 Well, good afternoon and thank you all for coming. Last week marked an important day in the state's history. But as I said last Wednesday, the conversation about public safety is not over. We have more work to do to keep our kids and our community safe. Immediately following the averted Fairhaven incident, I directed the Department of Public Safety and all available resources, including state and local law enforcement, to conduct a statewide school safety audit. Those assessments were undertaken over the last several weeks and I'm pleased to say they've been completed. I'd like to thank the Department of Public Safety, all local and county law enforcement, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and all school officials and personnel for their swift and diligent action. As I've said many times, public safety is the primary function of any government. And as far as I'm concerned, it rises to the top and is our number one responsibility. Just yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with students, teachers, and parents from Fairhaven. It's very obvious and understandable. There's a lot of apprehension and fear amongst the community. So I want parents across the state to know we are doing everything we can to keep their kids safe. And I want students to know we've heard you and agree you should not have to worry about your own safety when you walk into your school. As my team will share, we have strong protocols in place in many schools, but there are various communities in school buildings where additional work and efforts are needed. As governor, I have a responsibility to provide for the safety of our citizens, especially our kids, which is why I asked the legislature to appropriate $5 million to fund school safety grants. I'm happy to report the legislature is booking $4 million in the capital bill, which I hope will pass in the very near future, and the other $1 million will come out of the Homeland Security grants through the Department of Public Safety. The goal is to have a grant process be conducted in a relatively short time frame to ensure a majority of the work can be completed before students return this fall. I'd like to now, at this time, turn it over to Commissioner Anderson, acting Secretary Boucher, and Rob Evans, Vermont School Safety Liaison Officer, to report on the school's security assessments and to provide the details of the school grants process and timeline. I'll be bashful. Well, good afternoon, everyone. Tommy Anderson, Commissioner of Public Safety. Several weeks ago, Governor Scott proposed a multi-prong strategy to keep Vermont schools and communities safe. Frankly, in my view, it was a demonstration of political courage that is rarely seen, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. As the Governor stated, one of his primary objectives is to make sure that we are doing all we can to keep our schools as safe as possible. In connection with this goal, he directed the Department of Public Safety to conduct a statewide school safety audit. The Agency of Education has been our partner in this, and I thank you, Heather. In about a four-week period, 172 law enforcement officers from 50 local police agencies, 11 sheriff departments, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and every single Vermont state police barracks fanned out across the state and worked collaboratively with school administrators to complete these assessments. All told, 422 schools in Vermont took part in the assessments. I'm deeply grateful to the police chiefs and the sheriffs for their assistance. We could not have done this without them. I also want to publicly thank Rob Evans and Emily Harris, who handle the school safety issues for the Department of Public Safety and the Agency of Education as well as the school crisis team. They have been the backbone of this project and responsible for creating the survey, collecting the data, and then distilling all of the data and reporting the results. We've provided a three-page summary of the results of the assessments. They're over here. They're handouts over here. Overall, the results show we are doing a lot of things very well in Vermont schools and that they're taking safety planning very seriously. The results also show that there are some areas that we can do better. Here are some of the findings. 96% of the schools in the study have taken part in some form of emergency management planning preparedness activity within the last year and most expressed a desire to do even more. 96% comply with the state school emergency drill schedule. 83% of Vermont schools lock exterior doors on days when schools are in session. 9 out of 10 schools educate faculty, staff, and students on emergency response protocols prior to the beginning of each school year. 86% of schools have the ability to make an internal public address announcement when an emergency is occurring. Just last year, the Vermont School Safety Center recommended that schools develop a family reunification plan in the event of an emergency. This study shows that 86% of the schools have developed or are developing such a plan. Very good, given it was just last year that that was implemented. 85% of the schools have a system to identify, report, and evaluate school threats or concerning behavior. 71% of the schools are utilizing the Vermont School Crisis Guide, which serves as a template for school emergency operation plans. Equally important, the study also identified some areas for improvement in schools. While 80% of schools can lock some internal classroom and office doors from the inside, 70% do not have the ability to lock all doors from the inside. Why is that important? But without this ability, doors are either left unlocked or need to be locked from the outside. And logic would tell you locking from the outside may not keep someone out. So that, obviously, it could potentially pose harm to individuals within the school. As I noted earlier, the majority of schools have the ability to notify those inside the building of a danger with a public address system. However, half of all schools lack the ability to make the same announcements to people on the outside of the building. So we have the ability to do it on the inside, we're lacking the ability to do it on the outside. Half of Vermont schools do not require faculty or staff to wear identification tags or credentials during the school day. That should be standard policy across the state. Forty-four percent of schools have not communicated with parents or guardians about what they should do and what they should not do during an emergency. Educated parents are extremely important. Parents that know what to do in an emergency are much more likely not to hinder emergency type activities. We also made certain recommendations. The Secretary of Education and I made certain recommendations to the governor following the assessments, and those include the following. First we're recommending that before the beginning of the next school year, the Vermont School Safety Center provide all schools an updated list of school safety best practices that will include things like access control, visitor management, exterior door labeling, interior door locking, public address systems, internal communication systems, mass notification systems, and parent, guardian communications. We have recommended there be further development of school crisis plans to ensure schools are prepared to respond to a wide range of hazards and threats. We are also recommending there be additional training to provide schools, including active shooter response, behavioral threat assessment, and incident command training courses. With respect to the planning and training, we are recommending that the Department of Public Safety utilize one million dollars in Homeland Security funding to support schools in creating and updating school crisis plans and significantly enhance training and exercise programs. With regard to the anticipated capital funding for grants to enhance school security measures, we are recommending that the Agency of Education, the Department of Public Safety, the Vermont School Safety Center, and our school safety partners develop a list of recommended equipment and technology upgrades to schools that schools should consider when applying for these grants. We recognize that each school is unique. Each school will be encouraged to look at the list and develop the best type of plan that they have for these grants. Finally, let me just briefly discuss the grant process. The four million dollar in grant money the Governor's requested to legislate to appropriate will be earmarked to make security upgrades to school facilities. So these will be more infrastructure type projects. This money will be for things, as I just mentioned, things like security cameras, advanced door locking systems, and communication tools like PA systems and radios. The Governor's committed to getting these grants out to the schools as quickly as possible. Our goal is to award the capital grants by August 1st, so they'll have them before the beginning of the school year. Schools should look for the grant application no later than June 1st. We're going to try to get it out sooner than that, but it will be no later than June 1st. And we'd encourage schools to actually start looking at it now. They completed the surveys. They know really where their security needs lie. Over the next month, we will be engaged in a working group with representatives from the school community, emergency services in the state of Vermont to assist in developing the grant application criteria. What you're going to do to apply for the grant, what types of things you can apply for. And this would be, again, for the infrastructure upgrades to the schools. As I said, in addition to the four million dollars and additional one million dollars of federal home and security funding, we've made available. This money would be directed toward planning, training, and exercise support for the schools. I'll turn it back over to the governor. Thank you. As I said, on February 22nd, when I laid out the multi-level action plan with gun safety being only a part of it, I'm hopeful Vermonters will join in the responsible discussion. We must have about ways to reduce the underlying violence in our society in order to keep kids safe in our schools and our communities. Our goal will be to find real solutions and to take steps that will make a difference. I'm sure these conversations will be passionate and the solutions will not be easy, but they are important to our children, our communities, and to ensuring we remain the safest state in the country. While gun safety and school security can be part of the conversation, we must also focus on the root causes of violence. That is why today I'm creating by executive order the Community Violence Prevention Task Force. This group will be charged with identifying and recognizing the primary root causes of behavior which lead to violence against others in schools and communities. They will also lead the state's response to address these issues by ensuring full interagency and interagency coordination among state and local governments and schools. The task force will assess research and data already available to determine the underlying causes of violent behavior in our communities. Two, as requested by the House of Representatives, review any connection between excessive video game playing and the propensity to engage in violence. Three, identify best practices for schools and communities to prevent violent behavior including but not limited to identifying warning signs and how to report them. Recommending ways to improve prevention and report a bullying and harassment enclosing the operational gaps among the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Mental Health, the Agency of Education, law enforcement, and our schools. Four, identify opportunities to strengthen existing support systems to ensure every school and community has a local rapid reaction, early intervention team involving educators, mental health, social service professionals, and law enforcement when concerning behavioral issues are identified. Five, review opportunities for expanding school safety prevention and preparedness capacity in the Agency of Education and the Department of Public Safety and supporting the work of the Vermont School Safety Center. Six, evaluate the adequacy of protections for individuals including students and adults who report threats. Seven, explore the feasibility of stronger open source intelligence gathering by the Vermont Intelligence Center and the Cyber Security Center with Norwich University once established. And eight, review existing state health, mental health, education, and criminal laws, regulations, policies, and programs and propose appropriate legislative changes including changes to eliminate redundancy and breakdown barriers faced by communities and schools in coordinating action with state government. The task force will consist of not more than 14 members from within and outside of state government. The state members will include the Commissioner of Public Safety, the Secretary of the Agency of Human Services and Health, the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, the Agency of Education, School Security Liaison Officer, and the Secretary of the Agency of Digital Services or Designees. The remaining appointees to the task force will be broadly representative of stakeholders and may include, but not limited to, mental health care professionals, teachers, students, school officials, sportsmen, and or licensed gun dealers, veterans, security consultants, health care providers, first responders, state's attorneys, and cybersecurity professionals. This group will be asked to report back on preliminary findings and the recommendations this December. The unfortunate bottom line is that this world is ever changing and we need to do whatever we can to keep Vermonters safe. So with that, I will sign this executive order establishing this Governor's Community Violence Task Force. And I'll do that right now. And I thank all of you for your good work and look forward to a very productive conversation. With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have in regards to this situation, this issue. What sort of oversight will there be? In terms of the surveys, the assessments that have been made. Yeah, so the way, in the grant application, there's going to be specific criteria as to what can be applied for, what type of equipment can be applied for. I think our goal is to have a list of equipment that fits the requirements of the capital bill, fits the requirements of what are known as school safety enhancements of our infrastructure, and then limit those as to what the schools can request. And during our process, those will be administered by the Department of Public Safety and we will have an audit process to make sure that the schools are spending the money for what they said they were going to spend the money for. So it's not for asking for cameras and then we're spending it on a roof. So there will be an audit process as part of our, as part of the DPS grant administration. Are they required to? I think we're going to work with, I think in the criteria, and we're still working through the criteria, but we will be looking to make sure that the schools are addressing the types of things that were identified in the surveys as being a problem. And particularly if we had, with respect to specific schools, we'll be also be looking at that. So when we're reviewing the grants and deciding what grants to give out to whom, those are the types of things that I'm confident we'll be looking at. Sure, so it could be things like security cameras. It could be things like locking mechanisms for doors. It could be things like PA systems that go both inside and outside of a school. That's an important component. So they'll be, it's things like that. And I think we identify them in both the memo and the handout that I've given us, the types of things we're looking at that would be really infrastructure improvements that really go towards security of the schools. Was there over $5 million enough to take care of problems? I guess, you know, the capital bill has a $25,000 cap on the grants, on the house version at this point. Which is in the Senate. So it's $4 million with a $25,000 cap on the grants. And, you know, we're hopeful that's gonna go a long way in creating some of the, or purchasing some of the infrastructure improvements that we need. I guess we all have to wait and see a little bit. Tom, but not all. I'm not so sure, I'm not prepared to say that, that, you know, it wouldn't address them all. Is there a pattern with the schools that are doing worse than others? Are they small schools or rural schools? I'm not sure, I can answer that question just on the data, you know, the compiling of the data, whether mining it down a little, I can't answer that question right now. And is the figure four or five million? It's $5 million, $4 million out of the capital bill, $1 million that will be utilized through public safety with Homeland Security grants. Did anything jump out and alarm you about? Not that I had seen in terms of the types of measures that they need, but possibly, I don't know if there's any reaction from Rob or from. Yeah, and certainly I can speak to a little bit. I appreciate the dialogue from schools about the need for more training, active shooter response in all hazards process for school emergency preparedness, but things like locking mechanisms that every classroom or office space has the ability to lock from the inside, as the commissioner had said, outdoor internal public address system, speaker system, so everybody in the community can be notified when a school emergency is taking place. Those are the things that aren't just utilized when an active shooter situation is taking place, but when any type of emergency is taking place. And we wanna make sure that we're spending money not only on the response side, but on the prevention side as well, because certainly the money well spent on the prevention is really where we wanna be on those types of things. But cameras, access control, visitor management, those are some of the best practices that the group will be forming for equipment to be purchased. Yeah, certainly fire code is an issue, so the things and the guidance that we will give is any of those types of mechanisms need to make sure that we're fire code compliant. But we talk about that when we talk about those types of response protocols, about some things may have to, everybody has to have an exit strategy, and those locking mechanisms can't keep people from getting out if the best response option is to get out. So there's a variety of things that need to be considered when these types of technologies are being put into place. What happens if a district or a school is accused of them? Well, this is certainly their prerogative. We did the assessments and wanted to give them the flexibility of determining what their needs are. They're the ones who are going to have to make application for this grant, and so it's totally up to them. I'm sure that Rob will be working with them in the future if they don't take advantage of these and identify ways to do so. And I see Jeff and Nicole and Jay from the principals and superintendents associations as well as the school board's association. We've been in great collaboration with those folks, and the need is there, and this is an opportunity for folks to be able to do things that maybe they haven't been able to do before. So utilizing those associations and the continuing dialogue that we have, we're just gonna reinforce the point that this is important for everybody. How much will that work with the public? We will not be releasing any of the data for security, obvious security reasons, but those parents will be able to identify with their schools, and if they seek to release the information, that would be up to them. But they're the ones that presented the information, so if parents have questions, they should contact their local schools. You have some areas of state that have no cell service, sometimes it takes place a long time to respond because of the geography. Will cameras, will panic button stop the parking? That's a question that I probably not qualified to answer. Will this help? We certainly think it will. In terms of cell service, that will be improving over time, particularly with the action we just took. It'll take a few years with the national effort, the first responders, and provide more cell service in some of these rural areas. Do you think the assessments will be public for the grants to be public? I think the grant awards will probably be public. I mean, again, for security reasons, we probably wouldn't be making public, specifically what equipment was purchased with those grants. So again, those are some issues we're working through right now, but I would not anticipate the specific things that are being purchased, again, for security reasons, but the overall grant award, what was awarded to what school may be public. Tom, what percentage of school time on SRO? Yeah, I think it says 21% in there, but we know that that may be a little bit flawed, because I believe that the Vermont Police Academy on the records has about 33 or 34 active school resource officers. That's a formal active school resource officer. Many law enforcement agencies across the state have an informal school resource officer program where folks are invited to come in and have collaborative conversations with local principals and superintendents. So we're gonna have to go back in and get the specific data on that, but I think it's probably lower than the 20% that's calibrated in the survey there. Not as part of this program. This is more for capital needs infrastructure, but certainly in the future, we'll have to have conversations about what the school resource officers. Any other questions about this issue? This is the point in time when you may or may not stay. Maybe other questions, and there may be some questions that you might be able to answer in other words. Thank you. Governor, those states board of education chair said that Rebecca Holcomb left concerns about your recalls containment. Did she express those concerns to you, and said them as a reason for putting that first? Well, again, this was something that was, I discussed with Rebecca Holcomb, Secretary Holcomb. This was for personal reasons. She thought it was the right time for her to move on, and it was all, it was totally her decision. So did she discuss her concerns about- She, we spoke about some of the challenges over the last number of years. She's had in terms of the tough work in Act 46 and so forth, and some of what the challenges are for the future. But again, she decided to move on for personal reasons. She thought this was the right time for her to do so. So your understanding from conversations with her cost containment did not factor into her decision to leave? I'm sure there were a number of factors that entered her thought process, but I wouldn't say that that came out as any particular reason for my conversation. I don't know what conversation she's had with others. Speaking of cost containment, there's only a few weeks probably left in this session. There's still a 5% property tax increase looming out there. Legislature doesn't seem inclined to take up anything you've suggested thus far. Is there anything else on that? I don't think there anybody is. Well, again, we gave them quite a list. We still believe that there's a path forward to accomplishing something to prevent property tax rates increasing this year. And we are fully aware as well that there's an opportunity to do so. So we'll continue to work in that regard. So you're just telling which thing on that list you think we get for $40 million today specifically because they said that you know, just sort of offering that list without sort of specifics on how the savings would be reached this year is not in turn to help? Well, again, if we go back to the conversations we had a year ago about a statewide healthcare contract that I believe is still an opportunity. In fact, as I understand it, I haven't seen any details yet, but the NEA has come around and decided that this might be an opportunity to do so. We look forward to the details and maybe there's some savings that could be booked there as well. The ratios that I've spoken about in the past are there. And there are other initiatives that we could look at that I believe would be beneficial and there's a whole list, but we'll narrow that down. What's gonna work for FY19? Well, again, we may not be able to book immediate savings in terms of, because I'm not asking again the schools to go back and do anything with their existing budgets. They've done the hard work. They did what I asked them to do. But if we could find an opportunity for savings over the next few years, what we'd look at it as an investment utilizing one-time money this year in order to do that to keep the rates where they are. So you'd use one-time money to catch the hole to keep the property tax rates level? If we can substantiate what the savings will be over the next few years, yes. Where's the one-time money gonna come? There's all kinds of opportunity in a $6 billion budget. Well, can you give us a few examples? Well, it's very fluid, obviously, and I'm confident we can find the money. It won't be easy, but we can find the money. What amendments does this say? That we can buy down those savings legitimately, that we find the savings. That could be one, right? Ratios could be another, an attrition over time, not immediate, but there are a lot of retirements that are going to happen over the next few years. How do we get to a ratio that makes sense for Vermont? Using one-time money last year is part of the problem we face this year. Aren't you just compounding things, kicking it down the road? Again, one-time money is a term of art. In some respects, that was money that was in the education fund to begin with. It wasn't my initiative, as you may recall. I identified $26.5 million in healthcare savings that I thought would put us on a path where we wouldn't be maybe where we're at today. But unfortunately, we had to come to agreement in some respects because I didn't want to go into the new year without any budget bill. So from my standpoint, I still believe there are opportunities to save that money. In 2014, when you were running for re-elections of the tenant governor, you proposed a statewide sort of school budget oversight process. Of some sort, I may be getting the details wrong, but is that something you still believe is a good step? Well, I believe the right step is for us to work together in some way to understand the position we're in today. We know that 25 years ago, there were 30,000 more students than there are today. We know we're spending a billion seven today to educate those 76,000 students. So we need to find ways to deliver a high quality education while understanding that the infrastructure that we have in place today doesn't match the number of students we have. And so I believe we can get to that point. It's going to take all of us working together in order to do so. But again, I haven't seen, it doesn't appear at this point in time that the legislature is totally willing to reduce the rate of growth in property taxes. So I believe Vermonters have an interest in that. And again, there's a path forward to doing so. So you don't favor the thing you proposed to? Well, I propose a few things over the last even couple of years since becoming governor that haven't exactly taken off. So I'm not sure that that proposal would have a lot of acceptance. So I try and deal with reality with what we can do today. And I believe that we have a path forward. We've identified $75 million worth of savings that could be utilized, and I believe we can do so. And get back to let's focus on the future and this cradle to career type of approach that I think is so important. More investments in early childhood care and learning, more investments in higher education, but trying to use the $1.7 billion that we've appropriated thus far in doing so. And I believe it's achievable, but it's going to take all of us pulling together in order to do it. The Senate just voted to override your veto. Have you explained where do you see the harm to the economy if that bill doesn't pass into law? Well, there's a number of factors in that particular bill. And I laid out in my veto message a path forward where we could agree to certain goals. But we're already doing most of what they want by executive order and by legislation that was passed in 2014. And for them to turn it around and complicate matters, I think isn't something that all of us would accept and certainly not our economy. I believe that, again, we have a process in place that is protecting our kids and I believe that we should just continue to do so. If they want to codify the executive order that I put into place, that would be fine. But there are certain aspects of that. And I'd like to have Peter come up and explain what we're doing today in order to satisfy those that don't believe we are. Thank you, Governor. In response to testimony last year on S103, we were supportive of moving forward with Intermediate Agency Committee on Chemical Management. The governor, through executive order last summer, established the Interagency Committee on Chemical Management. We have been meeting since this fall. We have conducted a thorough review of the overall chemical management in the state and are in the process of developing recommendations which we've shared with the citizen's advisory panel, which is also called for in the legislation, which is part of the executive order. So in regards to the ICCM, we're doing the work and we'd like to keep doing the work and we'd like to work with the legislature on a path forward to making sure that that work can continue. With regard to the part of the bill that changes the regulatory process for children's products that contain chemicals, is your concern more just generally that with sour the regulatory environment for businesses or do you see a direct impact on businesses that whose jobs because of that bill? No, I just believe that it was sour the relationship now that we have a process in place that's working and that they came together in 2014 begrudgingly. Both sides came together and came to agreement on something that does work. And I see it's only been in effect in some respects for about a year and a half. So why not let that continue to work? Other aspects of the bill as well, putting so much on one person, the commissioner of health and I may ask how I'll go ahead and step up and describe the problem with that. Yeah, so thank you, governor. So section eight of the bill concerned us because it basically puts the commissioner of mental health and the commissioner of health in sort of a one person decision-making box and the bar for the science is too low by my estimation, meaning one or two peer-reviewed pieces of scientific literature is not a very high bar to make a decision like that. And so two pieces, one, one person having that much power and authority concerns me and it should concern you and two, the science really matters and we have to have a higher bar than that and a process ensures that the process that Peter and the governor have talked about and so that's why we were concerned with it. So you're worried about your own commissioner of health having too much authority? So I would be concerned if I had that level of authority or if anyone did, meaning. What's the fear and how do they abuse that authority? So first of all, I'm not a chemical regulation expert or someone that does a lot of scientific research but if you take a look at peer-reviewed scientific literature, it is an advancement of science and advancement of knowledge. Often later on, there's new information that finds that that was the wrong direction to go in and so one person with a low bar for the science is a combination that I don't think we want. Having a, if you think about all the processes that AHS has for how we run our agency, it's all councils and boards and citizen engagement. I mean, so to do something where one commissioner has the say with very little scientific evidence is very concerning to me and I just don't like the process. But when you think your commissioner of health would have the knowledge and expertise to make a informed decision based on the evidence? So I love Mark Levine and when I was chair of the Green Mountain Care Board, I can quote Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott. He liked me being chair of the Green Mountain Care Board. He wasn't sure what was gonna happen after I left and so if Dr. Levine is there for the rest of his natural life and even further, then that might be fine but there will be another one and so this is about policy, not about the person and I think if you really read it and think about the way that we run our government, we don't do that. And so I think there needs to be a better process than that. But wouldn't just be the commissioner of health acting there would be the rulemaking process in your view that's not enough for the safeguard? I don't think so. I think there needs to be. I think that we've created a process in 2014 and everyone said it didn't get off the ground very quick but it's working now and moving forward. We should let this process work and see how that does and I think that's a better way. That's the Vermont way. Governor, is Deb Billido the right person to lead the Vermont GOP? Well, obviously the majority of Republicans thought so. She wasn't my choice at that point in time but I support her, she's running the party at this point. Do you think Vermont needs to be made great again? Well, I think it's a pretty great state as it is and I think it can be better but I'm not sure that that's the term that I would use. So is the party doing Republicans any favors by sending out this type of messaging, mimicking the president in a state that is not very fond of the president? Well, again, it wouldn't be the messaging that I would use but I'm not running the party. But you're happy with who is running the party? Well, I didn't say I was happy but I think she's doing what her constituents, those who voted for her asked her to do. So I'll run the governor's office the way I think it should be run and I'll let her run the party. Do you think it hurts you to have the Republican candidate to have that sort of messaging going out? Well, certainly, I think I've created my own brand and I believe that I'm a moderate independent Republican and I think there are many throughout the state but it would identify in that camp. Do you think it might hurt the Republicans' chances of either gaining ground in the house this fall or possibly even allowing the Democrats to retake the veto for majority? Well, again, it's not messaging that I would utilize considering the popularity of the president in Vermont but that's not my call. You mentioned building sort of your own brand. Do you see yourself separate from the Vermont GOP at this point? Well, I'm independent by nature and I've been doing this my entire political life so I'll continue to march forward with what I think is right and continue to do it the way I do it. Will you raise money for the Vermont GOP? I'm going to, if and when I announce my candidacy, I'll be raising money for myself. Why aren't you or your staff part of sort of discussions going on within GOP? They said like as opposed to previous governors, you haven't had anyone take part in conversations about the party's direction. They sort of feel like you're not even trying to... Well, we're busy doing what we need to do in this building and trying to do what we can for Vermonters and again, the party, everyone looks at the party apparatus differently. They have their own mission and I support their mission but I have my job to do as well. Are you proud to be a member of the Vermont GOP right now? I'm proud to be a Republican. I'm proud to be myself and will continue to be myself throughout whatever office I hold. Well, what about the Vermont GOP specifically? Are you proud of them? I'm proud of Republicans in Vermont. There are many who don't identify with the party apparatus but are Republicans. We have a tradition of regality, trying common sense, smaller government and I'll continue to try and advocate for that. The Republican Party has encouraged people to run on gun issue and encourage that kind of energy that's coming from some of the Republicans and encourage people to run for office that they're really passionate about against S-55, I guess. Have you talked with the party about how to message on the gun issues? I haven't spoken to the party about the messaging on that from that aspect. Are you concerned about the role this gun legislation will play in politics this year? You know, it's a very emotional, very polarizing issue as we saw last week and I continue to see, this is something that I believe, I believe the majority of Vermonters will come to understand this was the right step to make. The use of the, she represents the majority of her constituents, that's a very small number of Vermont Republicans who actually voted for her. Do we have a split in the GOP in Vermont? Well, again, I continue to be my brand of Republican and there are many, I respect the fact that there are many that don't agree with that style over my views, but I would say the vast majority of Vermonters do. Have you ever considered leaving the Vermont Republican Party? No, I have not. We've never run out of time. No. The VSEA is taking your administration to court over what they say is that they're negotiating. What do you think about that? Well, I think it's unfortunate, but they'll, they can do what they feel is necessary. It's not, they feel as though we, it's unfortunate we came to the point where we had to go to arbitration, but that was the process that was set forth and we adhered to it. So I believe that in the end, that this was something that the board felt that we were on the right side of. Do you think the labor board has politically inclined to support your administration over state employee? I'm not sure about that whatsoever. I think the board members are very capable, independently minded and are basing their reaction on the details. Obviously they thought we were on the right side of that. Thank you very much.