 Well, good morning, everyone. This is the Senate Lessons Learned Task Force meeting. This is our second meeting as a group. We met last week as well. And we're going to be at least planned, at least once a week, until we're done. And we're scheduled to be done fairly, fairly quickly. Senator Ballot, who is the co-chair, unfortunately also has a conflict this morning. She's at the Senate Rules Committee. And she may be late in joining us. So why don't we get started? Desirebly, I think we'd like to finish this by no later than 09.15, if not earlier, so that we're all prepared for the Senate floor session at 09.30 this morning. I think there was an agenda that was set out, first thing this morning, and hopefully you all got it. Is there anybody who didn't get the agenda, because I could go over the high points if you haven't seen it yet. I'll go look at it. I didn't see it. I looked last night. I haven't seen it. I think it was attributed, first thing this morning, but it's fairly simple. I didn't look. I'm sure I got it, but I didn't look. Why don't you go over the high points? The things that we are going to try to cover this morning are first, a review of the Task Force mission, the end product, and the prose timeline. The second is just a brief discussion of methodology and approach of how we are dealing with this. The third is a quick review, and I don't expect that there will be a report at this point of any results of the sub-Task Force efforts to date, and then any recommendations or ideas that Task Force members have, particularly about how we go about what we're doing, about things that you've seen and what you've done thus far that might drive how we approach this going forward, and then lastly, just some brief discussion about future meetings. So let me start out with, again, this review of the Task Force mission, the end product, and the proposed timeline. And I had further discussions with a number of folks, specifically with Tim, again, since our last meeting, again, try to clarify better what it is we're doing and how we're going about it, what the end product is, and again, to reinforce that timeline. And the timeline is set right now with the goal towards getting this done on or about the 22nd of May, which is not too many days from now. And that goes back to this issue of what's the mission here. And the mission, as described to us, was to do something about lessons learned from how we're dealing with the COVID-19 crisis. And lessons learned can mean many things to many people. But perhaps it's easier to say what this exercise is not, because it will clarify, I think, a little bit about what it might be. This is not a detailed review in infinitesimal minutia, everything that happened good, bad, or indifferent, as Vermont responded to the COVID-19 crisis. That's not what this is. At some point, someone may want to do a post-mortem. And indeed, one of the comments that we might have is what kind of post-mortem might be needed based on what we're seeing. But this is not it. This is at a very high level, and in many ways is an impressionistic level. But it's not an impression that's pulled out of thin air. It's the result of all the work that we've done over these past weeks on the legislative side in looking at the COVID crisis. And it's a recording of what we've seen and what we've found and what we've experienced and the good things, the bad things, the indifferent things that have happened. And to record those in a way that helps inform our future decision-making, our future thoughts. But more important, it also helps us to formulate what we do as a legislative body in the days and weeks in front of us right now in terms of modifying our response or modifying our approach or learning from that approach. And then recording what our findings are, again, at a high level, not at infinitesimal detail, but recording them in such a way that we memorialize these thoughts that we've developed during the course of our review. How are we going to go about doing that? Well, first, since this is something that the Senate is doing, the first thing that I think we should do, and Beck and I have discussed this at some length, is focus this at least initially on the Senate itself. And by that, we would approach, first, the committee shares of each of the committees of jurisdiction. And you can see the breakdown on the document that we distributed last week that breaks us into three subgroups, one under Chris Pearson, one under Becca, and one working with me, so that three of us are each on these subgroups. The subgroups can discuss individually among themselves how they are going to approach it, what kinds of division they will make among the members of the subtask or as to who does what. But among the methods that we've talked about and are being employed right now is that some groups are talking first with the chair of each of the committees of jurisdiction to get their impressions and their thoughts and their summary. And then, based on the committee's decision, decide whether or not to convene at least briefly each of the committees so that further input can be obtained from the members of each of those committees. That will form the basis for the first outline of lessons learned. Each of these committees may choose to do it differently. They may choose to do it through informal discussions with individual committee members conducted by the members of our subtask force or by the committees convening as a whole. Michael Sorokin, for example, the chair of economic development noted that so many of us are on his committee that perhaps the best way to approach it will be to have a brief meeting of the committee in which we talk about lessons learned and we kind of develop some thoughts as a committee. Those thoughts can be as the committee as a whole, but they can also be from individual members based on our observations. What are the things that we're looking for in these lessons learned at a high level? Well, again, those are detailed a little bit on the document that we distributed last week that showed the breakdown of, in effect, assignments for each of the subgroups. And these are answers to some very basic and fundamental questions. What did we do well? And I think we'll all agree that there are many things that Vermont did very well in this crisis, particularly as we compare it to what other states have done. What are the things that I asked Ellen to do for us and I'll call on her to just give us what she found was to make contact with NCSL to see how other states, if at all, are approaching that at this stage. There, by the way, are different views as to whether or not you should do a lessons learned of any kind this early in the process of while an emergency is still going on. And there's debate about that. But one of the things that many people have seen is that the postmortem that has done months and in some cases years after the fact before it's finished, people have moved on to other things. And sometimes it's very easy not to do a postmortem that is technically correct, but doesn't really inform you as to what you should do right now. And that's why we're approaching it in kind of this two-stage piece. As we look at these postmortems going forward for the future, the more detailed one later, that is something that I think we all agree needs to be done by an independent body or organization, whether it be an outside consultant, whether it be an organization like the state auditor or whatever, that can be decided later. But that's a different kind of product than what we're trying to produce here. So we ask questions like, what did we do well? Which I think will evoke a lot of thoughts, many of which will come to the forefront in people's minds and in committee's minds right from the very beginning. Then the question is, what could we have done better? What are the things that perhaps we could have improved? Have we approached it either in a different way? Have we approached it earlier? Have we approached it with a different mindset? Have we approached it using different people or means or organizations to come together to solve a problem in a different way? What changes should be made to our current execution, which is critically important? As we're managing this crisis right now, are there any approaches that based on our observations, and that's what this is all about, that we think we should perhaps suggest a mid-course or an in-course correction? And what should we do that would deal with perhaps our future planning for the next wave if there is one of this crisis or the next crisis that comes along based on our experience in dealing with this crisis while it's fresh in our minds? These recommendations for immediate course correction, if there are any, there may not be any, but are there things that we should perhaps look at legislatively or things that we should look at at our recommendations in the administration that we might consider doing differently? And then lastly, I think we should look at really just a quick examination based on our experience of how well our contingency planning and emergency management operations and plans have prepared us for doing what we're doing right now. I don't think we could go a great deal beyond that, but clearly as we go through this discussion today, based on what you've done thus far, if any of you have suggestions or observations or things that this plan should change or the things that we're doing should change or the things that we should include or not include this, and then any obstacles that you may have encountered in what you've done thus far. That's what we wanna talk about a bit here today because that may cause a course correction in what we're doing as well. So we've talked about thus far, or I should say I've talked about, but not while I see the conversation about the mission, the end product, which again is a brief report. It is not gonna be a 44 page tome in the time that we have, it's gonna stick to high level issues that have surfaced and opinions and thoughts. And then lastly, we've talked about the timeline, the 22nd and we'll review again as to whether or not that is realistic based on where we are, particularly a week from now. And we've discussed the methodology and approach. At this point, I'd like to throw it open to the floor to ask, are there any results based on what you've done thus far, any issues that you've seen in the work that you've done thus far, or any thoughts that you have regarding the efforts and how we're doing what we're doing? Andy. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, well, my main kind of what I found out that developed questions in my mind is when we talk about we, the we in those questions that we have, is that we the entire state or we the Senate? You had mentioned that you and Senator Ballant had talked about maybe starting with we the Senate. So that was kind of the main thing I wanted to clarify because when I talked to some of the agencies, they were like, it's too early. We're not basically gonna talk to you about it because we're still in the crisis. So we're gonna do an action after action review later. So if the Senate wants to do something, you're on your own basically for doing it right now. So that was my main question. All right. Before I try to answer and others that they have thought, but I see that Dick's hand is up as well. Is it on Andy's issue? Dick, you're muted I think. Sorry. It's just more or less my answer to your question. What have I seen? And I would say this, I think first I wanna start with something I think we've done very right. And it ought to be noted that we've done it right. And it ought to be celebrated and encouraged to continue. And that is that unfortunately in a crisis, power shifts to the executive as it must. Cause one of the distinguishing, one of the reasons there is an executive is that they can make quick decisions and you need quick decisions here. Things like I was telling citizens a certificate of need for a hospital to expand. You know, we can't do that. If they need to expand for an epidemic, they gotta be able to just do it and we gotta authorize them to do it. So a great deal of power here has shifted to the governor. The emergency declaration is the governors and all sorts of policies are from the governor. I think something we've done right is that, and I say this as a Democrat, our governor has been moderate, reasonable, solid, science-based and consistent. And I think first of all, just starting with the basic psychological, the state of the people in an emergency to know that the people in charge know what the hell they're doing and that they're not hysterical, that they know that they're calm and in control. The other thing is that the governor's approaches have been clearly science-based, which is important. And very little of his personality, except for his tendency for it's being calm and accommodating. And I think what we have done right is that this has not become a partisan bickering occasion. And I have no problem disagreeing with the Republican governor. I expect to support the nominee of my party in the election. There's time for that. Right now in this crisis, we really are all in this together and the governor has provided good leadership and I feel very proud of myself and my fellow Democrats that we have not pounced on him for anything, that we have followed his leadership. I think that kind of a good faith, good spirit, unanimity is something we've done right. I've got other thoughts, but I'll leave that for now. Good, thank you. Allison? No. Thanks, Becca and Randy, for taking a lead on this. I think before we get into answering specific questions here, we need to figure out our methodology and our timeframe on that. So I would go back to the bigger picture of what we're doing to go back to Andy's stuff and the things you are talking about. I actually think we should begin with the committees. You say keep it high level and yet the very sub-breaking down by subject in these committees drives it to minutia. I mean, not drives it to minutia, that's the wrong word, but drives it to subject. Let me clarify that a little bit if I can. Yeah, but let me just quickly finish my thoughts. One is that I think we should start with the committees and ask them to spend two hours on lessons learned and give it to us and then we'll take it from there. But I think each committee should do that work. I think the second thing is I don't want us to reinvent the wheel. I sent you, Becca, Richie and Phil, my conversation with our chief, our Capitol Police Chief, he and Janet Miller have done a huge amount of work and Kevin Moore on all the subjects, not the subject areas, but on preparedness, on planning, on what did we do well, what did we have in place? And I think I want to make sure they get looped in so that we benefit from their planning and experience, a lot of which we're not aware of, which is lovely, but it exists. So those are the two thoughts I had is I would urge us by the end of this week to get back from each committee some lessons learned so that we can then figure out what we want to do with them over the weekend and then get into the specific questions. I think you've effectively summarized what Becca and I were going to say. Thank you. Oh, sorry. No, we agree wholeheartedly that the first stage of this, and I should have made it clear last week, our first stage of this is to look internally within the Senate before we delve into the bowels of the administration. Starting with what we see at our committees and the goal this week will be to get to each one of the committees and jurisdictions at least to the chair to get the method down as to whether we're going to gather our information from the full committee or whether we're going to take it from the chair and perhaps one or two others. And that will be up to the subgroups as they get into the depth to define. But the first stage is to look internally before we go delving into the details of what each of the administrative departments are doing. I think that's beyond the scope of what we want to do. The issue of, in some cases, the pushback that Andy has seen from, I know at least one department, I don't think that's beyond what we would expect. I'm currently in discussions and I had difficulty getting to our, just based on everybody being so busy, but I've had discussions with Suzanne Young and this week we're going to talk further about how we get additional input from the administration to the extent that we need it. Part of the issue that we wanted to make sure is that we weren't reinventing the wheel. And that goes to the discussions that you've had with Janet and Chief Ramay and they are in fact on the list to be able to do that. As you may know, we do have an emergency plan and among the appendices to that plan that are not posted online are individual continuity of government plans that each department, based on a rule that exists, a BGS rule is to create, has to create a continuity of operation plan, a continuity of government plan that details how we respond to contingency stuff. I think the kind of the first observation and we'll get more detail, particularly as we deal with those that the legislature has that Janet and the Chief have is that most of the contingency plans are based on an emergency is defined by the kinds of emergencies that we historically see like hurricanes, fires, loss of a building or whatever. But most of those plans have not originally been dealt be able to deal with things like this pandemic. And so plans have been modified and changed. And again, at least from my observation of things that we've done well is we've reacted to dealing with this new normal and this new type of contingency pretty well. One of the things that we're also looking at and Ellen is one that we're gonna ask to help us to the extent that we can through research, through NCSL and others is how other states are dealing first with the lessons learned piece, but then secondly, with how they're responding to the same kinds of issues we have and whether or not there's any way that we could draw comparisons of how we're doing in comparison to how others are doing. But at this stage, we are looking internally and our goal is this week and that was one of the asks that we have for everybody is that this week we contact each of the committees of jurisdiction so that we touch each of the subject areas that we have on our list. And then when we reconvene a week from now the heads of each of our three subgroups will be able to report back on what we've seen and what we picked up along the way in order to inform our next activities. Is that, Andy, does that address your issue? Yes, that helps, thank you. Okay, and Allison, from your perspective. Yeah, I think that's what we wanna do and give ourselves that timeline, get those. I mean, we've already begun in GovOps because we had chatted about it, Brian and I have chatted about it with our chair and in committee. And so we've already started that work and I think Brian and I can pull from GovOps higher level. We've gotten into some minutia but keep some of that high level and distill it for this. Great, Chris? Yeah, thanks, Randy. One of the questions that Andy brought up for me and he brought it up with me and Senator Calamora on our subgroup was also the question, I hear you saying to understand lessons learned for the state we're starting with the committees who have jurisdiction to understand their area of expertise. But Andy brought up also a different question, I think in my mind, which is how has the Senate reacted as a body as part of the process? And Andy, jump in here. What should we learn about our own 30 people, behavior and actions and alterations that we should make if we're down this path again or, et cetera? That's a great observation. So is that gonna fall under GovOps or do you want us all to put a paragraph together on that or how do you see that getting a sign? My initial impression and I'll open it to other thoughts is that GovOps should perhaps take the lead on that but that we should also individually with each of our subgroups perhaps also provide some commentary to that and we can synthesize it at the end. Since we're all close at observers, we all have thoughts and I wouldn't want to lose those by dividing them up but ask GovOps subgroup to take the lead on it and then we individually submit. Brian? I think we'd be happy to. I think Brian hasn't spoken yet but we're already into it and I think we'd be probably happy to do that. Okay. Brian? Thank you and good morning everybody. So I want to agree with Senator McCormick's sentiment and also Senator Pearson and Purchlick and Senator Clarkson. I think the ability of us to be as nimble as possible has shown us that we can be, we're dealing with obviously a much smaller number than the other body. So it's easier for us to learn how to go on Zoom, how to conduct business, how to vote, all that kind of stuff but I think we've done an extraordinarily good job in being that nimble. And as Senator McCormick pointed out, I think there's only been one vote that I can recall where we all didn't vote the same way. I think there was one time when someone said no but for the most part, everything has been unanimous and it gives us at least myself a pretty good feeling that we're doing the right thing. The other thing I just want to make a distinction, much of what we've done has to do with the distribution of the CARES money that's coming from the federal government. And I think that can be a whole separate discussion because if there wasn't any CARES money, much of our work, we wouldn't have done it. We would have been forced to look inside and find out that funding. So I think that could be put in a separate sort of category. And I think what we need to deal with are the processes that we had in place when this hit and how well we responded to it. A lot of that will fall to the government operations committee. We've given municipalities much more flexibility to be able to hold meetings while considering the open meeting law, all of that kind of stuff. I don't want to get too deeply into the weeds, but that was a big piece of what we did. We didn't talk that much in GovOps about how to spend any money. We did some to be fair, but the majority of what we did was try to react in a positive way to allow our government, our actual processes, to be able to continue to operate during this time. So anyway, those are my thoughts. Great, thank you. Anybody else, did I miss anyone? Randy? Cheryl, I just wanted to ask about sort of moving that whole GovOps consideration to the other committee that is already kind of primarily made up of GovOps people. So that we focus on IT and appropriations and institutions, does this mean that we're kind of duplicating efforts if GovOps is already taking care of the issues that fall under that particular committee? Well, we have one on GovOps. We have Senator Collabor, who is on our subgroup, excuse me, Senator Collabor is on Senator Pearson's subgroup and Senator Clarkson is on Senator Balloch's subgroup. Is there anybody else on GovOps that we missed? Because it's kind of split. No, the other two were chairs and Anthony, Anthony's on our group. He's with Anthony, I thought was- No, he's on the other group. He's in the other group. He's in transitions. Correct. So I mean, I'm open. Chris, do you have any thoughts on that? I'm open to that, but I'm, Allison's reminded me of a question I have after Cheryl's question, sorry. Well, I love it when I'm a prompt to you, Pearson. Yeah, I think that I'd like to consult with Senator Balloch, who is not on at this point, which I'll do after the call or later today. And then between she, I, and Senator Pearson can just give thoughts as to whether GovOps ought to move from one place to the other. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. It's whatever makes the most sense based on the people we have. From Senator Clarkson and Senator Collabor, both of whom are on GovOps, do you have any preference as to which group handles this? No. No. In some ways, I think Brian and I would appreciate fresh eyes. Once we bring our thoughts from GovOps, the committee to this group, it'll be good to have some fresh eyes on the things that we bring to you, Todd. It's now, right now, it's listed under, as well as a bit of contingency planning and risk management is under my group and none of you, neither of you are part of that group. But that may be a good thing. Okay, well, let us discuss that later today and then we'll get back to the group as a whole if there's any change. Do any of you have any other thoughts regarding the efforts that we've done to date, anything that would change course or alter what we're doing and our approach? Okay. Are there any other recommendations or ideas that members of the Task Force have about how we should approach this, what we should do and any thoughts about any changes we should make in the way we do this, any thoughts regarding how frequently we should meet as a group and whether this weekly meeting we scheduled is enough. Senator Clarkson. I think if we're going to ask committees to get material to us, I think we should meet probably Friday afternoon and figure out what we want to do over the weekend with those materials and then do some of that work over the weekend or whatever and so that we can meet Tuesday or whenever we're gonna meet Monday or Tuesday to figure out what we're doing with all of that because that'll be a big dump. Even if committees spend a modest amount at a high level, that'll be a lot of material for us to digest and figure out what to do with. Okay. Any thoughts about that? Does that make sense for the committee as a whole to do that in that way? I think so. All right, so Senator Perrin's yes, Senator McCormick says yes. Senator Clarkson, everybody says yes. Okay, then we'll try to schedule something I'd have Myra and Mike schedule something for say some like three, four o'clock in the afternoon on Friday and there we'll try to gather together all the material that we have. The goal I think would be though that if we have any rip materials to try to get that rip materials to Myra ahead of time so that that can be distributed as part of that meeting. Yeah, maybe the Myra and Ellen. Of course. Yeah, to pull together. Chris. Randy, I just have some questions that I hope we can cover in our last 10 minutes here. So is this an all right time to bring those up? Sure, I just wanna make sure that we have enough time for Ellen to just tell us what she did in terms of her initial contact with NCSL and what more, if any along those lines she's thinking about. It would really help me to understand two things. One is a little bit more about the other task force because I don't want us to duplicate their effort. And that relates to I crave an understanding of what this report is going to be what's gonna be done with it. So trying to understand what we're inspiring here as a way to better understand what we should be trying our mission, if that makes sense. Well, I know I've had further discussions with Tim after our last meeting on that subject. And the dividing line as he envisions it is that our focus is on what we've learned about what's happened and how that learning will inform what we do about other crises. The dividing line with the other committee is its focus on recovering from the crisis, not necessarily analyzing what happened but on the recovery piece as opposed to managing future crises and informing future crisis. That's kind of the dividing line. Becca and I though have talked about getting together with the two leaders in a phone conference this week to make sure that the dividing line is clear in our minds. I think it's clear in my mind, but what I think has to be informed by what everybody else is thinking. So that we're all on the same page. And our goal is to get with the two of them very early this week to make sure that the dividing line is clear. Is that answer your question? Sort of? Sort of more. So you really, we are truly, well, so if the task is what would we do if this crisis was repeated? What would we like to have done? What would we be in place? Is that sort of it? Yeah, that's it. Another related emergency. Correct, it's how well prepared were we and what changes should we make in terms of how we're managing this crisis and what should we do and be prepared to do in the event that we have either a bounce or another crisis. This is much more focused on crisis management and the lessons learned from it. On the one hand, on the other hand, the other group is much more focused on what do we need to do now in order to recover from the crisis, to rebuild the economy, to do what's necessary to get us out of the hole that we're in. So, may I just? Overlap likely there will be and that's the goal of visiting with the two folks who are leading the other task force to make sure that we clarify those roles and responsibilities so that we don't create a model. Allison? I think it would be, I think if this is an ongoing thing, Chris, I feel like this is stage one. This is the first flush of this work. Lessons learned is something we're gonna be doing for months and months and months. I think this is like chapter one is sort of get, while it's still fresh. I mean, I see the value to doing this now is that it's still fresh for all of us. And, but I think that we're, anyway, so I would say that I think this is just like chapter one. And what we do with it, I would hope, Andy's losing and finding that pandemic report from 2005 or six in Department of Health. I mean, so we end up in six months or eight months writing up a report on the lessons we learned and then it gets shelved to be just useless. I mean, part of what I think we're gonna find interesting in Janet and Matt's work in terms of the work they do in constant planning, contingency plan, continuity of government plan, all the work they do are keeping it fresh. And what's gonna be important about lessons learned, I think is what actions we take to rectify and how we keep that current. True, I agree with you. Anyone else, let's talk then at this stage, Ellen, could you just tell us what you found, if anything, when you made your contact with NCSL? Sure, so I reached out to NCSL and they did not have any information on other states having task courses like this. However, CSG, the Council of State Governments has a significant amount of resources on their website. They are compiling pretty much all information, all of the press releases and have set up a pretty good directory of what different states are doing as far as task forces to respond to COVID-19. In reviewing the information, I only found specifically two states at least mentioned forward-looking, future planning, lessons learned type task forces. Colorado and North Carolina both have in their task forces a forward-looking long-term, the look at long-term impacts and long-term solutions in their task force missions. So in looking at those two groups, the North Carolina one is set up in the House of Representatives there and there's a specifically to look at, they're currently, they have adjourned for a break for the next couple of months. And so the task force is going to meet to look at, I think some of the similar aims that you're looking at and about what they will do as a body when they return. However, that meeting, their first meeting is today. So I don't have a lot of information on that other than that they are looking to make a plan for what to look backwards and how they responded and to what they will need to do when they come back in a few months as a body. So that is some overlap, but they haven't met yet. With Colorado, they also just started meeting recently with their long-term looking task force. And the first thing that they did was reach out to their federal delegation and basically ask them that moving forward as they negotiate further federal aid, some of the specific things that they are interested in in relation to Colorado. So that was, so they digested, looked at what, how the first federal delegation and federal relief package, what it was going to do for the state and what other things they could possibly need. Well, on the North Carolina piece, hopefully there will be some result of their meeting today, desirably a document outlining what they intend to do and how they intend to approach it. And it might be useful and informative to us to see how others are doing what they do. And so if you are able over the next several days, if there is any extract of what they're doing or what they plan to do, and indeed even something relating to the run up of the work that they're meeting about today that you think might be useful, if you could perhaps summarize that and share that with us, I think it would be, it would potentially be useful. And similarly, if Colorado, that part of what Colorado is doing, that might be relevant to our structure and our methodology and our end product, that would be useful to see that as well. Senator Balance, I see has joined us and we- Sorry, so late Senator Brock. The Senate Rules Committee went much longer than I anticipated. Well, I'm sure that you passed some good rules for us though. That's just it, we didn't. I know you're familiar with the agenda that we have today and I think we're almost on the end run. Our goal was to finish it about four minutes in order to be prepared for the Senate session. But I'm wondering if you have any comments for the group as a whole. We've discussed that issue of our approach at least for the next week of focusing on the committees of jurisdiction. Our goal will be to memorialize some of the things that we learned, whether it be through individual committee meetings or members or from as the chairs, they want to have meetings of the committee as a whole to talk about the lessons learned methodology. And then the goal based on what we've talked about today is to get together again on Friday afternoon with the materials from the three subgroups at that point so that they can be shared with us and we'll have a chance to look at them over the weekend in order to be able to deal with those conclusions and those findings and so on for the meeting that we will have next Tuesday morning. And I'm wondering if you have anything that you would like to... The only thing, yeah, the only thing I would add is, I know for me, I've been struggling with, and Randy, you and I have talked about it, was getting our arms around this and how extensive are we gonna make this? How deep are we gonna go? And I'm thinking of it more as the point in time count that we do on homelessness every year is we get some information for that. We know what it is on a particular day under certain conditions. And so this is not going to be an exhaustive report. This is quickly assessing what we've learned and how we can do it better the next time. And we're gonna continue, I'm sure as we come back, those of us who are running again, we come back next year, we're gonna have more of this kind of work to do in some form, so. Yeah, as we've discussed, this is clearly an iterative process and this is not the final end product of the post-mortem that typically will be done by an independent body of some kind at some point in the future and will provide a lot more learnings that we're able to do in the limited period of time that we have. Now someone did mention Senator Ballant, one thing that I think is critically important and that is we also look at our own performance. The performance of the Senate, how did we do as a Senate? Admittedly, we're not independent, maybe we should have the House review us, but that perhaps is something to leave for another day. Yes, good point. Anything else that we should talk about this morning before we adjourn? Well, great, thank you very much, everyone. Thank you so much for participating and we'll see you in a few minutes.