 So, that's the end has to leave in a little bit because she has to go to the house. Would you like to tell us where 124 is in the process, what's going on with it. Sure. Hello everybody. Morning. Good afternoon. Sorry. Did I say this morning? I said, I think I said this morning this morning. Yes, the house took up as 124 second reading the house approved house recommended strike all to the bill. The house was not able to consider the follow up amendment that is proposed by representatives Copeland hands us and Gardner. They just didn't have access to it at the time. And so that is still pending and the house plans to request a suspension of the rules this afternoon to take up as 124 for third reading. And prior to third reading, consider the Copeland hands us and Gardner amendment. I think that we discussed the other day. Gail has posted it on your website. Thank you, Gail. It's the draft 2.1 amendment that has the four instances of amendment that are proposed to the house gobop strike all those four instances of amendment cover three different areas. The first one is who can be appointed chair of the Vermont criminal justice council. The second one is the house gobop strike all would have said that the governor would appoint the chair from among the seven gubernatorial appointees. Instead, this would this first instance of amendment would say that the governor will appoint the chair of the council from among a specified list of council members, which are those members that are not related to law enforcement. And the second and third instances of amendment is in regard to the prohibition on facial recognition technology. In the house gobops recommend strike all there was a statutory prohibition on the law enforcement use of facial recognition technology, except as it's currently permitted. For drones under current law. The follow up amendment would. Get rid of that statutory prohibition in place there of put a session law moratorium on law enforcement officers use of facial recognition technology until the use of facial recognition technology is authorized by an enactment of the general assembly, but still allowing it to be used on drones as permitted under the drone law. And related to this is the third instance of amendment, which requests a report back from the council as part of the list of law enforcement recommendations. For the council to recommend any uses for law enforcement officers to use facial recognition technology. So that would come back with the other reports that are required of the council. And then the third topic that's in the fourth instance of amendment is the deadline for the regional planning commissions to submit their inventory of all of their town's public safety resources. If you recall in lieu of the senate's proposed. Requirement for each town to have a public safety plan house gobops strike all amendment would have eliminated that, but as a substitutes provide that each regional planning commission has to have one inventory of all of their town's public safety resources. In the house gobops recommended strike all it was a deadline for the regional planning commissions to do this by July 1, 2022. They are the follow-up amendment would move up that deadline to be December 31st, 2021. Okay, so they're going to take that up this afternoon and hopefully do third reading and suspend the rules and messages to us. Yeah, it's going to depend on suspension of the rules, whether they will get that for third reading. And if that does happen, then it's my understanding that they'll take up this amendment. And then I would think that they would, if it does pass third reading that they would message it over to you. Okay. Thank you. So I have a committee. I just want to relay some conversations that I've had around some of this. There is. And I. There's a lot of pretty deep concern. In the law enforcement public safety community around. The legislature's. Tendency to be micromanaging them. And I, I have. Some empathy with that because I think that. For example, the, the. One about the dispatch fees. They, that really is, I think. Kind of micromanaging it. So. And, and they also, so my conversations have. Kind of focused on that broad. I think that's a really good feeling. But also then on a couple of very specific things. One. That I tried to get. Some read on was the facial recognition. And at this point, no one is using it. There are, there is some facial recognition in body cameras and stuff, but it's not the kind of technology we're talking about here. So I think that's a really good feeling. And I think that's a really good feeling with that, because no one is using it now anyway at that, that type of facial recognition. The deadlines that we put on for reports, there are. Some of them seem to be quite unreasonable. And given the amount of work that they're the council. And is particularly the council, but also DPS is going to have to do. And so I think that the general agenda that we've had. Have been. Around how those reports might be generated. Many of them are already addressed by the executive order. And so people are working on them. For the executive order, which will be. Presented sometime in October. For an example of that is when we asked for the AG's office to convene a group to talk about community oversight or community review or whatever we want to call it. DPS and the council are already, they're already looking at that and they're working with the AG's office. And the reason we put AG in charge of that I think was because primarily of Julio Thompson who has done a lot of work in that area. I have tried to convince them that we don't really care who convenes the meeting to do the report. If DPS or the council or whoever gets together a group and works with the AG's office and other groups personally, I don't know about the rest of you but personally I don't care who convened the meeting and who kind of felt in charge of it to come up with the report. If the report comes up with some recommendations that's I think that's what we want and we tried to include the groups that should be worked with and DPS they are going to be working with community groups because they hired ATON to very specifically make sure that community groups were consulted and involved in the process of all these reports. And as far as deadlines. If we have a deadline of January 15, and they come in and say, you know, we just, we could not complete this report by January 15. I'm not, I'm not going to. I don't know about you but I think that if they come in with a progress report that's what we want. We want people working on these. I'm not, Betsy Anne, did you. Yeah, just related to what you just said the language in the bill and this was as past the Senate also was that that January 15 deadline was on their progress in regard to the following topics including any recommendations for legislative action so I think it could be read as a progress report on how things are going. Okay, that's so that's there and then the other one around the dispatch fees. I think that's something we have to address again next year, but I quite honestly don't want that to kill this whole bill. So, if the house accepts it. I think that's a good suggestion as we accepted and then I told Commissioner Sherling that we'll work with him next year on on that issue. So I don't know where, but here, let me just throw this out too because I, I, I know that we need to make changes. There's a lot that needs to happen. But I also know that people have been working on this for a long time and have been trying that the Council and Sherling and people have been working in the right direction and working on the assumption of the 21st century policing guidelines. And my fear is that as we try to micromanage too much that people. That's Jennifer Morrison right in Burlington, and Gunny Fitzgerald in Bravo. And how much of their retirement was due to this I don't know but my fear is that we will lose the really good people who are working to go in the direction that we're, we want them to go and that many, many law enforcement to go and that will lose those good people and end up with not such sympathetic people to our positions. So I just I had to throw that out because I think this is an issue that we need to take seriously so anyway, I just wanted to share what I've been hearing and what I've been talking with about to the Commissioner and Chief Brackell and some other people so so there you have it. It's all I had to say, Brian. Madam chair. I'm fine with the change about the facial recognition. I find with the change in date. But I still feel strongly enough about the chair, having to be selected from non law enforcement people that I can't support the amendment that the houses. You guys can go ahead and make it for one if you want but I just I feel strongly enough. Yeah, and I understand that I think that the more I think about it, I, it's okay with me, because you have the, the chair would be working really closely with the executive director of the Academy. I think that's the chair and the director would have to be working together, and the director, the ED of the Academy is going to be a law enforcement person. So you will have that kind of that kind of balance and I think the fear is that if you had both positions being law enforcement, that you might have been a law enforcement people on the council might be feel intimidated. So, but I understand your concern. Anybody else, Betsy. Oh, Anthony was Betsy saying goodbye. Yeah, okay. Thank you Betsy. Anthony. I just wasn't sure where you're coming where you're going when talked about the dispatch fees. You say that they wish they shouldn't be in the bill that department should not be in the bill or just where you're going. Remember we had in the we had in there that the they would do it by rulemaking and they would set the fees and then there would be this. What do you call it gradually setting the getting the fee so that it wasn't a cliff so that towns were. And the house changed it so that they. They have to work with all these different groups around setting the fees, and then it has to come back to the legislature to approve the fees. And so it's a much longer. And complicate more complicated, more, much more complicated and longer and. That's what they don't like. Yeah, they feel that that is micromanaging them. Okay, I was just, that's fine. Yeah. I think we can whoever is here next year can address that again and figure out how to make it less cumbersome. Sure. Yeah, in your conversations with law enforcement did they feel they had adequately been able to make their case for that in the house go box. It's interesting because there's a lot of stuff right now aimed at law enforcement and ours is probably the least is making the least changes and the least demands. And so the in the house, it got all mixed up also with s 119. Right, which is the use of force bill and. And I think they felt they really didn't weren't able to have input there, although some House members will tell you that they had too much input. So it's just. But I think they didn't say they didn't have time to weigh in on that they that particular issue. I'm just curious if they felt they'd been heard, because that would be concerning if they hadn't been able to make their case for keeping it as it was with us. Yeah. And I can see, I guess both sides of it. The legislature usually approves fees in the fee bill. Other fees, but this is a little bit different. And I think they already have a fee schedule that they think is a fair fee schedule and are looking to finalize it and then go through the rulemaking process. So anyway, dispatch continues to be a thorny path for us to navigate law enforcement in general, I think is a thorny path. And because we have such a bizarre system, non system. Yes, our past work doesn't help. Anyway, that's where it is. So I'm, I'm hoping that the House will approve the changes. And Ryan, you're okay with the other changes, right? Just not that one. Yes. So when we report it, we can say that the committee was unanimous on all the changes except for that one section. And that's why the vote was. Is that fair? Yeah. Okay. And then I'm hoping that the governor will sign it. Yeah, so I guess that's my other question about law enforcement. Are they frustrated enough so that they, so that we, the governor might not support this bill. No, I don't, I think they're frustrated in general, whether this bill suffers because of it. And I do understand their frustration in general and I, it's, it's a really hard issue and some of the things that we're doing I think are, are not the right things to do but not in this bill, I didn't mean, but they're frustrated and you know, who would, who would want to go into law enforcement today and who would want to stay in there. And so I, I, I think this is a real fear that will lose good people who are working in the direction of making the changes that we want them to make. True, true that. And I hate to see that, but yeah, it's. Some of the best people I think in a way can be most sensitive to the claims against the worst. And it wears them out more than the people that you would hope would change their ways. Yeah. Yeah. That's not what we do about that except that we just keep plugging away. Well, I mean to your point I'm just thinking where is rather late but I don't know if they, and maybe it's more for next year or maybe it's conversations we all have during the. Wait, during the off session, and that is, you know, to reach out in positive ways to law enforcement so they're hearing something more than just us picking on, you know, all well intention but they hear some positive things about what they're doing more than just always hearing about, well, could you make this better. I mean, no writer for instance lights only to get edits on their work they would like to hear that someone's appreciating what they already wrote even if the edits could improve the book you know. Well, and to that and in terms of what we can do Chris. I believe Matt Birmingham at least the commander and our barracks in the Royalton barracks are reaching out to their towns and going to select boards and and having conversations with them. And I think that's happening statewide. Maybe I'm wrong maybe it's just here in Windsor County, but I, I encourage us all to be in touch with our commanders of the barracks and and try and go to some of those meetings with them and and support, you know, support their efforts to, you know, open dialogue with their communities that they represent. And with local PDs and sheriffs also. Yeah, but I know specific I was. This is a specific effort and I believe Matt that that it statewide but I maybe it's you know I'm pretty sure it is but anyway, we can find out. Yeah, well, I think that and Chris is right that it would be. I've been trying to do that in my conversations. You know it's, if all you hear is how terrible you are. Yeah, it's hard to keep a positive attitude and not want to just jump ship. So, and even if it's not how terrible you are but just you could do better here you could do better there you could do better there like sometimes people like to be acknowledged for what they're already doing. They're doing well, you know, I see the police blotter and I, it reminds me of, you know, how many crimes and stuff these guys are still in the background, you know, we're not hearing about over there. They're still living with a lot of, you know, crime all over the state, still doing their job. And so, well, I don't want it's easy to forget that part. Like the, the commissioner told us, and he re emphasized this in judiciary the other day that in 2019 there were 115,000 events with just the Vermont State police in. And that meant that they had contact with in each of the in those events with about 300,000 people 300,000 people 115,000 events. And in only 183 of them was anything beyond compliant handcuffing used. So we hear about all the use of force and the terrible actions by them, and yet there were 183 out of 115,000. And there was any resulted in an action more than being handcuffed. Compliant handcuffed. Yeah. So that that isn't a very high number of them having to use. I mean, it's still a lot. And maybe some of that went way beyond where it should have, but that's anything beyond compliant handcuffing. Well, that was 2019. Well, that's a lot, that's actually a lot of events. That's people calling you for everything from things they're suspicious of to actual things that are happening. And that's just the Vermont State police. Then you have all the local and all the sheriff so. And we didn't get numbers on those but anyway, I don't mean to get so preachy, but I'm very concerned about this. So anyway, Brian. So in another matter, I just heard from the administration that the house has not concurred with the Senate on the budget. And is going to go to a conference committee apparently. Not really. That's what I heard. That doesn't surprise me. We were. There were some pretty major differences. Well, that just keeps us here another. Who knows how long. My guess is they'll resolve them fairly quickly. We might be here till Saturday. Is that what you're thinking. I don't, I don't know that's true. No. I just wanted to let you know what I heard. I just wanted to let you know what I heard. I just wanted to let you know that the two chairs can have an extra meeting. Accelerate our progress. Jane, Jane said yesterday that kitty is so happy. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you, Brian. All right. So. I assume that we would probably end up there just because. I don't know that just as we walked through it. It was very clear. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the exact differences in, in the, where we ended up on money. See, I didn't think there were that many. I thought they were all minor. So is it what I know? Yeah. An economic development, not minor. I mean, there's some pretty major different amounts and stuff. So committee. If we don't get, if we get one. We may not need to meet tomorrow. Because. Are you getting ready to make an unannouncement? No, I'm not. I'm not ready to make an unannouncement. But if, if. Whatever they pass over to us, unless it's very different. Then what it is now. We will concur. Four to one with the understanding that. All of the differences were acceptable. To all of us, except for one. And if we do that. I don't know that we need to. Meet again at all. Do we? Oh. Unless they do something with 354. What is 354? That's our emergency. Our, our lessons. Yes. Where are they with our lessons? Bill. I don't know. Where are they with our 10 pilot towns, Bill? Well, I asked about that earlier. I know. It'll die. Well, we'll just have to do it again. Yeah. No, that's a good question. If you and Sarah talked about, obviously you must have talked about the lessons learned bill. Yeah, but they were so busy with 124. And they also were. Involved with one 19, which I didn't quite understand. I didn't understand. I didn't understand. I didn't understand. I didn't understand the course bill. And in the Senate, it's just in judiciary. We didn't do it at all. But they were, they also did that. So. Okay. Well, thank you. It's a. Okay. Well, we may, we may need to do, do we need to do a formal vote? Or is this sort of our vote on 124? If it all sugars down the way you're expecting. Yeah. If you would like to do a formal vote on it and then. I think. Okay. I mean, we don't exactly, I think it's premature in that we don't actually know what. Yeah. We don't need a vote. You're just concurring or not concurring with the House proposal amendment. Right. And if it is as it. As it seems that it's going to be. Then we will concur four to one with the understanding that. And then we'll have to. We'll have to. We'll have to. All five of us agreed. Except on one issue. Right. Okay. But if it changes considerably, then we'll have to. Yeah. Do something else. And then. So we should watch and see if we need to meet. Tomorrow. For either that or. 354. Great. We will hang. Okay. For tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are we back in the floor at one normal time? Or are we starting earlier? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Right. Thank you.