 I don't. You all just heard me about a week ago and so because I gave my talk, my presentation to the town meeting and so we just came off from our town meeting break if you can call it that. So I thought unless you have specific things you want me to go over that we've been working on, we could just open it for questions today. We do have a couple of people that are new here that I think have new ideas. Yeah. Jump right in. Greg is here. Yeah. If you are, I mean I can just give the briefest of overviews. So we started the slave session actually in sync with the governor in that we, the goal was affordable housing and public safety, and workforce development, and then a few other priorities. Those are really the biggest ones, basically housing jobs and helping with some of the problems in the policing world. And so there have been a lot of committees that have been working on those pieces. The judiciary committee has been working on ways to make it easier for the judiciary process to work. And part of that is that the confirmation of judges can be along our juice process. And so they're trying to streamline that process just so we get more judges in. There's part of the reason why people get turned back out on the street is because they get arrested for a crime and then it takes, they get a rang the date of six months down the road. And so they let them out and then there are certain folks that recommit a number of crimes. And so as soon as you can get in the process of judiciary working, that will assist with that. Another piece of the judiciary committee though has done is, is part of that problem too is that the difference between $900, if you commit a crime, it's $900 or less, or maybe it's less $900, $899. It's a misdemeanor and they basically, you know, they write, you give you a citation, let you back out. If it's over $900, it's a felony and it's a bigger problem. And what we often see is in these small towns, especially if it's drug related issues, you know, it's some level of petty larceny, you know, it's stealing a little bit of this, they're shoplifting that and something like that and none of them rise to $900. So they're all misdemeanors, so they are all treated as separate lesser than crimes. So one of the bills that the judiciary passed this session so far, I don't know what the Senate's done with it, but it's to aggregate those. If within a certain period of time, you commit X number, if you commit $300 crimes, it now is a felony. It crosses that line of $900 and so those people then go into more likely to be incarcerated for a while, that kind of stuff to kind of move that process along with them going. And so they have a process around that. I think there was another judiciary thing pop in my head. Oh, I'd bill around actually making it a crime. Right now it's not a crime for someone to get into your car and go through your car as long as they don't steal anything. And so they want to change that, obviously. Where they've hit the thing is you have to write that law in such a way that I don't know about you, but there have been times when I, especially back before we had automatic starters and people didn't lock their cars all the time, you'd go out and sit in your car and then say, gosh, this isn't my car. And obviously they don't want something prosecuted for that. So those are, that's a piece. I don't think I shared that kind of meeting, so I'd share it now. So judiciary is working on a lot of the, and not judiciary, the House is working on a lot of those kinds of trying to address all these various issues. While, of course, we had to update the Budget Adjustment Act, which happens in between every year to see how much you've spent on this and how much you spent on that. And if you've overspent in this, or it looks like you're going over and spending this program, but you're underspending in that program, then shifting that money around. And then, of course, also we have a couple weeks before we have to have the fiscal year 2025 budget done in the House sent over to the Senate. And so there's a lot of budget meetings right now where committees come in and say, I don't know, state departments and social service groups and all that stuff coming in and saying, we would like more money than the governor put in their budget. And that was one of those things that I- You never say lots of them. You know, there have been a few, actually have been a few that have said, said, you know, we did our thing and we're done. And we don't need the money. And that's a nice thing to have. And this was one of the, like it was the first political lesson I got when I joined when I was elected was, because the very first thing you do you get in there and these people are coming in to talk to you about money. And it's an interesting game. And I understand every governor plays it regardless of what party or wherever they are in, but the governor gives it out of budget. But governor says, whatever you do, you sneaky legislature, don't you go over my budget. I have carefully crafted this thing exactly the way I want it. And then, you know, two hours later, somebody from their administration comes in and says, the governor has said they only want this for this program. This program is really good. It does a lot of really great stuff. And we haven't quite finished everything we need to do. The governor said, we can only have this much, but it would be nice if we had more. And so, often, legislature will be like, well, if you prove your case to us that you need that additional in order to actually finish the job, then we're going to say yes. And then, of course, that gets used against us later in the year because we went over the budget. And so, you know, it's politics. People talking on both sides of their mouths. I'm ready for questions. I don't want to go too long on this stuff. I just want people at town meeting, those of you who are there, I got talking about stuff my committee was doing. I'm trying not to talk about that because I get so excited and I never shut up because there's a whole data privacy piece around that. And I just find the data privacy thing fascinating and scary, but our committee is really working on a bill to make Vermont pretty much maybe second to California. I have the gold standard of data privacy in the U.S. and really kind of protection for folks. Yeah. You've brought up the question of policing and obviously that's been on Bethel's agenda and other nearby towns, but there is a concern among some, many actually in town, that doesn't really get articulated often very well. And that is having more police uniformed carrying guns and all of the rest of it isn't necessarily the only approach to dealing with untoward behavior. And there are people in the community for whom I remember one of our council levels was just coming on and we're talking about going to the schools and so on and so forth. They said, well, can you do that not wearing the uniform and not wearing having a gun strapped to your hip and all of the rest of it because there may be students who find that more frightening than helpful? So, I mean, we've, the select board has gone into that saying, well, let's just get more police and more time and more boots on the ground and somehow it'll all get better. Well, it's not necessarily going to all get better. It's just what combat done. All right. Yeah, let's face it. I mean, a large part of our criminal activities is drug related. And so, just to be clear, this isn't my committee. So my knowledge is fairly superficial about what they're doing. But yeah, absolutely. I mean, there are the Health and Human Service Committees, they're working on programs and things to help with people who have drug issues. And they're working with people with mental health issues and sometimes they're medicating for mental health issues. And so working on those kind of issues. I mean, yeah, as a whole, drugs are a problem, but they're also a symptom of a larger problem. And yeah, I mean, if you have a large homeless population, it goes both ways. I mean, a lot of people who are homeless may have chemical problems, but also if you're homeless, again, a lot of people will self-medicate or find other ways to address their issues. So there's a whole piece that's working on that. The Judiciary Committee themselves work on law and regulations and those kind of things and trying to encourage the Department of Public Safety, the state police and various policing organizations to work on better programs for that kind of stuff. I remember back in the day, I think the Bethel Business Association sort of helped organize community policing around, and I remember there used to be signs around town saying, this community is under community watch. We used to have on North Main Street ourselves, because of all the heroin. Oh, was it all yourself? I remember there had been initiatives around that stuff, but I don't know specifically. But I do know that there are people in the legislature that hear what you're saying, that just having, you know, uniformed officers doesn't necessarily deter all crime and it can be, some people find it disturbing. Just to note on that policing thing, we had a problem on North Main Street and I called the police, I gave them all the license plates and all that sort of stuff. Nothing ever happened and it continued. And so I talked to the state police and I said, well, what about forming a community watch? And, you know, maybe you could just have a trooper come in and talk to us about it or whatever. He said, no, we don't want you to do that. And I said, why? And he said, because we know where the drug dealer is. If you put that up, then they move and then we got to find them again. And I thought, well, I don't care if he moves. And so that's when I got the neighbors and we bought signs and still some of them are still in my old house, it's still there. And that's, I don't know how many years, but it's got to be over 15 years. And I don't think it's the cops fault. The cops do their job. I think the cops, we take the wind completely out of the cop's sails and do their job. They take the kids to court and then they're on the street. They were two later kind of given the cops the finger. They're just doing it. On our street, it hasn't, he can go to jail for two weeks, three weeks. I think he's got an ankle brace that right on Manow, he's still doing business. I mean, it's, yeah, the only people that dealt with the guy this deal on our street, quite frankly, is New Hampshire. Yeah, they put him in jail. And that is, again, I mean, that's part of the judiciary trying to get more judges, if nothing else, so that he can actually get him into court. Because I think we know who we're talking about. And also, so it's a game in the court. And also, again, sort of changing some of those laws to make it easier to actually aggregate, prosecute those kind of crimes. And so I do know that, again, I'm not on the judiciary, but from talking with some members that are, I do know that that is, I mean, it's a problem in a lot of towns and they're trying to address that. And what happened to three strikes? We used to have three strike things, this gentleman they're talking about. He's up four, five, six, eight, nine strikes. We should never see him again. I agree. Never. I think it would be a weird question, so what would you do? As community members, you have a drug dealer in your neighborhood. What are you going to do? Walk over and beat the shit out? I mean, what are you going to do? I'm confused. What does a neighborhood watch do? We take, we have physiotapes. We have lots of license numbers with the cars that come, the cars that go, the time they go and I had a meeting right on my front porch with the constable and he just lip service to tell you the truth. And I think they're really frustrated. I think constable has done his job. And I think once it gets into the court system, I don't think our court system does its job. So it's a generally surveillance thing. You guys are able to- Kids, I've lived next to him since he was born. And he's been to rehab a couple of times. And I tried to help him after like the second rehab. And I was talking about it and basically he got through rehab, but he couldn't, he could not schedule an appointment with a doctor to get Suboxone until two weeks after he was let out. Now to my way of thinking, he should have had that prescription the day he left. Should have walked out. So by the two weeks, by the time he's doing the Suboxone, he lives in Bethel, the Suboxone was in White River. So now somebody's got to get him to White River. And that doesn't work. And of course they won't even, because Suboxone, they can sell that and buy more heroin. The Suboxone's worth more than- So bottom line is he has to go down there and he has to swallow the stuff in front of the person. And he's got to get back to Bethel. So set up for failure from the jump? Yeah, it's the failure he's shown him. And I think, you know- And then we're pissed off at him because he's can't. And there's a whole lot of holes that could be filled that are short of throwing them in jail. But I think at some point that you're going to have to build more jails if you aren't going to try to rehabilitate them, because this bullshitter, but we don't even have a place for juveniles to go in the state. I mean, the whole thing is bullshit. The whole system is wrong. And- Yeah, I don't disagree with you. And so the legislature's working on that. I know that the Corrections and Institutions Committee, let's say, is that correct? Buildings, let me get all my committee. But I know that, anyway, the committees that oversee such things as, I mean, Corrections, they're working on trying to update these things. The medical people don't communicate with the police. The whole thing, they found this person living in South Main Street. Yeah. And the paper said, well, we just got a tip. Now this has been going on for 15, 20 years. And all you need to do is come to my house and ask me where he is, and I will tell you. And I have told them. And to nausea. Oh, I know. I mean, it's crazy. Yeah, I mean, there's a whole, and this is a problem that across the legislature, across state agencies, they don't communicate. Siloes. That's what they call them silos. And they really are that. I mean, I think you all heard me, those of you who are at time, you heard me make the reference to the workforce silos, where every department of labor, department of education, department of ag department, all of those have little trainings and scholarships and stuff to help people get jobs and improve all that stuff. And none of those communicate with each other. They aren't aware of each other. Sometimes they get no one to do anything with their programs because no one knows about their programs, no one's referring. So we're trying to set things to break out of those silos to help that. And that's the case with this, too, right? I mean, each department becomes their own little kingdoms. And they really don't. And there's a part of it where they're just so busy, they don't even think to talk to each other. But there's also a little piece of it where they're afraid that if they talk to someone else, someone else might get in their business. And so they. And that's the answer. Yes, it is. It is, right? Law, what a revelation. But as a legislature, and we're trying really hard, and it comes up all the time about breaking out silos. My committee tries to work because my committee's commerce and economic development. So we're always working on. We are working with the agency of education around career tech education. Because they've been handling that by themselves, won't want to talk to commerce and community development. So we're like, but you've got to have that. You're going to have jobs. And of course, education doesn't want to talk to the department of labor about apprenticeships for plumbers and stuff. So we finally got them wrestled together so that they've created this comprehensive thing. It works together that they're still building. But that's one of our big struggles is getting these agencies to communicate. Now, I want to point out, all of these agencies, like every company in Vermont, is understaffed. Can't find anybody to do the jobs. So they're also not working at full capacity. And that's a problem. And in my committee, our chair finally has started to make, when we set up a program, whether it's our idea or the administration's idea, we set up a program. And usually, you ask for it, at least after the first year, and usually forever, you say, once a year, you've got to tell us how it went. Give us a report. And we've discovered that they couldn't be, one, they couldn't be verbal reports. Well, if they couldn't be just email us the report. Because lots of times, we just never would get a report. It wouldn't bother to send it. So then it was like, well, come give us a verbal report. And it has to be. But we finally realized it has to be. They have to walk in, sit down in our committee, and tell us face to face, did you you said you were going to do what we authorized? And it is not uncommon that the answer is, now we decide not to do it. And we're like, we passed a law saying you're supposed to do it. And they're like, yeah. And so now some committees are starting to actually build into their bills saying, and if you don't do this thing, it's going to affect the funding of that thing. Because that's the stuff they care. And so it's this interesting struggle that's going on between, you know, and yeah. One of the things that seems to happen is the more money you spend, the more power you have. The more money you have access to, the more power you have. So if my budget's bigger than yours, then I have more power than you. And therefore they hold on to their budget and they don't share with the other people for the common good. That's right. It's all about controlling the dollars. See if you get part of my budget, hold on. That needs to be analyzed a little bit. It's, hey, some of this is the stuff. I'm doing a class at Peppley University on the insiders look at that government. And this is the kind of stuff I want to talk about. Not necessarily, I'm not talking politics. I'm not going to talk about specific bills, but sort of these dysfunctions about how the system doesn't work, how people don't communicate with each other, games they play with each other. I think we finally killed the governor's program of giving people who moved to Vermont $10,000. But we've been trying. The legislature's been trying. The House has been trying to kill that for years because we think it's stupid. Do the people that support that program know that we grease the skids for kids to leave with our portability of these act dollars? $5 million a year. $5 million a year we give as grants, not loans. Grants to kids to take the out of state colleges and seven out of 10 of them don't return. And then we have to pay money for kids to come back to school. Does anybody know what the right hand's doing with the law? Well, that's it. I mean, both those issues have passed through my committee. They're not exactly my jurisdiction. But again, we touch on them. Because the governor would argue that the $10,000 gets more people here to work. And everybody, look at what Vermont does versus other states. Oh, yeah. Take the percentage of our dollars that we send out of state. We are off the spectrum. We're down here. The second state comes near the middle. We are so off the charts. And we have a disintegrating school system. Oh, I know. And we spend $5 million a year to grease the skids for kids to leave. Yeah. And my committee interfaces again with that workforce development piece, which is the universities, colleges, and all the things. So VSAC comes in reports with us. And so we're aware of this. And at least in my committee, we recommended that we stop that. But too many legislators, quite frankly, from my perspective, take advantage of this. And they support this program so they can send their kids out of state to other colleges on the taxpayers' tab. And they let this Vermont state college system where basically the poor kids go rot. And more than likely, those kids are not even native. And those people that are making those laws are not even native to Vermont. But it's OK for the last six. We finally had to close the dorm to DTC. For the last five years I was there, when the kids took a shower, the water came up to drain and filled the bottom of the shower with gray water. And that's how they started their day. I had one morning class, 9 o'clock on Friday morning before Labor Day weekend. All the time I'm in a lecture hall. All the kids would talk about how disgusting the bathrooms were. And then we were also spending $750,000 on TV ads that nobody ever saw. The legislature destroyed the state college system. We went nine years, nine years without an educator in the chancellor's office. It was one political hack after another. I'm sorry. Yeah, that was before my time. And they drove it into the ground. Yeah, that was before my time. We're trying to do what we have where we are now. The damage is done. Well, we're on that big decision. One of the things that drives me crazy, when I was a kid during summer, Barnard Lake hired a bunch of kids to lifeguard, you know, work up there. Now we spend millions of dollars in Philadelphia, New York, and whatever to get people to come up here. But they can't leave their kids at Barnard Lake because there's not a lifeguard. We can't afford a lifeguard, but we can spend. My theory is you get them here. You want them to have a good time. They say, well, geez, I can't go home back and cook supper without bringing the kids back, or you know. And you come up here, and it drives me also insane. You get up here, and there's not a place to go to the bathroom on the interstate. I mean, give me a break. It's I won't, because going, of course, Massachusetts is narrow, but I refuse to stop in Massachusetts. So they don't have a rest area anywhere on 91, just whatever. There's a couple on 95 that I would not get within 100 yards of. You can't stand it. Well, the point is it's there. When you get to be my age, it's very important. We do it every 15 miles. This young lady came in saying she had some questions. She wanted to ask, and I want to. Yeah. So a couple things. So I did not reach out to you. I did reach out to a couple of representatives that didn't take it serious, I guess. They didn't, whatever. But I did not reach out to you. And I will also say that ignorance is bliss. And this is probably not as detrimental as heroin addicts and school budgets and whatever. But it's important to me. So yeah. It's about massage therapy in the state of Vermont and the lack of education that someone needs in the state of Vermont to have a massage therapy license. I am a massage therapist. It's insulting to my profession. And from what I understand, not sure, because I've been gone and back and whatever, that the reason why the law is the way that it is is to do to sex workers. And I'm not 100% sure if that's the case or not. But from my research, that's what I found, which is even more insulting to my profession, because we're healers. I can tell you that Vermont is the only state in the nation that requires nothing. So you can go pay your $50 or $70 and go get a massage therapy license and open a business right there and need no education. I have a problem with that, because somebody could seriously get hurt. You probably have. I can tell you that in the 49 states, and it stuck out to me because I'm from here, right? When I went to school, I'm like, what? Nobody hears about Vermont. What states that in? What speak language do you speak? So I automatically, Vermont, no education. So this is how it's broken down in the other 49 states. In the state of New York, you need 1,000 clock hours. So in the American education, right? So some you need semester hours. Some you need clock hours. And a clock hour is you may need 500 clock hours. And they literally every hour is accounted for, opposed to a semester, right? So in the state of Alaska, you need 1,000. No, I just lied. In the state of New York, you need 1,000 hours. And in the state of Hawaii, you need 1,000 hours, OK? Clock hours. In the state of New York, it falls under medical, right? It falls under you have to go under a medical board to get a massage therapy license. In Hawaii, it's 1,000 hours. They have their own massage technique. It's called Lomi Lomi, right? And then they have 1,000 hours, all right? So those are the two states with 1,000 hours. There's several that have 750, 600 hours, 500 hours, whatever. So in the state of Hawaii, in the state of New York, you have to take their test at their facility. It's a special test just for massage therapy, right? In the other 47 states, it's called the Emblex, OK? So I can take one test in a facility where you go and make appointments to take on any day. And I have to show my credentials of my school and whatever. And then I can take the Emblex. And then I can go to any state, show them my school, show them my Emblex, whatever. So in any state, you need at least 500 hours. And then in most states, which pick your battles, it falls under body work, falls under spa, haircuts, barbers, and things like cosmetology, which is also insulting. Also insulting, yeah. But it's different because in New York, I mean, when we went to school in New York, it was no joke. We did myology, pathology. I mean, we did all of it. So not all schools are like that. Not all states are like that. But Vermont needs to change. And we need to be more, we need to be better. And if it is true that it's because of the sex workers, I don't know. I read something about, I did go online and look at something about the lady at the office of professionals. And because you didn't get a license at all, you could just do it. So that's how it came about. Then finally, you needed at least a license. And it had to do with the sex workers and not stopping that. How is the massage license? And then here's another fun fact. Teach all of you something. The difference between a masseuse. A masseuse is a sex worker. A licensed massage therapist is a massage therapist. You'll find a licensed massage therapist at an office. You'll find a masseuse at an owner. So that is my ignorance is bliss. As a licensed acupuncturist who also does twin app, who watched my profession have to go through all those same stages actually in Vermont. When I first became a licensed acupuncturist, I first became what was called a registered acupuncturist, which was exactly the status that massage therapists currently have, which is you had to fill out. You did have to say, I went to school somewhere, and then you just said, I went to school somewhere, and then you paid him $50, and you got a license. And so I used to joke. Anybody could go buy some knitting needles and open practice. And so there's two pieces here I want to emphasize. And I do want to say, I think you're absolutely right. It's a profession that needs to be considered a profession and treated as such, because it shouldn't be treated less important than cosmetology. And somebody could really hurt somebody. I mean, you just watch a lot, and it's like, oh, well, I went and saw Sally, and she rubbed me, and now I'm dead. So a couple of things. One is that this whole, even the registration of massage therapists, I was just barely do it. Did it happen in 2020? It may have, or it was just before that. And so I was talking with a number of other massage therapists at that time when they were trying to set up something. Because I believe they initially came in. The initial bill was actually for licensure. And part of the problem, I think, is that they tried to lump all body workers into it. And in particular, they tried to lump in Reiki practitioners. And the Reiki folks were lobbying to be part of it. Ultimately, but what kind of training did they get? Right? Yeah, I had it. And so it ultimately sort of watered down the whole bill, more so than just worrying about sex workers. That's just people being ignorant about the profession. But so that was kind of the compromise they came up with. But also, I want to say that when acupuncturists started this process, we got all that same, like, is this voodoo? And the process it went through was first they registered us. Then a few years later, they created a second level, which was certification, which at that point, you had to show that you had to show that you'd received training, and then after that, a few years, they then ultimately turned it into licensure. And I think that that is sort of the model that the Office of Professional Regulation likes to use. I think they're worried that if they jump too quickly, and it was frustrating as heck for acupuncturists, so I completely understand what you're saying. But it was a process to get there. Yeah. It's just kind of disturbing that it's 20, 20, 20, 20. It was 1974, 1984, maybe even 1994. But it's 2024. And we have 49 other states that aren't the, you know. So I just. I have to say, as someone whose license covers Chinese herbs, Burma also does not regulate herbalists in any way. So OK, so all right, so who do we need to do to change this? Who do I need to talk to to change this? Well, I mean, the medical people, who do we need to change? I mean, yeah, it probably needs to have another bill written to update. So talk to me. And assuming I get reelected, I'm happy to do this. But yeah. Because even if we start with something simple, hey, you need an education. Yeah. And take the envelopes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's not difficult. Yeah. But that's the place it would be, because what you do is you create a bill. And then assuming, so then this, first get somebody to write you a bill, then that bill's going to go to the health committee. Then you have to lobby the health committee to have them actually bother to work on that bill. Once they work on that bill. And that's where most bills go to die. They die there. And sometimes it's not because they're bad bills. Sometimes it's because other bills are more important. They have a finite amount of time to get them in. And so the next step after that is then you would get the office professional revelation. All those people would start coming in. And that's really when you get all your massage therapists friends to show up and testify and state this on the record. And that's how you make those two. And I guess that's what I struggle with when it's like, why would we have to have, when it's common sense, right? I mean, this is common sense. Why do I need to call 100, the massage therapists in the state of Vermont to go and say, hey, this is common sense. Somebody could really hurt somebody. So I guess I struggle with that piece of it. If why we have to waste all the money. They need 50 people to tell them. Yeah, do it, right? Because that's just silly. That's silly. Well, process is silly. It is. It's like, you know. OK, so you say it. So it's more valid than more people say it. All right. Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly how it works. I mean, it's both ways. If you're getting up people to say you don't need it, forget it. That's the problem. I mean, honestly, I think it's a feature, not a bug, which is unlike a lot of other states. Vermont purposely has a very deliberative legislative process. But it's exhausting and nothing gets done. Well, it's true. It does. And again, sometimes that's a good idea. Because there are a lot of people that come into this room and say, why did the legislature do this thing? Didn't they listen to anybody? And so if the other side of that is sometimes legislators put in a stupid bill, and you want people to have the opportunity to say, that's a stupid bill. And to kill it. So the legislative process is very deliberative. We spend hours on and we talk to everyone who's pro or con and we do all that stuff. So it's intentional. Right. And I get that for things that aren't, I get that if it was a debatable topic. The problem is there aren't people that want to debate. It's all debate. You're interfering with my right to make a living. But it's not debatable that somebody could get hurt. The health and safety part of that. The health and safety part. I don't see how the health and safety part. The safety part. Is this why you have to testify? Well, just wait till there's a bill. And you'll see how debatable it is. Well, the whole thing is, there's going to be, when that bill comes, there are hundreds of people who have no credentials whatsoever, but they've been doing it for a long time. And good or bad, but nonetheless, it's a true statement. And so those people are going to come out. And because you're putting them out, they're business. And so they're all going to come and they're going to want to say, what's the issue? And so this is why they start the process of registration. Because the idea is if they register, then you can add some new criteria that they can step up slowly to to qualify for. And so you can ease them up to being trained. And if they aren't willing to train then. But if you just say one day, all you back rubbers are out of business, they're going to. OK, but because I've been here when it's happened, and I've seen it in other places, that people are grandfathered in. When my sister was 18, and whatever went to 21, she was grandfathered in. So though the law was 21, she was 18, she could. So do they not grandfather laws anymore? Or is that not a thing? Right? OK, so there's that problem solved. There's another place where bills die. And that's called the wall. And you and I have had a conversation about a rate payer protection plan for electric utilities. And right now, that may not even be taken up by a committee because the committee is out of time. But or whatever the reason, and we're at the end of a biennium, which means that if nothing happens to it, everything stops and starts back again next year at zero. So in this particular case, something that would protect the lowest income for monitors and their utility bills has the risk of just not being taken up because it's been crowded out by other stuff that's taken time. And I think there, I feel at some point, those things that crowd out are somebody's baby. They may not necessarily serve a large portion, but they serve my constituents in Burlington. So I want to push out this thing that covers 90% of the folks, say 70% of the folks in Vermont, because my 100 constituents in Burlington really need this. And I mean, I've seen that. So I know that happens. And that's where someone's going to step up and say, no, Mr. Senator from Chick-N-Kaname. I know you've got a whole bunch of people, but no. Not going to happen. But that's what needs to happen. But it's not going to happen. Yeah. In a way, the most powerful people in the legislature are the committee chairs. Those are the people who decide what gets worked on, what doesn't get worked on. And so yeah, they're the people that make that call. And if they're doing their job, they're representing their constituents. I mean, while I'm in the house and we work on bills to affect all Vermonters, honestly, I don't care a whole lot about other places than these four towns. And if a bill is going to be good for the rest of the state, that's going to be bad for Bethel or Rochester or Stockbridge or Hancock, I'm going to vote against it because my constituents are here. And they're all going to do that. So the senator from Chittenden County is going to do that for this. And they do. And they do. That's what they're elected for. That's your job. But it is sometimes a problem. And I've said this before, some people will be like, well, what's the politics like in my pairs that the Republicans and the Democrats bang in heads? I'm like, most of the time, Republicans, Democrats, progressives are working just fine together. They cooperate quite a lot. The battle is usually Chittenden County versus the rest of the state. And they have a lot of representation because they have a lot of population. And so you try to get, I know in my committee, for example, we're economic development. And the state is always coming in saying, we've got a new program about this thing we'd like to put in Burlington. And we're always saying, well, what about Linden? What about Townsend? What can we do for those towns? Because the county's doing OK. And so also, I've argued that the administration, the state agencies, also sort of, I mean, they see Chittenden County as the economic driver for the state. And they're always thinking about what they can do to make that better. And the rest of us have to keep pushing back on. That is so, so blind, because OK, let's keep fixing this and that. And the rest of the state isn't, where if you could fix the whole state, that would fix Burlington too. I know. I agree with you. No, we've got to fix this one little spot. And that'll be our holy grail. Can I bring up another topic? Yes, absolutely. I want to talk about what prompted me to speak. I spoke at the Education Meeting of Town Meeting. And what prompted me to speak, quite frankly, was an article in the Valley News by the former president of the Vermont School Board's Association. I don't know if you read it or not. His name is Neil O'Dell. And what really prompted me to step up and speak, he kind of wrote a letter to the future of Vermont. And bear with me. His first sentence, I think, is rather profound. So it says, dear future Vermont, I'm sorry. I apologize for where you are now. It was our fault. Things got strange around 2022 to 2024 and went sideways. Maybe if more of us had been vocal, things could have turned out differently. It was that sentence that made me stand up and speak. Maybe if more of us were more vocal, things could have turned out differently. And so I spoke at Town Meeting. Dave called me up the next day and asked me to come here. The Valley News has called me up and asked me to write an op-ed piece, which I think will be in this Saturday. But when you take a look at what this guy has stated about the current state of education in Vermont, it is nothing short of alarming and it's unconstitutional. So bear with me for one more paragraph from this guy, because he says it better than I ever could. And he said, early spring of 2024, right here, was a challenging time in Vermont. In those years, while we still had a public education system, it was being stretched to its limit and was beginning to unravel. The refunding pressure statewide, the dual system of accountability for public and private and religious schools, the dysfunctional agency of education, the state board of education friendly to private schools and the legislature that struggled with the unintended consequences of a poorly designed education funding bill. Basically said to quote Charles Dickens, it was the worst of times. That's where we find ourselves in our education system. So if you bear with me, I actually spent some time to dig into the history of our school voucher program and please correct me if I go straight here. You may know more than I do. And the first tack of where people have a problem with our school voucher program, we're sending vouchers to private schools, is the common benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution. This is one of our guiding lights in Vermont and this is what our common benefits clause says. It says that government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit protection and security of the people, nation or community and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family or set of persons. Public education and public education are common benefits, all right? What we have done in our system here, if we look at 1991, prior to that our public school voucher system was consistent with our common benefits clause of our Constitution because prior to 1991, tuition students could enroll in public schools in neighboring districts or in one of Vermont's academies and that was Linden Institute, St. John'sbury Academy, Berberton and Setford Academy which I think were all in existence for over 100 years. And they made the point in the enabling legislation that these academies conformed to most standards and rules for public schools, right? 1991 things changed and vouchers could be paid to private independent schools. And now payment of vouchers go to religious schools and shows us how far our vouchers have moved away from our core Vermont values. We've abandoned our constitutional commitment to common benefits and we've turned school budgets into a source of funds for private interests. We're even sending public school dollars to elite prep schools in other states. My position is publicly should be for, huh? And girl. Yeah, yep, just wanted to switch a little bit. Public money should be for public education, not private benefit. Anytime we send a voucher to a school that does not serve a public purpose, makes everyone pay more so that a handful of people can have taxpayer funded benefits. So I think we've got to come around and refocus on our common benefit clause here, all right? It's been 33 years since we've been doing this. I have no hope in that happening to tell you the truth, all right? Another reason why we should revise our voucher program is demonstrated by the fact that we facilitated development of a private school system that has negligible regulation, minimal oversight, and complete independence from duly elected school boards. Their characteristics of school boards vary directly with public schools. Private schools can pick and choose who they accept, effectively taking public dollars, but refusing to educate the public's children. In private schools, faculty do not need to be certified in their field or be licensed by the state to teach. Private schools are not required to publish assessment results or other accountability factors. Employees of private schools are not protected by collective bargaining agreements and often have weak benefits. The citizens who pay the bill for these students do not have to get the vote on the school's budget and the unelected boards of directors of private schools have no obligation to the public who provides most of their revenue, all right? So we have a complete dichotomy going down here. This is the anomaly to me, is our state board of education. They have a responsibility for establishing rules for our education system, but they resisted any attempt to make standards for private and public schools the same. We have different rules for public schools and different rules for private schools. And I personally have a problem with that because it violates at least our common benefits clause of our constitution. I had no hope of that changing until 2022 decision from the US Supreme Court. This is the show changer right here. So A, I think on its merits, we should not be sending public money to private schools. Now constitutionally, we even have a bigger issue, all right? And this came in 2022 as a case out of Maine and the US Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Carson versus Macon. And it presents Vermont with significant challenge but also unique opportunity. So what the Supreme Court said, that state need not pay funds to private schools but once it sends money to a private school, it has to send money to religious schools. Enter the Vermont Constitution now. We have Vermont Constitution, I think it's called the compelled support clause of our constitution. And basically it sets up the separation of church and state, it's been like this in 1777. Basically people are free to worship what they want, free to government interference and people in this state cannot be compelled to support religious institutions. So here's the problem. Here's the problem that's been faced for us by the Supreme Court. US Supreme Court says you can give money to public schools but if you do, you must give money to religious schools. The state constitution comes in and says we cannot give money to religious schools based on our constitution. There's only one clear path through this. We have to stop giving money to private schools. And the reasons for doing that are compelling. Everybody in your district or the four towns you talk about, if we were to close private schools, their taxes would go down. The school property taxes would go down. More money would come into our public school system. We could have more students in our system. Our average cost per student would come down and our tax rates would come down. So why are we just overtly refusing to follow the constitution? I'm curious what Scott thinks about this. I'm asking you. No, no. Because Scott is a supporter of the private schools. Why is the state, I don't talk about shared academy specific. Why is the state ignoring the constitutional mandates? Because at this point, I mean, I agree with you. I don't think you should be supporting private schools based on it. And so I agree with you. And I'm actually, Rebecca Holcomb, do you know her name is Rebecca? So actually she and I- But she's not in her position anymore. She's not. No, she's a legislator now. And so Rebecca and I have actually been talking about this summer trying to convene, even if it's not an official committee, but get some legislators together and perhaps some others to try and figure out how we can get through this roadblock. Because you're right. The short answer is discontinue. You know, those four traditional private schools have actually all agreed that they do follow the state curriculum. They have adopted the state curriculum. So St. John's Great Academy, Thetford Academy for Burton and Lyndon. And so, you know, you could keep the four traditional academies and still, and then only support public schools like we did before. Where we got in the problem was, was we started the voucher program to these other private schools. And so, but now, if we're doing those private schools, then what we actually have is we have a constitutional prohibition. Well, we have- Band-aid. Yeah, well, what we have is we have the state constitution that says you can't, our tax monies can't go to support a kind of public institution. Religious institution. Yeah, religious institution. And the feds say that we have to. And so we have been, there have been people who've been trying to get this to change. This has been a, this has actually been a conversation in the legislature for a couple of years. And it was actually a big issue during the budget adjustment act that we just passed. There were a number of legislators objected to passing that budget because it was sending money to, it was supporting after-school programs, but after-school programs now also fall under the same thing. So if a church group wants to start an after-school program, if we give money to any after-school programs, whether it's done by the public school or anyone, we also have to give money to those church-run after-school programs. And so a number of legislators objected to that. It was all pre-arranged. It was a symbolic objection because the budget had to pass. But the idea is that we know that we need to come back and we need to find a way to take this out and straighten it out. But the lobby for those private schools is pretty strong. And it doesn't trump the constitution, sir. You're right. But all I'm saying is, and I agree with you, and I think we should correct this. I'm saying there are legislators who are going to argue the other side of that. And so, and- Are they gonna change the constitution? What's the point here? How can they argue that what we're doing is an overt violation of our state's constitution? I agree, I agree. And isn't the time ripe right now when we have 29 budgets that went down? Yeah, no. The time is ripe to strike now and push this through, push these legislators to think differently. I agree, I agree. And actually, I hope that that is one of the side effects of this whole budget piece is that it brings that awareness to people of all those points you made. I agree with you. I'm saying that I'm one legislator amongst a number that are trying to make this. 149. Huh? There's 149. Yeah. So, but we are trying to, there are those of us that are trying to find a way to convince them or provide this information. But, you know- So do they just overtly say, I don't care what the constitution says, we're sending money to this religious school? I think what they, I think they don't make that argument. The argument they make, the argument they make is this. And it's not completely without merit, which is that there are some students for whom the public school system doesn't work well. There's a carve out in any legislation for therapeutic schools. That's fine. But- That argument goes over there on the side. But they don't put it over at the side. And so that's the- Well, it isn't the legislation, it's called therapeutic schools. Yeah, but, and that is one of those things that they're trying to work around. So, I mean, I think, I know a lot of people who argue that Sharon Academy worked really well for their kids where the public schools didn't. And so- And that's fine. But they should pay tuition to Sharon Academy. That's how that works. I mean, when Scott sent his son to Sharon Academy, you paid tuition for him, but the whole thing worked out well. Sharon Academy filled a need in this area when we had a Bolger population. They did. But we don't have that Bolger population in any manner. We've had, within our school district, our 10 town school district, four high schools have closed. We're down to one. Will independent private schools have to close due to lack of enrollment? Absolutely. This is not a reason to keep spending, sending public money to those schools to prop them up. I agree. Let's say I live in those towns that those schools exist in, however, disagree. And- I'm not sure if that's true because of the 10 towns that have been in that school district, every one of those towns property taxes would go down. Every one of your constituent property taxes would go down. I agree. Since spending money to public schools. And I think you'll find that that might turn into a persuasive argument. I'm just saying- And it's persuasive to me. I mean, you're arguing with me and I agree with you. I'm just saying that not everyone agrees with you. And- So not everybody agrees with following the Constitution. That's what you're coming down to. Yes, I think I am. I think they interpret it as not a conflict with the Constitution. I agree with you. I think it is a conflict with the Constitution. I'm just saying not everyone sees it that way. Well, then I come back to Mr. O'Dell's point. Perhaps it's because more of us shouldn't spoke up. Yeah. And I think- What we need to know. Yeah, and I think the iron is hot right now to speak up. Yeah. I think you're right. It's called WPTC. I've got an op-ed piece known in the value news when it sent it to VT Digger. I think that's- I think it's fantastic. And I hope people take your lead. And I think you're absolutely right. I do think that this is an issue that needs to be resolved. And right now, they're amongst enough of my colleagues and enough of the members of the agency of education. The agency of education is notoriously recalcitrant to any kind of change. Now, they resist even when the legislators say, you're supposed to do this. And so I think a public pressure campaign is absolutely- Will the governor let the agency of education be without the leadership for almost a year? Talk to your governor. In the parking of education, I don't know how this all worked quite frankly. You can help me out. I'm assuming they're all politically appointed at the Department of Education. That's why they have blinders on that they're going to just support private schools. But in terms of the public good, educating the public, which is what our public schools are supposed to be doing, critical thinking, et cetera, et cetera, non doctrinal, if that's not just public school or private schools and not just religious schools, but homeschooling, opens up a huge. My values are different from those of the community. So therefore, my kids are going to be taught the way I want them to be taught, not the way that is good for the community. So how do we build some sort of accountability for homeschoolers? And they're not paying tuition to anybody. They are paying the taxes. But it's a societal, in my view, the society suffers when we don't have a common understanding, A, of how it works. You know? I think you need to understand that there are large national forces that are dumping thousands and thousands of dollars into, Vermont is one of those states that they want to flip into being a lot more like Alabama. And so they are dumping. The lobbyists are there. The money is there. The lawsuits are being written for all those right. And again, I agree with you with the social benefit of teaching discernment and those kind of things. But you can see that that's going into first amendment right arguments right there. And that's going to go to that's if you start regulating what people are teaching their kids at home, that's going to be a court case. And so what I teach my kids, what I'm arguing is participation in the public education as well. Yeah, I mean, I don't have a problem with homeschools because they're not taking money to do it. They're not taking public money for their private, for the private, they're doing it themselves. I don't have my specific problem is public money going to private schools. You're getting off the track here. Because that's what we have to focus on. Public money should not go to private schools. While I hear you what you're saying, I think that's the issue here is we start a conversation and then it goes like this. No, we stay on this conversation and work on it. And I will tell you right now that we've only got one more meeting such as this. Hopefully the senators will show up, maybe Becca White. She's never made one yet, but maybe she can even make one. I had a conversation with Bennett Law. I asked him to apprise the folks that this is going to come up. And please be here and pay attention. And I even went so far as please limit your talking to five to 10 minutes because this is very important to the state, very important to Bethel. And I have someone who he and I have not always agreed on a lot of things. This particular time, we are on the same page. I think most people will be quite frankly. I think the average for Moner is going to say, oh, I didn't know. That's why I think a public information piece is exactly good. And I think Dave's right that this is the right time. I'm retired. Right. And I'm willing to find a way if there is a way. You guys, we, Montpelier, there's people still up there. They're talking. And if we need to go to meetings and rally people and stuff, I'm willing to be part of that. This needs to not get dropped. I think that's great. I mean, and saying that, I wish this conversation had happened in January because we're almost out of time with this legislative session. Well, we didn't watch this year running for me on rabble. We watched a lot of things. Is there a way to make sure that it happens as soon as the session starts? Yes. Yes. So that's the piece, right? So if you get this out, if Dave starts working on, if collectively this can be rallied, so there are those people. And like you said, I'm playing a meeting with Rebecca and I. We had this conversation last week. Well, she's totally into the common benefits argument. She is. Yeah, totally. Yeah. And so we were talking about how the silos and all that stuff influence all this. Because again, the agency of education doesn't talk to anybody else. So they're in their own little. And that's true in the local community as well. The school board doesn't talk to the select board. And so we go down these parallel tracks, never talking about one another. You influence each other. And for this climate activist, that's a problem. Yeah. Yeah. So I think in Bethel, I have to rebuild that a little bit, is we have a very unique situation in that we have a school board member on our select board. And he does keep us up. We did. We still do. Chris Jarvis is still on the select board. Yes. He's still on the select board. He's still on the school board. No, he came off. He just came off. Julie, I didn't see that. But anyway, the silos. I didn't see his name on the ballot. The silos are what? Yeah. So as I said, I think that there is going to be meetings and people working on trying to come up with solutions over the summer so that a bill can be ready because we can work with the Legislative Council. So it's got all the right legalese now. And try and have something that can hit the legislature the first week of January when we open and try and get that going. And as you all have mentioned, I mean, I think the timing is good because all these towns are like, why am I supporting private schools in Switzerland? In my own community, when we don't do the primary education as much, we're doing college level training stuff like that. But we've been trying to, we've been trying to, there are those forces that also say, but we should be sending, if VESAC should be paying for kids to go to wherever. Vermont schools with a grant. I don't care about their loans. Grants at a state school. But their grants, it should make them stay here, right? I can give you multiple examples. One of them was right here in this town. So we have to look, this has gone on for years. She was drunk. She's a physician now. She got into Duke. And her mom went down. Her mom knew where dollars went. She was one of the best school board members we ever had. And they went down to Duke. And I said, well, what happened at the financial aid when it went to the financial aid office? She said, oh. She said, they saw we were from Vermont. And they saw that Samantha had VESAC dollars. The VESAC dollars came in and they, they went in new of Duke's endowment dollars. The parents' contribution didn't change five cents. We had taxpayer grants from Vermont go to Duke to support their endowment. This happens repeatedly. And we're like this about it. And please, look at the percentages. Rutland-Hurrell wrote an article on them. Our percentage of dollars that go out of state is just shocking. The second closest state, too, is up near the middle. It's bizarre what we do. And quite frankly, I think it's self-serving interest of people in the legislature that have or want to send their kids out of state to private schools. Can I tell you something? Because I've done a little research on all the representatives of Vermont in less than 15. And I'm going to say less than 15% of our 150 representatives are native. When they sent their kids to school. That's right. So at that point, I need, I'm sorry. I'm just saying. I live in Vermont. I was not born here. My grandparents are not in the cemetery of Bethel. But I am a Vermont. I am, too. And I'm just going to call this myopia about only helping people who are, quote, native and only natives. But that's what you said. I'm reacting because I am not native. But I still live here. And my grandchild needs or is entitled to go to the college or university of his or her choice, whether it is in the state of Vermont or not. It's the, you know, to draw a line around this state as if nobody exists outside is wrong. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I didn't listen to the students. My point, my point. Listen to my words, please. No, listen to how I'm hearing it, OK? I just need you to hear that there are those Vermonters who are entitled to some of the same benefits that Vermonters get when they stay in the town, in the state. That's all I'm saying. And I agree. I am not. Yeah, I'm not dismissing your time in the state. All I'm saying, and I'm not dismissing that at all. I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that, you know, a lot of our representatives are no longer native. It doesn't matter. It's so bad. Oh, you don't think it does? It doesn't matter? It doesn't matter. They represent the people where they live. It does not matter. I'm sorry. No, no, and that's OK. I put the high school in New Jersey. I didn't feel uncomfortable on the Bethel School Board. No, no, I guess my view, maybe, is that people tend to take care of their own. I'm sorry I upset both of you. That wasn't my intention. It wasn't my intention at all. I'm just, my thing is that people tend to take care of their own, right, in that sense. So my point is, is that if 130 of our people in the legislation aren't from here, and maybe moved here the last five years, 10 years, that they're not as interested. And maybe I'm wrong. I don't buy that a bit. You're wrong. OK. I'm sorry. OK, I've been gone for a long time. There are good ideas that come from outside of the state. Absolutely. And we have, and this is not just Bethel, not just Vermont, but it's nationally. We are part of a global community. And there are good ideas and good people all over the world. And we're involved with them, like it or not. Yeah, absolutely. And there are good people whose families have been here for an excess of 250 years. And those of us who fall in that group sometimes feel dismissed, because the folks who came from outside are smarter and better, and know more about what we should have. And I just don't think. I truly believe. But that's my feeling. That's my feeling. You look up more hands. I truly believe that if Vermonters were running the state, you know, at least the majority of them, they would be concerned more about where their money is going. Vermonters aren't running the state. Do you think, because you're not born here, you're not a Vermonter? That's what you're saying. It is what you're saying. That's repulsive. That is very repulsive. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I agree. You understand what I'm saying. I'm sorry if I'm not using my words correctly. We're going to derail a little bit. You're right. You're right. I'm sorry. I'm not. Can we just read your answer both ways? Yeah. Can we get back to school for a little bit? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. On relevancy, you know, we talk about displaced peoples. I mean, we could go on for 100 years. If we want to talk about a national interest, it's the same conversation in Wisconsin. Oh, the Chicago people are moving up. It's the same conversation in Colorado. Oh, the Texans are moving up. It's not helpful. All right, I'm sorry. It's not helpful to be divisive in geography, or time, or skin color. So in relevancy terms, let's look back at what the purpose is here. I have a question about the Supreme Court precedent. Because that case, the 2022 case, the narrow issue was religion. I can't hear you. The narrow issue was religion, not private schools in general. So we can distinguish that from the Vermont case, which you're saying is a constitutional. And I'm not as clear on that. I don't think you can distinguish it. The Supreme Court case was on religious grounds. But Justice Roberts said, you do not have to support private schools. You do not have to do that, all right, with state money. But if you support private schools, then you must support religious schools. That's what the Supreme Court had to say. I thought that it was exclusively if you support private schools, that you must support religious schools. Maine had the same law as we did. So the conundrum comes in with our state's constitution, with the compel support clause, which says the citizens cannot be compelled to support a religious institution. So the Supreme Court says, if you give it to the private schools, you must give it to religious schools. Our state constitution says you can't give it to religious schools. There's only one path forward. We have to stop giving money to private schools. Everything else is unconstitutional. How they come to that is going to be another thing. But the fact is, when you sort it all out, our funding of private schools with public money has done three things. It's created a system that discriminates, segregates, and misuses public funds. And it needs to be changed. And don't take my arguments personally up. You're just my conduit back to my appeal. And I'll get within five miles of my appeal. You're my blood pressure changes. By the way, I agree with you, as you know. I quite frankly have lost faith in the state of Vermont. I used to have great confidence in the state of Vermont. But the reality is, you completely mismanaged the state teacher's pension fund. You completely mismanaged the employee's pension fund. Think of the percentage of people that lived in this state. And you've jeopardized their future because not you personally, but the state has mismanaged their pension fund, all right? The EB-5 program was nothing but a complete disgrace, all right? And the state was found to be negligent by the court up in Lamoille County. The only reason the damage claim didn't go through the roof, the jurors there weren't going to give a large damage claim when the money was going to go to rich people out of the country. So I appreciate them on that one. Lake Champlain's been trashed. I'm sorry. I had no confidence in the state. I used to have full confidence in the state of Vermont. But I've lost my confidence, quite frankly. You know, if the state college system being destroyed, what we're promoting with our private schools, we need a reset vote, big time. And there's only 640,000 people in the whole state. We can't afford to be all things to everybody. But we seem to think we can. If we had a full-time legislative, I mean, helpful, but that would cost more money. Well, that's cost more money. And maybe just one point that Kurt alluded to. And I'm only here for about 10 more minutes. Just one point that Kurt alluded to. Because we're a small state, and it's easy to get, it's less expensive to come here and fight national fights in Vermont than it is in California to try to get major legislation stuff done in California, in New York, or any of these big states, that you can come and bring your high-price lawyers and all your money. And you can go into Vermont legislature and get these things on the ballot. And that's why they want to turn Vermont. I'm not going to name parties. But they bring these suits to Vermont because it's cheaper to turn Vermont. It's easier to turn Vermont into Alabama than it is California into Alabama. And that's part of it. That's why these fights are here. I agree with you. And like the school system, being from Bethel, I used to know all the teachers. I could go in and talk with the teachers and get the best education. And the same with, I can get to talk to the governor if I want to, in the state of Vermont. I used to think that was a great thing. But we're fighting against outside forces that take away Vermont with however you define Vermonters' ability to do what's right. And there's a hidden agenda system these outside courts. I think there are people that want to overtly undermine our public school system. They want to do it with vouchers so that the vouchers, they say, well, the money follows the student. And so I think what they want to do, their hidden agenda, is to fund their religious schools with taxpayer money and let the public school system do whatever happens to them. I can't see. We can't do that for Vermont, fortunately, because of our constitution. I think we have the opportunity to refocus ourselves with our public money going to public schools and doing that. Our schools are dilapidated. They need to be fixed. The state hasn't done anything to help the school's infrastructure. I don't think since 2008, 2007, about that long, we haven't done anything to help schools with their infrastructure. And we need to refocus our dollars just on us and have the best public school system we can have. I don't see we've had such a radical approach, quite frankly. It's not just who can move on the ground. It's like the Sharon Academy saw a niche and said, hey, there's all these high schools closing, and we can provide an education, and we're going to consolidate. And they're what, 25% public now? 80% publicly funded. 80% on their website. The further websites says we're 80% public. I submit that's not an independent school. That's a dependent school. Yeah, and the problem is at the same time, we're saying, no, we're paying too much on property taxes, but we have to be willing to pay more. We're going to say, hey, we're going to increase our education management and allocation toward the buildings. If we're going to come up with public solutions, great. But I'm not sure we would have to pay more if we stopped giving the money to the private schools. If that money came back to us, think about what would happen in this community. Our enrollment would go up, our cost per people would go down, and our tax rate would go down, because you get money from the state on a per-people basis. Who would I talk to to get all these conversations into numbers? You mean to get the actual data? No, I agree with what Greg said, and absolutely. But I think I'm smart enough to know that when I go to your group, I got to come in and say, these are the dollars that you're spending. These are the dollars that can be saved. These are the kids that can be educated. All these things have to be in numbers. Yeah, and honestly, I think Rebecca Holcomb is your person. But for a couple of reasons, of course, she was. She and I don't get along at all. OK. When we sat down. I can talk to Rebecca. We sat down to work for the consolidation here in Bethel, and we wanted to break, because we had to consolidate the Windsor Northwest, and then we had to consolidate with what? She said, suck to be you. Yeah. And I said, whoa. Yeah. But she does agree with you on this issue. And so for a couple of reasons. One, because of her position, her former position at the Agency of Education, she has knowledge and experience, and knows where all those numbers are hidden. I'll bury the hatchet. And second of all, she is currently on the, I believe, Appropriations Committee, which is the money committee. And so, I mean, it's the money-spending committee. So she's going to know where that money is going outward. I don't know what if they, the Appropriations Committee divides its members up into areas of specialty. I wouldn't be surprised if her specialty is education. I'm not sure. I know which member on their committee has to do with economic development, because that's what I work with. But I don't know which one she works on. But I think Rebecca is probably going to be a great place to start. And if she doesn't know the answer, she'll know where you can get the answer. Can I, just before you leave, can we get a great, get a commitment from you to work on his issue, starting now to get all the people that you can communicate with in the legislature now to be ready for the next year to work on this. In the meantime, work with Mr. McCormick and the other two senators from Windsor County to be ready to have the same matching bill to come up in the Senate at the same time next year, rather than try to fix what's broken, let's make a new one. Are you familiar with the bill that's in the house already? Which one? There's a bill in the house. I think it's H-258 if I'm not mistaken. And it would provide that each town would have to provide for up to three private schools to whom they could send tuition from their town. And that would have to be a public school, of course. And so each town would then designate, either go to the sending school or three different alternatives, which would be a public school. And then the family would choose which alternative school they would go to. And these alternative schools, by the way, what's carved out in this legislation is the four traditional academies and the public schools plus therapeutic schools. So when people come up, well, my child really needs to go here for these specials. That's fine. They can go there. But what we're talking about is these quasi-public schools getting private. Yeah. And I don't know what ever came of that bill, because that came in last year, last session. But I know that I had a large for Hancock number of people last year at their town meeting who absolutely hated that bill. And because the way that bill is written, those potential schools that you can send have to be within a 25-mile radius. And a number of them send their kids to Sharon Academy. And so it's outside of that 25-mile radius for them. And they hated it. So yeah, but Sharon Academy wouldn't be an option in this new bill. I know. I don't know why they would hate it. But because it's here in Academy, it wouldn't be included. That's why they hate it. They want to send their kids there. So somebody at Hancock, they go over to Middlebury sometimes. They go up to Harwood sometimes. They can go to Rochester if they want to. They have options. And Hancock can designate three options. Well, I know. But as they clearly stated to me, they knew they had those options. And they want to send their kids to Sharon Academy. There's a bunch of broads from Hancock to Sharon Academy. It's unconstitutional for people. I know. I'm just saying, not every. That's when I say, I agree with you. But there will be pushback from the other side. Because there are people playing regular role. I never think there's many Hancock kids that go to Sharon Academy. Maybe Rochester, but not Hancock. I actually have the number somewhere. And no, it's not a lot. I mean Hancock is a population of 300. So they don't have that many students to begin with. They have to get them to Rochester. But I believe something like six of their kids go to Sharon Academy. And they only have like 10 kids, something like that. I'd like to see those numbers, but I think that's the limit. Anyway, that's a good example of six kids that would have to go to public school, out of private school, and would lower our taxes. Yeah. Yeah. Big time. Yeah. And like I said, to go back to Scott's original question. Yes. And as I said, I was already planning on working with Rebecca on this over the summer. So I will commit to working on this with Rebecca, seeing if we can get the legislators involved. And I mean, not to say the senators. The Senate, it's its own interesting animal. And so yeah. But again, now is the time to recruit other people that feel the same way as you are understanding that this is what you're going to be working on. And again, you've got to get the Senate. And Mr. McCormick is going to be gone. But I'm sure that Clarkson is very receptive to talk to. I can talk to her. Yeah. Yeah. We were still talking to Fine Benefits Clause. We've paid Patty Pat for another 50 years, and we never change it. The Constitution mandate has put this on the front burner. And quite frankly, there's really no wiggle room. Yeah. No, I agree. Which is why I think this year, basically, the agency of education has just said, we're not going to think about it. And that has been their strategy this year. So that's why some of us are saying, no, OK, we need to make them. That this needs to actually come up, and we need to make a bill. We need to push this along. Because their answer is, they feel like they're in between a rock and a hard place, and they aren't going to make a choice. And of course, making no choice is making a choice. And so. So the rock is the Constitution, and the hard place is the constituents that want to consider the private school. Yeah, sort of. So that's how that stands. But yeah, I'm happy to, like I said, we'll start working on it. I would love to be informed if there's any time that you or guys are meeting that I would be able to attend, even if I just sit there and listen. Sure, I'll try to. I think the reality of it is, I mean, I can start to get people to commit to working on a thing. But I don't think any work's going to happen till summer. Just, I mean, starting this week, some of my legislative hours, not the legislative hours I'm being paid for, legislative hours I'll be putting in, will probably be starting at 8 in the morning and going till 10 o'clock at night. In Montpelier. There might be some exceptions. But we're at that point now where bills are coming to the House floor. Down the road, we need those hours to be on Education Fund next year. Yeah, I'm sorry. I said to the last meeting there, I said, don't come up with 200 new laws. Take the ones we've got and work on them. Don't get so diversified that you can't spend the necessary time in my opinion. The necessary time on a bill. Maybe you did. That's all you do this year. That's all you do is education, spending. Yeah, I mean, that's a big, that's a huge deal to it. 90% of them are minors. The education of their children, how it's going to be funded. You solve that one and a lot of the other problems will be. Yeah, yeah, I agree. So I thank you. I picked my day job. And so but thank you for for coming. Well, thank you, Lewis. Yeah, so that'd be personal. Yeah, no, I don't. Oh, I was my big mouth. One thing I didn't say, I'm going to say it now. It wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. I suppose it was. No, it wasn't. Yeah, but it wasn't. And it's hard.