 And everybody welcome back to the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs. So picking up on our earlier conversation this morning about S-42, the divestment bill, I'd like to welcome Mr. McKibbin here. And would you please introduce yourself for the record and give us your testimony on S-42. Thanks for being with us. Well, what a pleasure. My name is Bill McKibbin. I live in Ripton. That's where I'm joining you from and I'm very grateful that you're letting me do this from a distance. I've got a bunch of stitches in my leg right at the moment. They're coming out soon, but it's a great gift to not have to travel. So thank you very much. And a real pleasure to get to talk about this bill. I'm very glad that it made its way safely to your side of the legislature in plenty of time and I'm very hopeful that the good reception that it found in the Senate will be repeated in the house. I wanted just to give you a little bit of background. Since in many ways this divestment movement began here in Vermont about a decade ago, when those of us at 350.org put out the call to try and get people around the world to institutions around the world to begin selling their stock and the coal and gas and oil industries, the impetus at first was entirely to, as we put it, take away the social license of these corporations because we knew two things about them. One, their published business plans were then and continue to be incompatible with what the scientists are telling us we must do that is they've told their shareholders and creditors that they plan to dig up and burn about five times as much carbon as any scientist thinks might be safe. I wrote the original book the first book about global warming back in the 1980s so it's a subject that I've followed my whole life. The reason that we wanted to take away their social license as it were was because great investigative reporting in the LA Times, Columbia Journalism School elsewhere had demonstrated that these companies had known all there was to know about climate change back as far ago as the 1980s and had systematically lied about their understanding and knowledge of it in an effort to delay the point when we would make the transition to fossil fuels. With that in mind, this movement began to grow. It modeled itself on the one that had arisen in the 1980s in response to apartheid in South Africa. The first person we called to ask before we began was Archbishop, Archbishop Desmond Tutu who won the Nobel Prize for that work, and he said please take this tactic. Apartheid was the human rights issue of that time climate change the human rights issue of this time. We did. And so it is grown in spectacular fashion. We've now reached the point where roughly $40 trillion in endowments and portfolios have divested some are all of their holdings in coal gas and oil. And it's reached a size where it's also begun happily to restrict some of the ability of those industries to access the capital to keep expanding something that every scientist has called on them to do, but which they have called on them to stop expanding, but they continue trying to develop, explore and develop for new sources of hydrocarbons. The academic literature on the effectiveness in these two realms is pretty unimpeachable by this point. There's been a lot of studies demonstrating the effect of this movement on raising popular awareness and helping people, perhaps more than anything else in the last decade, understand the impact of an importance of the climate crisis. And there's been a lot more recent research demonstrating its important impacts in terms of the financing of these industries, including a major study about 10 days ago. There's also been happily an extensive body of work that has demonstrated that there's no financial penalty that accompanies the decision to divest. Partly that's because moving out of one asset class isn't enough to affect returns no matter what the asset class turns out to be. But the other reason is that fossil fuel has systematically underperformed the rest of the economy for the last decade, except for the last 12 months when thanks to Vladimir Putin it's had a temporary reprieve. But as you know, because you're all legislating around the efforts to move us quickly off fossil fuels. This is a waning industry, not a waxing. And I think that both these things, the moral case and the fact that it's a important step that comes without cost explains why so many have signed on. These include all the colleges and universities in Vermont I think at this point, including the University of Vermont. They include most of the other institutions of higher education you've heard of around the world, all of whom have extraordinary investment committees and commitments. So Harvard with its $50 billion endowment Princeton Oxford Cambridge the University of California which divested its endowment and its $90 billion pension fund the University of Michigan. I could go on for a very long time because thousands of institutions have divested. It also includes increasing numbers of very large corporate and sovereign players the sovereign wealth fund from Norway that the biggest pool of investment capital on the planet. And, and also now includes a large number of pension funds including some of the very biggest in the world across our various borders, both the state of New York and the city of New York have divested or in the process of divesting their pension funds in both cases about $250 billion. The province of Quebec is divesting its pension fund one of the I think 10 largest on the planet. The legislature in the state of Maine has voted to divest their pension fund and they're well along the way. In the state, I think it's safe to say that it has the backing of the entire environmental community. And I hope that you'll hear from some of them in days ahead. I know that the group that I most recently founded third act which organizes older Americans like me for action on climate change has been an unspoken advocate and I know that they wish to testify and to bring just to help clear up any worries about the financial implications of this. I'm San Zillow who also testified before the Senate, and who is the former acting controller of the state of New York so has experience handling. Even larger sums of money than we get to handle in Vermont. And the third act, which already is only a year old but already has I think closing in on 500 members in the state of Vermont. The first represents precisely the kind of people who's, you know, who are receiving pensions who understand the importance of them. And, and who know that this is a crucial step to take out of a sense of fiduciary responsibility, writ small. And I think that's one of the safety against financial risk associated with climate change and energy transition, and also fiduciary risk writ large. It doesn't be a much good to retire on a planet that's no longer working. So, those are the things that I think explain the growth and power of this movement over time. And I'm extremely gratified that Mike P jack has understood the arguments behind it and swung heavily behind it we're really grateful for his leadership. In this a priority. It's something that the legislature has considered on and off over the years but never really think even managed to get around to bothering to take a vote on. And we're very hopeful that this is the year that it gets done. I think the one thing I would caution against just as I close here is delay. Climate change is the first timed test that human beings have come up against. Most of the political questions that you all deal with are in some level perennial. They come around again and again and we make some progress on them or we don't and we come back the next year or the next biennium or the next decade or whatever it is and argue them out again and, and we make a little progress or climate change on that. Winning slowly on climate change is a different way of losing because once we melt the Arctic, nobody's got a good plan for freezing it back up again, and we've melted more than half of it. Once we raise the sea level and no one's got a plan for reducing it again, once we manage to end or deeply curtail winter, we're not going back to the Vermont that we knew. The time for action really is now there's enormous sentiment across the state for action is demonstrated by the large number of institutions that have already moved. And we're very, very hopeful that the house which is the last piece of this puzzle does its thing and does it soon. Thank you all very much. Good afternoon and thank you so much for coming and taking your time. And thank you for your writing. And I will have to add that the most recent book that's a memoir is as much as I've been enjoying as your other writings and thanks for that. I do have a little bit more to deal with in the house though. And we're still going to need your help because we have to, we have to get the governor signature on this or else we need 120 votes. Understood. So, I'm hoping you're with us for the long haul on this because I would agree we can't delay anymore. I am, I am persistent personified so I will be there at all. Thank you. I really appreciate you being with us. Representative Byron has a question and I'll. No, thank you. Thank you. So, I totally understand where you're coming from philosophically 120%. My question just you cited some of the other states. Institutions, et cetera, that did divest. Are you, do you have any data or financial information on how they've performed since then compared to how they perform previous to. Absolutely, we can get you reams of it and that's one of the reasons why I think Tom Stanzilla would be a very smart person to talk with. You know, I was on Friday night with Brad Land or the comptroller of the city of New York who has responsibility for their $250 billion pension fund. They're in the final stages of divestment, which they've done with the cooperation of all parties involved and he reports that the process has been going very smoothly. And that they're not at all worried about return. They're now a number of large institutions that have been divested for a decade, and they're able to produce that have been able to produce lots of data demonstrating the benign effect on returns. One of the most interesting, and one of the ones who studied it most closely is the Rockefeller family charities a very large group of funds. It's interesting because of course, they're derived from the original oil fortune in this world, but nonetheless decided to divest their holdings, partly at the urging of Archbishop to to, and partly with the understanding as they put it that the financial future belongs to renewable energy. And they've been, as you would expect being Rockefellers, careful about calculating the costs in all of this. And, and produce this series report showing that it had no effect on returns against whoever they were benchmarking it against, you know, all the series of groups that they benchmarked it against. And one of them, who some of you know as the running one of the leading hedge funds in the country Boston based and an important widely, widely watched market observer had his team do a series of studies, and they found no effect from fossil investment on returns, and then they went and as I said earlier, went back and did a series of historical studies to demonstrate that you could take virtually any asset class out by itself, and over a period of time show no erosion of performance, because the portfolio has remained otherwise diversified enough. Yeah, I mean if any of that information that you have data that you have would love to have you share it so we could digest. I will send it along through on Andrea. Thank you. And I think we will have. Mr. Sandzillo back for some additional testimony on this in the next week or so. So, you can ask some of those questions of him as well. Just high level, what we heard from the VP chair today and you're probably aware that they would like us to make some pretty big changes. And one of the things that I wanted to get your feedback on was the idea of saying, yeah, we're talking about direct holdings and we can really see this as a fossil fuel company we can probably wind down those events, it's pretty easily. I'm concerned about some of the more complex managed asset portfolios that we have specifically private equity and index funds that have these longer timelines and where we're a very small piece of the portfolio those higher tier managers. And with the other jurisdictions that you mentioned that have done divestment or doing it, if they've taken kind of an approach of saying yeah we want to get our money and direct fossil fuel investment, but these things that are really tied to the whole market we're going to let the managers kind of deal with that and So the easiest to do is to get it out of direct holdings and many places make that the very first step but then usually go on to do the rest. And it's truthfully gotten endlessly easier than it was a decade ago. Capitalism being what it is, when there's demand for something a supply is produced and in this case, the supply of high quality fossil free investments. I think before the Senate, Dave Provost, the who ran this project at Middlebury College, testified about the work that they're doing. And I think that it was what one of the things that convinced Mike peachy act to that the bill from the Senate was a strong and useful one and shouldn't be amended in those ways. You know, all of this is a little harder than doing nothing. But on the list of things that we're going to have to do to deal with climate change. This is actually on the far far easy end of the spectrum, you know, I mean, I mean, look, we also have to figure out in this state how to, you know, take some 1000 homes and and put a whole bunch of different machines in them and get them full of enough insulation and so on and so forth. Those are hard challenges that require a ton of work. This requires a few people finding a few different money managers to manage things in a different way so that Vermont can make an important contribution in the top level fight to limiting the rise in temperature, just as quickly as possible. So I think that the sort of agreement legislation that the Senate worked out is actually quite smart in in this fashion. The last question I have for you is that one of the key assertions that chair Galanca made was really about the benefits of having an engagement strategy and, you know, with the black rock portfolio that he mentioned several times he talked a lot about engagement and zero pledges. And I was just wondering if you have an opinion or any, any take on how solid those those kinds of commitments are from, you know, corporate entities or portfolio managers to, because you know I know from my day job that there's things that look like they're good for the environment and then there are things where people are actually doing something that makes a different in the effort against climate change so. So, let me say that I think that corporate engagement strategies make a great deal of sense. A lot of the time, they make sense when you're facing a problem where there is a flaw in the business plan of a company. The price and pay it's paying it's Chinese workers slave wages and you know people protest and you pass a series of shareholder resolutions and Apple increases the wages a little bit and the price of my phone goes up a buck and everybody ends up more or less okay with things you know. So what the fossil fuel industry is the flaw is the business plan. They know how to do one thing, and that's dig stuff up and set it on fire and anything else. They not only don't know how to do, they react violently to and do everything they can to prevent from happening. And if you're participating at this point with Exxon or Chevron or whoever it is, you're participating in their whole hearted effort to make sure that the US Congress and state capitals around the country do as little as possible to deal with the climate crisis and slow walk the transition to clean energy as deliberately as possible. So, in those cases where the flaw is the business plan on greenwashing has become the, you know, the, the great art of our time. I wrote a piece for the New Yorker I think not long ago about Exxon's ad strategy. If you've been watching just Exxon commercials for the last decade, you might be under the impression that Exxon was an algae company that happened to have a few oil wells on the side, you know, as it turns out they never spent more than about one tenth of one percent of their Kpex budget on algae and a year ago they just said, you know what it's not working very well forget what we're out and dropped the whole thing after all those zillion and the Super Bowl and wherever it was. That kind of greenwashing is endemic across this industry, and it's time to simply say no enough of this. These are, these have not proven to be responsible players and truthfully legislators should have as much a sense of that as anybody else, because the power of this particular industry, especially in Washington, but many other places to use its weight to make sure that it was never effectively challenged has been very large. Any other questions from Mr McKinnon. Thank you very much for sharing your experience and your perspective with us today I appreciate you making the time. All right, thank you all very much for all your good work we appreciate it mightily and may you reach adjournment on a steady and a speedy pace, take care y'all. So I wanted to leave a little bit of time for us to talk about kind of the next couple of weeks and what what I think our priorities are. I am sure you can all tell that we're going to be taking a slightly different tack on a 17 on a few items. Then our Senate colleagues and I spoke with Senator Hardy and I've been having stakeholders here and we will continue to hear from the relevant folks but I think I'd like to take some of the little time we have left this afternoon confer with legislative council but I wanted to get the committee's feedback a little bit before I put on a draft and see if there's anything I'm missing and say the overarching thing that I wanted to get your thoughts on is this. It seems to me that the Senate was really concerned about the sheriff's ability to use the 5% that they've been on the books at least since the early 90s to cover their overhead costs and their contracts as they see fit. And I think that the there's some of the inconsistencies and just the lack of any real guardrails or rules around how those funds get used have led to some simple practices. But that the way that the bill currently changes things will radically change the compensation for a number of sitting sheriffs from what they currently have today. It doesn't really get at some of the accountability and transparency that I was really looking forward from this effort and so I'd like to focus on development of good model policies best practices and making sure those are facilitated by some professional support from the department. And that's what I'd like to try to get into some language as an alternative to just saying you can't spend this money the way that you want. I want to say this is how you can spend the money in kind of the box that that makes sense and to do that in consultation with some of the sheriffs that I think are doing things pretty transparently today. So interested to have a little committee discussion to get your thoughts on things that you think we need to absolutely do in the bill things that stuck out to you in the testimony we heard on a 17 before I a little bit more legislative council and trying to get some amendment language together. Representative Hooper. A little bit more. Mr. Chair, if you move on what you didn't put in the fence, I still am somewhat perplexed about what money is supposed to be used for and you're supposed to be using it as responsible for it. If you heard the share of a new team, do you use it for salary or benefits? Is that in your thoughts? This started with a couple of renovations and has turned into a lot more. I'm uncomfortable I guess at this point with taking complete control of that money. Yeah, I would say that I too am uncomfortable with the legislature saying you can only get paid the statutory amount because the way that we have as a state benefited from the flexibility that the sheriff's offices offer, whether it's the kind of management around the transport deputies or providing local law enforcement to towns that don't have their own police department. The flexibility is kind of integral to the whole thing. And the Senate's bill is so restrictive that I think it actually could undermine the things that we like about the structure of sheriffs. So I think we're on the same page there, maybe just set it different ways in our initial approach. But the place I would go is to say you can use it for salary and benefits, but it's got to be pegged to a model policy that you should develop in collaboration with other experts. So the key thing I think that I'd like to put in an amendment is to have a model policy around benefits and compensation that isn't so narrowly defined that it doesn't recognize the sort of various complexity and sizes of the different sheriff's organizations across the state, but that it puts some guardrails on and says, you know, that if you're going to offer a bonus, for instance, it should be done in a way that, you know, based on a plan where it isn't just in a kind of a random large, large sum that raises the eyebrows. I mean, that was really the thing about what we saw with auditors comments on the $400,000 in bonuses in Caledonia was not illegal. It's not illegal. It's just that there isn't any policy that describes how you're going to give out bonuses. So it needs the public to see if there'd be conflicts of interest. Is this in payment for something? It raises a lot of eyebrows and questions that are really legitimate, even if it's not illegal. You've got a bunch of hands up. I mentioned summary comparisons before and different. I would assume that we will also discuss whether bringing this up to the level of an equivalent state police counterpart would be on our agenda. So I think I'd like to set a process in motion that might get us there. I'm hesitant to just do that because somebody who has the complexity of managing a dispatch office and having a bunch of different contracts and having a really robust organization with a lot of staff, versus somebody who does patrols on their own and only has a couple of deputies. I don't know that we want to necessarily make sure that those two types of sheriffs get paid exactly the same amount here in the legislature that might be overstepping our So I had a bunch of hands. I think represent where we keep first and then we'll go the other side and see what happens. For me, the big hole in the Senate bill is that they want to restrict funding. I don't see any other funding source particularly. And I don't think we want to starve the sheriffs out of business. And it seems at odds with itself then any noon and shared that in my spring has been as well. A lot of grants are written with at least 10% indirect costs about. And I will note that most of the time the funding is encumbered. There are guardrails on how to spend the money and I think that sounds like a viable way to move this forward. Another piece that I would like to have articulated in there is where we talk about audits. I'd like to articulate what level of audit you have. I mean, there's a full audit, which is everything on that. There's not a lot. It's just not important. It may be lower level, just a flyby kind of thing. But I'd like to start articulating what we're asking for in audits there. Of course, we want to make sure tax credit money is being protected well, but I think we can do that without necessarily requiring a full audit every time the term audit is used. Thanks. Basically, I agree with what you're saying and I feel like that approach makes a lot of sense. But, you know, you want to make sure that there's policies in place and they're able to justify things based on the needs and the mission of the agency. And then, you know, it seems like there is some accountability and way for that to be explained or reported to with the group that was here before. So I prefer that a lot more to just directing a certain percentage to a certain thing one way or the other. So I think it would hamper their ability to do the different types of jobs that we need that to do. Sorry, water zones. I have a question. And then I had a comment. The first thing is the only way for a sheriff to not be an office anymore to be impeached by the legislature and they be impeached by the voters in their county. No, so we don't have any recall provisions unless it's having some charters and even then it's a little uncomfortable for me when we see those. Because it's just it's not a heron in our constitutional structure in the state of Vermont. We have periodic elections. And when that person is elected to office, there's the one place in existing statute and I did a lot of work with that really, really want to thank Tim Devlin and other members of legislative council for going deep into the historical record on this. The only remedy we have to remove a sheriff from office is impeachment and in statute today, the only sort of suspension of the sheriff's duties is if they're in prison and the high bail if then steps in and would typically then appoint somebody that was qualified to take over the office. But that's just in the event of imprisonment. And that's full like, like, like due process conviction. It doesn't necessarily mean if I understand it right. This is all existing statutes on the bill. It's not even worth it. Yeah, it's doesn't have to be after a conviction, but an arraignment and then in prison. So if you're in jail, essentially, you know, awaiting. So the way the high bail is charged. The role is when they are incapacitated from the role. The thing is, it's entirely anachronistic, right? It just doesn't fit the modern sort of situational like. Well, if this leads me to my question or to my comment, which is it seems like whatever we're hearing about and talking about what this bill is trying to do. Is solve a bunch of problems that have come up through a variety of sheriff bad decisions over, you know, the last few years or whatever. When I think really the problem is, I mean, not that they're not a problem, but it's like addressing all of these things in one bill rather than addressing the problem itself, which is that structure of how to deal with this particular law enforcement officer who's not behaving within the bounds of the law. Yeah, I would say my chief frustration has been that the thing that I think is most urgent. When we consider that there happen and continue to be shares who occasionally they're they're the exception, not the role, but I don't know that that even the committing of a crime and some due process can't even lead to a suspension while we work out what's going on, you know, and it's shaking the confidence of towns in Franklin County right now and in their ability to get the law enforcement services that changing. Yeah, but it's but it requires a constitutional amendment. That's right. Essentially, yes. And short of that, we have very little power other than going through the process of impeachment, which is pretty uncertain. Yeah, and I think there are some legitimate things in here like I think it really makes sense when Sheriff says they're not going to run again for there to be a little more scrutiny over what happens. You know, we heard Senator Norris talking about when he took over his office. There was hardly any money in the bank and, you know, the cars didn't work and some of them been sold. They didn't even put them in the front door to the day he got sworn in. Right. And so this is this is the issue is that like that. That's not that's not the norm, but it's totally possible. I've been with the county to and keep Clark took over. Mm hmm. That's they had actually marked maybe you remember the other sheriffs. Evens So I guess the other way to look at it is to say to put these parameters on it, then we'll be preventing other behaviors in the future. And then we might not need that. And then so much In theory, perhaps I think I think there are there's an opportunity here to make some improvements. It's definitely not satisfactory. But I think there's an opportunity if we do it, right? Thank you. So two things. The first being I would need to see the language that you're proposing in order to even wrap my head around weighing in on what we should be doing going forward because I can't get in your head. I don't know what you're thinking. Secondly, what about all the asks that we've heard from like from the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs and the DOC and the judiciary? What about all of their asks? Are you planning to address any of those in this bill? So I would like to try to address as many of them as possible. I have asked chair alone to talk through a little bit of his perspective and what his committee thinks about the courthouse pieces. And so, you know, I heard loud and clear from the department and from the SCA and when representative Oliver was speaking, you know, context as the person for the transport deputies representing their interests in having, you know, the expanded positions. I think those are all things we need to think about. And it's, I don't know that we'll be able to resolve all of those. And so the question might be one of do we work with our budget committees and try to make sure that we sort of fully address what the courts and the department and the transport deputies all need in this bill or do we work on a broader conversation and get by with the kind of status quo for now. And I think what's in a 17 is a there, there's especially in regard to the courthouse piece. And what I heard was that there's this unfunded mandate. It's saying, Sheriff, you provide this person when there's not really a mechanism to have anybody there, especially given the current labor market and the abilities for them to just get a per diem. So I don't have a solution for that right now that's in my head. And if anybody has a great brilliant idea about how we solve that. It seems like we would really need to find some resources in in the final budget if we were going to try to solve that problem in this calendar year. Right. So if we can't do that, if that is not possible, then the bill really can't say shall, you know, you shall do this or you shall not do this. I think that I guess I'll wait and see what the version is the children send us. And I may not try to solve every issue with the bill in the first round, but this is, I'm not planning on, you know, trying to pass this thing out tomorrow or anything. I think we've got some work to do here because there are just so many of these issues. And that's why I'm looking for this sort of feedback. It might be admitted. My bridge that's going to be presented is like a frame for us to continue the conversations. Yeah, just trying to get everything on the table today represent where you go. Yeah, but mostly a bunch of comments and a question I'll throw at the very end. So these are Morgan's observations only you all can disagree. But that just my thoughts and from what I've seen testimony talking with the sheriffs and living 62 years in this state is this that like a lot of organizations. I've been parts of our observed parts of, I think the shirts have professionalized themselves more than they were in the past because I think we've all seen or heard anecdotally things that have been bad in the past and do we still have bad actors. Sure, but show me an organization doesn't have a bad actor and that doesn't exist. So we think we have to be mindful of that, but I think from testimony we've heard from the Mark Anderson world that they have done a good job of no pun intended policing themselves to a degree of coming away from some of the anecdotal stuff we've heard of or direct testimony on bad organizations, you know, have been sourization of had broke their budgets shown up, you know, the $700 in the account, so forth. So I think we have to be mindful of that as we craft this. And I believe again, insurance here, we could ask them if I'm wrong on this, I don't think one size fits all for every for all 14 counties are different. My accurate message here that said I think by Rory today Rory Tebow, they saying, hey, like Washington County, they're almost that, you know, waiting for the call to come in and it sounds like almost over exaggerating by saying that so I think you have to be mindful of that. I certainly don't want to knee jerk anything here I think and have unintended consequences of be very, as I think we're saying we've got to be see what's on there that we think we're after grind it out. I mean, I got a note from sure Dan Gamlin should have kind of said he can't I think he had your guy he can't make it and testimony tomorrow so I don't know if sure Vanerson's coming around just to suggest and if we're going to plug him in with after hearing all of this. I mean, does it benefit to have him back at the table again just a thought I'm not putting you or him on the spot. I'm just a suggestion I throw out. And then the last thing is my question is, what you're saying, Mr chair on modeling. I mean, model the lab for you and it's specific in mind or is like another organization that are what were you forward your thoughts, it just seems like there was pretty strong support from the department and I think depending on exactly how we model it you could earn support from the sheriff's association toward, okay, you know, the creation of a model policy so we could sort of set some parameters I think, and then have the experts work together. And you know the criminal justice council approved model policies to so I feel like there's a sort of a, you know, the right kind of process to go through but it's not something I think that we can flush out all the details in here we were, you know, there's kind of two frameworks right and the framework that came over to us in regard to compensation and benefits and the use of money really narrowed down to the point where I think it might have some fundamental challenges on the structure that we have today with And I'd like to kind of take a different frame and say, let's get the people in the room, work out what best practices and a model policy would be that has enough flexibility to accommodate the smaller offices and the more complex ones, and give everybody a sense of like, this is what a reasonable range of compensation is for the sheriff themselves and deputies and you know the way you might do bonuses and so no one's surprised when the auditor goes in and says oh there were bonuses and yes that is, you know, in line with the model policy and then you would kind of feel good about that and it wouldn't be something that was just, you know, all done sort of from here mandated on to the sheriff so that's where I'd like to get to and I think we're going to be starting on some of those sections from kind of a very different place And, you know, I worked a little bit with legislative council a real last few days, you know, came up with some ideas to bat off of some folks and it really didn't feel like it was ready for primetime today after some of the initial feedback I got so I wanted to do one more round with some stakeholders before I put some actual language on the table. You know, so just here, you know, we heard a lot from a lot of the different people I just wanted to get where you all are. It seems like from a new starting place to some language will be healthy for us. I agree. That's right. That's where I said, I had to use the same words last time I think it's ready for primetime or not there. But I think I think we need to have a lot of, I just really think we have to make sure somebody said earlier for the baby out of the bathwater here and we want to we got to get it right. I don't think we're hearing from those folks that they're adverse to change or things changing. And the last comment I'm trying to hog it up it is on the 5% I really think we need to be real careful about not overstepping that when you give them. Yeah, if we're going to put some guardrails on it great but not so much micromanage it they don't have the ability to keep things within reason for what they're doing and I think that's got a lot of definition you could put to that for within reason. That sounds a bit red in that way and that's okay. So I'm sure I'll say later. Yeah, I think we'll keep a number of the components so we're in a 17 at least in the initial thing I'll put it on the table based on some of the initial conversations I've had some of the components won't be there and so it'll be easier to read if it's a strike off. The ultimate thing that I think didn't quite get as far as some of these issues and frankly, I spent a lot of time trying to find some way to have suspensions work with inside the constitutional structure that was laid out and try to hold some of ideas and just couldn't find a way, even when there were some pretty extreme circumstances and due process with arrangements and that kind of thing to take that next step on beyond what's already in statute with imprisonment I just couldn't. And I just don't feel comfortable putting something on the table, even though I think it would be beneficial for us to eventually get there someday. I don't want to put something on the table that has that level of constitutional questioning and hardiness with our legislative council and some lawyers outside of the building as well. So it's that's part of why I just, I think there's some good things here. The thing I think the few really road share incidents that we've had in the last couple of decades, especially this bill, because of those constitutional constraints is just not going to satisfy some of the public's desire to hold people who really do bad things accountable. And I what I don't want to do down that is mine, the public safety services that we have that are working by trying to fix, you know, two things that we can as a response. So we have other work to do outside of a 17 I think, especially, you know, the sense today is considered as constitutional language and I think, you know, that's a four or five year process. So this, this won't this bill is just trying to solve some of the things we can solve today and this won't be the last time to look at this issue. So I'm not seeing any other hands. I think we probably have all beat this today. So thank you everybody this there was a lot today. And we've only got a couple of real policy weeks left.