 So we're live. Welcome everybody. It's Wednesday morning. We are the General Housing and Military Affairs Committee, and we were picking up work on S237. Yesterday we had a pretty much a conversation about what we think we can include in the bill and what we were able to leave aside for consideration for another day for next year in particular. It was a conversation that, I thought it was a fine conversation. It really just addressed the fact that at this time of year, well, we try our best to get as much as we possibly can across the line that was clear that there are elements of that bill that needed more work. So what we worked on yesterday was a slimmed down version. It was, we posted the new version of it, the most recent version of it. Last night, Ellen finished work on it, adding the section on the covenants and broadening that language by taking away the reference to this specific section that no longer exists in the bill. So, Ellen, if you could put that particular section up on the screen, just so that we may see it. Okay, so good morning. This morning on your committee page under my name is draft 4.1 of the strike all amendment to S237. And on page five. I added section four, which is the language regarding deed restrictions. So, I made two changes based on your conversation yesterday. So the first sentence now reads, deed restrictions, covenants, or similar binding agreements added after January 1 2021 that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting land development allowed under a municipalities bylaws shall not be valid. And then the, the rest of the language isn't hasn't been changed but that explains that the section doesn't apply to restrictive easements, such as conservation easements or historic preservation rate easements, or housing subsidy covenants held in whole or in part by VHFA or other eligible holders. So, yeah, so that's, and then the only other change in the bill is a small change of adding the house natural resources as a recipient of the report from DC on Tri Park. And that's on page six. And that language concerning just to be clear the language concerning the loans, either to be either restructured or forgivable. It is right there as well. Yep. I didn't make any changes to that but it's still in here and then I just added down at the bottom, natural resources fish and wildlife also as the committee that receives the report. All right. So open for discussion representative trial. I have a question I'm not sure how relevant it might be but as a list or I have been seeing people of my generation who are putting their property in trust for their children. I'm wondering if that has any impact on these this covenant section at all, or if anyone knows or if it is Ralph event property that would be in trust. Ownership by, you know, but recorded ownership to the individual, but in trust and anticipation of leaving it to their children. I can speak from personal experience that all all statutes concerning housing still are applicable to houses that are held in trust. Okay. Thank you, including for our housing standards. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have a question so much as a comment that this bill has changed so much. And yesterday when you presented us with draft 3.1 that was slimmed down I, I understood the need for several of the pieces of this bill. And I was encouraged to think that I would be able to support it. However, the 11th hour addition back in of section for regarding covenants causes me some concern and I have not been able to speak to enough people to make an informed comment. So at this moment, it remains one of those situations where I feel like this has gotten rushed through and I'm not comfortable with passing legislation at the last minute like this. So I probably likely will be not supporting this. Thank you. Thank you for your point as you're aware this particular section has been in the bill since we received it from the Senate so I don't feel like it's an 11th hour addition at all. You know, it was a back and forth and in the end of my anion on version so we can agree to interpret that differently. Sounds good. Thank you. Any further questions on this bill representative Kalaki. I appreciate where this bill is landed and from when we got it from the Senate, it's had a lot but I think it's a it's it's in a really good place right now and if you would entertain a motion I would say that we should move on voting on this bill. Certainly entertain a motion at any time in a second and continue the conversation till we're ready to vote. So, if that's your pleasure, please feel free. I would make a motion that we vote on this bill on the set on version 4.1. Yes. I'm sorry. You go right ahead Tommy. I'll second it. All right. Just to be prepared Mary Howard are you. Do you have your pencil and your paper Ron has a run has a sheet ready to go so the process as we've been doing that. The we have us we have a motion in a second to accept version 4.1. Are there any further comments on this? Seeing none. The clerk may commence to call the role. And I think Mary are you muted still. You're muted. Okay, I'm all set now just a second let me get. Okay. Representative walls. You hear me. Sorry, I'm mute. Yes. Okay. Representative Gonzalez. I'm certified this is representative dianna Gonzalez and I vote yes. Representative long. Yes. Representative Dimash. Sorry, no. Representative Troiano. Yes. Representative Howard votes yes. Representative Collacky. Yes. Representative Zot. I certify this is representative Zot and I vote yes. Representative Byron. Yes. Representative Hango. No. Representative Stevens. Yes. So the vote is nine to zero. And I appreciate it. I appreciate Ellen for sticking with us all through it. And for the folks that brought us the information, this is this was quite a bit of testimony that we took in the final. In the final three weeks. And I appreciate everybody's efforts on this. It was. Some hard and worthwhile conversations, but I think we have something that we can move forward here clearly and appreciate your vote on that. Representative Howard, if you can work with. Ron to get and Ellen, if you can work with Ron to get this version of the bill to the clerk, it has to be there before one o'clock, I think today. So that earlier, the better. Who's the reporter, please. I am. You are. I am. Yeah. So what they asked for last time was once representative Howard Moore. Do they need to know if the bill, they want to know who the vote is? That certifies the vote. Uh, that they'll want to hear from you as well. Do they need like a small. So I think representative Gonzales sent last time. It's just an email certifying the draft and the vote. So it's draft 4.1 dated. Yeah. So I'll send you, I'll send you a clean copy and then you can just, you can forward it to the clerk. I can. Yeah. Okay. Thank you everybody. Yeah, thanks for your hard work, Ellen. Appreciate it. Yeah, thank you, Ellen. Good job. All right. Representative Gonzalez is headed off for dental work. So we will not see her until she returns perhaps this afternoon, depending on how deep that dental work is. We are going to be moving on to at nine o'clock. Damien is going to be here to take us on a walkthrough. So I see Joseph, I see Joe McNeil here, Joe. We're going to start at nine o'clock when our attorney gets here. So if you want to have a cup of coffee or do whatever you need to do before the, before we start work on S 254, feel free. Thanks, thanks a lot. Yeah, welcome. Just Damien is coming now, but we're still going to just hide Damien. We're going to have a preliminary conversation prior to prior to starting though, I'm beginning to see other folks coming in. So maybe we can start soon. But I want to make sure all the witnesses who were invited are here before we start Damien. Welcome back. Long time. No C. Good to see everyone. So you've had your post COVID haircut. Easy when you cut your own hair. So it's, but I just want to spend a few minutes, I guess, reviewing. Did anybody have any thoughts about the conversation that we had yesterday afternoon with the National Guard? Any, any things, thoughts about how that went and what we were able to glean from it. I'm interested in that clarification. I think it was. John's question. Where the Jag was like, I'm going to have to get back to you on that. Do I remember that correctly? John, do you recall? Yes, Matt. And then later on in the conversation, my question was about. What is the role of the guard and do, can they arrest people? Can they pick them up, put them in vans? And they were like, we can't arrest, but we can transport, but we're not sure. Yeah, but, but later on the conversation, they said, no, we would be able to transport, but we would not be moving people into vans. That still would be the line for the police is, is what I understood. I would be interested in that clarification later in the conversation. Gotcha. And then I guess, while I've got the mic, I would be interested in, in what legislative councils interpretations were of the other two people who gave testimony as to what their interpretations were. As to how our, how. Title 10 and everything kind of commingles with our existing laws. Cause I'm not, I would just like to see what. I would be interested in that clarification later. And I'm not sure what our house thinks about what our. Out of house testimony thought about these legal opinions. Sure. And that's something that we can share with Damien Damien. You're still our National guard person, right? Yes, I am. And I'm. Starting to regret that I have to be in another meeting yesterday. No, it's actually, it's actually okay. I mean, so we'll talk about it. In particular, one of the witnesses, Ed Stannick, provided an eight-page letter that included some legislative sites, either through statute or the Constitution. And I think that's what Matt's asking about. I also want to take a moment to, if I think people heard last week, excuse me, that Matt and Representative Hango and Representative Sebelia have joined forces to form what they're calling a National Guard Caucus, where I think issues like this can come up, where issues like this can be discussed outside of committee for information gathering on these issues. So if there's any folks that are interested, obviously, in participating in those conversations, they'll be set up through, I mean, two out of the three people are on our committee right now. So do you have a meeting set up yet? Yeah, we have some schedules, I have that in email. Lisa, what was our next meeting scheduled? Is that like the 29th ish? The next meeting is September 29 to 8 AM, where General Knight is going to be giving us a briefing on what the Guard's mission is, who the people are in the Guard and leadership, and how we can support them throughout the deployment. The October 20th meeting, we're hoping to have Damian in to explain the intricacies of state versus federal law. And beyond that, we don't have an agenda yet, but we are taking suggestions. And when Matt and Lisa talked to me about this earlier, was it in September? I can't recall. Or the end of it, it was at the end of August. And I think it's a great idea to have a group of people try to help just to understand the differences that they're addressing here in some of these meetings already. And really, as I think we experienced last year, especially for the new folks who hadn't experienced an election before of an adjunct in general, it was a big learning process. And so to have more folks involved with learning about these nuances, I think is a great step forward. So I appreciate you guys doing that. Representative Trial, and then Kalaki. Yeah, after the whole thing was done yesterday, there seemed to be some ambiguity as to exactly how National Guard can be federalized. There was not a total agreement while there wasn't a total disagreement between Adstanak and the general. So it left me without any conclusions as to how this could happen. I understand their concerns, which I've heard and read a fair amount about from November 4 to January 20, being possibly a critical time here in this country. So I think some clarification, maybe from Damien, would be a good idea. And I think if anyone else is left with some of the questions that I have in my mind, that would be a good thing to try and get this squared away before too much longer. And I'm sorry I missed the meeting this week, Matt and Lisa. I was running around early in the morning. I've got a ton of stuff going on right now. Like, I don't even want to show you what my today to-do list looks like. I get it, man. Yeah, I think chip to that ambiguity, I think that remains, absolutely. I think there's just a lot of questions. And it's not as simple as a statute. I think one of the things that stood out in the conversation when Mr. Stannick was relaying some of his work, and Damien, this will be something for you to chew on later, is helping us understand that in our constitution and perhaps remnants in our statute of the word militia and the common use or the understanding of what the militia is or was and how it fits in. I mean, it's a pretty, I mean, there are people who are very attached to that word for other reasons. But when it comes to the National Guard, I think that there's a definite historic delineation between the two. I don't think a militia that existed in 1823 is the same as the National Guard, as it was just constituted later on and certainly as it's developed in the 20th century. But I think there's time for that conversation and education. I can see the connection. My sister was an appellate court judge and quite a constitutional expert. And we had had a number of conversations about Second Amendment and such. I think the interpretation when that was written was that, particularly in Vermont, if you look at Vermont history, that every able-bodied man was expected to have a musket standing in the corner of his living room to protect Vermont from incursions from other states. And New York was the biggest violator of that situation. So when the call to arms went out from the Ethan and Ira Allen, think of them as you like, but that was what was expected from most every able-bodied man in Vermont at that time when it was written. And so there is a connection, but it's kind of loose. Right. I mean, there is an organization that exists called the Vermont Guard, which wants to be, I think, more directly related to that militia idea. Anyway, that's not for today. That'll be for another day. Representative Kalaki. I just want to appreciate that our guard is so willing to meet with us on this issue. It was great to hear from people. Last summer, I had the Chittin County legislators and asked if the guard could meet with us about the F-35s because it is very disruptive in Chittin County for these planes to fly. And there's a lot of emotions. And they said, of course, and sat with 16 of us and fielded all our questions. And so I just, even if we may have differences sometimes, I just think it's incredible that we can have an open dialogue with the leadership. And they respond how they feel about things as well. I think it's really respectful and a model. Yeah, I hope so. I mean, I think we saw several years ago when the conversation was so heated in Chittin County and in Burlington that when things get antagonistic, when things get antagonistic, they don't progress. And so I hope that we can see that it's conversations like yesterday that happen more often when necessary.