 It started with this public hearing on Proposition 2. And thank you all for being with us today. We have adjusted the time allotment due to the number of people who signed up to give you five minutes if you don't need to. If you have a pair of remarks that fit in two minutes, that's fine. But we'd be happy to hear a five-minute presentation if you are not able to share your thoughts within that amount of time. We welcome you to send something electronically to our committee assistant, who is standing by and able to direct that to us electronically. So just for by way of review of what this process means, and if you might be mind grabbing that for it, the process to amend the state constitution is a long process and tends to be rather challenging for the purpose, I think, of making sure that we have a lot of consideration and take a lot of time to think about whether we want to amend our constitution. So to review that process, the Senate needs to propose a constitutional amendment. And in order to start the ball rolling, the Senate has to adopt that proposition to amend the constitution. And in the same biennium, the House also needs to adopt the resolution as exactly as written by the Senate. Both chambers then need to act on the proposition, again, in the following biennium. So that would be in the 2021-22 biennium for the purposes of this proposition. And after the 21-22 biennium adopts the same resolution, the same language, then it will go to a vote of the electorate on election day in 2022. So this is the start of a long process to give the Monarchs the opportunity to weigh in and to consider whether we want to amend the Vermont Constitution. The way we will organize the hearing here tonight is I have Representative Barwicky, who will read names off the list of folks who have signed up to testify. If other folks continue in and would like to add their names to the list, we will continue on the list until everybody who wants to speak has had a chance to or until we get to 7 o'clock. Mike? Madam Chair, a clarifying question. Just to reflect what you said to make sure I got it. What I think you said is that what the Senate sent to us, the House cannot touch. We vote up or down on the language that was given to us. Right. We do not amend the proposition. If we agree with it, we send it out of our committee to the floor of the House. My attention would be to do that tomorrow if we agree that we want to move this language. And then it sits on notice for five days, which means it will be up for action on the House floor next Thursday. And so that's the process that we're embarking on right now. So Representative Barwicky will read the first name on the list and the next name down. If you are on deck, if you would come to the front row so that we don't have to do too much shuffling or climbing over people as we shuffle between witnesses. So the front row seats are available here for folks who are the next up on the list. So go ahead and read us our first name. All right. First up is Edward Gilbert Jr. And next on the ready is Tabitha Polmore. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I have to apologize. I was in the process of trying to download the form. And for some reason I can't get an awesome connection, but I am coming forward to support Prop 2. I feel it's unnecessary change in Vermont's state constitution that's long overdue. And I feel that although I hadn't had the opportunity to fully read the documentation, I'm definitely in support of amending that portion of our state constitution. And in that closing, thank you very much ladies and gentlemen for giving me the opportunity to speak. Have a nice evening and get out there and enjoy that spring. So next up is Tabitha and at the ready, I'm trying to see her. So I have to apologize for my attire. I came here because my kid isn't a parade. And somebody's like, hey, yeah. So someone's like, hey Tabitha, you want to testify? And I'm like, okay. So I apologize. This is my mom gear. I'm Tabitha Polmore, I'm president of the Rotland area branch of the NAACP. I'm also the Vermont state director of the NAACP. When I first heard about Prop 2, the question was posed to me as to whether or not it should come off the wall to begin with. Of course I said, if this is about protecting the people we need to protect ourselves, I was essentially patting on the head and told that this was a ceremonial change meant to signify our commitment as a state to honor the painful legacy of slavery and celebrate its official end. I was told that protections happen in the laws and that we are well protected in that regard. We're protected federally. So I said, okay, let's do it. Let's just take it out completely. And that's where my current issue lies, our current issue lies. If this is truly ceremonial and it's about honoring our experience, our past, then why are we not being honored in our current demand that the verbiage of slavery be stricken completely from our state constitution? You'll have to excuse my befuddlement when experts argue that it should be left in so that we can remember and record that Vermont was the first state to end slavery. You'll have to excuse my indignance that we must leave it in because Vermont bills itself as the first state to end slavery and that there are potential economic benefits to leaving it in. You'll have to excuse me because the only people who are ever likely to forget it are those who benefit from it. And that's not us. I ask, if you need it in there to remember it, should we really be embarking upon a ceremonial gesture meant to demonstrate our understanding of the atrocities of slavery and its impact on my people, on our state, and our country, and in our world? You'll have to excuse me because the very notion that one would even dare to muse let alone utter or actually outright suggest that there may be a financial consequence if we take out reference to the 400 years of slavery that literally built the economic backbone of this current nation on our backs, on our lives, and on indigenous soil, smacks of an irony so outrageous that I question whether or not those who seriously consider this rationale truly understand the legacy of white supremacy in this country. And now I hear that some are arguing that this is about protection under the Trump era. Who knows what he'll do next? I say, if this is really our concern, why doesn't this proposed language reflect the actual clear and present dangers that are currently happening today? The actual threats to human life are indentured servitude, trafficking, and the detention of asylum seekers and migrants. How could one possibly say that we are trying to protect people with the current language that has been proposed in Prop 2? The answer is that we cannot. And for those reasons, the Vermont branches of the NAACP do not support PR2 as written. While we appreciate and support the effort and the spirit, if the goal is to get it right, let's first determine what our true goal is and then change the language in a way that thoroughly protects and reflects what I know the true intentions are of the Vermont legislature. And that's what we all have to say. Two minutes left. Thank you. I would like to, the impact of the community is to go with warming at this time for me at the end of that one though. Mark Hughes is after Bremen Disciples. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and House Government Operators. My name is Mark Hughes. For the record, I am the Director of Justice for All and a Coordinator for Racial Justice Reform Alliance. I'm offering testimony for your consideration as you move into deliberations and possible vote this week. 2018, we introduced the New Hold for Racial Justice Reform by Advancing Act 9 into law. And it was the first time in history that there was a legislation creating a panel and an executive director to promote racial justice throughout the state by mitigating systemic racism. Last year, this committee also entertained House Resolution 25, which stayed on the wall. It was a resolution to amend the Constitution to address slavery, what we're looking at right now. Last year, the Vermont Democratic Party also reaffirmed its platform position on the matter. Vermont League of Cities and Towns also did so. And very recently, the Vermont Episcopal Diocese Consul and the Governor's Workforce Equity and Diversity Consul all unanimously voted for and upheld the approach of Act 2, Proposal 2, as indicated in the proposal as introduced, it's always been about addressing systemic racism in our state and institutions, despite the fact that much attention and the testimony has been given to the words of removing reference to slavery as is indicated in our original request, which you can take a look at. Send a link over to you. This has never really been the Alliance's primary goal. The Vermont Constitution in the current state is unclear on slavery, making that clarification enables us to take major steps in addressing systemic racism in Vermont. And though the Senate's decision to remove the term addressing systemic racism in our state laws and institutions created some confusion surrounding our intent, the current proposed language satisfies the objective of providing clarification on slavery prohibition. We support the amendment as passed by the Senate. Many have asked why it's important that this is about our racist national and state history of the criminalization and the disproportionate incarceration of black and poor people. It expands in concentric circles beyond this, adversely impacting African-Americans, fair and equal access to housing, education, health services, employment, economic development. The 13th Amendment does constitutionalize slavery for the punishment of crime when duly convicted. Vermont laws permit the imprisonment in lieu of payment of fines and costs and the like. And the article under amendment consideration in the Vermont Constitution provides an exception that permits slavery when bound by law for payment of debts damages, fines, costs and the like. Which did not seem to come out in testimony with Professor Teachout. Collectively, this is the literal criminalization of poverty. It's the new slavery. Our research with Act 54, Act 9, the fair and impartial policing policy led us to understand the state laws and institutions inherently create and sustain racial disparities. The constitutional amendment is a continuation of our work to dismantle this systemic racism. We successfully convinced the Vermont Democratic Party to adopt a platform to address slavery in the Constitution and lobby to legislation for resolution HR25 last year, which has not taken up the legal cities and towns the Bishop of the Episcopal and so forth and so forth. As indicated in the proposal as introduced to the Senate, the proposal has always been about addressing systemic racism in our state laws and institutions. Despite the fact that much attention in testimony has been given these words, again, removing all reference to slavery is the, despite this fact, much attention has been given to the words, quote, removing all reference to slavery. As indicated in our original request, again, this has never been our intention. In closing, I would just say, this hearing is an opportunity to celebrate, despite all of the confusion surrounding this, the amendment moving forward with the acceptable language. We see that there's more work to be done in addressing systemic racism in our state laws in our institutions. Some of that work you just did recently with S107 in language and it, that work will continue. I thank you for your time tonight. I look forward to entertaining any questions that the Chair will permit. Thank you. Brenda, you would be next up and on deck is Jennifer Decker. Also, please forgive me, I did not know I was testifying till I got here today. So for the record, I am Brenda Siegel from New Fane Vermont. Thank you for holding a public hearing on this very important matter. As I said earlier, I don't think that my voice matters nearly as much as the impacted community voice that you hear today and throughout the legislative session and beyond. I understand that there are conflicting opinions from the impacted community on Proposition Two and while I support the spirit of Proposition Two, I'm concerned that the amendment does not reflect either the need to protect or the desire to address long time suffering and systemic oppression of marginalized communities in our state. My understanding is that several members of the impacted community testified in the Senate that they did want the language entirely removed and that that was not addressed in this amendment. I see time and time again the voices of impacted communities, marginalized communities, whether it be racial justice, whether it be poverty, whether it be any of anything else, end up ignored or left out when policy is made. I think it's something that we can work on. I also understand that there are others who are comfortable with the language and again it's their voices that matter more than mine. I do feel that those concerns and the full breadth that should have been given to them were not heard. I would like to address that in this state there is trafficking, there is indentured servitude, there is a large racial disparity in our prison system and I am concerned that when, if this amendment is to pass, we need to remember that there are still issues of slavery happening in this state that we need to address in the coming session as quickly as possible because we cannot allow this to go on and it is, and the hate is growing in our state not getting better. We need to address this. In closing I'll say that I very much hope like you're having a public hearing today that in your committee rooms, you will invite in those communities for the issues of racial justice, for opioid policy, for economic inequality and you make sure that you're hearing from those communities and that you are reflecting policy according to their experiences in the future. I know that this did not come from your committee and I recognize and respect that. This is my first chance to speak up about it and so I came in really wanting to reflect what the impacted community wants and I hear that there's conflict and so I personally am conflicted but I wanna make sure that we are focusing on the fact that there is trafficking, indentured servitude and racial disparity in our prison system right now. There is slavery now happening now and we need to make sure we're addressing that as well as a constitutional amendment. Jennifer Decker, Madam Chair, are there still opportunities for anyone here to sign up? Yes. Okay. If you have not signed up yet and you would like to, please put your name on the sign up sheet. There are also people outside intercepting people. If anyone else comes in who wants to sign up. Hi, my name is Jennifer Decker and I live in South Burlington and I'm active with Black Lives Matter of Greater Burlington and I'm here to talk about my concern in general about the racism that is present in our state and how I believe that impacts me personally is that as you may have heard, no one person can be free until all of us are free and I feel personally that the existence and the allowance of racism, whether that's in the constitution or in systemic organizational problems that has, it has to be taken very, very seriously. I learned recently that there are more white supremacist groups doing more actions like flyering, for an example, in South Burlington. I feel that the issues of racism that are in our state are at risk of getting worse at this point in time because of the current climate in our country and I would like to be a part of seeing how we could all take very seriously the ways that we can possibly change this. In regard to the specific proposal, I agree with the last speaker that having heard different perspectives makes the situation really challenging, but I also feel that that in itself is evidence of the systemic problems with including the voices of marginalized people and impacted communities because I think some of those issues could have had time to be resolved in a more hopeful way if there had been a process that is potentially more inclusive. So how can you in your situation be able to find a way to have a very inclusive process at this point in time? I agree that it would be very important to find a way of opening up your committee and finding a way to do that so that you can get this right. So with that, I just wanna say to me, this issue is very, very urgent and it's not something that I think we can waste time on doing the right thing. I personally as a Vermonter feel very embarrassed that we have any references to slavery remaining in our constitution and it does not appear from that perspective that we were the first state to abolish slavery. And so what can we do about that today? I think that the onus is on all of you in terms of being responsible and accountable to the situation at hand and finding a way to be as inclusive as possible in your deliberations. Thank you. Next up, Wafiq Faur. Thank you madam. My name is Wafiq Faur. I'm Palestinian American living enrichment Vermont. While we are talking about the language and the constitution about slavery and why it is necessary to take it out and change it I'm afraid that the feeling will be if we change the language it means the situation have been changed. Black American and Brown have been suffering from slavery from the beginning of this country. And because of the system and the founding father of the constitution and the system, all the slaves it seems the people in power privileged to continue a system of racism and discrimination. Here in Vermont, the first state to abolish slavery we still silent about sending black American to jail working for less than $1 an hour. We are living on a state where the migrants are living on the shadow and we are not speaking out while we are need them here on the state instead of welcome them because our economy depends on them they are our sisters and brothers and we are silent about their treatment and they are living on hiding and on the shadow of their jobs. Their children are not allowed to participate on the community they are living in. After we passed act 54, there was a full study of where racism and discrimination in state of Vermont exists and we discovered it's existing on education which is we battle it on H.3 and thank you all for voting for. We discovered it is in policing but we are not doing enough that black American commuters are facing every day 63% more on the biggest city in Vermont and Burlington that they will be stopped in comparison to their white neighbors. In the policing, on healthcare they discovered there is discrimination in housing there is discrimination. So changing the language of slavery but continue the system of racism in this state is unacceptable. We have to tackle those four phases that the report have been found and if we don't tackle them it means we are closing our eyes and the slavery coming on a new phase and a new form. Thank you. Seth Collins. My name is Seth Collins and I live in Berlin, Vermont and I am in support of this bill being pushed forth. I firmly believe that slavery needs to be absolutely 100% abolished in terms of the language and in actuality. And it's quite frightening because in my opinion there is a white supremacist terrorist cell in Montpelier. One of these people said they wanted to kill a number of people or to shoot a number of people and this was right before the shooting in New Zealand. So it's very frightening and so please push forth with this bill and please push forth with further bills against white supremacy. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who cares to have testimony given today? So I wanna thank you all for coming to be with us. I know that this process is challenging and there are many different voices and many different perspectives. We thank you for traveling all this distance to be here. If there are no other individuals who wish to testify I think that we will close the hearing and welcome folks who would like to have some one-on-one conversations with people to stay and visit her a few minutes. I know I'd like to stay and have an opportunity to talk and hear going forward how we can collaborate. So thank you so much for being here. Thank you, committee. Thank you, staff, for being with us this evening and we will adjourn this public hearing and welcome some conversation.