 Again, Senate government operations were back now we are looking at S 171, which is the creation of a state code of ethics. And I think that the way it makes sense for us to do this right now is to kind of go through the bill. Just look, we'll just go page by page. So for those of you who aren't with us all the time, we have a kind of a tradition of doing this so that we look at like section one will look at the definitions and if there's anything where we need to put a hold for more discussion we'll just put a hold otherwise it we're done with it. So, just so that we don't keep going back over the same territory over and over again, because that we as legislators have the ability to keep like cows. Retueing and swallowing and retueing again. I think they do it seven times. If I'm not mistaken. So those, the two of you on agriculture should know that right. They two and swallow. They two and swallow their cud, I think it's seven times. That's because they have so many comments. Anthony you were you were testifying on that the other day, weren't you. We're having a study done actually because there's some controversy about how many times it actually is so you know and they are in this agency of agriculture can't agree. Perfect. This is a number of times they chew and swallow have anything to do with the methane emissions. Well that's part of what we're going to find out. Probably why they're task force. Okay, good answer. Thank you very much. So, let's then just take out 171 and look at, is there any issue on page one that we need to further address. I think the only change is the confidential information and I that's been put in there and that isn't a new definition it's. All right. Good to go. Okay, hearing none. Page two. Is there anything on there that we would like to address. I have a couple but if anybody has any for just some issues around conflict of interest definition. Right. Yes, it was on our list. Okay. And I would look at, I would actually like to look again at line 16. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. How about. Page three. Oh, okay. We're just going to keep going and identify. So we're going to. What. Okay, I see, I see what you're doing. I want to go through and get rid of the things that we don't need to ever talk about again. Flag the things that we want to have further discussion on and then we'll have go back and have the further discussion. Okay, so page three. Did you come to a conclusion about immediate family. I have flagged that. Yep. Page four. I know that Senator Clarkson brought up the. Sorry, I haven't got a picture for you. Yeah, persons. Well, I, and I don't know if Amaran did or not. I went through and looked at every place where person is used and where it should be changed to individual that I thought and where it should remain person. We could go through that at some point. Yeah, I'd like, I'd love to do that. Okay. So page five. Wait a minute. I'm just cruising through for your moving. That's the advantage of printing them out. Yeah, and I stupidly don't have printed this out. So I should have. So page five is where the general assembly comes up the question about general assembly. And where the code of ethics applies you mean, yeah, whether general assembly is excluded. Right. I would say the exclusions are a whole area for us for obvious. So I would like to further understand lines 11 through 14. I'm page five. Yes. And number three. And then starting on page 15. I mean line 15. Right. I also, I think would like us to look on page five. I mean, so I'm sorry, line five. About the, and have a little more discussion on state boards and commissions. Yeah, what that means. That's important. Yes. Okay, page six. Well, yeah, the interplay with the state boards and commissions and with conflicts and interest is, is possibly a big one. Yes, that's why we're flagging it. Yeah. But we're just flagging now now we're not addressing them. Okay, page six. I would like us to address conflict of interest. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And the whole page six and seven are conflict of interest, I think. Down to line 13. Okay. Page eight. Anybody. There's somebody, something's going off like. Yeah, that's me. To leave my microphone on that's the house. Okay. I don't hear it. It's very interesting. I thought they were all remote for the house meeting. I don't know what's going on. I'm having trouble just keeping our things separate. They're right. I don't know the house before action is remote. Okay. I don't have any problem with anything on page eight. I don't either. Apparent. Okay. Well, I don't know. I don't know. I have to reread. I have to look at it more closely. Appearance is always. That is connected to conflict of interest. It's the appearance of conflict of interest. So there we're going to talk about the whole conflict of interest. Exactly. Great. Okay. All right. Page nine. Yes. Yeah. Okay. All right. We get it. I mean, we don't get any. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know exactly once we start. Okay. And page 10 is gifts. Exceptions. I can talk about that under gifts. Page 11. Event attendant. That's part of gifts. Allison. No, no, I know. I'm just looking at it. So don't spend time thinking about them. Until we get to them. Employment restrictions. Okay. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know about the employment, but I'm not sure we ever resolved it, but probably still something to apply. Okay. Well, and I think we, it bears being reminded what the legislators. What we have to comply with. It's a post government employment. It would just be good to be reminded. Of which one? Lines 18. Yeah. 18 and 19. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the current law. I know. I just would like to be reminded. Because we could be. Expanding it if we wanted. I mean, it doesn't have to just be what that is. Okay. All right. We can look at that. Page 12. I don't have any issues with 12. I don't either. Page 13. No issues. And page 14. See, we got your many pages without. That was easy. All in favor. I'm going to committee. I'm going to. I don't know how many. Of you saw and I apologize because apparently. I have an inability to create. Documents that can be. Opened. And now I can't even find the document that I sent you. But I did send out a document and thank goodness Christina was able to. Somehow get it to people so that they could open it. I don't. I couldn't thank you Christina. You're resending it meant that we could access it. Late last night at like 1130 or when you responded at like 10 of 11 and I was printing it out at 1130. So I don't know what else to call them. So one of the things that this is kind of a very simple. Thing that, that I suggested. That, um, the. The 12 points that are. Um, listed, which are the, the really the. I'm calling them points because I don't know what else to call them. Somebody might have a better term. Um, I don't know what else to call them, but I'm not sure what was the number. I think the number is kind of nuts of what the code of ethics covers. And then there's information under them, but. It seemed to me as if. Um, Numbers three and four were not their own. Their own topics. They were really part under. Code of conflict. Cause one. if you recuse yourself after a conflict of interest how what you do I mean what you're going to do there conduct after recusal. And the other one is the appearance of conflict so I, I, in my mind they, they all fit in with under the topic conflict of interest. But to seemed like it was its own, its own point directing others to, to do unethical things and I don't know. Amron and Christina you can comment on that it just seemed to me that if you're taught that the conduct after recusal is really part of conflict of interest it isn't its own point and nor is the appearance of conflict it is part of conflict of interest so I don't know how anybody else feels about that, but that that's just a simple renumbering that isn't looking at the content of them or anything. Right so. Where are you when the 12 points start because I because they start, I mean their definitions and then where are the, where they start on page six, number one conflict of interest. That's what I'm wondering where you are page. Well they, they start on page six conflict of interest and then number two is directing unethical conflict which I think is its own, its own ethical issue, but I think con conduct after recusal rightly and appearance of unethical conduct really. Oh it's appearance of unethical conduct not appearance of conflict of interest. Okay, I take that one back then. But I do think the recusal after a conflict is belongs under conflict of interest, which is simply renumbering it's not getting into the the guts of it at all. It's just putting three under the first piece which is conflict of interest it's putting in another little woman. Yeah, so then you would have. Yeah, you'd have to have 11 points. Right. Okay. So that, as you can see was one of my, my suggestions. And then I don't know if, if Amron did you go through and look at the person versus individual for the record Amron average daily legislative council, no I have not but I agree that that is a, a good exercise, and I'm happy to do that for the next round. Or if we want to do it now we can just, it takes about five minutes. Well, and then Allison you can be happy about it. Well maybe or maybe not. Okay, let's. So everywhere person is used. When person is used in conflict of interest, whether we use this definition or not I think we mean individual. Correct. Yeah, I that that goes to the definition of person at the beginning, which is for the purposes of the ethics code, I think a person isn't a business or an organization. I think I thought that our decision was to leave that definition there, but then to change in the places where we mean an individual person change it to individual, because there are places in here where we do mean organizations and, and businesses. But then, why don't we call them what they are instead of what they aren't which is a person. Why don't we then say, call out any organization or business or association or group. I really, I think that we, a person is a person is an individual. I'm not going to. I don't think we should argue about that. It in Vermont law. It, a person is considered an organization or a whatever it says here. And that is that is the way person is used if we can change it in here but I think it would be confusing for people. Unless they also read the entire definitions when they read the code of the code of ethics, if they read it as person. I don't know what the definition of person is for this particular one. So they're going to go by the state definition of person. So why can't we just say individual when we mean individual that's the way we did it in campaign finance. We said individual. I mean I don't know if anybody else agrees with that or not. If you ask somebody on the street, when you say person, what do you mean, I bet you nine times out of 10, they would not be confused and they would say, Oh, you're a person. They would not point to a church and say, Oh, that's a person. They say, Oh, that's a church. It's an organization. It's not Allison but what is the, what is the harm of using the term individual when we mean individual person. There's not I'm thrilled with that. Okay, that's all I'm asking us to do. Right. So we leave the definition of person. And then we look at an any place in conflict of interest, like on pay line seven if you look at it. It should be individual, not person, it's an individual. Right. And whether we use this language or not, it's going to be an individual in the conflict of interest. Right. Okay. When I think I picked caught them all on page four. Can I just be a small point though here before we leave the definition. Yes. I know you're tired of my doing this but it when you underline it it means we're defining it a new at least it strikes. I mean isn't that why it's underlined Amron. It's underlined here because it's new in this thing. It isn't new in state law. It's a new definition, but our choice in going forward. Do we have to accept the state's definite I guess my question is do we have to accept the state's definition of person or can we be defining person for this law for this statute differently. So then on page four when we have prohibited source mean means any person we would have to say here it means any individual any business any association any political, we would have to redefine person there because that's what it means there it does not mean individual. I see what you I just wanted to clarify that the definition of person that's added into this chapter is not the same definite exactly the same definition of person that is within title one chapter three construction of statutes. What is the definition there. The definition shall include any natural person corporation municipality the state of Vermont or any department agency or subdivision of the state and any partnership unincorporated association or other legal entity. Well, I don't want us to argue about this this is state law this is the accepted language. If we want to use the definition of person here as individual group business entity association or organization. That I don't know how others feel. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. Although that makes me wonder why we don't just use the one that Amron just said, because I think that the state code of ethics does not apply to municipalities and those others. Okay. Well, I would also say that the under the current definition under title one of person, it would include the state of Vermont or any department or agency or subdivision which I don't know they would necessarily want to include for some of these around prohibitions of gifts and receiving things if you're if you're a state employee receiving something from another state agency. The definition doesn't work quite right that way. I agree. Great. Okay, and so we'll use individual when we mean individual and we'll keep the definition. And so on page four where it says person we mean person as defined here I believe is that right Christina and Amron. Yes, one six line six down. And then an example and it says an example in that case person could be a corporation. Yes. Okay, just to be clear. It's the definition of person. Right. So on page five, when we use persons under applicability we mean individuals. It applies to all individuals elected or appointed. Correct individuals. Yeah. Because you couldn't have a corporation elected to do so. There's where we use individuals. Okay. In. There are a number of cases places in here where individual is already used on page seven. On line 14. I think a public servant shall not direct another person. It should be individual, I think. You can't direct a corporation. Yes. If only we could. Yeah, I was going to say, I think Anthony would like to. And on page eight. The appearance of unethical conduct on line five the perspective of a reasonable individual with knowledge of the relevant facts. Right. And on preferential treatment. Yeah. There I don't know if it should be person or. Individual because I think it says should not give preferential treatment to any person because of the person's wealth position or status. That could that could apply to a corporation or an organization. So that should remain person right. Yes. Yep. Okay. Let me see if I find other places. Okay. But you. That was still back. What? I had, you can tell how I had such a. Titalating evening last night. Going through looking for a person in here. And Amron, all Amron has to do a button and all the person's. No, because we don't change all of them. Yeah. And then she had just to decide whether she should change or not. Yes. I see what you mean. Why 18 also has person. Yeah. In number seven misuse of information. I think that could be person. I think you're right. Now that I read it again. Yeah, because it could be financial gain of an organization or a business. Yeah. That might be the only. And then online. On, on, on line 21. Yep. I think. On line 21 under misuse of government resources. Yep. I'm not sure that would. That might, we might want that to remain person. Yeah. So if anybody else finds any, I didn't. I don't have any others. Maybe I ran out of steam. I doubt it. Okay, great. Thank you. I think of another part. If it pops up, we'll, we'll, we'll focus on it, but I think we've flogged it pretty fully. Only online. 13. Like, I mean, I'm not sure that would. That might, we might want that to remain person. Yeah. So if anybody else finds any, I didn't. I don't have any others. Maybe I ran out of steam. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, page 13 line 16. If we put it says in person, if we put a dash between a hyphen between. In and person, it's clear that it's in person. We know what that means. Okay. So I don't know. If anybody else looked at. Had any time to look at definitions. I did send you the definition of. Immediate family for the UVM board of trustees. At the top of the. Right. Definition of immediate family from UVM. It doesn't go into your grandmother and your in-law grandmother and all of those. I thought it was. Pretty clean. I don't know. I don't know the definition, but. I may be wrong. If other people can comment on that, I don't. Well, that's, it's better. Did somebody else send ideas about the definition of family? Am I dreaming that I thought I saw some other definitions floating on the emails. Christina, did you, did you send. No, okay. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know right now. I don't know. I don't know. I think it's the most employment or. Okay. Competitive jobs, whatever you want. However you want to call that. So. Outside employment. The phrase and any relative residing in the same. I guess. I'm not clear how wide a universe that could be. Well, I think it means if you're. is she probably would be considered part of your immediate family, but it wouldn't be anybody living in your household because you could have four young professionals who rent a house together, who are not related in any form. So you don't want to have anybody who lives in the same household. I think that's the intent there. But I don't know, TJ, does that sound? I don't have the UVM definition in front of me, so I apologize for that. It says, spouse or civil union partner, child, parent, sibling or such relations by marriage or civil union partnership. So it'd be parent, child or sibling by marriage or civil union partnership. Person claimed as a dependent for federal income tax purposes and any relative residing in the same household as the trustee. There may be other family members as to whom owed, I don't know what that says, in favor of disclosure. So that sometimes you might, there might be other people that you should disclose for, but that that's on a case-by-case basis. Yeah, I think that verb is moved. Moved. Okay. That's consistent with how most other states define this. Most of the situations that crop up are in the realm of civil union adjacent type relationships, people who are living together and whether the code should apply to them, living together in an amorous way. We did have domestic partner in here, but it isn't in here, I noticed that. Yeah, I think you might be right. We should add domestic partner. I think that's good. And is there a reason that there were, Christine, who made the choice to make this so expansive? So honestly, that was before my time. So that would be Larry Novans. And I do think that there was some element of being aspirational here. And so I do concur that it could and probably should be more narrow than it's written. No. So I'm not as the federal code of ethics. I believe that was his original source. And that was where he was looking when he found this definition. And I'm not wedded to the UVM one. I just picked that up because I am a former trustee and we had to sign a thing about 40 pages long about this. But so I just went there last night and looked it up. Allison, did you have a comment? Yeah. I don't know how, and maybe TJ or Christina have an idea about this, but anybody that you're related to that you could make a choice about that would benefit, I mean, in a very direct way. I mean, a grandchild would make decisions about financing grandchildren's education or whatever. Is there a way that without being so prescriptive that also gets at other family bonds that would benefit that are inappropriate or is that just way too, I mean, it also benefits everybody else's grandchildren too. Some of those, some of those don't work. I think the last sentence on the UVM addresses that. Other family members, as to whom? I don't know what the curve is. It doesn't make sense with move either. I know. Pat had a conflict. A comment. Well, they owed anyway, who had, who would benefit or yeah. If we take out that line, that might cover it. It says, and to whom disclosure should also be made to avoid the appearance of conflict. That's to whom disclosure should also be made in favor. In order to avoid the appearance of conflict. I guess I ran out of typing space or something, but Pat, did you have a comment? Thank you madam chair. This is a section that's been bothering me a lot only because there are so many ways you can go with this definition. I sent you, and this may be what Senator Polina is referring to a definition that we used at DMV and I was involved in that discussion. And that was years ago, which was interesting because it didn't have domestic partner and the things that we now know should be included. My recommendation is, and you mentioned this on page eight. If you included perceived conflict of interest, that served a whole bunch of purposes. It is on many lists. I went out and did a Google search and perceived conflict of interest is part of several definitions. It not only opens up the door to all the things you were talking about, about the in-laws and about this person and that person, but it also, in my mind, gives a sense of, why don't I use the word comfort to the public because it says, maybe I'm wrong. I'm just perceiving this. And it may allow them the comfort of going forward and saying, hey, I think Pat McDonald shouldn't be voting on this. And I have to tell you a story, I'll do it quick. When I was working for Governor Snelling, I had to talk to him about something I thought might be a conflict of interest for me. And this is what he said to me. He said, if you're asking the question, somebody somewhere will consider it a conflict of interest because they will perceive it to be so. And that's been in my head for 10 years, 15 years. And that's why I think you need to keep it narrow, not as narrow as the DMV thing because that was a different time because things have changed in our relationships. But keep it simple and add the word, add the words perceived conflict of interest. And I think that will solve your problem. That's just my two cents. Thank you, Madam Chair, appreciate it. Yeah, thanks. And I think the way that last sentence reads, the way it really reads, not the way I typed it, is that there may be other family members as to whom disclosure should also be made to avoid the appearance of conflict. Right. So it says, there are others that in particular situations that you should. And people will perceive all sorts of things that I have come to find out over my years in state government. And sometimes it's true and sometimes with explanation, it turns out not to be true. So it opens the door for conversation. So what does anybody think about that definition? Or is it still too broad or still or too narrow? But I think we do need to add domestic partner as defined in wherever it's defined. That reference that's in the current bill. I think it's good. Can I ask a question, Madam Chair, about civil union partners? Is that, that's not something, I know it's legal, but it's not something that necessarily we do anymore or. No, but there are still people who have civil union partners. Take it back, sorry. Yeah, they didn't go the extra step. That's why we still have it there. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I thought about that too. So I checked that. I guess I think it's fine. I agree. How do we want to do this there? I think there are some things that are going to be harder to tackle like gift and conflict of interest. I have a couple other smaller things that I don't think are going to take a lot of conversation, but I just wanted clarity on them. One was the advisory opinion on page six, line seven. And I have to admit, I don't remember the terms, but where are my page six, line seven? Yeah, line seven, huh? Beginning a public servant may request either guidance or an advisory opinion. Yeah. My understanding was that the way we did this is if I call you Christina and say, I don't know if this would be a conflict of interest. And so I'm just checking it out with you. Can you give me some advice? You would tell me, I mean, it isn't legal advice or anything, but you would say, you might want to think about that and you should, da, da, da, da. If, and I don't remember what that was called. And then if 14 people ask you the same thing, then you can write an advisory and that advisory is public. And just says this seems to be an area where people are concerned about this. And so we're advising you that you might do this in these circumstances. So I'm confused about why we used guidance or an advisory opinion in this place. Sure, I can clarify. So individuals can ask for guidance or for an advisory opinion. So the difference is that the guidance will always be confidential as long as the person requesting it wants it to remain so. An advisory opinion will be posted publicly on the website, but with personally identifying information redacted. And then the other scenario that you suggested, which is when the commission would proactively issue an advisory opinion, that would be in response to like a current issue or if we're getting similar questions over and over again and we thought it was prudent to do so. Okay, so, but they're both called advisory opinions. Yes, that's for guidance or an advisory opinion. Okay, so then I'm okay with that then. I just needed some clarification on that because I couldn't remember it. Well, why would I ask for an advisory opinion? Wouldn't I always ask for guidance? Why would I want it posted? I mean, it depends on the scenario. You might think that the public would benefit from knowing the answer. So yeah, it's up to the individual. I mean, in those cases, so you're asking about your own perspective conduct. So if your person identifying information isn't gonna be included, it might be something where you're like, I think this is an important issue and you want it to be available to the public. Okay. All right. So I think the next thing that I had on my list, and if you have other ideas of the way we should be doing this, please let me know because I don't wanna be directing this necessarily or dominating it, but I think that the definition post-empoint, where is that? Page 11. And I know that I thought that those were pretty vague terms, but I also saw the, when you, Christine, when you sent out the HR, they used those exact same terms. Yeah, I'm a judiciary. And I didn't print out the judiciary one, but I really liked the judiciary definition, but I didn't print it out because it was 42 pages or some ridiculous thing. I mean, their whole policies. And I couldn't figure out how to print just that one little section. Did anybody else read that from the judiciary? Yeah. I'm embarrassed. Did they send it to one? I just haven't... No, Christina sent it to us. Oh, did you, oh, I didn't know. She sent us both the... Oh, here it is. It's also on our, the web, it's right here on our website, so we can look at it right now. And it was on page 28, as I remember, and I didn't wanna print out many, many pages, but... It's 110 pages. Okay. So what page are you directing us to, 28? I think it was, I think it was on page 28. It took me, or maybe 58 or something. It took me a long time to scroll down to it. If you look at the table of contents, it'll tell you. It's under code of conduct or code of ethics. Should be 60 or 61, I think. And I did cut out the portion and put it in the email, the portion that related to outside employment. Oh, oh, I didn't see that. I'm sorry, I apologize. I printed out the whole thing. I mean, I looked up the whole thing. I didn't... Kristina, where are you? Oh my God. That is 58. Great. Can't do too many things here. Since 130, I have received 150 emails. About this? No, about other things, but none of them are the kind of newsfeeds and stuff that I get there all. No, not about this. I can't get it. What time did you send it, Kristina? I found it, now I lost it. Last night or probably this morning, she sent us one. Okay. Anyway, I did like that, their definition. I thought it was. I think it was at 12, 12. Was it 12 something? I received one from Kristina at 2.25 p.m., which is titled, Some Notes Attached. Yeah, that's the one, Anthony. Yeah, there's two. So there's one about outside employment, which I sent earlier, which I think is at 12, 12. And then there's one I sent just before we started, which was about notes on conflict of interest. Right, got it. Sorry about this. So one was Connecticut, one was Rhode Island? Yes, that would be the definitions and the codes of ethics in those states. And then I also sent around the definitions for outside employment that are currently in the Judiciary's policies, as well as Vermont Human Resources policies. Yeah, I did get those. And those were the ones. Judicial branch one has ABC and D. So it's hard to bounce back and forth. Which one do we wanna deal with first? Let's deal with outside employment and look at how they define them. And HR defines it very similarly. They use exactly those same three words that I had some concern about. Judiciary does not. And I have lost your email. I clicked on it and it went completely away and it didn't go into deleted. I can resend it. Thanks. Sorry about this. So anybody have any comments given? Well, I like them both. I don't see any problem with the Vermont Human Resource Personnel Policy one either. It seems more condensed, seems makes a better read. My concern is those three words. But which ones? Inconsistent, incompatible or in conflict. And I particularly have concerns about that for those boards and commission members and legislators. Because HR already has the policy. So it's gonna be their policy regardless of what we put in here, right? That is correct. And I've also checked in with them. And right now the understanding that I have with Tom Waldman is that this actually also applies to board members and commissioners. Yeah, that's a problem. Okay. And who determines it for boards and commissions? Whether they're, it's inappropriate or is that the appointing agency? Yep, sorry, it's just an email. Yeah, so whoever is already in place. And so I have to check the policy again but I believe it's the appointing authority who would make that decision. So either in advance of the person being appointed comes up afterwards. But I am still on an ongoing conversation with Tom Waldman about it. So I can't really, you know, by memory give you all the details but I believe that's correct. Okay. I don't know what is happening to my email here but whenever I click on an email from you, it goes nuts. Okay, I forget it. I'm not gonna try and go there because it, oh, here it is. Sorry, which of the many attachments are we looking at? I'm sorry, Oliver was leaving for Kansas City. So I had to say goodbye. What, I'm lost. I'm afraid at the moment. Did you make sure that he didn't bring his little basket with him? We would not want him to be whisked off. Are his, the little red shoes. Now everything's, he's gonna tell me how up to date everything is in Kansas City. Okay. You know, they've gone about as long as he doesn't come back with Omicron, we're okay. Okay. But wait, sorry. Are we on the, something with judiciary, not with judiciary, are we, which of Christine has many helpful things that we're looking at? She sent us the Vermont HR personnel policy and procedure. And number three has employees shall not engage in any employment activity or enterprise. It's just been determined by appointing authority. So that would be the appointing authority for the boards and commissions to be inconsistent, incompatible or in conflict with their duties. And then the judiciary says shall not engage in any employment activity or enterprise between determined by the employer, supervisor, incompatible or in conflict. I guess they're pretty much the same, aren't they? Those are probably terms that are used. So I'm gonna drop my. Yeah, those are gonna say, we're okay, I'm okay. Those are pretty good ones. You're okay with switch. Well, I'm okay with the one that's in here. In the draft bill. Okay. I was just gonna point out something, this may be, I may be wrong with this, but the state one says employees shall not engage in any employment activity. Right. And it says or in conflict with the duties as a state employee. So if I'm on a board or commission, I'm not necessarily employee. I'm just a volunteer on the commission. I can say there's a section above that says who it applies to. And so it says it applies to appointees. And then I didn't include it, but if you refer back to the definition, the classifications of employees appointees include board members, commissioners, members of councils. And so that is actually just chatting with about, with Tom Waldman about earlier. So I'm going to follow up with him, but that was also his understanding that they would fall under the category of appointees and be covered by this section. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And I, I'm sorry to belabor that point. I just didn't like those three words, but everybody seems to use it and Tom told us that. It's very common everywhere else. So. I'm fine with them. So if I'm. Correct. We really have. Two major. Issues left. That we have concern over one is the conflict of interest. And one is the gifts. Yep. Yeah, we. And I'm going to suggest that we start. With the gifts. Only because I've had more time to think about that conflict of interest. So this is very selfish of me. If anybody else would like to start with the conflict of interest, I'm fine with that. Doesn't matter. We got to do them both anyway. Yeah. And you're driving the bus. Well, I'm fine with it. That's a little dangerous. Before we leave Christina's emails. Christina, did you were one of your attachments on gifts? I don't remember. I don't. No, they were not. No, I didn't think so. Yeah. I recall. Okay. Great. So we can go back to the bill. So I. I am. On page two, I would not use the. Definition of gift. There because that is the. That is the lobbying that is under. Campaign finance. I mean, under the lobbying statute. That really applies to. To legislators, I believe it's under the. As I remember it, it is. And I don't, and it says political contributions, anything less than adequate compensation travel. I think we should not use that as a definition, but in fact we should just under the code of. Ethics in number, whatever it is, 10, or whatever number deals with gifts is just nine. It's on page nine and it's number nine. It's just define what we mean. By gift and what we don't mean by gift instead of using that definition at all, because I think, I think it's. Confusing. I think it's. Because it really is under. I looked it up and I don't remember now, but I think it is clearly under the. Legislative. Definitions of gift for from lobbyists. And I don't think that. That I think we should just have our own. We're going to be. Legislators are going to be covered by that. They're going to be covered by that. Regardless of what we do with gifts here. They're going to be covered by that. But I don't know that. You think the gifts on page nine are. Relate back to just. No, no. If you look at the definition of gifts on page two under definitions. It says it has the same meaning. That's the exact definition. That says it has the same meaning as the two BSEA 261, which is the lobbying section of the. But. Can it can Amron read that to us? Because we don't have it in front of us. Yes. I can read that to you. Cause I, cause the definition on page nine. I think most of those are pretty good. Well, read the. Yeah, but I'd love to hear from Ameron. Where it's under also, not just the definition. Right. Amron. Please. The headache. Okay. So this is within title two. Legislature chapter 11 registration of lobbyists. Section 261, which is entitled definitions. Gift is under. Subdivision six. Six a gift means a political contribution. That was number one to anything a valuable, anything of value tangible or intangible that is bestowed for less than adequate consideration, including travel expenses, such as travel fare, room and board and other expenses associated with travel. Three, a meal ticket or alcoholic beverage for a ticket fee or expenses for or to any sporting recreational or entertainment event. Five, a speaking fee or honorarium, except actual and reasonable travel expenses. Six, a loan made on terms more favorable than those made generally available to the public in the normal course of business. And then subdivision B. If a gift does not mean one, anything given between immediate family members to printed education materials such as books, reports, pamphlets or periodicals. Three, a gift which is not. Used and which within 30 days after receipt is returned to the donor or for which the donor is reimbursed for its fair market value and for a device or inheritance. So my concern with that is that that is that applies to legislators. That's under the lobbyist thing for legislators. We will be held to that standard. We will be held to that standard. Whether we use it in this. In the state code of ethics that applies to everybody. Or not. And even if we aren't covered under the state code of ethics, we will be held to that. Because that's the current law. So my, my problem in using that here is. That. I think we should just put our own definition of gift. We should just put our own definition of gift. Using that and then having a kind of another definition. And then exemptions from definitions. That's. It's mainly for clarity. And because I don't know why we would. Care what applies. To lobbying efforts. For legislators. In this. I agree. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what new definition we would come up with. The definition that Amron read, which I know has really stick to lobbyist gifts. Seemed like not a bad definition to me. But I'm not sure if we can do something better. I'm not opposed to doing that. No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't use. Maybe even use that definition, but not refer back to that. Because that's. Under the legislative lobbyist section of law. And nobody boards and commissions don't care. If they looked at that and they said, why would we be subject to that? We can put this in a definition, but I don't think we should. We should refer to that. That's all, that's all I'm saying. Sure. That's makes sense. I apologize. I just, um, the way that most states have done, uh, dealt with this, and this is, this is hotly discussed and bandied over, over years in most states. The most successful provisions I've seen in terms of clarity. Um, not too much. Not too much. Not too much. But I don't think we should. We should refer to that. That's all, that's all I'm saying. Sure. That's makes it. Um, not just for the drafters, but for, uh, government officials is to have an omnibus definition of gifts. You know, that is something like anything of value for which, uh, full consideration isn't given. And then have specific carbouts, which may number, you know, in the dozens. But to, and that provides anybody who's reading it with clarity as to what falls outside of gift. And then everything else falls within. Um, but that's, and again, states. I think Connecticut has like 30 exceptions to their gift statute with me, which may be too many, but you often come up with about a dozen of the same, uh, definition, anything under $20. But what it allows people to do is they can read it and very clearly see that it's either one of the exceptions or it's a different subject. And it also makes ease in, in an amendment and you will amend it. I have my, at least that's my guess because most states do, they, they get into, uh, actually parsing it out. And they say, you know, we really don't mean to have. Whatever it is be a gift. So let's add that as another exemption. Uh, from what gift is. So if, if I can, um, read the UVM definition. Uh, kind of, and again, this was part of the thing that I wasn't looking for this, but it was what I printed out last night. No trustee shall solicit or accept from any person and then because they don't have person in the same definition, they say organization corporation or other legal entity seeking to do, seeking to do or doing business with or or otherwise gain benefit from the university. Um, shall not accept for including gift, gravity, gratuity, services, loans, travel, entertainment, or other considerations of more than additional value, normal nominal value in exchange for promise or reasonable inference that the trustees influence with the university has been in exchange for such consideration. I mean, it very clearly says you can't, you can't accept a gift that is meant anything outside of nominal value in exchange for a promise to do something. Or an implied promise to do something. And I think that's kind of where we want to go. And then we have the exceptions, like you said, which is really, you know, I think it's important that you get to understand what T.J. said underneath that, that, um, a gift is not a gift from, um, mom to son, even though son works for, um, the public utilities commission and mom owns green mountain power. I mean, So I don't know, but that's, that TJ just said is have a definition. And then if there are exemptions and that we put those in. I think that's a good way to go. Ben, did you have a? I was just gonna, for the record, Ben Kinsley campaign for Vermont. I was just going to agree with what, where you're going with that. I, the research that we've done, it does seem like the most clear definitions of gifts are ones that say anything of monetary value, except for basically what that lobbying definition was doing and saying, you know, except for educational materials or gifts between family members that are clearly, you know, due to a personal relationship, something like that. So that does seem like the cleanest route to go is like, here and the gift is anything of value except for like these specific things aren't counted in that definition. And it also doesn't mention the dollar amount. The, I think it's good. I think avoiding a dollar amount makes sense because it's like $10 today is not $10 next year. You know, it just seems like it's hard to deal with the dollar amount. The example that we've seen of this is like, you know, usually the term is of a de minimis nature. So the example I often see of that de minimis nature is, you know, you can take a legislator out and have a cup of coffee, right? So most states will allow you to do that. You can buy a legislator a cup of coffee, but anything more than that, you know, you take them out for a steak dinner and, you know, you get a bottle of wine like that is, you know, that's what we're trying to, that's the lines. Like cup of coffee, great, do that. Anything more than that, that's where we start getting into dangerous territory. A lot of the lobbyists here buy Boone Farm. So I think that's under, no. Sorry about that. I am sorry about that. But so I like the idea of not even defining the $20 or the $15 or whatever, but I will tell you that legislators will still have that amount because it is in our lobbying statutes. So even if everybody, so regardless of what we do here, legislators are gonna still be held to that $20. If Ben takes me for a cup of coffee, that's fine. But if he buys me breakfast at the same time and it's more than $20, then he has to report it. So that's part of our campaign finance law. Problem with that is that in a year or two, $20 is barely gonna cover a cup of coffee. Very possible. I know, that's why we go to Moz Diner instead of Starbucks for coffee where it's still a dollar. But I just wanna remind us that even if we don't put an amount in here, we will still under our campaign finance law be covered by the amount that's in there. Am I right about that, Ben? Yes, that is true. This doesn't negate the definition. And really that the definition, I actually kind of agree with the way that this is confusing because the definition is supposed to apply to lobbyists who are giving gifts to legislators. So it's sort of like the other way around from what we're talking about in some ways. So I think that I don't disagree that it would be helpful here to have a separate definition that's very clear because having that definition that was written with lobbyists in mind would be confusing when you start talking about state employees and boards and commissions and these other scenarios. So I don't disagree with the approach. And I think there is a way to make it pretty clear following basically the intent of what that existing statute is trying to do. So just to remind me that the one in campaign finance one does have a $20 limit? It does. Yes, I think it does. And so even if like when Blue Cross Blue Shield puts on their legislative night, oh, they don't do it anymore because we're all remote. But if they serve, if they have shrimp and really wonderful things and they figure that for each person who comes, it's over that amount. They have to list it on our donation list. And that's why we sign in when we go to places. Yeah, that's exactly right. There is a piece in there too where it's a large enough event where there's more than, I think, 20 or 50 legislators involved, like there's an exemption for that. But yes, that is why they have you do that. I think Pat had a comment. Thank you, Ben. You're muted. She's looking. Sorry about that. For the record, Pat McDonald. I was thinking about when employees, state employees, like myself, would go to conferences. And there would be a big event sponsored by, I don't know, 3M, IBM, whatever. Some states, as long as it was open to everybody, would allow us to go. Other states, like Pennsylvania, if it was sponsored by a lobbyist, you were out of luck. You couldn't go have the shrimp and all the stuff. And I've never seen that printed anywhere. And I've always wanted as a backup to say, yes, we were right in our interpretation, that if you went to an open event, that it was OK. Because they weren't singling out me to have them talk to me at the event, that's for sure. But they weren't singling me out for the dinner or generally to talk to Vermont to get something done. Yeah. So I've never seen that in print anywhere. And I don't know whether it's a good thing to confirm it someplace or just it may be someplace. I've just never seen it. Well, that could be one of the exceptions here is that state employees, board, and commission members and stuff, if there's something like that. I mean, that could, yeah. Because Pennsylvania, if they saw IBM or anybody's name on it, none of the employees who went to the conference could go, which was sort of a shame because you did miss out on talking to people and the benefit of being at a conference is being able to share ideas and meet other people from other states. But that's the way they did it. So that's it. Sorry. But that could be. So I don't know the best way to go about this, if maybe we can have Christina and TJ, if you're willing, and Amron to try and come with some language, try and put this together somehow, reflecting what we've been talking about here. And I would say, feel free to reach out to Ben or Pat or anybody else who has thoughts. I have this is beyond me to try to word Smith now. I mean, I think that if we have something that we can look at, then we can respond to that. Does that make sense, committee? Is to put kind of this general language about not taking anything for less than value and then have the exemptions underneath. And I wouldn't put exemptions for legislators in there because we're already covered someplace else. We're already, whether it's in here or not, we are covered. Yes, Allison? Well, I think the public will be reading this document. And that should be articulated similar, Amron, that we're covered elsewhere. I just think if we're missing, people will have a problem with our miss being missing from this document. But I know this is small, but we've gone from some small things. What is the difference between de minimis and nominal? Because we're talking about nominal gifts, which are often de minimis, but nominal to one person is not the same as nominal to another person. Anyway, I'm just curious as we use those are the two terms that are used other than a money amount of an exact figure. So I'd appreciate Amron maybe looking at those definitions and making a suggestion when we next gather. Thanks. Yeah, I have no idea. Amron, did you? No, I just wanted to make sure I understand the direction that you're going with this. So right now we would be taking out the current definition of gift as currently written, putting in something that is much broader like a gift is anything of value tangible or intangible that is bestowed for less than out of consideration as just a broad definition. And then when you go down to the gift section, it would talk about exceptions. I don't know that you even need to put it in the definition section if it's just in gifts because we don't define in the definition section, for example, we don't define outside. Yeah, I was imagining it just being in the gift section. I was imagining it would just be in the gift section. Yeah, because we don't define outside employment in the definition section. And we don't define post-government employees, or any of those things in the definition. So I don't think I would even put a definition in there. I would just put it in the number nine or whatever number that is. Yeah, and then you don't have to say legislators aren't covered elsewhere. I mean, you could just identify what. I don't think you have to say that. I think if somebody has a question about it, they could ask. But I wouldn't mention legislators one way or the other. I would just say this is how we define a gift. Right. But I wouldn't put it in the definition section. Right. I would just put it in the under. In the gift section. Point number nine or whatever it is. Yeah, under nine. I think you're right. I don't know if that is right or not. But if we define gifts in the definition section, then it seems to me that we should also define employment restrictions or post-government employment or outside employment, those terms, because those terms aren't defined somewhere. So that you look skeptical, Amron. Who me? I was just, it was a curry to me. Maybe we should be thinking about if those need to be defined. I don't think so. Because if we put them all in the definitions, that they're in the, we would end up having to define. There are a lot of terms in here that are used. And if we would have to define them all, I don't think we have to define all those things. Just state what they are. As we do on page nine, under number nine. OK. Let's do it that way and then we can see if that satisfies. OK, so if the, OK, OK. So, and I don't think we're going to have time today unless you want to get into the conflict of interest one. We can do it, but I would go back as Senator Clarkson had one kind of simple question, just as a clarification online. 11, I mean, page 11 lines, 18 and 19, about the legislators post-employment. And I believe that says that a legislator cannot be a lobbyist for one year after their term ends. That's the only one I'm aware of, but are there others that would be, I guess one of my questions is, are there other post-employment things that would seem inappropriate? Or I mean, that's the only one that's been that we've dealt with, but there may be others that we haven't thought about or that we just haven't addressed. For legislators for post-employment. Yeah, I will tell you that I'm not going to go there because we are a citizen legislator. And if you're going to start telling me that when I'm done with my terms, I can't get a job someplace to be legislated, huh? Yeah, no, I don't disagree. Maybe just leave it and let. But again, instead of referring, you could just easily say that you could. I mean, do you want to keep the reference? Or do you want to spell it out? I don't care one way or the other, but I don't want to expand it because I think that that's a problem. And if we start doing that, we are really tampering with our citizen legislature. Can I just? Senator Collomer? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just going to read what it says because I think I understand it. Except as permitted in subdivision four of this subdivision B, a former legislative branch employee shall not for one year after leaving state service be an advocate for anyone other than the state for compensation before the General Assembly, or even subparts, et cetera, et cetera. So it doesn't completely prohibit that's the legislative branch employee. Read the one above it, the legislator or sorry. Well, all it says is she'll comply with the post government employee restrictions prescribed in title two. Yeah, yeah. No, that's that's what Allison is wondering what to say to 66 cents. And it basically says that for one year, you can lobby. Yes, I happen to have the book right here. Then did you have? Yeah, that is that is what it says. And I was part of the original ethics bill that was passed back in 2017, included that definition of post employment restrictions for one year. And that that was a debate back then because there was some discussion about many states do two years. We decided, I think, to do one year for Vermont. That seemed like a better balance, again, because the citizen legislature piece that seemed like a better fit for Vermont. There are other there are other post employment restrictions across state government, for example, DFR, you can't as a regulator, you can't go and work for a financial firm for a certain period. There's a cooling off period before you can do that. You know, these types of post employment post employment restrictions are meant to address revolving door issues where, you know, regulators take jobs in industries that they regulated. That's usually executive branch of things, what we're looking to prevent. That could be applicable in some cases to boards and commissions as well. I haven't read the definitions in this particular bill to see if that's the case. But you can think of like the first example that's popping into my head could be like the Green Mountain Care Board, for example, someone went and took a job with a hospital they're regulating. You know, we would we would likely expect them to have a cooling off period so they can't go right from board service into as a regulator into into employment. So there is some applicability there for boards and commissions as well. But I I think that if we think about expanding this, we are doing it to failure at the beginning. Yeah, I'm not necessarily. I don't I don't know how this I'd have to look at these definitions again bill to know if that's what's happening here. I'm just saying we shouldn't that's something to keep in the back of your mind is like there are some situations where boards are regulators. Oh, no, I didn't mean there. I meant for legislators. Oh, yeah. Yeah, awesome. As soon as this. So I think I'm OK with this at the moment. But I think obviously we can revisit some of this and improve on it. And for years to come, I think the boards and commissions is is a little interesting. We have examples of that. Not legislators, but members of boards and commissions who have come into state government immediately after serving on a board and commission. It's it's certainly something to think about. But I think for out years. Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily be worried about them taking a position within state government after serving on a board and it's more of an issue. I think if they are on a on a commission that is a regulatory commission. Yeah, and then go and then go and take a job at a business or organization that they are regulating, that would be more of a concern. Yeah, an executive office. Yeah, go ahead. Executive officers are prohibited from doing that. Executive officers are. Yeah. Yeah. Board. Yeah. OK, where are we committee? I think I would save conflict of interest. I have a 430 meeting, so I would I would love to save conflict of interest, which I think is a big conversation. So let's maybe we can. I would love to get this done with, as I think we all would. Maybe look at next week. Ameron, is that possible for you to get what we've talked about today in a form by the end of next week? Yes. OK. And then we can take on the conflict of interest issue. And in the meantime, we should maybe just do some research on on our own about different places where they have conflict of interest and how they define it and what it means and and stuff so that we can. And Christina and T.J., if you have anything, yeah, send it to us in the same with Pat and Ben Pat. You're muted, Pat. I'm trying to be a good do be here, because I have all kinds of things going on. So anyway, you didn't mention boards and commissions, and that is something I'd like to be invited back to talk about, just to add to the all the stuff you've got to do already. Yeah, I think that that's another conversation that we need to have. We'll try and address that again next time also about and what it means. And and I'm not sure if we will. I'll send a note to Kendall. About that, I'm not sure that I'm not sure who took Jason Malucci's position with the on the boards and commissions. But and he did it for such a long time that maybe he would be willing to even come and talk to us about about kind of their screening process and how they do it and some of the issues are involved in it. Does that make any sense? Yeah, that's a good idea. All right, anything? Christina. Yeah, so I just want to circle back to gifts and clarify when we're talking about removing the dollar amount, is that just from the definition? Are we still going to have it under an exception? Because I do think there would be a downside to removing having a determined dollar amount, then maybe we could come up with some pros and cons and put it on the table for next time as well. Yeah, I would I would say I'm not sure if how it should be. But and I wouldn't have anything in the definitions at all. And then under here, so you have gift exceptions are I would make it a little bit clearer than it is in here. But however it gets defined and then what the exceptions are and then we'll address them because I don't know at this point. I don't know what the committee what we think. OK, I yeah, I don't know about putting a dollar amount on it. I really I don't know. Yeah, I don't I don't know either. I don't know and I don't know what the dollar amount. Should be. OK, can I tell you a really funny. Something that I hope nobody misinterprets this, but. So a long time ago, I was working with Paul Burns on something. And he his wife was pregnant at the time. And they had a Vermont day up in the state house cafeteria. And Putney Winery was up there. And I said, oh, you should get some. This is really good. This is really good stuff. You should get some. And he said, oh, well, my wife can't drink alcohol now because she's and I said, oh, well, they have a nice bubbly that's non-alcoholic. So I brought him up a bottle of it the next time I went home. And I gave it to him and he made some comment about. Looking. Some something that people might look a scans. And I said, oh, I guess I misunderstood it. I you're supposed to be giving me the gifts, not me giving you the gifts. It was it was quite funny at the time. And I just keep thinking about that silly little bottle of bubbly that could have gotten me in trouble had he given it to me. Any more questions or comments before we. Or anything else? So we should be looking at conflict of interest, boards and commissions. Yes, TJ. Would it benefit the process to just sort of lay out some of the concerns about the conflict of interest provision, not try to resolve them today, but. Oh, sure. Sure. To help to help going you guys going forward. Sure. Brian knows about my my paper. Horrible. Inability to keep my papers. OK, I I think here's some of my concerns and other people jump in with concerns. I think that first of all, the there isn't really. A definition of conflict of interest is I can't remember. Is that in the definitions? Yeah, it's on page two. It right. Page two. What does it say? I count means an interest director. Otherwise, et cetera, et cetera, of a public servant or such an interest known to the public servant of a member of the public servant to me and family or household or business associate in the outcome of a particular matter pending before the public servant or the public service public body or that is in conflict with the proper discharge of the public servant's duties. Conflict of interest does not include any interest that is of no greater than that of other persons generally affected by the outcome of a matter such as a policyholder in the insurance company or a depositor in a bank. Yeah, and I don't know. It seems like a really dense definition to me. I don't know that I have particular concerns about the definition, but I do have a concern that it it impacts all boards and commissions here. And I think that is a concern that I have because we have almost 3200 people in Vermont that are on boards and commissions and some of them really there are different levels of boards. There are some that are simply advisory. There are some that just get together and hear reports. And and I so I fear that because this applies to all boards and commissions that that is over a definition that's too too broad. And then when you go to course of action, I think that that also is really too broad. That's on page six in terms of asking people to write small to ask a board member of a small board to ask them to write this statement about why why they why they should be allowed to go forward. I just the and so that that's my concern is some of that. I think it's too cumbersome cumbersome for many of the people that serve. I I mean, the this is a pretty extensive. Well, it wouldn't have to be. It could be one sentence, but and so then you you do that. I mean, there's like 11 there's 22 lines of stuff that you're supposed to address in your explanation here. So I agree. We have to air that down somehow. I'm thinking of a cemetery commission of board or something. I mean, I well, they wouldn't be affected because they're a municipal, but OK, but some of the boards and commissions that we've been looking at in the Sunset Advisory Committee. Right. They don't have any power. They they're some they might be advisory. But so I think that that's and even for an employee, I guess, to. If you. If something comes up and I'm and I'm I'm not the other thing that we really need to talk about is whether this applies to legislators or not. But if it should apply to legislators, this I'm not going to write these all down when I I'm just going to stand up and say, excuse me, under Rule 73, I might have a conflict. And the General Assembly, the Senate is going to decide whether I have a conflict or not and whether I should recuse myself. And that's the end of it. I'm not going to write down all these things saying why I should be allowed to continue. That's up to the other senators to let me or not. So so if this doesn't apply to the General Assembly, then it's less important in that aspect. But I think it is important for our boards and commissions and even even some state employees that might have a conflict to have to write all this down. And then anyway, then. Madam Madam Chair, sorry, I just have to excuse myself. OK, thanks. Thank you, everybody. See you tomorrow. Bye. Thank you. I just want one quick thought to leave you. I know we don't want to get too far into this today and nor should we because I should give it give the appropriate amount of time to discuss it. One thought I would leave you with is as currently written, this would this gives persons who have a potential conflict of interest as defined. The option to a recuse themselves from a vote that is an action they can take themselves to to say, no, I think I have a conflict here. I'm done. That puts them in compliance with the code. The option number two is to say I might have the appearance of a conflict, but I don't actually think I'm conflicted here. And in that case, provide that explanation. There's that, you know, twenty one lines of like, here's what here's guidance for what should be in that that explanation. I think really what we're what most people will be looking for is like this should be a one page like here's why it might look like I have a conflict, but my conflict is really de minimis in nature. And here's why that that's sort of what it's getting at. I think and Christina, I don't know what you're is that consistent with your understanding as well? Yeah, I agree. I don't think it's really looking for a book. It's just covering the main points and having it written down somewhere as a reference. And so I don't know, maybe it would be helpful if we come with an example for next time to review of what it might look like in reality. Yeah, yeah, that would be good. Yeah, and I'll just going back to the point earlier about the definition of conflict of interest, it is possible that the boards and commissions are already covered by this definition because in the executive code of ethics actually uses this exact definition. And so depending how if a pointy is defined the same way as it is in the Vermont human resources policies and procedures, it is possible that all of them or a majority of them are already subject to that definition. So it might be worth following up to see where there's overlap. And if it's 100% overlap because it might end up being a moot point. Okay, good, good thought. Yeah. Okay. Other than that, any other thoughts? I'm all thought out. Me too. Tomorrow you'll be all thought out. Really? Or maybe not. Or maybe not. Isn't it supposed to get really cold tonight? Yeah. Yeah, I put title two back on the shelf now. Yes. Thank you. Everybody, thank you for your indulgence on some of these things. I just, I think that this is a really important thing to do and to get done and want to make sure that we do it in a manner that both gives the public confidence that people, that our government employees and officials are acting in the best faith and that also doesn't make it so burdensome for those people who are those employees and officials and given the fact that we are such a small state, there was a potential conflict of interest with the VPIC board at one point. And it just seemed so silly, but because of the definition, it meant that somebody couldn't take a job as a school teacher, somebody's son couldn't take a job as a school teacher because VPIC covers the investments of the teacher's retirement system. And we are such a small state that there's always gonna be overlap. So I think that that's, it's important to get this balanced right. And we wanna do it in such a way that we can make sure that it meets the straight face test and passes the Senate and the House. So thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Bye.