating the Council, the Criminal Justice Training Council, to the jurisdiction of DPS. And so you've changed that to, rather than saying resituating, you're going to say whether or not to resituate the Council into the jurisdiction of DPS. Um, and if you recall, this is directly responsive to the, um, Senate proposal of amendment, which would have struck that section entirely. Um, the second instance of amendment, and the third are both amending Section 8, which is that directive to, um, DPS, to immediately begin the acquisition and deployment, or the way it was in your version was just acquisition of body cameras for the Vermont State Police. So you've made two changes here. These are the exact same changes that the Senate proposal of amendment would have made in, um, the fifth and sixth instance of amendment. So it's really returning to the Senate's version of this section, Section 8. So it, um, what it results in is that sentence will read after the acquisition and deployment of body cameras. And rather than having DPS, come back to the legislature and with a budget proposal for the ongoing costs of operating those body cameras in FY22, that language is returned to the Senate version and they are directed to return in FY21 in August with their budget proposal regarding the ongoing costs of, of those, of body cameras. So it's just those three amendments. Brynn, I'm, I'm sorry. I hate to ask it. Can you repeat part of that? My dog started barking halfway through and, um, because I think somebody pulled into my driveway, but could you just repeat again what you said? Sure. So the, the second and third instance of amendment are the same as the Senate 5th and 6th instance of amendment that you guys just looked at, um, an hour or so ago. So what effectively it does is it returns Section 8. And if everyone remembers, Section 8 is that, um, session law directive to DPS regarding acquiring body cameras for all law enforcement under their authority. And it changes the language so it goes back to the Senate version. So it, um, it will read, the Department of Public Safety shall immediately initiate the acquisition and deployment of video recording devices to comply with the requirements of Section 7. The ongoing costs of the devices that can't be accommodated within the department's budget shall be included in the department's FY21 budget proposal to the General Assembly in August of 2020. And that's it. So any, any questions for Bryn? So I'm, I'm generally confused. I thought we were, we had decided to stick with what we had, but we have, but we now have these three things that we want to go back to the Senate version is that's, that's what we're doing now. And I'm just confused. I'm not trying to throw a wrench in things, but. Right. So they, um, yeah, they had a lot more, um, as we went one or two hours, whatever, um, a lot more instances of upper amendment things that they were offering to us. And basically we're saying, you know, these three changes and that's it. Okay. And, okay. And this is basically just to make the Senate happy so that we'll not be going back and forth. Well, it's, I don't know if it's, if it'll make them happy. Because we're, you know, I mean, we're, you know, we're holding strong on our sunset and, and, uh, there's a bunch of stuff in there, um, in our intent that they want for making them happy. And for that third section, um, that is going, we're changing it to, um, August of 2020. So, and that's the Senate version. That's, um, right. That's when they passed it. That's, that's the language that it, um, that it passed the Senate with. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. That's just a protocol. Mike Marwicky has a hand up. Thank you, Madam Chair of HGO. I'll notice two chairs here. Um, was that, um, going too deep in this? We, we want to, we feel like this is our last best offer. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Selena has a question. Um, I was just going to note on the, the, I mean, we're changing the date on when they need to come forward and let us know if they think they're going to need some kind of budget appropriation, but that, um, effective date that we've extended out on sections, what in our bill, I believe is section seven about when people will actually be outfitted with video cameras. We're retaining our date there, right? Yeah, we didn't, this, this is it. We didn't change anything else. Yeah. So, I mean, this seems, it seems like we're holding really, really strong here on our proposal. Yeah. It's consistent with the testimony that, that we heard. Not that this has a lot of relevance, but this is the last piece of legislation we need to pass before adjournment or, or recess, correct? That's my understanding. I haven't been on the floor, but I, that's my understanding. Mine as well. It is correct. Let's make sure Nodder has what he needs. Selena, did you have any other questions? You good? No, I was just making sure because the, the, there's the two different August dates that we all understood there was talking about their, their budgetary needs. Absolutely. Barbara's hand was next. So I was thinking, somebody will ask on the floor, what's the purpose of this change? And I wouldn't know how to answer it. And I don't know if Nodder feels like he knows how to answer it, but I'd be curious what's the rush number. I'd love you to hear how you would answer it. I'd be curious what the recommended answer is to that. Me too. Hi, so go ahead Maxine. No, I know it's, it's tricky, but, but we, you know, what we went over earlier was where the Senate was heading and we're coming back with saying, you know, well, this is as far as we'll go. No, I get that. I just don't understand. Procedurally that we didn't have them passed it back. Yeah. No, not even that. Just like what, what's sort of the bottom, like what will be different with these dates? Like what, what difference did we just make? Nothing. Okay. It's okay. So, so I, yeah, okay. We are going with the urgency. We're agreeing with the urgency of, of getting the body cameras out there. That's why we're agreeing with the section eight. I'm not sure exactly what the answer, I mean, the answer, the first one is that we did understand there was a problem with that particular intent statement and we're just essentially softening that intent statement. I think that's, we understand what the Senate wanted and we're trying to make it so this is the last time this is going to be moving one way or another between the bodies. Right. We're clarifying, right. We're clarifying that, for instance, in the intent language that's, that's intent on something, that's a goal, something that we're working on. It's not, you know, absolute done deal. And it's a problem sometimes between intent and there. Yep. Well, it's compromised language. So. It's very patient hand up. Go ahead, Tom. Oh, I'm sorry. I was texting back and forth and I wasn't, I had taken my hearing aid out a little bit. I had my hand up basically because in case I had a question, I got in here late, I was having issues getting into the meeting and so I guess from what I can see, I mean, just to, if you, if you could weigh or, you know, or measure the give and take, I think we did all right. And as far as the third one goes with the date, I mean, it just moves it up and it secures the money. The way I see it, it just secures the money potentially a little sooner. And they have the money. So, right, right. That's your third section, right? Yes. The third section of this, of this document right here, the draft 1.1 from 738. Would either of you chairs entertain a motion? We have one more hand up and we're done with clarifying questions. I think it would make sense for there to be a motion, but we really need to make sure Nodder has what he needs. So, Warren had a question and then we'll go to Nodder. Not a question so much, but just one of the things that I'm aware of, I like to manage. I like him. I like his politics generally. He's probably watching right now. So, be sure you say some really nice things. I don't care if Tim hears this. I like the guy. But there's one thing that I don't like about Tim. He loves to play the game. Politics to Tim is a game. And it's always... Guys, let's get back to the rest of the house is waiting for us. If we open up the game playing, he'll play it as long as we want to play it. The rest of the house is waiting for us and we need to make sure Nodder has what he needs in order to present this on the floor. So, go ahead, Nodder. Very quickly, number two, initiate acquisition and insert deployment. What was the reasoning behind that? What huge difference does that make? Spirit of compromise. It goes back to the way they had their language originally and it probably will have no effective impact on the pace at which DPS will deploy the body cams because they are working as fast as they can. I think, too, Nodder, it just provides assurance that they're moving through all the steps. Keyword is initiate, but we're saying like, yes, they're going to acquire them. Yes, they're moving and deploying them. It's the language to provide assurance of their commitment to moving through all the steps. The commissioner said that that was fine when we heard from him most recently. So, Nodder, just one bit of advice, though. This is good to have that information for your back pocket as far as if somebody asks, but I would just say what the amendment is without giving a lot of explanation for why unless you get the question. Because I think at this hour, I would be surprised if anybody asks. So why? It's like being prepared. That's all. Yeah, no, that's right. I'm just saying that's great. I agree with that, but don't offer that unless you ask. I'm good to go then. Thank you. All right. Tom wants to make a motion. Again, because I came in late and if you did it, just tell me you did it and I'll be fine with it. But I was just wondering the madam chairs, a high level view of your take on the negotiations. If overall, I guess you're happy and satisfied and you think they went well. And with that said, I certainly appreciate the work both of you did to get this to where we are. I think the fundamental direction of the bill is intact and that the foundations that were laid in the committee process that we used are being respected here. And I guess I would just recommend to Nodder that he conclude his remarks by pivoting back to the focus of the bill overall, which is still intact with these changes. Great. Thank you. Great. So let's get a motion, I think, to a hands or something. But terms that we find this amendment favorable, the amendment draft number 1.1, 738 PM favorable. Okay, great. I can't see if everybody's here, right? How about does anybody object? Hopefully there'd be a lot fewer. Let's call people because we are missing one, two, three. So we're doing the right thing here, right? That's all I care about, right? Yes. Yes, we are. I think so. This time of night, yeah. I wonder how many people on this screen I trust. So I didn't see if Patrick Seymour said yes. I think I called everybody else yes, and we have nine. Who are we missing besides? I was raising my hand, you just couldn't see it because I don't know if they get it. Come on, Patrick, turn your camera on. We are missing somebody else. Who am I missing that we're missing? Coach. Coach. Just coach, that's 10-0-1. Oh, I didn't count myself. Do we need to have the count for the GovOps on this one? We don't have possession of the bill, do we? Right. No, no. And we don't. If anybody wants to know, I'll be happy to jump in, and why don't you text me your straw poll since we've all been on a text message, but it sounds to me like we're all peaceful with the direction we're heading. I mean, if you want to give it extra credibility, tell them that we agreed, of course. Of course. Barbara has her hand up. Just voting. Okay. Good, good. Nodder, do you have everything you need from us? Yes. Dang. All right. If you find out who they're hiring. 22 behind you. See you guys back on the floor. Do we have a... They're waiting for us to go and meet? Yes. I don't know exactly if they're waiting for us, but they're watching us. Don't go yet, Nodder. Don't go yet. You need to send that to Bill, don't you, to have him email it out to Bill or Rebecca. And with the vote, 10-0-1. Yeah, you do. Is that not right? Or does it have to be... Is Bryn still here? Do we need to have it edited? I don't see that Bryn still here. Yeah. No, thank you, Martin. Thank you. Yeah, the clerk's office definitely needs to get it. So email it to the clerk, to Bill, to Rebecca, and I would copy Mitzi as well. Yeah, okay. Okay. Yeah. And a big thanks to Mike and Andrea for again convening us. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Problem. Be good, Nodder. Yeah, I'm going to send it to Bill right now. See you back on the floor. Okay.