 I was just eating and his wife came over to say hi. Can you come up? I'll be next in a minute. That's not going to work. I'm sorry. His light will flash if you call him. Yeah, because he has that thing. We're sort of doing three different bills today. The first one we're looking at is an act relating to the Old River Miners Act and sort of having a committee discussion about that. And I don't believe we have a new draft. So I wanted us to have a discussion and I do apologize because I was not here the day that you did it. So if some of these things have, you know, been discussed or figured out before in terms of the discussion. Well, and then we had the scam people. And then we had the scam people afterwards. And I really, I was struck by what they were saying in terms of putting in place this, not the structure, but whatever, to have a master plan that is not just Dale. And, you know, I mean, they were talking about how various states had done it and some through executive order, some through legislation. And so at minimum, I would like us to consider adding something like that, maybe looking to, I think they said California. California has an executive order, but to translate that into a legislative thing. Jen, sorry. Yeah, I've been reading through it. We do that to work with some language, we work with Jen and bring it back to the community to take a look at what it would be. And we talked about even reaching out to Dr. LaMantia from UVM and trying to get some of his input on what that might look like from his perspective as UVM Center on Aging and the work they're doing. If we were to do something like that, and I have to fill out my copy of the bill, I don't know, in terms of organization, how the bill has, your bill has some semi-broad pieces and then some very specific pieces, but like to start with the big and then sort of shuffle them in terms of what we keep and what we don't and what people want to do. So sort of, you know, at minimum reorganize would be a thought that I would have. I don't know. I'm looking to those votes. Julie, do you have or do we need to look at it? It's up there. It's up there. I mean, it's on your page today. I pulled it over. Oh, thank you. Of course you did. Yeah. Because of this. You do have a big discussion about this. I think we had some discussion around the things that we thought we could include, like the gender issue language, but then I think in the meantime, I think that Sandy did some research on that and it's not in the green books. It's in session law. Okay. Is that right, Sandy? Well, act one in particular. There may be others, but the thing that everybody's talking about. The thing that Brenda spoke of here when she gave testimony was is in session law. So, you know, how we accommodate that I guess now is still up in the air. I think, you know, when you've done... Some of these principles might go in the master plan. Well, yeah. I mean, that's what I was just thinking about in terms of the thinking about... I'm trying to figure out, like Dan looked up the executive order in California and it's several pages long and it goes through a bunch of things, actually some of which are included here and then it lays out a specific process and specific, you know, much like we do in statute sometimes, specific organizations or individuals that need to be involved in the process and all of that kind of stuff. One of the things that I'm aware of is a little bit of working group fatigue. Since most of the players have just finished work on this piece and recognizing that this would be broader because we are talking about, you know, the rest of state government. I mean, some of the players who were very intimately involved in yours would probably be less intimately involved. Is that an animal? Cups. Cups? Monks. Who are they from? From a coalition... oh, a fire. So we're all getting a cup. We're all getting a cup. Fire and rescue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Made me shine. Thank you very much. No, I have one. Oh, we're supposed to pass. Oh, sit down this way. Come in this way. No, Ian, don't use mine. I'll put mine down. I'm just kidding. It's all the same. How are we going to know who's... I mean, yeah, we'll put her in whatever. They're very good. That's interesting. Julie? Yes. Would you like one? No. Thanks. So in some respects, it seems like some of the, like this, like what you were talking about, Madam Chair, about coming from the broad perspective to the principles I think were intended to be a broad perspective. But certainly the information that we heard from Scan is broader still. So would maybe elevate, and I think that those are the words that they continue to use, that this elevates this discussion across all sectors of state government, and which is important. So you might even see that before this principal section. I'm going to guess what I... One of the things I've heard from committee over the years is yes, many older Vermonters are vulnerable to use that word. But assuming that everyone at a certain age is going to need help from Dale because one perpetuates a stereotype of aging and does not in fact embrace what many of us around this table bring to things. So are you thinking that we would lay out a specific process to do that, or are you thinking about that we would... Okay. Well, to see what that would look like, looking at what California and some other... California is the one that they said, and they also said Connecticut? Why do I care? Is that another one? Civic engagement, volunteering, learning and leadership. That's nice. Was it last year that the Vermont Chamber expressed some interest? No, it was when we passed the older Vermonters working group. Yeah, they were. Two years ago. And last year they came into older Vermont caucus and talked a lot about all kinds of things. Betsy did a nice job. I mean, I guess what I got persuaded by was when I saw one this man report early in December, and then looking at how we are as a body, looking at climate and environmental issues, and they're not just focused on one sector. Are the eggs in here? Yeah, it's not just one sort of sector. And I thought I heard that this man came in that there was an interest in the committee in sort of doing that. We did talk about that. That's what I knew. It's a price to bring home to your wife. Remember that you're out of sources for great transparency, visible cohesive platform. Beautiful plans. It's also linked to prevention in the building. Two was broader than just one agency. So after the principal, what happens in this bill? And has... And I guess we got something from the department that I was saying things would cost too much. You didn't have the person power. We did, but I think that we have solved the majority of that. We have a lot. We have some changes. Oh, you have changes. No, they're not up there, but we... Oh, okay. Okay, so maybe to walk us through some of those, we have, yeah, to engage us in discussion on something. Okay, yeah. So one of the things that the department and the triple A's by extension of the department, because they are the people on the community side that are referenced here, was they were concerned about reporting. And a lot of that came up in the APS section and the intent of what we've put out there. So you're ignoring statute. Well, I think that the court has... The court, there was a court case involved that ended up in a settlement. So what they report on is what's in the settlement. Okay, so we probably should have changed state law. Well, it's not in state law now. It expired. I don't remember when, 2016, maybe. Was that right? Yeah, it was set over time. So we actually can start fresh. And we're suggesting that we start fresh with what's currently reported, which is quite comprehensive in terms of that. So we're proposing that we substitute information that Joe Nesbaum sent to us about what APS is reporting on now. So that would be a suggestion. And those types of things are... Do you remember if that got posted, Joe? Oh never mind, I can look by the witness. Staff, this one first. Witnesses. Oh, right. Well, of course, they're getting leaks on them. Okay. Well, it just says as witnesses who testified. Oh, I found this testament. Am I looking in the wrong place? And then he sent something to us afterwards. Oh, right. There it is. Do you know what, dance? Yeah. It's on the 13th. It's at the bottom of the 13th. It says reports. I know in your public coming up, go to witness written testimony. Don't protect yourselves annually. APS annual reports sections of data. People have it. Logan has us covered. Yeah. Who was ordered? Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. There you go. That's what I feel. Okay. Yeah, the grid up. Yeah, that. So this described, this is what the witness sent over in terms of what is reported on an annual basis now. And by, by category. And Dan and I reviewed it. And, you know, from perspective of what we were trying to accomplish here, we felt that it was, that this was okay. I don't know what the committee feels like, but this was something that these data points are things that ended up being agreed upon in the court settlement. So the court settlement also involved the people who were suing, which was protection and advocacy and legal aid. So if they agreed to it then, I think they might have an idea about how they want something to be different, but at least at one point in time, they all agree. Everybody agreed to this at one point in time. Can I just ask a timing question and Jen, that might be for you. Can we write in statute about reporting before or after the agreement? Sure. Jennifer Kirby, legislative council, I'm not sure I understand the before or after agreement. Okay. There was a court case and there was a settlement. I mean, it never, whatever that's called, you had a settlement. Did we write, did we put it in? Is that what you're asking? We have some data reporting that went away. It went away. Yes. And I'm just curious as to whether those data reporting markers were things that the legislature did subsequent to. A lot of it was subsequent. There was some that I found when I was working on the 611 draft. There were some earlier reporting requirements. I think it probably predated the settlement, but most of them were post-settlement. We passed one bill that got vetoed, and I think that was during dependency. Oh, yeah. And I think you actually did a new one after that. I mean, that said, if you and Dan, I mean, I haven't looked at this myself intimately. If you and Dan are sort of okay with this and then we have legal aid and environmental protection and advocacy come in to comment. My question was more in terms of, okay, there was this settlement of which you have to do for the settlement. Then did we go, okay, that's good. And in addition, we want this. But if you're fine with what it is now. So I'm not going to push anything. This is the measuring component in the bill. That you've taken information from this to say here's the things we should check on. That's what we're going to propose. No, that's what we're proposing. Yeah, we're going to change it to reflect what's here. To reflect what's here. And this is all about adult protective services. But the bill is broader than that. Are we going to measure some other things of our overall to know what our success is like in the bigger picture, too? Is that? Well, we might, and we might see if that's part of being California. If we're using that as a model. Whether, but that means. It's the other state. But you might be looking at that. Back in the California. Does anybody remember? Because we used to say California, if we asked if we were to look at something, would we look at California? And they suggested another state. And then I think it was Massachusetts. And for whatever reason, I can only find my December. Well, and I'm just looking for my notes and I don't have mine either. I hope I have a desk cleanup file. Might be in there. So. Part of that, Jessica, is the way I was thinking about it, at least, was the annual report from the department. So this is, she found it. Well, I don't know whether I found what we're over. She found some more. But I can find my. Oh, the presentation. The presentation. That's where I have my notes. Will you see if you can pull up the Dale annual report for 2019 off their webpage? Maybe some of those things are right there. That's what, this is what I, this is the, some of the things that maybe you're thinking about. And what we were thinking about in the reporting section of this bill. Okay. Yeah, you should be able to find it under documents, but you don't. You don't? This is, are you watching? So did you search in your report, Dale annual report? The other way of looking at it, yes. Well, if you try searching it I'm up either, so. I think it actually does. Does it? I think so. Annual report 2019 right there. It's DS. Is that? No, no, no. Dale annual report. Thank you. Okay. So, Dale does an annual report. They do a couple of, they do several reports on annual basis. But one of the report is sort of the broader department report. There's a DS annual report that has more specific information and probably DR does, probably every division does their own version of that. Almost. Except for adult services, which is, I don't know. There's a choices for care. A choices for care. Okay. Maybe. So, maybe if you could just scroll down through here so people get a sense of what's reported in this, then the lovely words from the commissioner. They're lovely words. Thank you. So, the division that we, I mean the two divisions to look at here, the adult services division and the licensing and protection division. The department overview is. The facts and figures too represented. In the facts and figures section. Okay. Just go up and get some information. Yeah. What are the words? That's just the department overview. Okay, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The facts and figures. So. Demograph. Demograph that I said. Kind of says who we're supposed to be serving and stuff like that. Employment. If it was, we were able to employ more. Okay. So, keep going. Thank you. Well, I don't want to look around the city. Population projections by a group. Keep going. These are still all projections. Yeah. This talks about family caregivers. Again, fight. In different counties in Vermont. But it's essentially equating the value of family caregivers. Okay. Keep going. So, I guess what I'm trying to get at is for people to really take a look at the Dale annual report. And keep going. See what's already being collected. And if there are things and reported. And to see if there are things that people feel like need beefing up or need to be included. I feel like there's not sufficient information in here about some of the aspects that we're looking at. Like, certainly if we're thinking on a broader level. And this car probably shouldn't just be for a Dale score start. Should be infused in something else or some of the data. Is that what you're meaning? The beginning parts of this report actually would be reflective of what we might think about in a broader scheme of things. Like, what does the universe look like? So if I looked at California and said, okay, here are some of the things they're collecting. And then look at the Dale report and see if they're collecting anything similar. Right. Is that what you're thinking? Yeah. And which is sort of consistent. I'm also like, oh my God, this reminds me of the bill we just passed on Thursday and Friday about climate change. Which is we've been doing a lot, but we don't have it necessarily all put together. And I'm looking at the consultation overview. Vermont has developed multiple strategy and framing with key ingredients that could be woven into a master plan. And I think there's some reluctance to use that terminology and phraseology. A master plan? Yeah. Because? Well, they're not. I don't have a reluctance about it. I mean, I think at some level right now we're trying to let Jen know how she's going to spend her waking hours. Yes. And then of which we'll get fewer and fewer. And then we will give the department the ability to go, we hate that says it's a master plan because we don't want to be in charge of the master plan. And I get that. So maybe you're not in charge of the master plan. The executive office. But then they don't want to not be in charge of it either. So, this is the rough. Well, okay. But no, I appreciate that clarification. So Colorado calls it the strategic action plan on aging. And then Connecticut is the real choice for long-term services and support. So they have different names for them. What about Minnesota? They don't have an AM. But Washington, aging and long-term support. Administration, strategic plan. The Minnesota one on the skin that says it's MN2030 looking forward. Okay. Really? Minnesota 2030 looking forward. Addressing demographic challenge. Yeah. That's kind of cool. Keep close. So if we sort of like, you know, release ourselves from thinking about this as a particular name and just thinking about what it is that we want to achieve. I think that we, I don't think you would find anybody, you know, sitting around the table or in any of the other chairs that we've had here who would disagree with putting all these elements together in a broad scheme of things involving broader state government and thinking about, you know, how we build up roads and, you know, how we build our sidewalks and, you know, do we have, you know, the kinds of public transportation that is accessible for people as we are aging and, you know, is the motor vehicle lines convenient for people who might not be able to stand as long as they used to be able to stand. You know, all of those kinds of things, all of that framing, I don't think anybody would be opposed to that. How we convert all that into language is maybe thinking about that from the perspective of looking at these other states. It might make it easier since we're in this. We kind of came to this piece of it at the 11th hour and haven't spent as much time thinking about it, so boring on the work of other states who have spent more time thinking about it as we move the concept forward. I think that's going back to what the folks from SCAN said, you know, raising and elevating this as part of the discussion in across government is really what the purpose of this is. So you mean you just referred transportation a bit, but it would also be like economic, like all of our offices of government, essentially. I'm trying to think of the different ones. Yeah, accommodations. It's kind of like ADA. Well, there's many components of that because ADA was intended to be broad-reaching that we create accessible environments for everyone, and if you create accessible environments for everyone, then they're available also for people who have disabilities. And if we have planning that's accessible to people as they are aging, it will be good for everyone. Maybe you're the one who said, or somebody said about the sidewalks, being wheelchair-friendly and rolling strollers, the same. And this is probably off the charts, but when you talk about public transportation, I think children, I mean, something that would serve a continuum of populations. Right, yeah. Now, of course, in one of the, I mean, that's what they said, what is, I mean, they spent a lot of pages saying we have the elements and are going forward and the things that are missing is what you're talking about, Teresa. The lack of connection across state governments beyond Hardale. The beginning of the bill now already is essentially talk about what makes life better for older permanenters. And so it does, it doesn't seem directed at the Agency of Human Services or Dale. It's really much broader than that. So I feel like we have done half the work already. It just may be in terms of where it's centered. Yeah. I mean, because on some level, and Monica and Teresa tell me if I'm wrong, Dale is going to focus on vulnerable... Right, the population. The vulnerable, people who are older who are vulnerable who are needing services and support to need or who are, someone is reporting, who need protection. And we are talking about... And we're talking, I mean, and so half of long-term care out of Dale is people who are Medicaid and Medicare. Right? Medicaid's. So that means... Is that right? That is... The Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living. So yes, and absolutely that vulnerable population is our focus. And as Representative Wood pointed out, we do have control issues and really do want to be in charge of how the state is thinking about celebrating and honoring and utilizing older Vermonters. I mean, I don't want to let go of that by any stretch. I just don't think I can be solely responsible for that. Yeah, right. Right. No, you can't be. I mean, maybe I could if somebody gave me all the power. I would give it a shot. Maybe I'm able to give you a magic wand. And a TR. And a TR. Because she's... I mean, the other... The other piece of feedback which we can choose to take or not think that means is that now, you know, long-term care financing. What we have maybe elements of it in terms of what you've said there with the other... The other thing is that they say what's missing is a visible, cohesive platform. I'm trancing that in terms of computer technology and... Well, they actually said it wasn't. Oh, they said it wasn't. They said don't think of this as a web portal. Okay. That's right. They did. It is, again, elevating the conversation. Elevating. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, I mean, I guess my question is if we're to... If we sort of add elements of a... A document to be named later. And then we... Can we go through some of the other changes that you guys are suggesting? That would be helpful. So, just one quick other thing before you do that is we did talk about population planning regardless of socioeconomic status, which you just said. And one area that that is well... is really happening in many areas of the state is the senior center piece, because it doesn't matter if you're low income or high income or moderate income, you still are welcome to go there and to do the things they're doing. So, it's kind of a cool sort of jumping off the place, maybe. And there are seniors who don't go to senior centers because they're working or because they are taking care of their grandchildren. Or because they are... Because they are like a former member of this committee doing a three month... No, I don't think it's three months, tour of Vietnam, India. Bill Frank went on this huge thing and he skis every... Right. So, I mean... Right. And all of them are different. Right. The one we have is in Charlotte, which Charlotte uses. They have all these great bird watching programs that happen on the weekends, so anybody can do it. And you don't have to be a senior. And what's amazing to me... I went once just to check it out, because I was curious. There are people, you know... Well, what do you call a senior? Maybe if they're over 55, it was more in that age group than in the older age groups. So can we, in the 20 minutes left that we have to talk about this for today? You might go back to it. Go over the work that the two of you have done. So there were a couple other things that we have one section that we're not sure where it came from that's in there that we just want to take out. Okay. I think that's on a couple pages down. Sorry, Logan. I'm sorry. Go back. I'm looking at Theresa's notes because I think she crossed it out. Yeah, it was in rulemaking. There it is. Page 12. Yeah, page 12, line 3. Right now, when we read it, we don't see it referencing something specific. I think it was left in from an earlier version of the description. Yeah, okay. So that's something that's just something that happens. So that is an amendment. So the other thing, like where we're in this section is we agree with the department around where the AP, not where the APS is, where the rate setting stuff is. It might not have been, I think the department mentioned but the rate setting also mentioned it. Which is on page 16. There was some concern about section three, that's referencing section 904 and the rate setting statute. We added a B to that that says inflationary rate increases for providers and home and community services. You know, it is saying that rate setting would come up with a process to do that. And then section four, references inflation factor for home and community services and payment rates. So there was some question about where in law, if we were going to keep these things, where that should be. There was some concern about it being in the rate setting section. Though like two weeks ago something, a comment made sense to me and now it's not making sense to me. In terms, just so that we know what we're getting ourselves into, we have this section in there. Is that this will go to, this to the next step, which is to the Senate? Where? So I'm just going to speak for myself now, not for any particular person or entity, but. So I recognize when this, when we put this section in there, that this would be a section that would, you know, the rest of this is, you know, mostly, you know, Kumbaya and everybody's agreeing to laudable principles and, you know, setting a policy for the state that says we value older vermonters and what they bring to our communities. And the working group did a fabulous job in, you know, enumerating that and really kind of putting down thoughts to paper and going through a process. And the part of what the purpose of this bill is, is to not only do that, but to recognize that we, as a state have, as a policy decided that the state will not run these services, that the state will contract with any variety of providers out there. And that by doing so, we have to recognize that there needs to be a process by which those costs are reviewed on a periodic basis somehow. We recognize that for nursing homes, which, you know, in the scheme of long-term care and services and supports, the nursing homes are considered institutional care, even though they're in our local communities, they're defined as institutions. And the home and community-based services that happen in people's homes, essentially, are in, you know, smaller settings or in adult day facilities or by home health agencies. Those are all services and supports that have no method of having costs reviewed. We saw in, not to confuse things, but we saw in CIS, you know, the state has recognized and the state, in fact, has said that rate setting is something that we want to be more predictable. I'm not sure, Madam Chair, if you were here for the rate setting, they actually made the argument for us in their goals and principles of the woman who's, I was very impressed with her, but I can't remember her name. Thank you. When she was here, she laid out the things that what they are trying to do at a state level, and they were exactly what we're trying to do in this bill. And when questioned, through the Appropriations Committee, but I hope it leaves here with it in it so that we can have that discussion. That's my... On some level, I think that we touched on that in our memo to Appropriations when we made this project because what we are doing here is saying, okay, we want this for this group. And next year, we'll say, okay, we want this for residential providers. Well, they're included in this group. No, we'll say it, but we want to prepare challenges. I'm talking about Chuck. You are focused on aging. And I'm saying there are other groups out there. There are other places in state government where state government is not providing grant. We are not providing services in three-fourths of state government. What we are doing is we are contracting out to community service providers, perhaps unlike many other states. I don't really know. I'm saying this. The vast majority of these providers are nonprofits.