 And welcome to the Committee of Conference for S54. So I thought that the first thing we would do is run through the House's kind of proposal to the Senate's proposal. And Michelle will do a walkthrough with that, but I'm sure members of the House Conference Committee will have comments on various sections of our proposal or kind of proposal. Michelle. Hey, good afternoon everybody. So everyone should have a copy of the proposal. So at the top it says differences between Senate and House versions of S54, House counter to Senate counter and it's dated today. So I believe that that's up on the web for anybody who's following along. And then also that Andrea emailed it out to everybody. So what I did is I just added a fourth column here so that you can see, still see the Senate's original and the House's original what the Senate conceded and proposed last time and then the House's response to that. And also I just highlighted in yellow because we're up to 34 pages now on the side-by-side. It's a little hard for everybody to be scrolling through. So I did just highlight in yellow kind of the things where there's still not agreement so we can kind of skip to those. So I'm not gonna spend any time on things that are not new to this conversation. So, but have me back up if you feel like I skip over something and you aren't clear about it. So the first one is the regulatory authority and at the last meeting the Senate had proposed that they would agree with the House's proposal with regards to the board structure and appointed by the governor with the nominating committee and the Senate agreed to that on the condition that the Senate would then confirm the members of the board and the House agrees to that Senate proposal. So moving down to the next change, if you look at the top of page two and this is on the issue of the medical registry and the regulation of the dispensaries moving from the Department of Public Safety over under the board not immediately but once the board adopts regulations for the medical program it would shift over that was in the Senate proposal and the House does agree to that proposal. I just put a little note there that the dates will obviously need to change and that's I think something we're waiting to take a look at comprehensively what the timeline so how all the dates change throughout the whole thing if once you kind of come to an agreement on all the other issues but I just wanted to mention that. And then I'll talk a little bit more about medical when we get down to some of the details. Right, and I'll just note that I think this is a significant concession by the House. So the next change we're gonna skip through a few pages because the Senate had on those other issues agreed to the House proposal. So we are gonna move all the way down to and I will say on page nine, this is part of the medical court. I don't have page numbers on mine so could you just say what the heading is please. Okay, I'm wondering why you have a different version than I do. I opened the Word document, I didn't open it in Word I guess that's why. I don't have page numbers either. Up in the right-hand corner, there's no page number? No, no. Oh, there is in the Word, when I opened it in Word there's a page number. Yeah. Okay, it might, I just, if you can't open it that way it's probably better just be since it is a long document but I'll try to navigate. You're on page nine, you said? Yeah. Okay. And this is just about rulemaking with the board and this is, I just wanted to know this is related to the medical and that is around the criminal history records and doing the check on the medical, dispensary owners and financiers and employees in the same way that you would do it for the commercial cannabis establishments. Okay. Then on the next page, which if you have numbers, it's page 10, I had added in in the blue there from the Senate's proposal last time they had raised the issue of the cannabis expungement which was moving along in S294 is passed by the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee has taken extensive testimony on that and they have agreed to a version that is now in S234. So it's understandable people get them a little confused because there's only one number of difference there but S234 is the miscellaneous judiciary bill and House Judiciary, I think just since in the last maybe 15, 20 minutes as voted that out or was planning to vote that out and it does include the cannabis expungement language and I went over that language with Senate Judiciary yesterday. So the next issue is on local control. There is not agreement on that. So both bodies are still sticking with their original proposals on that issue right now. So I know there were concerns raised about the House proposal with somehow hamper cannabis businesses but I have to disagree. First of all, our proposal only impacts retail licensees. It ensures that other types of licensees can do business and it helps ensure a reduction in the illicit market by allowing illicit cannabis cultivators and others to enter the legal market. In the Senate version of local control towns may prohibit all types of licensees and therefore eliminate the chance for many illicit cannabis growers and others to enter the legal market. Can I ask a question? Sure. Yeah. John, you're an attorney. I am. The prospective retailer comes to you and says I would like to open up a retail establishment in Vermont. Where are you going to advise them to go? To a town that's approved retail cannabis. But no town has. Well, you know, Joe, this has worked very effectively and I'll give you an example. Communication union districts. In the statute with respect to that, not one town, but three towns have to opt in to create a communication union district. And we've had a proliferation of CUDs around the state. It has not hampered them. It is not going to hamper cannabis businesses. Was there any conversation on your side about having all towns vote on this issue in March? Have we had that conversation? Yeah, we have not. Rob, you have something? Well, yeah, I do. As a matter of fact, the other part of this is by having the opt in a couple of things. One, you'll notice that there's communities already that have voted to not allow a retail establishments. And from our perspective, and I will say from mine, as somebody who's been involved in different businesses over the years, if I was inclined to do something like this, I would want to go to a community who has worked towards allowing this and putting the things in place that need to so that it would give me some predictability, whether it be local zoning. And plus the reality of it is here is it's gonna be a while here before communities know what the rules of the road are gonna be because no matter what version we wind up here, there's gonna be some extensive rulemaking. And this way it does give the communities and those that are interested in an idea of just exactly what they're gonna be dealing with. My amendment, if I could, John. My suggestion is we let Michelle continue to walk through and then we can argue out different places where apart, at least we'll know where we're apart by the time she finishes. That's fine. And what we've all agreed to. I think it's easier to make offers, counter offers and other offers when you know what you're actually a part on. Okay, so I'll keep working through. Again, on page 10, so local control, there's the issue of the opt-in and the opt-out. There is also the issue of the board collecting local license fees, but at the state level that would then be redistributed back to those towns that have some type of cannabis establishment. So the house's proposal originally and there has been no movement on that. And so that's obviously tied with the tax issue and also with the local issue. Next, on the next page, page 11, advertising. So the Senate had a proposal on advertising restrictions. The House had passed a ban on all advertising. The Senate came back and proposed adopting the advertising language that was voted out of the House Government Operations Committee prior to being amended on the House floor. The House does not agree with that proposal. Moving on to page 12 and prohibited products. There's still not agreement on the prohibited products. So you can read that and see that yourself. There is one issue that there has been some movement on and that is at the bottom of that page, page 13. The House had the health warnings that are throughout the chapter being developed by the Department of Health and then the board would adopt it and then the Senate proposed that the health warnings are developed by the board in consultation with the Department of Health and then adopted by rule and the House agrees to that. Then I'm gonna move down a ways because there had been agreement on all of those issues beforehand. So page 18 and this is on the excise tax. So we call that Senate proposal had a 16% excise tax. Everything going to the general fund, House proposed a 14% excise tax. And the Senate came back last week and proposed a 14% excise tax on the retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products and but provided that 2% out of the 14% was gonna be designated for municipalities that have a licensed cannabis establishment and then it would be redistributed back to those towns based on a formula that's adopted by the General Assembly after the board recommends something to the General Assembly and the House does not agree to that. Next related to that is with regard to the spending of the excise monies, the Senate had it going to all to the general fund, House had it going, 30% dedicated to substance misuse prevention programming is recommended by the oversight and advisory council with the remaining monies going to the general fund then the Senate proposed a counter which was that 30% would go for substance misuse prevention programming, but it would be up to the legislature to determine where that that was going. They didn't have to necessarily follow any recommendations from the advisory council and they wanted a cap of $10 million on that 30% and the House agrees to that proposal. No changes on the sales tax because the House have proposed a sales tax and the Senate agreed last time. Then I'm gonna move down to page 23. This is on the local license fees to be charged and collected by the board, which you've already mentioned so there's not agreement on that. So now I'm gonna move down to page 27 for medical marijuana. And I added this is kind of a new box because before I didn't go through and compare the two with regard to the medical because the House's version didn't contain anything with regard to medical program at all. And so I've added this new box here. So you'll recall that in the Senate version that was passed last year, it repealed the existing medical cannabis statutes that are entitled 18 at a future date and then directs the board to adopt new regulations at the same time they're doing it for the cannabis establishments, for the adult use market. And then at a certain date, the medical program would move over from the Department of Public Safety under the board and would operate under those new rules and statutes and be governed by the board. The House did not have any of that in its proposal that passed the body. And so what the House is proposing now is that they would agree with the Senate version of the medical marijuana laws with the following changes. And you'll see at the bottom of that page, page 27, the first is that it would require the board to act on applications for patients or caregiver cards within 30 days of receiving an application. That's something that is in the current law that was not in the Senate version. They would also go ask that they require caregiver applicants to submit fingerprints and have a criminal background check to prior to being able to be a caregiver for someone who is on the medical registry and that disqualifying crimes for a caregiver would include abuse of a vulnerable adult or abuse of a child. So if someone had anything on their record for those types of crimes, they would not be able to get a caregiver card under the medical program. The next one is patients would only be able to possess two ounces of cannabis. That is the current law for medical patients. The Senate version that passed in 2019 increased that from two to three ounces. I'll ask you a question if you don't mind. The proposal above regarding the medical card for people who have a record, denying the card to have a record, they can still buy illegally in a store if that's in a retail outlet, if it's approved, right? There would be no requirements for them to buy at a retail store, no. And currently we, so, okay. Just so I'm clear, there's no, they just wouldn't get a medical card and they would then have to pay the taxes, whatever taxes and fees are assessed to buy the product. Right, and that's for the caregiver, not for the patient but there would be the, if someone wanted to be a caregiver, so they would be going to the dispensary for the person or they would be growing the plants for the patient. If they wanted to do that, then they would have to have the fingerprint-supported criminal background check. Yeah, understood. Thank you for that clarification. Sure. The next one, so we just talked about the two versus the three ounces. Next one is that requiring that cannabis and cannabis products would be labeled in the same way for medical that they would be for under the adult use market, according to the labeling standards that you've already agreed to for the adult use market. So you'd have consistency between the two. They, the house is also proposing that advertising for dispensaries would be banned just like what they are advocating for with regard to the adult use market. And finally that no new dispensaries would be allowed. So there's five currently. If the medical registry reaches 7,000, there can be a six license, but I don't think that that has happened. And so no new dispensaries would be allowed unless a town opts in in the same manner for retail as in the house proposal. But so there's five. We do allow satellites. Are you? Yes, but I'm just talking about the licenses. So, okay. So you're still allowing the satellites of the licenses, whatever we currently allow. Right. And any dispensary that is currently licensed couldn't then like a town couldn't then boot them out under this proposal. It's just that there couldn't be because the Senate proposal allows the board to determine the number of dispensary licenses. And so if you merge those two together, it would just be that if there was gonna be a new dispensary, you know, maybe Europe and the Northeast Kingdom or something like that, that the town would have to opt in in the same way that- I just didn't want any confusion. I didn't want to be confused about, you're still allowing the satellites that are already established. Yes, yep. Okay. Okay, that is it for the general, for the medical and the registry. Other than we go down to the next box for existing licensed medical dispensaries. And again, this is just part of what we've already talked about, the House agreeing to move the medical program over under DPS and to continue the medical program under the board. So they are agreeing to that. And then this takes us down to page 31 in Highway Safety. So the short answer is that there is still disagreement on saliva, evidentiary tests and seat belts. So that has not changed. And then I'll take you to, there is a new proposal. If you look at top of page 34, the House is proposing amending the existing language in Title 23 on open container. So remember, you have an open container law. One statute is for motor vehicle operators. The other one is for passengers. And it provides for civil penalties for having an open, either consuming or having an open container of either alcohol or cannabis in a motor vehicle. And the House is proposing striking the word open in both of those statutes so that it would read that the penalty is for having a container of either alcohol or cannabis in the passenger area of the motor vehicle. And so essentially it would either, if you did have those things, so if you would have to either keep it in a locked glove box, it has to be locked or it doesn't count, or it has to be in the trunk. Did I get a ruling from Bloomer or McGill or anyone? Is it acceptable to add things that were in neither version to a conference committee report? It would then allow somebody on the floor of either the House or Senate, I believe, to suggest that this wasn't a proper conference committee report, as we agreed to things that weren't in either bill. I'll follow up with Secretary Bloomer, sorry. The House would probably prefer to hear from. I would suggest that both on this concern that we go through all the work, we come to an agreement, then it gets to the floor and then something added that wasn't in either version. As you know, there are still opponents to this bill. Joe and then Jeanette. So, Michelle, I just want to make sure I've got this straight. Tonight is date night with my wife. I go to White Market and I buy a bottle of wine and it's sitting in the passenger seat next to me. I get pulled over for my license plate light is out and the cop sees the bottle of wine on its way home for date night. You're suggesting in this language now that we are subjecting ourselves to arrest? No, it's a civil offense, but you would be subject. So I would be subject to the Judicial Bureau in having some action filed against me now. Yes. OK, thanks. Jeanette. My question was similar. So I go to the grocery store and I pick up my groceries and I have a bottle of wine in my grocery bag. I don't have a trunk in my car. So and it doesn't fit in the glove compartment because it's a skinny little glove compartment. So you're saying that I can't go to the grocery store and buy a bottle of wine. Is that the case here? Are you asking me if I'm telling you you can't buy? I mean, is that is that what this means? No, I'm not asking you to justify it. Is that is that what this is saying? Let me let me read to you the existing language on passenger area. Wait a minute. I think I I don't want to argue over OK, something until we find out if it's if it's even allowable into the process. OK, we've got enough things to argue about. I don't understand. You know, this would be like me adding in the expungement. Or frankly, while it might be germane, right, we will check I'm ready. I'm ready for that helmet, Bill. I won't support that either, Joe. So you need to get two votes on both sides. I can just say if I could just answer one thing for Jeanette, which is that the current law does say if you don't have a trunk and talks about how you've got it, where it's got to be in your car if you don't have a trunk. So now we've spent a lot of time on Trump. OK. OK. I think it has to be it can't be reached by the driver, as I remember or I recall, I believe that's right. It has to, yeah, it has to exclude the area behind the last upright seat or any area not normally occupied by the operator or any passengers. So I'm not, you know, there's got to be. Yeah. So OK. And that's it for me. Thank you. So this is really helpful. I appreciate it. shows us where we're still a part. Yes, we have to say I like Michelle's highlighting in yellow, but putting in red where we disagree. We still have a proposal regarding the current use situation. And I believe you have that Michelle or Michael Grady or somebody. I have it. I sent it to you, Senator Sears. I have not sent it out to the rest of the conference. Gosh, my fault. I can send it to Andrea right now, if you would like. Could you please, because I just completely. So basically the proposal is to. To provide that the cultivation of cannabis on agricultural land and the use of farm buildings to dry or process that cannabis would not disqualify the land or buildings from use value appraisal or constitute development under current use. If the ag land or farm building was enrolled in use value at the time cannabis cultivation commenced, cannabis is cultivated on one acre or less of agricultural land and all other requirements under current use would continue to be met. So the concept is you're not losing any property tax value. It's still subject to sales tax, etc. Still subject to environmental regulation, but it will allow that land to remain or that parcel of the land to remain in current use for cannabis cultivation. I'm still trying to find the document. I I just sent it to Andrea and I will send it to each of you independently. Thank you. This is Andrea. I haven't received it yet. I take that back and just arrived. I know I have it. Michael, how does this different from what's in in the House version of S 54, just so I understand. So in the House version, you have provided that cannabis establishment shall not be regulated as farming. Right. And shall not qualify as an agricultural product or agriculture crop for the purposes of use value. So this provides that the cultivation of cannabis on already enrolled use value land continues to be enrolled. Janet. So this doesn't need to be with the same owner who enrolled it in current use, right, the way it's written. I could I could sell my current use acre to what would be, frankly, a large cultivator, right, not a small one. And they would be able to keep that in current use. Is that correct? Yes, because current use does allow for transfer. Yeah, I mean that that that seems problematic to me. Well, it's a proposal from the Senate. Thank you. I hope you'll consider it, just as we considered many of your proposals and have come to compromise in the middle. What's it the Senate? Senate's intention to allow that current use enrollment to go from one owner to another. I don't think it was ever discussed. No, I don't think it was a conferee. Is it the Senate? Maybe we'll talk about it. There's also I'm sorry, Michael, go ahead. I don't believe it was ever discussed by the conferees. I think this is the first time that transfer issue was raised. Net, I think we did talk about it being under the same ownership or the same family or that it couldn't be sold to. We didn't come to any decision about how to word that, but we did have a little discussion about it. Dick, do you want to have us meet separately? I wonder, well, is there anything else, John? No, that that is our kind of proposal and we now have your proposal. I mean, you haven't moved on seatbelts and until seatbelts move, there's no point in us meeting. Well, it's something we want to start discussing. I understand that to the speaker, it's very important that seatbelts are in there. And I understand that there is several other provisions that are important to other members of the powerful members of the House and we're fine to try to compromise on them, but there is no compromise on seatbelts. So it's either out or there's no point in us continuing to discuss or down to it. I mean, I think we can come to some agreements on many of the provisions here. Would it be appropriate to circle back to those and see? I'm not, I guess I could put the question another way. What does the House want for seatbelts? Or is the House unwilling to move on seatbelts? And if that's the case, then what's the point in keeping going? Dick, if I can just add, seatbelts is an issue that has now been exacerbated in my eyes by the additional proposal that's been presented. And I know we need a ruling from somebody on whether or not that additional proposal can be made, but you are essentially adding on to the ability of a police officer to stop and intervene individuals who are in automobiles, and in the middle of the Black Lives Movement conversations we are having to me, that is just an absolute wrong way to go. And I can't wait to see how the press is gonna react to that. I don't know where that idea came from, but it is very troubling for me. And I'm really having a hard time with that. And I can't stress that enough. Can I suggest we go to our breakout rooms potentially? Yes, I'd like to. Sounds like a great idea, Ron. Always one with great ideas. Yes. I will remind though, it is date night, so I'm hoping we get out on time. I'm out of here at 4.30, I have to be. I have a date with Senator Campion that they'll do some campaigning. Do you have enough wine at home, Joe? My date is better than yours, Dick. And yes, Rob, I do. I'm sure yours is better. I just thought I'd add that. Do we need anyone in our breakout room? I mean, do we wanna, I don't think so. Okay. So no staff, everybody's good. Nobody needs any staff. Dick, you're muted. I would like Michael Grady, but if you don't want Michelle, we'll take her. Well, I'm not sure if we quite feel that way. No offense. Could Michael potentially check in with us before? Why don't you take Michael first and we'll take Michelle and then switch? Okay. That work? Yep, good idea. Okay, thank you. So we just mute everything and stop our video, right? And we automatically go. Yep. Can I also just ask if it's okay? So I think we have Abby and Anthea who have been working on the tax stuff. Is it helpful if one goes to each breakout room? Sure. Okay. So are we live, Andrea? Yes, you are live. John, we have a counter proposal if you'd like. I thought, all right, we'll listen to it. Well, I mean, let's, all right. So, I mean, this was extremely helpful to us to have Michelle go through a, through the differences. And, you know, again, I'll say it's surprising how near we are yet so far apart. So we think we would give the house the following items. In return, the house would give us the following items and Michelle can make it clearer for me whenever I'm just kind of talking in general terms. So we would give you your opt-in position. We would give you your prohibited items position. We would give you the modified current use which is no transfer. And we would give you saliva and advertising at your position of none. We believe that it probably will end up in the courts. We think it's, but we realize that you're having difficulty moving from your position. And so we would do that. In return, we want the 2% local option tax seat belts and remove the state assessed local fees and removing the open container that was added today on those provisions that were added today. And that would get us to an agreement. If you were able to do that, you may want to take some time, think about it. And Michelle can do it more formally, but that is where we're at. We think that this is very reasonable. And no, anyway, that's where we're at. Okay. We'd like to take a brief breakout just to discuss whether or that position that you proposed. Okay. That's fine. What time do you want to come back? Because seriously, we do need to be out here by 4.30. 4.15. Okay. Does the Senate want to go to a breakup room? I think that's probably the easiest. Senator White and Senator Benning. What do you want to do? I don't have any reason to go anywhere at the moment. Dick, we appreciate your proposal and just have two modifications to it. One is with respect to the use value proposal where the no transfer is a good change. And we would just add that it be limited to small cultivators as already described in S54. The other change we want is to keep our tax structure. I think I speak for the committee. We'd be happy to keep the, after, I need to consult with my agriculture committee. But I think that the idea of the small cultivator is really what we're trying to accomplish here. I don't see how we can walk away without some form of local option tax for communities that are willing to host. Their expenses are going to be ongoing and it's a strong position of the League of Cities and Towns. So I'm not sure. We're very close and we'll certainly consider it over the weekend and perhaps find some time next week to get together. But I really do think I owe it to the Agricultural Committee to at least hear from them on the use value. Senator White. And then, Diana. May I just ask why there is such resistance to allowing the towns to prosper as the state prospers so that there, if revenues go up, they would share in that increased revenue. With the fee structure, they do not share in the increased revenue. And why do we not want our municipalities to share in any increased revenue? Diana. Well, so I asked Graham if he would meet with my committee on last Tuesday. I think it was because it was my committee that did the work on the tax structure and he presented the 2% idea. We had a good discussion about it. My committee raised a number of questions about it similar to the ones that I've raised here, but I think the crux of it is sort of how that money gets redistributed back to municipalities. I think I heard at the meeting that we had on Monday that the Senate's idea was that it might go back based on how much licensed activity was in a community, different licenses that were granted in a community. I think it would be just as reasonable to distribute it back on the basis of population or on the basis of sales or something else. I think it's gonna be very problematic trying to figure that out. And my committee was at least as concerned about it as I am. And they very much reaffirmed the position that we had in the House. The question about, you know, so every time that we hear from the municipalities what they say to us, which I have a lot of sympathy with is that they are concerned that they're gonna incur costs and they wanna be sure that they're made whole for those costs. And that's what licensing fees do. And they're targeted to the activity. So it might be higher, for example, if you have cultivation cultivators in your area or processors, producers I guess is the right word for them. That might be with higher enforcement costs than retail. We just don't know. And there are costs that are sort of cross-border. Certainly with retail there are costs that are cross-border. So we feel that we developed a system or a structure that would allow us to make communities whole without hurting, you know, because the legislature is gonna set the fees rather than the municipalities not gonna set them. We don't think it'll be inequitable or unfair to the licensed entities. And my committee feels really quite strongly about it. And this was never sort of presented to us as sharing in the, I can't know what the word was who used Jeanette, I'm sorry I've lost it, but it was never a question of, it was a question of meeting costs as opposed to sharing in the benefits or whatever. And, you know, the municipalities to have a current local option are gonna get that local option revenue. So there is that part of it that is not significant. I would suggest given the hour that we appreciate your offer. It appears that we're probably extremely close on everything except one issue. And maybe I'll reframe. Well, I think we got two. Well, so wait, so if you don't mind if I speak, current use thing is a problem, but we're willing to give it for the tax structure. We're not willing to give it without that. It is a problem. Okay. Well, what I would like to do is have the Senate Agriculture Committee look at the proposal. Luckily, Senator Pearson who's been working with us is a member of that, is the vice chair of that committee. Fortunately, Senator Pearson is also a member of the Senate Finance Committee. And I'm asking him to go and speak with the Finance Committee about how can we, what is the best way for us to help some of the towns with their concern? And if we end up feeling like we can get some somewhere, whether the fee idea is the way to go or what? So I'd rather, you know, just as I'd rather have a few days to have them consider these two things. And maybe we can work it out. Maybe we can't. But I didn't hear you say, Janet, I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth. I didn't say you, I didn't hear you say you were opposed to trying to help the local communities. We just thought we were doing it differently and more targeted. Yeah. May I just make one comment? I think that it is true that we wanted to help them with increased costs that they have. But when we as a state are looking at this, we are not looking at it just as meeting the increased costs we might have. We are looking at it as increased revenue. We are looking at it increased revenue for prevention, for early education programs, and for the general fund. So we are looking at it as increased revenue for the state, but we refuse to look at it as increased revenue for the municipalities. And I won't say anything more. Well, I just respond to that. We do all kinds of economic development and at the state level. And we don't, I mean, the tradition in the state frankly has not included this sort of revenue sharing concept. I actually am intrigued by the concept. I think this is the wrong place to start it because of the distribution issues. But the reason we've spent a lot of time on it is that I actually think there are some interesting ideas about doing some kind of revenue sharing with municipalities, but not in connection specifically with cannabis. So it's an interesting idea. I just, the distribution of this money back out to the municipalities it would be really, really challenging. And to figure out what's a fair way to send the money back out. Just as your taxing policy came from your ways and means committee, ours came from our finance committee. So I'm asking the finance committee to take a look at this issue. And hopefully we can report back to you middle of next week. Great. Good. But I appreciate the progress that we've made thus far. Given that I don't want Michelle to waste your time but at the same time, given that we've only got a few issues outstanding would it make sense for Michelle to begin next week drafting a bill? I think that makes- Because we need to get permission if should we reach agreement on these we need to get permission from, is it joint rules? Yes, it's joint rules. Before we can sign a conference committee report. I'd hate to have us get to an agreement and then find ourselves we don't have enough time to get it through the session. Michelle, you raise your hand. Yeah, I just wanted to remind everybody that there is this other issue that y'all need to tackle which is the timing of everything because with the delay I think everybody needs to take another look at a timeline what it would mean because there's a lot of things like when it was gonna pass in June or if it was gonna pass in June that would have allowed for a gear up for reporting back to the legislature for legislature to take action on fees and various things. And I think that the whole committee needs to look at be able to walk through what a potential timeline would look like so that you can give so I can make sure that you're in agreement and you can give me clear direction about how I change everything throughout. And so in terms of meeting next week to discuss the couple outstanding issues I would just say if you can also plan to talk about the timing of everything so that I can have clear guidance about moving forward and developing a report. Janet. So I have to confess that I can't follow the timelines that you've given us they're so complicated. My preference would be that the timeline should get us moving as quickly as we can whatever that is. And so I don't know that I have much to add to a discussion about specific dates other than to say let's do it as quickly as we can do it. I just wanted to totally agree with Janet. I think that's really the I think we're all we want to be realistic in terms of a timeline but I think we should move as soon as possible. So one of the things. Yeah, go ahead. I was just going to say one of the things that is concerning is around because there's so much for the board to report back to the General Assembly on and they will under this scenario and timing they probably at the earliest wouldn't be seated until until January. And so they have to come back to you with fee recommendations and a whole slew of many, many things. And I just don't know. So I would say just for the purposes of discussion on the timeline that I sent you last week or I put in there reporting back to you on April 1st but I realize I mean I know everything is kind of up in the air with COVID and how long will the session last but I'm fine to go ahead and just proceed with stuff like that but I just want to let you know there's kind of some tricky points in there that I just want to make sure that you're aware of and are making a choice around that policy for those dates. So I appreciate that. I think if you can do that in consultation with the vice chair of government operations in the House and the chair of government operations in the Senate that might be helpful. Because I mean that's where usually we deal with those things, right? Sure. Is it too simplistic to just suggest that reports, dates for reports simply be extended six months? I think that some you can parse out that aren't as, you know, that you can bump out that they don't, that you won't need that information so quickly and then other ones you can. And so if it's, if you're authorizing me to make some suggestions and come up with that proposal I'll certainly do that, you know, but I just need to be looking at the timing of everything from like how long rulemaking takes to how long it takes to get the board seated and the nominating committee and hiring staff and things like that. And then I can just tell you why I suggested what I have. Is that good? That sounds good to me. When you want to try to get together, let me see, let me get in touch with Senator Cummings and see what her schedule is like. And Senator Pearson and Senator Starr. And I'll get back to you, John, if that's okay. That would be great, Dick. Thank you. We're gonna have some longer floor sessions next week is my understanding. Well, well, now we're all zoomed out. I would like to say I'm gonna go back home but I'm gonna head for home, but I am. Have a great Labor Day weekend everybody. Enjoy. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Good weekend.