 So it is Friday finally, this is Senate government operations, and I think that we don't really have anything on the agenda today except to review. I want to make sure that we keep up with S-124, so, and we will do a couple of charters if Tucker can join us, or it's one charter, but I think it's two, two towns put together into one bill. If Tucker can join us, because we just got it today, so if he can't, then we'll deal with it on Tuesday. But so this morning, I have been keeping Sarah Copeland Hansis up to date with our conversations, so yesterday I sent her the kind of lingering concerns that we had, and those, what we talked about yesterday was the governor appointing the chair, whether it really should be NAACP, the facial recognition, the GAC, and the dispatch. I think that was pretty, that was mainly what we talked about. So I met with Sarah this morning, and then we had a meeting with the leadership, and then Betsy and Sarah and I met later on to hopefully come up with an amendment that they would be willing to do that would address some of our concerns, and it would come from the government operations committee. So I think Betsy and has that amendment, and I'll just tell you kind of where, how we landed, where we landed. Let me just talk about the GAC, because how that came about. They apparently had some testimony from Susanna Davis and Sue Zeller about the indicators, and that we needed, in this climate, we needed to address particularly the indicators that indicated the well-being of our, those communities and people who are most marginalized. So they worked around that, and so Sue Zeller and Drew, I can't remember Drew's last name. Yes. Yes. And Susanna worked with the committee to come up with that kind of expanded definition and asking GAC to look at indicators and come back with indicators. So that's where that was. So given the involvement of Sue and Drew around this, I felt more comfortable with it, and that the GAC would this summer then, or this fall or whenever we do it, start looking at what those indicators might be in the outcomes, not changing the outcomes at all, but just the indicators. Does Drew work for Sue or with Sue? No, Drew is the, Brian, she is AHS, but she's their kind of data. Oh, Drew, our Drew that used to work for Shumlin. Yeah, Drew. Drew of the red hair, got it. Yes. So are there any questions or concerns about that? I thought that given all of that input that had come from those, particularly those two, because they kind of help guide us in GAC anyway, that we, it was okay. Brian. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I agree. As long as we're not going to change outcomes, I'm with taking another look at the indicators and obviously when we meet, we'll have Drew and Sue come in and testify. So I'm fine with that. Okay. Yeah, it doesn't change the outcomes. Anthony, were you going to say something? I'm fine with that too. It's good. Okay, so Chris. Muted once again. Yes. Okay. Allison. Okay. Okay, so that's, we didn't ask them, I didn't ask them to do a, an amendment on that until unless there was concern from the committee. The other one was the dispatch. And that seemed to be a non issue since they already do dispatch for emergency and fire. And so it's just saying that they can't do a phase in. And so they can't impose fees until they come to us for the ability to do that. And I did talk about some kind of a not a cliff, but some kind of a phase in. And we decided that the best way to do that is to do that when we look at the fees themselves and to do a phase in. For example, the water barrier or any town that, that contracts with VSP for their coverage. Part of that coverage must be dispatch. But it's so much in the weeds that I will do, I guess we'll just pass it the way it is. And if, if DPS calls water barrier and says reduce, we're not going to dispatch for you anymore because we can't or we're water braces, we're not going to pay for it because it says you can. Then we'll have to deal with that. But I think that we should just leave it the way it is. Okay, thanks. Anthony. That's fine. But isn't that where we had that whole conversation about not thinking that they were doing fire and whatnot. Yeah, but I guess they are. Okay. Yeah, that's fine then. Okay, so then the other one was the date for it. Brian has a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, yeah. Thank you Alison for looking at me. Nolan actually has provided. I'm going to go ahead and pull it up here on our website. Section 26 prohibits DPS from charging fees and any new contract for agreements to perform dispatch. For state municipal or other emergency services till the General Assembly establishes, it's our understanding that DPS does not currently bill local entities for dispatch costs. And as such, there should be no additional loss of revenue. I'm still not clear how many times DPS dispatch is fire trucks or ambulances, but I guess they must somewhere. Yeah, and I think that that's an issue that we're going to have to look at next year about the whole dispatch and how we do that. Yeah. Okay, I'm fine with it. Okay. So then the next issue was the, Oh, said Nolan's name and he appeared. Oh my God, that's magic. I was watching, I'm double zooming I was watching on YouTube and in SAC at the same time so. I just want to reconfirm that we're still your favorite committee. I mean, you usually tell us that, but, you know, you are, you are my favorite committee, but I will say that Senator Calamore and Senator Polina are on my other new favorite committee of send ag. Is it true that you only have, let me see 14 plus load 25 committees. I think I staff 17. I'm staffing a lot. I picked up ag this year. It's been fun. You staff issues so that those range by committee just like here you are. So I'm staffing new issues this year. Right. We're live by the way. Hi. Hi Nolan, it's good to see you we missed you. What can I help you with? Oh, I don't, I think we're fine. No, great. We were looking at your fiscal note. And your, which is what's that. Okay. You're commenting how well it was formatted. Got it. It was, it was beautiful. So what we're doing is going over. And then we're going to run a meeting this year. So we're going to, we're going to run a meeting this year. The house is doing an amendment. To S124. And we're seeing if we agree with that amendment. And so we can. I want to make sure that this makes it to the finish line. So the next issue then was the inventory of public safety plans. And resources. And. 21 and Sarah called Peter and he said could they have till December of 2021 because they have 50 towns and even if they have it done by July it's not going to do us any good July or December so have them do it by December. Does that work? Yeah sure. Okay so that's in the amendment right Betsy Ann. Okay because she wanted to make sure she checked with him. Then the chair being appointed by from non their intent was to have the chair appointed from non law enforcement not to limit it to those seven public people appointed by the governor so it could be anyone of those seven the person from human rights commission the victims the center for victims services the network and domestic violence the um Susanna I guess that's it so it could be any of those they just they felt pretty strongly that if any if the person that was the chair was from law enforcement that it would take on a certain tone and there is some validity to that and so they wanted it to make sure that it was a non law enforcement person which doesn't mean they may not be an attorney or something but Brian. Yeah I don't think it'll be any great surprise I feel just as strongly it should be somebody from law enforcement. To me it's like having a plumber's union with with no plumber I mean you have to sort of understand what you're doing in order to lead I just I feel very strongly that it's uh it's not a good idea I think it needs to be somebody from that occupation that is the chair. Okay the other three. Um I I I think that um the LEAB for example is all law enforcement and there the chair is somebody from law enforcement and because this is kind of a this is the committee that uh well anyway that's their proposal and they said they felt very strongly about that so I don't want the bill to die over that. No it's just disappointing that people don't trust the committee to choose its own chair. But they are opening it up they are opening it up just understand they're opening up beyond the people that the governor points. Yes. Right. Oh okay good and did we. We've also already opened up the committee or the council uh to a much greater degree than it is currently. So I don't know I I just you could just say the majority of the committee was okay with it I guess Madam Chair. Okay. But that one really sticks for me I just I don't think it's gonna work. Well I think that uh the really what um the chair of this council is going to have to work very closely with the ED of the academy I mean I think that that's um a given here because they're overseeing the academy and so I think the feeling was that if you had the director of the academy and a law enforcement chair that they would they could uh as we know chairs have so much power to um set agendas and move in the direction you want to move and so I think they felt that with the the two working together that there would be it would be more of a compliment and better balanced. I I I can see that but I and it is hard to have something like this set up their own um chairs at the very beginning because they don't know each other. So anyway that's that's true your own chair at the beginning it can often be kind of an awkward dance and it's been pre-negotiated so someone walks in and someone else nominates and the vote goes a particular way and it's it's it's not always so helpful and democratic because yeah there's no there's no non-awkward way to have a first meeting where you discuss the strengths and weaknesses of potential chairs for that group so it's usually already been worked out and so it sounds very democratic sometimes I think it's less democratic than just being straightforward and naming who's going to get appointed how it it's just every not everybody has management skills chairs a chair a good chair those are skills and talents that are uh very important to the direction and the and the functionality of a committee and uh you know you can't anyway it well we would concern me too so anyway but I'm happy for the sake of this to to to move as we need to move we would hope that um a new committee may not recognize potential leadership skills but we would hope that when the governor appoints a chair that he or she would recognize that they need to have somebody who can really be a chair if that makes sense so and then there was the so the way it's going to be presented the governor will still appoint yes but can not appoint someone from law enforcement is that correct yes but the governor will appoint yeah um then I I remain firmly and what what about the other um groups that we wanted to be included I'm getting there oh sorry what do you mean the other groups on the council yeah for consideration not just n double acp okay so the the um um I guess there are three chapters in Vermont Bennington Wyndham and Chittenden I didn't realize that Chittenden had one and the feeling was that um these are uh that this organization is a solid organization it isn't necessarily controlled by an individual or um that the direction isn't established by a particular individual that they um represent national interests and that they are pretty they have been working for a long time and have a lot of advocacy and legal um oomph behind them so they felt that um it should stay that way otherwise um it it is hard then to determine what really is a a group and what is just a person who tends to say I'm speaking for a group so they they recommended keeping it that way I think the the main um person that was consulted on this was Hal Colson from wherever he's from I can't remember when okay when Wenuski okay so they felt strongly that it should remain that and I'm I'm okay with that and if there are three chapters they will each um forward names three names to the governor is the way I understand it so there would be a potential of nine people for the governor to pick two appointees I think all right and they they're the um name that's put forward by them does not even have to be a member of the m double acp it could be somebody else they are just the group that's forwarding the names okay and then the last one was the facial recognition and I think they heard our concerns and so I will kind of try and capsulize it here but then I'll have Betsy and really tell us what the language is but what we agreed on was that there would be a moratorium for law enforcement use until they come back with a plan to the legislature with advantages and disadvantages and how it would be used and that the exception for drone use which is usually what's used for search and rescue would would still apply they could still use it for those purposes but for law enforcement activities they wouldn't use it until they came with a plan with more study and we didn't put a date on that because they're the if if they want to use it they're going to come with a report if they have no interest in using it then they're not going to come with a report so we don't need to have a date Betsy and do you want to actually tell us what the language says there hello for the record Betsy and rest legislative council would you like me to do share screen on this tentative draft amendment so we can review it sure would you like to see a committee people could we post it could would you be kind of to have gale posted to because I I your the ipad is really tiny okay I can but this issue is that it's it's tentative I can't yeah with certainty that this is actually going to be the text that's offered so I got it got it got it um but if what we're trying that's the end you want to just send it via email to the committee okay okay yeah what we're trying to do is we're trying to make sure that um Sarah is going to bring it to their committee and see where they are and they're trying to have it so that so what we're doing today is looking at the kind of concepts behind it and what the final real language is particularly on this one the the date that's it's either a date or it isn't a date and um that's not important but um this one I think is well so I'll pick up on the moratorium language so in the bill in the house gov ops current strike all which is their official committee report they would have in section 14 a statutory prohibition on the use of facial recognition technology except as it is permitted with respect to drones because the drone laws you were saying madam charity allows drones to use facial recognition technology in limited circumstances instead of a statutory prohibition that section 14 would be replaced with a session law moratorium on facial recognition technology with the language right now saying until the use of facial recognition recognition technology by law enforcement officers is authorized by an enactment of the general assembly a law enforcement officer shall not use facial recognition technology or information acquired through the use of it unless the use would be permitted with respect to to drones as currently authorized under the drone law there's still the same definition of what facial recognition recognition technology is but related to this issue this moratorium is this report back um so right now there would be in the section that has all of the law enforcement recommendations a section added to specifically address facial recognition technology that would state that after analyzing any law enforcement needs to use facial recognition technology analyzing any potential inaccuracies or other limitations in the capacities of that technology including implicit biases and an opportunity for community involvement and feedback the council would be required to recommend a statewide policy on officers acquisition and use of facial recognition technology in light of that moratorium in section 14 and if the council will recommend the authority for officers to acquire and use facial recognition technology the council shall recommend a plan to mitigate any implicit bias that results from the use of that technology so right now it is structured as the general assembly would have to take another step in order to approve it but at that point the general assembly could base its approval on um what is recommended for its use and any limitations on its use is how it's currently drafted um it's not set right now set the sunset as soon as the council sets you know submits a plan that the ban would be lifted um just right now so it's it would remain in legislative control so that you could decide whether there should be any statutory limitations does that sound like it would work from your perspective brian brian thank you madam chair i'm not sure where we are in terms of the degree of facial recognition usage but maybe you could tell me that's the end of this scenario would not be allowed i assume there are traffic cameras somewhere maybe cameras in the church street marketplace in burlington and someone has been reported lost and so the camera picks up this person that by facial recognition they've determined is the person since drones are the only thing called out in this would law enforcement be able to use that camera to help reunite that lost person i don't think so i was currently written because it is a moratorium on officers using facial recognition technology well i mean but body cameras what i mean i mean they use body cameras for court procedures and all sorts of things that's facial recognition right there no it's not really no no that's just a video recording not facial recognition takes into account uh different dimensions of someone's face and projects that so that you are able to identify them with some degree of certainty so but how is that video in a bank uh you know a video in a bank atm or in a bank any different i mean well it's a video camera it's not facial recognition so even though video is does provide facial recognition for law enforcement to review it's not considered facial recognition i don't think that's a very technical term facial recognition the technology itself purports to identify the person rather than being reviewing the footage and determining it is a person right i think i understand why the house is doing this and i don't disagree with it because it could be used in a very nasty negative way right but did they take any testimony on whether any law enforcement agencies in vermont are currently using it to any degree i don't know i don't recall that testimony being taken do we know what i'm sorry i'm going to talk about allowing it to be used for the drones what do they do with drones that deal with what uses are that yeah so lawn there can be the use of drones in the drone statute it's 20 vsa 46 22 um which provides the authorization and conditions in which law enforcement can use drones and in this section um in subdivision d2 it provides that facial recognition shall not be used on any data that a drone collects on any person home or area other than the target of surveillance and then there's other limits for when a drone can actually be used so it it does allow drones to use facial recognition technology when there is a target of surveillance but the targeted surveillance to be a target of surveillance do you have to have a warrant yes it's um they can't use it for crime investigations unless there is a warrant and for example it specifically prohibits law enforcement from using a drones for when people are exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly so they don't they don't they have to have already identified a person that's sort of someone that is whatever lack of better way put committed a crime and they're providing surveillance to look for that person as opposed to just randomly surveilling a group of people doing a protest or something yeah okay I think that one of the major differences between the video as Betsy pointed out in the facial recognition is that in the video you see the person's face and then the police officer says oh I know who that is or they they figure out who it is but in facial recognition it's the technology itself that says that's who it is and the errors are pretty dramatic at times and particularly um the facial recognition technology cannot it has a real hard time differentiating people's faces who are people of color um and the darker your skin the more error there is so um I would be probably easy to for them to pick up um Brian would be a little harder just because your skin is darker than mine and uh Susanna's would be almost impossible to distinct so I think there there are some real issues with uh using it as the as the means of identifying well I mean the same could be said about a crappy a bank camera with you know with the lousy video and they do enhancements of that to try and understand whose face it actually is I don't know it's I think I think the difference Allison is that when you go to court the cop or somebody has identified that person with facial recognition my understanding is that it's that technology that identifies the person and presents it as evidence right or incomplete technology that's still evolving and I think that's part of my challenge with prohibiting it's useful it's not being prohibited yeah it's a moratorium right it's now moratorium until they come back saying this is why we need to use it and we did this we did the same thing with license plate readers no I'm fine with this as a moratorium I'm fine with this actually right now okay Brian thank you do you do you know whether law enforcement weighed in on this one way or the other you know I I don't know I haven't heard anything from them um I will reach out to um Sheryl and see if they don't have any objection I don't and and I think that question Brian is a good one uh generally I can't remember uh what how Michael testified about the changes in the council membership and stuff have they as the administration weighed in on this bill as it is now from the house um they've been weighing in yeah right but I and they're okay so far right well they may not be okay with everything 100 percent I have I don't know but the um I'm just curious I was just curious I couldn't I couldn't remember what they said about the council anyway yeah I mean we when the um commissioner and the colonel and the major were in right we're we mentioned to them at that point that s124 would change the council membership but um they haven't provided testimony on the actual proposed changes to the membership as proposed by the house that's what I thought Chris yeah you know the other piece too so I mean the maybe for Allison but the so whatever digital video image data you have is can just be recorded but then you can also run it through processors that then try to do facial recognition that so there's that separate step that happens after you've captured a video stream or still administering then on top of that you need to take that facial recognition software it needs to consult the database well whose pictures are in that database and why and how and what rights do you have so there's like a behind the scenes there's I think quite a lot of legal complexity about yeah privacy yes I I agree I think there are lots of concerns with this technology which is why I think that what we what we proposed to them was not to use the technology until there was a report back that's what I have written down for everybody here is that we had a that maybe then we didn't know enough it was a big leap we needed to have more no more report to the legislature do a study so and that's what we have here that's what we have here just want to point out though the general assembly would need to take the next step to authorize it as it's currently written so based on that feedback yeah and then at that point the the decision is when and how and in what circumstances can it get used and how do you collect the database that Chris was referring to things like that those would those all have to be discussed I think before well before it's used yeah okay so I will I will send a note to shirling about the about the bill in general but about this in particular okay and okay and this one was a lot easier to come to some resolution than the other one that to 119 which is what judiciary has and it's anyway it's causing lots of ulcers among many people so a kerfluffle a huge kerfluffle so so anyway okay so I guess we can let Sarah know that we're okay with these amendments and if I hear otherwise from the commissioner I'll let you know does that work okay all right and it looks like we weren't able to get a hold of no Tucker Tucker says that he'll be available after 230 and I told him we'd probably be finished by then what time is it now it's 22 oh we could come back we could also adjourn we could we we we absolutely could adjourn and deal with this on Tuesday um anybody else have anything they want to do yes plenty of things I want to do but we're going to have a pretty heavy frost tonight and tomorrow yeah so you have to go into your gardens now and pick anything you want to salvage and fill your vases with every flower the two can and pick every tomato you can and all the basil you can what are tomatoes yeah what's basil they're the same as potatoes right on this topic guess what I just saw yesterday wait what did you see Betsy a hummingbird why what are you doing here yes that's now I'm not here we we still have them at our house are you feeding them nope we just have lots of flowers lots of flowers we do too I've been stunned to see them here so late they better get their little bodies going because they're going to freeze their little took us off tomorrow very worrisome okay so um I'm okay with adjourning okay I am too I'm gonna go okay 95 year old mother okay so we will see you at Tuesday at one o'clock it's not before