 Good afternoon, you are with the Vermont House government operations committee. We are gathered here this afternoon to go through one of the Senate bills on police reform matters that was referred to our committee back in June before right before we adjourned for our summer recess and so we are going to first go through the bill as it came over from the Senate with Bryn and then have an opportunity to ask any questions, context setting questions for how this fits in with with policing policies as they exist today, and what changes this makes. And then we're going to switch gears after we've gone through 119 to have a bit of a committee discussion to talk about what we heard in our three public hearings that we held with the House Judiciary Committee over the course of the last couple weeks. And then at the end of today's meeting if we have time, we'll get an update from John Gannon on the progress of the S54 cannabis tax and regulate bill, how the conference committee is going so with, unless there's any questions, I will invite Bryn to go ahead. And I don't see anybody diving for their hand raised so Bryn. That's 118. Hey, good afternoon committee for the record Bryn here from Legislative Council can everybody hear me okay. Yes. Okay great. As the chair mentioned, I'm going to do a walkthrough of s 119 as it came over from the Senate. A lot of this is going to look familiar to this committee because it's quite similar to a bill that you looked at earlier in the session which was h 808. And it governs the use of force by law enforcement it's a statewide policy governing the use of force use use of lethal force by law enforcement. So again, much of it will look similar. There are some changes. There are some differences between the version you looked at and this version that came over from the Senate. So, I'm just going to jump right in. And I'll expect you'll stop me with any questions. So section one, it is a actually it is just one section, it creates this new statute entitled 20. That sets out a statewide policy for the law enforcement use of deadly force. And it is similar to h 808 it's modeled from legislation that passed in California in 2019. And sort of specifically, generally what it does is that it provides that the use of deadly force is only allowed in situations when it is necessary in the defense of human life. And it takes effect on October 1 of 2020. So the first subsection subsection a is the definition section. Oh, I think Bob got his. Excellent Bob got something working. Sorry about that. That's okay. So sets out some definitions that you'll see throughout throughout the policy. The first is deadly force, meaning any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury. The next is imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. It ends when based on the totality of the circumstances are reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability opportunity and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury either to the law enforcement officer or to another person. So that's a pretty important definition because you're going to see that imminent harm can't merely be a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear or no matter how great the likelihood of harm, but it has to be from appearances instantly confronted and addressed. So that's a pretty important definition because you're going to see that imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury throughout the policy. Law enforcement officer is defined. Um, I have a note here myself saying something to the effect that immediate and imminent don't mean the same thing. Can you elaborate on that friend. Is that something that has come up the definition of imminent versus immediate threat. Yeah, you know that didn't didn't come up in the Senate the difference between those two words. I think that imminent threat is a word that's used. It's sort of a term of earth that's used in jurisprudence about law enforcement use of force. So I think that's why it's used here as opposed to immediate. I think, but again it did not come up in the Senate the difference between those two words. Okay, thank you. Law enforcement officer has the same definition as the definition of law enforcement officer in the criminal justice training council chapter. Turning to the next page I'm looking at the fourth definition now, which is prohibited restraint, and this was not in H 808 as this committee reviewed it but it probably will look familiar, because it was in each 219 which I think this was that that was another police reform bill. So it's the same definition that's in that that passed in that in that act. So it means the use of any maneuver on a person that applies pressure to the neck. Throw when pipe or carotid artery that may prevent or hinder breathing reduce intake of air or impede the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain. So that's the way of the circumstances. That means all facts known to a law enforcement officer at the time and that includes the conduct of the officer, and the words and conduct of the subject that lead up to the use of deadly force. So, without any questions on the definition section I'll go ahead and move on to section be. That's all right. Okay. So this subsection be here sets out the statewide policy for the use of force and policing. It describes that the general policy that use of force should be used judiciously with respect for every person's right to be free from excessive use of force. That's what you see in subdivision one there. Subdivision to requires law enforcement may only use deadly force in defense of human life. And in determining when it is necessary, officers have to evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances and use other techniques instead of deadly force, if it's reasonable, if it's reasonably safe and feasible to do so. Subdivision three just indicates that officers have to evaluate these situations carefully and thoroughly in a manner that reflects the gravity of the of their authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by law enforcement. And therefore, their decision to use force has to be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, and based on the totality of the circumstances that are known or perceived by the officer at the time. Lastly, C five B five provides that any law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person that the person to be arrested has committed a crime may use proportional force, if necessary to affect the arrest to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. Subdivision B five is also language that did not appear in H 808. It was language that the Senate added to this subdivision of the policy. So moving on and I moved to subsection C now and now this is sort of the heart of the policy here. This sets out when the use of deadly force is appropriate. Subdivision C one describes precisely when the use of deadly force is appropriate. It provides that a law enforcement officer is justified and using deadly force upon another person, only when that law enforcement officer reasonable believes based on the totality of the circumstances, which is that definition that we, we, we looked at earlier that such force is necessary to either do one of two things defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, either to the officer or to apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened serious bodily injury or death. If that officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another person, unless they're immediately apprehended. So there's some, there's some qualifiers there to the appropriate use of deadly force in a situation of a fleeing person. So moving on to page four. The remaining subdivisions under subsection C provide that law enforcement have to use reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a police officer. Subdivision C is reasonable prior to using force. That's subdivision two at the top of the page. Subdivision three says law enforcement officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that that person poses to themselves. A relatively reasonable officer would believe that the person doesn't pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person. So only if the person poses the danger to themselves. That is not a reason to use deadly force. Subdivision four. So this provides that a law enforcement officer who makes an arrest or attempts to make an arrest does not have the duty to retreat. So this just provides that sort of this subsection sort of affirms the right of a law enforcement officer to self defense and provides they do not have to retreat by reason of resistance or threatened resistance of the person who's being arrested. And then subdivision C five bottom of the page prohibits the use of those prohibited restraints for any reason by law enforcement and requires that law enforcement intervene if they observe another officer using a prohibited restraint on a person. And again, that prohibited restraint is defined in the bill. So that concludes the policy section of the bill and then the remaining section is the effective date, which as I mentioned earlier is October 1 of this year. Jim Harrison has a question. Yeah, thank you madam chair of Bryn. If I understood your walkthrough, there are two sections that are different than H 808. The first is the choke hold section, which is already in was already in 219. And then the other. I don't know I'm losing it there was one other thing that you said was added. Yes. There was another specific section that I pointed out that was B five. And then the second section is the non enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime may use proportional force, if necessary to affect the arrest, prevent escape or overcome resistance. Those are not the only differences between H 808 and 119 if you like I can give you a complete list I can point out a couple small ones but I may not remember all of them so I'm glad to give you a question if that would be helpful. If you have one already done up that would be helpful. The, I guess my other question and this night, not be easily answered is. How would you summarize the difference between S 119 and current law. So, I mean I would, I would assume I'm a lay person but I would assume. If someone's pointing a gun at a police officer. And it looks like they may pull the trigger that the police officer can do whatever it is to protect their own life. But beyond that, I'm not sure what what the differences are, if there is. So, I think that you're asking me like what the difference in this policy is versus how courts handle excessive use of force claims currently. Yes, is that right. Okay. So, we did talk about this a little bit in the context of H 808 about how federal court jurisprudence determines claims of unreasonable force by law enforcement. So, a little bit about that reasonable person standard that courts use in determining whether or not a person has a constitutional claim under the fourth amendment. So, you might remember, I provided a memo to the committee that talked about the fourth amendment which is the amendment that requires that people be secure in their persons houses papers effects against unreasonable abusers that's the, that is the portion of the Constitution that is raised in these types of claims. And based on Supreme Court jurisprudence. The court has found that an officer has to be the standard that they use as the reasonable officer standard. This S 119 reflects sort of an incremental shift away from the reasonable officer standard because it instead provides that this new necessary standard. But as I discussed in committee that the definitions that are laid out in the bill track very closely with Supreme Court jurisprudence about the reasonable person standard. So, for example, part of part of the policy and subsection be provides that in determining whether deadly forces necessary officers have to evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of the case. That's drawn directly from existing Supreme Court jurisprudence about reasonable reasonable force. And the other part that says provides the decision to use force has to be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation based on the totality of the circumstances that are known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight. And again that's drawn directly from US Supreme Court jurisprudence about what constitutes reasonable force under the Constitution. So, that's, I know it's not a straightforward answer but I guess I would say that it does represent an incremental shift away from that reasonable for standard by using the necessary standard instead. I don't think I do think that courts will have to interpret what just like they have to interpret now whether force is reasonable. I think courts will have to interpret whether force is necessary. I don't think that either term is cut and dry or straightforward that it's going to require the word necessary is going to require interpretation, just like the word reasonable has required interpretation. Do we know if this is based on the California standard whether California has had any court cases that would help define what the difference is. So, I don't think that there has been any on point jurisprudence in California yet about the necessary standard. And yes, they're there, they did move to the necessary standard from the reasonable standard, but I don't think there's been any court cases yet that shed any light on how that's going there. Okay, thank you. All right, Hal Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair. When I look at the last subdivision five, where it speaks to how law enforcement officers a duty to intervene when the officer observed another officer using a prohibited restraint on a person. I guess I was just the whole idea of reasonable. So, as in the case with with the murder of George Floyd, Oscar Chauvin was, you know, fully engaged. And there were three officers on the scene. Does their understanding of reasonableness would have any impact on a situation where an officer who might be employing excessive force, deadly force could be questioned. You know, where, where might other officers who are on the scene have any kind of weight about what's reasonable or not, or is that inferred in the fact that they need to intervene, which means that what they witnesses is unreasonable. And I'm just wondering if there was any discussion about that kind of thinking, whether it was being debated in the Senate. So the prohibited restraint section because it sets out sort of an absolute prohibition on law enforcement use of these types of restraints. The conversation in the Senate wasn't really about what was reasonable, but it was more because this is a flat out prohibition, there should, there was a conversation about their needing to be an additional provision that would account for those sort of bystander officers, and put some accountability on any bystander officer to intervene in these circumstances where there's an absolute prohibition on this sort of conduct. So if they're the conversation in the Senate about this particular part really didn't revolve around the reasonableness standard, but rather the desire to prohibit this type of conduct by police officers and how best to go about prohibiting that conduct. Okay. I'm still stuck on the reasonableness issue. You know who determines what's reasonable. And if there's officers on the scene who may think something is unreasonable, then what is their role, aside from this kind of ultimate use of a prohibitive restraint. So that's just what I'm questioning. That's an interesting question, because primarily that there's prunes about reasonable use force is really about the one officer who the individual officer or the multiple officers who actually used the force as opposed to those officers that were there and not intervening. Thank you. Warren Kitzmiller. Okay, I want to go back to Marsha's question about the difference between imminent and immediate because I think that's an important distinction. I'm not ready to suggest a definition but to me, imminent is an arriving. It's a very short term future. It's a driving threat that could escalate to become immediate immediate has no time in front of it it's right here right now. That's when the bad guy is raising the gun and pointing it at you imminent is when you see that the bad guy is walking and holding that gun. It's an imminent threat, but it becomes immediate as soon as they aim it at you so I see a timeline distinction there and I would like to ask that we try for a definition of those two terms because I believe they're important. That's all I got. Thanks Warren. I, I also looking at the words on the page and trying to imagine how they are applied in real life scenarios, you know I look at this concept of tactical repositioning or other deescalation and you know I think we can all hope that if there wasn't an immediate threat as in I have no place to duck and somebody is raising their weapon at me. You know is one situation but you know I think we have all seen scenarios where where there could have been some some waiting and some attempt at deescalation where that's what we would hope would happen. Rather than use of deadly force. I think I think that imminent has at least a little bit of wiggle room for deescalation, or it has some time in front of it, not very much but some, whereas immediate is immediate, but that's, you got to do something right now. And I think that's an important distinction. Yeah. That's going to be my comment. Ron, did this Senate considered all putting findings into 119. That did not come up. Okay. Interesting. Going to page two be one, every person has the right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under authority of the state. What was the purpose of that sentence? The purpose of that sentence is to make it clear that these law enforcement officers are authorized to act by authority of. Vermont law. Does it create a right of action? It does create a right of action. Under 1983, the federal statute. Yes. Okay. I think it's arguable that they, a cause of action already exists under the Vermont constitution, but it is, it does make it more clear that that right of action could be brought under the federal statute. Does it create a right of civil litigation? Yes. Okay. Thank you. And Bob Hooper. Working. Yes, we can hear you. Excellent. Three devices. I agree with John, I guess that that sentence. Every person has a right sort of is. Seems fluffy. This, this whole presentation of this bill makes me uncomfortable. Warren's point as well taken, but I want to pick up on what how was saying. Particularly with the last. Number five. I mean, in the George Floyd situation, there was an officer there that actually said, don't you think we should be doing something different here? And basically got told to go sit in a corner. You have to wonder what obligation would then be. Fall that individual who stuck his neck out and didn't do anything. But in the number five, when we went through our bill, there was also a. Obligation to report that. You know, you don't just intervene when you see another officer doing something prohibited, you have an obligation to report it also. I feel sort of dog with a bonus on that point. And, and we also brought. The, the president of the state or the director of the state police union and. Got kind of a police blessing on that. So. That's significant in my world. Thank you. Go ahead, Marsha. Thank you. Some of the language here seems very similar to what was already passed in 219. Do we know. What was already put into 219. That doesn't need to be in here. What's already been addressed and has been passed. Well, 219 did address the. The prohibited restraint piece. As you remember by amending the professional conduct chapter. As it applies to law enforcement officers. To prohibit that kind of conduct. And also as representative Hooper mentioned to put in a reporting requirement for other officers who see. An officer taking that kind of action. But this S1 19 really. Differs from 219 and that it sets out a statewide policy. On the use of force more broadly. So that was not a part of 219. Thank you. All right. Rob LaClaire. Thank you, Madam chair. Brenness. This may be a question that you're not. Able to answer, but. The. Use of the neck restraint, which we're looking to prohibit here. How does where. How does that work now? Does is that an acceptable. Restraint for law enforcement to use currently. So. It may be. You might want to direct that question to the different. Members of the law enforcement community that you have as witnesses, because I do believe it depends on the individual agency's policy. But I think generally, yes, it is a tactic that they are trained on is. But again, I, it may be, may make more sense to talk to the training council about that. And also the individual law enforcement. Okay. Do we have, do we have anybody on from law enforcement, madam chair? Do you know. Not today. Okay. No. Okay. All right. I guess then the one last question would be around that. That. It is deemed appropriate to use. Is it not if deadly force is found justified. The prohibited restraint currently. Yes. Yeah. The. Cold technique. Officers can employ that and, and be found to have behaved reasonably under the circumstances. Yes. Okay. Thank you. JP is up next. Yeah. Just for the record, I do have some experience in law enforcement. 37 years retired five years ago. So I kind of believe that. So I kind of take exception to nobody being here to discuss it, but either way. I won't play on the words. Sorry. I think of you just as a fellow legislator, JP. Yeah. The, the. I wasn't referring specifically to you on that anyway, but. Anyway, in a nutshell. The use of force policy in the state of remark that we have right now. What would allow use of a choke hold. In the dire. Emergency where the officer is in. And we can play on words again, immediate or imminent. Danger of serious bodily injury or death. Because the use of a choke hold is deadly force. Currently that decision or excuse me, currently the decision to use that. Would be permissible. Currently. The use of force policy under consideration or consideration right now in Senate 119. Removes the ability to even use. The choke hold for any reason whatsoever. From what I'm reading. And then you can correct me if I'm wrong, but it says no. So. And again, going back to the question of those the officers. There at the time have the obligation to intervene and according with Senate 119 have passed the answer there would be yes, they would have to intervene. Because the use of the. Choke hold, so to speak. Is prohibited. And it doesn't give any. Time that it's authorized to use. So it removes that. Last ditch. Deadly force. That an officer could use. And, and, you know, Is it used a lot? No. Do you get training on it? Yes and no, some officers might be trained on it. Some officers might not. And if you're not trained on it, obviously you shouldn't be trained on it. But then again, somebody mentioned the policies. The policies of a department. Would dictate to the officers ability. To use this. There is a statewide use of force policy. That's that right now it would be changed. And actually a few, a few instances. By passage of 119, which is why some of the members of the law enforcement community. Are not allowed to use force. Or against some of the changes in it. I hope that's explained a little bit. Thank you, JP. Marsha has a hand up again. In response to Rob's question. Prohibited restraints are already prohibited by the state police, but perhaps not. All forces around the state. Are not allowed to use force. Thank you, madam chair. I guess. So I think. JP answered some of my questions. So it's, it's your understanding. JP and it's your opinion that. A prohibited restraint. There's. No provision there for an officer to use that. Other than when they feel deadly forces justified. Is that right? Yes, that is my opinion. And you also have to remember that I retired five years ago. Sure. So the use of force state, excuse me, the statewide use of force policy. May have changed slightly in the last five years. Now I've had some conversations with some people on this and I've been told it really hasn't changed. Very much if anything, but that would be. My understanding of. The ability to use deadly force and specifically require, excuse me, regarding a choke hold and a hat. You would have to be in the immediate danger. Of death or serious bodily injury. In order to employ it's the same as using your, your, your sidearm, your weapon. There, there is no difference. They're both deadly force. And in order to use deadly force, you, you really need to be justified to do that. Okay. The policy here removes from what I can see Brandon again, and you grant me if I'm wrong, but section five removes the, the, let's say the, the opportunity to use the, any of the prohibited choke holds and the things of that nature. So there really isn't any. Decision factor in on it. You can't use it. Okay. Well, that's, I guess that's where I'm a little confused here. If law enforcement can't use it. Other than when deadly force is justified. Then why are we even looking to address this particular. For lack of a better expression use of force. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And, and this is where I think this Senate one 19 has changed. Again, has changed the, the opportunity or the ability to use these prohibited. Methods such as the choke hold. And it's very clear. So there really is. There's a lot of. There's a lot of discussion. There's not much discussion that could be had. I'm using the total because, because by the law. You can't use it under any circumstances. Again, Brandon. I've asked you like, I think this is the third time. I think I'm correct on this on. Are night. In my intermission interpretation of the number five here. Yes. So the language is pretty clear that these are not to be used for any reason. So. It's not to be used for any reason. It's not to intervene. Because if an officer is using one of these prohibited holds. He's. He's violating the law, so to speak. So the officers there, if any officer there. They then would have the obligation to intervene. Now, as for the reporting. Bring that up again. Somebody mentioned reporting. I know there was some discussion in the past on, you know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And you must intervene. Do you, how do you, how do you document this reporting and things? And I did see that the. The reporting portion. I don't see that now. I think that the Senate may have removed that. Is that correct? No, that was a part of as to 19, the changes to the professional chapter. So that was a requirement. I think that was a factor. But I just wanted to make sure that we did. Let me see. I'm sorry. I'm not sure if that was a factor. So it would have recalculated resulted in some. Disciplinary sanction if. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. So, so that was in quoted in section or. Senate 219. Great. Thank you. Jim Harrison. So I thank you, Madam chair. I just want to make sure I understand. What we did in 2, 19. Versus what's here. And one. In. We ban choke holds, I thought, but not in all circumstances. So, if the officer's life is in danger, they could still use that until 119 passes as proposed. Is that correct? I said it for you, but maybe that's not fair if you didn't work on 219. No, I did. I did work on it. And, yep, there's the, so there were two, two prohibitions on these prohibited restraints in 219. The first was the new crime. So, if you remember, the new crime provided that a law enforcement officer who uses a prohibited restraint on a person and that prohibited restraint causes a serious bodily injury or death to the person, that was the prohibition that would result in criminal charges against the officer. So, there was that qualification that the prohibited restraint would have had to result in some harm done to the person, specifically serious bodily injury or death. And then also in the unprofessional conduct, I'm just referring to it again to remember here. So, what you did in S219 was to add as category, category B conduct, placing a person in a prohibited restraint. So, and also failing the intervene if an officer observes another officer placing a person in a prohibited restraint. So, that would, category B conduct is gross professional misconduct under the color of the state. So, just again, I'm a little slow here, but in 219, after 219 became effective, if an officer uses a chokehold because their own life or someone else's life is in danger and that's the last tool at their disposal, did they violate the law? Not 119, 219. Not unless there was a serious bodily injury or death resulting based on the new crime. It could, however, be considered professional misconduct under 219. OK, so essentially we've banned it. Obviously, if you use that restraint, you don't know whether or not you're going to have bodily injury or death at that time. So, you can't use it now, essentially, even to protect your own life. Under S219, that's, it's right, you essentially banned it and that you classified it as professional misconduct and you also created a crime that prohibited the use of prohibited restraints that caused serious bodily injury or death. And I take your point that if you use it, you don't know what the outcome is going to be. So, yes, I would say effectively 219 banned the use of prohibited restraints. OK, I'm just wondering why we're trying to discuss 119 when we've already banned it. Effectively. So, OK. I think that it was for the sake of, you know, the Senate did what they did. Maybe there was some conversation about for the sake of consistency, if we're going to have a statewide policy on law enforcement use of force that it should also contain, be reflective of existing law on prohibited restraints. Right, right. Yeah, OK, thank you. Hal Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, friend, in the Senate conversation, was there any discussion about what is unreasonable conduct in this context of use of force? You mean sort of specific fact patterns? Yeah, like what leads up, you know, and, you know, when does it become reasonable and when is it unreasonable? I'm still hung up on that. So there was not a lot of conversations about specific fact patterns. I think the Senate tried to avoid traveling down very fact specific sort of examples. But there was some conversation about prohibited restraints in particular and that being the type of conduct that the Senate wanted to be sure was not used by law enforcement. But again, the reasonableness versus unreasonableness, that, you know, you can kind of imagine the absolute multitude of examples you can come up with about law enforcement conduct and whether it's reasonable or unreasonable. They didn't do a lot of conversation about that. OK, thank you. All right, other questions from committee members about the content of 119? All right, so this is one of those bills that sort of straddles two committees. It touches on our committee because we do law enforcement policy. But it also touches on the Judiciary Committee because they would want to take a look at the types of evidence that would be necessary that would indicate whether use of force was justified. So we're going to continue our work on this bill with the House Judiciary Committee because they have been working alongside us on this. And we're also intending to have at least some mutual testimony with the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations committees just so that we can hopefully expedite any changes expedite the pre-conferencing of any changes that we might make. So when you see next week's agenda, you'll see that we're intending to have some time with our Senate counterparts, which should be a fun day of a Zoom meeting with a whole bunch of people. Any other questions for Bryn with respect to 119 as it came over to us from the Senate? All right, so I am going to have a switch gears at this point. So Bryn, thank you so much for answering our questions and helping us understand the words on the page. Absolutely. Thank you, Committee, and I'm sure I'll see you soon. Great. So Committee, I would love to be able to have some a little debrief, committee discussion on what we heard in the course of the public hearings that we had, what your takeaways were, what your lingering questions and concerns are, and use this opportunity to really kind of hear from each other what each other heard at those meetings. So Mike Marwicky has a hand up. Aha. Hi. Thanks for this opportunity. One of the things that I had been thinking about and it was raised again and again during the hearings was the idea of qualified immunity. And I realized this is a heavy lift and not sure what's happening in other states. I know that in the recent US Supreme Court session, which concluded they had six cases that were brought up looking at qualified immunity and they made the decision not to look at any of those. But I still think that this is something I'd like to learn more about and what we might be able to do to understand it better. And perhaps it's time to take another look at it. And along with that, what other states are doing in this regard. Thank you. My hope would be that we can sort of go around the room and give each of us an opportunity to reflect on the highlights of what you heard. And then we can maybe open it up to a bit more of an open discussion. So anyone else want to talk a little bit about what they heard in the context of those hearings? John Gannon. Thank you. Well, I mean, one of the things that we heard several times from several different witnesses was a reference to the ACLU's 10-point plan. I think we heard that. Looking back through my notes, I think we heard that at least in each of the three hearings that we held. And just to remind people of what's in the 10-point plan, it's to end qualified immunity, remove police in schools, limited police's role, ban military grade equipment, invasive surveillance, independent counsel for misconduct, transparency, data collection, community involvement, and investment in our communities. So, you know, and then we heard from a variety of people who do reference the ACLU's 10-point plan, some if not many of these issues as well. So obviously, the bills that we're addressing during the short session, which is 119, which we just talked about, and S124, which we'll hear about, I'm sure, very soon, and we've already discussed, only briefly touch on these issues. And, you know, S124 sort of gets to some community involvement and engagement, but not a lot. And so there is still a tremendous amount of work to do that we can't accomplish in the short period of time. But that I hope when we are back here in January, we'll have an opportunity to touch on many of these subjects. There's a lot of work to do. I mean, this committee, even before this biennium, has worked on some of these issues. You know, I was very proud of our work in creating the racial equity panel and the position of executive director for racial equity. That's something we did in the last biennium. So I'm sure that we're up to the task of continuing to work on these issues. It's just only, there's only so much we can do in the short period of time that we're allowed, especially with the primary focus being on passing the three-quarter budget. Thanks. Yeah, John, I appreciate you saying that. And I think just to reiterate what I think most of the members of this committee have already heard from House leadership, the timeline of this August, September session is pretty tight. And it's intended to be focused primarily on budget and COVID-related issues. Of course, the moment that we are in compels us to continue moving forward with some of these police reform bills. But I also recognize that the way we're meeting and the fact that it is not possible for us to be safely in the same building as each other and as members of the public and others who would want to testify on these bills and other reforms really adds to a level of challenge in doing our best work on this. And so the narrow scope of what we're doing here in August, September is really, I think primarily because of COVID. But I hope that folks understand that we heard loud and clear for a call for other kinds of reforms in other categories than simply these few law enforcement reform pieces that are in 124 and 119. So thank you, John, for running through that. I appreciate it. Hal, you're next. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Similar to what John shared, one of the themes that I heard was this whole notion of reimagining policing. And for those of you who may not know, the institution of policing was created in the early years of the institution of slavery to control enslaved Africans. So it's built on that legacy. And I think that's why there's this strong push to rethink, how do we do policing? And prevent these senseless deaths of people who are black and brown or having a mental health crisis. Because currently, it's the view of our public that our police don't have all those skills. And how do we reimagine it? I think it's important. And then the other piece related to that is institutional racism. How do we really unpack that? Because in my view, policing use of force is just the tip of that iceberg. And that's a much bigger issue for us to take on. But that was also another resounding theme. Yeah, thank you. Jim, your reactions to what you heard in the hearings? Thank you, Madam Chair. So continuing on some of the prior comments that you've all made, we do have a limited amount of time. And I think we need to focus on making positive steps in where there's perhaps widespread agreement. One of the things that I heard to the hearing by a number of folks was the embedding of mental health clinicians or social workers. And it sounds like, and I don't know the details, it sounds like we're moving in that direction with the three-quarter budget. So that's with the state police anyhow. So that's a positive movement. Another area where there was a reoccurring theme was on training. We had some discussions earlier in the session on training standards. I don't know exactly what that looks like and what that would mean and whether or not it is additional resources, which sometimes can put a damper on things. So I think we should continue to talk about those issues. Some of the other issues, it was mentioned, I think Mike mentioned, the immunity thing. I wouldn't even begin to understand the legal in and outs of that. And maybe that's more of a judiciary question. But that could take some time to unwrap. But again, like we did in 2019, there could be a restatement of a laundry list of things that we want to continue discussion on come January with a new legislature in hopes that we are also sitting at the same table. It might be a big table, but sitting at a table where we can have some good, frank, honest discussions. And at the end of the day, whatever we do needs to work for everyone. It needs to work with the citizens of Vermont. It needs to work for visitors to Vermont. It needs to work for law enforcement who are our employees collectively. So hopefully we can find, as we did with 2019, find places of agreement and move forward with those. And as also I think everyone is aware, and maybe it's more judiciary because 219 was their bill, but there was a couple of outstanding issues in 219 that we agreed that in this special session we'd come back and revisit. Whether that's language on the body cam, I guess the language is interpreted by the commissioner differently than perhaps what we intended. And then there were some issues on the criminal penalty, I think, associated with the choke holds in the unprofessional conduct part. And there may be one or two others that we agreed to go back and revisit too. So we have a work cut out for us. So hopefully we can find many areas where we can make some improvements. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. Bob Hooper. Thank you. The points that John brought up, the 10 point ACLU thing, that seems to be a big theme of a lot of the emails that I'm getting here in the big city of Burlington from people in my neighborhood. So it seems to have permeated well. A lot of things on that list that I agree with. I've always thought that our local police driving around and modified APCs are kind of ridiculous. And we should be looking at that at some point. The other stuff, it sort of boils to me down to a fine line between the right of an officer to protect their own life, but they don't get to enforce the law by breaking the law. It's not like you put a badge on and you're exempt. And that seems to be particularly what we discussed today as opposed to 219, too many attempts to say the same thing, none of them doing very well at it and confusing each other. So it's kind of why this discussion today was a little uncomfortable because it seemed like it was modifying some of the stuff we already did. The concept of, and this is probably new ground, but the concept of the attorney general being the one who decides if reasonable force were applied and being the ultimate decision maker on whether anything like that should go forward seems to be a real sticking point that gets brought up every now and then as inadequate to address the citizen's concerns. Another thing we really haven't touched on as much as we should and pops up a lot in particularly one on one discussions. Thanks. All right, other committee members, JP. Sorry about that. I was looking for my mute button or my raise hand button. Just a few things that I took from the hearings we had in some previous testimonies as well. For the most part, I thought the hearings were good. I will personally say that police officer took a beating and some of it is justified. I don't think all of it was justified, but some of it was justified. We heard from people, several people, when we were working on 219, not to rush it because there's so much to be done. So many people with good ideas and good plans and recommended policies and things to be heard from. And we've heard from a lot of those. Have we heard from all of them? Probably not. I think we may have heard from most of them. I personally agree with some of the things and some of the plans and proposed plans and policies and things. And some stuff that as a retired police officer, I would surprise myself in some certain things that I actually agreed with. And there does need to be some changes. There's a big interest in mental health interventions. I mean, some people are going to the terms defunding police to not so much to abolish the police, but to reallocate funds and budgets and things for the mental health embedded mental health workers. And some people even thought that one or two people, I think, I recall, one in particular, said that we don't need the police at all. They shouldn't have any cops out there. Just use mental health people and whatever. But so I don't necessarily agree with that extreme, but I really think that the mental health workers getting involved with every single police department in the state needs to be done. And if it does require some adjustment of some budget funds, then so be it. A budget is designed by the legislative bodies of the town, voted by the voters. And they do the best they can with what you guys think you can afford and how big your PD is going to be and everything like that. But I think if you really watch those purse strings, you can find money to do this. And now in my town, this is something that I'm all for, and hopefully we're going to have something in their future on this. I'm talking very, very in our future. There's some new training ideas. There's some new training ideas and then training standards. Times change. The new training ideas and standards can be implemented. It's not going to be a long, excuse me, a slow process, nor an inexpensive process. It's going to take some time. It's going to take some money. But you need to take the time. You need to spend the money to get the good training, to get the new ideas out there, to get the police officers to be able to better understand what needs to be done in, let's call it, today's world, today's society. And I'm a big, always have been a big, big person on training. I would like to personally like to see the training in the state increase drastically. And we heard from some representatives from certain organizations, groups, some people on their own. These people, some of them are very well spoken and they've got some very good ideas. And if we don't take them seriously, we're crazy. I think we need to do that. I would personally like to see more input from municipal police officers versus strictly VSP. Now, we have heard primarily from the Vermont State Police on all these matters. We have not heard a lot from the municipal police officers. And there are some good police officers out there, some good chiefs out there. And I think personally, I would have personally liked to see a little bit more input from the municipal police on this. But I think we've done OK. I just was a little disappointed we didn't have more. Because you've got a couple of few hundred troopers in the state and you've got hundreds of municipal police in the state. And the state police may be the biggest agency, but they're not the only agency. And they have different ideas. They have more of a paramilitary organization, which makes it a little easier for rules and regulations to be drafted and followed, supervised, and hopefully enforced with their policies. Municipalities can do the same thing. It's just on a smaller scale. Change of command in state police are much, much bigger than change of command in municipal police. But there are chains of command and the responsibilities are the same. So again, I don't want to get long-winded on municipal policing, but I would just prefer to have a little bit more input from the municipal police departments in this. So I had jotted down some military earlier and I looked at them and I think I've covered most of the more important ones. But I did see some very good things. I did hear some very good things. With the hearings, I knew that police were going to take a beating. Some of it justified, as I said. But times do need to change. And I think, for the most part, that the vast majority of the police officers in Vermont are good people and they're trying to do a decent job with more training, giving them more abilities to understand things involving the mental health personnel with the police departments. And it's not just mental health going to a primary call. It's a follow-up in things that are necessary as well. Some of the cases and incidents that happen, that's where mental health people come in. And they're worth the weight and goal. That's not cheap. It's quite expensive. And I know Jenton County has got some things. Franklin County's got some state police have. I actually don't know where they get theirs from, but they have some people do without understanding. Some other municipalities don't. But that's something we probably have to consider making a priority. All right, I just want my piece. Thank you, Madam Speaker. J.P., I appreciate your perspective on that. And I apologize, Madam Chair. In our little room, I'll be the chair here. No, I thank you for sharing your reflections on that, because it's important for us to use your experience to enrich the work that we're doing. So I really appreciate you going through all your notes and sharing your thoughts with us. Rob LeClaire is next. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to say I was disappointed in our public hearings in that I felt that the bench was stacked, that the ACLU had gotten the word out. And when about virtually every other speaker I hear refers to their 10-point planner or some sort of their talking points, I was really hoping to learn something from everyday reminders, people who really are touched by this but in very different ways. We heard some, but nowhere as near as much as I would have liked to have heard. I have to agree with my friend from Manuski that I would like to reimagine policing. Clearly, there are some things that are happening out there that aren't working. And I don't think it's working well for police or the community. But I also feel that we are giving them an impossible task. Every law that we pass in this body of ours that has law enforcement, I guess, authority with it, we're asking them to go out there and do that. And now we're talking about that we're expecting law enforcement to arrive on the scene. And somehow they're going to automatically become mental health experts. They're going to be arrive on the scene and automatically be drug experts, marital relationship. I agree. I think that we need to take a step back and reallocate resources. And yeah, I totally agree that if you have a person, let's say, that's having a mental health crisis down on Church Street in Burlington, law enforcement may not necessarily be the first agency to respond. I totally agree with that. But I would really prefer to have that real frank conversation because I'm at a point now where I've heard a lot of these broad sweeping comments made. I really want to know the specifics. I want to know what can we work on together to get to where we want to go. Systemic racism, I've heard a lot about that. But give me some examples, because I'm only looking at things through my lens, because that's all I can look at it through. But unless you show me some specifics, I don't necessarily recognize and look at it the same way. So therefore, I don't know what the potential solutions are. And so I was disappointed in those hearings because I felt that the bench was stacked and every other person was just about the ACLU, ACLU. And I think it's certainly much broader, a deeper discussion than just that. Thank you. Go ahead, Marcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Like JP, when I listened to many of the people who testified, I was surprised that people didn't say you have to do something right now, that you have to pass legislation basically regardless of what it is. People said that they thought we should take our time, be thoughtful, bring in people from the community, people who are impacted into the conversations, not just for two minutes in a public hearing, but as the policies are developed and created. And again, time and time again, we heard of a more holistic approach to this. It's not just about policing. It's about systemic racism and how to deal with that on issues such as housing and workforce training and jobs. So I was impressed by the people who were so thoughtful in their recommendations and saying, we really need to have all voices at the table as we discuss these important issues. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that. So have we heard from everyone? I don't know. That's the one frustrating thing about Zoom is I can't go around the room because at various points during testimony, your tiles all shift. And so I can't ever know if we've gone physically around the room. Anyone else want to share their own personal reflections on what you heard at the public hearings? All right, now I'm going to ask a question another way. Would any of you like to react to or ask any questions or share reflections on what you heard from each other just now? Marcia gave a thumbs up to what she heard from other people. Is there anyone else who would like to do that? Warren, go ahead. OK, earlier I followed up on something Marcia said. Now I want to follow up on JP's comments because when he was talking a bit earlier about prohibited restraints, I went back and looked at the language of the definition of a prohibited restraint. And then C5 at the bottom of page 4, a law enforcement officer shall not use a prohibited restraint on a person for any reason. I just think that's a horrendously blanket statement. And I can imagine circumstances where the only tool a law enforcement may have left is a prohibited restraint. And if he's fighting for it, he or she is fighting for his life against somebody who is in many ways a bigger, stronger, superior fighter. And if they're about to lose their own life but they manage to be able to throw a chokehold on somebody, I wouldn't want them to be committing a crime regardless of the circumstance. I just I think that's much too hard for any reason is where I have shouldn't be able to use it except for some reasons, a reason of immediate threat to their life and being the only tool they have left. I mean, if you're fighting somebody there and you're going to shoot them and kill them, that'd be OK. But under under some circumstances, at least, because it's not a prohibited restraint. But I just I just think that is much too bold. There's got to be some wiggle room in there somewhere. I think that's what JP was talking about. And I agree with him on that. That's that's me. That's the only thing I've got on this. The rest of what I agree with. Yeah, so Warren, I would invite you to to to maybe have a phone conversation with Legislative Council and do a little more exploring into the nuances behind that and also perhaps, you know, ask ask some more deeper questions about how the committee discussions went on the Senate side as they were considering that because you might find that enlightening. But I I I'm noting what you said. I appreciate that. OK, thank you. I'll call Bryn. Thank you. Mike Marwicki. Madam chair, pardon me if I missed it. But I'm not sure we heard from you in your reflections on the hearings. You're right. You didn't hear from me. So I was I was really thankful for the the large number of people who took time out of their days to come and and share their thoughts with us. I appreciated that there seemed to be some, you know, some consistent calls for specific reforms and and many of them. You know, referring to two points that the ACLU has put forward. But at least that was putting specific reforms, reform ideas on the table for us to consider. I was less I felt less satisfied about the hearing in that the constraint of two minutes did not give us the opportunity to really hear people's stories. We weren't able to hear why people felt felt compelled to come forward at this moment. And I would guess that for the vast majority of the the people who testified at those hearings, they have not gotten involved in legislative hearings in the past. And and so, you know, if we were, you know, if not for COVID, you know, if we were in the House Chamber and people were coming into our statehouse to petition their government for something, we would have those hallway conversations where where we would be able to understand why why individual Vermonters wanted to make that trek to and to weigh in. And I think that, you know, because of COVID in our remote meeting, needs for safety, we're missing out on on a lot of that opportunity. And I would hope since the Speaker's Office has made time for us to meet four days a week that we will take a day, one of our one of our time blocks and and have the opportunity to hear hear maybe more in depth from from some folks about, you know, what compelled you to come forward and and share your thoughts at this moment. It coming back to what Rob said before about, you know, about understanding systemic racism and feeling like, you know, we all need to we all need to understand what that means and what what impact that has on on us and on our neighbors. You know, I think that we've got we've got some more work we need to do there. And I think some of that work can be done through more of that listening to personal stories. And and also, you know, we have we have data that we can go back to that we can use to quantitatively understand what the what the impact of racism is. And in fact, when we meet with our Senate counterparts next week, we will spend some time reviewing the racial disparities report that will that will talk a lot of specifics about the kinds of systemic racism that we can measure in our in our judicial systems. You know, it was it was challenging to facilitate those meetings. Just logistically. And and and so I in many ways I I wasn't able to participate as fully as I maybe would have liked because I was always searching the list to see who the next person was to to call up on the witness list. But somebody's got to do that. And I was really happy to be able to be in that facilitation role so that both the GovOps and Judiciary Committee members could could listen and and hear and absorb what people were saying. So a record, Madam Chair, you did a really nice job. You really did a very good job. Thank you. It was exhausting and it was also very gratifying because it was such an important conversation for us to have. And I just, you know, I wish that it could have been flawless. From from the perspective of people who joined us. And I think we learned a lot along the way. And I will with all humility, you know, except that. You know, we we stumbled a few times along the way. But but we've never held a public hearing in Zoom format before. And so I think some of the some of the missteps were were simply because we needed to work out how how to effectively hold to a two minute time frame, you know, in a in a virtual format. I I do, though, really lament the fact that we can't be as in person and and as face to face as we should be for these really important conversations. But, you know, Covid's not going to last forever. And these issues are going to be ones that we're going to continue to work on for quite some time. So I can hope that we will have the opportunity for more in person testimony and and more of a conversational back and forth at a future time. Thanks, Mike, for putting me on the spot. How? Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, my heart was warmed when my friend from Berry Town shared his reflection and where I learned that our thinking is aligned around reimagining policing. And while I know he has a lot of questions about institutional racism, I would be more than happy to be his guest at a dinner table like at least six feet apart. And I can share with you my primer on institutional racism. I'll accept an invitation to your house any time, my friend. Well, that is the table. Can we all fit around it? Careful, he doesn't how he doesn't always pay his debts. I know that. But I've got great credit. I owe everybody around. Well, thank you all for for engaging in this really good conversation. I think it's really helpful for. For us to hear each other and hear each other's reactions and reflections. But for I switch gears, I'm just going to ask Nelson, who's sitting there in front of a major tempest. Did you have any reflections that you wanted to share with with us? As I sat here weathering the storm. Yeah, basically, I agree with a lot of what was said, but one of the things is I definitely don't want to rush it because we're hearing so many things that don't always gel with me. I guess, you know, I like JP's idea of having some of the local police come even though a small town like mine doesn't have that. But I read the articles in the Bennington Banner a lot about their conflicts. And so I'd sort of be interested in hearing more about that type of state. I always see the state police and talk to them. So I know there's I'd like to see something different. To hear that other side, it is sort of in a conflict. I do agree that there is a systemic racism out there. I've seen it all my life. And I just believe that we should go farther in that. You know, I had an aunt that was married to an Afro-American person when I was very young and we used to go to their house. And I could see some of that occur on the street of Troy. And I just didn't like it then and I don't like it today. But I I think we're on the right track by trying to control how the police enforce. I think when I was a young kid and the police knew me and we were all friends and walked the street, but today that doesn't seem to be there. What they all seem to be is what did that kid do or so forth? So I'm sort of looking at that side of it. And I appreciate all of what I've heard. Thank you. Thanks, Nelson. You guys are the best. So unless somebody's really dying to to have the last word on this, we're going to let Nelson have the last word and switch gears. And I don't see anybody diving for their little blue hand. Excellent. All right, John Gannon, if you wouldn't mind and and feel free to tell Rob to do his part as well. We would love to have just sort of a status update of how things are going in the S 54 Conference Committee. I know that you guys have met a couple of times. I like the format you're using because this is, again, one of the one of the first really high profile bills that the legislature has moved through a conference committee in a virtual format. So we'd love to hear your reflections, both on the the content of what you all have been doing and also a little bit on the logistics in the process. So it's actually the first and only conference committee that has met virtually up to this point. And I'll have to say that from the technology standpoint, things went flawlessly. You know, we're both able both sides to send in the house. We're able to enter into breakout rooms. We can invite other people to those breakout rooms, such as Michelle Childs. I know Chris Pearson was in the Senate breakout room. So that really made it very easy to do the work. The only thing and, you know, you know, we could text each other if there was something that came up and that happened. So I don't think there was that much loss, you know, given that we were doing it virtually. So getting down to the substance. The Senate gave us a proposal last Monday, which we will respond to this coming Monday. And, you know, the good news is they agreed with many of the positions that the House took and many of the provisions in our bill. There are really what I would say nine areas of disagreement. Some are significant. Some I think we can easily resolve. And, you know, I'll just go through those. The first one is with respect to the Cannabis Control Board, the Senate agreed with our nominating process for members of the Cannabis Cannabis Control Board, but want the government governor's appointments to be confirmed by the Senate. The next is the regulation of medical cannabis. The Senate wants all cannabis to be regulated by the Cannabis Control Board to remind people of how the bill left the House or how it ended in the House was that medical would continue to be regulated by the Department of Public Safety. The next is we are in disagreement on local control. The Senate wants to have opt out for all licensee types. Our position is to allow licensed cannabis to allow towns to opt in for just licensed cannabis retailers. And to remind people why that's really important is many towns may have illicit growers, manufacturers, producers in their towns. If towns were to totally opt out and prevent all types of cannabis licensees, we would not have as much impact in limiting and restricting the illicit market. So I think that's really important to understand and one thing that we need to still fight over. Advertising the Senate opposed our ban on all cannabis advertising but proposed adopting the advertising language that we developed here in House government operations. As you may recall, there was an amendment on the floor by Representative Donahue to prohibit advertising. What the Senate is proposing is to take us back to what we recommended or what we voted out of our committee. So that's another area of disagreement right now. Not sure if it's an area of disagreement, but it's listed in their written document which is prohibited products, limits on THC. But even though Senator Sears was very open to having a discussion about that, I think in that area it's not so much a disagreement as a lack of knowledge on the part of the Senate as to why we put in the THC limits. So I'm hoping that that can be resolved through discussion. Health warnings, the Senate proposes that health warnings be developed by the Cannabis Control Board in consultation with the Department of Health and adopted by rule. In our House version, we had those health warnings developed by the Department of Health. So it's a slight tweak there. I guess they were concerned that in the past that the Department of Health has been a little overly aggressive in warnings and so wanted an independent body. The Cannabis Control Board have a little more say in how those went. Cultivation was another one. And this is a more of a discussion area is they would like to have more discussion around not regulating cannabis cultivation as farming. I think they're concerned about the impact on current use. Then tax structure. The good news is that the Senate agreed with our 14 percent excise tax and our six percent sales tax. They tweaked it a little with respect to the excise tax. They want to take two percent of the excise tax and distribute that to local communities that have a cannabis licensee. If you recall what we did or what Ways and Means did is they had the Cannabis Control Board setting local fees. The Senate didn't like that. So they took that out. And so they replaced it with this two percent of the excise tax being distributed to local towns based on some formula that the Cannabis Control Board would come up at some later date. And the other tweak they made was the Senate accepted 30 percent of the money going to substance misuse prevention. However, they did not like the fact that the substance misuse prevention oversight and advisory council would be making that decision. They want the legislature to determine how that money is used. So that's a tweak there. Remarkably, they agreed to allow the sales tax to be used for after school and summer programming. They seem to raise an issue about that in their first meeting. But then when they submitted their proposal to us, that was that was something they agreed to. Probably the biggest sticking points is in highway safety. They while they agreed with all law enforcement officers receiving advanced roadside impaired driving enforcement training and that driving driving recognition experts evaluations results are presumptively admissible on the rejected saliva testing. So that that is definitely an issue that we're going to have to address. And also this should not be surprised to anyone they rejected our provision for primary seat belt enforcement. So that's where we are. I think, you know, I was real surprised that they basically accepted our tax structure because there was a lot of complaining about that. But I think, you know, overall, and, you know, if you go to the conference committee thing, I mean, they accepted like 23 of the differences between the House version and the Senate version of this bill. So while we still have some challenges ahead of us for our next meeting, I do think we made good progress. I will have to say both days of the conference committee meeting were very cordial and, you know, I appreciated, you know, the Senate being so willing to to to accept many of our proposed changes. Thanks. Do you want to add anything? No, outstanding job, John. Very good. Very good. I thank you, John. And I very much appreciate your good work on this. It sounds like you have made a lot of really good progress in in just a short amount of time. I think it's worthwhile going back for a moment just to the issue around medical the regulation of our medical marijuana system. I think the reason the Senate feels so strongly about including this is that as you'll recall, our medical marijuana system came about during a time of prohibition against any any use of cannabis. And and as such, the medical system is regulated in a very sort of law enforcement oriented, you know, heavy, heavy focus on on a lot of a lot of compliance that dates back to a time when when many people believed that cannabis was you know, ought to be treated as a controlled substance, which I think we're seeing a shift in public opinion. Into a more a more relaxed feeling about about cannabis use. So the House Human Services Committee was was responsible for for drafting the initial medical marijuana system and they wanted to be able to be involved in evaluating how much of the medical system regulation should be should be maintained versus how much should be melded into this new retail market. And so we have a difference of opinion on that, and I think it's helpful for folks to understand that this is a vestige of of the history of the creation of our medical system. But but that we can all imagine that there might be a better way to regulate our medical system in a in a scenario where someone could walk into a retail establishment and buy cannabis from a retail establishment. So anyway, thank you, John, for for that great review of the work that you've done so far. Jim has a hand raised. Yeah, thank you. That was very helpful. Just a quick question, John, whether there was any discussion on the timeline. You know, over the past few months, there's been speculation given the budget challenges, things might have to be pushed back, because as we know, it costs money initially before the tax revenue comes in. I'm just wondering if that's been a discussion or if that's not even an issue. Thank you. Yeah, no, it's definitely been an issue that's raised. I did not mention it, but the Senate also proposed a new timeline, which would start, I believe, in November of this year with the creation of the Nominating Committee for the Cannabis Control Board. I mean, we have to take a look at that and see whether that's doable or not, given, you know, our current state of emergency. So that is something we need to take a look at a little more. We didn't discuss it this past Monday because we were so focused on the bill itself and the areas of agreement and disagreement. But it's definitely been raised by us. You know, the other issue that we've raised is, you know, the deficit that the bill creates. The Senate seems to be a little less concerned about that. One of the benefits is if we do reach agreement that medical cannabis should be regulated by the Cannabis Control Board. There are funds potentially available through medical cannabis that could be used, perhaps, to reduce that deficit. So that would be a potential benefit of merging the two programs, plus the regulatory savings of not having two separate regulatory programs. Thank you. Have you have you gone so far as to take a look at the the excess revenue in that? Oh, Bob, I'm going to go the excess revenue in the in the medical system in order to understand how many steps along the way it would it would get us. Does it get us to the standing up of the board? Does it get us through the first six months, through the first year? I don't know what the. No. My understanding, and I need to double check this, is there's two hundred thousand dollars in a fund that could be potentially used that would reduce the deficit in the first year, but would not eliminate it. Yeah, thank you. But I mean, that's, you know, the other thing that that's out there that we could consider is is requiring some licensees, especially sort of the early early licensees, which would be the integrated licensees as well as the small growers. We could collect their licensing fees early, which could help reduce the deficit as well. That's something we have touched on. But I think that the House needs to push that more because the Senate does not seem to be as concerned about that issue. Interesting, Jim, did that answer all your questions? Yes, I'm good. Thank you. Well, we know you're good, but I just want to make sure you got your question. Mike Marwicky, thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to John and Rob for for taking this on. I know committees of conference can be. Can go all over the place, and it's a it's a difficult needle to thread sometimes to find an agreement and and keep the the kernel of truth in what we're hoping to pass. I have a comment here and after our hearings, the three hearings, I was made aware that our perspectives sometimes of the politics of a situation may be skewed and it's been helpful in those situations to hear from from more people and broader perspectives. And one of the things it's helped me to understand is and help my my position to evolve at this point in time on seat belts. As I've talked to people in my area, hearing people in the hearings, the idea of seat belts being used is one more way for people of color to be pulled over is a concern I have. The politics of it, especially at this time, is something I hope we can be sensitive to. And as we move forward, not to put people in an untenable position who are on that committee, I would hope that can be taken into consideration. I understand that concern and actually I spent most of the morning looking into what research is out there with respect to racial disparities, with respect to primary seat belt enforcement. And there are two sides to the issue that people need to understand. The Senate raised the second side of the issue, which is that that the likelihood of people of color being pulled over more because of primary seat belt enforcement. But there also is another side, which is that research out there indicates that people of color are less likely to use seat belts and that a primary seat belt enforcement actually protects and saves more lives. So, I mean, that's the other side of the coin. And, you know, it's just something that we need to consider fully. I would love to hear, I would love to take a peek at those sources because it occurs to me that we might, we might not be able to do that. We might, we might be seeing a racial disparity in simply in the rate at which we recognize that, I mean, the law enforcement recognizes that someone isn't wearing their seat belt. Or is this data that is based on self reported seat belt use rates? Oh, anyway. See, one of the problems is that it's my understanding there's only one state that has a primary seat belt enforcement law that's actually done what we do in S54, which is, you know, require that data be collected with respect to the primary seat belt enforcement. And that is Florida. I mean, that data clearly shows racial disparities with respect to traffic stops for seat, primary seat belt enforcement. It differs by county there with some, you know, huge disparities in some counties and less so on a statewide level. But there is evidence out there that confirms that issue. So, I mean, I'm not denying it. I'm just, it is. And just so people understand, you know, primary seat belt enforcement has been an effort that the house has tried to get done for several years. And the Senate has always failed to respond. So, you know, we'll see what happens with respect to that issue. I mean, I mean, I know it's a difficult issue. And I mean, the Senate has made it fairly clear that they will walk away if that issue does not resolve itself. Thanks, John. Mike, any other questions? Okay. Bob Hooper. Thank you. I echo what Madam Chair just said. It would not surprise me at all if there was a strong correlation in Florida with the data John, you just provided in the negative number of people of color on the Sheriff's Department doing the picking up, spending a lot of time there. It's a marked difference between where you go. I was just going to raise that this subject has been amply discussed at the Social Equity Caucus. And the last comment is I really held my nose to vote for this with the seat belt thing in it when it left our body. And considering all the work that we and others have put into it, I would really hate to see it die because of this issue. Thanks. Hal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I would just feel more comfortable, John, if there were other states reporting this data than Florida. I'll just leave it at that. Yeah. The important thing is most of the research out there hasn't focused on the racial disparities in traffic stops, but in the racial disparities of seat belt use. So if you look at the literature out there, I can find several studies that look at the issue around seat belt use, but the only information I've so far found, and in fact, one of those studies makes it clear in its conclusion, the issue of differential, and I'm quoting here, the issue of differential enforcement has received little attention in the peer reviewed literature and should be addressed using methodologically robust epidemiologic studies. So I mean, there's an emission that it has not been well researched. The only research I've been able to find is by the ACLU out of Florida, because I really want to understand this and, you know, so that we can make the best decision as a conference committee. Thank you, John. You're the right man for the job, and I appreciate the extra research and effort you've been putting into that. Any other questions for the conferees or anyone that want to share any other thoughts on what you've heard so far about the progress of the conference committee? All right. I don't see anybody diving for their little blue hand. So I believe that is all we have on our agenda for today. So thank you all to the public who are watching through YouTube. Thanks for joining us, and we will sign off YouTube now.