 This is Senate government operations Wednesday, June 24th, I believe. I think you're right. So what we're doing is, we're going to do a, let's see if you'd like to do a walkthrough now of what we hope is the final amendment that we have, and it was emailed to us earlier and is it also on the committee webpage? Okay. Hello, for the record Betsy and Rass Legislative Council. Thank you to Gail for posting draft number 2.2 under today's date of S-124. Actually, whenever the members are ready to take a vote on this, I can fill in whatever sponsoring members are going to sponsor this amendment in line two, but essentially of how I've set this up is I've incorporated, you had approved changes yesterday and requested revision. So I removed all the highlighting from yesterday's draft, which flagged for you new language. You've already addressed that language. So what's highlighted in this draft 2.2 are places where you request to change as yesterday. So pardon me for interrupting a minute here, but I'm on Tuesday's documents and handouts and I can't get to today's. Refresh. I did. If you, it's up there, so I just went to it, so I know it's there. I know it is. I got there too. Okay. I'm going to go out and come back in. Okay. Go ahead, Betsy. You sure? Yeah. All right. So your first decision was on pay from yesterday was on page one line nine that you would maintain the commissioner of corrections as a member of the criminal justice training council. So it was struck through. So it's highlighted without strike through so that the commissioner of corrections would remain a member of the council. And I'm just referring now just started looking at draft 2.2 of S 124. That's listed under today's date. Right. And let's, um, Uh, Make, let's deal with each one as we go through so that we're, um, okay. All right. So we're okay with that, right? Great. Indeed. Yes. I'm sorry to interrupt madam chair. Just wanted to let you know, since you can't always see all the screen. I'm in the room. Approaches rescheduled when I'm going to appear. So. Step back out again. Okay. Thank you. Um, Anybody else out there have any. Comment about that. And I can't see you. So you'll have to say. All right. Let's move on. All right. Uh, we're still on the council membership. So on page two, um, Your discussion yesterday was to have the executive online. I'm looking at line 12 to have the executive director of the center for crime victim services. Someone representing the crime victim services. Um, And then you had also discussed as a follow up from today. Um, this morning you had requested, um, adding an appointee of the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. Um, That's the address in M. You had also yesterday, um, Asked for the executive director of the human rights commission to appoint someone just in a person. So taking all of those together, those three representatives, I just use more general language to say an individual appointed by the executive director of crime victim services, an individual appointed by the executive director of human rights commission and an individual appointed by the executive director of the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. With the idea that those, um, Entities would appoint someone that they thought was appropriate for, uh, the council membership. We hope it would. What's that? Yes. Gail. I mean, Allison. The other one. Uh, I'm, I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood our conversation yesterday with the, uh, Advocate from the Vermont network. I thought I understood. But there would be one representative from the victims. Services and that the executive director of the center for crime victim services would be. Appointing that person from the. Uh, Of victims. That was the conversation yesterday. I then had an email from Chris Fennel, which I forwarded to everybody. Who asked if they could. Have one on each person. I then forwarded it to Sarah Robinson to see what she thought and everybody agreed. You were the only one I didn't hear from on the committee. Cause sadly I was meeting and I can't read emails. I was impressed with all of you. Okay. So. Okay. So is that. Everybody. Okay. With that. Okay. Anybody out there in the ether world. Okay. You're muted Betsy. Thanks. Uh, the next question. Is there anybody out there in the ether world? Okay. You're muted Betsy. Uh, the next change is online, 18 of page, uh, two, which is to have all three public members appointed by the governor. Um, the public members don't have a law enforcement connection. Um, the prior draft had, uh, the three public members, but one appointed by the governor and then one pointed by the house and sent it a piece. Everybody okay with that. Anybody else. Okay. All right. Moving on to the second amendment. I just, I'm counting up 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. So I think this brings up the council membership to 19 members. Just so you know. Okay. Yikes. If you run a good meeting, you can do. Any people. And they'll be robust. Subcommittees. All right. So I am heading over to page three. Then this is, uh, section six a is in regard to, uh, requiring agencies to comply with, uh, policies that are required under the council chapter and, uh, collection of roadside stop data. So yesterday's draft just focused on prohibiting an agency from sending a law enforcement applicant. To the academy for basic training. If they're not in compliance with, uh, roadside stop data collection and, uh, any policy. But after further discussion yesterday. Uh, the suggestion was that the committee agreed to, was to say that what prohibition would apply to any of the council services. So this new language would say an agency would be prohibited from having its law enforcement applicants or officers trained by the police academy or from otherwise using the services of the council. If the agency is not in compliance with the roadside stop data collection or the requirement to adopt, follow or enforce any policy. And then relatedly, the other thing that you discussed was putting in a specific effective date when this would, uh, start to take effect. So it would be on and after January one of 2022. Um, I don't know. Which I believe corresponds with the bill we passed out of judiciary. Um, is that right? Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know. Yeah. It was. And starting in January of 2022. Um, they couldn't. Um, apply for grants. If. If they weren't in compliance. Uh, just related to this also is at the top of page four. Um, I don't know. Um, I don't know the language that you already had approved said that the council would adopt procedures to enforce the, these requirements. Um, but to add specific language to allow for a waiver, just to make it explicit that the procedures may allow for waivers for agencies under a plan to obtain compliance with this section. So an agency would not necessarily need to be prohibited from using the council services. Um, to be in compliance with the policies and the roadside stop data collection. Committee. Your intent. Yes. Anybody else. I just got an email from Mike Shirley who said that he. Is double booked again, but that he's read the, um, amendment that changes the draft and he agrees with it all. Anybody else. Okay. All right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Still on page four, looking at lines 12 and 13. This was about the, um, requirement to use body cameras in accordance with the LEA B's policy, um, that they adopted in 2016 is the effective date of this is January 1, 2022. Again. The language yesterday, um, on lines 12 and 13 provided that the council would need to incorporate the provisions of this section into its, um, in accordance with the LEA B's policy. Um, I think the question was to ensure that it, it doesn't necessarily have to be limited to just the basic and annual training. It could be any other training that it provides. So this is just a more general way to describe. Um, And the incorporation of the body cam policy into the council training. I'm sending. I just have a question. I'm confused as to where we're at general with body cameras. Did this, did this just hear a committee do something about this? Um, So what judiciary did is require their use by the Vermont state police. It didn't go any farther than Vermont state police. The LEA B. Did a, a model policy that would have applied to everybody. In, um, 2016. This is saying that, um, All other law enforcement, if they're going to use body cameras have to. Um, Use body cameras that they have to apply that they have to comply with the LEA B. Um, Policy by. 2022. So we're not necessarily here saying that everybody has to have body cams. We are. We are saying they have to. If, if they get body cameras, they have to apply by the model, the universal or model rule. Um, So we're not necessarily here saying that the Johnson police department has to have body cameras. I, I. The police department with just in case. Yeah. Um, They have to adopt, follow and enforce the body, the. Policy. And that says the policy, if you read it. Says that, um, If they're going to use body cameras, they wouldn't be subjected to this because it says, if an officer is given. A camera. So, um, We're hoping that more of them will, but this isn't necessarily requiring all. All of them to do it. It's just requiring them to, if they do it to adopt the policy. Right. That's what I thought. Yeah. I think that later on, then we're talking about, um, Are there. Uh, changes that need to be made here. Maybe the LAB says that everybody has to use them. I don't know what those changes will be. Okay. Yeah. Sorry, Matt. Ask the questions. I thought, I thought that, um, That the Vermont state police had a uniform. It had bought them for everybody and that, that was the only agency that had them for everybody. No, no, that is not. There are at least three sheriff's offices that use them. And I don't know how many, um, I mean, Mark talked about that yesterday. I know I understand that, that there are eight other agencies that have purchased them. But that as far as I understand the only. Agency that's fully equipped with them at the moment is, are the VSP as opposed to like all the sheriffs, all the sheriffs don't have them just certain. Right. Right. Some. Right. But if they're going to have them, they have to adopt this policy. By 2020. They have to follow this policy. Right. Are we okay? Are we okay with this? Do you think likely, I mean, the, there is this future effective date of January 1, 2022. And the policies posted on your web. Under yesterday's date. It does discuss the equipment. When the officers who are assigned equipment must use it as directed. Um, so. I don't know if that's the intent of the policy. That it's only in effect. If you're issued the body camera equipment. Well, if you don't supply, if you don't have body cams in your agency, then you wouldn't have any policy to. To adopt. Right. Yes. I mean, you couldn't, you couldn't comply with the policy. If you didn't have a body camera. Yes. Is it just sharing committee working. Um, On this issue further about whether to require them. Or right at this point, it's just a requirement for VSP. Yes. Okay. And we're going to deal with everybody else. So what, let me just ask hypothetically, why are we not saying everybody's got body cameras? Well, I think that I, I think they have to think. I think there are some issues that they have to figure out that we've asked them to address later on, like. Um, the expense of buying them. How are they going to store them? What is the retention policy for the footage? There are a lot of questions out there. And I think that if we. Actually required them to start to have all agencies. Use body cams. Right away that. They're there. First of all. Even just the purchasing of them. Um, So I think that we've tried to address that farther on in the, you know, one of the. Um, Kick down the can. Sections. Got it. Thank you. Um, the next chair, are you ready to move on? Madam chair. Is everybody ready to move on? Yes. Okay. All right. So the next change from yesterday is in that last section, starting on page six. These are the reports back with recommendations. And I'm looking at page six lines, 16 and 17. To revise the language from yesterday to eliminate reference to law enforcement officers not acting as warriors, but just to do the request yesterday and the committee discussion was to say in order to further define. In order to further the goal of defining law enforcement officers as community garden. Community guardians. Um, there will be reports back. Or community gardens. Or community gardens. That can be guardians of the gardens. Does that meet your, your, um, thoughts? Senator column are. Okay. Thank you. And Chris, you weren't with us here yesterday. So if you have any questions as we're going through this, um, pipe up. Okay. I'm listening. Listen, listen and learn. Thanks. Okay. Everybody else okay with. With that small change. Yeah. All right. And then just a little tweak there on page seven line two. It used to refer to the LAB recommending statewide standards for interviewing and hiring officers. And the suggestion was to substitute universal standards. Yep. All right. Page seven lines eight through 10. This is in regard to reviewing, uh, examinations that officer applicants have to take. And I appreciate the, uh, feedback from, uh, officer, um, patch. She's not here today, but, um, I did. Beesh. I was sure to, um, implement her feedback that the term recruit is not used in practice and that the preference is to use applicant law enforcement applicant. So I made sure to incorporate that change throughout and that you'll see that on, uh, page seven line nine. Um, This, um, One other suggestion related to these exams was to inch be sure to include that the council would consult with. Relevant organizations and individuals in regard to these exams. So, and individuals was added. And then that this review would not only be for cultural sensitivities, but overall appropriateness, which might not, uh, Relate just to any sort of cultural distinctions, but just overall appropriate examinations to take out. And I also, um, uh, Just move the language a little bit around, um, to make it, um, Clearer in reading. And I think some more for that. And does that look better the way that it is revised? Yeah. So they would be reviewing law enforcement applicants, current written oral and psychological examinations for cultural sensitivities and overall appropriateness. Yep. Perfect. As usual. Yeah, right. Okay. I'm at the bottom here of a page seven. And so this is in regard to a review of the training that's provided. And the suggestion was to, um, just kind of. Elaborate a little bit on, um, Officers contending with a person who might have a mental condition and recognizing that. Um, And the suggestion was to just revise the language that they would look at training. Um, In the areas of recognition of and appropriately responding to individuals with a mental condition. Allison. I know there's maybe a little fine tuning, but isn't, aren't they referred to as mental health conditions? Not just mental. I mean, that's like second grade. We used to say, Oh, he's mental. Uh, actually I was sure to look back at the respectful language act. Um, To help direct me on the best terms to use. And that term that was used was mental condition there. Okay. And I did get a note from Rob Appel that said that he. Looked at this and is fine with it. Oh, yeah, I saw that. Now that you pointed me towards my emails. Okay. All right, I'm on page eight. And. Um, this is in regard to the new language is in regard to the structure of the council. Um, and the academy. And, uh, the first change on line 13 is again to use the, uh, updated term law enforcement applicants rather than recruits. Um, and then the suggestion from the commissioner. That you had yesterday instead of describing, for example, an internship at the university. Um, I think that was a comment that we had on the commissioner. That you had yesterday instead of describing, for example, an internship at a certain place. To say that, um, they would. Discuss whether training could be provided through experiential learning. Anybody comment. I like that. I love experiential learning. That's what we're doing right now. Okay. about civilian oversight. Yesterday's draft referred specifically to regional civilian review boards. This would just use more general phrasing models of civilian oversight after feedback from the AG's office. And so this would add the AG's office consulting with the VLCT who had requested inclusion here and other interested parties to recommend a more general one or more models of civilian oversight of law enforcement rather than regional civilian review boards specifically and yesterday's draft specifying some of the things that they would be reviewing. I think I think this is a great thank you Julio. I think this is good. Anybody else? Okay Mr. Thompson's here I think. Yes I think he is. I hope he is. He's always got good ideas. Thank you Senator. Yeah this language looks fine to us. Thanks okay. Alrighty on page nine in regard to access to complaint information the chief had suggested instead of the council here taking advantage of the new council advisory committee to be conducting this review in consultation with the secretary of state since it involves public records act issues added human rights commission here because you had added them up above in regard or in a similar place in regard to public records access and then saying more specifically and other interested parties in reviewing public access to records that relate to allegations of law enforcement officer misconduct and substantiations of those. And I would say that if in any of these if the whoever it is that we're asking to do the reviews if they limit their input from the people that we've named here then I don't think they're doing their responsible job and in a way that is really inclusive so that they people should know that they have to talk to more than more than who we've defined here. Chris. Pardon me for interrupting I'm getting page to go back to. Okay. See you shortly. Thank you. Good luck. Bye, buddy. Brian. I was going to say goodbye to Chris but I also had a question. So I just want to make sure because I think this was the section that had for instance even though it might have just been implied the Vermont Press Association and the Broadcasters Association. So we've taken those specific examples out and just included them in other interesting parties. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Then in regard to body cameras, this is again another public records access issue. So this would require consulting with the Secretary of State who admin is who has oversight over that law. The Human Rights Commission and then again other interested parties about recommended policies for responding to public records requests for body camera footage. And then adding also in any recommendations about the length of footage retention and storage. Okay. Finally, page 10 is in regard to recommendations on military equipment and just adding after an opportunity for community involvement and feedback that the LEAB would recommend a statewide policy on officers use of military equipment. And I know, Brian, that you did feel that and I'm going to do that in my report that there was concern that individual community should make their own decisions. But I think that if you look at the makeup of the LEA board, it is made up of people from every law enforcement association and agency and the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. So I think that there will be plenty of local input into anything that comes up. Thank you, Madam Chair. So where are we committee? Let's vote. Good. Okay. All right. Can it be a committee bill on Betsy or a committee amendment? It cannot be a committee amendment because you no longer have custody of it. I think there is a way. I think the Senate has permitted to say XYZ Senator on behalf of the committee. That might be possible. I could check with the Senate Secretary if he's prepared to do that. But we can just list all of our names. Yeah, that too. Which is pretty clear if they're all on there. We just need to check with Brian. I'm sure he'd like his name on there as well. Yeah. It's just that once a committee no longer has jurisdiction, the committee can't recommend an amendment. All right, committee. So where are we? That was some good work. Yes, you and Betsy Ann in particular did really super work. And all our witnesses have given us terrific feedback. You took a lot of gobbledygook and put it all together in a way that made sense. It was great. But I think that the thing that really makes me feel the best about it is that we have done it all the way through, I believe, from the perspective of working together and not being adversarial or pitting people against each other. I think that that's because that often happens, especially on issues like this. I think that you can have people say them, them, them, them. And so I feel really good about that. And I think that a lot of that is the way Betsy drafts. And a lot of it is the committee because you yourself are not thinking in those terms. And I have to say, Madam Chair, I think a lot of it is just the moment we're in. I think that we aren't always rolling together. And I think after the last three months and a half, I think everyone is realizing and understanding and appreciating the need for some of these changes in a way they might not have six months ago even. Well, I wasn't talking about just these amendments or anything. I was talking about the whole, since we started, this whole thing on law enforcement and did our tours around the state and all of it. I know that Senator Pearson, when we started, was dragged kicking and screaming because he didn't think there were any issues around law enforcement access. But so I think that I think that this whole, the whole process has been that way, not just recently. But I think recently has underscored the need, particularly for some of these more recent changes and additions. So I think it's been great and it's been a wonderful education statewide on law enforcement for those of us who knew less about it before we joined Senate government operations. Okay. Does somebody want to move? I would make a motion that we adopt amendment draft 2.2 of S-124 and vote it out favorably. It's the amendment to, yeah, it's the amendment to S-124. It's the draft 2.2 of the amendment to S-124. Right. Right. And so Senator Bray, I will get his vote, I hope. Senator Clarkson, yes. Senator Collamore. Yes. Senator Polina. Yes. And Senator White. Yes. Our guide and troop leader. So we will be doing this at four o'clock. So Betsy, and if you can send me an unhighlighted copy and then I will forward that to the secretary's office, is that the way I do it? Yes. Yeah. And hopefully by then we'll have a five-zero vote, but at the moment it's four-zero-one. Yeah, I think. I would boldly say include Senator Bray, because he was here early and my sense was he was very much wanting to be included. Yes, I would too. And also put his name on the amendment. So it's offered from all of us. And okay. So thank you. Thank you. And thank you to all those people sitting out there. I see Sheriff Boneyek is with us and Chris Backel, Chief Backel, and Julio, and Sheriff Anderson. And yeah. Oh, Mark Anderson. Thank you for all. Oh, we got even a thumbs up from somebody. Oh, who was that? Edward Grossman. All right. Great. Great. So, okay, I think that we're done with this one. Yes, Brian. And you did a fantastic job on those charters. Charters this morning. Boy, I was really nervous about them. Stop. You were not. Can I just inquire, is this probably it for the committee for the rest of the week? Well, that's, I think there are a couple of things that we could, should look at. You know, the pro temp told us to look at the CARES budgets, but there's very few in that that affects us. The EMS money is all in the health portion of it. And the, what else was there? I had a couple, a couple issues. The way the, and I don't know if we want to take some testimony on this so that we can make a recommendation, but you know, the way our appropriations committee did the $16 million for the municipalities. Yeah. And when it went to the house, what they did is they took the CARES, that bunch of CARES money and they gave it to certain amounts to different committees, didn't, didn't have priorities for which committees it went to or anything, but just divided it up and gave them to committees. And house GovOps was given $10 million. I don't know what, I mean, the money for the municipalities was supposed to be 16 as it came from us, but they were given 10. So Sears said that they're looking to see where they put the other six. And what they came up with, I believe. And so I would, I think that it would be good for us to hear, to see if we actually support this or not. I believe what they've done, and I'm not sure they're done, but they took 5 million of that and put it toward the digitizing program. Oh, that's great. Well, it might be great. I don't know if they're in the, it has to all be spent, remember, before December. So I, I don't know that what testimony they took in terms of whether they're, they really are ready to spend it all before December. Or they must have gotten testimony to that effect because they knew that parameter. I know, but I would like us to feel comfortable with it also. And also, I don't know what they did with the extra five and is the digitizing and how they came up with five. I don't know any of it at all. So I would like us to hear some of that if we can. That would be great. And then I don't know if, if we want, we're all done with our bills. That is true. I don't know if we want to, we had talked about having Tucker and Betsy, and I think they were just about ready to do that when all of this hit is do the, the bill that Anthony and Brian, you guys talked about it as the, the big bill and put it on the shelf and pull it out when we need it. And I don't, I don't know where the proteam expects us to go with that. If he, I think it would be, I think it would be a great idea for us to have that ready, because what if the governor declares the emergency over on July 30th, and then on September 2nd, he re declares that emergency. We have to go through all of this again. And it would be really nice to have, have it ready so that all we had to do. And I don't think it would take very long. Because I think they had started putting that together. What do you think, committee? Yeah, I think we could at least spend a day doing that. Yeah, you've got two days left, right? Yeah. I also think that we could talk about it and then Tucker and Betsy could use the time between now and when we come back in August to put it together. We don't have to approve it before we go out, before at the end of June. Right. Right. We could kind of talk about it and figure out what we want in there and how, how it might work. Yeah. Okay, so let's plan on doing that tomorrow and hearing from somebody in House GovOps about the way they did that with the, with the money. And here, maybe from Carol Doss and Chuck Starrow. I think Chuck Starrow has been assigned as that group's kind of liaison with the legislature and hear from them tomorrow. And then on Friday, maybe we don't need to meet. Wait, what? Excuse me, Gwen. Hi, sorry. No, I was, can you add Karen Horn to that list of folks? Because she's been following it and I really haven't recently. So I know she was in House GovOps this morning and yesterday about the 349. So I'll relay the message to her that maybe she should show up tomorrow. When you are meeting Thursday, you know, she can weigh in on the municipal money portion of it. No, we don't want her to come. Just of course. Of course. Alison. So in August, I anticipate hopefully that we will have had more money from the federal government for states and municipalities. So my guess is we will have serious CARES Act money to deal with in August. I'm hopeful anyway. Well, I just, we might, and if we come back and we do, then we can deal with that then. But in the meantime, I would like to make sure that we are okay with recommending with whatever we recommend to our Appropriations Committee around that 16 million because I consider that ours. Right. And the other thing I just want to let you know is your vote today on the amendment is five zero. And yes, I mean, Betsy Ann's gone, but Betsy Ann, oh, she's gone. She's here. Well, she's still there. She's here. You had. So please make sure we add Bray to the amendment. Yeah. So, so that is that what we can do tomorrow then. Gail. Are we going to put that on the agenda as H349 or how do we want to describe it? Gwen, you've been following it closely. Then I have, I don't know. Is that what it is? I'm sorry. I had to unmute myself. What was the question? I'm sorry. Gail wants to know if we're putting it on the agenda as H349. Is that the bill that gives the five million to the, okay. Yes. Okay. That's what we'll do. And who would be the best person from HBO? John Gannon, I believe would be the representative. John Gannon would be the person that's been sort of carrying the torch on this. Okay. Great. And the way I would put it on the, on the agenda is I would put H349. That's 349. That's 349. Oh, because it went over, S349 was our 10, the 16 million. And now they've changed it. Yeah. Okay. Got it. Got it. Okay. So forget what I was going to say. So if we do that and then we would, so it would have Chuck Starrow and Carol Dawes, particularly maybe Andy Michael, whoever those people are that did come. And then, and Karen Horne and John Gannon. And the woman who has already spent so much money, I'm just forgetting her name, the town clerk who's already spent so much money digitized. A lot of them have. It wasn't Bobby Dindalcone, was it? Yeah, it was very articulate about the money aspect of it. Yeah. I would just send out a note to all of those people who are here when we talked about the digitizing. Okay. And invite them. And then- So it's partial as well then. Who? Tonya. Yeah. Yeah, who just send it out. And some of them may not see the need to come. And we're certainly not going to take testimony from all of them. And what we really want to know is we want to look at the break, the way the house has allocated what should have been 16 million dollars. And why they allocated it that way. And hear from the digitizing people if they are ready and could even spend it by December. So, and if that's a reasonable amount. Thank you, Chris. Chief, I think he's leaving us. Hi, Chris Prichelle. Bye. Thank you all for that ability to participate in the Betsy Ann for her charity. Thank you, chief. Thank you very much to you. Yes. Have a good afternoon. Thank you. Bye. So, yeah, that's what I would do. And I have no idea of our schedule for tomorrow if he's going to do it the same way that he did today. But I would say maybe the first we divide whatever time we have in half and do the budget thing first and then send a note to Tucker and Betsy if they can join us to just talk about the bill on the shelf or whatever we're calling that. Like the elf on the shelf? Yeah, Brian. So I just want to change the subject for two seconds. I just kind of reminder, Betsy has kindly just sent us the final draft of the amendment. And if we're going to take it up, you probably need to get that to Bloomer so he can post a link to it and then make sure that Tim knows that we can call it off the calendar again. I'm just thinking of a process so we can actually vote on the whole darn thing today. Thank you. You're welcome. What I'm sending is draft 2.2 final without any yellow things. Yeah, and that's what's coming. And that the committee vote was 500 and that you would be reporting it. All right. I think that's enough. Okay. Thank you very much for the reminder. So I did get an email from the deputy director saying that the Senate will be meeting twice. So per twice per day through Friday at 4 p.m. with the extra session. Oh, so tomorrow we will meet again at 4. So that's what it looks like. Hopefully we'll have from 2 to 4. But we'll be meeting again at 12 noon tomorrow. I guess that's what I guess. And Friday 2 p.m. That's what it looks like. I'm looking at the, I'm taking a look to see if I can find... She's gotta get two weeks pay then. Alison, I thought you'd come up with that. So I'm restraining myself. What I see on the calendar is that the Senate will meet at 1 tomorrow and also again at 4 tomorrow. Sorry, we're meeting it not at 12. 1 and 4. 1 and 4. And then on Friday it's 11 30 and again at 4. Okay. So tell me those again. I was sending this to Bloomer. I didn't. Oh, yeah. Thursday is what? Thursday is at 1 and 4. Well, that's pretty dumb. Yeah, maybe we can appeal that. You could write to Tim. That really screws the afternoon committees. Yeah. Friday is 11 30 and 4. Yeah, I would... If we could manage today at 12, I hate to say it, but I think we should do it the same tomorrow. Or even 11 30, because morning committees can meet at 8 30. They don't have to wait 10. We did. I know we didn't. We did. Okay. I'm going to send Tim a note about that. Yeah. I think that's a great idea. All right. Committee, you have... We have one hour and eight minutes here before we have to sign in again. And... Did Vanessa send the new sign in? I bet she did. I don't know. Already done.