 Yeah, I definitely believe that, yeah, the number of footprints on your shirt increases as. All right, we are now live on YouTube good afternoon everybody this is the Vermont State Senate Committee on institutions. Today is May 6 2021 we are having an ongoing conversation about the return of the legislature to the State House. We've invited various stakeholders in to talk about their thoughts. I will first introduce myself I'm Joe bending the chair of the committee we also have Senator Ingalls from Essex or lean Senator McCormick from Windsor, Senator parent from Franklin County and late as usual Senator. Don't go there. On this committee in case you don't know, loves to have some jokes and banter with the witnesses as we go we try to keep it an enjoyable time. We have a very serious subject and on the introductory process I would like you all to know. We have people on YouTube that are watching and we don't know whether it's nobody, a dozen or 100 or more. So we try to keep our conversation at the 50,000 foot level to make sure everybody is on the same page. And in your testimony I interrupt you it may be because you've used some an acronym or some kind of vernacular that we may be familiar with but the public at large may not be familiar with. It is always friendly for us to reach out and make sure that our public audience watching gets to be on the same page that we are. I'm going to press today because I see you as stakeholders in the building itself. And as you all know that is a very historic building we all miss it terribly. And we are not trying to do anything that is not transparent and inviting you here today, you are one of a series of stakeholders that we would enjoy hearing your thoughts. We have a lot of great promises. This is the tip of the tip of an iceberg discussion. But those discussions will become a lot heavier is the few weeks and months approach the next session. And so we are inviting you to just vent in any way or share your thoughts so that we can incorporate them. I want to make extensive notes because this conversation is going to be incorporated into several other committee discussions. And I would like to be able at some point in time to be able to relate the things that you're relating to us here today. You also may be invited back again to continue the conversation. And that said, you are listed on my list by order of how Denise got to hear from you all. And the first person on my list is Mike Donahue Mike I see you're coming in here is both with the Associated Press and with the New England First Amendment Coalition. I want to start by telling you when we introduce ourselves we try to give a very short background of who we are and how we got to the position we're in so that anybody watching on YouTube may understand exactly who you are and how you fit into the conversation. So welcome to Senate institutions and we'd love to hear your thoughts. Thank you, Mr Chairman and thank you members of the Senate institutions committee. Yes, my name is Mike Donahue I serve as the part time executive director of the Vermont Press Association, which basically represents the interests of the 10 daily and more than three dozen non daily newspapers serving Vermont. And as some of you know before my alleged retirement I spent more than 45 years as a staff writer at the Brompton Free Press, including time covering things over at the State House. And as vice president of the New England First Amendment Coalition, which is a six state effort to support, defend and help educate about the First Amendment. And NEFAC has indicated that it wishes to share in the comments being made today by the Vermont Press Association so I'll wrap them all into one Mr Chairman rather than speaking to different speeches. On behalf of the VPA and NEFAC. We like to take issue with the, what we feel is the lack of in depth study and outreach made by Freeman French and Freeman for its legislative space assessment. We also are deeply concerned that Vermont's longtime moniker or nickname for the State House. Will soon be lost if either proposed plan is adopted to block the general public from live in person access inside the building during legislative sessions. The proposal appears to ban the public, the press, and will eliminate among other things. School trips, bus tours by senior citizens or tourists. It will mean the elimination of the one day, what I call advocacy boots. By the cafeteria for groups trying to spread the word about important social issues like sexual assault, drunk driving, mental health, domestic abuse. Fresh waterways and so many other important topics that facing this state. Conceivably it's going to eliminate the concerts that often grace the halls at night. And the farmers programs and so many other things. So, since the beginning of this country and the creation of Vermont newspapers have played a vital role. In recovering the process of lawmaking. We were later joined by radio and eventually television, all with the same mission of providing the public the information it needs to make appropriate decisions about our democracy. During my time as a journalist covering stories here and as somebody who gets invited over to offer testimony. Sometimes just coming to visit the state house. Oops, sorry. The one thing that sticks out is sort of the awe, if you will, when coming into the historic state house. This is really a special place is legislators sometimes have told me. They may be able to run, but they can't hide. They can't see their hometown legislator in action in the committee room on the floor, or just having lunch in the cafeteria. Legislators want to hear what people are thinking. And it's equally important for the press to be able to freely cover Vermont laws and budgets being adopted, so that the full impact on taxpayers can be explained. The Association New England First Amendment coalition both urged this committee, the full Senate and the full house to ensure access to the press, if and when a decision is made about returning fully to the state house. The VPA and the fact are concerned that media members be allowed into the committee rooms to cover in person testimony. The committee rooms apparently is designed by the architect appear to lack adequate space for the press, the lobbyists in the general public. We realize that long term steps may be needed to fit everybody in, but the press has a critical role in covering the state house that should be recognized government transparency is critical. The Vermont Press Association and the fact both are willing to work with you the architects or any committee designed to work on a public reopening. We would offer a couple of suggestions. One that if in person presence is achieved that remote access be continued. Not everybody can drop what they're doing and take one or two hours to drive to Montpelier to listen to perhaps 30 or 45 minutes of testimony. Improvements number two improvements must be made for remote access. Over the past two sessions, we and presumably you have heard of access issues. When access was unavailable decisions were made to go ahead with hearings with a statement. Oh, they can listen online later. Well, as it turned out, some of those recordings did not fully capture what happened at the hearing. They denied the complete legislative record. Three when hearings are provided remotely the broadcast needs to begin early and run late. It is well known that comments are often made in the 20 or 30 minutes before a hearing that may be relevant to the topic. Yet the public sitting at a distance is denied access to what they should have heard. It had they've been sitting in the committee room. Remote access for the public is not an adequate substitute for in person attendance. Well, such access should be provided for those who cannot attend in person. There still needs to be an opportunity for the public to get FaceTime with their elected leaders and engage with their government in person. This is also a matter of accountability, only within person hearings can the public's voice be fully heard. Despite the benefits of technology remote access software allows public officials to more easily limit citizen speech and avoid contentious issues. And lastly, excuse me. As a somewhat last resort, a pool reporter would be acceptable if safe spacing cannot otherwise be secured. But again, that would be a last resort. But the press must be present. Chairman we thank you for your time. The VPA and the fact is glad to answer any questions now or later, after others have spoken. We also stand ready to assist with any further study. Thank you. Mike thanks for coming. I do want this to be a free flowing discussion between you folks and the committee members. I'll tell you a couple things right off the bat that I think everybody agrees with zoom or virtual technology will always be with us in the future. It has become apparent that it provides a vehicle of access to people that have never had it before. It offers some folks the ability to watch us whenever they want. I'm interested in your, your thought process about it running early and running late, meaning before the substantive conversations and after the substantive conversation and I'll use today as an example. Prior to going on to YouTube, you were with us in the committee room, having some general banter back and forth about who we were and jokes of each other and that sort of thing. When we first started out this zoom world. None of us were familiar with how the process work but we were all cognizant that substantive conversations had to be conducted in the public eye. I'm curious as to whether or not our conversation before YouTube came on this afternoon is something that you feel from the press perspective should be part of the open process for the public. I think our sense is that there's nothing wrong with that being open to the public. Yes, we will tell the audience that there was some good barbs traded between myself and Senator Mazza and and some others and and other members of better planning to speak today and it's just sort of a banter back and forth. Sometimes it's during that, if you call it pre pre hearing time, you know, somebody may make a comment that, you know, oh the corrections commissioner won't be with us this afternoon he can't come. And maybe people are sitting there waiting for the corrections commissioner to come in and testify. And if they know at 15 minutes before the hearing that they don't have to sit there for an hour and a half waiting for the corrections commissioner. I think it hurts and it again and may have just been a little side comment made by the, the, your, your staff saying, you know, the, the commissioner can't be here after all today. And we see no, no reason why that, you know, shouldn't be out there or couldn't be out there. It certainly would have been heard if they were sitting in that room. So, I guess that's our initial thought. And just so you know, early on, when we started the zoom process. I think it was Paul actually that brought to the attention that there were conversations taking place. But we pretty quickly picked up on the fact that we should not be talking about any substantive legislative conversations in the pre YouTube environment. And by that I mean when the flip this switch got flipped into YouTube, we shouldn't be having those conversations so even now we constantly remind each other that we should not be talking about whatever the subject for conversation is. Just so you're aware of that but one of the most enjoyable things I said this earlier before you two came on for us in the legislature is this ability to look into each other's literally their homes and their lives. And get to know each other on a more personal basis. I don't have the foggiest idea why Stuart is sitting in the passenger seat of his car right now. But it's one of those things that you get to look around and ask yourself questions and then get to know people in a more personal way so I concede that that kind of transparency is a very good thing with this system. It's still homeless. Mr. That's what I was going to say we're going to raise some money for him today. I have to do an interview. That's why. Okay. Senator McCormick you're on. Thanks. I mean when you've got people whose job it is to work together on policy from time to time someone will slip up and start to talk policy when the public it does not have access always when that happens someone says you're getting into policy and we back off so I don't I don't think there's a lot of policy discussion happening out of the public. And and and again with with zoom and everything that may be true. I'm basing it on sitting in committee rooms before zoom all those years and hearing things back and forth and and with all the committees you somebody just texted me. You know some are just not bantering and and there may be things that but who knows it's we're not seeing or hearing it's not being recorded so. It's hard to disprove or prove something when you're not in there. And this committee the talk is generally about the Civil War and old cars and other guys facial hair. How the world we know it is dying because we're all getting old. I want to before I turn anybody else on the committee hopefully you're still seeing me because I'm getting a message it says my connection is unstable. But Stuart you mentioned that you had another interview are you literally bound for time here. A little bit odd from two until 220. I could come back at 220. Okay, I have you two down on the list and I don't know if committee members have any questions. Any other witnesses here have other obligations but I'd like to get Stuart in while he's still here in case we for some reason or other and not still here 220. Anybody else on the committee have any questions. Wait, we'll wait for Stuart. Okay. Mike appreciate your comment you're certainly welcome to hang around and listen on Stuart chairman. I believe at one point in time when you were running one of your, your vpr segments. And I was there as minority leader I distinctly recall, suggesting to you that perhaps a politician should run this meeting and have three of you politicians in for questioning at some point in time. Remember that but welcome to Senate institutions. For the record I'm Stuart. I'm from NBC five. I also do some work for Vermont PBS as you may know and I've been in the Vermont news business for almost 40 years. I've spent at least I was trying to figure it out 25 or six I think winners at the State House, covering you guys and for the record I miss you all desperately. I wanted to talk a little bit about the report from Freeman French Freeman. The architect don't claim to be but you know it seems to make a lot of pretty exciting suggestions to improve the functionality of the building. Given the constraints that that you know it's historic nature would pose dead to any architect and any sort of renovation project. But I'm going to echo some of what Mike, Mike had to say what my colleagues I'm sure will say. But I was alarmed by the recommendation that in 2022, the State House would be closed to all but members and staff, and that news media would not be permitted inside. I think that the message here is is clear that there is no substitute for in person coverage of the state legislature. I think that obviously all of this was precipitated by. Well, I mean, the State House has been crowded and committee rooms in the house have been crowded for a long time. But I think it was this was precipitated by obviously the health crisis, and the electronic feeds. You know I think work well for some people and for some purposes, and they do provide access to some who could not get to the State House. And don't work very well for reporters who are on deadline doing daily news reporting and, and if I could local television in particular is especially impacted by the technical limitation of the technology. I mean, the fact is that most people don't look very good on zoom. The Brady bunch shot is very limited. And it's it's one reason why frankly we have scaled back on our usual coverage. What might work okay for radio the audio quality I think it's been pretty good is not good on television television needs 20 or 15 or 20 or 25 different shots different angles professionally framed color balanced. And you get one on zoom. I'm not just the way it is and you know we've had to accept that but much more important than the visual is the fact that Vermont reporters lose the ability to interact with decision makers on the go, whether that's to ask a follow up question to observe, maybe an unspoken dynamic in a room to chase someone down the hall who might not want to answer a question and you get no sense of the rhythm of the State House. When you're staring at a computer screen from, you know, 50 miles away. So zoom has been better than nothing, but, and for my job, much is lost. The Freeman French Freeman's ideas for for longer term renovation look, you know, pretty exciting, it would certainly improve the comfort and functionality of what are sometimes absurdly crowded committee rooms where you are literally as you all know, in there like sardines. There's no argument there but I'm not sure why we would need to prohibit in January of 2022 eight months from now. Any access by the news media for a third straight year over concerns around health and safety. Let me point out the obvious which is that we have a tiny State House press corps. Smallest in the nation and barring us, I think will make little or no difference in terms of the dental what happened on opening day this year when we had a pandemic before anybody had a vaccine and you know there was no problem to my congestion at the state is driven by numbers and the big numbers are among lobbyists and members of the public and school groups and tourists and spectators and visitors. Not the 15 or, you know, maybe 20 of us in the working Vermont media which is which is all we are, and who I dare say play a pretty key role in disseminating information freely to the people of Vermont about the workings of their legislature. So I would strongly encourage you not to go along with Freeman French French Freeman's suggestion that the media be barred from the State House starting in January. As I said I'm no architect but I would just in half a minute say the House Committee expansion looks looks great. Adding larger rooms look great I mean obviously they're in very short supply now at the State House. That's why you have two three press conferences at the Cedar Creek room, which are not very good on television, because of that historic and and a lot of wallpaper that's right it fits. I think if you're going to improve technology we could improve the wiring or the fiber optic to the House and Senate chambers such that, you know the 1980 era cable outlets that that WCAX installed and only WCAX updated now for 2022. And that would provide, you know the broadcast outlets with the connectivity to a high speed connection that would not be hard to do and any of the television station engineering folks and it folks could certainly help with that. But barring some unexpected downturn or health crisis. The real point that I wanted to make was that our very modestly staffed Vermont Press Corps deserves access to the people's house in January. And I thank you very much for the opportunity. I don't know if you heard earlier but we were really looking forward to this reverse press conference if you will. And I want to just pause to note that some of us actually look better for instance I took all the time in the world to comb my hair. Cory has his own manicurist before he comes on so he's all prepped and ready to go. Senator Mazza well we just won't even go there. Committee questions for Stuart Senator Mazza. Yeah, how would, for example if the epidemic is still on or in January. How would we distinguish who's allowed in the State House and who isn't. How would we separate that group, like lobbyists or press or public I mean, how, how, if we had the limit. If that was still in effect. What should we do if that was there. You know, I don't I recognize that that's a delicate issue. And my colleagues I'm sure will jump at the chance. It's not ideal I mean I agree with Mike I'd like to have everybody there but if we're in that circumstance. You know, what what is the definition of working news media is it is it just a distributed, whether online or through broadcast or print to, you know, X number of people. You know, that's, there are industry folks who could give you a definition that might be helpful. And I don't want to be a partisan or restrictive in that. I didn't know if we get in trouble by selecting who could come and who couldn't come that's that's the only question. Well, I mean it has to be an objective standard. Not somebody you like and someone you don't. But if you're trying if you if you feel you must restrict access to, you know, as I said, correct me if I'm wrong I've been going down there a lot and you know I don't think it's more than 15 or 20 people. And that's a pretty good size building you could maintain social distancing without a problem. I don't mean to pin this on you, particularly Stuart but in relation to Dick's question. A vaccine passport. Is that something that's tolerated, or is that out of the question would be for me. I think I, you know, again, I would think that barring health reason that there, you will have brought up take by then and, you know, it's, it's going to be part of the landscape in our world, going forward, maybe not by January but and by the way I'm not suggesting that that's something that has to be done I'm only asking the question to get your reaction to it. Senator parent. My question, you know I'm not opposed to having the press back in but my thought is is, usually the press isn't well dispersed around the State House there's one or two committees or one or two conversations that has everyone's attention. And how we manage a situation like that you know we're not talking about putting one person from the press in each committee room. I think of it as you know budgets time you might have six or seven folks trying to be in the same committee room how do we. What are your thoughts on managing that. Well you could you could pick a larger you could move the hearing or the session to room 10 or 11 or one of the other. The room over 133 or at the pavilion. I mean you know you move to a larger room and you can pretty much when it's a, you know, if the subject was for my Yankee or marriage or gun reform or late in the appropriations process, you could you you often know which issue is going to draw a crowd and I mean I think that the Vermont media has been it means a small state we, we work together pretty well. And you could this would not be a problem. It might be even like a request that you reach out to committee chair ahead of time to let them know you're interested in going so that they know to move it. You know, that's. But at least we'd be there when it's over to be able to ask questions. Mike Donnie who I saw your hand come up, you're muted right now. Thank you Mr Chairman. Obviously, we do. There is pooling in the court system and, and so Senator parent if you're concerned about numbers. I don't necessarily speak for TV but obviously what happens in court is one of the camera crews does the shooting and the other feed into it. So you, you don't need necessarily three camera people in in the room. One can shoot and everybody can share it and that's what happens in the courts, if you had to go to a pooling situation. My safe and assuming though Mikey would prefer to not be in a pooling situation. It would be everybody's preference in the media I think, ideally, at least for the newspapers I'll let the broadcasters speak for themselves but ideally, having everybody in person, but is better. Okay. Committee further questions thus far. If not I'm going to move along and just in case some of you were not here when I said this earlier I received a list of witnesses and I'm going down the the chronological order of that list. And I don't have any other way of trying to shepherd us along I just want to make sure if any of you are pressed for time please if your name isn't being called let me know so we can try to get you in. I'm Jay Barton I have you up next on my list. Welcome to Senate institutions. Thank you, Senator and thank all of you for allowing us to speak here for a moment I really appreciate specifically the proactive consideration of the media, in this case, and reaching out to us with the invitation. I appreciate that. Anyway my name is Jay Barton I'm the Vice President General Manager of WCAX Channel three so as I like to joke, even before the YouTube channel began streaming. That just means everything is my fault at Channel three. So if you're watching Stewart now you know. Anyway, the I'm very grateful for the chance to speak on this topic. As Stewart just said, in terms of reviewing commentary on the space assessment from the architect. I think the discussion is centered in the correct place overall which is vital functions of government operational reality of being just on the ground in the building and trying to conduct business I think those are are good things to focus on. The pandemic is a crisis yes but it's also a little bit of an opportunity for these considerations to perhaps move forward. So, in general as we look ahead to to what the Freeman French Freeman team defined as longer term which would be three plus years three to 10 year window. So much of that. Again, not an architect but just much of the concepts make sense so so I don't really have anything to say to that especially, you know focusing on keeping the historic nature of the 1858 construction at the State House in place and and as similar to the museum in that is possible but my purpose today is just to underline whatever the path forward. I don't believe that there should be an interruption of access to the people's house by the people. I'm sure every member here and across the entire legislature would agree, open and transparent government is something Vermont has always aspired to and more than that has actually achieved more probably more often than not. I think that when as we anticipate a challenge, potentially because of either return to society hesitancy, we have vaccine hesitancy this maybe return to society hesitancy that we're looking at. That's the challenge we face for the 2022 session, and it feels like just saying well, we're not going to let anybody else in the building is choosing expediency over responsibility. All of our monitor monitors are busy anyway while the legislature is in session. They're doing things like I don't know earning wages and paying taxes, which is kind of an interesting little deal. And it follows that whatever plans are made, whether a shorter long term plan, because most of the citizenry is going to be otherwise engaged during the session access by a vibrant press corps to report the business of the state back to the people of the state is what we need to protect. We in the media are Vermonters ourselves, and we then serve the needs of Vermonters as citizens. So, one of the things that really concerned me in general as it as it leads directly to what they're calling option a, and I assume they call it option a because that means it's the first or more most preferred option. Is this return to the State House for legislators and staff only. And I know that this is going to be a difficult issue to resolve I think several of the questions just now for credentialing limited access. What about a vaccine passport, how do we, how do we act as Solomon and make a wise decision. These are great questions I understand that that's that it is difficult but just limiting access can't be the answer outside of an emergency situation, which is where we are right now. I think most of us will agree, or at least if we can agree that we will most likely not be under an emergency declaration in January of 2022. And if most of us can agree that during the session in 2022 restaurants bars hotels in salons grocery stores and so on will all operate open to the public with no access restrictions. I question how the seat of government for the state reasonably could consider excluding access by Vermonters and the press to the proceedings. You know, we have created new paths through technology we've enjoyed the benefits of it we've also suffered that pain as well. I mean, we're culturally more comfortable. As much as I love the pretty bunch reference, I would prefer to see Stuart and everyone else, Paul in person. So the teleconference friend friendly reality is maybe the mother of invention, and just the result of necessity but you know we've seen more than one mishap in the last 15 months I think Mike alluded to it in his testimony. And whether that mishap those mishaps were unintentional, or otherwise it's limited remote access of citizens, and you know one mistake, and everyone loses access. And to be alone in, in my estimation is not a replacement for access in person in person I do agree, Senator with your statement early on, it's an addition to access and that's a good thing, I think. But if the legislature is in the building Vermonters should be as well. And no one is living in a bubble here during the next session, most of us will also likely simultaneously enjoy a meal out at restaurants. We might spend time with friends, and I expect those interactions will be made, not just by those of us in the media but perhaps by those of us in the legislature. And so if those things are acceptable, but access to the people's houses not. One might argue that that defies simple logic. So if we're not living in a bubble, how can we govern in one. As responsible citizens of the state of my opinion, we in the media, certainly my station, we've tried to follow every protocol and be a reasonable model for every rule. We participated with the government in helping provide access to people, not just through regular reporting but you know we've been on the phone with. I know, I know many of us in the media here have had different conversations with different whether legislators or the governor's office to try and solve problems on behalf of the government, so that we can reach the people. Of course, we would want to continue that if there are concerns, moving forward. And so if that's what is necessary to strike a balance. Robert said it earlier and I'm, he stole my answer is I like to say, because I'm more than happy to lend my time or the time of some of my staff, if we need to try and find some reasonable middle ground, at least in the short run, technologically. Close with this statement Vermont press is fortunate to operate in an environment that recognizes the importance of open government and transparency. I just implore this committee and whoever else takes us up to ensure that whatever steps forward are made we don't also move backward with regard to access by Vermont's media and by Vermonters in general, just in the spirit of of open and transparent government. And there's my, there's my state. And now, Dick or whoever come at me, let's go. Well, first I want to say that case your colleagues missed and I think you provided the sound bite for the day. That's really good which one was it so I can. I have it down if we are not living in a bubble, and you were referring to all general businesses. How can we govern in one. I love I love. Have you considered writing for television. Oh, don't tell him that please. And by the way, I apologize if I'm being too familiar in this in this environment but I do appreciate Senator all of your attitude as we come into this conversation so thank you. I think you'll find this committee especially loves to have an open and free flowing conversation and sometimes it gets in personal as some might suggest but as a Rotarian I live by a creed that we all at the adult age, live on a first name basis. Sometimes people find that somewhat offensive but I have always encouraged the ability of all of us to communicate at a very common level so I appreciate your comments and great thoughts. Let me ask you a question though. First, my committee meets in a room that is 225 square feet in size. There was a sign on the door that said capacity eight. And you're the ninth person coming along to get into the room and somebody suggests, you're going to have to participate remotely. Either you're going to have to go find your own computer or you're going to find a room down the hall that we've arranged this remote access in. I'm just looking to get your reaction to that kind of a suggestion. You know, off the cuff, one of the thoughts that I had in an earlier back and forth. There was the question about limiting access or potential pooling. One of my thought processes and this this is maybe a redirect a little bit that that concept is number one. You know, it may mean that if the capacity is eight. Perhaps we just need to go to a more, I hit say formal but a more structured perhaps. You know, like in this case we set up a series of witnesses and testimonies for for this interview, perhaps when we're back in person. It's something largely the same if if you're not on the docket you can join via the via some sort of remote kiosk or like you say some other technological apparatus that we could make up. But but the thought of having some sort of existing structure and perhaps that structure as you suggest is based on the physical limitations of the meeting space you know in in your committee room. That is committee plus eight or plus five or whatever and in another committee room that's larger it's committee plus 10 you know you follow my logic. That might be a starting point where, where there's at least an equal opportunity to sign up to be in the room. And I know you don't want to disadvantage a person that's where the technological hybrid comes into play, but that's. That's the idea but I do think that if there's a sort of in person process that everyone is aware of. I don't think that that's a restriction so much as just a structure. And others may disagree with me and I would welcome that because I'm doing this live so. That's okay we do that as legislators all the time we constantly legislate on the fly. I am cognizant of the time I'm going to keep us moving along but let me also say that we know prior to coven 19. There were air problems inside the building that need to be addressed. One of them is the obvious mold in the building, but another one was the humidity levels and the close confines almost create a petri dish every year for legislators and others to pick up the flu or whatever the case may be. So the HVAC system I don't know if it's going to take care of that problem or not but I just want to alert you all that that remains a problem and that was prior to coven. We're doing our best to try to resolve it, but in the case of our committee room 225 square feet. There's a whole lot you can do if you've got 10 additional people beyond the committee and staff, trying to jam into the room that is problematic so anxious to hear from others about their reaction to that what if the sign says eight capacity. You're the ninth person coming along. How do you react to that. Thanks again for coming. Paul, I've got you down next. Hello, senators. Thank you for having me here today. I appreciate it. I will say one upside to this style of legislating as I can actually drink my coffee without a bloomer coming in and get out of my hands. I won't say that it's totally void of upside. Not to mention cell phones. For the record, my name is Paul Heinz, and I first covered the legislature on a very part time basis in 2007 when I was a local reporter for the Brattleboro reformer. I spent about nine years at seven days covering the legislature as a reporter as a columnist and for time as political editor. And for the last five months or so I have been the managing editor of VT digger.org. It's nice to see you all today. I will not mince words, which probably won't surprise many of the members here today. With all due respect to the general assembly and to his consultants. These recommendations are appalling. They are unacceptable, and they are unconstitutional. The framers of Vermont Constitution made quite clear. And I quote that the doors of the house in which the general assembly of this Commonwealth shall sit shall be open for the admission of all persons who behave decently. And the public relations would slam those doors shut on the public and the press. The authors of this report clearly do not understand what it means to provide access to legislative deliberations in the section describing the quote unquote pros of the proposal to allow only legislators and staff into the State House. They write the public access could be maintained merely by broadcasting and recording meetings. That's where they'd suggest that it could be maintained by allowing the public and press to watch live broadcasts from nearby quote public viewing rooms. This fundamentally misconstrues the role of the press. If we're to perform our duty of holding government to account. We must know what our government is up to the prospect of legislators writing laws for the citizen rate in a locked building. And when to hit record and when not to is horrifying, and it cannot happen. I recognize the challenges that you all have faced over the past 14 months, trying to preserve access legislative deliberations. And I would agree that in some ways, the move to zoom has added additional transparency accountability and access to those who have historically been unable to attend daytime meetings in Montpelier. We've also seen a number of truly troubling incidents during which legislators failed to or chose not to broadcast their work for the people. Just yesterday, a Senate committee learned that its YouTube stream was down and its leaders chose to plow ahead with public testimony in private. This is unacceptable. The way to prevent it is to have reporters in the room when a quorum of a public body is present. This is essential. And in my view, it's not negotiable. I understand how eager you are. You all are to return to the State House. But if you can't find a way to bring the public and the press with you. I think that you should think twice about doing so. We will fight this in the court of public opinion and if necessary, in court. I would also like to if I could very briefly answer a couple of the questions that you or respond to a couple of questions that you pose to some of the other witnesses and address with the public hearing. Senator Benning, I think you described the early part of these public hearings that is not broadcast to the public. As lacking what you called substantive conversations that it's just idle banter between friends and colleagues. The problem is that we don't know that that's the case. You tell us that that's the case, but there is no public record. There is nobody there to monitor it. You're asking us to trust you. And that's not what our job is. We trust but we also have to verify. It's not enough in my view for you to tell us that you're not conducting public business before you hit that go live button. In my view. If regardless of who goes back to the State House when if you are recording these, these meetings I hope that you continue to do so. The moment that a quorum of a committee or the House or the Senate is present. That is the moment in my view that the button should be pressed to go live to briefly address your question Senator Benning about what to do with the capacity of a problem. I think the answer to that is pretty simple. If you can't fit the public and the press in a committee room. You should find a larger committee room. It's not for us to figure out who to choose who comes who goes. It's up to you to find an adequate space to do your work. And I like Stuart and not an architect. And I'm not familiar with all the space available. I've read the report. But I do know a little bit about the city of Montpelier and I know that just down the road. There's the capital Plaza with the number of huge event rooms. And I can probably think of, you know, 10, 15 large rooms with a couple minutes walk of the State House. And I think that if the legislature wanted to find rooms that were big enough to accommodate the public and the press in the near term, the medium term, I think that you could do so. I would also just briefly address the question of limiting access to just a couple of reporters or to a pool. And I think that if I were to differ with some of my colleagues on this question, I don't think that's adequate or appropriate either. I think that you would encounter some serious problems if you were to try to decide how many reporters could come into a room, which reporters, who is a reporter. We talked about with all of you a couple of years ago when you had the wisdom and sagacity to pass a media shield law. And one of the things that we talked about at the time was how do you determine who is a reporter. And that is a really challenging question to answer. And it's not a question that should be answered in my view by government officials. And that was the view of the legislature as well. When you pass that media shield law, you, in your infinite wisdom shows not to try to limit what a reporter was to someone who reported for a print news outlet or a television station or what have you. You define it as an individual or organization, engaging in journalism, or assisting an individual or organization engaging in journalism. The time the news or information sought to be compelled was obtained. The point for that is that things change. 10 years ago, BT digger probably would have been considered a blog. You know, when and Galway my boss first started covering the legislature. I don't think she would have fall fell under any traditional definition of what a news organization was at the time. And she could have been excluded. If this was not an open policy. I don't think that it is the role of you and your colleagues to exclude people who are conducting journalism. And I don't think that we as reporters should should cave and allow limitations to be placed on how many people. How many reporters should be in the building at a given time so again, I will stop rambling but I will just reiterate that we want you to come back I want you to come back. But it is on you to figure out how to do that while falling the Constitution and providing the access that we all require. Appreciate your bluntness. You brought up a joke from yesterday when you cited the constitutional provision, which says the doors of the State House must be open. But the terminology is wrapped around to those with good behavior. And I was curious to know how it was that legislators managed to pass that initial hurdle. I've wondered that about Senator Mazza for quite a long time, but they continued to let him into the building so there are lots of things think about Dick McCormick you got your hand up first. Yeah, I want to thank you for your, your comment about that that the, the open hearing open to the public is really non negotiable. I agree and I'm, this is the first I've heard that there was a committee that conducted business out of the hearing of the public. And that's that's troubling but I want to mention that both committees that I serve on had trouble. And in both cases we simply recessed until the trouble was fixed. And in one case, recess, got the trouble fixed, and then had to recess yet again. And also that the President pro tempore of the Senate admonished us not to do our work out of the hearing in the public. So I think that's, I think we have an agreement on that point. I don't know if you're calling for a response. I appreciate that and I, I do want to be clear I recognize that, you know, you all are doing your best. And I very much appreciate the Senate President pro times insistence yesterday on shutting down committee hearings when the problem was affected. But the problem is in my view that we just we have heard of a number of times over the course of the last 14 months in which something was said before or after hearing was was live but what really worries me is what we don't know about right but we only hear about things when people tell us, or what it's very obvious because, you know, the, the live stream turns on halfway through a conversation, and that conversation sure sounds like has something to do with public business. I don't think that you all are deviously trying to avoid public scrutiny but I also think that you may have different standards about what information ought to be public and what conversations ought to be public. To me it's a very simple solution just keep just the part about when meetings should be broadcast. You know, to me the rule is when there's a quorum, you know, if it takes a while to get all of the senators on to the floor. I don't quite understand how that technology works by understand it takes a little while. And if that's the case then when that 16th Senator shows up, I think it ought to be, it ought to be viewable by the public at that moment, the same with the committee, you know, third committee members shows up in a five member committee, and it's live, it's public. So what would you do right now if YouTube, for some reason or other got disconnected what what would you expect this group to do at that moment in time to shut it down immediately. And that's my understanding is that is the expectation of the Senate President pro tem. And it doesn't matter, you know, you are not to, I mean, this is clear as day. You are not to continue doing the business of the public behind closed doors and it's not acceptable just to record a meeting and maybe put it online later on. The moment that, you know, let's think about it if you were in the State House if there was some reason you had to get rid of the public because of a safety threat, you know, security threat would you keep meeting then no you'd shut it down. And that's the same here. You, if there's a quorum of public body, and this is very clear in Vermont's open meetings law which your predecessors passed, arguably excluded yourselves, but passed it for all other public bodies in the state. And, you know, I think it's very clear. It's the same thing we asked of select boards. It's the same thing we asked of city councils. You know, if you've got a quorum of public servants at a party, and they start talking about public business. That's not kosher. If you're a quorum of public body. Writing each other over email starting to make decisions. That's not kosher that all needs to be done in the view of the public. So let me see if I get this right because I hear you saying two things. First, that it all should be in the public eye anytime there is a quorum available. And then second, you're, you're dancing around the conversation of whether public business is being conducted. I just want to make sure I'm getting the right message from you. YouTube shuts down right now. Is it your thought that this screen of people should immediately be disbanded because I'm trying to figure out logistically how do we get back together to figure out that we're actually ready to proceed. If we are in that, that gray area between actually conducting business. And I understand appreciate your comment about you need to trust us. But from a logistics standpoint, how do we literally get shut off on YouTube and make a move to assemble the group again. How do we get from here to there. The question is a bit of a trap. I'll do respect because I don't think that it's for us as members of the press to be answering these logistical questions, you know, it's not for us to design the layout of the State House. It's not for us to reserve a room at the Capitol Plaza to allow for you to meet. It's not for us to figure out how you log on to YouTube or zoom or whatever. I have a very clear principle here, and one that I will not give on at all and that is that, you know, you got to be in the view of the public so yeah I do think that if if the YouTube stream were to shut down right now I'd say log off. That would be my recommendation but you know I can't make the rules for you around how to go about doing this. I'm not. I don't have the answers to that but I do know what the principle is. I don't know the answer to that question either but that's part of this back and forth trying to figure out what are the parameters. Just so you know I keep looking down. I actually am taking fairly copious notes, and we're trying to gather enough information to have a proper conversation. I don't know if there's an answer to this question. Because literally you do have to assemble a group of people, and then you know it's time to turn on YouTube and it may be that you turn on YouTube first I don't know if technically that's possible. But this being part of the conversation if YouTube were to shut down right now, what you are suggesting is the screen here ought to disappear. And then somehow or other we have to pass messages back and forth to each other to come back and gather once YouTube is reconnected. Yes, that's what I'm saying and I and I think that's totally doable technologically and I, I don't think that's a huge problem. But that's an IT person to figure out not for me. All right. Yeah. If we were if we were live. This late in the session, there would be times when we the Senate would have convened in the chamber and work that we thought that the leadership thought we were ready to do. We were not, we would not be quite ready. It happens all the time. A negotiation just doesn't go as well as expected. Typically we would recess not adjourn, but recess until a time certain. And I think the technological version of that would be that we could stay hooked up. Everyone darken their screen. Everyone put their mic on mute. And stay with an airshot and at some point the chair or the staff would say, you know, okay, everybody we're back. Paul, would that suffice in your view. I think, I mean, you know, if nobody spoke a word, perhaps, you know, but the problem is, I mean, if in the, in the scenario that you lay out, Senator, if you know, and during those periods. If you were in, if you were in the building, and you recessed. There'd be some side conversations, you know, maybe everyone would kind of come up to the Dias, right, and start having some conversations about how to proceed. As you probably remember, I would rush up to the Dias as well to try to listen to what it is you're saying, I would get real close and I'd try to listen in. And, and we can't do that. And that's a real problem. So, yeah, I mean I'm, I'm, if you had to do that for some reason. Okay, but I'll mute, you know, gag rule no more talking till everyone comes back. Yeah. So prior to coven, we had a system in place where vpr was live streaming us but if we went on resets. I don't know the answer this is I'm thinking about it but I'm just trying to compare. When we went on recess, I think they want our connection was shut down. That's right, they went dark. But you had, but you had reporters in the room who at that point would would be able to go up to the Dias again like I said and ease drop. We would also know if say for example, I don't know actually how it works technically but whoever is in charge of turning that live stream back on say that person forgot to click that button to turn it back on right. So in the days when we're all in the same building, you at least had reporters there, they're present and they would be there to capture a record. And so that was a failsafe and that's a failsafe that doesn't exist now so now, if somebody forgets to hit that button that it's lost. And we have seen examples of that happening. It doesn't happen all the time that we know of but it does happen recordings have been lost. It's just it's a reality of this technology. All right, so my final quote for you is no quorum. Plus, YouTube equals shut down. Or did I get that backwards, no YouTube in a quorum equals shut down. I would agree with that formula. Okay. I can't make any promises I'm just trying to gather information here and figure out how to proceed with it also. Thanks for the comments. Any other questions for Paul. Devon I don't think you and I, I'm sorry Senator Mazza go ahead. If you set a time to start a meeting, I'd say two o'clock. Maybe I misunderstood this and there's five member committee and three members are there you don't have to start the meeting, you still have to wait for two o'clock is that correct. Well, in this scenario that I'm envision that I'm envisioning. I would say two o'clock meeting, but because you are very punctual Senator, I know that you'd probably be there at 155. And if two of your colleagues were there by 157. I would argue that one at 157 you click that button, you'd go a lot you'd go live at that point, the meeting may not formally start until two o'clock as warned, but we would at least at home be able to see what was going on when a quorum of members wasn't present for that meeting. So I guess as we were, I always thought time time was the was the precedent to start a meeting so it isn't it's when the quorum shows up. I'm seeing well I guess to to what I'm seeing starting the meeting and starting the feed as being two distinct things so yeah I would think that the meeting itself should be started at the time that it was warned. I mean, it's two o'clock, but the there's no reason why the YouTube stream I mean right now the YouTube stream starts whenever the chair says it should right so you all were here present at whatever time we started 130. And we started jabbering away and then when the chair chose to get going he he instructed the committee system to go live so I think you know in my view again. So when you start a quorum, you start the YouTube, or the zoom, the YouTube I guess, and then maybe you don't start the business until two o'clock until that previously warned, because everybody, the committees that that I've been serving on they wait till the time that then they go live at two 30 or three o'clock, they don't turn it on prior to that. So there is discussion going on just how was your weekend what's happening and so that I don't know that maybe someone else experience the same thing anybody other members of committee or experience that. Well I think it's pretty clear what Paul saying and we have never really had a major conversation about this but once you have reached quorum status. His position is the YouTube should be on and flowing. And if you are retaining a quorum status after the substantive topic is evaporated. You are still expected in Paul's eyes to maintain the YouTube link, as long as that quorum is still on the screen. And is that is that what we have to do I mean, if you if your meeting isn't done, and you're you go off and live it's now. Cory disappeared there you started an innuent Max head drum on me. Wait for Cory to come back. But I, I see this. The same conversation should be had about the opposite end of the meeting when the members are done with the topic for discussion usually turn off YouTube. What your position Paul is is as long as there is a quorum there even if they're only talking about what time are we meeting tomorrow. I would prefer to have us on live YouTube. Absolutely, whether it's before or after this meeting. You can't, you can't talk about anything I mean you can't talk about the family or the friends or the weekend or nothing else you have to go public with it. You sure you're welcome to talk about all of those things in my view but the public should be there to make sure that that's what you're talking about. You know I think you just brought a very good example center bending, you know when the meeting. That's part of the meeting ends. You turn off the feed and then you're talking about when you're going to meet the next day. I would think that's something that would be highly relevant to members of the public and press I think that's something that we should know. You know there's a lot of there. I mean, this is not new I think to the zoom era. There's always been there's always been the pre meeting and the post meeting right of any. I can say that sure you can say when your meeting is going to be your schedule for the next day but I just don't think there's an opportunity for anybody to have any other question any other come discussion about your private life I mean you can't. Once you've gone off officially. Can't you talk about something else without going. With all due respect and you froze their center so I apologize. No. I think I got most of what you were saying and with all due respect. I don't think that's the forum for those private conversations I think that if you have an expectation of privacy. It should not be, you know, when you're meeting as a public body for the state of Vermont. Well let's be clear about the line of demarcation. Your triggering device is the quorum. Once that's attained. I'm not saying that that is absolutely when the public needs to be listening on YouTube. And if there is not a quorum. I'm sure you would say you prefer to have it live streaming anyway but there is not that same clear line of demarcation that a quorum would bring about. That's the line of demarcation that I think is reasonable. You know, it's the same. It's the same and I've had this argument with many of you before, when a quorum of the house for example I know the Senate would never do this except that one time when I caught you in the basement of the Department of Labor building. But when it was that wasn't my caucus so you can't. Very true center that was not your caucus so you are not one of the offenders there. But let's just take the house because it's easier to besmirch the other body when you know there is a I'm just going to warn the rest of my committee this is a great time for the Fifth Amendment just remain silent. I'm not trying to draw you to trap but when when this when the House Democratic caucus has one of its famous offsite meetings. And they're basically talking about they're not based they're talking about public policy at those meetings, and they are perhaps they're doing it through a political lens but they're talking, they're basically making a plan for how they're going to do the business of the public. And I'm not going to say it in secret behind closed doors without notification to the public or the press. I've always believed that's completely inappropriate and I've written that many times I've harangued you all about this. We probably shouldn't I probably shouldn't bring this up. I regret doing so but the committee on committees that Senator Mazza is a longtime member of. I've always felt that when the, when that committee is meeting, it ought to be open to the public and the press, because it is a committee of the state legislature. Yeah, I mean I, I think I've been making the same argument for a very long time, and I will continue to make it. You know when there is a quorum of public body meeting. We ought to be present for it. Okay, you, you have received pushback from our legislative council I understand time. I have from the Secretary of State. No, I think your points of conversation are necessary as we move forward so I appreciate your bluntness, and you're willing to stand up for what you believe in that's perfectly part of this conversation and I appreciate you coming for that. Cory you got cut off you were about to ask a question and I don't know whether or not your question was answered. Cory are you listening. No, I'm still here. Dick McCormick can you hear me because you've got a hand up. I can hear you can you hear me. I can hear you I don't know where Cory went again but what's your question. First, I wanted to say that that all I actually agree with you. And even if I didn't my sense is sometimes is does everyone know the story of Jesse Owens at the 1937 or whatever it was Olympics, where he was a broad jumper, and his he was doing so well. It embarrassed the Nazis master race theory, and they kept ruling him that he had started he had overstepped the line. And what he finally did on his third and final try is he just jumped from about eight inches back behind the line just gave them the he didn't argue he gave them the the actually any any got a gold medal. Even if people disagree with with Paul's argument. We could we could do this, and it would just make for a higher level of public confidence in what would, and how we do our business. Because I think technology it's really not all that difficult. It's a version of what we do when the Senate is live. It's up to the to the person sharing to make a good estimate. I remember it's certainly well with a previous pro tem that we would spend a whole afternoon, recessing 10 minutes. We could have recessed for two hours and gone and done something but Dick let me just cut you off for a second Denise can you check the waiting room and see if Cory is trying to get back in. Sorry about that I didn't want to interrupt you. Yeah. No, I think that we want to air on the side of public trust. That's a term of art, you know what I mean, the public trusting us boy, you're talking different today than usual. Oh, mate. Cory, you're back. I tried to ask a question a couple times and you ended up off in max headroom. What, what's up. Yeah. No, I was gonna say, you know, importance of this, you know, the public's really important too but you know when we talk about governing in a bubble. I'm getting a lot of my information from the work that these folks on screen are doing, because we don't have the conversation, you know, in the hallways with our colleagues and so you know the information that comes out is just important us to do our work. It is, you know, for the public to know what we're doing or what's going on in the other body it's communications a lot more difficult now than it ever has been in this job and you know we, you know I'm relying on all sources that I, you know, typically I wouldn't be on Twitter and I don't have information in a committee or something but you're looking for that now because you know you're just trying to see what's going on across the building which you know we're not in. Yeah. Any other comments questions for Paul. Mike you had your hand up. Thank you Mr Chairman, just following up we had sort of talked about the beginning of when to record, but you know the ending is. The last night that I saw firsthand at a select board meeting where there was a last minute executive session, it came out. They voted in action. Some people in the audience. Didn't know about it they started asking questions, the select board adjourns. They tried answered a few questions but didn't answer others quickly adjourns. And the YouTube several people came up to the table to ask the select board questions. And the YouTube just shut right off. And so there was obviously some sort of, I won't say confrontation dialogue between those in the audience, not feeling that they had been given all the answers and everything like that and obviously a quorum was still right in front of the audience and everything was answers being given. And the people at home have no idea what was told at that point so it is important that both ends as to when the recording is in. And the other thing is it's not an exact parallel but if you ever look at c span, and the audio is off, but you can still see the video and you can see who's talking to who and you can call it Peter Welch and say, Hey, I saw you talking to Nancy Pelosi. What were you talking about or something like that so it is important to record and make available as much as possible. Thank you. Mike just you're bringing up an issue issue here I hadn't thought about before but if we go back into the state house. And for the most part we're all back we're doing things like we used to do. But we've added this new component of zoom streaming. And Paul this comes back to you, if the zoom button suddenly disappears from my screen and I realized we're not transmitting anymore. Does the committee business shut down at that point. This question for me for you, you too. I'll take a stab at it I mean I think that's. If you've got reporters, if you have full access to the room with reporters. I think it is a little less reasonable to expect you to shut down. That's a backstop in my view. I do think that there are probably ways to prepare for that possibility for example having audio recording going on at the same time. Just as a fail safe, and I would recommend that as well to at least have a, you know, a copy of that for posterity. But I think the key is to have reporters there and members of the public there, when the business is being conducted, the argument that I was making really I think is mostly focused on the all zoom scenario. Okay. I got you I just want to make sure we're both on the same page. And I would, I certainly concur. I, I think you could always take a two minute break and just say hang on a minute. Let's see if the button can be reset or something like that I mean I don't, I don't think it's too much of a problem, because sometimes an IT guy can get you back up and running. Yeah, with a little delay. Jay, I, to your hand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if I could just point out all of this haranguing over YouTube would be eliminated if we just had access to the state house. So, how much easier our lives would be. Yeah, no, I understand that but I have been quoted a couple of times recently as saying zoom is going to be a permanent part of our life. Because then become a triggering mechanism for when the committee can and cannot meet or is it just there to monitor as best it can the proceedings, assuming we have reporters in the building and everybody's acting as we usually do. I understand Paul very clearly that this is a zoom only environment question we're talking about if the zoom shuts down and we have a quorum, we should shut down. Anybody else for questions at this moment in time, Devin. I don't see anybody else's hands coming up. I'm not sure we've ever met before so if we could figure out who you are and how you fit into this conversation we'd appreciate it. Thank you, Senator bedding. So my name is Devin Bates. I've been a reporter for local 22 local 44 news in Colchester for three years, but I just became our primary stay house correspondent this legislative session. And so obviously I haven't stepped foot in the state house but I've been covering it for the whole session. I did been downgraded by your channel I mean. Well, some might say that. But prior to that I did have the opportunity to cover certain meetings, public hearings, state of the state addresses and things like that so I had a little bit of a sense on how things work on the day to day. And I just want to start off saying a support what fellow members of the media have said, and it's not lost on me that they all have exponentially more experience than me in Montpelier when it comes to this stuff. But I thought it was important for local 22 local 44 to be here as well. And particularly what Stuart and Jay had to say from a TV perspective. I thought that was really insightful diving into daily coverage of the legislature remotely has been a bit of a mixed bag. And I'm always kind of a one man band I'm carrying the camera, all the equipment so I'm saving time by not having to travel and lug for bags of equipment up to flights of stairs. I enjoy that part of it. So I'm able to sort of maximize the workday and bring viewers more coverage because I'm not spending all that time just kind of getting to where I'm going. I'm not having to prioritize, you know which issue are we going to cover today. If there's two committee meetings happening in the same time, then I don't have to decide which one to go to. And so that has been really good. On the other hand, the public. I miss how relevant they were in testimony beforehand. So I can think of a few times. I showed up for a hearing there were people lined up outside both side doors of the state house. I miss the ease of access for the public because then that allows us to share their concerns a little easier and I know that there have been, for instance, you know parents testifying about childcare things like that on zoom. It's been great because then these parents who have a busy schedule are able to speak to you guys directly in a way that I don't know what have been possible before. So I don't want to bash on these remote meetings too much because I think there's been a lot of good that has come out of them. So many times you're able to hear from them a little more because I when I'm up on the second deck in the house there shooting the camera down. I've had to do stories where it's the back of this person said when they're testifying. I mean, it's hard to really convey what they're feeling, or get the sense of their testimony when you're not really seeing them. One of the things I think being able to see each person's individual face on zoom has been good. I'm concerned that if the legislature goes back in person that we might get stuck sort of in the middle of this easy to access remote meeting, and then the full in person coverage that I was talking about. So say you're in a small committee room, only a certain amount of people are allowed in. If you're still streaming it live I'm curious if it's going to be like we see now where everybody can be clearly seen or if that live stream is then going to be a wide angle that's not necessarily conducive to TV you're not seeing people up close their facial expressions and things like that. And I think it was sewer who mentioned is the nature of those rooms isn't quite ideal for cameras sometimes but I think that there's a lot to be said about making sure that you know if there is still a streaming option that you're able to sort of see clearly and it's not this wide angle shot of everybody. You know that's just one of the concerns that we have to take into account TV or putting together a story. I'm just looking to make sure that I sort of got all my comments out of here. There's a way to bring back the sort of important public participation that we saw before the pandemic by utilizing the larger spaces as you mentioned, or as the report mentions an option be. But I just have concerns about the smaller meetings becoming more inaccessible in person and less engaging for viewers to get across. So that's all I had a thing for a time. I think that you're coming questions for Devin. Devin I will say in listening to part of your conversation that unless and until your industry invents a universal television camera equivalent to the universal microphone that you put in the middle of the table and everybody gets picked up. I'm not sure how to resolve the back of the head problem. Because I know I've been in committee rooms where they've never gotten anything but the back of my head and that's always you try very hard to make sure they get to front. I've been trying for 10 years and so you're succeeding you're succeeding pretty much every time. You're pretty close to the camera. As you can see we know each other a lot and we love to be with each other. I just want to ask Paul a question is Paul still with us. I am. Are you ever going to come back to state house your new position now or what because we didn't see the last year or so there when you were before we went. You are you going to cover the state house anymore you're you're going to do position now. Do you want me to come back. Well I know we miss you you know because you always are right there you know I just. Miss you senator as well. I did. I was I did. Well I tried to come back for a little bit. Last year before the plague started. Also a presidential primary going on. Believe it or not that was only a year ago. I called to congratulate you on your new position but I never heard anything I said my God he doesn't even take his calls anymore now. I don't think I got that message maybe. Well I will make it up to you and I will stop by the store sometime very soon. All right. I will visit you in person. There's a form of a committee there when I get there. I'm going to turn on YouTube. Just like the governor dick he's risen to such a level that only certain people are allowed access. There you go that's what I thought I called them on to congratulate was new job and that's it I never heard anymore that was a but I didn't know you had to go through somebody now to talk to. You know my reporters would like to have less access to me so. You should talk to them they might be more than happy to trade. But if you open yeah you'll see me I'll still come visit you. Okay, thank you. I promise. So let me ask anybody else want to make a comment, have a question. Not seeing anything I want to make a couple things really clear the Freeman French Freeman report. Was presented to us as a way to consider space options. We learned yesterday that the operational components that go on in that space were really not covered in the report and I think the architects concede that your presentation here today dovetails with that the press access and public access. It was discussed to some extent but not in the operational forms that you folks all need to have. And I think the architects would also concede that I do not believe that option a or option B is going to be concrete for us if, if anything we are looking at hybrid models. So part of this conversation today is frankly an honest attempt to try to get as much information as we can before we start making concrete decisions. So a couple of things. This is again the tip of the tip of the iceberg, you will likely be invited back for other conversations with other committees. We recognize that we want you to know we are thinking about you in the process. And so we really do appreciate you coming here today to express your opinions. Having said that it is five past three. I think we've exhausted the topic for the moment. I would like to ask you to correspond if there are things that pop into your heads later on, because we will be continuing to gather notes and just for your knowledge we have lobbyists coming tomorrow should be all another conversation. Mr chair, can we talk about everything after they we go off live. Yeah, I want to, I want to get rid of them so we can talk about them while they're not here. So for YouTube purposes, the conversation. The topic of conversation has ended. I'm going to follow Paul's lead for the moment and say, Denise will just leave the YouTube on for a moment and they can hear what we actually talk about when the screen goes dark. But I don't usually say much I just log out. No, that's, I'm surprised you're still here actually. Chairman you can wait and hear that with the media all says to one another about you. Yeah, I can record right now on my phone. Mr chair, Mr chair, who did the best job. What do you think it's the best guy. Again, the fifth amendment comes into play here. I should tell a kind of a funny story about this building in this process. I'm a lawyer and I have to go through continuing legal education. And every year, legislative council has a continuing legal education course for all of legislative council. And if you really want to hear funny stories about legislators you should try to get into one of those continuing legal education class. That I had was laughing and just in stitches over. We, we got a lot of stories about lawyers so that's good. Yeah, I know. Well, anyhow, committee you guys are free to go everybody else is free to hang around committee you can hang around if you want to but Denise I got to know about tomorrow. Okay, have a list of witnesses. Thank you again Mr chairman. Thank you guys again for many. Thank you very much. Do we have witnesses on schedule for tomorrow is the question. Actually, we don't have a lot, but we have about four right now I presume we'll have more. Okay. If you get a list together by like around 11 o'clock tomorrow if you could shoot it to me. I'm not on the floor but I need to figure out what time exactly to meet. I'm assuming we're going to be meeting at one o'clock. Okay, that's what I have down hold on to that for as long as we can. Okay. Okay, looks like the quorum is gone so I can safely. Thank you very much. I really do appreciate it. I'm happy to come back and lecture you guys some more. Paul is going to be out at six o'clock tonight waiting for something to happen here. He's still on YouTube now so he has to make decisions that are very careful. I'm signing off Denise if you can take us off YouTube will say goodbye to everybody thanks again for coming.