 Cameron, would you like to walk us through S106? Certainly. S106 is an act relating to the live stream of legislative proceedings of the General Assembly and lobbying regulations. Section one creates a pilot project to live stream legislative proceedings. The Office of Legislative Information Technology shall facilitate and coordinate a pilot project with a for-profit or non-profit entity to assist and assess the effectiveness and cost of audio or audio and video live streaming the legislative proceedings of the General Assembly. The pilot project shall include the live stream by audio or audio and video means of all public proceedings of standing committees of both chambers and on the floors of the House of Representatives and the Senate during the 2022 legislative session. Section two is concerning lobbying regulations. The first section is legislative findings, which you heard a little bit about from Senator Sorotkin. Lobbyists fulfill an important role in the legislative process by ensuring that the perspectives of organizations, interest groups and stakeholders are heard. However, as the number of lobbyists who work in the State House has increased has become more difficult for legislators, staff, press and members of the public to know who is a lobbyist and who they may be representing. As a result, some members of the public may have the perception that there is a lack of transparency as to who is working as a lobbyist and for whom. Encouraging every lobbyist to wear identification that clearly indicates the lobbyist name and the name of the client or firm will improve transparency and promote public trust in the legislative process. Section three, lobbyist identification. When the General Assembly is in session, a lobbyist as defined in title to section 261 is encouraged to wear a name tag or another form of identification that is clearly visible. And that states the lobbyists name, the lobbyists client or employer, or in cases where the lobbyist represents more than one client or employer, the name of the lobbyist firm. And the identification must be substantially similar in size format and information displayed to a sample name tag or identification that shall be developed by the sergeant at arms. Section B, the sergeant at arms and the Office of Legislative Council shall report the General Assembly on and before January 15, 2023. On the rate of compliance by lobbyists with this section, the advantages and disadvantages of requiring that lobbyists wear name tags or identification, and a recommendation as to whether a voluntary program is sufficient, or whether the legislative action to improve participation should be considered in preparing the report the sergeant at arms and the Office of Legislative Council shall solicit input from lobbyists, legislators, staff of the General Assembly and other stakeholders. The effective date of this act is July 1, 2021. Any questions for amaran. I do have a question about what on earth does it mean to do a pilot. Do you know that or was that something that came from the sponsors. This came from the sponsors this legislation actually has been in two prior bills over the years, I believe once in 2015 and then maybe once in 2017 as well. So it's a pilot of a pilot, and my understanding from those prior bills and the brief information I have on this bill is that it a pilot is really a temporary to sort of to see how it goes for one year, and then evaluate whether it's worth making a permanent change. So what does it mean with a profit for profit or nonprofit the pilot is with them. Right, so the idea is that the state would contract with an entity who would help the state evaluate help the legislature really evaluate the feasibility of doing live streaming cost efficiencies. And that would be the entity that would. I guess it's intended to give flexibility as to who the legislature contracts with to provide these services. It could be the public access television they might come up with a, I mean that's a nonprofit. Okay, anyway, I okay I have some serious concerns about this but Senator column or I want to follow up on your question Madam chair because I, I'm not clear either. And maybe it's unfair for us to ask Amron, but if a pilot project indicates that there's already going to be something going on in terms of a program. If we figure out how much it costs. I think that's a matter of concern. If this said that that the pilot project would happen after we determine from either a profit or nonprofit group. How much this was going to cost I could understand that but this seems to indicate that we're going to go ahead and do it, and then try to figure out what the cost is, and I'm also concerned about that. I just had a quick one for will I think I already know the answer and I know I'm not supposed to ask questions, you know the answer, but lobbyist is defined I believe. Where did I just see that. Well anyway, it sites title to am I guessing that that means that the lobbyist has to be registered with the Secretary of State's office before this would take a place in other words, if somebody was recently hired, but not yet registered they wouldn't have to wear a name that according to the way this is written. Will do on answer that. That's that's right because it ties it to that definition and title to. Okay, thank you. Senator Clarkson. Well, in a funny way, we've had the pilot. We've, we've had. We've had the pilot all year. Actually, it'll be two years, a year and a half, you know, be 18 months of this pilot. It'll be a pilot that because we are, it has not had to involve installing cameras in the state house or anything that is a lot less expensive. I don't think we need a pilot here. I think we know the answer to a lot of this and what we do need to go to Brian's point is we need a sense of what it would cost to actually accomplish this and then we can wait. I think we, we just need to. I think we've all appreciated the value of being able to have the public present at watching our proceedings able to testify if necessary without having to drive three hours round trip to testify. We get that I think we need to know the cost and the feasibility and and how long it would take to roll it out. I think those are the questions really more than a pilot. Could it can. My thought was that a committee could certainly begin to take that testimony and try and figure it out and get a cost estimate from JFO and from the legislative it. Yeah, office and start working on the details of how it might be. How we might roll it out. Our committee could do that. I mean I think that actually we, we exist to do exactly that, but except it would be obviously the sergeant at arms who runs the mechanics of the building would would obviously be involved but it happens this is we're pretty clear on the need the interest, how it, you know, it's great. And we just now need to figure out how what we can afford. If we want to do it in stages, you know all that kind of stuff. And I don't know that we need to contract with a profit for profit or nonprofit to tell us the results. No, I think we will spend. But we probably would need to do an RFP to to find a contractor who whose results you know we'd want to do a bid on it once we figured out what we wanted. Well for for equipment and stuff like that. Yeah, not for them to not for them to tell us whether it worked or not. No, we know it works right now that the live streaming of our work has been a very efficient, great opportunity for the public to have access to our work. Great opportunity for people to not have to drive it. You know, blah, blah, blah. So, so I think that my feeling on this is that we work with the rules committee on the joint rules committee to look at this further instead of setting up a pilot. Okay. Yeah, and I could roll on. Senator Colomar. Thanks Madam Chair, I agree. I mean, we already have the ability for the general public to hear our floor sessions in both chambers. We don't need to do anything more there, except I guess if you wanted a video, but I'm not sure what that adds I guess it does. I just want to comment on the other part of the bill and if it, if it stayed the way it was now I would ask to divide the question because I, we've already had Senator Sirotkin in the past, introduce legislation about the lobbyist ideas and I guess until we're ready to do that for ourselves and walk around wearing name tags. I, I still have an aversion to telling somebody else what to do in that regard. I know the House members have them and that's fine. But I've never not known who the lobbyist in the room where I think I don't think it takes too long to figure that out. The chair can always ask who's in the room and get an answer and it interestingly enough, a female lobbyist today sent me a note about this and said that this actually is going to be much harder for female lobbyists to abide by because men wear these nice little jackets and they can just put a little thing on there, but we wear scarves and silk blouses and so anyway, that was I hadn't ever thought about that. Senator Clarkson. On the other hand, let's be consistent. We're talking about transparency with our live streaming transparency for all of us as to who we are. I mean the public doesn't know who I am when I'm walking down the hall. I think actually it would be great if senators war name tags they could be discreet they don't need to be big huge mega things. But I actually think I, I've always supported this idea. It's not just because I'm a former house member, because in the, in the house I never wore a name tag, but we also have magnetic ones are lots of ways to, you know, to deal with this. I think if we're talking about transparency, we need to own it, not just with live streaming but also with fine, you know, I declaring who you know who you are because lots of people don't know who we are when we wander around in the house. And I can tell you, I can tell you that I don't know. Last year I didn't know who most of the house members were even though they had on their name tags, because you have to get your nose right down in their shirt in order to read them so it still isn't helpful. I mean, people, unless you had orange name tags for lobbyists and green name tags for senators and red name tags for you still wouldn't know. But that, but that might be something the Sergeant at Arms is thinking of actually that would be a great idea, because then you would know who was a member of the General Assembly, who wasn't who was a lobbyist who was an intern, who was a, you know, an advocate. And the fine line between advocacy and lobbying. Hey. Right. Oh, no, I'm, I'm clear on it. Anyway. All right. So, thank you. I, are there any other questions for Amron or will. Nope. Okay. All right, thank you. So, Senator Polina, did you have to feed a turtle. Well, I do in a couple of minutes. I have a couple of minutes. Okay. Great. Any more questions or comments for Amron or will. Thank you, Will. Thanks everybody. Well, Goodbye, Amron.