 Here is the Senate Judiciary. It is the day before St. Patrick's Day, which must mean it's March 16th, 2022. And our first topic is the study that we did in the Qualified Immunity Bill, S-254. And after review, we think it should be revised. And I don't know how to revise it. So, Ben, you've given some thought to this. Yes, Senators, you've been overgrowsky for legislative counsel. Well, it was this and actually another bill too. But as far as the bill is before the Senate Judiciary, there are some restrictions for the Office of Legislative Counsel making policy recommendations. And with this bill, if the committee wanted to pick an independent entity, which I think was the goal of the committee in this report, a way to do it could be kind of leave it as an entity independent of the General Assembly would be some potential language. But with this bill and the report here, this seems to be more appropriate in the sense that it's really a legal analysis and memo before. And if we want to just make, if the committee wants to make it clear that there wouldn't be any policy recommendations that would come out of this report, that's something that could be done to clarify in addition to the kind of leaving the entity blank just as long as it's independent of the General Assembly. This was the discussion also as far as S250 is concerned as well. And I think it's actually more relevant to that bill. But maybe less than concerned here, but it was something nonetheless that I would do for the committee to consider. I'm fine with an entity that's independent of the political prod, I don't know how you word it, but an entity because all we're looking for in this report is factual information about what's happened and what didn't happen. We've gotten the problem that I have with the testimony during our work on qualified immunity has been the diverse opinions of the same opinion. And what happened in this case, what happened in that case? Jennifer, thank you. So what I'm just looking for facts. So I don't know that it's something that that's why I thought Legislative Council was able to do that. We're just looking for an assessment of the various cases that have occurred in Vermont over the last 10 years to better understand what is the state of qualified immunity in Vermont. Senator Sears, yeah, and that's something that was completely within the purview of Legislative Council. It was just if there were any recommendations that were maybe coming from that. I think we can make it clear that we don't expect any recommendations. We just expect an analysis of the various decisions by the courts in over the past 10 years in cases where qualified immunity has risen as a defense. Yeah. Okay. I can put in that clarifying language and then circulate a draft. It shouldn't really be a huge addition. Okay, we could do that before, you know, I can pass over S-254 tomorrow and then have it ready with a new amendment on Friday. Okay. I think it may be a little more difficult on 250, but I don't, we're not involved in that. That's not our... I thought it was joint oversight that was going to do the study and make the recommendations. It is. We're going to talk about that tomorrow because I think if we expect an entity, we probably have to pay them. Well, yeah, I think that we just left that up to the Justice Oversight Committee about how that would be done if it could be done with CSG or somebody else or just the oversight committee itself taking testimony. But I don't think in that one that we had a Ledge Council doing this. No, with that one, it was that joint justice shall select an entity in its discretion. Oh, in its discretion. I just know that during the discussions, it was brought up the Ledge Council could potentially be an option. Oh, I see what you're saying. And what I'm saying is that a potential way to clarify that language is just to say an entity independent of the general assembly, which I think would take care of the issue. And we don't even have to say shall select an entity. We can just say Justice Oversight. We'll talk about that tomorrow. Yeah, no, let's talk. That's a really a somewhat different issue. I mean, there's nothing to prevent Ledge Council from as far as 254 goes of giving this to a group of students at Vermont Law School, for example. I just want to make sure that's still an option. Yeah, in some subsection B, it says that Ledge Council shall have the Administrative Technical and Legal Systems of the Attorney General, the Defender General, and the Center for Justice Reform at BLS and other stakeholders interested in the system. Okay, so I think as long as you make it clear that we're looking only for a report, not a study, and we're not looking for policy recommendations, we're merely looking to understand what really is the state of the laws in Vermont. Yeah, I should say case law, because there are no laws, no case law. All right, is everybody okay with that? I mean, even those, I realize two members of the committee voted against the bill, but I really don't want to see this part of it become a huge issue on the floor. I'm fine with that. I'm good to me. And Senator Sears, just as a clarification for me, so this would be a four-minute offer by you or? Yeah, I think in this case, it'd probably just be me offering a floor amendment, since we don't have unanimity. But if Senator White and Baruch want to join me, that's fine. Yeah, Senator Baruch has put a thumbs up to join me on that. And Senator White, it's up to you. Oh, I'm fine. Yeah. Okay, Sears, Baruch and White. That was a victory in Minnesota. Oh, I'm fine. Yeah. Did that? What? In the very Minnesota, I'm fine. Oh, yeah, that's a Scandinavian thing. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I'm fine being on there. Ben, thank you for raising the issue. And I think that will clarify it. Okay. Obviously, it has to go through the House and the Governor, so we'll see what happens. Okay. I'll make sure that that's drafted up and I'll circulate it. I'm not too thick. Okay.