 So, Senate government operations on Tuesday, June 23rd, and I'm going to do one, one very quick, no, we'll wait until Senator Bray joins us. We have permission to vote on the two charter changes. So we'll just vote those at the end and send them off to the, okay. So what we're looking at here committee is we've had a lot of interesting testimony around the whole issue of law enforcement changes. And as you saw yesterday on the floor, S124 had just two, I believe, comments. One was from Senator Hardy about the people on the criminal justice training council. And the other one was from Senator Pearson, who was referring to a bill that was passed quite some time ago and that never, the two, the conference committee died. And I asked Betsy about that because I could not remember it at all. And I believe it was the one that would have transferred the registration, the certification and regulation, not the contents, but to OPR. And the Senate's position was that it should go to OPR and the House's position was that it should not. So I really don't think that we have, that that's relevant to our discussion right now because I don't think we have time to do that if we want to look at that issue again in the future, unless the committee has other thoughts and things that we can do that now. But I think in the next three days we can't. I agree. I think we ought to leave what we have in there alone. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. I got distracted. You were saying we shouldn't deal with the make up of the council. No, we shouldn't deal with transferring the certification and regulation to OPR. Okay. Sorry. I got distracted. I thought you were talking about something else. Yeah. Because we just don't have time to do that. So what we're looking at now committee is Betsy and I have kind of taken the comments that have been made all along to us and different issues and different comments and tried to put them into a draft piece of legislation that would be an amendment to S-124. And so what I'd like us to do is focus on that. And if you go to today's documents and handouts, it's the second document called 2-0-2-0, S-124-SGO, individual members amendment. Okay. Yeah. And it's dated yesterday at 721 p.m. Well, yes. So if, and there is a slight change, but that hasn't been posted yet, but it's just a, we can deal with this draft and then because I think there are some other changes that might come to us. So what I'm going to do, see if this makes sense committee, if you think this makes sense, there are distinct amendments in here that deal with very distinct issues. And what I'd like to do, I think, is look at them one at a time and have people comment on each of them so that we don't have general testimony on the entire set of amendments, but that we, so that we can finish up each one as we go along. Does that make sense? Yes. Sure. Yes. Okay. All right. So with that, the first instance of amendment is simply changing. Some of these I'll have Betsy walk through and some I will just, this one is very simple. It adds the executive director of racial equity to the training council. We have had a request from the commissioner of corrections to put him back on. At the time we did this. I think that I don't know who was the commissioner at the time if it was Andy Polito or Lisa, but they didn't seem to have an issue with this, but he has requested to be put back on because he said that with 800 employees who are intimately involved with the whole justice system, he feels that they need to have their voices heard. I'm fine with that. Allison. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, I'm fine with that, but that increases the number and does the waiting thing differently again, you know. Okay. I'm just going through these one at a time. Now we'll have, there are some other suggestions that we put other people on here and I believe Sarah Robinson is with us and I believe she would like to comment on this, but I want to just throw this out there that I think that we should not be adding up who's on this side and who's on this side because that makes it look like we are creating signs to this and I don't believe that's true. There are some people who some public members may be on here who are fully supportive of things that a law enforcement officer might want to see in here and there are some who might not. There are some of the people on that are being appointed here from law enforcement are very creative and forward thinking. I don't say some, but all of them. So I don't want us to set up a situation where it looks like we're creating law enforcement versus everybody else. Does that make sense? So I think we should get the appropriate voices on here, regardless of the how the numbers add up and I did just out of curiosity add up the numbers and they're almost equal. If you assume that the League of Cities and Towns would appoint a local police officer and that the anyway they came out to be around 8 to 9 or 9 to 7 depending on how you lay them out. And I I don't I did it just out of my own curiosity, but I don't think we should go there. Comments from the committee, Brian. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree. I think we took testimony for a long time on the composition of both of the things that we have in the bill. And I think that just to get a question on the floor as we were reporting the bill and having it change something is sort of it wouldn't allow us to fully consider that. So I think again, what we have here is fine. Yeah. Allison and we've added some really thoughtful sort of citizen members, you know, the not only the VLCT, but we've got the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services added. We have our executive director of racial equity and we have three public members who are not law enforcement officers. That that's new and that's work we did. So I I actually think what we've done, I would echo what Brian has said that I think we've done pretty good work. OK. I think we could do I think we could have done better, though, given what people and people helped us notice. I mean, having the executive director of racial equity on there is good, but it seems to be the only person of color. And it just seems like, I don't know, I don't want to say tokenism, but it just seems like given what's going on and the way people are feeling about oversight might make more sense to put more than one person of color on the on the or one either of color or from the human rights point of view. OK, so I don't want to get into. I mean, Susanna happens to be a person of color, but we haven't appointed Susanna. We appointed the director, which may or may not. That's an ex-official position, not to that's to represent the our need for looking at systemic racism and to be involved in the training council. But I would like to hear from Sarah Robinson just to and I think we need to be somewhat aware that starting to add groups and I don't know how to say this exactly, but we we can't we won't add every group that exists in the state. That is true. So I would like to hear from Sarah and remembering that the purpose of the training council is to is to have is to oversee the training and regulation of police officers. That's that's what the training council does. So with that, Sarah, would you like to to give us your words of wisdom? Sure. Thanks so much for having me today. Sarah Robinson, deputy director of the Vermont Network against domestic and sexual violence. And I am sitting here with my three year old co-worker, so I apologize in advance for any background noise you might hear. So I very much appreciate all the work that the committee has done on the bill thus far and very much appreciate all the good conversations that you have had in in the past months about the composition of the of the council. And we're thrilled to see the addition of the executive director of racial equity added to the draft. We think that that's an excellent addition. I know that on the floor, another senator may have mentioned adding a adding a place for the executive director of the Vermont Network itself. I did notice that the draft includes the executive director or a staff member of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. One way that you may be able to expand that just slightly would be to modify that language and say, you know, a representative of victim services appointed by the executive director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. So it could very well be a staff member from the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, but it could be more of a community based representative as well. And we would be very supportive of that language, but just very appreciative of all the work the committee has done this far and your willingness to to look at these last minute proposals. Committee, does that make sense to just change the wording on? It's on line on the draft that I have. It is online 12 on 12 and 13. I would be supportive of that. OK, Brian, yeah. And Anthony. Sure. OK. All right. Quick, I'm looking at this draft one point one, right? Yeah. And you said lines, mind lines add up. What line do you say this page? Page two lines 12 and 13. Got it. I'm sorry. I'm really scattered today. I got it. Sorry about that. It's the heat and I was just going to say, I hope it's the heat. So. OK, so I'm I'm I'm fine with that. Um, do we. Do we want to consider the human rights? The director of the Human Rights Commission. I mean, I would. I don't know if people want to. I would. I would, too. I would agree either that or ACLU, one or the other. Because the other thing I was going to Anthony's concern, which I think is important one for us to to weigh. With the three public members, we could also include if we wanted to further identify that the communities, we would hope they would represent up. We could do that there. But I I I wouldn't go there. I think that the three public members are appointed by the governor and the governor will be sensitive to. I think that and I know that very well, that if we put that in there, Randy Brock would oppose it because he has opposed that in the past when we start identifying communities. Right. So I would support that suggestion is that that we have the executive director of the Human Rights Commission. And I don't know how people feel about the ACLU. That is also an option. But I know I don't think so. Human Rights Commission would be great. Yeah, I don't think ACLU, but that's just my personal because I don't think that they well, anyway, I their goal is to defend rights, not to to be involved in training. Right. Anyway, that's whatever else. The only thing I do with the executive director of the Human Rights Commission is I'd also make sure it's that or desert me because she actually has that, unlike Susana. Susana. So she could be somebody that we could do that to that for that. Yeah, for Susana's position is also put or designee just in case she doesn't have anyone to designate it to. She could. She could designate the chair of the panel. She could designate. Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking of staff, but you're right. But she could. Absolutely. We're not ignoring you, Betsy. Don't worry. I would. I would have those. OK, I have that. Who's I'm trying to figure out who is all with us here. Who's M.S. Michael Sterling, I believe. Oh, OK. It just says M.S. OK, got it. I think Betsy wanted to weigh in, Madam Chair. OK, Betsy. Yeah. Hi, Betsy and Rass Legislative Council. Just first on the designee issue, each council member is already statutorily authorized pursuant to 20 BSA 2354C to designate and writing a person within their agency or association to attend meetings on in their behalf. So I don't think you need to add designee anywhere. Great. OK. In regard to the executive director of the Human Rights Commission, I just wonder if you should take her testimony just because I wonder if it would serving on a council would in any way cause a conflict with her duties at the Human Rights Commission. I don't know the answer, but I just am raising it. OK, potential thing to consider. OK, we will take that testimony. I don't think Boris with us, but I think Rob Appel. Are you there? I thought he was, but maybe there's someone named Robert. So I assume that's what it was. That's me. That's me. I'll even show you what I look like today. Oh, another basketball shirt. No, no, I'm better today. I'm not where I don't see you. There I am. There is. There I am. Yeah, I mean, there certainly is a potential cut for conflict. The the council is a state entity. And as you know, the Human Rights Commission does have jurisdiction regarding complaints brought forward by state employees. But I don't think the for conflict is insurmountable. She could whoever the executive director is could certainly recuse herself from such matters. Or there's a knee. I don't think it's insurmountable. And I agree that you're probably better off naming the state agency than a private nonprofit if you want that representative with the council. OK, so does anybody else want to weigh in on this? It seems that what we've done is we've added the commissioner of corrections back in. We've changed the language for the crime victims center for crime victim services and said that it should be someone representing victims of crime appointed by the director of the crime victim services the center for and added the human rights commission director. Is that where we are committee? So yeah, that's fine. OK. Anybody else out there want to comment? Mark, Mike, Shirling, anybody else out there want to comment on this? I do have one comment, Madam Chair, it's Mike Shirling. Yep. The I was speaking with my ladies on the governor's office and it was observed that training is an executive function. And there was a concern that removing the governor's appointments to the council is problematic. No, it doesn't remove them. Oh, it reduces them to one. I personally am very happy to have all three of those public members appointed by the governor. I think I would be too. I never thought about it, but we discussed it a long time ago. And it was like I feel like maybe even last session we discussed this and I think we sort of wanted to make sure that there was sort of broad representation. And that's why we added the Senate House was an appointee. That's in. Just to confirm, there is not a constitutional issue with having legislative appointments, but it's just a policy decision for you to make. Personally, I'm happy to have all three of the public people appointed by the governor. I. Unfortunately, oftentimes when the speaker and the committee on committees are supposed to make appointments, they don't seem to get around to it for months. And so there isn't anybody there anyway. Well, the improvement I think we made here was that these were to be public members with no relationship. And I have to say, I think that's a good change. And we could charge the governor to appoint the same with the same that with the same stipulation. But I think what, you know, as the language stands now for the governor's appointments, it's a broad representation of all aspects of law enforcement. And that is counterpoint to what we have. The amendment we made. No, no. Alison, I believe that if you look at the language, it says. Three members who shall not be law enforcement officers or have a dotted out of one of whom is appointed by the governor. So we just take out starting on line 17. We take out line 17, line 18, and just put shall be appointed by the governor. Right. I'm happy keeping that language, but we worked on that. And we made a very clear choice to not have those three be reflected in the page, page one language that was previously. Yes, but we're not talking about the previous language. Just want to make sure that we don't want to make. OK, I have a question when you when you have a set. OK, just let's see if we can finish this up. Are we OK with changing deleting lines 17 and 18 on page two and having all three public members with the caveat that they not be related to law enforcement appointed by the governor? Sure. Alison, I'm OK with that. OK. Now, is your question related to the council? Yes, my question is in number two. My question is in terms of the terms of years of office, the terms of office. It says only that a member's term shall be three years. And it's repeatable how many times. I think that we don't want a group of people who are on forever. And if if we don't say the, you know, do we want to consider they can serve up to three terms before they take a year off or what what what's your thought on that? Because actually, I think that's an important issue to the only people. The only people that would be affected by that are the three public members because everybody else is an ex officio. So if there is by virtue of the administration or there by there there by virtue of their office. So the the director of the executive director of the sheriff's and state's attorney's office if that person is there for 20 years in that position, that is the that person is going to be on the council for 20 years because it's an ex officio. So you can't tell. I don't I don't know. What do you think, committee? I don't I think this is fine. But OK, I think it's OK to OK. Oh, boy, somebody's objecting. Who was that objecting? Betsy Ann, was it you? Oh, with Brian, Brian, I want to see him get up on your chest and hug you. OK, OK. So do we need to make if we do this, do we need to change the quorum? Yes, because we've affected it by adding two people. I don't think the form is specified there. Oh, so the sheriff is I didn't mean to speak over you, Sheriff. No problem. Madam chair, may I address the quorum? Yeah, under twenty three fifty four it establishes that the council can adopt rules to identify a quorum. So it's a council that I think that that would be an order of business that the council would address. OK. OK, so we don't need to address it. All right. So are we all OK with the first instance of amendment? Anybody else out there have anything they would like to throw in Betsy Ann? I just see the executive director of the Human Rights Commission is with us. Oh, she is OK. So, director, we have just added you to the Mem to the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council. What is your pleasure or displeasure with that? Yeah, thank you, Senator DeRoy. And I'm sorry for being late as I was trying to testify in a different committee. Well, thank you for asking. I'm glad I was able to be here. I want to say that I definitely support individuals being on this council who have knowledge and expertise in the areas of bias and race and discrimination. And so I certainly support that. But I always say it doesn't necessarily have to be us. It doesn't necessarily have to be the Human Rights Commission. I'm we're happy to do it. But at the same time, we are incredibly busy. And oftentimes what I find is that I am most useful when I can volunteer when people have questions and I can show up. I also have to be honest and transparent and share that when I heard that the Human Rights Commission was an entity that was being considered. I had a knee-jerk reaction to that also because we are an enforcement entity. Right. And law enforcement is a place of public accommodation. Roads are places of public accommodations. We do investigate police action and it potentially presents a problem. I'm not saying that it is. I'm not saying that it is a conflict, but it's just something I'm always mindful of. One of the great things that the legislature did last year to support us was give us a director of policy education outreach position. And so I do think that that is someone who is removed from investigations and litigation at the Human Rights Commission. And so the potential exists that could be someone who could serve on the council on the training council because they have no really no input or stay in the investigations that go on. And so but that was sort of my initial reaction. And then also I support the idea of people with knowledge and experience and bias and discrimination beyond the council. I just think we are happy to make room for someone else as well. And one of the things that could happen is one of those three appointees from the governor, you could add language that says the governor shall appoint people who have knowledge and expertise and experience in those areas. And what can I make a suggestion? Yeah, instead of putting the Human Rights Commission on there. And I and I really think that I would like to let the governor just appoint three people, but instead of putting the Human Rights Commission director or designee on here, why don't we put that someone the Human Rights Commission will appoint somebody with a background in. Um, that does that make and then you could perfect that appointment could be your policy director. It could be or someone else Joe Schmoe from wherever. That's wonderful. Thank you. What a great idea. OK, she is she is full of great ideas that she's great. Yeah, how would she for a minute soda? What's that? Both girls are both from Minnesota. Nice. That's why I can't stand this heat. OK, I would like to describe the background of the appointee with someone with a background in bias and implicit for what you tell her. Or I think even just an appointee from the Vermont Human Rights Commission, that's something we buy that. Yeah. About, yeah, just I don't think we need that language. That's going to be very obvious. That's our mission and our goal. So yeah, you think you you would appoint somebody who had that. Absolutely. OK, so an appointee by the by the Human Rights Commission, not from the human right. Yeah. OK. Yes. So right committee, are we done with the the make up of the training council? All right. Yeah. So our first amendment is done. Thank you, Betsy Ann. So the second one came to us, I believe. I'm thinking it came by way of Sheriff Anderson, but I can't be entirely sure here. But in the judiciary bill that we passed this morning, if you saw that an agency will not be eligible for grants and from the state or the federal government unless they comply with the data collection. So what this does is adds that they would not be they would also not be eligible to send a recruit to the academy unless they comply with the data collecting. As it the and I'm not sure that this is the right reference, but it would be to the data collecting and comply with the policies required either by the council or by statute. So this is and if you were doing something like I think this is a way of telling agencies that they had better they better start complying and you make this far enough out in advance. I think that Betsy has it as twenty twenty three. And then the council would set up the enforcement procedures. So what do you think, committee? I like it. I think this will have more teeth, actually, even than the grants. OK, and Mark, if I spoke out of turn, maybe it wasn't you, but I thought it was. So thank you, Sheriff Anderson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll give credit where credit is due. I believe it was Commissioner Sherling who suggested which I would like to looking at the proposed language for twenty three fifty nine. It appears that the language is geared towards the basic initial entry. I would also encourage considering in service. If we have somebody who's certified in the state who then says, I'm not going to comply with anything and I'm OK with not having grants. We could be stuck with them for 20 years and that's not good for the law enforcement community, so if a person fails to complete their in service training for a year, then they they'll eventually be removed from office by failing to comply. Well, this is just for the agency itself. That's the end. The sheriff is right. It is structured right now for just sending recruits to basic training, which is just the initial training to get certified. It doesn't address the annual in service training to remain certified. So if the committee wanted, I could revise it so it applies to any the basic and the annual in service training. Mark, I would propose something to the effect of saying that an agency that's not in compliance cannot utilize the services of the academy until they ascertain compliance. All right. Commissioner Schirling, are you with us? I am and I concur. OK. Good. So are we OK with that? Betsy Ann, this quick question. Did you want a future effective date in this? I'm realizing this does not currently have a future effective date. Well, I don't know that we need to actually when I look at it, because the line 18 and 19 says the council shall adopt procedures. And I would assume that one of those procedures would be when it takes effect. Am I right? Be better to specify because a is a statutory prohibition. But I could say on and after XYZ date, if you wanted it to be, I think you said January 1, 2023. I don't know. Let's ask the commissioner what would be a good date. January of twenty three would be fine. I'm doing some math in my head. We could you could accelerate it a bit. I mean, the reality is for race data in particular, this is these are items that should be reported already. Right. So twenty two, would you entertain the concept of January of twenty two? Yes. Yeah, that's a year and a half away. Got it. All right. All right. Anybody else care to comment on the second instance of amendment here? May I ask a question? I am forgetting what the the degree to which agencies are non-compliant. Do we can you just remind me, whoever knows, how many agents, you know, what percent of agencies are not compliant? How big a problem is that I think that that I'm going to speak up here. I think that would be a hard thing to quantify, because this says they also have to be compliant with policies required under the councils that are mandated by the council or by statute. So some agencies might be compliant, except for one model policy that they haven't adopted yet. So I think that would be very hard to to quantify. As we can maybe that's why we never heard testimony to that. Mr. Anderson. Madam chair, I guess just a question of clarification. While I 100 percent agree with this statute change and the language I propose, I also would like to hope that the council is empowered with the, I guess, the ability to create procedures around waivers. For example, if we're aware, let's say a constable says, well, they haven't been able to track this in a computer format and they need six months to be able to computerize their data. If we give them the council the ability to say, we understand you're making a change, but you come into compliance and allow that part of the procedures is allowed to. I'm not sure we even need to say that here, because it does say they should adopt procedures to enforce. But that's the end. I was actually thinking about specifying waiver authority. It might just help to if there's questions about it now, probably would be helpful to just make it explicit just so there's no question that the council could do a waiver. Do you want to do that committee? Yep. Sure. OK. Fine. I keep pointing to committee members and I realize that you can't see who I'm pointing to. So, Brian. Yeah, I think just a prepositional clause, maybe, including waiver authority, something like that would work. Anthony, that sounds good. OK. So now are we done with number two? Yes. OK. So this third one is the statewide policy on the use of body cams. And today in judiciary, we did require the or on the floor, we required Vermont State Troopers to use body cams by a particular date. This would require and there was a model policy adopted by in 2016, I think it was an act that was passed in 2016. And this would now say that by January 2022, if that they have to adopt this policy for the use of body cams. Any comments from anybody? That's Ian. And thank you to Gail. She posted that model policy from the LEAB. It's on your web page if you do want to review it. And if you if you look later on under the kind of Fifth Amendment, the fifth, there is some language in there about the any changes that might need to be made to the policy, including some decisions about when when an officer can turn them off, when the footage is available and to whom and how it might be redacted. And that is so that's in the that's in the instance of Fifth Instance of Amendment under those kind of review groups. So Commissioner. I am not entirely following where you're at. Well, we're on the third instance of amendment here. It would just require law enforcement agencies to adopt the model policy by January of 2022 on the use of body cams. It goes beyond what we did in judiciary was just the Vermont State Police. Understood. And the State Police already have the model and we're in the final stages of negotiation for the purchase. I mean, I don't see any reason why agencies can't adopt the model. It doesn't get to the purchase component, but I see that in section, I guess it's not a status section 10. A very down in there is an exploration of a larger purchase initiative. So I don't have any issues with adopting the model. I guess I would. My only observation is we continue to work on model policies rather than universal policies and for certain. And I don't know that body cams necessarily need universal, but I perhaps they do for other things. I think a universal statewide policy is is different than a model framework. So I would hope that when we get when we get to the places where we might be using the terms model policy and we should be using universal policy that you would help us make those changes because I think you're right. And it may be just a little too early to do that. So this is this is a good incremental step. OK. All right. Alison, Michael, do you have a notion of how many agencies actually have and use body cameras other than the BSP? I do not. Mark, do you? Total agencies, I do not. I believe there's three sheriffs, including my agency, who use them. And in my county, two agencies who use body cameras and the remaining agencies, most of them have in car. Cameras that also have a body microphone, but I can't speak in totality. Thanks. OK. Um, all right. So is the third instance of amendment. Does anybody else have a comment they would like to make on on this one? Madame, I'm sure this is Gwen Zacca for the LCT. OK. Hi, Gwen. Hi, how are you? Warm. Yes, a little. I just wanted to flag here that there's been some concern from a lot of communities to express that sort of the understanding or outlines to how agencies should deal with video recordings and retention and release and redaction of sort of that information and having, you know, not very well established guidance to go from has been a real issue for agencies or towns or cities that want to move forward with use of body cameras, but feel really uncomfortable not knowing the parameters around explicitly when you know, how to basically comply with the model policy that's been out there since 2016, but really hasn't been looked at since. So I think, you know, there's a general support for this, but I think it needs to dial a little bit deeper and, you know, things something so simple as, you know, the Secretary of State's office, looking at how long, you know, records should be kept and what the retention periods are would be, you know, one thing. The other would be, you know, the interplay between, you know, public records and what's put forth in the LEAB's model policy and making sure they sort of, you know, work together appropriately. I just am flagging that because it's been brought to my attention from several communities who have police departments who want to use body cameras, but are really nervous and that's been one issue or those issues have been brought up as being a reason for not moving forward with them beyond just the cost of, you know, the cost that goes along with it. It's also just making sure that they're in compliance with, you know, records and records, retentions and public records. So, Gwen, if you go to page nine of the proposed bill, there's starting on line six, there is further review of it. And I think that mainly it talks about any changes that might need to be made the request for responding to public records requests and looking at the possibility of a group buying. But I think that we could also add something about length of retention and data collections, data storage. That would be very helpful. Does that help? Yeah. OK. Yes. Yeah, particularly the retention periods. That's that's also that's very helpful. OK. All right. Anybody else have a comment on this section? Madam Chair, may I? Yes, please. With regards to Section B, the Council's appropriate the provisions of this section into basic and annual and service training. I just like to request the removal of the word annual so that we don't have other valuable trainings pushed out to say turn on your camera. I think there's value to cameras. We have used them for many years, but there's also a point where you can just keep repeating the same words. OK, yep. Got it. Any issues with that committee? That would be on line 10 on page three, I mean, four. Anybody else have a comment on this amendment? Hearing none. Can we move on to the fourth? So this one doesn't really make a change until page six. The other pages are in here just to put it in context, I believe, but it makes the change on page six. And Betsy, do you want to explain this one? Sure. So this was going to the issue of having more public member oversight of complaints that come to the Council. And this actually somewhat relates to, at least in part, to what Senator Pearson was bringing up about just some outside review of complaints that the Council received. So in this section, in subsection A, it provides when an agency has to report to the Council in regard to alleged unprofessional conduct committed by an officer of that agency. And you can see, for example, at the bottom of page five, that as part of their report, the agency has to provide to the Council a copy of any relevant documents associated with its report, including findings, decisions and the investigative report, because the agencies investigate these allegations for the most part. And so this suggestion on page six is to add specific language to say that the Council Advisory Committee would be provided with these documents when alleged unprofessional conduct is reported to the Council. And then to have that Council Advisory Committee recommend any appropriate action to take in regard to a law enforcement officer who's a subject of that report. Just to remind the Council Advisory Committee was established when you added the Unprofessional Conduct Chapter. It's in 20 VSA 2410 and its general description of its duties is to specifically advise and assist the Council in developing procedures to ensure that allegations of unprofessional conduct are fully and fairly investigated and that appropriate actions taken. It's made up of five individuals that are appointed by the governor. Four of them are public members that don't have a law enforcement connection and one is a retired law enforcement officer. Any comments on this from I'd like to hear some comments from the commissioner from I guess Sheriff Anderson is with us. I think Chris Chief Raquel is also with us. And maybe Julio this was trying to give a little more cheats to the review and a little more outside review. So I'd like to hear. Yes. The commissioner is time limited time limited till two. So if you'd like to have him speak first. Oh, yes, please do. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can stay a couple of minutes past two. I actually would defer on this topic to Chief Raquel, who's got more a greater wealth of more recent experience with council operations than I do. OK, thank you. And if you have to leave, we're happy that you were here with us for a while and we'll make sure that you are heard on the other issues also. Thank you. Thank you. Chief Raquel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I also defer to Sheriff Anderson for about two minutes while I take care of the situation here? And then I'll be right back. Sure. Thank you. Sheriff. Madam Chair, can I defer to Chief Raquel? I'm kidding. But you could. Why don't you defer to Senator Colomore because he really is the brains behind this. I do trust that that's the case, Madam Chair. One thought I have, I've been kicking around the thought around accountability and it seems that the premise of the accountability became important when the council became the authority for decertification. That's when it started to open our roles and responsibilities, which then shifted from a representative council of the professional organizations to both a representation of professional organizations and an oversight need, which I think is what has caused the evolution of this. But my thought is, and I'm spitballing here a bit, but why not have the council report to the Committee on Government Operations annually saying these are the complaints we've received and report to the legislature? Well, I think that this was not just reporting. This was actually allowing the council advisory committee to have some input into the decisions that were made. Right, and make recommendations for action. I guess my second question is, and I'll admit my ignorance, who is the council advisory committee? I'm not sure if Betsy, I mentioned that. I had something else happen that caught my attention. Betsy Ann. Sure, it's in section 2410 of the Council's Unprofessional Conduct Subchapter. I did look on the council website and I saw that they were accepting applications for the council advisory committee. I don't know if it exists in practice yet. So Betsy, is the idea that this council is actually going to do an investigation or do they just get the report? No, because under the Unprofessional Conduct Subchapter, it's really the agencies themselves that investigate allegations of unprofessional conduct and then they report what the final results of their investigation are to the council and then how it was set up to work is that the council reviews that information and then determines whether charges should be brought. So it's based on the investigation of the agency itself. This advisory committee was set up to help support the council in its duties in regard to unprofessional conduct, but it's advisory only. It specifically does not have any decision-making authority. And I believe what this would do is give them not decision-making authority necessarily, but a few more teeth by asking them to recommend appropriate action if needed. So they might recommend that somebody gets suspended or something like that. Do they have that kind of power? Okay. So it kind of acts as a citizen, more as a citizen review board. That's kind of what I'm wondering because we had talked about citizen review boards the other day, but we haven't talked about them since. I'm just wondering where that whole thing is at. Adam, I'm back whenever you're ready. Okay. I think this is where this, and then there is another section under the review thing, which is on page eight that asks us to look more at citizen review boards. But this is, so, Chief? So again, you're correct that when there is unprofessional conduct, that matter is investigated and then it is brought before the council for a myriad of different types of actions. The council advisory committee was created although to the best of my knowledge is not in place in practice yet. There has never been contact between the council and a council advisory committee. This proposed legislation would certainly make that common sense for exactly the reasons that the council advisory committee was created so that they can actually hear the information that's provided to the council and then offer a different perspective of what would be a good recommendation to the council when they're looking at the certification of an officer based on the allegations and the investigation that takes place. I don't think that there's anything that the council would look at as that being detrimental to their deliberations on how to handle certification of an officer that's coming before them. You were breaking up there a bit. I hope Betsy got more of that. You did. I heard the chief say it makes sense. It does. It's a couple of lines to paraphrase. That's what I thought. It does make sense. It gives the council an additional, aside from oversight, but more input from another body outside of the council to look at what is the proper sanction that should be going against an officer's certification based on the facts presented to them. Okay. Anybody else wanna weigh in on this particular one? Okay. So now we're on number five already. So the fifth one here, and I will say the first four were things that I thought and Betsy thought that we could actually do because we had enough information on them that we could make a decision and put in there as real action items to pass into statute. The fifth amendment, the fifth one here is a whole lot of, we need more work on this and we're not in a position to make final decisions at this point. If over the next couple of days, if any of these seem that we can make decisions then we can add, make separate amendments for those. But at this point, what I'd like to do, I guess, is look at each of these. I think there are three, four, five, six, seven, seven different studies or reviews here and start with number one and start looking at them and see if there is something that we can do right now then we can change it from a review to doing something. Does that make sense? Yep. Yep. Brian. Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel I must say something on that page, beginning with the fifth amendment lines 12 through 16. I guess I just don't agree with it and I'd rather see it struck. I don't remember agreeing that the further goal of defining law enforcement not as warriors. I think that's a little strong and I also just would mention nothing I've seen whether it came from us or the Judiciary Committee indicated any support for our law enforcement community, even if it was just a sentence or two that, and I don't know how we want to say it, but the great majority of folks who work in that profession are great people and work hard and that kind of thing. Everything seems to be, and forgive me if I'm misreading it, but everything in my view seems to sort of be going the other way and has sort of a, maybe not a punitive piece to it, but anyway, this one, it just struck me as being something that I didn't want. So I will take responsibility for that when we heard, and it wasn't, they weren't terms that, first of all, I am sorry that you feel that we are somehow overall kind of criticizing and putting down law enforcement because I don't feel that way. I feel that we have worked with law enforcement and many of these suggestions came from law enforcement. So I think that they, law enforcement themselves, except for some rogue officers out there, I think are interested in making sure that people, that they have the respect and trust of their communities. And I think that for the most part in Vermont, that is true. The way, where these terms came from was actually, there was a 21st century policing report that came out, but then there was also when we heard from Drew Bloom in judiciary, he testified to us, he's a use of force instructor and he testified at great length and very articulately about teaching use of force and how it really is de-escalation is the first option and the use of force is really the last. And he was the one that planted this in my brain. So Drew, if you're there, I'm gonna blame you that he said that the way law enforcement thinks of itself is as community guardians and that over the past, there has been too much of a warrior approach in many instances. And in fact, that was one of the comments. I think there were like 25 comments in the Bennington report that came out and that was one of them that, and so we could, if it's better, just by defining, to further the goal of defining law enforcement officers as community guardians and just leave out the warrior part because that maybe does sound incendiary and I did not mean that at all. And I didn't necessarily, I didn't mean to imply that at all, Madam Chair. I just, it just hit me and like, whoa, wait a minute. Warrior means they're sort of an antagonistic sort of of engagement right off the bat with the general public. And I've never had that experience. I know other people have and I understand that and I understand that we're trying our best to work through solutions so that everybody's treated the same way. But I would agree, if we could take that small phrase out, I would greatly appreciate it. I'm fine doing that. Other people? Sure. We're just redefining, we're continuing defining law enforcement as community guardians. Okay. That'd be great. Thank you. You are welcome. So let's look at the start with number one here. And I don't know that the appropriate people are involved in each of these but this would be looking at, Betsy, why don't you, it's best if you walk us through this because you can do it more succinctly than I. I don't know about that, but I will try. So this is, starts out by saying that the following entities, because there's a whole list of them and topics that they'll provide a report back to the GovOps committees in regard to their progress on the following topics, including any recommendations for legislative action at the beginning of next January. And I think that, you know, they could continue to review these issues and maybe the general assembly would ask them to. So then how it works is that each numbers one through, however many they are, just separate these, separate the topics. And so the first one is in regard to law enforcement officer qualifications. And then as you'll see it's set up it names different entities that maybe the correct ones to address each of these topics. So the first one in regard to law enforcement officer qualifications requires the LEAB to recommend statewide standards for interviewing and hiring new officers in order to recognize applicant qualities that are desirable and those that are not. And to specifically recommend standards that should apply to officers in a supervisory role. And I believe this came from the commissioner when he talked to us from Allison. So I'm curious that the commissioner isn't using his is encouraging us to use uniform as a language in embedded in our work. So statewide for me would be a uniform standard for this, for all of these things as opposed to the standard. He's not encouraging us to do that because he's not with us anymore, I believe. And so this is one of the places that we could find out if it makes more sense to say universal. I'm still here. Oh, you are still here. Oh, good. Michael, I think that this is one of those places. Is this one of those places? Start that. I do think it's one of those places where standard batteries of questions can be used and standard process to assess the same things. We're looking for largely the same things. There may be some community nuances that individual communities want to add to the mix of their firing process. But by and large, we know the bulk of what we're looking for. Do we want to add there that community nuances are or do we just take that for granted here? I think you take it for granted. Okay. Yeah, I like the way it's written now. Okay. All right. I'm sorry. Was there a suggestion to substitute universal standards? Yeah, statewide. Yeah, I think that's what Michael was saying. What Michael, is that what you're saying? Yes. I think having a statewide template for hiring makes sense. So statewide, not universal. I'm trying to... I'm sorry. I'm not sure that there's operationally much distinction there if you're looking for the right language. I think it's your choice. Right. I'm just trying to support your work to moving things to uniform standards and uniform implementation and, you know, uniform policy. All right. We'll change that to a new one. We'll change that to universal standards. So, B. So first of all, is everybody okay with A? What I'd like to do is try and figure out as we go along so that we don't go through all of them and then come back. So does anybody have any comments on A? Rob? Yes. Yeah, and I could former Chief Sherling with this. I would suggest using recommending the use of citizen hiring channels so that there is citizen input into selection of new officers. It worked well in Burlington is my memory. Mike, you have any thoughts on that? Yes. I concur and it's in the 10 area strategy draft. And I interpreted this to give the latitude within statewide standards for interviewing and hiring to allow for that. And while I have the floor, let me offer one more comment, which is this is the fifth proposal of amendment is session law only, correct? It's not codified. If people are interested in finding this and they're not finding it in total 20, it's gonna be hard. Just a thought. And I know you're not final on what form is gonna look like. I see Betsy Ann shaking her head. But it'd be nice to have it in a green book. Once you get to an end product. Thank you. Another discussion. Thank you. I disagree from just a plain up drafting perspective because this is just temporary language. The law is the law. Just from ledge council perspective, we don't put these types of temporary reports back in statute. Of course the countervailing interest is public accessibility transparency. Another debate for another. We will count on the advocacy groups out there to make sure that the public is aware of these and responds to them. And that when the reports come back, if there are suggestions for legislative change, then they would be in the statutes. Thank you. Okay, so B. So sorry, just to finish on A, are we going to include a subsection they're asking for the use of citizen hiring panels? It's already there. Where? According to what commissioner Shirley just said, it encompasses the same with the phrases that are used that they're going to recommend statewide standards, et cetera. And in order to do that, they will consult with citizens. Okay. I think that's what he said. That it's in process, but not done yet. Correct. We're assuming they're going to consult with citizens. I mean, there's no requirement. No, I'll yield back to the commissioner. I thought that's what he said. That's correct. I think it's worded in a sufficiently broad way to allow not only to adapt interview questions, but to recommend a variety of things that we've at least initially drafted for exploration in the plan. Okay. Okay. So B. All right. Page seven, line three. This would require the council to consult with the Human Rights Commission, ACLU, and other relevant organizations in reviewing the current law enforcement recruit written, oral and psychological examinations for cultural sensitivities and appropriateness. Comments. Rob. Line four. I would suggest adding other relevant organizations and individuals. You may want to be able to consult with an individual psychologist or somebody else with expertise who may not be a member of an organization. Yeah. And my guess is that they'll consult with lots of different people, but we wanted to make sure that certain groups were actually specified, but I think that's a good idea. Any other comments from anybody? And just so that everybody knows, I can't see, I can only see nine people here. So if you have something and you can't raise your hand, I can't see you just holler out, but Senator Colomar. Thank you. Betsy, forgive me. You are an expert at drafting, okay? And I'm not, but when I read that sentence, when I read it the first time I thought, well, there must be a mistake. It should say recruitment, but in, so line five, in reviewing the current law enforcement, recruit, written oral. So the written oral and psychological modified the word examinations, right? Yes. And so recruit is the pronoun for the recruits or the people that go through the academy to become certified as law enforcement officers. So it's the recruit exams, but I can fix it up. I see what you're saying. It might be, maybe say the law enforcement, written oral and psychological examinations for recruits or something like that. Yeah. That's what I was thinking. Thank you. Thank you. Much better. Thank you. You may want a quick suggestion. You may want to have it more broad than that because sometimes we're hiring laterally and they're not recruits that are going to the academy. They're just new hires and they're subject to those testing standards as well. So it's really just anyone we're hiring. Okay. Maybe applicant. That would be a good substitute. Sure. And maybe Chief Brackell, if he's still on might have a more nuanced modifier as well. I am still on. No, I think applicant serves right because you're right. I mean, there are a lot of state candidates coming into this state and people that are just moving laterally. So I think that that makes sense if you just leave it as applicant that applies to anyone. Okay. This is from the police academy as well. An applicant is what we use for a general term. So it's right in line. Good. Thank you. Allison? So I get cultural sensitivities, but appropriateness is not qualified. And I'm just curious what kind of appropriate. I mean, there's a whole range of appropriate. I'm just curious what we're wanting to capture with that. And if we should qualify it in some fashion. Well, I don't care if we have, I don't know what that meant. I put it in there and I was thinking of things like the example that we were given about the new American who wanted to become a law enforcement officer and in the written exam, there are five, there's a scenario and then there's five different responses and you choose the best response. Since English wasn't his first language, the English is such a bizarre language that some of the differences or the nuances in words are so small that he couldn't chew. He knew what the right response was, but he couldn't correlate it to the written language. So I just think it's what I meant was any kind of appropriateness to recruiting people. Anything that was instead of trying to do a whole long list of things. So if there are better language, then let's do it. Yeah, I don't know why that isn't a sensitivity. I guess, so I don't have a suggestion which would be incorporate the ability to serve as a community guardian or some language along that line. Well, this is, okay. Just a suggestion. Could you say that again, Robert? I'm not sure I understood what you meant. Well, above we're talking about community guardians. That's the goal of law enforcement officers as stated by the legislative body. So psychological examinations to determine whether the applicant has cultural sensitivities that would allow and the appropriateness to serve in that capacity to discern the role of a community guardian. Right, I think that would be helpful. All right. Commissioner, are you still with us or Chief? I'm still here. Did you have a comment on that or a different way of expressing this? No, again, I think there's enough latitude to be able to bring back a variety of options. Yeah, but I think that's right. Cause that's what we're looking for community guardians and it is whether they would be appropriate as a community guardian. I think- Well, I think that that is covered actually in A, looking for the qualities that are desirable and those that aren't desirable. I think that that's where we get here. This is looking for the actual written and oral and psychological examinations that are given. And here's an example and maybe this is a really dumb example, but when my daughter was little, she seemed to, well, anyway, it doesn't make any difference, but we took her to be tested and they showed her a bunch of pictures and then she was supposed to identify what they were. And there was this one picture of a kind of an oblong thing like that with something in the middle and then it had these little lines on the top. And it was clearly a hot dog. And she said, I don't know what that is. And there were a couple of things like that that she simply couldn't identify because she had never had a hot dog at that point in her life. So the exams themselves have to be designed in a way that acknowledge the cultural differences and other differences, not just cultural differences, I guess, but rural versus urban. Are there differences there the way people perceive exams? I don't know, but I think that this isn't just looking for qualities. This is actually asking them to review the exams themselves to make sure that they are appropriate. Brian? No, I think you've hit it on the head, Madam Chair. I would suggest changing that phrasing on line six. Psychological examinations for cultural sensitivities and appreciation for cultural differences, which goes to your point, if you don't understand the other person's orientation, you might be asking what you think is a very legitimate question when it completely doesn't mean that to the person. So you have to appreciate that there's differences. It's just a fun. Okay, but I do want to make sure that we're not just talking here about cultural differences and cultural sensitivities, but the appropriateness of the exams for anybody, for somebody with a limited vocabulary, which may not be a cultural difference. So I just want to... For a wide range of applicants is what you're trying to get at, isn't it? I want them, and I know that they're doing this already. I know that they are reviewing the exams and both the written oral and psychological exams. I mean, the commissioner talked to us about should they be using the MMPI? Maybe not. Maybe they should be using a different tool, and they are looking at that already. So I just want to make sure that we're reflecting what they're already doing and making sure that it isn't just cultural sensitivities. And I'm not sure how I get this across, but anyway. Oh, Betsy Ann maybe has an idea. I just want to say I'm sure she does. Overall appropriateness? Yes, okay. She came up with it. I know. Okay. Anybody else have any comment on that section? No. Okay, so we have finished the law enforcement officer qualifications section. Betsy Ann, do you want to lead us to the training section? Yeah, next topic is training. And so first off, I'm on page seven, line eight at the council in consultation with the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel. The rights commission, ACLU and other relevant stakeholders shall review current requirements for basic and annual in-service training to determine whether appropriate training provided in areas of cultural awareness, implicit bias, de-escalation and mental health condition, and whether that's training is embedded into training on other policies like traffic stops and searches. And then I think that B is so related to that that I think we should go through B and C before commenting on them. Sounds good. So under B, after they would conduct that analysis and they would review the officer's current training requirements and how that training is used in practice, the council would then recommend any amendments to statutorily required training that might not be necessary for all officers. And I think for example, one suggestion was whether search and rescue training is appropriate for all officers. For example, it is currently statutorily required. And then top of page eight does get into the academy itself and do you want to get into that? No, let's look at these, the number one first. A and B. A and B. Where am I? I lost my pages, yeah. A and B. Any comments? I'm fine with this. Rob? I'm looking at line 13 on page seven, implicit bias, de-escalation and mental health conditions. I recommend that language be expanded to be recognition of and responding appropriately to mental health conditions. It's a big issue in the field. Recognition of mental health conditions. And responding appropriately there to something like that. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Madam chair, this is Cindy Taylor-Patch from the police academy, if I could have just a second. Please do. So I just wanted to bring it to folks' attention that we had asked for the expansion of basic training to expand our efforts and what we're already doing on all these topics and provide even more training on that. Unfortunately, the funding for that mid-peers has been withdrawn due to current state budget issues, but just wanted to know that there has been a lot of work prior to all the current events and asking for an expansion of all those topics. Thank you. And we acknowledge that a lot of what's in here is already ongoing by the whole law enforcement community, along with other communities. So I think that we aren't inventing anything here that isn't already being considered by most people. We just want to reinforce it and make sure that it's, what was it that Senator Collo more likes to say? Not a boost. It was good. It was good. It was good. Like a kick in the butt, but not that isn't what you said. You said something really nice about just- Gentle reminder. Gentle reminders maybe. Nudge. Was it nudge? Nudge. Very good. Nudge. Good. Okay. Well, and I think there's going to be a lot more sympathy in what we've been going through as a nation and as a state. I think there's going to be a lot more sympathy for spending that money at the academy now, actually. So this is an important nudge, I would say. Yes, I appreciate that. And I don't take any of this in any way negatively. I actually appreciate the conversation. And it's helpful on my end to help get everybody on the same page and moving in the same direction. So thank you. So any other comments? I'd like to thank Cindy for her work on this issue over the last several decades. She's been great. Really provided great leadership of the academy on this. Thank you, Cindy. Good. Thank you, Robert. So any more comments on number two, A and B? Okay. Let's go to C. All right. So C's about just how training is provided in general. So this would require the council, LEAB, Department of Public Safety, to consult with VLCT and other interested stakeholders to determine whether the police academy should be relocated to a different area of the state and whether there should be more flexibility in the residential and field training required of recruits, including whether recruits should be able to satisfy some of those training requirements through an internship with outside entities, such as a mental health agency. Then I'll just note that. Yeah. Yeah, this is where your addition is. Yeah, draft 1.2, the only difference between the two drafts is that draft 1.2 would also ask those parties to consider whether the council should be reestablished within a state agency or other oversight entity. And Gail has that posted now. And if you pull up draft 1.2, it's just on that new language is on page eight, line four and five. And that's the only difference between the two drafts. Comments, yeah, Allison? So we had quite a productive conversation about work study, incorporating more work and internships and experience into their training. And mental health, calling out one area is okay. I also thought one of the important conversations we had was the division, the difference between an urban, a very intense urban experience in community policing, in community guardianship, and rural. And I think that's an area too. And if we're going to talk about increasing cultural awareness, it's also an opportunity for international, a period of interning with the Canadians on one of their or in England where they use very different community guardianship techniques. It strikes me that they're calling out a couple other areas to give people an idea. If this is just session law, we can do that. And I think any and all experience people get in this training that broadens their experience is valuable. So I agree with you. And I'm not sure how to word that so that it's clear we could just end after internship and leave it at that and hope that, I mean, we could just do that because we don't want to, you're right, we don't want to define just one area where, yeah. And Cindy, if Cindy's still on this call, I would hope that that would be taken back to the Academy because we had a very good, robust conversation about this. And one of the people who've been exchange students or AFS students who have lived in another country all have heightened sensitivities to differences in a way that kids who've just had experience in America don't necessarily have. And so I think all these options that we could be exploring and they're great granting opportunities too. And they're, anyway, I think that's rich with opportunity. If I may Madam Chair, it's Mike Scherling, perhaps substituting experiential learning for internship gives it a broader context. Yeah, that would help. Good, yeah. And that gives, open up the door for imagination. Okay, everybody okay with that? This is a little, there's a little tiny thing, but are we gonna keep the words with outside entities? Make it clear. No, just put basic training through experiential learning, period. Okay. Thank you, Mike. Okay, anybody else have any comments on C? All right. And this goes back to, yeah. So it's great. And are we doing pilot? Had we talked about doing pilots with this? Or are we just moving? No, I don't think we're at the point of doing pilots. Okay, C, I mean three. Yeah, and I'm gonna keep referring to draft 1.1 because I think that's what the committee members have up. So I'm on page eight, line 10. Topic three is the regional civilian review boards. This was one of the suggestions. I believe the AG's office had provided some testimony on this. So this would require the AG's office to consult with the council, the human rights commission and other interested parties to recommend the manner in which regional civilian review boards could be appointed to oversee the discipline imposed on officers by their agency or the council or both. And the recommended powers and duties of such a board. So one group, it would be given Curtis, Curtis Reed is very supportive of this. I mean, there were a number of people who are very supportive of this, but Curtis's organization would be another one, I think, to call out here or any additional. I'm not sure I would, because there are numerous Curtis, there are three organizations in Brattleboro and just itself. And if we called out just one, I think by saying other interested parties, they would be covered, but I would hate to start listing some organizations and leaving others out. I mean, the human rights commission and then where we referenced ACLU, they're kind of a different level of organization. They're pretty much statewide, but if we, that's just my feeling. I don't know committee people, how you feel? I think that's good. I'm sorry, I sort of had to focus. You had a lot of interesting parties. I was just focused on our discussion of the idea. Anybody else have comments on three? Julio Thomas. I'm here. This is Gwen Zaca from VLCT. Uh-huh. We understand that the interested parties might include us, but I think that calling out the league in this is actually really important, even more so probably than the preceding section and subsection two, because we already have a seat on the LEAB, but for regional review boards, I mean, I think the vast majority beyond the sheriff's departments, these are going to impact the local constable agencies and then the municipal agencies. So I think having a voice to how this actually works in terms of employment law and union contracts and those sorts of things is really important. So I think being called that would be, we would really appreciate that. Yep. Anybody else I heard Julio? I think I heard you trying to chime in. Yeah, I had a couple of comments on three in terms of who would fall with an interested parties. I mean, both the league and I think the organizations and I think if our office were to remain involved in this, we obviously would talk to them and a little more. I think we would also recommend community for out to, and virtually all sorts of outreach. So I guess my comment really here is that my comment really is about three, maybe a little bit about four, is that the models that are up for consideration, I think might be unduly constraining on the community and also the HRC and I guess our office. I testified last week that there are numerous different models of civilian review, only one of which is a civilian review board. And even with, and there are many days I can think of Denver, for Los Angeles, Seattle. Let's all of that come to my Denver. I think I mentioned we have overlapping models where they have a civilian monitor. That's a centralized monitor that does certain things. And then they have reviewed a civilian oversight or review board that does other things. And I think that at least based, and I've missed testimony today because I was over listening to testimony on roughly the same subjects is that I wouldn't want to buy legislative mandate, limit print models for consideration, rather than regional civilian review boards has a certain sense, but there may be other models that when people do the research and talk, there's a lot about the subject or books that have been written about for the last 20 years, there's a national organization, the civilian law enforcement dimension last week, and I just would like the language to be loosened up a little bit so that those tasks as making recommendations aren't boxed in by the phrase regional civilian. It could include that, but it also have other recommendations and the scope of oversight might not just be limited to overseeing discipline imposed. There may be civilian input that's desirable about investigations or indeed in some models involved in investigations. So I think the parties that are tasked with this should just have a little more freedom to do the research and get community input on different models. So if you online lever and other interested parties and I would put the LCT in here on this one to review different models for community involvement. I think the phrase that comes to mind and I didn't, I only got this within the last 20 minutes or so I think the phrasing that you see often in the trade is models of civilian oversight. Okay. Include civilian review boards and monitors and inspectors general and Ombudsman et cetera. And we don't have to name them, we can just say. Right, I was just saying it encompasses all of that when you say civilian oversight. Right. And so that's all, it's just one very short sentence then. Well, and I would not include it regional because that'll be part of the consideration but it might be statewide as well. Okay. So it could be titled something else like model citizen review oversight. I think he already suggested what it would be called. Right. Julio, you had a term. Yeah, it was, I saw maybe it might be improvising here. Other interested parties to recommend, I would say one or more models of civilian oversight of law enforcement. Yeah. And I would say review and recommend. You have here. Yeah. But Madam Chair, my point was the title of number three, I would get rid of regional there and just call it models civilian. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Sorry. That's all. Mark. Thank you Madam Chair. Would this be a good time to make my proposal for a pilot program? Well, I don't know that it even needs to be in here. I mean, we have talked about it but because we wouldn't be putting any money into it, I mean, you can make your proposal here and we'll see if we need to put it in or if you can just do it on your own. I'm happy to do it on my own. And if nothing else for the community to be aware, after hearing some of the testimony, both between this committee and judiciary over the last several weeks within my agency, and I believe I don't require any law to do this, but within my agency, we've begun building or I should say within my county, we've begun building a civilian, but we don't have the name yet. I called it the Sheriff's Advisory Council and that might change at some point, but what it is is a combination of the assistant judges, the high bailiff who ultimately would be the person or the person I say is responsible for my coup as the sheriff. Can I just throw something out here before Mark continues? Mark was the high bailiff and when he got appointed as the sheriff, we had to get a new high bailiff because he obviously couldn't arrest himself. I actually, that's an interesting point, madam chair. Under Vermont law, I do not see any conflict of office with the high bailiff and the sheriff. So I would like to just know that we should probably fix that, but I did resign my position as high bailiff out of just the moral ethics. So the high bailiff is followed by a member from a person with a town experience, a person with education experience, and then a familiar face for many of you, Etan, I'm not gonna attempt to pronounce his last name from Ardap. So that's the, at least the initial panel that I've convened with the intention of that panel growing it to a size roughly double of its make up to provide for both advice to me as the sheriff. As the sheriff, I have no board, no counsel, no commission, nobody really that provides me oversight or a response similar to a select board, which a chief of police would. So it's hard for me to be able to have a sounding board when it comes to policy development. But then the pivot as part of these conversations about having oversight and civilian intervention was to potentially pivot this group to say, how do we bring people of a variety of diverse backgrounds and to be able to do this? So within my agency, I can certainly do that autonomously, but if an interest in trying to develop a model on a regional level was of interest to this committee, I would offer what we're creating as a potential petri dish to start that. Thank you. And for your information, I've been corresponding with CSG around expanding not just the citizen review model part of it, but kind of how do we deal with law enforcement in general and perhaps a pilot? But I don't know that we need to put that in here. I think that it, what do you think, committee? My fear is that if we put that in here that other areas are going to say, well, we need to have what we're working on in here also. I just, I fear that this would bring more comment than necessary. What do you think? I agree. Yeah, I agree with you. Alison, you're very quiet. As usual. I always love to move ahead with pilots, but I think I'm worried that it'll go back to approach. So I mean, I don't know. I think we're fine where we are. We always have next January or August for us to come back and do further work if we want to move something further along. But I think for right now, given our time, let's start with this. And I would say that if as you move forward with this pilot and you find out that you need statutory changes to allow you to do anything, then that's where it would come in. Yeah. I would say, Mark, your pilot may be a model for us to look at as we look at how to expand it and roll it out. I agree, Senator Clarkson. And if nothing else for your awareness, but to offer this at least for my agency, I think it's a good forward step for us regardless. I don't see any need for funding right now. I don't see any need for any legislative change. And if I do find that out within the next couple of months, then I'll probably be back in August to talk to you. Yeah. Okay. All right. So we're done with three. We've made those changes. Four. All right, page eight, line 17. This is about reporting unprofessional conduct or alleged unprofessional conduct. So right now council is a place where people can report unprofessional conduct, but this section would require the AG's office to consult with the council, human rights commission, ACLU and other interested parties to identify a central point for reporting allegations of officer misconduct, which could be the council or another entity and how those allegations should be handled. Comments on this, I think that there were suggestions that at different places that it could be, but I think that we need, we're not in a position to make a recommendation about where it should be and how they should be handled. Any comments on this? I agree. Okay. Anybody else? No, I'm comfortable with this crowd consulting and recommending. Okay. All right, moving on to five. All right, I'm at the top of page nine. This is about accessing information about complaints. So this would require the council to consult with the ACLU and interested media associations in reviewing the public records request policy relating to allegations of officer misconduct and substantiations of those allegations in order to recommend any changes to current practice. So for example, it's in the council statute, there is specific language about when the council can identify a law enforcement officer who has been alleged to have committed on professional conduct. And right now it's strictly written so that the officer's identifying information is only made public once charges are filed. So this could be in regard to the council itself or it could also be in regard to allegations that an agency itself is aware of. Any comments? Julio has a comment and a question. Okay. Go ahead. So in line two and three, the public records request policy is the policy of the council or is that the statute? I think that this was, I think one, what I wanted to emphasize here was how does the council's policy interrelate with our public records law and how do we mesh them and how do we make, and making some decisions around how they interact? Well, then I would ask whether the committee thinks that the consultants would be broader than the ACLU and interested media associations. For example, the human rights commission has confidentiality statutes, allegations of police misconduct are within its purview. If the officer misconduct relate co-worker conduct such as sexual harassment, that would result in our jurisdiction subject to confidentiality statute. And I would imagine that there are stakeholders relating to victims advocates that might be consulted as well. Those are come to mind, but if you're looking at the actual law, then there are two separate investigative entities I've identified that statutes and the interplay of those statutes with what the council does, I think interrelating with media and the ACLU would be probably a broader discussion. Yep. I think that's Dan. Maybe would you want to revise it to say, so you could add the human rights commission victims advocates, but maybe then revise that to say in reviewing public access to records relating to allegations of law enforcement officer misconduct to make it more general? Well, I was just my reaction was why I wasn't sure why the phrase other interested parties, which would welcome community input since this is a community driven piece of legislation and would be helpful. And I think that would also avoid skirmishes about whether someone who has a blog is part of a media association or not. Right. I would just broaden it to that so that there would be Vermonters of that sorts. But I think the HRC and certainly, and I think probably our office, I think they would confer with us we have a representative on the council, but I think that just that it is a broader discussion I think would probably be desirable. Yeah. And I think that the term interested media associations was meant to be the Vermont Press Association and the Vermont Broadcasters Association as opposed to individual people who consider themselves media. They're not an association, but I think that that's a good idea to broaden it. I would support that. Okay. Madam chair, can I ask a question? Yes. Chris Burkell from the council again. And looking at all the changes in the proposed legislation, the one thing that I see is that there is a lot of action being requested of the council, which is now being increased to an 18 member council, all of whom are essentially volunteering their time to do the best work they can. And I'm just curious if there was any thought given to this section specifically to make the council advisory committee to consult the ACLU and interested media association also says, you know, they're an advisory committee, they're looking once established at law enforcement certification and recommendations for what type of action to be taken on someone's certification. Would it not make sense for the council advisory committee on public records information as well and suggest proposed changes to the council? Oh, I hadn't thought of that. That's an interesting, yeah. I have no problem with that. Anybody else? I'm just recognizing the actual work that council is responsible for and the fact that by statute now they're quarterly meetings and we meet monthly and, you know, we have an enormous amount of work. Right. It's still accomplished and we're piling more and more stuff on that now with new members and a larger group might be more difficult. Or you might have- You will notice at the beginning of the fifth instance of amendment, we did not say you had to have these done by a certain state, but instead asked for progress report in January of 2021 knowing that some of these might be, might go quickly because there are things that are already being worked on and they might be more administrative like reviewing the written exam. And some of them are going to be much more time consuming and involve many more people. So I think we're giving you what Senator Callum or calls a gentle nudge to keep doing most of what you're already doing. Understood. I just wasn't sure if that had been considered at all of letting that committee take a look at that. I'm okay with that. Anybody else? Okay. Okay. All right. So body cams. Madam Chair, this is Gwynne Dacuff again from VLCT. I just wanted to make sure we included the language that I had flagged before about records retention. So beyond just the public record, not beyond just request, but the retention periods for those things. Thank you. And thanks to Gwynne for bringing that up because another note that I wrote down when she brought this up earlier is whether the Secretary of State should be involved here because it does involve the Public Records Act. Yeah. Good. So... Oh, sorry. Okay, see, you ought to do it, see. I mean, be six. Yeah. And I just wanted to confirm on that five and in regard to the access to complaint information, should the Secretary of State be added there because it does relate to Public Records or do you just want to apply that? Yeah. Okay. No, I would not. Okay. So number six is in regard to body cameras. The first thing is to require the LEAB to report any recommended changes it has to the policy on body cameras that it established pursuant to that 2016 act. And then it goes on to say after consulting with the ACLU and Interested Media Association's board would specifically recommend policies for responding to public records requests for body camera footage, including any recommended timelines to respond and how and what footage should be redacted. And then the language Gwynne suggested is the length of retention. And I think the storage goes to how, or wait, wait. Oh yeah, and storage. Sorry, I can add storage. Yeah. And of central storage locations, you have on 16 and 17. Yeah. Well, that's different. First of all, this is about the policy. The record, right. Yes. So any comments on that? Julio has a comment. Okay. It's similar to the comment on the preceding sections which has to do with the breadth of the folks who are entitled to offer their input during consultation. So I don't have in front of me the law that establishes the members of the law enforcement advisory board, but I think it's probably not broad enough to encompass a lot of the communities that are interested in body-worn camera policies. So something similar to the interested parties might be desirable. Yep. Release of footage effects, not only media interests, civil libertarian interests, but I think broader community interests. So I have the same kind of players in that one. Okay. Good idea. Robert has. Okay, I'm sorry, Robert. Yeah, I just said Robert. Oh, okay. Sorry, Madam Chair. I'm looking at lines 12 to 15 regarding redaction, et cetera. You're probably aware of this Doyle versus city of Burlington case. It basically, without reading it in the last couple of months, it says that the department cannot charge the individual requester the time it took to redact. And redacting a body cam on the street is a big deal in terms of fuzzing out faces, et cetera. I think this is a major issue. I would suggest you put some kind of deadline, some sort of report back, something that makes sure that this doesn't get dropped. And I don't know if I've not been following the activities of the body in recent years. I don't know if there's a bill to address Doyle, which you're surely might know or the sheriff might know. I don't, but it's, you know, what you're seeing nationwide, increased use of body camera footage, increased use of iPhone cameras in terms of transparency is a great tool. The question then becomes, how do you make that relevant to holding officers to account if they're stepping out alive? So I think it requires some more attention in a turnaround date. My other comment is interested media association. I followed you back and forth with Julio on this. Turns out that Vermont Digger would not, it's not a member of either association because they're not broadcast nor print. So I agree, I suggest you be broader in who's to consult with us. Again, this is to me a very major issue that we're going to face with increasing frequency and cries out for, in my view, some legislative response. What it is at this point in time, I can't say, but I think you want to cycle back to it. It's a suggestion. Do you have a date that you would consider they could do this working or Julio? Do you have a timeframe that? I would say a year, you know, come, well, let's see, you come back in January. It's not much time given what everybody has on their plate in regard to COVID. Perhaps September of 2021. I don't know. September, well, that's, you want to, yeah, I'd want it before your next session. I actually think that there's gonna be some urgency to probably do this because we have in the bill this morning in the Senate, we said they couldn't have any grants or unless they complied with this policy. And we just decided they also could not send recruits to the Academy if they didn't by January of 2022. So I think that there's gonna be some urgency on the part of all those people to get this figured out quickly. Right, and I admit to not being familiar with the body, model body warm camera policy. Norak, your 2016 act. I just know it's a big issue in the field. So an appropriate date might be the fall, a year from this fall, fall of 21? I would think so. You can't do it this session. You can't have it ready for next session. It's too short. So I think you got to put it out until you convene in 2022. He said sadly. So they would have to bring recommendations for legislative changes to by January of 2022. And then that is also when they won't be able to get grants or send to the Academy unless they comply. Again, I'm not, I'm un-informed with regard to the existing policy. So- No, that isn't an existing policy. Sorry, that isn't an existing policy. We just put that in our amendments. Michael, Shirling suggested more urgency in bringing it up to January 22 that contingency recruits and- No, I understand that. I'm sorry. I should interrupt. So September, though, don't we need it before January to draft some legislation about Jeanette? Yes, but- It is a major issue out there that's unresolved. I'll say that the court was pretty clear that it can't be charged back to the requester but it didn't say a whole lot more. This was in ACLU case. So, and I'm not, like I said, I've not read it in a while. I didn't see this till the day. I'm hopefully unprepared to be expert on this. Just flagging it. I mean, we could put a deadline on here. We also are asking them to come back in January 21 with a progress report on all of these. And if they come back with a progress report that says, well, we really haven't done anything, then we can do something. Well, you might want to put it in your post list for that progress report. In our what? Your punch list. Your list of topics for which they're- That's what this is. Okay. This is the punch list for the progress reports. Okay, sorry. I missed that. Allison? January, okay. I got you. Thank you. Back to page six. Thank you. Anybody else have comments on this section? Julio has just- But I think that, go ahead, Julio. So to get- I don't have any recommendation about the timing. And I'm not a public records expert. I'm fairly well acquainted with body-worn camera policy in other places. Right now, as of today, I think there are 20, almost two dozen today, that NDC have laws governing public records requests for body-worn or in-car video. And there are many issues that come up, including acts of violence that are captured or not committed by police officers, people getting killed, captured on video, sexual assault, communications with undercover officers or informants, medical or psychological treatment that's provided in the field. So it is very complicated. And a lot of people are gonna have to do a lot of research. The other unknown for the committee is that, probably all of the remaining states have bills or are working on bills to manage and or regulate body-worn video. And there's also federal legislation that's either in play this summer or later in the fall. So that's a long way of giving a little bit more detail to Robert's point, which is that it's a big issue. It's very complicated. And the good news is that we have a lot to learn from. We have a lot of other experience that we can draw from. But I guess if you wanna say the bad news is that those laws demonstrate that there are lots of really nuanced decisions that need to be made. That's it. So committee, are we okay just leaving it like this with a progress report in January, or do we wanna put more? I mean, we certainly can't make it before January. Okay, that was an up, Brian. I say just leave it at its' manager. With the, except adding those other players. Anthony. Yes, I agree with Brian. Allison. If we're actively going to, for whoever follows us in scovops for next year, whoever's there, that I just wanna make sure that this is on the punch list because all of these things need action sooner rather than later. So I mean, I would tend to put a date in. Well, we can't. Yeah. But we can't, we are asking for a report, progress report back on all of these in January for whoever happens to be there. And we can't tell them what they should take up or what they shouldn't take up whoever is on GovOps next year. But I guess the advocates and those interested parties will do a fairly good job of reminding them that this is something they have to address. Let's hope. I have no doubt in my mind that the ACLU, the Human Rights Commission, the Attorney General's Office, the VLCT, the media, and the Secretary of State will not be out there pushing for resolution. Right, I agree. All right. So now we come then to B, line 14 through 18. Yeah, so this would require DPS to consult with the LEAB to investigate the possibility of a statewide group purchasing contract for body cameras and central storage locations. And if the department is going to recommend such a group, it would need to detail its recommended structure and operation. And to be honest with you, I just made this up because it seemed to me that one of the big issues that we heard from local people around the use of body cameras was the cost and the storage cost and all of that. So this does not presume that anything like this could even happen, but I know if you buy tires in bulk, if you have central buying for tires, you save money. So I don't know, but I just made it up. Well, if we have an agency of public safety, we could ask them to do this for all agencies and make it available. I think it makes total sense to do this kind of purchase that we know more and more public safety offices are going to be using and purchasing. It makes as much sense as possible to make it affordable, as affordable as possible, and to create consistency across the state. So I actually think this is a good idea. Mark. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one thing to note that there are agencies, when we talk about a mass purchasing, I loved the idea. We have had our body cameras for several years now. They've been an integral tool, not only for investigations, but also for accountability when we filed a complaint against one of our deputies. The concern I have, so we found a way in-house to store our current footage. The concern I would have is having to import anything if there were a centralized use into a new system, as opposed to maintain a legacy system that we ultimately get rid of over time. So that's one concern. The second concern I have is if it were a centralized thing, agencies that currently have body-worn cameras, do they need to get rid of the cameras they currently have that might integrate with their NCAR cameras with both other systems that they have? So in the long term, this is a really good goal. I think that it will do a lot, but there are going to also be pieces that could be part of this study that can determine the transitional costs as well as the long-term costs. The second thing to note is that one of the, I won't name it, one of the most well-known systems is also one of the most expensive, which is mobile funding. Then it also makes it very difficult for a small agency to try and say, well, we're going to have body cameras as part of the state purchasing contract, but we can't afford it. So the consideration of how it's funded, if it's a centralized authority needs to be at the state level, it can't be pushed on a police permit of two people. The cost could be exorbitant. Oh, I don't think that this actually doesn't do anything. It just asks them to look into the possibility. And if there is a possibility, they would have to come back to us for recommendations of how, and any transitional issues or anything. But I hope I wasn't misconstruing this to say that I think this is causing change itself. I understand it's for a report, but I wanted the committee to be aware of those things. Yep. Any other comments on this one? All right, number seven. Last one. LEAB would recommend a statewide policy on officers use the military equipment. So I have a concern. The LEAB is pretty much all law enforcement officers, right? That's pretty heavily law enforcement. I guess I have a concern here that a citizen voice should be heard in this recommendation as well, because I see increased incremental use of military equipment being purchased by a range of agencies. I know, I think Commissioner Shirling said that it was mostly the state police, but it's discussed. I've heard our police chief discuss it. So it's available. I mean, I think it's more broadly available for local agencies to consider purchasing as well. And I guess I'd like to have more citizen voices in this discussion, because it's a major citizen concern, the militarization of our police. We have a lot of states exception. Brian? Yes, I would ask what exactly are we referring to when we talk about military equipment? Are we talking about protective equipment? I would support that. I think that what we're talking about here is, go ahead, Brian. Well, I just, I'm asking the question, I guess, what exactly is military equipment? Well, that's the problem we don't know. I mean, and the most extreme elements, people will tell you that you're gonna get tanks and armored cars and things of that sort. On the other end of the spectrum, people would say, well, it could be flashlights, it could be any, I'm running out of battery here. Could be flashlights. So there's a whole range of things that we don't know. So that's part of the dilemma. I think that one of the reasons for putting this in here is that what we heard from the commissioner was that currently the department approves all requests for military equipment by local boards. But I don't know that they have any kind of a uniform policy around what requests they approve and which ones they don't and what kinds of equipment they would approve and what they wouldn't approve. So what this is doing is asking them to come up with some kind of a policy that would say, would give some guidance to local agencies when they're applying for it. And we did hear that there are two armored cars in Vermont. There are no helicopters and almost all of the equipment is protective gear, personal protective gear or communications equipment. And office equipment. Well, yeah. And Mark, Mark. Mark Harris-Samba. Yes, I saw him. I was just waiting. Mark. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to Senator Clarkson's point, I think it would be valuable to have community input because on one end it's 100% absolutely of a community issue. People care about it. On the other end, and this is where I wish the commissioner could be here for this, it's known as the 1033 program. If you haven't heard it called that, that's the federal program. There's a lot of rules that go with it. How it works is far beyond my knowledge. I just know that it's not a simple program. It's a federal government system. So there are some parts where people will say, well, we disagree and we could agree similar to unemployment that we also disagree but the federal government has to do that way and that's how it is. So I think that there needs to be a level of control for the department of public safety or whoever's managing that program to ensure we stay within the federal guidelines. I also know that there's one agency that has a military issued lawn mower, a military issued snow blower. So there's a lot of things that it provides. At one point I was looking on the site which has a variety of things. We have two M14s that were used for parades. We don't issue them to officers but they're considered an offensive weapon but they're pretty guns and the military has those as part of color grants. We haven't used them in our agency in a few years but it's part of traditions and protecting the flag. And so just considering what is an offensive weapon versus a parade weapon is also a piece here that they considered. There's a variety of equipment and I think it's also necessary that people understand that this is not just equipping people with things to hurt other people but it's also things that are essentially sitting in a park or in a warehouse that is saving the taxpayer money by me not having to buy a lawn mower or a snow blower or some other useful piece of equipment that the military sent to us. So could we hear at the law enforcement advisory board after community public involvement or input recommend a statewide policy? I like that. Make it more about a community forum that's hosted by the LEAB if they're capable. Yeah, I would support that. Okay. Yeah, I guess so. And it might be different. I mean, yeah. We're always trying to say how we should let our individual municipalities decide for themselves. I think this might be one of those situations where we should, but I know I'm the lone voice here on that. So I guess I don't have as much of an aversion to military equipment as some of the other members. I think the public really has an aversion to the militarization of the police. And I think it's one of the issues that we're hearing now. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's certainly one of the issues that I've heard. And I think as much as possible, we should be able to include them on this. I'm happy having the community involvement. And I think the LEA board will do that as a matter of, I mean, we're asking them to do that. I think that a lot of the outcry right now that we're hearing from people is a misunderstanding of what it even means to have military surplus equipment. I think that if you ask the person on the street that has, and believe me, there are a lot of people in my community who are very much against having military surplus equipment. But if you ask them, should we get a lawnmower so that we don't have to buy a lawnmower, they would say, oh, sure, of course. So I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding out there about what's meant by it and that there are agencies around the country that are using much more so than here in Vermont that are using the kind of offensive military equipment that the sheriff was referring to. So I think that part of it is a misunderstanding of people about what it is we're even talking about. So then hopefully this involvement will help dispel some of that. Right, yes, that's right. Okay, committee, we've gone through the entire set of amendments. Are there any comments from anybody right now about, I think that our next step would be to have Betsy Ann make the changes that were recommended today to bring it to us tomorrow. Is that possible, Betsy Ann? Okay, and then to do a final review and a vote. Are we there? Yes, yes. Okay. All right, so we'll invite the same group of people back tomorrow and tomorrow it will be after the floor, whatever on earth that means, right? Well, and it may be before the floor because we've been meeting after we meet as a committee. Yeah, we're meeting on the floor from 12 to one or 130. So let's set this up for 130 tomorrow and then we'll probably be going back onto the floor after we're done. And the other thing we'll do is, could somebody text Chris Bray and ask him if he can just pop in for one second to vote on the charter so that we can get those done? I've been texting with him, so I will ask him to pop in. He said to just let him know when we were ready for a vote and he would pop in. Yes, I will. Voting now. Then we can get the charters on the agenda and get them taken care of. Please join. For less than five minutes. Four or five minutes. I'm not gonna over promise. Okay, done. Okay, so let's wait for a minute here for him to join us. And then the other thing that we need to look at is the, and I will send out the Stephanie Barrett has done an Excel worksheet or whatever that's called around the COVID money, the budgetary issues. And we'll look at the ones that were within our jurisdiction. And we can do that tomorrow afternoon also. Great. So the charters that we're looking at are Elmore and what's the... St. Albans City. That's right, Elmore and St. Albans. Brian, is your fan still going? Yes, if I leave it up, you can hear it probably. I have mine on too, but I don't have it on too high or else I can't hear anything. Yeah, that's a challenge. This room is just... I feel like maybe Chris is coming. Madam chair. Yes. Are you done with S-124 for now? Thank you very much. I believe we are. Okay, I'm gonna head out. Thank you very much. That's it. Have fun. You need me for anything else? We're putting all those vague ideas into really quick. I have to say, I just wanna say that the two of you just really did a great job taking a lot of what we talked about. And we had a wide pallet of things that we discussed. Thank you for giving them form. You really, you did a great job. That was Senator White. I know. Sunday, she does some of her best work on Sunday. All right, all right. Thanks a lot. Thanks, that's the end. All right, take care. I don't see him yet. Sorry, I did text him. I'll try calling him. Always useful when I call. He might be in the pro tem's office. Oh, I mean, he was, but I... Yeah, it's not funny. I thought, oh, you can just call the number there. It just means I'll have done both. At least I'll have, okay. Well, I texted him and I couldn't be more direct. Voting now. Please join for five minutes. So, we could leave the vote open. Well, then some of us have to stick around. Might I, okay. What I might suggest is that... It could be for one. It's okay to four, zero, one. Yeah, it could be because this is, I mean, these aren't controversial issues that we need a lot of support on anyway. All right, let's just... They did not seem to be known. Yeah, let's just vote on them. Yeah, I would boldly propose. I don't have their numbers in front of me, or I'd make a motion. Brian, do you have them in front of you? No, no, they were on the committee page, though. Um, hang on, hang on, I've got a, I don't know. I can't even remember what day, but we talked about them on Friday. Is that right or no? Yes, we did, we talked about them on Friday. Yes, you did them on Friday. Christian, that wasn't with us, as I recall. Right. So, here. Okay. Yes, it's H9-946 for Elmore. 943. H9-946 I had, is that not right? And H9-943 is St. Albans. Right. Yeah. We didn't say Albans. Right. Okay, so go ahead and move Allison if you want to make a motion. Yeah, I would move favorably vote H9-46 out favorably. Here, here. And there's Senator Bray. I said a little when I got here, but. Hey, you did very well. Are you out of breath from running? No, no, my hair is on fire. Can you see that? Yeah. See you've lost a considerable amount of hair. We can smell it all the way in wood to wood stock. Yeah, I'm living dog years. So, you know, I just made the motion to vote H4-946. I just made the motion to vote H4-946. By the end of this year, I'll be seven years older. Yes. So I just made the motion to. To vote H4-946. The charter of Elmore out favorably. So I Bray. Yes. Clarkson. Yeah. Oh, Calamore. Paulina. Sure. And white. Yes. Great. Thank you. Brian, do you want to report? Brian, do you want to report? Yeah, I'll do both of them if you'd like, not a chair. He was very gracious and agreed to do that on Friday, actually. Oh, okay. Sorry about that. No, that's okay. It was really kind of him. And then I would move that we vote H943 out favorably, which is the charter to the city of St. Albans. And I would start again, Senator Bray. Enthusiastically votes yes. Yes, Senator Clarkson. Yippee. Yes, and Senator Calamore. Yes. Senator Paulina. Yes. And Senator White. Yes. Great. Both motions carry 5-0. All right. And you have received permission for both of these, Madam Chair? Yes. So I'll let John Bloomer know. Actually, I can let him know right now, I guess. That would be great. Maybe we can get him on the notice panel. So, Senator Bray, just for your information, we took a lot of, we have an amendment to 124. And Betsy Ann is making some suggested changes that we had today. And we plan to vote on it tomorrow. Great. Thank you. And then offer it before third reading, which Tim was hoping we could do on Thursday. And I wasn't sure because I didn't know how long this dealing with these amendments would take. But it went much faster than I had anticipated. Good. Well, it was well organized. And we just went boom, boom, boom. And you're going to love them, Chris Bray. So when you see Betsy Ann's email, she'll have an update for you. Thank you very much. OK, committee, is there anything else we need to do? I will forward that. If Stephanie didn't forward it to everybody, I'll forward the Stephanie Barrett's breakdown of the budget so that we can look at the areas that are within our jurisdiction and comment on them to the Appropriations Committee. Is there anything else we need to do today? Gail? Yeah, how would you phrase that for the agenda for tomorrow? Review of budgetary items. Thank you. CRF? Maybe qualify it? No, I would just say budgetary items. Because I don't think it's all necessarily CRF, but I'm not sure. Because the budget's gone. I mean, the first quarter budget we've sent on its way. Right. It is the CRF. But it's we're only dealing with CRF money, I think. That's true. OK, yeah. But I have a question which is not totally related to that. But what happened to the pay act? Yes. And where is it? Well, what they did with the budget. What they're doing with the pay act is they're funding the entire, they're funding the first year. And then the second year will be dealt with when we come back. But there's not going to be a vote taken on it? Yeah, it's going to be presented. Appropriations is presenting it. I don't know when. It was on the list that the chairs looked at this morning. OK. From what I understand, it's going to be the topic of the all Senate caucus tomorrow morning at 8. OK. At least one of the top. OK. I was just curious. It seemed like there was a work on it. And all of a sudden it disappeared. So we have an all Senate caucus at 8. Yeah, don't be late. We had sent an economic development for 8.30. So it's news to me. I mean, we've been on the floor or eating lunch or meeting here. I haven't had a time to look at emails. We got an email from Vanessa a little while ago. OK. I hadn't seen that either. Thank you, Jeanette. Oh, I'm so glad somebody else is holding pass. I wish I could multitask, but I can't. I actually did a no note today when we were on the floor. I sent a note during a vote. It is in the OK. In the Zoom sidebar. No, on an email. If you if you send anything out on the Zoom chat thing, it goes to YouTube. Everybody sees it in the world. So you're confessing now, but it may have been entirely invisible. So it was. But now the Senate Secretary is getting in his car and starting to drive to your home right now. Just slap me and tell me to pay attention to the rules. OK, is there anything else we need to do today? No, we did good work today. We did.