 Public records are very favorite topic so we are we have a couple different things planned we have S-305 which is and Allison I your friend couldn't come today I guess she's oh I don't know she had a doctor's permit that was not something that so she wants to come in at another time she would like to I know yeah we just leave we'll do this one more time after this I think but we only have a couple weeks left before crossover so we want to get it out right I'm just sorry yeah so what I think one of the so we have S-305 which is that the senator Brockville about the nonprofits and then we have all the kind of other public records issues that we're going to if we come up with anything we're going to use S-305 as the vehicle so people need to both weigh in on S-305 itself but also on all those other issues because that's that's what we're going to use anything that we come up with is going to go into this bill that makes sense yes yes so one of the one of the things that has come up and I don't see oh well we're just at 130 some but when you can if you want to sit or somebody wants to sit in the window welcome to do that wait they're also welcome to put a chair a check if we can find another chair in another room you're welcome to I just asked you or you can crawl over the table so what we're going to do then is there one issue that came up when we started talking about public records is when we first passed the dispensary bill we made everything off limits to around the dispensaries their locations there I mean everything essentially was off limits because and we needed we did a lot of things in the dispensary that have changed over the years but we needed to be as tight as possible to get it fast in the first place so we did that so definitely Commissioner Herrick brought that it up to me that there was some inconsistencies here because now dispensaries have locations so keeping the location a secret isn't really part of public records exemption and so we want to look at that so what I've done I think are there three of you here that want to speak to this do you who how do you want to start yeah why don't you just lay the scene for us and is there anybody else here who is interested in this particular little topic of public records the dispensaries the dispensaries okay I know you are okay thank you please for the record I'm Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety Chris Ferrer and the question arises with respect to public records request for dispensaries and it states records which by law are designated confidential or exempt from public inspection and copying CVSA section 317C1 the PRA further states that records which by law may only be disposed specifically designated persons are exempt from public inspection and copying and so the confidentiality provisions afforded to dispensaries the way it works essentially is this we get a number of public records requests from the press for instance and it obviously anything to do with patients caregivers we should be confidential but other areas such as any kind of complaint that might have been filed the names of primary owners owners of dispensaries locations of dispensaries what the way it works is we request of the dispensary permission to release that information and in some cases it's granted in other cases it's not and so that's kind of where we are right now and it's it's perhaps I'm not sure I wasn't here at the beginning of creating the exemption if you will for the dispensaries I'm sure that was done in a great deal of concern for confidentiality of patients and caregivers which we would obviously follow regardless because of HIPAA for instance there is a wall between that those records even though their houses to the Department of Public Safety and law enforcement they're not in the same database and in fact it has to be part of a legitimate ongoing investigation for law enforcement to request access to that information so for instance somebody is pulled over and they're found to have quantities of marijuana or cannabis I'm supposed to say now in the vehicle they say I'm a registry registry law enforcement can query that to verify it but so that's that's a position where in the Department of Public Safety right now well I I do remember what we first did it we took a tour to the the appeal here facility and we had that all go in different cars and take secured as roots and we went all over like this and some of us got lost because we can't displace the location some of the irony there is that the locations I believe are on the websites yes and big signs outside I don't believe that's the case no I think that's that would be in violation okay you however to 50 but we still regardless of whether it's in the public domain and I'm sure they will testify that we make requests we've had the request for this information do you mind can we move it forward or not do you want to redact this information and so that's the current process okay all right so let's hear from the dispensaries about what can and figure out what should how we should word this so that we keep confidential the information that needs to be confidential but don't keep confidential information that is on people's website okay so yeah Virginia Renford with the cannabis trade association and Shane Lynn is here and so he and I can I thought could just kind of do this together right yeah if that's okay no that's fine and so just for your information if you want to know that this is in the rules around title 18 and so it's the confidentiality piece and this is what the dispensaries have been operating on so I think that you know when this you know when the very beginning when we look back to 2000 before the dispensaries even existed and the law was passed to allow patients to to grow cannabis we had confidential we wanted to make sure the patients and the caregivers and health care professionals were protected and that information would never be given out and we would continue to want that to be including the health care professionals to be kept confidential I think that there are pieces of under the dispensaries we've seen over the last probably couple years and increase in people wanting more information about them and so there are some things that we still believe should be kept confidential and so just you know and maybe I'll let Shane talk a little bit about that you know when you so the dispensaries used to be non-profits and they're now for profits so individuals can invest in dispensary and as we all know that under federal law it is still illegal to cannabis is still considered a legal substance so when you have somebody who does want to invest and if that name is going to be given out publicly they probably are not going to invest and so I think that that's just that privacy is similar to anybody you can have any other business private business raising money if you're a brewery and you invest in a brewery names going to remain private investors you know at least our current investors are operating under the current rules and regulations and that their privacy is going to be respected and so we really go to length to follow the rules and provide that for investors I think there are a lot of people that we do currently work with that if their names are being brought up in newspaper articles online that they're probably going to avoid getting involved in the industry because it's you know there's other places to invest money without the same kind of attention do in a private concern like you said a brewery or a shoe factory or anything else do we disclose the names of investors I don't think so unless it's a public somehow it's formed yeah with the Secretary of State and it's a publicly held company yes well if it obviously but there are certain LLC types and there are certain places where investors are public and there's something yeah exactly and so and that's back to the conversation you have with the investor what kind of structure you've set up and I'd say you know for us we've been following these rules with the intent that their names were going to remain private and so we reckon you know like as far as the location now you know pretty much that's how I mean I still have people live in Montpelier asking for the Montpelier dispenser it's like they have no idea yeah which is fine you know but there isn't because well there's no big sign out there right and you can tell the virus oh yeah absolutely and that we yeah we went through in the beginning we didn't provide that address until the person was registered then they got the address potentially we worked with the DPS actually to say hey can we put it on our website now this was probably a year or two after being opened the signage is there is signage at least because it is confusing for a patient to show up at a multiple business you know location and not know what door to go in so there is small signage at least numbers that are on the wall potentially to the highlight where they are visiting or where they should visit what door they should not gone our facility up in Milton at this point it doesn't have a name on it but it has our number on it so I think our locations are probably known at this point again things have really changed over the past seven years you know seven years ago it was a very big deal to be doing this and everybody was concerned about security and obviously the patient's privacy and luckily there's been few incidents security over the seven years so what should be kept confidential what should be example patient information provider information caregiver healthcare professional and we would request that like our applications that have our security systems in the application we were new each year so we give a potential we do we give a diagram of our building or securities located in the building you know all those types of documents we request to remain private investors potentially to remain having less they had a controlling interest I guess you know if they were I mean that's that's where the information would be potentially listed on the secretary's website so and there's yeah there's probably other detailed stuff we could come up with a list for you to highlight there are we do have 273 I think it is exemptions and a lot of them address things like trade secrets and proprietary information and stuff so I think that stuff that is already because so that is in the application too if we come up with a new product it's a new offering that we're you know that that'll be in the renewal applications of our trade secrets in there as well and that definitely is already covered under other exemptions I don't think we have to put any special exemptions in here and I would well I would just say around the application that they put in every year because it does have their whole security system in there is that already covered under it says that security systems are covered under exemptions so so what might happen is that the application itself might not be might be subject to public record but all of that stuff would be redacted and taken out security systems are covered under another exemption and proprietary and trade secrets are covered under other exemptions Chris so yeah you make a good point we get requests for all sorts we Department of Public Safety receives 60% of all public record requests in state government and some of our exemption we're well familiar with the exemptions that we can apply and security is one of them safety and security anything that would lead to an understanding of for instance how the state police protects dignitaries who visit the state or the governor or other things that happen here in the state house in terms of safety and security so those things can be exempted redacted from the document and we do that with almost every document releases redacted in some way whether it's PII personal identifying information I apologize security information and I get yeah back to the even our employees you know employee names I mean there are things that are transmitted between us as an organization and the DPS that involve employees so potentially be some privacy concerns around that as well so do we even need to make any kind of a do anything about this at all since all the things that you want covered our other exemptions so I don't see where security is I know I'm scanning this fast but I didn't see security in this that was already covered on application application supporting information and other information regarding a registered dispensary or confidential so in those applications and security that's embedded okay and it is exempt under other exemptions see they're one of the 273 have you had shank in Virginia have you had any cause to be concerned about 10 and 7 which is the department made to close disclose data for statistical or research purposes have you ever have you ever had a breach of that with you haven't had any challenges with that like DMV with ice and stuff that's good to know they feel the same way we make a decision when we put it in DPS so do we need to do we need to have any separate exemptions for dispensaries or do we just how do we work this tougher do you have any suggestions about how we would do this or just take out that whole section and just have them be covered under other other the other exemptions that exist and they are very familiar with those exemptions in spain meaning those exemptions cover the finances I don't know that's something that we might have to ask the Secretary of State's office how that works I know in our case that kind of personal information telephone numbers but even the names they're wondering about the name and I would even say even the structure of the deal potentially if there is a follow-up the DPS to see those the terms the deal itself you know the investor no we don't know I just in case if there was a follow-up I would want to keep that private we could have Tucker check into that for other types of businesses do you know for the record Tucker Anderson office of legislative council I'd like to highlight a few issues embedded within the last two minutes of discussion the first is without a mandatory and specific exemption everything that you are talking about whether it is the security exemptions which I'll follow just a moment or the personal information that would be filed in the applications relating to financiers would be subject to the balancing test they would not be mandatorily redacted or withheld right so that balancing test that we talked about at the beginning from that policy per visa in section 315 that the public agency would have to balance the public's interest in disclosure against the individual's interest price so if there were an instance where the public's interest in disclosure outweighed the right to privacy for an individual who is named in that application their name would be presumably released and that's true for security too I thought that was exempt under a different exemption so the security exemption that is within the enumerated exemptions in one vsa 317 relates to public buildings it relates to public buildings so those that are at least occupied or owned by a public agency the state the municipality if there were security details that were embedded within a public record held by a state agency that did not relate to the public property something else amorphous or ephemeral out there would have to cover it otherwise it would be disclosed so as far as the Secretary of States details my exposure to looking up business organizations through the Secretary of State's database it depends you are correct the statement it depends on the type of incorporated entity you can automatically see the registered agent for every corporation whether or not also I'm not sure you may want to ask Chris or someone from the Secretary of State's office about this but even LLC's I believe have to file some sort of operational agreement where they disclose certain ownership interests I'm not sure law might relate to for example when you have corporations that own LLC and interests whether you know beneficial owners of those corporations have to disclose identities or how deep you have to go might be good to get that corporations all right so I was saying it was going to be very easy security we know we would have to know if you stipulated that security was enumerated in this yeah do we know if all the dispensaries are organized the same way in terms of LLC's but it would be good to get brief test I can't tell you but but but I would assume that if if they're organized in a way that under the Secretary of State's office and that they must have looked into what that organizational meant right and what it would mean for their investors and their time and yeah just drafting language for exception that would probably be important to cover them all well and to be clear on which ones we would want to cover I mean the ones that are going to form a whole company that's pretty intentional but if you have a good lawyer you're going to form under a under under the LLC that fits you or whatever it is right you're the one that's gone to us a good lawyer will tell you what to form under but it's the right structure but but we could so we definitely want personnel a personal information redepth and that that's already covered someplace else we don't have to put that in yes but what my question is do we we have 273 exemptions out there do we need to create additional exemptions around personal information for patients caregivers and healthcare providers for this group or are they covered under those other 273 because that we every time we create an exemption we get grief right and but that we have too many so let's be very clear about whether we want it isn't that clear in title 18 it's 44 74d and I 44 74 74 my overlapping confidentiality of patient and provider information in them are these rules these rules were based on that statue so to I mean to us I think this covers it we would prefer not to see that removed so it's already there well it's already there so we don't have to have a right so you don't have to right so I think we just need assurance from Tucker that it's covered he just said yeah okay I did yeah yes it is covered under each of those sections and just for the purpose of clarification the ongoing request is that these exemptions be narrowed so that they do not cover locations of dispensaries so that's all we're doing is getting rid of the exemption around location it well is it worth clarifying if they're now non if they're now for profit is it worth clarifying some of the corporate structures that would be exempt or not those aren't the only exemptions that are only pay orders or records that we have on file we haven't discussed the entire universe I did touch on we do get compliance also letters that we send of non-compliance to dispensaries are not released under public records without permission of the dispensary so you can see yeah and so we would like to at least have a discussion about those records yes I think that it seems it seems to me but I guess I I thought I was pretty clear but because I'm not in my own mind I I don't know that is this title 18 is that where the dispensary law is that's what right so so I guess what I was thinking was that we did not need to have all of these things listed as confidential confidentiality we did not need section ten to be there in this same form because patient information all that stuff is is already exempt in general in statute is am I wrong about that that's what I was looking at is do we need do we need all right well this is the rules that the Department of Public Safety did so this case from this is based on the statue in title 18 chapter 86 4474d and so then the Department of Public Safety did rules based on that this is yeah there's a lot of you know rules covering everything of you know I mean like 90 pages it's 100 pages of rules that we have in this program and so this is just one page and that in all it does is talk around confidentiality so we already have that in existing rules and we have that in statute so I'm not sure all right well I personally I think it doesn't make any sense for some of these things to be kept I think if there if people have complaints or there are complaints lodge that that should probably be not confidential because so it should be exempt it should be open to the public yeah all the complaints if they're if people request I it's not true that we do with like hospitals and other we I think general complaints there are what are called something incidents what is that called to Laura policy represent the hospitals nursing home so the Division of Licensing and Protection when they conduct their surveys those surveys are probably available through the Division of Licensing and Protection but not the complaints themselves but the surveys because I think it gets a little tricky there because you can have somebody who's making complaints but have they actually been found to be right you know sometimes there's yeah places being targeted yeah we understand that so if there is a substantial complaint is that public no no I the finding how about in hospitals that so yes I certainly certainly yes for nursing homes and for residential care and those survey investigation documents are publicly available the findings rather finding it but not from the facilities VSD right it's from it would be the findings from the department not from save us here Tucker this the scope of this conversation is much larger than I think any of us could appreciate for a few reasons first these sorts of reviews and complaints are subject to a confidentiality under specific provisions in title 18 they're on entitled to confidentiality under certain licensing provisions in title 26 and something that we haven't talked about in these public records discussions is that the public records act is an in corporative act in terms of its exemptions so it includes confidential confidentiality provisions in federal law and in common law so for example common law position patient confidentiality or you know federal law hip-up so I can't even begin to dan to describe to you what confidentiality provisions might apply to this particular conversation okay so where do where do we want to go with this or don't we want to I just I think it would be easier to identify the things that are not to be remain exempt than it is to I think we should include all the things that are currently exempt and we should maybe explore the new opportunity that's been identified by Shane what for-profit structures might be open to public records and substantiated complaints sorry did you just say that I mean I just didn't understand those are the things that I might take away from this conversation but maybe they're more I thought we were talking about highlighting things that would no longer be confidential right and I just said everything that is and I just explored what force structure formation structures they chosen those may be open to public records and the substantiated complaints but you leave that applications yes I would leave everything that has anything to do with patients or operators or healthcare providers well yeah but so when somebody files an application to become a new dispensary that is confidential yes there's security systems okay well yeah all that would be confidential but the application itself the fact that the department can't say so-and-so has applied for an application but everybody in town knows because they have to go to the zoning board so or they don't want the investors they won't have to save all the investors are right looking to release all those right right okay well maybe we'll just leave it alone I mean I'm not we would thought it was gonna be pretty simple and not have to have it alone would be fairly simple just would take a long time to get there well the two things that have changed since this was established by rule are the for profit structures and and history of substantiated complaints so it strikes me that those should be available to be accessed to you know that people could ask for public records well I have no idea about the investors because because I don't know how that they're set up and that would be regulated by the Secretary of State I guess so some of them may they may be confidential and some of them may not depend on how they're set up so that we we don't have to do anything about that I don't think because that's how they set themselves up with the Secretary of State so if they set it up that it's confidential then it's confidential under their corporate structure and if it's not we don't have to do anything about it am I right about that and and then the only other thing that's left is substantiated complaints yeah and where are we on that I would think that those should be able to be viewed as a public record if people requested what you think I mean that's legit so yeah I guess that would be a question how do you know so who's making that decision that the complaint has so the DPS that would be saying that we found reasonable cause or so can I just ask Laura so when so they release that information like what a hospital has that the survey the results the survey findings not the complaint not the investigation just the survey and the findings in the findings but yeah not where that's in unlike but it does do it for each of us so it would be whether it was central my hospital had this complaint against it but not the like actual complaint just the findings just yeah can I ask that they release the findings if they're substantiated or not yeah because it's called it's called a so they don't if they've done it they've gone in to do a survey because they've gotten a complaint I believe there's I think that the 2567 says no substantiation or no findings survey is like an investigation yes okay I mean do you want to comment on that that because it would be good I would think because people file complaints they they often let other people know that they filed a complaint I mean it isn't just that they're gonna send them to DPS or to you they're gonna they're gonna email all of us and they're gonna call so they have a public log that was I think over the years that people are called in I got released this fall we were we gave permission for that released and then public log to the release there were things in there though that I think some of us felt weren't accurate weren't substantiated right but it was released and so I do agree with you on you know if there are formal complaints that are substantiated yes or if they're not substantiated it might be good for you the public can see that this has not been substantiated at all well I think the question might be to DPS is that depending on how many calls you're getting when they do you have the people power to investigate we're not gonna investigate when we get a complaint probably that says I bought a bag and it had molded and those are some of the complaints however some of the complaints are of a different nature and we have sent letters of non-compliance and those are not available for public inspection and I'm not sure any other industry gets that kind of exemption well a letter of non-compliance without a complaint necessarily well they have been generated by a complaint or it may be something we because we do constant right channel with us we do constant investigate inspections and so when you send a letter of non-compliance are those available Laura so they don't they don't do those I mean essentially what it is is it's either it's so there it's their annual surveys so you'll either find on their annual investigation that they have no deficiencies and so that's posted or that they had deficiencies and here were those areas of deficiencies for I do have to confirm how it works on complaints where there's no substantiation whether they issue a finding of no deficiency or whether they do nothing but anytime they do a survey with findings those are posted I think in a way we're talking you know like the health department doing an inspection of a restaurant and they get a break potentially and I don't think that system was envisioned yet for the dispensaries you know but then you know you're being inspected that this is going to be public information we've asked the health department to come in and do inspections they won't do it and then back to some of the things that deputy has talked about yes they inspect us if there are items that you know something's not tagged correctly you'll potentially get a letter saying these plants were cracked attacked correctly you know how are you going to remediate it how fast and who's in charge of it you know and so you respond and you do it and they follow up and then you move on so some of this is kind of housekeeping in a daily operational sense you know and so some of it feels that releasing it's not going to give much information whereas there are stuff that you're speaking of potentially when I think of a restaurant getting a passing grade for the cleanliness of its kitchen you know how could we provide those kinds of insights I guess we do have hospitals that give dinged regularly because they're assumed to be absolute risk-free environments and there's no such thing and so CMS and our own state inspectors are always dinging our hospitals and that that is public and they spend a lot of time fighting those yeah so right now we currently do have like fire safety that comes in as inspections and says you have to get this up to code you have to do this yeah so we go through that already yeah a lot of that and then on top of that we have the DPS that comes in does their inspections as well so and where are those failures listed I guess on the DPS website they're not right now they're exempt and so part of that is you know as a operator you know of course these things are happening you don't know if they're happening at the other location other businesses you know and so then back to you know how much is all their information being released the same as us being released and that's where we get into this strange situation that in this current law that we get to make that decision what gets released and as a business that's a difficult decision knowing that my competitor might not release that information so why would I release that information because it's gonna be held against me and the perspective of it what it really means is going to be overblown potentially versus this is kind of daily housekeeping stuff concerning how many plants we touch how many packaged items we package in a day you know it's it's you know people make mistakes so inspections are there to catch those mistakes which they do and then we correct them some of the letters of the mind are not for just these mundane instances to be clear they are more severe we've held a license in held it off for almost a year because they were not compliant so when we have when OSHA goes in or somebody else goes in to do an inspection of a private company or fire and safety is any of that public information and OSHA here our findings are our so they're public yeah I can't well apparently this gentleman we've received a lot of records from that fire safety we just with the matrix kind of story mark would you just identify yourself mark Johnson Vermont they are so yes so I guess I guess what where we committee what makes sense to me is that there's this one area clearly that we need to do some work on and maybe we should ask to come in with some language that would so would make it accessible to people so they don't have to hold it if they don't want to but that it would also be fair to each of the dispensary owners so that you don't have to make the decision saying I'd love to release this but I'm not going to because my competitor isn't going to release it therefore I'm not going to release it because and to kind of make it fair to everybody and if you think about other things like that that come up with those two thank you I thought this was going to be a really easy one I said that we were trying to Chris ever Chris sat down there and I'm trying to sell the state's debts and that's an endowed chair so cough it up it's great and he said are you trying to exert public safety by Tucker okay I really thought that was so is there anything else on on public records we have 15 minutes left on public records we can hear about yes I would like to see in this bill a best practices a talk about this before a model for agencies and departments and commissions for how to save their records how to get them to archive but how how to save them as they come in and we heard that the different agencies and departments and commissions collect them differently and some do it really well and some don't and I would recommend having heard as much testimony as we've heard that it's time for us to create a model you know that maybe Tanya who seems to have the best practice of course it's her full-time thing whereas other agencies and departments are doing other are being busy doing other things I would love to have a section where we could actually lay out them or figure out a way to roll out a model best practice for how to save your records in this bill just think it strikes me that that's something that would be helpful for everybody so that we had a uniform standard on how on how every department or agency the idea would be to make it as easy as possible to comply with public records exactly so they can't say oh this is way off in the basement somewhere we don't know where this is it takes six months right it's gonna cost us $20,000 to like redact exactly tell me the way that's more accessible so if it's if we have a system that's designed to make it you know it's fairly easy on the way in then it's easy when it's requested then they know where it is and how to get it there's a good system for how to retrieve it but it's clearly there's a challenge I mean and some departments get many more of a public records request than others but clearly one of the barriers and one of the challenges they all face is how to retrieve the information that if it's well organized and there's a good system designed for the coming in for the for how it's stored then it is less difficult to retrieve it and simpler than retrieve it that's kind of disagree but that's kind of assuming that that's a problem which we heard that it was a problem it could be a problem could be an excuse I'm not disagreeing with you just saying yeah but I believe it probably for people whose primary job it isn't like everybody except Tanya it is I think everybody would benefit from from from the archives creating a best practices for how to store public documents well I believe that the archives that we have given them she's disappeared but we've given them the ability to to set record retention schedule for everybody that they're supposed to follow and how to how to store records that we haven't told them how to do how to intake records to make it easier but I think that if we're going to do something like that we should have archives working with the agencies we shouldn't come up with a model no but one thing I however we'd like just like that that conversation because maybe it is that we ask that that archives work with each department each department to be a simple and easy system for each department but I think that that is clearly a barrier it and makes it harder for some places I and I also think we aren't financing that work I mean I'd like to know if we're actually helping finance that work because if it's going to be an expectation of state government that people are going to be able to request public records we have to be able to finance that in each department design that system and and have it up and running so that they can do it efficiently we have to put our money where our expectations are I know but we can again goes back to what Jane talked about in caucus it's another unfunded mandate yep if we expect everyone to be able to equally comply with public records request we have to make it simple and straightforward so it doesn't take up a huge amount of taxpayer time and dollars in staff time they need to have good simple easy systems to store and then to retrieve and we have to be able to finance that think what I've heard or is browning of me so I must have said something wrong no I think that we need we need to have better systems I don't know how some I don't think there's one one way of doing it and everybody has a different everybody has different types of records that come in public police records are very different than applications for stormwater permits so agency has right so we can't design something that I think well you know you're you're that's a good point and you know so for example economic drop we've been in the process for many years now creating a digital portal of one stop where businesses can come set up have the same seamless system for tax or permits for regulation for and we have we're working with each one of those agencies a DS is the agency of digital services is you know we have an embedded person we're designing it for each each different department and agency but it's all designed to make it simple and straightforward and linked into this portal system but I think that we could task and the obvious one to task it like this is it archives to come up to work with each agency and department to create that system or to review it and say okay your system's great but each system each department clearly has to have a system in place that makes it easy for them to save this data and easy for them to retrieve it I can't I mean that's what I've heard that's like and we got it we got the we got the the report from them on all the agencies she gave us the report last time she was here on all the agencies like our height is at full so I will look at that yes it should be in there and it's dated January 27th yeah it says SG OC agency records management programs yes and there's a chart on the back that says where they are yeah but it doesn't say what the system is or if it's easy and it's been reviewed by them or any of that what do you mean this is their this is their system this is the sara system this is their records management program for each department right and it has a maturity level which means it's I'd love to know what that means if it's still in the design phase is it implemented there's a lot of level ones here fact they're almost all level ones with a few exceptions level three and level twos so I'd love to know from I don't remember our discussion of that but we should look at that before right yeah and I'd love to talk with Tony about Howard yeah all right so what other things do we need to look at in public records so we had conversation briefly passing but I don't know the labor landed on it the idea of doing some kind of survey that would reveal the cost to the state of providing records the idea that if we're gonna to me and some sort of ideal level all information will be freely accessible and they can say you might say we we don't know how much that costs and so but I think about if we had a figure we might make a judgment as whether or not we well it's important enough to transparency and democratic process that we make all these available record at no cost and that we write the check to write that service yeah because we decided well that was this is valuable enough to the state we want to cover those costs as opposed to the current fee based system which is kind of irregular and some cases obstructed people getting information we also talked about so that's like homework before making a bigger decision like how much would cost yeah right and there's the way it is now as you pay if you drink it copy and you don't pay if you just inspect and lots of agencies are doing it that way do we make it no cost even if you're going to just if you're going to copy which means that all of those companies that are asking for lots of come copies are going to just end up paying for the two cents for the copy itself because it's not worth it for them to send somebody here from Kentucky or wherever to ins to be able to inspect them for free so they're paying for the time to get itself yeah and that's that's an issue yeah it is so okay well we'll we should ask the different agencies how much revenue they get from charging for public records and I think it sounds like from the attorney general's testimony they'll get a little complicated for instance they charge in a rate that's far less lawyer time is far lower than probably they're into a cost right having that lawyer doing that work but again you might feel like you know it's understandable why would I why wouldn't the an office want to provide freely information that could lead to a suit against that office I think was part of the way it was phrased and I would say because it's conceivable that office may not be operating in a manner that would be consistent that would be compliant with law or practice or program guidance so if you could not saying when doing that intentionally but there's good reason that you would provide free access for everybody you can't play for everybody right we heard that will think regardless of intent who why could be a it's the cost but we are not we're not helping finance that I don't think oh not at all my guess is it costs huge it's gonna be a huge amount when you what right and I'm saying what's hard ever rational discussion right and we need that information because just listening to the talk from the AG's office about the time and the at lawyers rates which they charge out at whatever even in public service rates it's quite high but I agree with you I think that's a key piece of information we need all right so we'll ask yeah and just to go back to time into the to the to the best practices for the system of retention and distribution she has targeted assistance they have targeted they've assisted 20 agencies or departments and no they're 24 a larger number that still have not had held and their maturity levels I eat they haven't gotten off either I don't know what level one means but my guess is at the bottom of the barrel are all level one so the vast majority are level one whatever that means but I assume that means it's barely established but we'll find out from time well she did say that agency of human services because they have a person dedicated right exactly in the best shape and they're mostly level twos and right they are but look at the vast majority are level ones all right so I'll I'll just we'll send a note to every secretary to give us a ballpark figure how much and one of the one of the things that we did hear from people was that they were okay with the way it was I mean the ACLU testified that while they would like it to be free for everybody they were okay with the way it was now with charging for the time for copying not charging for inspection so all right okay we'll do this again next week and I'll look at those figures and then we'll get Tanya here and is it is there anything else that any other other than just the kind of those are public records the access and stuff is there any other very specific thing that should be put in here as long as we're dealing with public records like the dispensaries that we so elegantly disposed of I mean is there any any other single issue that needs to be in here Tom did you have one well I'm out of chair for the record thank you Tom and Laura our position would be that if there's any expansion of the entities that should be subject to the same level of scrutiny through public records requests that governmental entities are as the bill as initially drafted suggests that those entities should include both creative workforce solutions which was an entity created a belief in this administration that acts sort of as a parallel department of labor for the clients of the agency of human services that they should be included in any such scrutiny and also favor which what's a favor favor senator Clarkson I don't want to interact with your business industry real rehabilitation which essentially acts as a parallel to the work that's done by the division of rehabilitation God we would suggest that they should be included in any expansion of the ability of non-governmental entities to be subject to public records well we haven't we haven't even taken much testimony on that at all yet it's so I hesitate to name specific and I know it does in that bill but if there are specific issues beyond the public beyond the expansion to nonprofits and the dispensaries and whether we charge or not three major issues around public records if are there other identifiable issues around public records that we should put in here while we're dealing with it that in my opinion public records and open meeting laws are probably something that are gonna have to be dealt with every single year as technology changes and I don't think they are done so but if there are other issues get them to us so that we can get them in here because we've got to move on this I was requesting that they specifically be named we would just hope that what that for example legislative council would ensure that they would be in that on the edges okay consider okay Chris well you mentioned it but I wanted to know more about why you know in section three and four in which in the 305 or in three now in 305 you know we're working so I didn't know you were planning looking into that prior to getting other information or you want to sort out the big picture stuff before getting even either way we have to do all of it so to hear the whether we expanded this is a vehicle for us to use whether we pass this bill in any form at all or just use the number is up to us and what we do vital I think it's already been solved in a court case that was well we should hear that and find out we did and what's going but definitely Ellen wants to speak because she's very concerned about this being included but I would say we have to you know this opens it up to the BSL the Vermont Arts Academy this opens it up to a huge everybody don't take indoors right but so on so we have really three issues we have this one do we want to pursue this do we want to look at how we charge and when we charge okay and the dispensary so right now we have those three if there are other specific issues that we want to get in here bring them up send them in yeah and under that I think the cost and and the systems you know what's how to make easier yeah those are the two big issues that the cost maybe you can't you can't charge unless you have a system put in place that makes it easy to do okay so we will do this again next week everybody oh boy so