 Welcome, everybody. It is Tuesday afternoon, just past one o'clock, and we're going to take up conversations on H96, which is our activity to creating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with us today. The process for today is going to essentially be a conversation if we have questions about, you know, elements of a bill from last week that Damien took us through. We can certainly ask questions. I have some, you know, some, I just want to take the next few days to really open this up to our committee conversation on this. I do see that there is one person, so I asked Ron to invite everybody who testified on the apology, or on any of these bills that we've heard related to social equity this year, last year in this service. That's H96 387 and 273. Ron, did you receive, I received an email from Will the wife. Did she CCS. Yes, it's posted on our page for today. Okay, so I will consider that, you know, as comments as well. And I see that we have Charlene Gallo know on from presumed from new fame Charlie are you there. Yes, I am Hello everyone good to see you again. Good to see you again. This is a reminder for the committee if you remember Charlie testified on the apology last year and participated in some of the conversations last year on the apology. And so, Charlie for your perspective and for any guests perspective. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to raise your hand use the hand function so that I can see you and I think as long as you're this year right now the one guest that we have we'll just go right around the room. Introduce ourselves to get to you because you can't really see us with these room views but start with representative Howard. Welcome. Good afternoon, I am representative Mary Howard I represent Rutland City, the Southwest District five three. Thank you. Yeah, I'm a representative chip Troy I know I represent Harvard standard and Walden and the Northeast Kingdom, and I'm the vice chair of this. Matt Byron representative from Virginia and five communities in Northwest Addison County. I am representative Lisa Hango I represent Franklin five on the Northwest border with Canada and that's high gate Franklin Berkshire and Richard. Hello, Charlene Tiff Lumley representing the south end of Burlington. I am John Colacky south for. Joe Parsons, I represent Townsend, Thompson, Groton and New York. I shall welcome representative John Plash they represent Milton. Hi, I'm telling Walter represent very city. And representative Murphy is out at a meeting represent Tom Stevens from Waterbury representing Waterbury. I'm sorry that was a lot of very important for sorry we've had redistricting on our mind. It's just the select board meeting of Huntington talk about redistricting last night. 10 year old memories coming back so basically committee so again we'll just just like to open up the conversation on this it can be philosophical can be actual. And in, you know and Charlene are you here with interest to witness or do you have comments. I don't have any prepared. I'm sorry. I think prepared comments at this point but I have stayed interested and I have watched the videos and the hearings from last week and I see I'm familiar with ICT J's work. And I've been continuing my own research just so you know around eugenics particularly role of medicine and sort of resistance to eugenics. And just to let you all know I actually going to be teaching a course on us eugenics at UVM this summer. So I don't have any prepared remarks now but I am very interested in how this moves forward and the whole issue of reparations or reconciliation. Okay, thank you. And thanks for joining us. So committee. I just, I mean I have a lot of thoughts of course about what we've heard but I just like to hear from folks and understanding I just took a list of times that people are going to be popping in and out. They're giving short things to the Appropriations Committee so I just want to acknowledge that, you know, we won't feel free to leave when you have to leave. Come back when you come back when you're done, when you're done. So Damien, first of all, I wanted to thank you for putting together that first draft or that next first next draft. I think draft 2.2 of the bill I think you really, there's a direct through line through it. And a lot to work with there. And I just think it's, it was a really good reboot on language. Based on what we've read. I think for committee I think for us it's as we go through the bill we're going to try to balance what I guess what OPR was calling a light touch on how we create a committee that is going to be autonomous as much as possible. And that is going to address what we have so far three distinct, as well as the process that goes along with it. So, the question for us is how prescriptive should we be in places in order to create that autonomy. That people have the freedom and the trust to be able to express their truths to the, to the committee that's formed, which will then get synthesized into reports. So, so the floor is open. I think we're going to have a quicker meeting and people have, you know, questions just raise their hands and let's let us start. I actually feel ready to dive right into the bill. If that's where you want to go. I really appreciate how far we've come on this. You know, I think we're in a process all along and once we go, you know, to the Senate they'll have their iteration and then, you know, the public, we have all the visors and there'll be many iterations so I, you know, and it's never quite say the less these prescriptive as we can just trust the process, which one though, which process. Are the ones that we created the ones we created. The one thing that I think there's a for me. I think there has to be legislative participation. Maybe the outlier. This is a government initiative. I just think when the report comes back, there has to be some kind of government interaction with it, because it's completely by itself, but I discuss that before that's my iteration of that. And participation. I mean, there's several different levels right there's, you know, once we pass the bill, somebody has to choose the selection. So, setting that up. You know, who is that where there's an interaction between the government per se. Whether it's legislative. I think it's in the scene of the commissioners. Choosing the commissioners that a government participation should be in helping to seek the commissioners. Yes. Right so as part of the, either the first process that creates a selection committee, or on a selection committee that country selection. Okay, so. The idea here is, we've heard ideas that have said once the selection committee is done so that, like, once the selection committee chooses the commissioners. Right if this were Apollo rocket that the booster would fall off. Right and the rest of the rocket would keep going forward is that what we're, you know with. Yes, but the idea of we talked last week about the idea that a selection committee should perhaps remain somewhere in case they need to be to replace a commissioner. Right is that is that that got brought out last week I think as well so it's not quite the same as jettison jettisoning the selection committee in total. But I guess, I mean if we're going to dive right in I mean I guess the focus is for me just let's just start at the big well let's start at the other sections I think the first step might be I was rereading the Canadian material here where there's a real clear mandate. And of course it's mandate was done by court, a court decision wasn't done, doesn't wasn't done just purely out of the legislative process. But there are elements of it that I think might be useful in helping whether we actually include that as findings, or as part of the deficit, how we describe issues with. Like Damien, did you, did you use. When you were creating the, the responsibilities. Who did you refer to in there. I was creating the responsibilities. I drew. Well, let's see. I'll top my head I guess the answer is I don't remember but I drew a lot from tab two which is the tab on selection process and criteria. And that was probably the main piece that I drew from I did look at. I looked at some of the other examples in there of truth and reconciliation commissions. But it's hard for me to remember which pieces of which example I incorporated where at this point. I know that in particular, the South African TRC, the Victoria Australia TRC were to that I drew heavily from. But there, there may have been others as well. So, period of drafting this, apart from knowing that I use section or tab to pretty heavily for the selection process. The rest of it is a bit of a blur at this point unfortunately. All right, so. So if we were to begin at the beginning of this, how do we start after the build, you know, if the bill passes into law. Who gets to name the selection committee, and how do we can be in that group of people. Now, I think it's clear. So the way the current bill is subtle. If you, for those of you who have the draft in front of you. Section four creates the selection panel, which requires basically a selection panel for the selection panel so this particular panels committee on committees if you will. Nobody's going to go for the jokes of the Senate success. It's early in the week, too close to crossover. Okay. But there are two representatives of the government there. Those are the executive director of racial equity and the executive director of the Human Rights Commission. Those individuals representing Native Americans for representing the recognized tribes and to appointed by the Commission on Native American Affairs, then five individuals representing disabled Vermonters, or Vermonters with disabilities. And then five more individuals representing Vermonters of color. So, right now, there is a 18 person panel that selects a panel of seven that works as essentially the hiring committee. So, if this was an effort to take the stakeholders. And as I mentioned during my walkthrough this list of stakeholders isn't isn't the, the absolute final list it was just what I could pull from other bills on this. And then get them to put together a committee that is a manageable size, so that you could hopefully get a fairly rapid and nimble hiring process for that. And the committee of seven that serves as the selection panel, the selection panel itself is the qualifications of the selection panel are not set out. Let's just see here. Sorry, it's rolled too far so the qualifications for the selection panel are there are no qualifications set out really. It's just seven individuals that those stakeholders feel will do a good job. So it could be. It could include people who represent the state government, but it more than likely would would be other people of high standing within Vermont. So, the, but it does. Sorry, it would not preclude somebody from that group serving. It would preclude anyone who serves as a representative of one of the stakeholders serving. So there's no language in here right now that either precludes a stakeholder from serving, or they're actually not even limited to appointing people from Vermont. So they could appoint someone. I remember one of the South American truth commissions appointed the pope, or named the pope to the selection panel and then declined the invitation and was replaced by a different individual but that something similar to that could theoretically occur here where an individual with with very high standing is appointed to the selection panel. And so by this commission, or by this group of stakeholders, the commissioners themselves do have a requirement that they be from Vermont and then have certain meet certain experiential requirements. I'm not sure I like the idea that they can appoint themselves to the, that the selection panel can appoint themselves as commissioners that's what you're saying. But that is a possibility the the limiter limiter there is that you have 18 stakeholders currently named could be more could be less, but they can only name seven individuals to the selection panel. But yes, so right now what could happen is they could choose seven people from the stakeholders and name them to the selection panel. It's not limited, you know, it's not saying like three or four or but it could be the whole seven. People from 18. No, I got you up to seven. Is that what we have. I mean we haven't nailed it down but we've just been using that as a yes, as an example. Right. And there's, yeah, there's no restriction on who those seven individuals could be. That's something that you certainly could add. But in the existing graph that's not there. Okay, I think I misunderstood. So the, the original 18 stakeholders could nominate themselves up to seven of themselves to the selection panel but the selection panel cannot nominate themselves as commissioners or appoint themselves as commissioners. So that there is actually not language in here that prevents them from naming themselves as commissioners. So it just says that they shall select three individuals to serve as commissioners. Not for I don't think the intent is to choose. That could be very easily read. I don't think they should be from the selection panel. No, they should. I think, I think everything that we've heard is that that there's, they should not be part of that process if they want to be commissioners and they can't, they shouldn't be on a selection. Because they want to apply for commission. So do we need language saying that. Yep. So we're going from 18 people to seven to seven right. But no other stops right that's that's the, the two buckets of process for formation of this. 18 to seven to three. Okay, so there is like another. That's where I was getting got you got you confused as well. Yeah. And I think that what I mean what's interesting and I'm not sure what the best way to get this across, unless it's in legislative intent. Somehow, or in our goals to write whatever the mandate is is that there is no. Well, we start with this larger committee of stakeholders that we came that there's no requirement that the seven people come out there they can, you know, they can pick. They can pick anybody to be on just as the selection committee can then pick within the limitations that we may create the commissioners. So the commissioners don't, we have to be, I'm trying to be sensitive to the comment of my CTJ about sometimes being inclusive maybe limiting to the experiential part of the commissioners having the rights that might be needed to, but I think it sounds like we're not not denying people the right to apply for that, or to be nominated for that. It's just sort of a, it's sort of a warning is not the right word advice is not the right word but it's just sort of do we put that the question out there is that do we put that down on a paper that they can't go from the original 18 groups. So, yeah, I think that was kind of so clarification obviously that the three can't come from the seven. But say, of the 11. So say seven people go from the 18. The obviously know they can't go to the seven could the 11 be eligible for the three. I think that they can apply. No, no, I'm saying that but like do we want to like, because that's a degree of extension right like this that that's. I mean, yeah, that was kind of exactly where my mind was. It's very simple to say up when you're in a group of people to be like I don't want to be on the selection panel because I'd like to be on a committee commissioner. So, and so like you would have, you know, then you're kind of circumventing the whole idea of our intent. Right, that's that's right that's the balance between saying, you know, and I think we heard concerns. Actually, we didn't hear concerns up front but what we heard was the resolution for me right with the four, the four federally recognized tribes in the state agreed that no one on the selection panel. Actually, the commissioners would be members of those four tribes. And that was done to try to create or unplug the possibility that that, you know, someone may feel like someone else was getting ahead, where it was only going to operate for somebody else and that there was a sense of neutrality. I don't know if there's a way to put, put that word in perhaps as a way of signaling that neutrality may be, you know, one of the one of the things to consider. I don't know if that's a qualification for the commissioner. There weren't, there weren't those lists I mean that that they, they've included in their materials about that isn't in our version that I think we might want to consider, which really talk about moral integrity to talk about neutrality and some other adjectives that I can, I can look up but I, I didn't wonder whether we wanted to put that in. One thing I would just note is in contrast to the commission and main, which was focused on the issues related to the Indian Child Welfare Act and the tribes in Maine. So this truth commission as it sits right now is got a much, much broader charge in dealing with not only the, the indigenous Native American groups in Vermont, but also disabled Vermonters and Vermonters of color. So if you're requiring that the members be a Vermonter, but then also not have membership in that group, you may be significantly limiting who can serve on that panel. So in a way that, you know, it's worth considering because if, if you can't be a Vermonter of color, and you can't be a Vermonter with a disability and you can't be an indigenous Vermonter. Then there aren't a lot of Vermonters left besides white Vermonters at that point. And so the question at that point is, is that appropriate for this commission as well. Obviously I don't take a position on this I just wanted to point that out. In a way, you know, in Maine you could have. You could potentially have a Native American who wasn't a member of the tribes, or you could have a manor of color or manor from some other background that might inform some of their work. So I don't want to be perceived to be neutral but also not be perceived to be potentially, you know, I'm trying to think of the right word here but, you know, perceived to be, you know, not have the level of sensitivity to these issues that might be necessary. So that's an issue I just want to raise. I know, again, I can't take a position on this. No, I think that's a fair point to keep in mind. Yes, like said, if you, if the clearest thing that I'll take from that comment is that if you, if you put it guard rails up on diverse Vermonters. I don't want to end up with an undiverse. It's not to say that they may not have some, you know, some experience with advocating on behalf of, you know, populations that are disadvantaged, or something like that to meet the other characteristics but the appearance of the panel could be such that it doesn't necessarily have the, you know, an interest in exploring those truths. So, right, but so you kind of leaves it to the selection panel as we've been talking about to make the determination over whether or not they think they're going to consider for the role can achieve the standards that we would put forth. And one thing you could do, instead of designating, you know, that it shall not be a member of a specific group is, you know, to say something like, you know, when you get into the moral character of the of the individuals you can also say something along the lines of very similar to the way, you know, judges are perceived to be individuals with like an ability to put aside their personal views and judge the cases on their merits. And the words are escaping me right now but kind of looking for similar language to say these should be individuals who come, you know, judge things from a neutral standpoint, even if regardless of what their past experiences, you know, if that's something you're looking for so it looks like, you know, that they're not biased in the report they put out, but instead they've reviewed the facts and done a thorough job of betting the facts that come before them and the stories that come before them to put together a thorough and, you know, complete report of what the Commission heard and found in its investigations. The statute say the selection panel is encouraged blah blah blah. Absolutely. Rather than kind of as a, you know, must or. Well, right. The difference between shall and may I mean reading reading the Canadian Commission again which was really prescribed. It was shall not. You know they shall not have public hearings shall not lead to criminal proceedings this shall not, which is, I think we tend to be. I don't have a lot of experience hearing legislation and shall not. They become better shall do it or you may do it. I don't have a lot of experience hearing shall not but nevertheless that's encouraging to me as a may know you're giving the option. But as we go through this that's what we have to decide is which ones are shalls and which ones are mays. Well I just, this is taking a big step back that I maybe should have brought this up earlier but like, so who convenes as stakeholders and you know we haven't you identified that as an issue. And I, I'd love to hear people's thoughts about that, you know, because, you know, somebody's going to need to convene this group and help lead it through the process of selecting folks. I feel the commission hires staff and executive director and staff that the commission, then more autonomy but up until that point, yeah, it has to be convened and shepherds directed yeah yeah. And provided support. I mean I was when Damon was reading it off sounded like who's if the selection process is going to be this fairly intense and open. You know, process of, of anybody who applies their CV is made public kind of like what we've been talking about a little bit with you with the agenda general is, you know, does it go, not so much that it goes through a vending process but that the process is going to be could be could be really quite open. And who helps them get there. And I'm not sure if that's any and I'm not sure if that's in the bill yet where in other commissions. It's been clear that the commission has has administrative support from people but I think we're only looking for administrative support until. I think it's called the first part is called at the request human rights. Very first meeting, right we have to talk to them to see if that's something that they would want to participate in and as well as a very selecting camera looking for somebody to do I mean, I think we've anticipated that the selection committee and the process may take a small amount of time. But that the work of the selection committee will be taking up the larger amount of time. And I'm not suggesting the agenda in general, or the judicial review process that we provide in the statute that there's a kind of administrative backup so that they can handle applications, or as it may is and what's private what's what what'll be private what'll be public throughout the process. So, in other words, I think I was saying, not answered. I don't think it's in person if folks have had any thoughts about them. I think this is where john's point this is where the administration or, you know, is involved with a problem with this, where, where we're involved to shepherd it through. And I can't recall in the reading in here, how they've, how anyone has done that transition. It may be one of the one of the case study. Yeah, it's various. So in some of the truth and reconciliation commissions. You know they, they, they speak to the formation of the panel. And then they just say here. Just looking through some of these other commissions here in South Africa they don't speak to what sort of staffing they have. And I know that it, you know, I mean they must have had significant staff because they covered an enormous amount of ground in three months. So, in Greensboro community groups could each appoint one person to the selection panel. And then the panel formed three months after the announcement of the mandate. And then 14 groups sent a number and then they pointed their own chairperson and worked from there within Victoria Australia. They provided assistant assistance for the assessment panel through a secretariat. And then they coordinated, you know, technical and corporate support for the panel, receive the nominations, maintain the record keeping process mean clearly they have reviewed nominations for completeness assisted with completing nominations that needed additional information. And then they did the scheduling meetings develop protocols for public participation and provided any other required administrative support mean clearly, there's a lot of work here. You know, the process in this bill doesn't actually house the selection panel in any one group. So representative Collac you referred to the earlier version where the selection panel was sort of housed with the Human Rights Commission. This version actually has that language removed. So, unless I'm, I'm missing something here but so this version here they you, you would potentially want to house this somewhere and or provide funding for additional staff to hire, you know, like a temporary administrative assistant or someone like that to at least handle, you know, processing funding nominations, public comments scheduling meetings scheduling witnesses, etc, and much the same way. You know that a committee assistant works with committee here, except understanding that this individual or individuals are likely to have be dealing with resumes recommendations, and then potentially lots of witnesses testifying. Who will have input on as to, you know, who should be nominated, what their characteristics should be who maybe is not a suitable candidate I mean there's there's all sorts of issues. It may make sense to have, you know, someone like the Human Rights Commission. Provide some staff support, the only thing that I could say with that without wanting to put words into for Yang's mouth is that they're already. They're extremely limited on staff so you probably need to provide funding for additional temporary staff with whoever, whoever you put it with. And right now because there are no legislators you can't put this with legislative staff to run the to handle the administrative functions. And I'm not suggesting that you're out now it's just. No, but I mean, again using the using the concept of using the concept of being careful about how we participate in this I mean I've on one hand I feel more comfortable with legislators, because we're going to be more knowledgeable about what we're trying to create. But that said that might be an initial, I don't know if that's an initially good step or not, you know to say, again we've been trying to be as neutral as possible and again, once, once the work is once the selection committee is done. And then it's, you know, again, piece. Sheer off I mean I would imagine that once once that's done legislators shouldn't be a participant in the selection. This is that initial separately. So, I mean, we're just taking notes on questions that we have. Let's just say a deviant page five. Did I mess this yeah I don't know I just. I'm pretty first meeting at the quality executive area Human Rights Commission, you are exactly right. I am sorry I miss that you know without without knowing if they're interested it seems the right agency, because they deal with systemic discrimination I would say, and if it could house the beginning part of it, convening all these stakeholders, and then picking the selection panel, and then once the selection panel picks the commissioners and becomes its own entity. And it could be housed privately, it could be housed there. Around law school could be how many different places it could be housed in the administration, maybe there's office space, one of our state building could have its own independence but I think it can't. It needs that structure to come into its own right so I would bracket the human just the director of the Human Rights Commission just as a. Well let's just take that as a proof, you know just as the provisor Damon as we're talking through stuff just to practice material until we know. Yeah, people can possibly you know maybe understand when they look at it that it's not. It's almost the equivalent of a blank face but that. My question is more jump. So you're saying is like me that link like an office. So it has that kind of support during it's like inception. I mean, leaving a link to something like the rights permission so there is that that and support that is linked together throughout like our, our traditional structure of these. Right so because it's like that they have the access to the resources and humans help them. Okay, I just want to make sure it was totally. So it's worth noting along those lines that currently. The Human Rights Commission calls the first minute meeting of the stakeholders. And then the chair of the selection panel can call the meetings of the selection panel there is no provision for office space or staff right now and. The bill is drafted the Human Rights Commission has done with its involvement. After the selection panel as pointed. So those are, again, just something to flag. Yeah, I mean it's too soon to, it's too soon to know whether some other outside partnership has no other outside partnership has been created so right now it's. It would be office space administration space that that the state would provide. And I mean we can't even really, I mean, unless and until partnerships. There's got to be better language than that or knowledge than that so. So our cannabis control board, our group boards when they have meetings they don't have dedicated office spaces they just use state buildings right. The cannabis control board has dedicated. Oh, they do. Okay, good to know. Okay. And so like the liquor control board. They don't have dedicated office space but they have the department of liquor and lottery so they use. Yeah, board room and there's a hearing room there that they use for their meetings. You know, so public utilities commission has its own office space. Okay, and space yeah they're above the People's United Bank over here. So there's a lot of the boards do have space. So sort of citizen boards may not have that kind of space and they may just schedule a conference room in a state building. That's the case with the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs they have access to the board room and ACCD or they used to. Right back to you. Yeah, just as we're talking about these positions and that you know they were there was the language of salary is a path superior court judge for deems etc etc has there been any type of budget estimate put together, but in annual. So I mean that that's an open question for this and part of that is going to be determined by one, how many commissioners are they citizen commissioners or salary. What are their salaries and then what do you envision for staffing support for them. And it's hard to put together any sort of estimate until you until you have that and twice. And then we could start working up an estimate but until we've got more details like that. I think that fiscal estimate would just give you an enormous range. And I was just, I know that there's been a ton of work done on this, you know, the months leading up to the session and a lot of conversations going on. That's out of the room so I wasn't sure people had maybe started ballparking that yet. The idea, when I asked JFO. How do you get a joint fiscal note on this. We are like everybody else under capacity. And so they're not taking requests on financial on fiscal notes until we have a solid ask trip. So, part of our process here. We know that this bill is going to go to appropriations. They're going to make a final determination on how much money there may be. And we may recommend I mean so our focus and the work should be focusing on what we think is the right size. And then they're going to take this bill up. After we pass it out of committee it'll transfer to them. And I know it's if it passes out. I mean, I know this is a priority we'd like to get it out but we have to. We have to get the work done that we're satisfied with. And that's when it goes to them. And that's when I think they will begin to hone in on what the budget could be. But we just need to be clear as clear as possible so that if we if we think they need office space at this point in time, we put it in. If we think they need. If we think there's an executive director and administrative person a legal system. However, many researchers. Then we put it in and then the conversation shifts over to appropriations. Yeah, it's not. We don't have the capacity I guess to. I mean, we do that we need to do the structure in a more defined way before we can actually target. Yeah, because there's there's there's there's several pieces here right there's there's the office space. Appropriate equipment. However, I don't know how they pack that out. So there's the prudiums for the stakeholders than the selection committee. And then how, how are the prudiums work for the people who do we give people who testify to each of the groups of prudium as well, or is it just their time. So we're so we have to have answers to and then salaries, travel expenses, you know, other expenses that we can anticipate the without a full budget of course because then once you get an executive director working with a series of commissioners. That's when the type budget should be created, but we have to have the other pieces in place. So going to the one of the things I think I'll do with Ron is send an email to all of the people who are posed in this list so far starting on page four and taking kind of an email poll on whether people or organizations are even interested in participating in this process. They've all been listed. This list has been taken from has been compiled for a couple of different bills. So they are a sense that we can assume that they're interested but you need to find out. This is a letter we got from the white pointed out another hand for people that we should perhaps consider for the, the disability side. Is that sound reasonable if I work with Ron, set that up. Well, yes. I think we need consensus or clarity around the 18 to seven to three. And if you're part of the eight is it 18 the beginning or 11. It's about 18. What could be plus or minus depending on the one of the 18 you can still be one of the seven but you can't be one of the three. Yeah, the seven can't be the three. Okay, so anyone who the original 18 as long as they're not a seven can be a three. That could be one of the three. Correct. And I think that's good because I don't want to isolate too many people who have left. Excellent. Yeah, I mean that's what we're asking. I don't want to see people picking their own. Okay. Yeah, so I think that would just need to be. Maybe it's clear, but they mean are these notes. Are these sufficient for you to just sort of, I mean, I'm assuming you're soaking you then and you'll synthesize it later is that. Yeah, I'm, I'm trying to record notes here on the discussion when it seems like narrow and on this needs to happen. So, you know, I think we're going to need to put that pretty fully loaded budget. That's because creations may not have one have a conversation that we've been having so you decide on what the compensation thing is you decide on these things. And we look at other commissions that have these costs we just take their costs for now put those in for administration or office space or different things. And we can identify where it's from, but I think we should be more specific versus corporations so then they can. Sure. And I think that that's, I think that that's, that's fine we just, I think if we're providing the positions. If we're providing infrastructure that we think is the right infrastructure. So, what happened with the cannabis commission of course is there was a conversation first about how many commissioners, and they ended up with three. And then there was an executive director, and I don't know what kind of administrative staff they have, but they just put out a budget request for 11 people. I don't know what they're there for what they're supposed to do but that was the cannabis commission determined that they needed 11 more FT ease. And there's wrestling over that right now, I don't think we're going down. I think right now to the point where I think we're being as as complete as we think I don't, I don't envision 11 more people being needed off of this group of often this group of individuals for the work that they would have to do. I don't, I think what's proposed so far is in a ballpark of what we would be expecting. The process of determining how much it costs is a formula that whether appropriations in particular is used to it or what the JFO is used to it to say. Okay, we need five office, but we need five cubicles someplace we need, you know, phones we need computers we need printers we need. I imagine that there's a square footage cost that goes into estimating office space in in the state complexes. But our bill also calls for things. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. No, good. I'm going to throw cold water on this because I'm not a fan of big government at all. And I just, I don't like the starting point of a salary that we've arrived at in this bill I would rather start with something smaller and more modest compensation. We saw that the state of Maine was able to do it on very. And I feel as often in Vermont as not, we appoint large boards and commissions that cost a lot of money and include numerous new personnel and state government. And this legislation is phenomenal and impactful, but the cost of it is concerning to me. Thank you. It is for us to. I mean I've heard just in the game using ICTJ as the resource. I mean Canada is a big country, but their process over five year period was $44 million. I don't think we're going there, but your point is noted. I mean, and I think that's why that's why it goes to appropriations and determines, I think that there's an element here of the commissioners. And I saw this, I saw the same language somewhere in here, but it was the idea that the commissioners. would not speak to the actual salary of what it might be. But the idea was that the commissioners would be that this would be the only job that they had. Rather than to be like a point three of somebody else's position already existing in state government but that's the that's the theory behind having the commissioners. Have a salary, whatever. I'm going to say what the salary is. We do at this point. No, that's something that that's a ballpark that we're shooting for. Again, everything is. That's our work right now. Representative Clackett of plastic. Well, I'm sorry, the whole administrator me is like, I think we have in here that the commissioners can appoint other consultants to bring in research or to do research. So, I just want to make sure, you know, we have place over for that as well so we don't don't get this appropriated out of here for 50% of what it really costs. I guess my concern. I don't have my arms around what this is. Right, so that's where again for us, while we're concerned, we can have a concern over costs we can have concern over the placeholders that we have. But I think, at least here on Tuesday and up until the time where we move on. Let's also focus focus more on what do we think is the right structure. Yeah, and then and then I'm not saying we're going to leave this totally up to appropriations to make the final decision but they do make a decision on. And they will ask us do we think it's really necessary to have these groups and we'll have that conversation one more ready to represent a classic. I'm not sure and not to believe in the issue, but the echo represent hangers comments. I too have a big issue, not knowing anywhere near what this whole program could cost and I do understand JFOs inability to be an understaffed. I do understand the ability to take this on and come up with a, you know, official estimate for us. Until this becomes more definite bill. But it's so hard for me to sit back and say we'd like to see this like see that when I haven't any, any idea what this is going to cost and I have no idea. You can see it. Barbara went out there and just picking up different things and got at this got at that. And now we're not talking hundreds of dollars here we're talking thousands of dollars. Oh, it's going to be hard for me to this point. Really like this bill. I do like certain parts of it but not knowing what it's going to cost everything and I just, it's very difficult for me. And again, not to ramble on too much but it's just difficult to me to commit myself my vote to want to spend all kinds of money on something I don't know what that all kinds of money is even going to be. And again, I know JFO is very, very busy but there are no appropriations or appropriations anyway I don't sit here, but certainly would help us help me anyway to know up front. What the estimates were, I mean, a part of certain commissioners or chairs or whoever it may be. Possibly and maybe even probably going to be receiving the salary of a superior court judge I mean that really bothers. That really bothers me, but that's just my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Representative trial. So in boards and organizations I've been involved in over the years. It seems like this is often a conversation. So we are asking these commissions to do a lot of work. And as the chair said suggesting that it would be a full time job basically for that. But I can see the foot side of that. When we're asking folks to take part in a project that could have far reaching impact on their, on their group. And the question then becomes, should the motivation be to take this on, and to be part of this incredible undertaking that could again impact large numbers of Vermonters. Or do we need to look at the tasks that will be assigned to them and hope to compensate them adequately to do the work. So that seems to be and you know there's legitimacy on both sides and I hear the cost argument from both of you, but brought it up and I don't, I don't argue against that I think that there certainly is a consideration that we need to take. And that, and that maybe we can reach an agreement or a place where we can think in terms of relying on people who want to get involved in this to do the right thing. Yes. Thank you. And Mr. chair, please don't get me wrong. I think this is, this is a very good program here. Probably is probably it's necessary. And everything was just I personally at this point think it's way too big for. Again, not knowing the cost factor, but I'm not against the commission at least, I just think it needs to be affordable and we don't need to make another great big huge strain on on state government salary benefits. And again, if we knew if this is your best at yourself, this is going to be full time job a part time full time basis part time basis you know it's assist. I think a lot of that has got to do with what it's going to cost. And it's very hard. It's like, if I was to go out and buy a brand new car. I have a budget to deal with. And I know about what I can afford so I might want to go out and buy 150,000 car but I know I really can afford it so I'm going to settle for 3035,000 car or something. Again. Thank you Chip for understanding that. Thanks for understanding that. I do not try to be hard here and I really think this is a great thing to be doing here and something that we should do I just so how many people do we need to do this. And that is the first thing we need to do. That is the first thing we need to figure out. There's right the numbers, but there's also lots of money in numbers. So, sure. So, I'm not against it. I hear that representative and I appreciate, I mean, we all are in this job, appreciative of costs. And I guess what I would ask of the committee, you know, does, I think we're at a point in this conversation, or perhaps a way to look at the work we're doing for the next couple of days anyway. And I think it's to continue to focus on what is the right thing to do, because the, in terms of what this is trying to accomplish, because then when we start talking about the costs, and then we start getting into the conversation of what's possible, or what may be possible what can we. So much what do we settle for though I suppose that's part of it. But I think right now the idea of, and I can appreciate that if the if the cost is, you know, hindering a way of looking at the whole picture. But I think my, my interests right now in the next few days is to like get an idea of what would be the right factor for the commission, even if it's just a purely theoretical one. And then we could start considering, because I can't anticipate what appropriations are going to do. You know this, and I understand that moving forward to a point that we have to have a better understanding of what it costs. And we're not going to vote on this without a better understanding of what we're putting forward before it even gets to appropriations. But I would like us to focus, keep focusing on what is the right and most complete structure that we can imagine that would give this commission an opportunity for success. And if we can move on, once we come close to that, then we can, then we can move on to the more precise costs we can in the meantime we can ask. I don't know. And again, maybe we just have to find out how do we get preliminary numbers on things like office space costs and square footage costs and how the state charges different commissions for different things. Yeah, I think I mean jfo is going to have some, the best sort of information on how they estimate that. And I know like I looked back in my emails and for 2020. The estimate for a citizen member of a committee was 126 25 for meeting. So we obviously we have estimates that we work out for these things. I can reach out to my colleagues over at jfo and see if they can give me just some really rough numbers that we would use to estimate, you know, for example, benefits costs and square footage and that sort of things that we can at least get a sense of, you know, if you're saying one full time employee at a salary of 60,000 and starting out all our numbers here. You know what it what are the benefits costs there so we can get a total compensation plus benefits idea of like if you've got four employees at $60,000 a year. If you're talking $300,000, or are you talking $400,000 and costs, you know, and that's obviously there's a potentially huge range depending on what benefits add to that base salary. All of this is stuff that is way outside my heart. And whether they're, I mean, again, we don't have an understanding of like, what does limited service employee mean in terms of benefits what you know what does, you know, is a three year job attempt job, you know, for your job attempt job or is that you know, attempt to full is it I mean all those things that we don't have. We don't have a file yet on that representative. Yeah, under the day being if it's another way to do it is art, if you pick the commission that's closest to what we're imagining, whether it's a cannabis controlled word whichever one. And is there annual budget of public records. And can we just see what the annual budget is of the cannabis control board and all the line items and then we can look at it and say, Okay, in our construct, this makes sense for this administrative stuff this makes sense for, and just use those numbers with joint fiscal office have those. Well, that would be on the budget bill from last year. So we take a quick look at 74 from last year, which is the budget. So cannabis control board had a budget of $650,000 for personal services which is salaries and so forth. And was there any other administrative costs or other. So, personnel, let me look. I'm going to put a time out right now because it's to 15. Let's take 10 minutes.