 Okay, and this is Senate government operations and we're starting today with looking at the governor's executive order that he we think he just lifted right out of our bill as 124. So, I'm glad he's reading our bills. And we have with us, Commissioner Shirley, and I see today Matt Birmingham actually has a face. Usually he's just this little white thing like that or a telephone. And Ingrid Jonas is with us major Jonas. So at through and I don't know how long we'll take with this and then we'll look at Betsy and we'll go through some of the house changes that have been made up to this point with 124 so we can keep abreast of that. At three o'clock, we are moving into a different virtual room, and we're going to join the House general and military affairs to hear from General Knight and Ed Stannick and Richard. Pinsky. That was wrong, but I know it was but you know who I mean. I wasn't too bad. I wasn't too bad actually. Okay. So, okay. So that's that's the drill for today. So let's start with looking at the comparative what the governor's executive order means for 124 and how, if there are differences how will we resolve those and, and just kind of walk through that so if you would like to just leave this discussion that would be great. Oh, I will do my best senator. And if if lifting is the greatest form of flattery I think a lot of this actually originates with our 10 point strategy that we put forth and in June and and I think shared is probably the best way to to describe it. You are right. I think that we're all. Many of us are going in the same direction and the fact that they kind of all converged right now is. And so I would say, Commissioner, if you want to kind of just take it away here and I would say if Matt and Ingrid want to join in at any time that's that's kind of this is your show for a while. Okay. Okay, I'll be I'll be brief. And I haven't, I haven't done a line by line comparison of the differences necessarily in terms of the executive order. I've done a high level side by side section analysis. So I'll, I'll work from from that. Both the executive order and 124 have a section around best practice for hiring and promotion. Do on the executive order side do on the 1st of December but actually we're planning to deliver a package I believe is we're going to do everything that was on the the executive order list some of which was due October 1 and some December 1 we're going to we're planning to try to deliver all of that on October 1 with one exception and that relates to the training section of the executive order and that's only because we are still awaiting the arrival of an executive director for the criminal justice training council so it doesn't seem fair to to do that in the absence of a director. So with that side note relative to timelines. We're planning to deliver some templates around hiring and promotion for October 1. In that's 124 there's a section on this is all under section 10 a sub one a directs the lea be to do some similar work. So we're going to go line by line and then we'll come back if that makes sense or I can stop at your discretion. Committee what would you like to do would you like to go through all of it or ask questions as we go along. Either way. Let's go through it all then and then. Okay. Yeah, I think. There are two report outs and the governor's executive order. Data system one on body worn cameras. There is a report out on body worn cameras in 124 again 10 a subsection six. There is a section on an executive order on a statewide use of force policy which would include the circumstances under which quote unquote military equipment would be utilized in the governor's executive order. There is a component of that the military equipment component is subsection seven of 10 a in 124. There is a report due to the governor on training in the executive order and there is a more broad assessment of the criminal justice training council and some additional items. In sections to a and to be of 124. So there's a place where there is a difference in scope and in particular that I'll call out while I said I didn't have line by line there's a couple areas that that stand out as having a different scope of work. And that's one of them. There is the next section in the executive order has a direction to develop some ideas around a statewide investigative model for internal investigations. I don't have a note indicating that that is in 124 although there's some community oversight. There's also a direction to deliver some model community oversight concepts to the governor in the executive order and section three directs of 124 of subsection three of 10 a and 124 directs the attorney general to work with stakeholders to do the same. There is a section in the executive order that directs us to report. These are in. I'm sorry I just conflated two things. One is direct delivery of the investigative model and that community oversight component is directing us to propose a legislative model. So they're in two different sort of large sections of the executive order. One is directing reports in action and the other is directing legislative proposals. So I apologize I conflated two different approaches with two different things there. Under the section that's legislative proposals. I mentioned one of the three which is the community oversight models which also exists in 124. There's a direction around proposal for universal a universal reporting portal and a methodology for the release of data around investigations and law enforcement in the executive order subsection four of 124 contemplates similar action. And the governor's executive order. Ask for some models around use directs use models around use of force investigation and review and I don't have a note indicating that that's in 124 specifically. So that is the that's the high level overview of the sections of the executive order and how they relate to 124. So I just have two two things. In 124. When these are addressed. It asks for different groups to get together. We tried to think who would be the most appropriate groups to work on each of the issues but certainly it could be expanded to include other groups and other agencies or departments. Is that the same. Does the executive order. Ask for the same input from or expectation of input from outside groups such as le a b and the Human Rights Commission and different groups. I think it does the very first short term priorities compute is a community participation and we've started some of that process. I think the methodology we're hoping to employ here is to frame up the ideas. So rather than just go out to the communities and say, what do you think about topic X. So that's the framed concepts for feedback. So it's a little more galvanized process from the outset. So that's the approach that we're taking. And then, I guess, unless people have other questions, if you would like to expand a little bit on the training issue but first I guess just anybody have any questions about where we are so far. Sounds like we're kind of all headed in the same direction here. Brian. Thank you madam chair. I think Betsy might be able to answer this. Um, is there anything in 124. And in the executive order that puts things at odds that that makes something not work the way either side have intended. I didn't ask that very well. Thank you. No, you did. And it was good. Yeah, hi for the record Betsy and rasta legislative council hello everybody. The only thing that's, I agree with you madam chair and with the commissioner if he mentioned it to it does seem like the governor and the legislature are looking at the same similar issues in both the executive order and s 124. The case where I thought that there might be a conflict is that in the executive order. There is language for there to be a recommendation to the criminal justice training council as to a model body camera policy. And in s 124 as past the Senate, the proposal is for the LAB to maintain its authority to have to create its model body model body camera policy. The general assembly required the LAB to create one in 2016 s 124 would require the LAB to consider any revisions to it. And then as past the Senate the language would say that starting on January 122, any agency that authorizes its officers to use a body cam has to comply with the LAB policy, whereas it's executive order the proposal was for the criminal justice training council to create a model body camera policy. I'll just note that on the house side in house gov ops, their current draft would transfer the model body camera policy from LAB to the council, which would be consistent with the governor's executive order. Thank you. Okay, thanks. I should just add madam chair that wasn't a specific mindful attempt to transfer. It's just the way the language landed without without contemplating the existing language around the LAB. So in, in coming up with this though, could we assume that you would at least consult with the LAB since they have that is one of their roles. Yes. I know you're going to find this hard to believe but the same folks that serve on the LAB largely to serve on the criminal justice training council. I know hard. It is tough to extricate those two things from one another. It is. I don't know if the same thing happens up there but it reminds me of down here. We have so many nonprofits and so many organizations and so many boards that you can be in one meeting and then go to the next meeting and all but one person goes and there's one additional person and then they just came. It's a lot of the same people. So be careful not to have an inadvertent quorum and have a meeting by accident. That's, that's Anne. I'll just know to put it on everybody's radar that S 124 would substantively amend the membership of the criminal justice training council. So it would if enacted as currently considered by house give ups. It's a lot different than it does today. Whereas the LAB would remain nearly as it is now which is more of a focus on law enforcement related members. Okay, I, when we get there I would like you to go through that what they're considering changing. So, Anthony. This is a very basic question. I mean obviously we're working on just two different things going on here that are very powerful out. I'm just wondering why, what's, what's the difference between I don't mean the practical different I don't mean like specifically the elements of them but we have an executive order which becomes implemented when the governor executes it we have legislation that has to be approved by everybody signed by the What will the question be like why are we bothering to do this if the governor's already done it or vice versa I'm just wondering what which one of these how they interact with each other. If I may madam chair I think the view that we had was not knowing how complex the work was going to be for the general assembly coming back into this unusual session. The governor wanted to keep the momentum going on these key areas so that's why the executive order was issued. It does provide I think an opportunity for us to, if we were to put the legislative components on pause for 90 days gives us an opportunity to do a bunch of work that's already in motion. You'll then have the benefit of being able to review that work and then contemplate which components you'd like to move forward with or modify or may not be necessary given the outcomes of those things so to put you in a position of advantage in January to have a more in depth conversation about some of these things that's an option. The force of law similar for both. Betsy is that the same same force of force of law. In the executive order and s124. Yeah, I mean executive order lasts as long as executive order lasts as opposed to legislation which goes on forever. So the executive order is, as I see it in commissioner I don't want to mischaracterize this so please correct if I'm, I'm not giving an accurate characterization but it is its recommendations to the governor as I see it overall. S124 is requiring miscellaneous entities to provide recommendation to the general assembly for future legislation that the general assembly might consider. But then s124 also does imposes actually many substantive changes, but if we're looking at the recommendations aspect of only s124. And generally it's the executive order requiring recommendations to the governor, which the governor might then proposed to the general assembly after the governor considers those recommendations, or as s124 is requiring a variety of entities to the report directly to the legislature, you could reach the same result where many of these entities are making similar recommendations. It seems like it would all go if there's going to be any statutorily enacted requirements so it all has to go to the general assembly for the general assembly to use as it wields its law making authority. Yeah, I, I think that I don't see any conflict with them and I would hate to the governor is legislation required wherever the the report came from, it's going to have to come to the legislature. If there isn't legislation required, then it's going to go to the appropriate training council or wherever it's going to go. And, and I just my my hesitation in because because what we're talking about really is here is that last part of 124 we're not talking about the rest of 124 at all there's a lot of stuff in here in 124, but my hesitation in saying that those studies should be put off for 90 days. I want to make sure that the appropriate groups and entities are involved in the conversation. And, however you do that if you do advise, as you suggested commissioner, coming up with some kind of a framework, and then going out to communities and engaging them and coming up with it. I would hate to see, because, for example, on the body or the release of information I guess we're talking about if that was one of them. We were very clear in making sure that the press association, for example, was involved in, or the media was involved in that I believe and the ACLU was involved in different things so I, I don't see them happening separately I see them as kind of the same process. I don't know why we would put it off. Again, at your discretion ma'am I, and I agree with Betsy and characterization of the, of the different tracks and, and how they, they do diverge a bit in their outcomes. All I'm suggesting is that there's a variety of work that's in progress that you may be able to use as a foundation for some of the decisions that that you're making. And we'll, we'll have the, you'll have the benefit of that within about 30 days. It's, and if we launch another parallel process it's going to take, it'll take another round of work and we will actually be on two different tracks so it's really just, I guess another way to describe it is, if we wait a little while, we may have, there may be less work because we can stack work on top of each of each other. It versus taking two tracks that are going at the same time where we're definitively doubling the amount of work. Oh, I, and I don't even see it being two tracks I seeing it being the same track just having different people involved in it I would, I think that having two tracks going on at the same time, you're right would be a waste of time and resources and so if you're looking at, for example the statewide, the use of military equipment, that's also in 124. So you just do it and you have a report and the report maybe it's the same report you give to the governor as you get to the legislature. And the same thing with body cams. So, I think that we just want recommendations and we want the community involved in those recommendations. That's what I think we where we are but Senator Clarkson you had your muted. Good. Also, we have have some house repairs going on so I'm trying to keep that back. The executive order has no expiration so this is not tied to the emergency orders this is an executive order that would stand perpetuity. And so that's one aspect of this which is interesting, and not that it preempts legislation and, and more consideration it and it asks for legislative proposals obviously and proposes that we discuss things in a legislative format. Yeah. Anyway, I guess my point was just to go to Anthony's and discussing the differences between 124 and the executive order is one we have no, we've had some impact as we've all thought about things and as Michael has been part of our conversation and as he's clearly been very involved in creating and crafting the executive order. So we've, it's been crossed fertilized and which has been, I think I hope helpful. It's, I don't know. They seem to me separate tracks and together all at the same time so it's sort of a, I don't quite know what, you know, do we do we take these pieces out. No, we take these things out of 124 do we do we want to modify it at all when it gets back to us. I'm not sure, I'm not sure I understand why we would do anything. If we're, if the executive, first of all the executive order isn't the same kind of executive order as for example, the one around ethics of appointees that that's something that keeps on going. This, as I understand it is an executive order that asks for a bunch of reports to come back. When those reports come back the executive order. This is over it isn't as if this is going to keep, I think, but it's accomplished but it's out to accomplish. Yeah, but I don't, I don't know why we would change it I think that we've asked for reports by what January. So, it seems to me that if the timing is, if, as Commissioner you're saying that your reports are due on October. Yes, sooner, you then have November December and part of January to build on those reports to come to the legislature. I don't, I don't see us necessarily making any changes or, or doing anything that they, I think they fit together very nicely for the most part. Oh, I, I do too. Except I guess for the training, which is you were going to talk about. And now Commissioner you are muted. I have some construction in the backyard as well. Not my backyard and Jason backyard. We are. Thank Vermont. There, I'm looking for the section on training. We have. I think this relates more to the executive order than the, than what you've drafted. But I think we're disadvantaged in both regards that we don't have an executive director on board at the moment and then take them a little bit of time to get up to speed so just one area of concern for many timelines around the recommendations that relate to training and allowing for the new ED to get up to speed on, on things and, and have the requisite input. When I think about reports that come back, they're, they're often are things like this that provide impediments to getting those reports done in a good way by, by the expected deadline. My feeling always is that it's better to do the report right and to come in on January 15, if that's the date and say, here's where we are right now. We don't have a completed report because our executive director wasn't hired until such a date and we've been working toward it. So that I, I'm not concerned about deadlines there. Okay. And whether the governor is or not, that's his concern. Yeah, so overall, to speak to many of the things that that you that senators have generally brought up. I think you're right, we're, we're going down the same roads and, you know, relative to the work itself, we don't have any grave concerns about the, the scope of, of work or the types of things being assigned be it in the executive or or in the legislation. I think this is, I think it's great that everybody's going in the, in a similar direction. And I'm very, I'm pleased with that. So, I don't know how other committee members feel. Chris, did you want to, or you just say yeah. I have my lunch before and I do want to be eating my sandwich in front of people. I think we do it in committee. Yeah, well, now I'm just beaming in to say, you know, thanks to everyone. I feel like there's a lot of good thinking and we're moving in the right direction and we're basically going together. So, thank you. Good. So, Ingrid, or Matt, do you have anything you'd like to throw in here? You want to go because I know you have to jump off. No, I don't have a lot to add. I'm happy to speak to anything specific if that's helpful, but thank you. I don't have anything to add either only in that I think it is good that we're all, we are all going the same direction and we're trying to accomplish the same thing. So a lot of work is being done right now behind the scenes on this, which, which I'm happy to report. And I would assume that the, that your newest hiree is going to keep you on track in terms of hearing from community. Without question. I think major Jonas is getting on a call with him shortly. Are you not? That's correct. I'm about to jump on a what seems like a national call with a ton. And, and captain Scott to talk about police reform and other changing from within regarding policing. So I agree with your sentiment. Senator Wait. Good. Thank you. What what Ingrid remind us what a tons title is your new hire. Also, he's the co director for fair and impartial policing and equity advisor, racial equity advisor and equity and racial equity advisor. That's Chris. I do have a question for our law enforcement team here. And this is just a high level question. Has it been a surprise to you to see sort of the extent and passion around the discussions that are going on in Vermont or nationally in the last, you know, three, four months was this a surprise or are we just sort of picking up the pace on a prior conversation. I'll start by saying, part of it is a surprise. The, the need for as I like to refer to them these modernization initiatives has been well known. The energy behind them is not a surprise. The surprising part is the polarization related to this and and frankly some of the very disappointing mistrust. In particular, Vermont law enforcement, who I think, and I'm, I obviously don't have a completely clear perspective on this but having done this for 30. I don't even want to say it 31 years now. The folks in Vermont that are in law enforcement do an exceptional job, whether that's an investigations in our, our ability to deliver empathy and support to victims and survivors of crime. The efforts made well imperfect on fair and impartial policing and equity. And we, we lead the nation in a host of ways and really do an exceptional job. The scope and depth of mistrust and just the vitriol that has been thrown around is the surprising and incredibly saddening and disappointing piece of the puzzle. Because I think by and large, for monitors do trust that when you call you're going to get good service, empathetic service, compassionate service and you're going to get solid investigations and that's lost in the hyperbole of the moment. Can I follow up just briefly so what's that that does seem thank you for that answer and in terms of, you know, I don't know what the right word is healing from this place going forward. What what is it that restores, you must be thinking about how do you restore that trust how do you diminish that vitriol. Well, I think like so many things that are stuck in this polarization in America today. It starts with treating each other from every direction with dignity and respect and doing things based on fact and evidence. And I like the way our COVID response has worked and not rumor and innuendo and an inaccuracy. That's at the end of the day that's the most important pieces is perspective, and that's not to diminish the again. There's a tremendous need for progress there is a. This is a moment to leverage this energy. So it's not to diminish that or try to put a break on that. But let's do it in a way that's that's respectful and acknowledges the fact that, as I said, back in June early on the length of the field we've got to travel a lot of points. If you do use the football analogy is far less than many, many places in the United States and you can't paint a million plus police officers and 18,000 different departments with the same brush. Ingrid I saw that you unmuted yourself did you have something you wanted to add. I think that's really well said and I think we have to get to that place where the healing begins and I don't, I, I don't profess to have the answers to that but I think that's really as the commissioner saying treating one another with respect and basing conversations on fact and acknowledging that reform and change always has to occur, but that we are underway and that we're committed to that mission here in Vermont. I think that that's an important those are important key facts and foundations for the discussion. And one thing here I hope that because I think there has been a lot of the word you used Commissioner was vitriol and I I don't know that this has made an impact on gunnies decision to retire. He's the police chief in Brattleboro. But he, in my opinion, is one of the good guys. And I so I hate to see him retire and I don't know if any of this has added to his decision, but I would hate to see that happen with people who we really need to keep involved in this conversation so I appreciate that comment. I think we've already seen it unfortunately in Vermont with chief Morrison opting not to come back under the circumstances and you're not going to find a more progressive with little p police chief anywhere in the country. And, you know, without the tools to do the job, you're set up for success right out of the gate that I did an interview a couple of days ago with seven days and I described that the challenge here the challenge for you and for us is to take this and this moment of energy and advocacy and translated into pragmatic public public policy. Both the brilliance and the challenge of representative government is very hard to achieve. But it's incredibly important, especially given the topics at hand. So I appreciate you letting me editorialize a bit on that. We like editorializing. Anybody else Matt did you want to weigh in on that at all. Thank you madam chair I think the commissioner and major Jonas said, said it best and I support their comments I think, you know we are lucky to be in Vermont, I know the Vermont State police have been working for over a decade on these issues. We've had our fair and impartial policing committee over a decade we've been working on race data for over a decade before it was statutorily mandated. And we've had the relationships that that exist now for for years we didn't have to scramble or build relationships in the last few months. So, what's important to recognize is that a ton of work is has been happening over time and it certainly has accelerated and should accelerate and where we are partners with everybody in this and ensuring that we're we're progressing law enforcement to where it needs to be but the commissioners right there's a tremendous amount of vitriol that what is, it's not productive and it's hurting the profession and what I worry about long term when we talk about that is, you know, you see these good people leaving the profession, and it scares me to think about what left or who would be coming in after. And what I don't want to see is a decaying of the profession to a level where it's actually going to go in the wrong direction away from positive reforms and reinvestment in police and training and hiring the right people. Because if we don't do that you will it will decay to a point where it's a police force that nobody wants, and it'll be people who should not be in this uniform. So there's an incredible balance that we're starting to see tip a little bit and it's, it's, it should, it should worry us a little bit when Jennifer Morrison walks away. You know, I don't know, I'm with the commissioner I don't know who else would come in behind her that has tremendous experience and ideas and an energy. So good conversation. Thank you for your time. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have anything they'd like to throw in here. Well, thank you. I think that in terms of the executive order. I don't have any concerns about it. I just wanted to make sure that we were kind of all on the same page and that there weren't any conflicts that we needed to address. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you all for your continued work and your thoughtfulness on this and all the topics that impact public safety in Vermont. Thanks. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you for being active partners. Good. Yes. Good work. Yep. So, um, Betsy, do you want to go through any changes in 124 that they're considering. Yes. Hi. Thank you to Gail. She posted for you on your web page. House gov ops working strike all amendment. So it doesn't work for all of you to pull it up separately. I can try. Okay. Yeah, it's right here. If you refresh, you're going to have to refresh. Okay. Yeah, it's just under my name as 124 draft 2.1. Let me know when you're ready to go through it and give you a high level overview. I would say, go ahead and start. Go ahead and start. Okay. So it, this is, um, an annotated strike all so it shows in yellow highlighting language that would be added to the bill as past the Senate and then in red strike through language that would be removed from the bill as past the Senate. So it started out with the criminal justice training council. So what's going on here in section one is just to update the definition or the general description of the council and what it was created for and its purpose. One of the things you'll see on page one line 18. If you remember when the council was testifying in Senate gov ops, there was testimony, I think from their director of training who advised that the council prefers to use the term law enforcement applicant rather than the term law enforcement applicant. So the bill as past the Senate, though, I didn't catch that one, um, use of recruits still in there in the description of the council that it's created to maintain a uniform standard of training for recruits and officers. So this would get updated to say basic training for law enforcement applicants and then in service training for officers, meaning our certified officers. On page two, what it would do is add to the description of the council. It's current law duties to professionally regulate officers with the description being that the council maintains statewide standards of officer professional conduct by accepting and tracking complaints alleging officer, unprofessional conduct, adjudicating charges of it and imposing sanctions after the council finds an officer committed unprofessional conduct. And then on line six, um, there's just language to, um, right now current law says the council officers are, excuse me, offers instruction to officers. And this is also just adding, and they also approve because they can also approve training for officers. So that's just an update. Section two gets into the membership of the council as I had mentioned previously. So just a refresher, the LEAB really is made up of appointees who have a law enforcement focus. Either they are law enforcement officers or there's also the defender general as a member, the U.S. attorney is on there also, but it's other than those two, it's really law enforcement officers that are making recommendations on law enforcement issues. Whereas the council, so the council is the entity that sets the standards for training, provides training, certifies and professionally regulates law enforcement officers. And you had proposed amendments to the makeup of the council and the house is considering further amendments to the council. The committee has discussed big picture, making more of a balance between law enforcement related members and more members of the public. So that there's more of a balance on the council in that regard. So one of the things that they're considering now is, so as past the Senate, the bill would have expanded the council from 12 members to 20. And this would have a total of 21 members and revising the membership a little bit from what you had suggested to change up the membership a bit. The house is currently considering removing the commissioner of corrections, who's a current law member. And then removing your suggestion to add the commissioner of mental health. And then on page. Four. Whereas the Senate would say three public members appointed by the governor. This language would add six public members. Five of them are appointed by the governor, but the governor has to be a social worker. And at least one of them has to have, has to be a person who has experienced living with mental conditions or a psychiatric disability. And then the sixth public member would be jointly elected by the Vermont chapters of the NAACP. I should have said at the beginning. Where gov ops is at right now. House gov ops is at right now on this bill. There's, there's still in the discussion phase. There's still in the discussion phase. There's still in the discussion phase. These amendments were. Made at the direction of the chair. House gov ops chair for the committee's consideration. I know the committee's trying to vote out the bill soon with our looming adjournment, but there's still further discussion to be had, including on whether this is the right makeup of the council and any other purport portion of it. Just to put that on your radar. And I can't just for your information, I'm on my iPad instead of my computer. So I can't see. I can't, for some reason, I can't split the screen. I don't know how to do that. Okay. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So I would say if people, I'm looking at the. The document. So I'm not seeing anybody. So if people have comments or questions. Not about why they might be doing this, but technical questions for Betsy just, I would say, speak up. Sounds good. And I'll be on the lookout. Also, if there's any. Okay. And the vice chair too can prompt me if I overlook somebody. Yeah, he's, he's, he's great at doing that. Okay. Another a substantive change here on pay online, 16 of page four is that the governor would appoint the chair of the council from among the public members. So it would be a public member who chairs the council. What is happening currently in practice, statue doesn't control who gets, who is chair. And there is a section of current law that allows the council to appoint a new member of the council. And testimony to house gov ups was that the council itself, Alex its own chair. And that person right now is chief prequel. On page five and section three, there's just a deadline, a new deadline to appoint the new membership of November 15th of this year. I'm one of the members expressed concern about whether that's too soon. And Senator Clarkson has a question. I, I think in most bodies, it's important for the body to choose its own chair. I'm a little confused. So here the governor is appointing the chair of the council from from among the public members. I mean, that seems very prescriptive to me. Well, I'm not sure I'm so okay with that. But I, I, at this, if I can point out that at this point, they haven't even adopted these yet. Right. I guess, I guess, I would flag that for our discussion. Well, I've flagged a lot of things. Yeah. But I think that, uh, Betsy Ann is just going through this. Right. They're considering. Right. Okay. No, I hear. So, okay. Call more has a question. Thank you. I'm not going to offer my opinion on the policy. I just have a question. The way I read this, it means that no one in law enforcement could possibly be the chair. Is that correct? That is correct. It's currently written. Thank you. Because the qualifier to be a public member is you cannot be a law enforcement officer or have a close family member who is, can't be a legislator and you can't otherwise be employed in the criminal justice system. Yeah. I am going to keep scrolling, um, through, um, I'll note on page five that the language currently is unchanged about the council needing to adopt rules to identify and implement alternate routes of certification, aside from training provided at the academy. And then also to, at the top of page six to offer courses of instruction for officers in different areas of the state and strive to offer non overnight courses whenever possible. If I can. Accurately, uh, repeat some of the council testimony to house gov ops. Um, as I understand it. A lot of this they are doing already in that you can get training in other parts of the state and the issue of training really only goes to the requirement currently of the council to have that the basic training for officer applicants to have to do that 16 week residential, uh, Monday through Friday overnight stay. So I think some, if I'm cash-puring it correctly, the council was saying, you know, we are, we are doing this already. Well, except that the, I think that the one part does say can reconsider the 16 week residential. It isn't just think of other trainings that could happen that don't require overnight. It's also asking them to reconsider whether or not we need 16 weeks of residential and if it all needs to be at the same time. So, and I know that they're doing this and they told us that too, but we decided to hold their feet to the fire. I hear you madam chair. I'm just passing on what they were saying. I didn't hear any indication from the council. I can't speak for them. I didn't hear any indication that they were considering changing the 16 week basic training overnight requirement. I know we'll deal with that next year. Um, I will, I will note on interrupting somebody. Go ahead. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. So I guess we'll do it next year. So hold, hold my water. I was just going to say we also that whole conversation about 16 weeks is a pretty small container. We keep talking about adding new aspects of training. And what are we going to push out, put a shot of the container? Cause there's not enough room for it anymore. So I hope we don't go the direction of. I don't know what the new balances, but it feels to me like when I learned this session that in Europe, you're in training for something like two years, I may be appreciate that 16 weeks is. It's not very long. I just, I'm going to throw this out. Then we should get on with because I'm violating my own rules here, but I think that, um, it isn't the question of whether it's 16 weeks or not. It's whether it needs to be 16 weeks of residential 16 weeks, maybe too short or too long. But the point is as, um, the mayor from. Um, When you ski pointed out and the police chief from Manuski pointed out that they had, for example, a single mother who wanted to become a police officer. And there was no way she could do 16 weeks of residential overnight away from her family, but she would have made a great police officer. So it isn't the time itself. It's how it's delivered. So. I'll note on page seven, um, in regard to the transition from level two to level three. So as past the Senate, this language is currently remaining unchanged that this language as past the Senate said by July 1, 2021, a level two certified officer should be able to transition to level three using either portfolio experiential learning or clip testing, without having to restart the certification progress process. And I just noted that the council's testimony to house gov ops last week was that. The council's needs additional resources to actually make this happen in practice. Of course they do. From the chair of the council. So I was just flagging that issue. Um, Of the council's feedback. Yep. Um, on page six, this was just the, um, there's a report back requirement from the executive director of the council on how things are going in re structuring these training requirements in accordance with what was up in section four and five. And to address that, uh, the council is getting a new executive director. Um, the proposal on house give ops is just to push out the council reporting requirements a bit to acknowledge the, um, the work that the person will have to do to come into the executive director rule. So there's just pushing out that report back from January 15 and next year to March one. Um, on page eight, There was the language as past the Senate that an agency, uh, in order to enjoy the resources of the council, including training at the academy or any other council services had to be in compliance with the roadside stop data collection and any other policy required by the council chapter and pursuant to a recommendation that representative Donahue made in a separate part of the bill. Um, house give offs is considering also adding the requirement that an agency has to be in compliance with the current law requirement. In 18 VSA section 7257 a that agencies report to the office of attorney general when one of the agency's officers, um, has an interaction in a mental health crisis and there is death or serious bodily injury resulting. So it add that, that to be able to enjoy council services. You also have to be in compliance with that reporting requirement that's required by current law. I am skipping ahead to, um, bottom of page nine. There's that section eight requirement for, um, a potential hiring agency to contact an officer's current agency to get an analysis of the officer's performance there. And on page 11 in your section nine as past the Senate, there was a transitional provision to say, um, that requirement to disclose an officer's performance does not apply if there's a binding non-disclosure agreement in effect that would prohibit that. The house is currently considering leaving that in but adding language on page 11 to prohibit moving forward in a collective bargaining, in collective bargaining agreements and agreement between an agency and an officer, um, uh, that would prohibit the exchange of information between the employing agency and another agency about the officer's performance at the employing agency. So that moving forward, um, there couldn't be those, uh, types of agreements. And so relatedly in, oh, sorry, Madam chair. No, no, no, no, but I, I thought that lines, um, 11 through 12, 11 through 13, that says the same thing, right? Because the way, uh, commissioner Scherling explained it was that, um, it's only finding agreements that took place before that effective date of the bill. So implying that any, any agreement that was reached after the signing of the bill wouldn't have any impact. So isn't that, isn't it just, uh, making it clear that that's what was meant? Yes. I mean, I think it is, it is getting at the same thing. I did discuss it with our labor attorney. We didn't, it seemed to be just addressing it more fully. I'll go back and look at it again. Um, but this would make it explicit in that new subsea on page 11 that CBAs can't prohibit the exchange of information about an officer's performance. Um, one of the things to note is that house give ups, if they will pursue this, um, they want additional language to make it clear that this is not saying that the information should be made public, that if there's a confidentiality in that, um, in the CBA about sharing information that, um, and if an agency does share information about an officer's performance, the agency who receives that information should not publicize it to maintain confidentiality. Okay. Okay. On page 12 in section nine A, there was the language as passed the Senate that agencies and officers have to comply with the LEAB's model body camera policy. And within that model body camera policy itself, it was saying that the policy applies for officers who use, who are authorized to use body cams. Um, but so the first thing that, uh, house give ups considered is just making it more explicit that the requirement to follow a model body camera policy is only required if an officer actually uses a body cam. It's not in any way a requirement for all agencies to use body cams. So that was one of the, just a technical clarification on the language. But then as I had stated earlier, um, the house committee is considering moving the model body cam policy authority from the LEAB to the council. So that's what is going on here on line, um, eight of page 12, eliminating reference to the LEAB and establishing the council. Just noting that council will mean the newly constituted council with its new membership. Alison. So, um, uh, the implication of that is, is that because the council is more expanded, have more non law enforcement people on it, that somehow it will be a better body to make this decision. I mean, what, what fuel this, this, this idea. I can't describe legislative intent with specificity. I can just say that the general conversation, um, in house give ups, there was a conversation about the differences in the membership between LEAB versus council. And that's the big differences. There are more members of the public. Um, Um, that proposed more members of the public on the council. And, and as gov ops committee felt had more confidence in the public, the body with more public members than the body with more law enforcement members. If I can, I think it isn't just public members, but also, um, remember the council has now, um, uh, Um, Uh, From human rights commission and from, uh, or not members from there, but appointed by their and also from, um, uh, victims. Um, Yeah, no, no, I'm much broader. Yeah. I'm much broader universe of people who are impacted by law enforcement. And law enforcement. Yeah. God. Okay. The first new section that the house is considering adding the house committee is considering adding, which would be a prohibition on facial recognition or other biometric matching technology. This is just a first draft of this language, if they're, they will pursue this. They discussed just needing to consider all of the ramifications. Now this has an exception for drones because the drone law does allow the use of facial recognition technology. If it's being on a drone, if it's being used for example for non criminal investigative reasons such as a search and rescue operation, or pursuant to a warrant. So a drone right now under law could have facial recognition technology if under it's permitted by a warrant. So if the house committee will pursue this language, they're likely will need to be further tweaks to this language. If they do want to allow facial recognition technology for example to be used for search and rescue operations generally. There's also a question about fingerprinting and whether this language will prohibit biometric matching technology if that would extend to fingerprinting so more conversation and review the language is necessary here but it's an initial proposal that they're considering. May I just say thank you. I mean, I think that there are many good thing. I mean, it's, I'm a little concerned with the total prohibition on this, given that that these are when used well can be incredibly productive tools for for both for all for everybody who's who's trying to to investigate and understand and know things. I have a hard time with fully prohibiting things that we aren't that are particularly that are just in in some cases in the infancy of their applications. So anyway, I'm not serious. I think groups like the ACLU I could be wrong but I think like the ACLU and some other groups have said similar things and what they're saying is that nobody should be allowed to use this stuff until there's a policy that sort of oversees how it would be used. I think that's what they're getting out it could be Rory I'm not saying that I don't know if that's what the house was getting at but that's what other folks have been getting out is that they don't want to just to start start up organically they want to have a policy that measures how would such such technology would be used. Well, then we could. Well, we'll visit this when we get this language but you know we could say, you know, we, yeah, well, let's let's I think this is a little premature since they haven't really even decided if they're going to have this in there yet or not. Right. And you're putting Betsy in a tough position to because she really can't comment on. Right. This isn't this is that we're Betsy and is trying to tell us what the issues are that they're considering and changing and some of them, we might. So I'll try and keep in touch with Sarah Copenhance is about where they are with each of these things and I might send her a note just saying, you know, some of these present more issues maybe and then others and so. Anyway, that's, I think that we can't. We can we can. It's a little premature for us to talk about the implications of it, because we don't know what they're going to do. Okay. All right, I'm on page 13. And so the bill as passed the Senate would have amended if you scroll over to page 14. That definition of what constitutes category B conduct to not only say the current law list is a list not just examples of what might be category B conduct but then you also and change the excessive use of force from second to first defense. Well the General Assembly already made all of those changes in S2 19, which is as enacted act 147 and then some and so you don't need to make the changes again you've already done that so that's why this language would be struck because General Assembly already made those changes. Okay, so I'm going to keep scrolling page 15. No change to the Senate passed proposal online nine of page 15 about when agencies after report category allegations of category B conduct. Current law says it's after an agency conducts a valid investigation and then deems it's credible as past the Senate the language was the agency receives a credible complaint. So that has not changed under that this version. Nor in section on page 16 line seven, the Senate passed requirement for the Council Advisory Committee to get a copy of an agency's investigative report and supporting docs when they report allegations of unprofessional conduct to the Council, just a reminder that Council Advisory Committee is a group of five gubernatorial appointees for members without a law enforcement connection and one retired officer. Then section 10 a gets to that report back that you've been discussing with the Commissioner and Department of Public Safety. And so one of the changes here. So overall the required report back date was January is January 15 21 for all of the reporting entities and in line with that acknowledgement of the new Executive Director of the Council and the new membership of the Council. The House Committee is currently considering saying, except that the Council is not required to submit a verbal progress report until March one of next year and then recommendations for legislative action on April one just to give them more time. Is that related only to the training section, because it sounds like anything that the Council is supposed to be reporting on they don't have to do until then. Yeah, it's for all of these recommendations that the Council is responsible for reporting back to the GovOps committees here in this section 10. So we're putting them all off until April of 2021. Yes, as currently drafted, although any other entities that are required to report would still be under the January 15 deadline but yeah, yeah, as currently written. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so on page 17 the first topic is the law enforcement officer qualifications and you'll see this in a few other places. The Senate had described specific entities that the reporting entities had to consult with before making their report. Here in sub one B is the requirement for the Council to specifically consult with statewide racial justice groups and statewide groups representing people who experienced mental conditions and psychiatric disabilities in their report back to the GovOps committees on training recommendations. Oh, excuse me that was qualifications. Sorry. Number one is law enforcement officer qualifications. Number two is law enforcement officer training and so there again is adding those two reference to those two groups statewide groups, racial justice groups and statewide groups representing people who experienced mental conditions and psychiatric disabilities. No page on no change on page 18 lines three and four about the Council reviewing training to ensure that it helps recognize and respond to people who have mental conditions it was just a flag to the committee here that in S 2019 now Act 147 the legislature did commit to evaluating whether and how to gather data regarding internet interactions between officers and people with mental health issues. And I just flag for them that there is that current law requirement for agencies to report the AG's office when there's interaction in a mental health crisis that results in death or bodily injury. In here where are we we are still in officer training. Page 18 subsection C. Line 16 and 17 House committee is considering removing the language that would require the Council LAB and DPS to consult with VLCT in order to determine whether the Academy should be relocated to a different area of the state. Tell me that where are you again. That is on page 18 line 16 and 17. So they, they don't want to have a report on that. No, as currently written. Interesting. Okay. So on page 19 the third topic of models of civilian oversight this was an AG report back. And they are currently considering adding in that the requirement for the AG's office to specifically consult with Vermont law school center for justice reform. And also those statewide groups on racial justice and representing people who experience mental conditions and psychiatric disabilities. And number for the topic of reporting allegations of officer misconduct, adding in that the AG's office would need to consult with those statewide groups on page 20 in regard to the sixth topic body cameras. This is related to the change earlier in the bill that it would be the council that has the model body cam policy authority, rather than the LAB. And it also changed the Senate passed language that said the LAB had to report any changes it deemed necessary to its 2016 model policy, and instead say that the council shall recommend a model body cam policy for use by agencies and officers. And then in six. I'm going to call it a Romanette, Romanette number two. Yes, Romanette was new to me and I'm, yeah, I'm going to have to try to use that every time now. Adding in that it would be the council that would specifically recommend policies for responding to public records requests and retention timelines and issues of body camera footage storage, and then adding in that they would have to do that after consulting groups on racial justice and people who experience mental conditions and psychiatric disabilities. And then on page 20 line 15 sub B was that requirement for DPS to consult with LAB about the possibility of having a statewide group purchasing contract for the body cams and storage. So related to up above where the council would have the model body cam policy authority would add in the council there. And at the bottom of the page, the last topic is military equipment. And so this would have the council instead of the LAB recommend a statewide policy on officers acquisition of military equipment rather than use of. So what would be permissible to acquire to begin with not, you know, if you acquire it. If you can't use it after you acquire it I think was part of the discussion. So that was acquiring military equipment, and it was neat actually the vice chair of house govops had a list of some of the military equipment that agencies have been able to obtain. And aside from rifles it was things that this committee was discussing like, you know, just normal trucks and no plows and that sort of thing so that was interesting. So only one section B would be a new section. This would require the GAC the government accountability committee Senator column or is co chair on the Senate side. And the GAC to consult with the executive director of racial equity and the social equity caucus and the chief performance officer and accept recommendations from others in order to approve population level indicators that demonstrate the quality of life for those who are black, indigenous or people of color BIPOC as those relate to the current 10 outcomes, we have in law for the state. And then once GAC approves them by next March, then the CPO would report on those indicators in addition to the other ones in the annual state outcomes report. So specific data on how well Vermonters who are BIPOC are faring in the state. So, can I. I don't know that this is. I don't know if I agree or disagree with this but why does it have any place in this bill. This bill has to do with law enforcement and EMS services doesn't have anything to do with our state outcomes. We have the same question. Why, why were they just looking for a place to put it. No, I think the data, you know we use every agency and department is able to use the GAC data, and the data informs. And we have so many areas of that we have referred to earlier in this bill and that are in the executive order that are address Rachel racial equity within law enforcement and racial justice within law enforcement. It strikes me that this is complimentary and create a data more data that would be useful for law enforcement and for state government. And I don't read it that way I read it that the data is already being collected by people and that what needs to happen is that there needs to be a, an indicator added to the 10 indicators or whatever we call them. And I think on the population level quality of care of life outcomes that we need to add one around people of color and communities of color. Then, I know what this is saying. This is your. Yeah, no, no, you're, you're right. I thought it was an expansion of data. I think it may just be a place a vehicle for getting this language put in for this year, but I think it's an important indicator to add. Well, there's a relevance in that the indicators would relate to things like interaction interactive interaction with the police and whatnot. Yeah. I mean, I'm not saying I'm not I'm not advocating for it to be there or not as part of the bill but I think there is certainly a connection there between their quality of life and interaction with police and other similar things. Right. I agree and if this may be their only vehicle for adding this in this session and I think it's an important indicator to add. Well, it is interesting because gap meets over the summer, and it could have come to the gap committee to put in its report for January. It didn't. I take it. We haven't met. I mean, we meet over the we meet over the fall we. So, we have three meetings I believe right Brian you're that. Yeah, and there's no section here with law enforcement that I can read in the language. Yeah. I think this should be in the gap report, but anyway, that's it. We can, we can talk about that when we get there. All right, I am on page 22 and the new section that is proposed is actually amend would amend the language that you recently passed and s2 19 act 147. Okay, that is shown here online for was actually added by s2 19 and big picture it would say it says that law enforcement agencies can't get a state grant unless they're in compliance with the current law requirements to collect race data on roadside stops. And this would add to it, or the requirement under current law to report to the AG. Any officers interactions and a mental health crisis that resulted in death or serious bodily injury. I'll just also note that in that requirement that the General Assembly added in s2 19 about this grant contingency. It's currently seems to apply only to local local law enforcement agencies and how scovops discussed today extending that to apply to all agencies not just a local me police ones. I am moving on on on page eight or 22. I'll just note online 12 that that reader assistance heading regarding the VCIC would be struck because up above another reader assistance heading was added to be in regard to data collection and analysis generally. And so that VCIC language is under that umbrella. If you scroll through section 11 on page 23, the as past Senate language required VCIC to establish and provide training on a uniform list of definitions that agencies could use when entering crime data into their system of records the Valkor or Spillman record system. And required every officer to use those definitions. And how the House committee is considering saying that VCIC would establish those definitions and provide training on them after consulting with the Vermont crime research group and the statewide racial justice groups and statewide groups representing people who experienced mental conditions and psychiatric disabilities. You can keep scrolling through all the LAB provisions because right now the House committee is not considering any amendments to the language as past the Senate. The Senate language as you recall was just striking it the LAB from where it currently exists in law to where it should and putting it where it should go under the chapter of DPS and then adding a couple members to it, and then updating the quorum requirements I mean, none of that is proposed to change under this current strike all draft. But if you go to page 27 you'll see the next substantive issue goes to the Department of Public Safety Dispatch charging. The charges for DPS performing dispatch functions for state and municipal entities and emergency medical services. So the language as past the Senate would have required if you keep scrolling to the top of page 29 it would have required the Commissioner of Public Safety to adopt rules that set forth the rates for dispatch and that DPS could charge because DPS has the current law authority to charge for DPS is performance of dispatch. This would remove that dispatch rulemaking authority rate rulemaking authority. I'll just note that yellow that appears starting at the bottom of page 27 it's just provided for reference just to show what the other portions of the statute are about. It's it was so no change no substantive changes that other current law language. What would change in regard to the fee structure for dispatch rates if you keep scrolling to page 31, you would see the house is currently considering striking that rulemaking authority. And adding a new section starting on line nine that says notwithstanding that statutory provision that allows DPS to charge for its performance of dispatch. DPS shall not charge to cover the cost of its performance of dispatch functions until the General Assembly and acts in law the fee structure for those charges. In this picture it is would transfer the authority to set the rates to the General Assembly and prohibit DPS from charging for dispatch until the General Assembly is set sets the dispatch rates. On line 17. On this page page are we on here. This would require by next January DPS to consult with a variety of different entities VLCT MSEC police chiefs association state firefighters association and local agencies in order to recommend to the govops committees houseways and means and senate finance and equitable infrastructure for the department of charge for dispatching EMS police and fire and potential funding mechanisms for those chargers that don't rely on property taxes. I think that was the last substantive. I'm sorry. Thank you, Senator. So that's the end. The legislature will come up with the rate. When will that go into effect. Right now there is the way that this is drafted currently there is no deadline for the General Assembly to enact that fee structure. So municipality that when we passed it had three years I think to DPS folks had three years to come up with that fee. So the legislature has come up with that fee by next January, or get a report on by January, but there's no date by which a municipality would have to begin paying DPS for dispatching services. That's correct is currently written. Thank you. I know someone's going to ask me that. Through the end of the bill, there are no changes to the EMS provisions or the public safety town plan provision. The last thing hanging out there on page 50 is what the effective date should be. And I'm done madam chair. Okay. Right. I'm back. It's like magic. It's like magic. It's nice to see you all. I don't know because I don't know where they are with these who asked these to be these changes to be drafted up for discussion or didn't come from the committee itself. This was at the direction of the chair and the committee reviewed it this morning at their meeting. Okay, so I don't know if this is even kosher to do. But because we're really limited on time here. I wonder if the committee thinks that it is reasonable for me to write a note to or to get in touch with Sarah. And to point out some of the places where we might have concerns. I'm not just point them out and kind of say what the concerns were. So if you think that's a good idea, let's take the next 15 minutes to go through to point out some of these areas where we think we might have concern. I know Brian, you have concern. Do you think it's a good idea for me to do that just so that we can keep in touch. Or we meet with them and that could turn into a long, long meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Madam chair as much as we're able to resolve in the house, the better. Okay. To go to Brian's point, you know, if they're if they get if they dig in. And then it comes to us that we have a conference committee we have two and a half weeks. I mean, we won't have we won't have a conference committee. Right. This is helping us preempt that. Yeah. Okay. So then let us look at areas where we might have some issues. I think there's going to be a pushback from removing the Department of Corrections commissioner. He already we did we removed him before and he asked to be put back on. Correct. And also, I think the mental health commissioner, I don't know why they would remove that person. Yes, particularly given all the people they add later. Okay, so how about the addition of the, the five appointees by the governor. What did we have three. We had three and they couldn't be connected to law enforcement in any way we didn't say who they had to be. One has to be a social worker five and one has to be a social worker one has to be a mental health consumer and one has to be elected by the membership of the NAACP in the state which is going to be almost impossible to do because I mean I'm a member of the NAACP down here and I've never been asked to vote on anything but regardless of that. I don't have any issues with that. 21. It is big but okay and the governor appointing the chair. I have, I have challenges with that I mean I think everybody. I think that a body needs to elect its own chair. I don't think it needs to be dictated. Well we have many instances where it is. The legislative apportionment board for example, right chair is appointed. I think the. I'm not, I can't say where but I, I'm not going to go to a battle over that one. It's limiting it to only the public members. Yeah, I mean I, I have a modest issue with that I think it should be open to all members. The conversation these days is a lot about is putting, you know, community members more oversight over policing in general so this would go along with that. I think it's often the chair has less. Fine. It does support that aspect of it. Yeah. Well, I just, I'm troubled by the fact that it can't be somebody from law enforcement. Yeah, I don't. I don't know how I don't feel strongly about one way or the other. And I'll finish up by saying that there might be some integration your leadership of the state and you know, you know, you can have integrated chairs and you can have leadership that emerges from within so, but so I'll say we have some concerns about that. Mainly they did some pushing out of the dates and training, the. their death or bodily injury from mental health. Anybody have any issues with that? No. And the collective bargaining that it makes it clear that it isn't necessarily made public just because it's made given to the other agency. I have no problem with that. Anybody? No. And I think that's the end that that does clarify of what our intent was. Okay. Moving the body cams from LEAB to the council to policy. Sorry, what page? I'm sort of, I got lost. What page are we? I don't know. I just was making notes. 12 pages, it's around page 12. I guess there was one feeling one way or the other who comes up with a model policy. Right. I don't care too much either. Well, let the model policy again, if it goes to the council, it'll have more public input rather than just. Yes. I'm gonna, okay. The prohibition on biometric matching technology we have issues with because we don't know where they're going with it. I don't wanna, we're just so that you know in 10 minutes we are leaving this meeting. So I'd like to just flag areas and, okay. And report back, not until March. I would like to say that they need to make a progress report by January. And instead of a progress report by March, they can make a progress report by January. On what subject? On their training council subject, the reports. Oh, I'm sorry, cause you're skipping it. Okay, great. Well, I'm just going through the notes that I wrote down that were areas. I realized that I wasn't as good about. Okay, so I don't know why they would cross off moving to another area of the state. Yeah, that seems kind of random. I mean, are there people in there from Pittsburgh? On GovHomps, is it so? There's somebody from Chittenden, but not Pittsburgh. Okay, well, I'm gonna just point that out because it's just them to look at it. Right. And then I do know, Brian, that you have issues around the gap section. Yes, yeah. And I do too. I don't think it belongs here. Yeah, not about doing it, but putting it in this bill. Well, I'd love to know what their reasoning is. Because I think they're looking for a place to put it. Well, I'm not opposed to including it in GAC as an indicator. So I don't mind using this. And there are some cross, I mean, there's a lot that's pertinent. So I don't mind it being here. And it would just be interesting maybe to find out why they chose this as the vehicle. I mean, it's a more appropriate vehicle than a charter. No, no, no, the point is that the GAC committee is supposed to meet and review constantly the outcomes and the indicators. Oh, I see you brought that back. That's where that responsibility lies. And then it each year makes recommendations to the legislature to change the outcomes or to change the indicators. And here, this is completely bypassing GAC and it's saying GAC is supposed to do this. Got it. Exactly. Got it. And now I'm surprised that the house members who are on GAC didn't. Maybe they proposed it. Or maybe there aren't any left from GovOps on there. Cause Mada Thompson is the vice chair, right? And is Jessica, oh, she's still on there, right? Anyway. I don't think she is. Okay. Anyway, I'm going to bring that one up as an issue. Yeah. Okay. Any other issues that you want to raise? One might be putting Brian putting some parameters around the fee structure for dispatch and stuff to the legislature saying that there has to be some phasing in or whatever. I don't know how you would do that. I think that's important. Yeah. Okay. Is it going to go lay down? Whoops. I will send this note. I'll get in touch with Sarah and John Gannon, who's the vice chair. And Betsy Ann, do you know who on their committee is the kind of one that leads around law enforcement stuff and EMS is Jim Harrison, but they didn't make any changes there. It's been mostly the chair, the vice chair and representative Colston of Winooski. Colston, okay. Okay. I'll contact all three of those and just, okay. Great. And then representative Harrison, also I think that he's been expressing interest in regarding to the dispatch issue and I think the police academy issues since he's nearby. Okay. Great. Okay, thank you so much, Betsy Ann. Yeah, really? Yeah, this was great. I'm impressed with the time we had available. Good work. Okay, so now what, how do we handle this? Do we, Gail, are we going out of this meeting and then entering another one? Yes. You are. Yes, we believe this. And Mike Ferrant sent us the link to that. Yes, he did. Mike is covering for Ron Wilde. So, yes. Use Mike's link. Okay, so bye everybody.