 So committee, we're going to shift gears. And I just wanted to, uh, Uh, our. Council, Ellen Chukowski has joined us, uh, with. Very little notice. I just wanted to make sure that we got a, so we're not going to have a walk through or anything like that, the executive order. I just wanted to make sure everyone got a copy of it. And, um, I just wanted to make sure that we got a copy of it. And then we'll schedule time next week to dig into it. So, uh, good morning, Miss Chukowski. Good morning. And does Jude now have that EO? She, she does. I don't know if she's been able to post it yet. Um, but I can't, I can't post it. I don't know. Yeah. So, um, if Jude, when we wrap up for the morning, if you could post it and just email it to members of the committee, I can email it now, but I, I'll post after the meeting. Okay. Great. Um, and so I thought we would go through that with you next week. Mr Chukowski and we'll work on schedule. I don't know if, uh, if this is something you'd have enough time to prepare for Tuesday or Wednesday, or is more of the latter half of the week seem likely just. Um, the latter half would be preferable. Um, but I. Yes, it would be preferable. I, you know, I know your schedule. There, there's, you know, potentially a 90 day window you're working with here. So time is right of the essence, right? I'm feeling a little that shock clock pressure now that we have the 90 day clock running, which I think you said it expires on April 14th. Right. Um, maybe, uh, so without asking you to do more than you're prepared to do, can you just. Remind the committee a little bit about how this works. Um, and things we might keep in mind as we read the order. Uh, you know, like in terms of. To what degree does this. Is this a straightforward thing or are, is it a bit of a stretch, you know, in terms of. What a governor can or cannot do. In terms of reorganization. So. I still, it has not the. I need some more time to fully. Okay. Sure. Um, I just wanted to ask you guys what. Is going on in executive order two dash 21. Um, the governor issued the executive order yesterday afternoon. So I haven't even had it for 24 hours yet. Um, but it is proposing a reorganization of the natural resources board. Um, but it is also proposing a restructuring of the permitting process. Um, I can talk to you about some of the, the, um, the actual text of the proposal. I haven't finished my legal analysis yet, but, um, There is, I don't, I don't want to ask you to do more than you're really prepared to do. So, uh, especially since we, we're all just getting the thing. So I just thought, um, Um, Um, Um, I think the framing for it is an EO can be issued in the first 15 days of a session that does a reorganization. That's already a statutory provision. Right. In title three chapter 41. There is a statute 3000. Uh, Uh, Three VSA 2002, which does allow a governor to reorganize executive branch agencies. Um, Um, That statute allows the legislature to disapprove by resolution of either body within 90 days. Uh, And if the text of that statute does specifically refer to reorganization of an executive branch agency. Um, the text of the executive order, um, does a few things. Um, Do you want me to put it up on the screen? Or would you like me to just give the bullet points? If you can pop it up on the screen. And again, I'm not, I don't want you to be trying to do more analysis work on the fly than you're ready to do. So, But I think I can talk, talk you through just the bullet points of what the proposal is. Um, So last year. Your committee did work on an act to 50 bill age 926. And. What is in the text of the executive order is very close to what was in the administration's proposal. Um, 4926 that was in the house. So I don't believe that your committee actually reviewed that proposal. Um, because it was not passed out of the house. Um, But it is not a. It is a proposal that I have seen before. So. Okay. Can I quick check in a quick history question? Okay. So my recollection is. That it was part of the bill when the bill left natural resources official by life. The bill went to. Ways and means and ways and means didn't approve and subsequent to that the bill was brought to the floor. Without this section. Is that right? Yes, you're testing my memory though, I don't know if I've done it. I've done it. I don't know if I've done it. I don't know if I've done it. I don't know if I've done it. I don't know if I've done it. I don't know if I've done it. I don't know if I've done it. Okay. I think the ways and means amendment took out the board. But it might have been the appropriations amendment. Okay. So it wasn't the committee of jurisdiction removing it. It was money committees taking a look. Okay. Mr. Mr. Chair? Uh, yes, please. Is this. The provisions were talking about our way to. where the governor's free to change lawful provisions and they'll take place unless we go, we say, no, we'd like that to be, go through the legislative process. Is that basically where we are? Well, I would say yes, but I'm gonna look to council to make sure. Well, council, is that basically where we are? Yes, although I'm hesitant to characterize it exactly, the governor does have specific authority to do some things by executive order. There is a lot of language in here and I haven't finished analyzing whether or not all of it fits within the exact authority given to him. Well, the other one is changing the name of the agents, the police, the law enforcement from a department to an agency, which if they continue to do the same things they've always done, it seems to be a different case. In this case, the things that are called for in law and requirements and applications and how they're dealt with and reviewed is in this proposed order. So I thought that's what we called streamlining these days where you didn't go through the regular process to agree to get something done, you just went and did it. And we have an opportunity to say that's a great idea or we don't approve. Is that basically where we're at? Yes, so this proposal includes restructuring the personnel of the Natural Resources Board but also who is the specific people granting the Act 250 permits? Yeah, okay. So first here, the language changes the existing Natural Resources Board from a five member board to a three member board made up of three full-time professionals. One chair plus two additional members. The current structure of the Natural Resources Board is five members, one chair plus members who receive per diem. So they only work when the board is in session. So that is a difference. All right, so I don't wanna ask for a legal opinion on this but it does seem interesting. I'll just say that to read that the Executive Order abolishes something that's defined in statute which seems like a, I don't know, anyway. So I was surprised that any governor could abolish a board established in statute because it in essence seems like rewriting law. But again, I know you have more analysis work to do to figure out where the extent of those powers. And so we'll come back to it, but just call my eye. No governor can do that unless we agree. So they don't have the power to do it. They have the power to do it if we think it's a good idea and we agree. But Mr. Kowski, isn't it true that if we have to actively disapprove in the form of a resolution, if we take no action, the change takes place? Is that right? That's how I thought the construct is. Yep. I believe that is the language of the statute in 2000. So Mr. Kowski, is it a resolution or do we pass an actual new piece of legislation that would counter this? So I don't want to speak too in depth today on the exact legal structure, but I believe in the past, a disapproval resolution can be passed. Thank you. By either body. And approved by both bodies. Or just one body needs to not approve. I would prefer not to, I am going to ignore, but the statute does say approval, a disapproval resolution by either body. So I need to dig further. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Senator McCormick, please. Thank you. I don't think I'm going to be telling anybody anything they don't already know. I just want to make sure my understanding is correct. The governor's authority to do this is not derived from his COVID emergency authority. It is stat, it's a statutory authority. Is that correct? Correct, okay. And he acts unilaterally only if the legislature decides to let him, if the legislature act, we have 90 days to take action. So that it's, if we, if that this still, it requires some kind of legislative judgment, perhaps the judgment to do nothing, but one way or another, the legislature has 90 days to decide what we want the law to be. Is that correct? Do I have that right? We don't want the law to be. Well, yeah, I mean, it's just a, you're confusing me, Mark. We have 90 days to make a decision in the matter. Yes. Is that correct? Yes. I was actually asking council, but thanks Mark. Is that correct, Ellen? So three VSA 2002, I'm going to put it up on the screen because I do need, I want to be very careful in characterizing this because it's still early. Three VSA 2002B provides that an executive order issued under this chapter for reorganization of an executive branch shall not be issued later than January 15th. The executive order shall become effective unless disapproved by resolution of either house of the general assembly within 90 days or before final adjournment of the annual session, whichever comes first. So that is the law that is cited in the beginning of the executive order. I do need to do more research on the precise procedure requirement, but it does say disapproved by resolution of either house of the general assembly. So that option is available to us. So I guess it's just the idea that deciding to do nothing is actually a decision. Deciding not to decide is in fact, a decision itself. The ball is in our court now. Am I right? And the clock is running. Yes, but the clock is running and it's a legislative decision that we make. We have the power to stop this if we choose to do that. But I want to be fair to counsel. I only asked her to come by to sort of just tee this up so we get a copy we could read through. And maybe if there was a little discussion just to get us rolling, but we are all whatever experienced enough that we want to go on to round two and three of questions. And we're going to have to put our horses for a while. Yeah, I want it to be clear on the process before we even begin to look at the merits. That's all. So, and I think I am clear on that. I think I was clear anyway. I just wanted to verify that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, so. Let's continue. I just wanted to provide you with the text. I want to stay away from providing final legal analysis on this, but that is the statutory basis for where we're going. So the board is being changed from five member to three full-time members. The current board's authority in statute is being transferred to this new three-person board. So the chair and the two members are appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate and they shall serve six-eared terms but also serve at the pleasure of the governor. So currently the board has four-year terms for each of the members except for the chair who serves at the pleasure of the governor. So then the authority of the district commissions is changed. So the district commissions, their authority to decide on whether an application is a major, minor, or administrative amendment is given to the board. So then the three-member board for each application will have two additional members participating in the application review. Those two members shall be made up from the local district commission. So, sorry, that's this one. So when a particular application comes before the board, two members from the district commission where the district, from the district where the application is being reviewed become voting members on the board for that application. Which two members? I'm sorry? Which two members? So it gives the authority to decide which members to the chair of the district commission. So the chair of the commission shall decide. Thank you. And so that means that the board will be issuing the permits as opposed to the district commissions issuing the permits. And that's, sorry, just to make sure. And that's for the subset of applications that then get, that stay with this higher level board. It's for all applications. It's for all applications. Yeah, so the board has given the authority to review applications and decide if it's a major, minor, administrative amendment. And then they then review the permit application with the additional two district commission members. I see. So it's not that minors and adjustments are referred back down to the district commission level. I don't think so. But it's a little, it is a little unclear, but I don't think so. Okay, thank you. The district coordinators still retain authority to issue jurisdictional opinions, but they, but reconsideration of those JIOs now goes to the board. So most, if not all of the district commission's actual authority goes to the board. And then it also transfers all of the rules, policies and procedures over applications to the natural resources board. And all of these changes take place on July one. So I think that is the high level overview of what all of the changes are. So I just have a basic math question of thinking about capacity to process. We currently have nine district commissions. Is that right? And they are three member boards, chair plus two. Yes. So that's 27. Plus all. And there's gonna be this, pardon me. And there's alternates. Most districts have two or more alternates. Okay. And now all applications will go to this higher level board which will be three chair plus two members of that board augmented by two from the district from which the application originates. Okay. So they're, I'm just thinking aloud a little bit about how busy they may become if all permits come through them. But Senator Westman, did you have a question to hand? I did. Well, one, what it would be helpful to me is when you do your analysis on, if you could do a chart and say, here's the way it is now, here's what they're proposing. And so I can compare, because I think this sets itself up to do that. Is the three members viewed as a full, all full-time now? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Senator Westman. And to that point, one of the things I wanted to do when you're reminding me was to say, while we have counsel and she's going to be getting ready to come back and we'll have a deeper discussion. If you think of any questions that you can either share now or forward on in the time in between, just help us get ready to have a fuller discussion when we reconvene. Yeah. Can I just say for me, the present board isn't all full-time, correct? Correct. And the district commissions, I have no idea. I know that they're out there, but some of them I don't think meet more than a couple of days a month. Right. So the district commissions receive per diem based on their review and work on applications. So they are not full-time. So I'm just trying to understand as the question before work volume. And now I've got three full-time people with full-time staff that are gonna be doing that work versus something that's part time. So I'm just trying to figure out workflow and how that would work. So somehow in that, I need help understanding that. Sure, and I'm not sure you're the person to do that, but I'm just saying that generally for the chair and others to hear. Maybe it's Senator Snelling that comes in at some point or Chair Snelling. Yeah, or, right, but I, you know, because I have all these part-time people all over the state that are doing, you know, and I, you know, if the board's gonna be full-time and I'm just, I need that to help understand the workflow. Right. Great. And Senator McCormick, you've served on a district commission and chaired a district commission. That's correct, yes. So that's one commission. But do you have a, so we're not asking for data really, but in your experience, what's the workload like at the district commission level? It depends on the district. It depends on how much development activity is happening. And that also changed over time. There was a stretch there where I was basically working full-time as chair of the district three commission, not just on district three, but then I would work as a substitute in district five because it's workload was so heavy. However, there were districts that really, it's correct. They will meet maybe a few times a month. And my district, district three, the workload went up and down. When I say I work full-time, I'm talking about a very brief period. But I pretty much always had at least one or two days a week that we did it. No one made a living at it. So the per diem is not that generous. And how are district commissions staffed? We had a coordinator, district two and district three shared a coordinator. District two was down in the Brattleboro area and district three was up into Northern Windsor County and extended up into Orange County. And we had a, it's been a couple of years that may have, the bureaucracy may have expanded. But at that time we had, we shared, no, excuse me, let me, I'm gonna correct myself. They shared an office. They shared an administrative office. We had our own coordinator. And that was a full-time state employee, VSEA member making a career of it as opposed to the board itself, which was a citizen, part-time citizen board. And who wrote like the, I mean, I've read some of the J.O.'s and stuff like that. Those seem to be fairly lengthy, detailed legal documents finding after finding after finding. And that's a lot of blood and sweat and tears and getting all those details and history, right? Who writes those? The relationship that was similar to the legislature's relationship to legislative council, which was that ultimately all the points and in those memos, those documents derived from committee discussion. And then the actual writing was done by staff, done by the coordinator. So, I mean, similarly as a legislator, I will discuss with staff in a vernacular way what I want to build and read like. And then legislative council writes it up with proper statutory references and so on. And it was that sort of the coordinator did that work. And then as chair, the chair would work often one-on-one with the clerk, but members of the commission participated as well. Okay. So, this is one of those, thank you for that, that's helpful. And this is one of those moments where I was saying on day one, you know, what questions, this is the thinking as a group improves the thinking part where I would like to say to the committee, like what questions do we have and who do we want to hear from? So, so far we want to know what the existing structure is and what the proposed structure is, what the volume of work is and the capacity of the old versus the new system to handle that work. We want to know what the legal landscape in which these adjustments are being proposed. If I were to translate that into English it'd be something like, is this the kind of adjustment in administration that the law contemplated? And this is where within the bounds or this is kind of proposing to rewrite statute. And that's a generous interpretation of what's allowed under law. Mr. Chairman, just to be responsible, the committee might want to hear from someone who is more familiar than I am with the way it all works today, the information I just gave is quite old information. Okay. Do you have anyone you would like to propose for you and you can think about that and get back to me? For instance, Ed Steynick has spoken with us a number of times because I think he, I don't remember how recently he retired but I think he spent 25 years doing this work, something like that. Okay. And also I would just remind you that the administration did make this proposal formally to House Natural last year. So they had a proposal along these lines already prepared. So I suspect they could walk you through exactly with how they're envisioning the process working. Right. So I'll reach out to the secretary and I don't know if the secretary be the one to do the walkthrough but we'll reach out to the secretary and ask for that. So. Senator Westman. So since I'm new to all of these issues, do I, you know, from the high level and not having been on a natural resources committee, the complaint that I hear is that each of the district commissions, depending on where you are, it's not uniform what the decisions would be across the board. How do I measure that? How, you know, are there examples or, you know, that different district commissions come up with different decisions based upon the same rules. And I hear it gets, my sense of what people say is it gets worse over time. How do I measure that? You know, I, so, you know, part of, I know this is partly subjective but I somehow we have to take a stab at that to answer that question. Okay. And you guys have more experience with this than I have but that, I'm just telling you that's what I, you know. Right. That's a good question because we know the plural of anecdotes, not data but it's subjective. So it's hard to know. And then the other thing by design, right? They're always local people on district commission. So are we saying that one size fits all for the state of Vermont? Or do we feel like what could be labeled in consistency is actually an appropriate local preference being expressed? And I'm not voting one way or the other. I'm just, I can see two ways of looking at it. And I would just say it's not just the boards in that it's that the staff in each does different things. And they, the question that I would hear is someone that's in, I still think of her as Senator Snelling's position is she has little authority to direct the, or the complaint is that it has little ability to direct the paid staff people in each position. So it's both at the staff level and at the district commission level appointed people. Right, okay. Senator Campion then Senator McCormick. So I just want to confirm what Senator Westman's asking. In part, are you asking how are we measuring that what's happening right now isn't working? Well, I didn't say it isn't working, but I, it, you know, I hear the the measure that we need to make the change. Well, the evidence or, or, you know, is the fact, is it a fact that different district commissions do different things with looking at the same statutory guidelines? Yeah. And do we get, you know, I'm not, I don't know that that's inherently bad. And it, you know, is it bad or not? How do I make that measurement to be able to, I think part of this comes out that people complain you can be in two different commissions and get different answers. And how do we feel about that? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Senator McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To answer Senator Westman's point or inquiry, my understanding is going back to the actual development of Act 250 itself under Dean Davis, the work of Art Gibb. Is that in that discussion that led to Act 250, there was a lot of concern about Montpelier taking away local control. And we don't need bureaucrats from Montpelier coming in and telling us what to do. It's why there are separate environmental districts in the first place was to be sensitive to local differences. And, you know, there's an inherent contradiction between the demand for more flexibility and the demand for more predictability. It seems to me that the two work very much against one another. And the fact is that the different parts of the state are very different. I don't know if people in the Northeast kingdom would be happy being governed out of Barry. So, or Burlington for that matter. So anyway, this is an old complaint. It has always been there. But the fact is the different commissions reflect the different neighborhoods. Yeah, I didn't say it's bad when I just don't understand how the relationship is. I would also say to you, 50 years is a big difference. You just had a technical glitch. What did you say, Richard? We're 50 years out from the creation and do the same things, are the same things at play. Right. In the sink. Well, I still hear a lot of demand for local control. I hear a lot about local control to this day. And to you, to Senator Westman's point, about 50 years, you know, a lot of things have changed. We spent quite a bit of time on a piece of that change puzzle last year when we were looking at designated areas, because 50 years ago there was no such thing as a designated area. And the total number of designated areas in the state is now up to something like potentially, I forget, we did a count, you know, it could be as high as 213. So if you start applying at any rate, and municipal law, municipal planning law has grown up tremendously since that time. So it's definitely a different land, a different regulatory landscape than it was back then. So, all right. Well, I don't know if this is just peaking my curiosity or I'm getting hives as we start talking about this again, but it's... So, yeah, now it's like we talked about some of these things last year and so now we have a reason to be talking about them a little sooner than I thought, but that's what I think the EO was designed to do was precipitate a conversation sooner rather than later. So we basically have till the end of March. Is that correct? I think it's April 14th, it's the legal cutoff, right? Oh, that, okay. Every March, April. Well, 90 days, is that, how does that get us, okay, from yesterday, okay, that gets us to April 14th, okay. Yeah. Okay, well, great. So obviously there's plenty of things to think about and learn and that's great. So that's why I just wanted to get the ball rolling even though we don't know quite where we're going yet. So we'll schedule time with Mr. Chakowsky on Thursday. We'll aim to do that and then I'll invite and guess. So far we, and if people have more thoughts, let me know, but Chair Snelling, one or more people with experience on district commissions and Stanek was one, we might want to be thinking about others. Secretary Moore or someone on her staff who's the point person to explain the thinking behind the proposal and then we'll want to understand the EO in detail as well as start to collect some information on staffing, workflows, work levels, stuff like that. And then the consistency question. So public policy question, okay. Well, great. Well, anything else that comes to mind around getting a start on this? All right. I would only make a small plug that I believe you got the Commission on Act 250 report again this year and it does have, it is a long report but each of the sections do have a quick overview of some of the things we've been discussing. And I think the commission did actually specifically consider the question of consistency between districts. And I was just trying to flip through and find it but it is something that is a longstanding question that people have attempted to explore. So that is definitely something in the, I think the report addresses but also some of the other structural questions are summarized in the report. Okay. So you're talking about not the full three ring binder but just the report that's one of the early sections? Yes. The Commission on Act 250, the next 50 years report just the 85 page document as opposed to the 500 page documents. Okay. Could you forward that to Jude so we can repost just that report and or anything else you think we might want to be considering? And then I would ask Jude to email that out to people so that they can take a look. If, and there's a table, I'm pretty sure I'm remembering there's a table of contents for it. So if someone wants to look for the topic they can skip ahead. Okay. So I just ask a question if I already know the answer to, or I think I do. Is there, does this proposal also include anything to do with wildlife corridors? Not that I saw. Does, is there a, another, is there a third executive change proposed having to do with wildlife corridors that stands by itself? No. You may remember after we left in October there was an executive order related to recreational trails but not wildlife corridors. So, but some, thank you, Mr. Chair some would characterize the bill we did pass out back in September as having been a, you know, kind of a bargain to do something that governor thought was important and something we thought was important. And the governor apparently chose not that didn't, was not comfortable with that. He vetoed that and then used executive power to facilitate the part of that bargain that he thought was a good idea. So sometimes, well, it speaks for itself and I guess we'll have a discussion on what's the best course of action and how we respect each other's authority and prerogatives in the weeks to come. Thank you. Right. Great. Yes, and as we talked about on our day one priorities, you know, I still have the hope and I don't know how it relates to this that we would move a narrow act to 50 bill that would bring back force fragmentation, fish and wildlife, let's just call it billback provisions for their environmental impact assessment. And if it were ready from that trail group, a proposal for an alternate regulatory scheme for managing trails since trails are very different than the average Act 250 projects. So we saw how awkwardly Act 250 applied to trails and I don't know if that work group, which is actually scheduled to deliver a proposal in March, which is too late for us, what kind of progress they will or will not make. But I could imagine that we, what the governor's offering might become part of a bill as well if we thought that that was a good idea. Okay, well, great. Well, thank you, Mr. Chakowsky for jumping in with little, very little notice and no time to really study this. It's helped bring our questions out and now when we read the thing, it will help us read, be better readers. It would be helpful if there was a chart and one that had now and where they wanna go. Great, okay. Yeah, and I can see if the administration put one together last session. Otherwise, it might take me a little while to put that together. Yeah, but, you know, this is gonna be around the day or two, so just. Okay. Okay, well, great. Well, then if there's nobody else who has any other questions about this, then we're done for the moment with the EO's.