 Thank you. So, the Senate government operations coming back for a little break, a couple little breaks. And we now have a draft 1.1, 1.5, I apologize, of JRSJRH2. And it is on the committee page has been posted so anybody can follow along if they want. And so committee I think that the thing we need to do is to start looking at it and see where we are. And hopefully pass it out today. Yes, Senator Rom. You want to do questions clause by clause or. Yes, I think so I think that that's the best way to do it so that we can answer any questions we have make any changes we need to instead of going jumping around and going back and forth. Does that it said okay with everybody. Yeah, we do it that way. I assume you do it that way. Okay. So we didn't change the, the introduction or the Madam chair, if I may offer, I would be able to be happy to go clause by clause with you tell you whether there's a change in a particular clause and what that change is, and then all of you and the committee can have your discussion on that clause. That's perfect. Thank you. And with that understanding, I'm ready to begin whenever you are. We are ready. Very good. And for the record, my name is Michael Churnick. And I am one of the legislative council staff attorneys and the drafter of this resolution. And the title remains the same as Madam chair indicate a moment ago, all the introductory language is the same as you saw yesterday. No change. The first new clause I did change last night and I alerted the chair to my concern that I wasn't sure where the 1906 state came from. I know we had to discuss there were discussions in the house about 1906. And there wasn't one point in 1906 clause that was then deleted on the part of the members of the House general committee. And then through my materials recession law through the various historical articles through Nancy Gallagher's book and I just wasn't finding a specific 1906 reference. So I thought saying early 1900s effectively does the same thing. I think it's great. I think it's well written I think. And then we had the discussion last night and this morning, regarding breed better men from the scientific American articles, say to Ram. And to be a mall I was chatting with one of the editors to be a motto. It actually has this was the associations motto for say or the organization. And then I saw in the various emails that went back and forth this morning a reminder, and it was sitting right in front of me a Nancy Gallagher's book. And it just seemed to be a good match. The same purpose. Yes, I would just say we should. We should say breeding better vermonters by Nancy Gallagher I just feel like it's not really fair to leave her, her authorship out. I'll do whatever you want. The reason I left it out was I didn't, I wasn't sure you wanted the name of an individual within the resolution within the whereas clause, but that's your cause. Decision completely. It's unusual to do that but to do what I'll do to add to have people's names I think. Yeah. Yeah. However you want it. Is it normal to just put sight of book without the author. I've gone both ways over the years I just thought that the reason I did it the way I did is that the resolution as it well there are a couple of other names concerning the governor and lieutenant governor. But since she's an author not a historic figure I wasn't sure what you wanted to do on that. If you wanted in I certainly can. I don't have strong feelings either way. I have kind of strong feelings that you know she, I mean her body of work came at a time when a lot of people weren't listening or paying attention to this part of our history, and she's, you know, she's one of the foremost experts and has, you know, really had to pull a lot of things together, starting at a time when we were not ready to have this conversation and I feel like if we're going to cite her book she deserves to be named. Let's do it. I'm fine with me. Okay. I have so noted in mind and so noted. The next. The next clause is basically as you suggested yesterday. I took the quotes out. I had a discussion with editing and the editing was asking me. What are you quoting. And I thought about it, and I made, we discussed that these concepts and other clauses, but it's not a direct quote from anything. So I pulled the quotes. I think I'm going to have a lot of little, little comments but I went once you take that out I feel like then we are then the accuracy sort of falls to us to make sure we're accurately describing what the eugenics movement was and it was elimination, maybe and it just, I mean, you know, if you just read that clause alone, it would seem like we were having like, you know, death squads or something this was through the process of sterilizing people so it just feels like elimination and sterilization would make sense. Right. Eliminating. Why did you do sterilization. Or what about elimination through sterilization. That's fine. Because I think Kasia's right. Otherwise it sounds like, you know, you line them up and squads. Yeah, that's what we probably did that too. Exactly. And we started doing this way before 1900, just saying. I don't think and I don't think it was just through sterilization. I think that there were other methods of elimination here I. I think that you could say elimination and sterilization but not elimination through sterilization. How about elimination, including sterilization. Yep. That's why you're wrong with that word for you. That sounds good. That's why you're the professional here. Michael. Okay, going to the next. Okay, so I had those two changes so far. I'm going to go through the clauses. The next clause is basically as you gave it to me yesterday, except I corrected the names. Oh, okay. It's actually out governor Allen Fletcher I went back, and I had his veto message, and the attorney general was Rufacy Brown. I went through my materials. Those are the right names, because by that point, Governor Fletcher had succeeded governor weeks. Okay. Perfect. That was an historic correction. Are we all right? Okay. The next clause, I made two changes from what well three changes, one minor and two, maybe a little bit larger, as was suggested to me yesterday, I added the word nevertheless right at the beginning, because it seemed to connect better to say nevertheless after the bill had been vetoed state agencies institutions, etc. There was a better flow of continuity. Yep. I like that. I capitalized the S on state because with our protocol whenever we're dealing with the state of Vermont per se we capitalize the S. And I also spoke of the vetoed legislation to be really clear about that. Yeah. And that was curious. So, so even though, even though the governor vetoed it, we didn't override the veto we didn't. We didn't reintroduce it. The house did not. Okay, we're both chambers don't override there isn't an override. And that's what happened it was still vetoed, and it's listed it's officially I can tell you that I had the veto message and on the official list of vetoed legislation, and what it became that the Secretary of State we maintained. It's listed as a legislation that the veto was upheld. I like the idea of following what with after the veto nevertheless they carried out the adopted policies and procedures to carry out the intent. Yeah, I like that. That's largely your phrase, Senator what I just made those two minor changes. Well, a reminder you want to look at them. The next clause 1925 clause is the same as you've seen before there's no change there. Um, I got a spelling mistake I think online for isn't it zoo ology. Yes, that's how you spell it. That's spelled correctly it's been checkered it's been through our senior editors. Unless you want to put another oh in there for a zoo. I have a, just to satisfy everyone's concerns. I have a dictionary right in front of you. I think it would be the same with biology, you have bio. I mean biology is I have a, I have a sort of substantive thought about the section I raised it early in our process. I think it's important to note that because the Americans was the president of the American eugenics survey in 1927 he had influence nationally and I just feel like it's important to note that because Vermont ended up being one of the intellectual power houses of this national eugenics movement that way. Oh, that makes it even more insidious. So what I could say is that in 1921 I could say, University of zoology professor and president of the, I would, you could say establish the eugenics survey of Vermont and later became president of the American eugenics survey. So what I could say then, give me just a half sec. In 1925 University of Vermont zoology professor Henriette Perkins, who. It's established. Okay, we'll leave that established the eugenics survey. Why don't we say who I think we need the word who you could say who later became president of the American eugenics survey, then I think that's I think that's the way to do it. Yeah, yeah, I think so and who later became. So leave it just like that but after Vermont put who later became. Okay, and I have plenty of documentation on that. Thank you. It's in there and I do do do do do do. And I put a big, big asterisk and a yes so I know what what that means. Ask the obvious, but was it later or was it, was it before she said 1927. Why don't we just, I may suggest why don't we say and who is, and who served as president of the American eugenics theory how does that work. Yeah. Okay. Well, avoid a question. Because obviously he wasn't president his whole career but at some point so that takes care of that. And I have that and can do that. Next clause. This is probably the most controversial of the entire resolution. So what we'll go over this, these state sanctioned policies primarily targeted individuals, families and community so far the same, whose heritage was French Canadian French Indian, or other mixed ethnic or racial composition. I use both of those terms if you want me to take one out I will, but for the moment I put them in. And here comes the more the point where your world you will need to discuss. I use extended families, successor generations. Now identify either as abinac or as members of other indigenous bands or tribes. The one common I will make is that they can't be their direct descendants because if they were subject to sterilization there weren't any descendants. They have found their, you know, brothers and sisters their descendants. That's why I spoke of well it's a descendant is normally that direct line from parent to child to grandchild, and that's why I use extended family. Perfect. I have a just a couple of small corrections for I don't know thoughts I would put out there. Yeah, go ahead. One is, I would say, whose heritage was documented as French Canadian French Indian or other mixed ethnic or racial composition like that articulates that that was just how they were noted in the record, not that they had to be that because they may not have been mixed, mixed ethnicity that was just how they were documented if they didn't want to be more specific or their indigenous heritage. And then the other thing I would just personally say it's a small point but successor generations now identify as abinac or as members I don't know either feels weird to me there. And in this morning, it's as a connector. It was transition I can take it out. I would take it out. If I may ask a question, Senator wrong. Okay, documented as preferable over the word characterized as. Oh, I don't know. I leave that to you I just suggested. It seems more historically accurate they had roles and records and that's what they wrote down so characterized feels more like you're describing it to someone else but documented feels fine. Yeah. So in that clause I've added the documented, whose heritage was documented. And then we've taken out the word item. Right. Yeah, the next following clauses. Next five or six clauses anyway are the same. You had eliminated one clause from the house version but it was gone yesterday. And then page three is the same. And till we had that new clause at the very last whereas clause the bottom of page three. So this wording that's madam chair you suggested yesterday, and it's verbatim what you suggested. I didn't make any changes to it. Okay. Anybody that lines 18 and 19 you're saying, yeah, you suggested that language yesterday and I just plugged it in. No changes no comment out of the past anything you suggest. And then page four. I've now split this into two. And as I wrote madam chair to you last evening I made your additional whereas resolved because it's an action statement and it made more sense to resolve but let's go over this again carefully. And that is the language that you had suggested yesterday verbatim. Well, I think that that language I thought was in the house version. It's close. It's close. The second one was what I suggested. But maybe not. No actually it is the same as the first what you would be proposing is a different second. Right. So I did make a change and I want to explain why I did. You had should you had will, and one general assembly can't bind another general assembly. I made it should. This was quite actually quite an issue in house general earlier in the winter. Generically speaking, you really can't say will in a resolution that a future legislature will. But should you certainly can say, but Michael that seems so contradictory we create laws that we have to all abide by every future legislature has to buy. But you, this is that language effectively binds in a resolution, a legislature, you can't do that in a resolution. I know this could be like not good for resolve clause but could you say strives to. You could do that. Or will will strive. Yeah. Or just take out the word should. And just it. The general assembly continue to work continues you mean in the past tense, in the present tense continues to work. Yeah, I like that. That answers the problem entirely. And that makes it active. It's it active you're not committing a future legislature and yet you're expressing the same idea. Right. All very doable. I think it does change. I don't know if anybody has comments about the second resolve that the house had, but it does eliminate the. I think it's stronger about. And I hadn't thought of this before until, well, I mean I should have thought of it before but when rich was talking to us and he said, when you're when you're looking at policies and procedures and laws. You need to make sure you're listening to and working with the affected individuals and communities. And so I put that in there and then that kind of removed this whole second part of that. The last resolve of the house which talked about. It's my print is so little I can hardly read it but. To you madam chair. Yeah, that is very wrong. If you read the second resolve from the house. Sure, I'm happy to have it right here. Thank you. General Assembly recognizes that further legislative action should be taken to address the continuing impact of state sanctioned eugenics policies and related practices of disenfranchisement, ethnic side and genocide. I like ours way better. I act, but I also think this is a very strong ending to I mean I. Could we have both. Why can't we have both. Yeah, that's your call. I'm fine with that. I would, I would end with this last resolve clause of theirs because it really is so one. But leave in your second. I am hearing. Yeah, that's totally fine. It's fine. We could have 10 resolves if we really wanted to have policy resolution short. So Michael, can I ask why it's drafted more like a bill and a resolution. It is drafted as a resolution. One of the things, well, two things. Number one, I mentioned to the chair last night because it started in the house. It remains in the house font and format. You have different, there is, there are different formats for resolutions that start in the house and start in the Senate. Once a house resolution goes to the Senate, it keeps the house format. Similarly, when a Senate resolution goes over to the house, it keeps the Senate format. Okay, but it's drafted as a bill as a resolution. It's you have an opening here because you're amending it. And actually the, the lead in language is a little bit different than for a bill. We are working on that and this is the language that we basically come up with and let's console the one we're amending or a policy resolution. When you, when it comes to us to be voted on by the Senate, it will look like this, but there'll be more crossoffs and then our language underneath it. That's correct. Yeah. Senator column art may look like a bill to you because it does have that introduction. Yeah, it was just curiosity. No, no, no, sure. That's the answer. Okay committee where are we. We're pretty good. I think we're ready almost ready to vote it out. Madam chair may I read through what all your corrections are one more time so there's no misunderstanding. It would give me a greater sense of security. Yep, sure. They're not that long. Okay. Yeah, in the first row, whereas clause. After bed ever monitors, I'm going to add in by Nancy L Gallagher. Ported up. And then after elimination, including sterilization. Do you want me to say including through sterilization or including. Okay. So we have that going on to page two. The next thing that I have is after eugenics survey of Vermont and who served as president. We left the who out I think in the end know and who gets right and who served as president of the American eugenics survey. Correct. Yep. I'm asking folks to read. Okay. On the next clause, we're going to whose heritage was documented as French Canadian, et cetera, et cetera. I'm going to go. I'm going to make one more comment here that I kind of missed. I'm going to collect evidence and of delinquency dependency and deficiency. But I think that we very clearly heard that. In addition to the policies aimed at targeted French, these, these groups of people. It also really targeted. People who were poor mentally ill and disabled. And I, I know that we talk up here about that. The dependent, the defective and the delinquent. But I, I would like a separate whereas. Before this one with the groups of people that just says whereas. They really were targeted the poor mentally ill and disabled to be very, very specific that that was. They weren't just kind of an afterthought. They really were targeted as well as these group communities of people. Absolutely. Would you consider putting them all in. Do you want to keep that. In the next class, you're saying primarily targeted. Would you consider putting that into. That clause or no, I think too, I think it needs to be too separate that they. They targeted these groups of people, but then they specifically targeted. Families and communities. Of these groups of people. So in my mind, they're two separate thoughts. We want all the poor people gone. And we're just going to get rid of poor people and disabled people. But we are going to. We are going to target these families and communities. I have two questions then. Yeah. At first, what do you want me to say? The poor is one of them. Yeah. And whereas these state sanctioned policies targeted the poor mentally ill and disabled. Do you want both of them to say these state sanctioned policies targeted. Yeah. I don't want to say the harm and. Repeating that, but if. You might add an also in somewhere. Maybe in that second, whereas, okay, let me. Let me get the first one done first. Yep. These state. Targeted. And then what the groups that you want meant. Poor. Mentally ill and disabled. So people with disabilities. People with disabilities. Okay. We want to say mentally ill or persons with mental and physical disabilities. Susan's here in case she had some thoughts on. Oh, yeah. Susan is here. Susan, what would you say? She might have stepped away. I had an mute. Thanks for the question. People generally like people first language. And so if you said people with. Physical and mental disabilities, I think that pretty much captures the developmentally disabled, psychiatric disabilities and people with physical disabilities. But I. Senator Polina was right. Hatching the people first. Language. It's definitely. That's because he was the founder of our respectful language bill. Yes. How about. Persons. Since they're technically. How about persons with mental and physical disabilities? I think that's fine too. Or for monitors or residents or other. Possible terms. I don't want to favor monitors. I don't care at all as long as we have it in there. I don't care what the. Modifier monitors with mental. And physical disabilities. Yeah. So we have the poor. And then the poor. Yeah. And then the poor. And then the poor. And then the poor. And then the poor. Okay. Keisha. More and. Yeah. Senator Rom, you have a cool. So I'm really, I'm really not trying to fatigue people here. But the, you can sterilize both men and women. And the largest group sterilized were women. So. I mean, first and foremost eugenics. Targeted women. So it just feels like now they're kind of. They're kind of those targeted were women. I'm here's my feeling on that. I think that. That women were not necessarily targeted. Who was targeted were poor people. People with a physical and mental disabilities. And these groups of people. So they were the ones that were targeted. The result was that there were. Many women who were. People with a physical and mental disability. Were. Sterilized, but they weren't targeted. That was the way of getting at these. These other people that were trying to be eliminated. You don't. They didn't target women. Because if we said they targeted women, that would also mean the women as. Judy pointed out that lived on the hill. So they weren't women were not targeted. Right. They were not targeted. They were not targeted. And the PR has done a lot of national pieces on. Eugenics. I don't know if people have heard those and they. They often did target women. You know, they were really. Kind of focused on women that they thought were troublemakers. Or were. You know, talking back or sleeping around town. Like they were really quite focused on women. But none of those were the defectives. Yeah. I think it's a good question. We actually asked us to specifically call out women. I think we're calling out everybody. Who was affected. I mean. We. Do we have this? I mean, Judy, who's our. Grounded in this. I mean, no one's asked us to specifically call out women. I mean, is there. I mean, we, we. Everybody who was affected is. It's bad all the way around. I don't, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't have a strong feeling about it, but I do. I think that by saying women and we're women were targeted. That we're. Yeah. I don't. Men were targeted to, I mean. I don't think. We're targeted. Right. Groups of people were targeted. People were tight. Right. There are there. There are statistics out there. I don't know if it's, I can't remember if it's specific. About how many. What proportion of people sterilized for women. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Of course. Like I feel like it needs to be said because you. Men were sterilized. You can sterilize. Both types of. Women were sterilized in much greater numbers. I don't know how. Do you have a suggestion about how we would do that? Madam chair. Yes. Could we go back. Okay. To the. Second. Third clause. This movement targeted for elimination. Bruce. Of. For a. Targeted for elimination. Well, I'm very going to say. Elimination. Or. Sterilization, especially of women. I don't know. How would that work? That's a lot of, that's a, I'm looking at language around the country. And it says these are the groups that were targeted. And it especially impacted women. A lot of them are saying women of color, but that was, you know, where it would be addressed that with the indigenous. Peace here. It's an idea. How about if you said this movement targeted for elimination, including through sterilization, thus. Dramatically impacting women. So it impacted the women. It didn't. Right. Yeah. That's what they're all saying. It's a minute. How to disproportionate impact on women. Yeah. No, that's something you carry differently. I would be if I wrote it, including sterilization. That dramatically. That. Dramatically doesn't seem to be right. That primarily impacted women. Okay. Portionately or. Primarily. Yeah. I hate that word. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We've just used it so much that I think it's lost any. Any meaning. Primarily impacted women. Yeah. Well, well. It impacted. All those people. I mean, did it primarily in, I mean, does. The data. The data that I remember seeing from looking over all the documentation. In terms of sterilizations, there were at least. Document. I'm not saying this is what happened, but the documentation I saw seemed to indicate that there were more far more female sterilizations and male sterilizations. Oh, I'm sure. Oh, it had had to be. So it. Okay. Whatever you want. Great. I'm fine with that. Either one. Putting it there instead of a separate whereas primarily impacted. Okay. With that being said. The second clause. And I've noted just for the record again, that you're eliminating the word either just before his Abenaki, but getting back up to the top of the. Do you, since we now have this new. These state. Sanction policies targeted. That maybe you could say these policies. Also targeted. Yeah. I would say that instead of primarily, I would. Yeah. Also targeted. About leave the state sanctioned in as an appointed emphasis. Okay. What's the clause before that, Michael? The new clause before that Senator. Which is only in my scribble for the moment. These state sanctioned. Policies. Targeted the poor. And the other one. And the other one. And the other one. And the other one. And the other one. And Vermonters with mental and physical disabilities. Perfect. Thank you. So I was taking the primarily out of the second. Because I didn't think you wanted to weigh one higher than the other. Also in. Yep. Good. Okay. And the only other change if I quote, two other changes that you were asked for. In the. In the last couple of years, I've been making the word continues in the plural. Or bring it into the present tense. And then finally, I'm adding verbatim. The original final house resolve. The one that has gen, genocide and ethnicity. I'm fine with that. Yep. Yep. So, um, committee and Michael, here's the question. I want to, um, give some time here for a final, um, version to be put before us and then we can vote on it. Yeah, that's a good idea. Given. Yeah. Madam chair, if I may, given that this is a policy resolution. Of extraordinary sensitivity and importance. I would feel much better. That the elected legislators saw the absolutely final version. Before it goes into the camp before it's introduced. Goes to the calendar. Sounds perfect. So how much time should we allow here? Given the pressure that our stretch staff is on in terms of editing. It would really be helpful if I could have the night. Oh, sure. Um, okay. And then we can post it tomorrow. Voted tomorrow. Yeah, I was. And because part of the issue started away. Yeah. That there are a couple of instances where I have new statements of fact that I know I have all the documentation, but I need to pull it out of my file and give it to the editor. Put it all together. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So if we had overnight. So what I would suggest is that we do that. And then we voted out first thing tomorrow and send it to. House general so that they can, and everybody else so that they can. Look at it and even begin their deliberations on whether they're going to agree or ask for conference committee or whatever. And then I would ask that we do the same thing and ask for it to be put in all stages of passage so that we can get it over to them. And I also, at this point. Would like to ask if. Senator column or would report this. Sure. Yeah, I'd be glad to. Michael, if you can get the final. Version, we could actually post it today. That was my point. Why I was making that. If you wanted to work version for yourselves, obviously I could turn that around very quickly. But in terms of a clean, final edited version. I've already pushed editing, I think, for one day to its limit. In terms of making changes with. Other things going on. Yeah. I'd rather not push editing any further for this afternoon. If I possibly could not. Had the night. It would definitely be appreciated in the edit. By the editors. All right. That's fine. We have to be very careful about pushing our staff. So I appreciate that. It's not a matter of my simply writing it and getting it down there. They have to go over it with a fine tooth call one more time. Language. I've already asked them for quite a lot this afternoon. Okay. So are we set with that? So what time tomorrow, madam chair, would you be meeting on this? One o'clock. Try to get this to, you know, later than noon. How's that? Sounds perfect. And okay. I think that's. I am going to ask. The rules committee to release one more. Charter change. It's a relatively simple charter change. Allowing. The water district of Wilmington to. Merge with the. The town of Wilmington. And they would like to be able to do it. Now. You know, I know that waiting for a year. I noticed there were a couple of others. Burlington had one Springfield had one, but they never came across. Thanks, Susan. Yeah. I think the only two that are in. Rules right now are. Wilmington and Brattleboro. And we're not going to have time to look at Brattleboro this year. Just. But I did go back through the house. There was a Springfield charter change. Burlington's charter change. They must just not have ever taken them up. Well, what I'll do is ask for a rules committee meeting. Right after the floor tomorrow. And if there are any other, if they've sent over any other charters. We can ask for them. And then tomorrow. After when we're finished with this, we'll just look at those charters. Does that make sense? Yeah. So that we can just get them off our plate. So we, we should be able to do that. So that we can just get them off our plate. So we, we should be pretty good. For next week. And I don't know if we want to. We don't have. I would like us if we, if. You all have the stamina. To continue. There's two issues that I know they're not going to be. I don't know if we're going to be able to finish this year at all, but there are two issues that I. Want to keep us kind of moving on. And I don't know if one is the agency of public safety. I don't know where we are with that. And the other is the ethic code of ethics. As we, we've sort of, we had to drop those quickly to deal with pensions. So. Yeah. And it would be. I don't know if the stamina. I'm trying to work with the commissioner and a bunch of other people around the. With around the agency of public safety, because it's clearly not going to happen this year anyway, and just kind of try and get it into a good. Good position for so that we can act quickly in January, one way or the other, but the code of ethics, do we have the stamina to. To start to take that up next Tuesday. That's how to thought though. Okay, Gail. Oh, it's not necessarily a thought. I was just wondering about 122. Isn't that still out there? What is 120? I think it's boards and commissions, right? Oh, right. We still have to conclude our work on. H122 or whatever. Oh, um, yeah. What did we. We never finished it. I was the board of education thing. No, we, we dropped that because, um, education never got back to us. And then they said they were going to deal with it in another way, but it was the climate council. Oh, that's right. They're for Dems. Okay. So I decided to just leave them alone. Weren't there, weren't there other things in that bill? We did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That your board's and commissions, wasn't there more in that bill? I thought. Well, there's more in the film. Yeah. Not that we did. I think the only thing we were going to do was do the thing with the state board of education. And, uh, Senate ad didn't want to do anything. They said that they were going to have a different way of dealing with it. So. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. So we should do that tomorrow and get that out of the way. What order are we going to tackle these in? Let's do the resolution pollution first. Okay. No, we, it might give Michael a little more time. You know, to that, the board, the board bill also included that man, emergency management stuff. Yeah. Emergency management districts or whatever they've called. Oh. I forgot that. Yeah. Erica Bornman's part. Yeah. I. That seemed so non controversial to me that I didn't even. It's hard to get worked up over it. Yeah. Okay. Let's do one 22 first. And then any charters. And then. And then the resolution. Madam chair. Yeah. When we are done or sort of resolved as much as we can, other things. Does it make sense for us to. Be briefed in any way on the state house. The kind of reopening plan or I don't know if that, because I know before you had thought about what some kind of plan was going to be. I don't know. So I just didn't know what that relates to us at all. Well, you know, I said, I sent then. The suggestion to appropriations. And she said that. The, the joint management legislative committee or whoever they are. I don't know who's on there. The joint management committee. And I don't know who that is. But they're doing it for the Senate. They're doing it for the Senate. They're doing it for the Senate. They're doing it for the Senate. Jane Kitchell. And Joe Benning. Okay. So there's four and four. Is that what it is? Yeah. And that they are actually doing it. So it's the same. It's exactly the same that I was proposing. Except they already have it set up. But we should. And I have no idea where they are. But I have a comment that I have. I have a comment that I have. And I have said that. She briefed us a little bit on it. I think that was at a chairs meeting. Yeah. Or in caucus in the Tuesday caucus. Oh yeah. I don't. Oh, yes. Because she said, look at that. Study. But that study is not. The final word. That's just some suggestions and people were getting exercised. We did. Did Carolyn send it to us? Yeah. Gail. Gail has. Yeah, as far as tomorrow goes, Amarine's not available until 130. And then she's unavailable after 230. And Tucker is not available at 130. His only availability is from, let's see. It seems so hard to read. It's like 130 to two. He's available from 130 to two. Yeah, let me, let me open this up. It's too hard to tell on this chart. Okay. He's in Senate finance until 145. And then he is doing something else at 215. So 145 to 215. That'll work. And Amarine is available from 130 to when? From 130 to 230. No, that's not going to work. Okay. It's 115. To 230. That she's available. Yeah. Or that she's not available. Oh, she is available. Yeah. So much at one. At 115. Okay. Let's do H one 22, because that's when we need her, right? Yeah. And then at 145. That'll give us half an hour on that at 145. Let's do. Underhill. At two o'clock. Williston. And at two 15. I don't know. He's leaving. I'll set to 15. Yes. Okay. So we'll do under hill and Williston. And. We'll just, we don't have Wilmington yet anyway. So we'll do those two. And then at. Two 15. We'll do the resolution. Yeah. No, I have 145 to two. Underhill and two to two 15. So if we start 145. That only gives us half an hour to talk about one 22. Is that enough time? No, we're going to do. Oh yeah. If we do one from 115. To 145. Okay. And then we'll do. We'll do H one 22. That gives us half an hour on that. That should be enough, right? And then at 145. We'll do under hill. Okay. And at two o'clock we'll do Williston. Okay. And then Tucker will leave us. And Michael will join us. And we'll do the resolution. And then. And then next week we can schedule some time. We can schedule some time for. To continue our conversation about the ethics. The code of ethics. And I know we're not going to get it done, but I'd like us to not completely drop it. This year if, if there's any possibility of us doing something next week. Yeah. We pushed him out the door twice. So I agree. I think that would be a good, I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. But for what it's, for what it's worth, we passed out of committee, a bill that. Changed some technical changes around the ethics commission. Which I think sent to the, got sent to the finance committee. No, I think it got sent to appropriations. Got sent somewhere. Time. So no, there was no appropriation needed though, because they already had the money. We just have to approve the position. Right. Right. Okay. That was one 35, I think. I'll double check for you. And Gail, if you want to, you can ask if the. Reporters from under hill and Williston want to come in. Okay. Just. And if they do, that's fine. And if they don't. All right. I think it was one 35, wasn't it Brian? Yeah. I think it was. April 14th for rule 31. And there's no action after that. Why would. Why would it have gone to finance? I don't know, but that's what the. Okay. I will. Check with them. Find out where it is. It's actually, I had a conversation with Amarin a little while ago. And she said that I said, why is it in finance and Amarin said, I don't know. Why is it in finance and Amarin said, why is it in finance and Amarin said, why is it in finance and the staff person of finance. Who asked Amarin why they got sent to finance. Amarin said, I don't know why it got sent to finance. It may. It may be God forbid have been a mistake. I'm trying to remember if there was anything relative to finance in there. I don't remember. I've seen it in front of me. I don't think so. You think Anne would have said, why is this here? And I mean, it's almost a month ago. I'm going to send a note to Anne and Jane and Bloomer. And ask and Becca and ask them. To clear this up and get it to us so we can get it passed. Okay. Sure. Cause mostly it has to do with like. Doing disclosure statements and stuff like that. It was not very controversial at all. Right. Right. Okay.