 Good afternoon. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting this afternoon on proposal 2 to amend Vermont's constitution, clarifying prohibition on slavery and indentured servitude. We have with us legislative counsel if we want to review anything related to the testimony that legislative counsel has provided thus far or the text of the constitutional amendment. So if there are any questions, I would welcome members to raise their hand. All right. Is there any committee discussion related to the public hearing or the witnesses that we've heard? We've had two different historical perspectives on changing Vermont's constitution. Any committee discussion? Representative Lefebvre. Thank you, Madam Chair. I definitely appreciated the public hearing and I was disappointed that there was only 14 people that testified. But I also was more discouraged to see that 42% of the people that testified did not live in this state. So I don't know, maybe our legislative counsel would be able to fill me in on this, but when other public hearings have been done about our Vermont Constitution, when people from out of state were able to testify or have testified. I'm going to let Amron go ahead and share any perspective she might have on that. Good afternoon for the record, Amron Aberjaly Legislative Council. I have not been a part of any previous public hearings, so I'm afraid I can't share what has been done in the past. So I can look into that issue. I am not aware of any legal requirement that would in any way restrict who may participate in a public hearing based on their residence, whether it's in state or out of state. But I can follow up with our open meeting law expert in our office if you would like me to do so, Representative. I can follow up, but thank you. Representative Gannon. You know, I think it's our practice to hear from people across the country on a variety of issues. I mean, we've taken testimony and committee on non-citizen voting from the state of Maryland, from other states. We've relied on experts on, for example, pensions that do not reside in Vermont. And I think what we heard last night was some people who are attempting to change constitutions in a number of states and are advocates for that position. And if they chose to sign up to testify, I don't see how we could prevent them from testify. They have as much right as anyone else to testify. And it was not like they were preventing Vermonters from testifying last night. We had, I think we finished it about a little after seven. So there was plenty of opportunity and time for other people to testify if they chose to. Thank you. And I do hear the examples you gave and none of those are our Constitution. They're policy. Well, but part of amending the Constitution is a policy debate and decision. Yes, but it's also our Constitution. So as I was saying, I was very discouraged that 42% of the people did not reside in the state. And that 57% of the testimony we heard was about corrections and institutions policy. When I specifically asked yesterday what, you know, I brought that up and I was assured that, you know, that was something to bring up at a later time. And that was not the policy we were addressing or the intent. When there is a full attempt of that's what they were discussing with us. I think what you'll find in most public hearings is that there's very little that we can do other than ask the question. And then we make ourselves available to listen, right? So you may find that things that you heard were not relevant to your deliberation on this. And I think in my experience in this building, a lot of times there are people here and there who feel very strongly that they want to say something that doesn't appear in my view or in someone else's view to necessarily be relevant to that topic. But it's we were required to hold a public hearing. We sent out the press release far and wide within the state of Vermont. We made time to hear everybody who requested to testify and and that, you know, in that way, I think it was a properly conducted public hearing. And I agree to and I said I appreciate it and respected, but to me it raises many concerns that what we heard and, you know, it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter what my view of it is they thought needed to be said then it needed to be said and I wanted to hear everything that everybody had to say. I myself put out an advertisement that we were doing it and we wanted people to come to us. I think it's very important when we're changing our Vermont Constitution that we're hearing from Vermonters. But I'm just again raising the concern as I did yesterday. Well, let's discuss this process. I mean, first of all, you know, both houses of the General Assembly have to pass this amendment twice. We had a hearing the first time we went through this. We took testimony the first time we went through this. The Senate did the same. But what's most important is we will hear from all Vermonters because if we finish this process, the last step in the process is in November of 2022. When all Vermonters get an opportunity to vote on this amendment. All right, I see Higley and then Anthony and then Behoski representative Higley. Well, I'd just like to agree with the representative Lefebvre to some degree. I'm a little disappointed that more Vermonters didn't weigh in. And since I've been involved in this committee now with this particular proposal, I've reached out to my constituents and I can tell you there's not many of them, if any, that I've talked to that have a clue as to what's going on. I think representative Gannon's right that this is a process to build up to it and that there'll be a vote in November if it gets passed out again. Again, I wasn't here from a lot of the discussion when this initially went through. But I was concerned last night with a concerted effort by. I would call them advocacy groups across the country, in particular not so much looking at this amendment on face value, but considering it in somehow relative to our incarcerated population being somehow considered slaves or indentured servitude. So, again, I guess maybe the question I would ask is, was that such a hot topic back when this was initially discussed? And if it wasn't, I think even on the news report I heard this morning talking about Prop 2 here, there was no mention of that. It was basically talking about the opportunity to change the wording that's, as representative Colson said on the news, how could happen any or would there ever be any Vermonters out there that would would not approve of that? And I believe there isn't. But again, it seems to be this underlying tone and a starting point for something that's definitely going to be controversial in my mind. And I'm sorry for that. I'd like people to take it on the face value and not something more. That's something more can be discussed in another venue, another year, another proposal or whatever, whether it's concerns around our incarcerated population going out of state, whether it's conditions in an incarcerated population. You know, there was even talking about last night about the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I haven't had the opportunity to look at that. I did look at it. It's pretty, it's pretty extensive. I've got my own opinion on that. But again, I just am sorry that it seems like it's morphed into something more than a face value that I agree is something that, you know, possibly needs to be changed. So I'm sorry for that. Representative Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I like rep gain and I'm not sure how one could or should steer, if you will, public reaction to a proposal. This won't be the first hearing that I have attended listen to where some of the testimony goes way off point. I'm not sure that you can control that frankly, you just have to sort of filter it. I do want to put in a plug, however, for some of the things I heard which I am surprised I did not hear from any of the types that we took testimony from. I'm referring to the assertion and I'll call it an assertion that I never heard until very recently, that while Vermont's inclusion of the exceptions, so to say, had been focused on an accommodation for the widespread practice, supporting immigration from the old country in the form of indentured servitude. But I had heard not any discussion by historians, specifically a Vermont history, casting a wider lens, and suggesting as was suggested last night, that our inclusion of that exception was a path breaking and many replicated opening to some mischief in other states using that exception. And frankly, I was unaware of that. I did not know that it was so frequently repeated, literally throughout the 19th century, and exported if you will, even into governments outside of the United States and North America. So that was a light bulb on for me that I will now pay attention to. So I frankly thank the testimony for drawing that piece of information to my attention since no Vermont historians, despite the fact that we like to think that we're first in many things. That didn't happen ever to say, by the way, you're the first in creating an exception that was much abused around the United States during the entire 19th century. Interesting piece of information. Thank you. Representative Vihopsky. Thank you. I first I want to say that I just thank you to everyone who's come to testify and provide probably many of us with history we didn't know about our own state in our own country. I also really just thinking about you know who came to testify and what they came to testify about it, it feels like incredibly dangerous territory to even be discussing, limiting who can speak in a public hearing and what they can speak about. So I do think it is our job to to filter the information as we see fit and as what is germane to the topic at hand but never to limit what the public is able to say or who is able to speak. And that said, you know what the one thing that really did stand out to me is 100% of the people that came to speak in our public hearing, spoken support of this change and the importance of this change in clarifying what we stand for as Vermonters, and as this body. So thank you. Representative with faith. Thank you madam chair I like to set the record and the impression of what I said I am not going to in any way. Tell somebody what they can testify or what they can say and that is not what I said I was simply saying what was said last night, and I asked yesterday during committee. Is that what the intention of this was to be, and I was assured no. And so I would get it was a concern to me last night, when I sat for testimony and for public hearing and that was all I heard. That's why I was bringing it up it's I'm never going to tell somebody what they're going to say, I'm never going to tell somebody that they cannot talk. I was simply asking was this common practice for other tests, like other public hearings to have Vermonters speak, you know we had prop five you've had those hearings I was simply asking before has there ever been other states coming to testify on our Constitution. I'm never saying someone can't do it as asking for history. I will never say someone can't talk. I will never say what they can or cannot say. So please do not put that to my name. All right, representative coast and would you care to make a motion. Yes, I move that we accept the Senate's proposal to that would amend the Constitution of the state of Vermont to clarify that slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited. Any last committee discussion. Representative Marwicky. I just like to offer the bigger perspective and also cognizant that we have students here that we are getting close to the end of a four year process. That's how long it takes to amend the Vermont Constitution. But this has to go through two sessions approved by each house and Senate. And the next it's going to go to the voters. It's why it's not that easy to do, and we we're at a historical moment here. So I appreciate we have people here ready to witness a historical step that promotes history. So thanks for being here. I'm ready to vote. Representative McCarty. I just wanted to say to build on what represented more wiki said that I am going to be voting for prop two to move forward today, because I want people who read the first article of our Constitution. Do not see exceptions to the prohibition on slavery. Just to have our values be really clear. And that's why I'm voting yesterday. It's just simply that I want that reading to be crystal clear about what our values are. Representative Higley. Thank you Madam chair again. My vote is going to be based on the face value of what's actually representative Colson just just read. So, nothing further at this point. Nothing no other consideration or starting point for anything things do come up in the future than I'll consider that at the time of my vote today is based on the face value of what we're looking to do. Representative Cooper. Thank you Madam chair. I simply reflect upon how over the course of the last 100 150 years we have thought that America represented something and to some degree those values seem to have changed and I think our foundation document for the governance of Vermont should be clear that there are things that cannot be massaged for convenience or reinterpreted and that the language must be exactly what we mean it to be. And I think this action that we take today moves us in that direction. But this is an important and historic moment and thank you for bringing that up. I do appreciate the careful attention that this committee has given. I appreciate the requests for extra perspectives and additional witnesses so that we could feel like we were getting the full picture of what amending our Constitution in this way could mean for the state of Vermont. And, you know, I'm really proud of the work that this committee is doing to carefully consider something as huge as proposing an amendment to our Constitution. So thank you. Neither committee discussion. Representative Colston would you call the roll. We need a second for that motion. We don't not in committee. Good to know. I shall call the roll. Ganon. Yes. Ricky. Yes. The Claire. No. Cooper. Yes. Colston. Yes. Anthony. Yes. He helps me. Yes. The faith. Yes. Bigley. Yes. McCarthy. Yes. Copeland Hanses. Yes. The motion passes. 1010. All right. Next step in the process is the floor report on this and the entire House of Representatives will have the opportunity to grill our colleague representative Colston on all that we've learned about this constitutional amendment. So that'll take place next week. Is that a one and done or is that a two step like any bill? I don't think it's a two step process like any bill. Okay. So it's an up and down vote. I mean, there's no, there's no amendments. It's, you know, it's up or down. And so that will be part of what's on our list on the floor for next week. So thank you very much.