 And then lastly is what this is the part you did vote to move into as 97 yesterday the day before, and this is the, the, what I just mentioned the Bureau of just racial justice statistics remember as originally viewed by the committee and 317 it was a standalone agents not standalone but it was an agency within the agency of administration that that sort of was located alongside the office of racial equity. This, but there's been a lot of discussion debate about what makes the most sense as to where this bureau should be housed should it be part of state government should it be a standalone agency. So the proposal here is what you looked at yesterday, which is to study the issue, instead for another year, give our depth some more time to look at whether what makes the most sense for what this bureau should do where it should be located and then report back to the judiciary You see online on page 21 line 18 on or before November of this year you get a report back as to the proposal from our DAP as to what to do about the bureau. A couple of pieces and I remember we talked about the, what the study is going to entail or who they would consult with and then in particular, just to sort of lead us into a discussion represent grad I know you wanted to have here on page 23. So there's a piece about the per diems. And that's lines three through 11. The first sentence is just sort of his boilerplate that just says members of the this of the panel who aren't state employees, or who are not otherwise paid for for their work on the on the study that compensated according to the per diem statute that's in existence that's always done with respect to non legislative members of committees, that statue provides for a $50 per day per diem. And then you had proposed to another sense the second sense that gave the Attorney General's office discretion to pay more than that $50 per diem to members of the panel who weren't state employees. And that the that payment would be made out of the 50,000 that was appropriated to the committee in subsection eight. And that that is what so he is it's a $50,000 appropriation for purposes of funding this study of the racial equity. Sorry, the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics. And that is a speedy run through through 20 very different areas of law. And that's the way the miscellaneous bill stands at the moment. Thank you. Thank you, Eric, and, and also I know, Bryn, I'm not sure if there are other councils that worked on on this, but often often that's the way it goes because we are pulling from different different jurisdictions different areas that that our council work on so I appreciate that. Yes, couldn't have done it without brand two. Right. So, this will go to appropriations because of this, this last section. I, I'm not sure if we, if we should adjust the language here in terms of the discretion and different per diems. Now that there might be concern about that appropriations. Madam chair. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Martin asked me to, to relate some thoughts to appropriations regarding the consideration of specialized members of the community. And so I worked on drafting some language that could be helpful in doing this. And I'll, I don't have it ready to send over to people right now because I want to edit. You know, you don't hit send until you take a good look at it. At least that's the way I was kind of taught, even though you still miss things. But basically to give you an overview of my thinking is, we would still allow the discretion, but part of the thinking is, what about the specialist. If you're going to have this type of a design, you want people who have data and analytic background and specialists, you know, to be involved in the process. So what, what I'm proposing that, that we have in the language is as part of that discretion, this would allow the AG's office to contract or offer honorariums as needed. To give you an example of what a contract could look like. A contract would be performance based. For example, community member Judy is a data analytics specialist agrees to consult with the Rdap subcommittee tasked with the design of the Vermont Bureau of Racial Statistics, and also agrees to be compensated at the rate of $180 per activity up to 20 activities, unless agreed upon by Rdap and the AG's office as funds are available. So, you know, you know, I'm going to get geeky here a little bit about detail. And if we had 10 specialists from anywhere in Vermont. The University of Vermont. Castleton. Any of the places where we would go to find these specialists. And we offered them, you know, that contract. Basically what we would be looking at is approximately $3,600. And what that does is it gives over that six month period, the ability of these, this working group to have enough exchanges to get the work done. We could offer those contracts to up to, you know, 10, five to 10 people, you know, let's say, as subcontractors, you know, to the committee. And this is clearly a divergence from the norm. But this isn't a normal thing. If we're going to shift the paradigm, if we're going to create change, you know, this is a way to achieve that, you know, that end. And it is up to Rdap and the AG's office to make sure that we get, you know, the credible, you know, like folks, you know, involved, you know, as I mentioned in the example, you know, we would be looking for specialized skill sets and a CV or resume that will enhance the work that we're doing. And there are people out there that do this work, and it would be up to Rdap and the AG's office to come up with those folks. And that's what spilled out in between all of the other stuff. And, and I did, I just got off the phone with David Shear, and he said, geez, that'll work. You know, for them for the AG's office so anyways. Okay, thank you coach. See Martin has, and actually Tom has hand up for a while. Yeah, we can finish on this topic. And I actually wanted to go back to the question in section 12 so sorry I didn't call any sooner. That's fine. Martin. I guess a little further follow up on thoughts on this. But my thought is that actually the language that we have in here should be sufficient to cover what you just spoke about, coach, frankly. I'm concerned. I think we really, if at all possible for us to have the best chance to get this in fact through appropriations and all the timing for next week that we need to have this past this afternoon, and and doing some working with that language some more at this point. I may not make that possible. And what I'm thinking coach is that that's an explanation number one I mean we should be working with appropriations people on that language more so than us because it's it's them to see what's going to pass. So again, I think this is a little bit different, even the way that we have the language here of course I defer to appropriations and they think we're just trying to get around for deems which we're not. But the point is that we're not saying oh we're going to give a per diem of $300 an hour or whatever. I'm giving some discretion to the Attorney General to account for like what you just spoke about specialists and the like. Again, I think that that's probably covered in the language we have, but if they disagree. I mean I really think that that's language or that's a discussion that you coach and I'm happy to be part of that as well. I'm working with legislative council and the appropriations folks so I think personally and open, obviously the discussion on this, that this language is fine for now for us to get out the door from us so that it can be prepared to make its way through appropriations. There's testimony which they will ask, they will ask the sponsors of this part which you know you would be taking a lead on that coach to explain just what you explained to us and if they feel that they need to change the language at all. Then they could do, then they could do an amendment. The other thing is that. Yeah, I mean I'd rather have them. Change the language. I was kind of taking a shot at it right now. And I think they would be willing to do that, you know, given the explanation you provided that that's my sense of that but actually, Martin, I agree. But in full transparency to those of us that sit virtually in this room. I guess I was offering an explanation of why is this so different. Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah. So it isn't to amend. You know, anything that we've prepared. It's, you want to know how this is going to work. Well, let me tell you. I think that that might, you know, I think that that's definitely a good narrative to give to the appropriations. They may want to tweak the language to accommodate. Yes. But I'd rather than us trying to figure out what would satisfy them. I agree, but I just felt, you know, we work, we do all work together on all of this stuff. And, you know, if anybody here was queried by someone, you know, I'd want all of my colleagues to not go. You know, you know, I didn't mean to catch on your poor guy, you know, I caught him half, you know, too late coach, I already did. But but anyways, it's, it was more explanation than actual, you know, editing. So thank you. Thank you for that clarification because I, I also thought that you were proposing language that's, that's helpful. Okay. Tom back to section. Yes. Eric, Eric still here somewhere. There he is. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to go back to page 12, just a little explanation on lines one through three again. That's just something that you've already, you already passed. Yeah. A couple of years ago, or one year ago, I should say, or it's just being reenacted so that the new law that you want to have in place is that those roadside tests. The roadside test won't be the blood test won't be conducted roadside and they have to be conducted by persons other than law enforcement officers and that's just all those sections are just going back into effect. And being amended sort of retrospectively because of this mistake that happened with the T bill and act 164. Okay, and I'm assuming we had the sunset on those. Yes, exactly. I'm not advocating for today but maybe if we have a few minutes next week at some point I don't I don't think we I know in past years. You know we've gone through an explanation of sunsets and you know what what they're all about basically and you know that they do come up. And kind of like once a year there's a bunch of them and maybe we could do that next week at some point unless we've already done it and I didn't remember it but you've always done a great explanation on you know and things like that. Sure. And thank you for your explanation. Yeah, no problem. Okay, any other questions on this I will remind folks that as we've been going along we've been doing straw pulls on different sections to. We've had questions to put those sections in this bill, so that we have a number of separate straw pulls, but we have not voted on or even done a straw pull on the bill in its entirety. So, questions. So again this has been unnoticed for a vote so I would entertain a motion to. I'll make a motion to accept draft number 1.1 of s 97 dated 513 21 at 420. I'll second. That was good. Ken, do you have your, your record sheet ready. Yeah, I'm just trying to get well I know you. I'm making do yes I'm also you're ready. You are. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Call the roll. Christie. Yes. Robert. Yes. Donnelly. Yeah. May yes. La Lawn. Yes. Lefler. Yes. Norris. Yes. Not. Yes. Rachel son. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. You're ready for a seven now. Not quite. You get a few more minutes. Okay. I won't be here. Thank you everybody. So in terms of reporting. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Coach, you might want to do the, the R DAP. 317 sections. I'm not sure. Or perhaps somebody else, but. Is there, is there anybody that's interested in. In reporting any of any of these, if not. Or people don't know yet. I can. I can do it or I can put it under my name just so we can. Get it going. Because it has to go to the clerk and got to do all of that. Yeah. I'd be happy to do the 317. Okay. Just that section. Is that what you're saying? Or the. Yeah. That section. Okay. But we need a. A reporter for the, I just want to give people the opportunity. If not, it's fine. So, so can I just suggest a coach that he do the three sections or is there are three sections, one to get rid of the sunset, one to add the director and the other two positions. And then this third. Sure. Sure. It just may make, make sense to do it that way. Oh yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, let me put, I'll put my name down. For now. And then we can. Folks to think about if there's, if there's something that of interest in, in here that people want to. Want to report on so. I was going to say, I can, I do roadside as long as. So why the doesn't come up on the floor. Okay. All right. Well. That's good. I mean, all the, all the sunset repeals should. Should be fairly easy. Right. I mean, it's stuff. I'll do, I'll do the sunset repeals. Chances of less questions on those. Right. Okay. Right. Other than section 12, which I think Barbara just. Volunteered for. Or 1112. Right. Is that section 12 Barbara that you're, you are talking about. I think it is. I have to open. Was it had to do with the question I just brought up. Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry though. I may have misspoke. That's not a sunset. That's, that shouldn't be in the sunset category. That's just all connected. To sections 10, 11 and 12. Yeah. Right. Right. Okay. The sun sets are all the first four sections of the bill. First four sections. Correct. Got you. Better yet. There's less of them. Right. Okay. Yeah, I'll do the first four sections and the sun sets. Okay. Great. So. Trying to think. All right. I'll still put myself down. And then, and then we can figure out the rest of them and, but that way. So. So Eric, I just send a, I just said 1.1. I don't need any. No, this needs to, this still needs to be proved. So I'm going to send it to the editors right now. But so. I don't know that it's going to be done in the next two hours, but there's a token session Monday, so you can send it over Monday morning. Okay. So just watch my, just watch my email or. I'll send it to you and Evan. Yeah. Once it, once it's edited. Correct. Okay. All right. Okay. I have a summary for, so. I can send a summary to folks who are going to be the reporters. So far I've heard Tom Barbara coach and Maxine, right? Yes. Correct. Anybody else. Ken's not in his room right now. Let's assign a couple of things to him. Let's give him a whole thing. And we're going to give him a seven. Exactly. Mac. Um, yeah. So actually, Eric, you could, we could send it to the, you know, the whole committee and that way we'll all have it and. The summary. Okay. Sounds good. Yeah. Thank you, Eric. You bet. Thank you. I'd like to usually do. Oh, thanks. Um, okay. So. We're in, I'm going to. I have an email for me. So I'm going to ask you if you could join us and. Talk to us. Thank you. Thank you. So committee, as I was walking you through a seven, this latest time, I realized that one section of the bill, you really don't need anymore, which is the section three that has to do with the effect of ceiling. Where you require the court to notify a petitioner that. Has sealed a record that they may have the option to expunge that sealed record. Um, because you're no longer instituting that policy. So that was all sort of established as part of the recommendations from the sentencing commission, but since you're not taking that route anymore, you really don't need that section anymore. So you've got one fewer section. To your amendment. And I've redrafted it as draft 4.0. So the only change there is that section three effective ceiling has been removed. Is that clear? I think so. But yeah. Yeah. And then the, uh, the new section is posted already. Or the new draft. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Good. Good catch screen. Appreciate it. Um, Okay. Is, is 3.0. The new draft or that was what we looked at. 4.0. Oh, it's. Yeah. Okay. So, um, I, I still have not received a letter. Again, I can. I can read the email again from attorney Johnson. I did discuss the conversation I had. But again, it's clear that there are no objections to, um, It was draft 3.0. I'm sure that 4.0 would be the same since we're not. Not adding anything or deleting something. So I, so. Um, I think the position would still be no objections. So. I would like to, uh, I would entertain a motion. On a draft work 4.0 of S seven to approve. I'll make a motion on a draft 4.0 S seven dated today. 228. Second. Second. Thank you. Any discussion. Lena. Um, you know, I would just. I, I wish we could have, um, Been in a place where we're working with something closer to what the Senate sent us, but, um, appreciate that this. Is responsive to concerns and still gives us the opportunity and the time to come back and take that more comprehensive look next year. I'll just, I'll just add again. Um, I don't know how long it's been. Or in my time in my three years, if there's been a bill that's been so much give and take and so much worked on as this, there probably has been, but. Um, I want to add that this is probably, uh, just, uh, I probably said this before, but this is. A true working of people trying to work together from different sides of the aisle. Thank you. Appreciate that. Did I just give away my vote? I think you're set when you seconds. I think that was a pretty good. Could be. That was a spoiler. Could be somebody out here that's costing me a lot of money that's been waiting for me for an hour and I got to go. Uh, Barbara. So I will be voting yes on this. And, um, I share, um, the sentiments that representative Coburn. Uh, Said and think that, um, this bill. Is not something that was rushed. Um, in fact, it had little hiatus is in between, which gave us time to sort of think about it. Um, on several occasions. And, um, We're not the first state to. Do this. It became very modest. And I hope justice oversight will, um, Be able to, um, Give it that underlying, um, Philosophical underpinnings so that we can continue this work. Moving forward and give people who have paid their dues. And are not problems. Um, a fresh start. Thank you. And time before I call on you, I just got, um, Got the letter from the, um, Governor's office that Evan will, um, Email to you. I have not read it yet. Uh, But folks know. Go ahead, Tom. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, uh, Selena hit it. Hit it on the head, you know, for me also. Um, you know, I. I mean, I'm not a fan of expunging everything. Obviously. Um, but I do think it is important for, uh, A lot of people. And, you know, I mean, We experienced it firsthand a number of years ago. Um, around a friend, Tony longiness. Um, you know, what it can do for somebody, somebody who committed a felony breaking into camps with his buddies at 17 years old. And lived his life. Uh, looking at him. I think the words he used to describe himself was dirt bag. Um, you know, he looked at himself as a dirt bag his whole life because he was a felon. And, and I'll never forget it. 50 plus years old. He sat in a witness chair and cried. Um, because he had that, that burden lifted off him and, and got to go through, you know, do his, uh, One thing he wanted to do his whole life was because he worked in Alaska in the summers, uh, was to be able to drive to Alaska. Um, you know, and after many, many, many years, he finally got to do that and came back in and, and shared with us what expungement can do. Um, you know, what it did for him. And, and, uh, and I can see, uh, you know, In a lot of instances, what it would do for a lot of people. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. Black child commenced to call the roll. Christy. Yes. Auburn. Yes. Donnelly. Yes. Go slant. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Go slant. Yes. La lawn. Yes. Bluffler. Yes. Norris. Norris. He might have stepped away. I think he has to step away for a few minutes. Not. Yes. Rachel's son. Yes. Verdick. Yes. Madam chair. Yes. Okay. Why don't we just wait a few minutes to see if Bob does come. Come back on. So anybody interested in reporting this, this also will go to appropriations. The letter here showed up. Yes. I mentioned that. I'm sorry. Okay. Any takers. I'm so happy to. To pass it along. Sure. Why don't we put you down for now? If there any. Any, any changes, but that's, that's great. Thank you. Keeps with your. Your legacy of. Expungement. So great. Thank you. Thank you. So what we're going to do today. Was think about writing a letter to the judiciary. I think that. I'll turn to you, Martin. You know, I think that can wait because it's not. So something that has to get out to be voted by the other body or anything. It was just a consideration that we were going to talk to the committee about. You know, Six person juries and doing that by, by rule, which seemed given the testimony seem to. It's in my mind. The most appropriate way to, to go about it. That's by rule with the authority they already have, right? Yeah. Right. Right. Beyond the pandemic. Beyond the pandemic. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's as much, it's, it's under whatever inherent authority they may have. And they may feel. That it could be going beyond the pandemic to take care of the backlog. I mean, there's a certain inherent emergency authority. I don't think it can just go on. If there's no real emergency, no real reason to do so is my understanding. And I guess the one thing I would just ask the committee is if, and this also depends on Eric's availability. If I could work with Eric on Monday to get a draft letter for the committee to consider. On Tuesday or Wednesday, if, if, if folks are okay with me doing that. And if there is available to help me. Let's appreciate it. And Martin, we'll make clear in the letter that it's related to pandemic. Yeah. And beyond, I mean, I just don't. Yeah. Like I'm not sure they have the authority to just change it permanently. And I don't want them to. Right. Right. We're doing that. Right. No, I think, I think that is, that's what I've understood from Eric all along. From his position. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So then why don't we, we'll. We'll do that next week. And. And I think we can. Yeah. We'll do that next week. I'll adjourn soon. I'm not sure if. Bob has gone for the day or not. If anybody's been in touch with him. I haven't been, but he's, he's still. He's still online. So we could all yell loudly and see. I remember text. I was just going to. While we're waiting for Bob, can, is Eric available? I don't know if he's available. I don't know if he's available there behind your screen, Eric, or not. Yeah. So is it okay for me to send the latest draft to Trevor squirrel. Saying that we've have voted out S 97 and the language that you all are looking for is on page, whatever. Is there any problem with me doing that as long as I know that's totally fine. It's not gone to editors yet. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I think that we anticipated actually getting onto the. Notice calendar on. Well, wouldn't be until. Tuesday, but sometime Monday, right? Right. At least there'll be a approved final version on. Monday morning. And. But I don't, you know, usually any changes are purely technical. So. So I guess the question, are we able to hand that in today for Monday, which is a token session. So there's a token session on Monday, but I don't know if we want to then substitute it with another one, right? We want to just wait until we have the edited version. Is that correct? My only thought is it's three o'clock and it's a lengthy bill. So I understand that's not going to get done today. It's, it's. We would, we would be passing it in Monday, presumably. Yeah. So I already sent it to him. I already sent it to the editors. No, no, I meant to the clerks for the reporter of the bill to send it. Oh, right. Right. It shouldn't be sending it today because it's not edited. I'm just trying to confirm that. Yeah. No, that's right. But you could send the section to Trevor if you wanted. Okay. House appropriations to. Get an idea of what's in there. Okay. I hope I didn't muddy the water, but I was trying to get by, buy some time for Bob. So that's perfectly fine. So it hit the floor second reading on Tuesday then with the token session. Yes. Okay. It would be on notice on Tuesday, but it would be officially sent to appropriations from the notice calendar on Tuesday and then hopefully back on notice. On Wednesday and hopefully in a situation where rules can be suspended, hopefully there's not going to be any controversy about the appropriations either. Okay. So it'll hit the floor, but just go to appropriations. We won't be reporting it. Right. And again, it will be on notice because it has to be passed into the clerk's office after it's gone through editing, which won't happen until Monday. So it will get on the Tuesday notice calendar. From there, it will be referred to the appropriations committee. Hopefully appropriations committee will be in a position to turn it around right away. We're going to grease the skids for that so that it can get back on the notice calendar by Wednesday. Yeah. End of session of calendar math. We can even manipulate calendars if we want to. I heard. We can do anything. We just vote on it. If you guys agree, that's, that's, that's true. But a day is a day. Oh, yeah. Thanks a lot, Martin. I thought you were going to maybe do your little daylight savings. They'll slip that one in. Hey, let's sneak it in. That miscellaneous. There you go. Okay. So, and then, um, Yeah. And seven also will go to, to appropriations, but hopefully that'll be pretty quick because it's just the, you know, The, the, the, the, the, the legal status. Um, judicial bureau and JFO is already, is already on that, which is, which is good. So I, and I'm just writing to Brynn right now to understand if that two needs to go through a final editing pass. Or not before I turn it in, because I would turn it in, it would go on notice. It would get off notice to appropriations and then, although they would probably really look at it on Monday. That one has been edited. I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry. Here I am. Okay. I heard my name. That one should be good to go. Okay, so, and I'll just, I can just download right from the website, the 4.0 version and send that right along. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Bryn. Okay, so having her back from, from Bob, I have not done a schedule for next week yet. I'm still waiting to hear about floor times. Tuesday, we're always on the floor 10 anyway, but my understanding is that we may be on the floor 10 and then two or three. That was what I heard. It wasn't sure which, which it was going to be backing. I'm seeing not so on the floor at 10 and then again at. Two or three. I heard that look earlier in the week from the speaker, but I haven't gotten any confirmation since probably more in the know, or Martin. Yeah, I think it's 10 and around 230. I don't think it's been absolutely finalized, but it's on those lines. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, I had sent Bob a text also and he didn't get back to me. So I mean, if we can live with a 10, zero, one. That's fine. Then we can go off, go off the air. Yeah, yeah, I'm getting there. So, yeah. Yeah, so in terms of committee next week, we do have H 183 that we're looking for from the Senate. The, I think the only other, well, they have a few bills. But in terms of my understanding, I think that's the only bill that they've taken action on and that anything else I do not think they'll be taking action on. But things can change. So, so our committee time will, will certainly be much less than it, than it has been, but, but stay tuned. And with that. I'll see you next time.