 a recording in progress. And Representative Ansel is here to talk with us about the legislative process. And then there's no decision that will be made tonight to speak informational. So it looks like we have a pretty good turnout. That was on the screen. Everybody on Zoom may go to here and see if they want to. OK. All right, so let's start it off with Jeremy going to the presentation that he worked on. OK. So it looks like we're recording. Everything's going. So if you don't know me, my name is Jeremy Weiss. I am the town clerk here. Thank you for coming in person. Thank you for coming on Zoom. I think everybody's muted. If you're not muted, just make sure you mute yourself. And as we all know, the acoustics in this room are really challenging. So as much as we can keep jostling and stuff to a minimum that will help everybody online, we'll be able to hear. Jostling's here. Jostling. So I wanted to thank all the members of the Board of Civil Authority for coming. This is my first time doing this kind of thing for a long time, so I appreciate being able to be here and provide some information. And then looking forward to hearing from Janet. And just going from there. We'll do, for everybody on Zoom, we'll do questions right after. I'm going to do a little PowerPoint. And then we can just start in with Janet and speak. And then we can just do a question and answer. And we can have public comment. And it's our medium. So we can go as we will. So let's see. I'm going to share. OK, so let's do this. OK, so as you know, there's been a proposal by the legislative apportionment board to put us in a new district. This is about as small as the printouts are. But the proposal is to put us in a district with Worcester and Woodbury in a small section of East Montpelier along Route 14. So just quickly, why are you apportioned? Kind of comes back to the one town, one vote rule. The legislature originally in Vermont was a unicameral body. There was one member for every town. There was 246 members. It was wild. The pictures of all those members in there, their spatoons, they're in their smoking cigarettes. They got like shawls on. It's crazy. It must have been, I can't even imagine it. And there were so many different committees and things. But this created a lot of inequity as people were moving into Vermont and people were moving around in Vermont. The classic example is the kind of Straton that had 38 residents, one representative, city of Burlington, 35,000 plus residents, one member. So you could, how majority can be achieved by towns holding only 9% of the population. So that was problematic. There was some Supreme Court cases. This is not Supreme Court, but I'm saying this. There were Supreme Court cases, Baker v. Carr, which looked at whether redistricting was a political question and the courts found that it wasn't, meaning the courts could be involved. This is from Vermont District Court in 64 that held that the house was grossly mal-portioned and the Senate was essentially the same. And that led to the court ordering the Vermont General Assembly to reapportion. At that point, they went from 246 members down to 150 members, based on population as opposed to total voters. That year, there was a special election. Everybody had a one-year term and then the biennial started up the following year in 1966. And the legislative apportionment board was created at that time. So in 74, all those changes were ratified in the Vermont Constitution. And they basically said, among other things, that the legislative apportionment board would have an advisory capacity. They could submit proposals to the General Assembly and the General Assembly could essentially do whatever they want with that. This was from a memorandum from Tom Little, who's the chair or the special master of the board. Katie, you should admit John. They basically are looking at the new population of Vermont, which is 643,000, it was a typo, 500, and you divide that by 150 seats. And the magic number is 4,287. That is the ideal population of the district, of any district. And if it's a two-member district, then you just double that. These are some deviation calculations. It's just kind of looking at the percentage negative or positive. So for instance, our map currently, the proposed map has a population of 3957 residents, which is a deviation of 330 residents, according to what that ideal population is, of over 643,000. So for our new district, the negative actually has a negative deviation of 7.7, which means we actually theoretically have a little bit more power than we did last time around. Beyond the overall deviation, the board, the legislative apportionment board is guided by three statutory directives, which are important for us, because these are the same directives that the CalIS, BCA, and all the BCAs in Vermont can use to justify redrawing the lines and making their own proposals. And that's the preservation of existing political subdivision lines, patterns of geography, social interaction, political ties, use of compact and contiguous territory, all of which I'm not sure anyone actually knows what that means. But that being said, the BCAs are better situated to know what their towns look like, and so that's, you know, and they have the authority over the elections. So in terms of the BCA and XTAPS, the legislative apportionment board has prepared and sent out their statewide proposal. All the towns have been notified. We can recommend, based on the standards that I just outlined, which are the preservation of existing political subdivisions and all those things. We have till November 15th, and then we'll consider the recommendations from towns, they'll make a final proposal, and then that will get forward into the clerk of the house, and then they will send it to committee. How often they listen to the towns that provide comment? I don't. I don't know how often they listen, and I don't know how often the legislature listens to their plans, so I'm not sure. I think Janet probably knows a lot more about that myself, but I think they try to listen and they're statutorily obligated to consider, which of course we don't, doesn't mean that they have to do any of that right. So our district, Calis district has changed over time. So we were one member voting district forever, until 1965, and then we were placed in the district 60, which was Calis, East Montpelier, Woodbury, in 73, or after the redistricting in 1970s, we were placed in Washington two, which was Calis, Cabot, and Marshfield. Redistricting in 1981 resulted in being placed in Washington one, Calis, Middlesex, Worcester, and then in 91, that was when we were in a two-member district with Calis, East Montpelier, Marshfield, Plainfield, and Woodbury. When you say two-member, you mean two representatives? So two representatives, correct. And then that... It's a couple of the population. Yeah, so that would be, yeah, it would be... Right. I'm not sure what it was at that time, but for us it would be over 8,000 people. Yeah, okay. And then in 2001, we were placed back into Washington six, so that's Calis, Marshfield, Plainfield, and that's our current district. It did not change in 2012. So we've been in Washington six since the beginning of the 2000s, and then just getting into who has represented us since about that time. 1965 was Blatchley, and then, you know, we had most notably Eva. First for district 60, and then Washington two from 71 to 80. Also importantly, we had, so Alain Alfano and Nani Osman were our members when we were a part of that two-member district. Heather Sholdice was appointed by Jim Douglas because Tom Pellum resigned. So she was in, she was from Calis. She was appointed and was in for a year, and then Janet ran and prevailed and has been our representative ever since. Right. And so there's the very small map. And I guess this is kind of the end of my presentation, but the two things that I felt like would be helpful to think about is just generally how does the BCA feel about a proposal to move to one-member district statewide? So that's a really big part of their proposal, which is to break up every single district, every single two-member district in the state internment. So there's a lot of chatter about that. People are happy, unhappy, all sorts of things. What was it, what were the positives associated with having one-member district? I think part of the state. I don't know, I think it's the idea of just more representative democracy because it's a smaller portion of the population. There was, and that's, we can kind of get into that. There was other, there's other proposals that went around, and the one that prevailed was on a vote of four to three, so it wasn't exactly a unanimous decision to propose one district voting in blocks across the entire state. The other notable thing, which we won't concern ourselves with, is the law that was passed last year that requires three-member Senate districts. So that of course affects Chittenden County, it does not affect us. And... So the districts are larger, if you will. If you have one-member district, it means that one person represents a larger population. No, it's an equal distribution. It's supposed to be only have 150 members. 150 members of the House. Right, right. They still are gonna, so they either be representing 4,000. It's whatever is closest to this 4,287. Your math is upside down, Mark. What? You got your numerator and your denominator flipped. And one of the notable things is the Senate, and Janet can, maybe she did this, the Senate can change as well, but we don't have any, they don't give us an opportunity to weigh in on that. Like they do the representatives. Something I read. I think that's right. Yeah. Do it. Do you see that? So with that, that's kind of the end of my piece. I think we'll invite Janet to make some remarks, if you wanna sit or if you would, what's your preference on the phone? Whatever is easy for people that hear me. So I'll just look, I love that list of all the districts. This is very low down, so of all the districts that we had and the different legislators and... Much higher. I can think of a way out of it there. I've forgotten about Bill Blashley. Oh, yeah. My husband remembers when Bill Blashley was a student. Yeah. Yeah. He was in that wild time period. Bill Blashley's going to muck Bill Blashley. I know. And then I looked at the long periods with Eva and I thought, oh my God, mine's worse. So, you know, the other thing I was noticing as I was looking at that list is that I have actually been involved in at least four different redistricting. I was involved as a staff person with two of them and as a legislator with two. So I've been through a lot of them, which along with my white hair, she didn't feel as good. I've been there a long time. So I've got some experience about how it works. One of the things, just to note, not making any judgment about it, the Legislative Apportionment Board, which is set up by the Constitution, is set up to have equal representation from every major party, which means that it has two Democrats, two Republicans, and two progressives. And that's not really reflective of the state as a whole or the legislation as a whole. What if it doesn't have a defendant's? Not a party. Not a party. Not a party. So, and then a special master that's appointed by the Supreme Court, who in this case is Tom Little, who's a Republican, although I don't know that you necessarily know that. But so it's an interesting body to be making a recommendation on what's really a sort of a political plan when you consider that it's not actually representative of the way the state is folks, typically. I guess that the way it has worked in the past is the legislature, I think, learns a great deal from the work that the Apportionment Board does. I think they do all the sort of prep work, all the preliminary work, they do, if they did the work also with the BCAs, but the legislature has never adopted their plan. And sometimes it varies substantially and sometimes not a lot. The question about the single-member districts is a pretty significant one. I went back and looked at the Constitution tonight just to remind myself before it came. The Constitution allows one and two-member districts. It's very clear. So the decision to say that we can only have single members is sort of an artificial constraint on the way the Constitution has set it up. It's legal to do that. We could do all single members. But it also, it tends to run a foul of some of the other requirements that are in the Constitution, like the compact and contiguous districts, the community of interest, those kinds of things. So, as the Board is, the Legislative Apportionment Board is weighing this and as the legislature weighs it, there are these competing goals and you end up, I think one of the worst districts that was done last time is the one that includes Bolton and Huntington and Waterbury. It's a terrible district. It runs over the mountain. And we knew that when we did it, but when you're drawing an app with 150 members, you kind of get to a place in the middle where you've made all these other decisions and you're kind of stuck with the decision that you've got. So that's part of the process. Yeah, sorry. Just add a quick question. Remind me how often we do this? Is it every 10 years? Every 10 years. Every 10 years. And according to the census? With the census, yeah. And one of the other issues that we have this year is the timing problem. We have COVID, but we over and above, or separate from COVID, we had a census that was problematic for a whole lot of reasons. And happened late, took longer than it should have. There were issues around counting, undocumented people, and so on. And so it got finished very late and the legislative apportionment board got the figures very late. What that's meant is that you all are being brought into the process late. When it gets to the legislature, one of the things that probably matters more to people who are running than people who are watching. But the petitions, we have to file petitions by the end of May. Anybody who wants to get on the ballot has to file by the end of May. So if we're adopting a plan that we really don't start working on until January, it has to go through the House, has to go through a committee process, has to go through the House, has to go through the Senate, and has to go to the governor for a signature. You can see that it might well be April or May. It's very difficult for people to file in a district when they don't know what the boundary is. If you run a turn from Calis and you didn't know if you were going to go to Marshville for signatures or go to Worcester for signatures. Ours, it's pretty easy. There's our towns of all. We sort of have something in common with all these towns. So I don't think we're... I don't think it's as much of a disadvantage here as it might be in some parts of the state, but it will be a real time crunch when we get there. So anyway, that's just kind of... Let's figure out how we're going to do this about asking questions. I was thinking of letting the folks on Zoom go first to ask questions. We can let you go on camera. I'm happy to answer questions. So folks on Zoom, raise your hand with a little icon if you'd like to ask a question or make a comment. Nobody? Well, I think it takes a minute. Okay. Well, if you think of it... Oh, Dylan. The hand raise function is under reactions. Yeah. And there'll be a choice of things you can click on at the very bottom. There's like a long line that says raise hand. And when you're done speaking, you got to click on it again to un-raise your hand. All right, put your hand down. Okay, Dylan. Just to comment, I generally support this change. I think it looks good to me and more accurately reflects that kind of second criteria. Anybody else on Zoom? See anybody else's hand up? Michael, my name? Michael? Michael. Michael, my name? Yes. You got it on mute. I'm trying, yep. I only have one comment from a person who thought the districts just followed more of the school lines like U32, instead of getting involved with Gaysen or another district. Myself, I think that we were with Woodbury before. Worked pretty well. I live both in Woodbury and Calis and it seems that it'll be a very easy district to deal with. I don't know much about Worcester. I do think the print is not great for East Monterey. I disagree with that, but other than that, it's fine. Yeah, you make a good point about U32 piece. Worcester is U32, but Woodbury is not. Correct. Yeah. But I don't see a problem with that. I think the people in Woodbury are generally pretty much attuned to our district. Right now, I think they're in with more of Stirling all the way, but they're not too happy about that. At least the people I spoke to in Woodbury are well. Yeah. Okay, thanks, Mike. Jamie. Anybody else? Jamie, did you have your hand up? Oh, she's... Sorry, I can't find the hand. Just the thumbs up. I'm wondering if it's... How common it is, it feels a little confusing to me to have part of a town in one district and part of a town in another. Let's split between districts. I'll let Janet answer. No, it's not. And what's happened in the past is if they couldn't, if the numbers weren't right, they would create a two-member district and then the line dividing those two members would be done by the boards of civil authority, not by the legislature. And so in this case, for example, it seems to me that if we took part of Eastmont Pillar, it would make more sense to take part of Amman rather than Route 14, but that would be something that people would understand locally better than at the Portionment Board. But that's one of the comments that we could make that it aligns with our culture and those other things Jeremy listed more to have the Atomap portion than the Route 14 portion, for instance. Yeah, but it's not difficult to divide them up. Anybody else on Zoom comment? Audience, but Rick. Yeah, it is kind of a three-part question. Number one is, have you considered Stanford to avoid the problem you talked about? Somebody in this reapportionment year not knowing what district they're running for. Have you considered Stagger in one year? It makes up for it at the end, you know, so that you would use the old districts, you read district, essentially, but then the district is no. That means you can speak up. Okay, yeah, I'm just asking, can you mask off and speak to the speaker? If I'm talking about the, if Stagger in my one year, the redistricting, so that you actually do the redistricting, but you retain the old districts, so you don't confuse people running in that year about what district am I running for when we run this. And then it kind of made up for that at the end of that 10-year period. The second part of the question was, did that, is the modeling done kind of similar to the way that they do the regional planning commissions based on these economic and social bundles of communities that kind of work together and live together or not? And then related to that is the Huntington, the example you gave, the Huntington-Bolton, you know, connection that's really clumsy. Do you rotate that in the next, so that they don't get stuck with a bad district? You make sure they don't get, you know, so that in perpetuity, you know, and this kind of goes along with that district thing like, so the RPCs are set up there, those economic, social centers rather than county boundaries or, you know, that's, to me, that would be a basic framework. So to answer the first question, I'm not sure that we can do that under the Constitution. I have a feeling that when you get to it, there probably would be some issues with that, because things would be so out of joint for a period of time. The other issue about, you know, sort of these communities of interest, you know, roads, school districts, there are a lot of things that you might wear people's shop, where they have jobs that you might look at to make that decision. And there are places, I agree about Huntington and Bolton, I think they're due for a district that makes more sense to them, that I can't guarantee that that'll happen, but I agree that they have long enough in a difficult district. I think we've been lucky, I think all those districts that we've looked at there, I think, make some sense for us. I think the one we have makes sense, I think the one that's been proposed makes sense. So I think we've, but we're sort of in an easy place in some ways. Do you know why, oh, I'll read it. I'll wait to ask my questions here, what are you looking at? I do, I mean, this is maybe not germane to raise here. I'm concerned that some of the Woodbury folks aren't gonna wanna be in this district, particularly those folks that are out on Woodbury Road, Cape Brook Road, Buffalo Mountain, because all of their orientation is towards Hardwick and Elmore and Wolcott. And so if it were to be split off, then maybe we could get part of that East Montpelier that's associated with that man to come up with a better. Thank you very much. That's a great idea. So, Marge, I'm sorry to ask this at this point, I've been having a lot of trouble hearing between the mask, the room, and my ears. And I'm sure we've gone over this before, but the problem with the two-member district is this purely a numerical exercise? Or, I mean, yes, it's cultural, but I mean, basically, is it trying to get just a direct correlation between numbers and towns or districts? Or... Elk. So the members drive all this? That's the starting point, so they drive the numbers, and then they're all these other factors? The ideal number was 4,300, is that it? I thought it was 4,059, but you had some other figure, but it's 4,287? 4,287? Yeah, that doesn't count, though. Well, there is a long number, I thought I copied it off the website that I had it wrong. It's from 4,000. It's from Tom Nible's memo, so 4,200, so... Okay. So the institution allows two-member districts? Why is it important to not... I'm not arguing for the single-member district plan, and I think it creates, personally, I think it creates some problems, that it creates everything into those single-members. So this is not my plan. This is the plan of the legislative apportionment board. It's out here for the towns, the VCAs to comment on. I'm not asking you why it's important to you, but what is the concept behind not having two-member districts? I mean, is this solving a problem that's real, or is it a search for a problem? It's called loop or closed. You'd have to ask the apportionment board. Okay. Well, I guess I'm totally ignorant of any context and any history of this. This is just totally a new thing. So that's why I ask. They probably had their meetings on YouTube, right? So they're probably out there. The minutes are all they have. There's no video recording. I think there is. I think there is. So you could probably go back, Marge and watch it on YouTube. There's supposed to be four to three goals. If you're really four. If you're supposed to buy it, you're probably going to buy it. Yeah. I just wanted a shorter board darkness. Marge, are you done? I can just say one thing about Marge's comment. If you go to the Secretary of State and the reapportionment website, there are tons of materials. You will find supporting materials of all of the board members, justifying the plans that they put together. So for the people who put together this plan, which ultimately prevailed at the board level, there's articles, there's all sorts of things that they had posted on there that give their argument as to why they think a one member voting district is more pure. And for all these different reasons that I don't really know, I don't quite understand, but I think, you know, part of it was they were making arguments about fairness and different things. And so, but it's interesting in telling when you see how divided the vote was that it was a four to three, like that's about that four to three, just so I understand the four to three. Was it four to three at the start as to whether they should pursue one member districts as a policy or did two different factions produce two different reapportionments based on having a one member district or not. And there were essentially a real division as to the total apportionment plan. The four to three vote was on this particular plan. Yes. I think there were probably a whole bunch of other decisions whether they came to votes or not. Sometimes things don't get voted, but it's obvious that there's some division. So the legislature didn't tinker with this, right? The legislature has every other time just started over. Okay. And it sounds like they're gonna need to tinker with a four to three. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be focusing on this particular proposal for us. Yeah. Because that may survive whatever the changes are. Okay. Art wanted to comment. Well, in some states, the report legislative reapportionment every 10 years is a nefarious way to unbalance votes, et cetera, et cetera. So the question I have is politically speaking here, Janet, would this skewer the vote in any particular way? In other words, by adding one area that might have a lot more Republicans than another area and therefore make it harder to win the district or will this not be an issue? I don't think that political makeup of this proposal is much different than what we have currently. That's my, I have a common run in Calis-Marshfield and Plainfield, but I know the other towns of it and I don't think it's much different. State-wide what's happened is that population is grown in Chittenden County and Franklin County. Chittenden County tends to be Democratic. Franklin County tends to be Republican. And they've lost population in the Northeast Kingdom, which tends to be more conservative, and they've lost population, we have lost population in the southern part of the state. So there are shifts statewide that probably you could look at and make a judgment about what the political impacts are. But right here, I don't think there's much change. It sounds like to answer the question, it sounds like having, whether you think it's not representative, having an equal membership of all three parties kind of prevents, should prevent or should be a hedge against people gerrymandering at the point where they're doing spaghetti lot districts to accomplish an end, I mean that's a possible. And we haven't, frankly, we haven't really done that. Yeah, yeah, but it prevents you. And I'm wondering, I guess a question I had would be, I wonder if they looked at, if you look at the population of East Montelier and Calus, it gets you to about 4259. And it's interesting that they didn't, I'm not saying that this is a good idea, but it's interesting that they didn't propose East Montelier-Calus as a district. Yeah, I don't know. If you look at the numbers. What is the meaning of Calus right now? Does anyone have an idea of what the population of this little hunk is? I think it's about 400. Yeah. Yeah. And there was a request, just so everybody in the room here knows, there was a request from folks on Zoom if we could try to identify ourselves because I think it's probably hard to know who's talking, who's not, so we're just, just talking about it. Well, and so for tonight, you know, this is all really a great discussion. So the process next is for the BCA to meet and come to a decision on what it wants to propose. What we propose goes through a portal on a website. What members of the public can do is to file written comments. And the question about, does the board listen to the BCAs? I think they do, and I think the legislature does. And I think it doesn't mean they'll necessarily accommodate everything. I think it's important to comment. And can you say the process again? So this goes back to the reapportionment. Is it apportionment or reapportionment? It's the legislative apportionment. So this goes to them. They do what they do. And then they make a proposal. Does it go to the House and the Senate? Or does it go to the House? They have a House proposal for the House and a Senate proposal for the Senate. But it would be the same proposal. No. Senate district and House districts. Yeah. Well, I guess my question was, the votes on this. To me, the House representation just goes as a report. So the House districts will go as a report to the House only. But the legislation that actually draws the lines is a bill. And it goes through, in a committee, through the House, through the Senate, through a committee, to the full Senate. What committee does it go to in the House? The operations. OK. And the same thing with Senate? Yeah. There'll be two separate bills. There'll be a Senate bill and a House bill. So they could end up doing something with our Senate district, too. We just don't have any. At the moment, I don't know what they're planning. Yeah. They haven't even. They're just not subscribed. But it's a different apportionment board that would do the Senate board. The same board. Same board. But there's no role. The difference, one of the differences is there's no role for the BCAs to weigh in. It goes directly to the Senate secretary and then refer. That's interesting that the same LAB does both, one, we get to weigh in on and one, we don't. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Is that statutory or just custom? It must be statutory. Statutory. The Senate writes the statute about them. And we write the statute on us. Yeah. Tell me. Does anybody else have comments, questions? This is Tina Bealby. That was my only question, was where is the Senate process and will there be a map published before adoption so that we have some sense, even if we don't can't weigh in as a BCA, we can at least see what they have in mind. There will absolutely be a map. And it'll be submitted to the Senate for them to work on. And then they'll do a bill and you'll see maps. Do you think that's likely to be around by now meeting? Oh, yeah. So we might have a kind of report from you as part of the town meeting about where we stand on. Of course, with the issue that, and this is Jeremy, the issue that Janet was speaking to earlier with the compressed timeframe and needing to know which district you're going to be in, one of the notable aspects of what's going to change in the Senate is the new law that's requiring three-member districts, which will affect Chittenden County. So they're going to have a similar time crunch to want to get that bill out onto the floor and onto the governor to get signed so that those folks know, where are my campaigning for my next Senate run? I mean, it's not going to change our district. We'll start with three. Right. We'll have that. I mean, we're not required to have three, but my guess is we'll have three for Senate. Oh, we're not required. No, they could do singles or they could do one and two. Really? How does that work? Let's do it. I mean, we'll have the bill and change it. Huh, just like that? Probably not that easy. Is it? Yes. I didn't know that. Is it your intuition, Janet, that it would look like Washington County? Yes. With three at large Senate seats? I think there would be some change. There may be some towns on the border that will get it out because of the numbers. I'm pretty sure we'll stay up for it. Any more questions on Zoom? Comments? Anybody else in the audience? I just like to reiterate Denise's idea that the Calisthenics Monpedre is a perfect size. Yeah, thank you. I think we have a lot in common. And I think that should be in the new district. So that is a very legitimate thing for the VCA to comment if it's something. Yeah, I mean, we share a lot of the same, I mean, they have obviously way more businesses than we do, but we share fire department, school, historical society. Historical society, there's a lot of things that we have in common. And the number is just about perfect. It is, it is. It is about 50. Yeah. Well, that would be a very simple thing for you to communicate and handle. So that's one of the things that we could, when we submit some comments, we could say, did you think about this? I guess we could also go back to this Eric Covey, who's the one who sent out the original email about stuff. Do they take questions? Like, why did you guys, did you think about this? And if you did, how come you didn't propose it? So please ministerial, he's not part of the legislative apportionment board. He's just sending stuff out on their behalf. So I wouldn't pose a question to him, but I would pose it to the board directly. Yeah, I saw, maybe I'll send them an email because I saw a thing where you can ask the board a question. That's fine. Yeah, maybe I'll send an email to them and ask them that because it'd be good to know before we meet next Tuesday. If this was considered and if it was, why didn't you do it? And then we can even comment better on it. I don't know how quick they'd be at resounding, but absolutely, she can make it with them. Okay. Or to our liberal activity, that's me. I'm wondering how many districts are up for reportionment? All of them. All of them? Right. So if one district says, oh, I want to change this, then all the dominoes fall. I don't know what that is. It's our boy. It's our boy. You understand this perfectly. I'm sorry. You understand this perfectly. That's exactly what happens. That's why it's so difficult. That's how they got painted into a corner in the Huntington District, where they just sort of was like, well, that's all a ripple to do up here. This is a district now. So, is it, what is being proposed to be with East Montpelier? I think it's Middlesex. I think it's the existing district. So they pretend to be doing Middlesex. Worcester. And somebody. Okay. Benny, to the point of information, Jan, this is Tina Bielenberg again. Do you know whether Marshfield and Plainfield are going to be proposed to be joined this morning? So the proposal that's out right now has been with Cabot, which is not a bad district. You know, there are parts of, I think it's worked well being with them. I think it's been good. But, you know, Powell's is kind of a nice position where there are a lot of times that we have connections with. So, and I think Marshfield, Plainfield and Cabot are all in the same supervisory unit. Yeah. And that makes sense. Is there an entire map of the state online? Yes. We can send you a link. I can send you a link. It's to the, yeah, the secretary of state has a legislative portion of it. It came out for this meeting. Oh, yeah. If you go on to the town's website and look on the left, when you get to the homepage, there's a link to all of this stuff on the town's website. Yeah. Thank you. Way more than you could do. I know. Way more than you ever thought you'd ever want to know. Is there anything else or are we done? We don't know. What's up to you guys? Yeah. Yes, and thank you for letting me. No, thank you for coming. We really appreciate it. Nice presentation, Jeremy. Thank you for the work you put into that. Well, thank you, Jeremy. And I have you send me your history. I will, yeah. The other thing I would say, just because you all, this is Jeremy, you guys had thought of the possibility of East Montpelier and Calis. There is a process that's statutory that if we wanted to meet, if Calis BCA wanted to meet and have a joint meeting with East Montpelier BCA or any other possibility, we could actually get one of the members of the board to come and kind of mediate as a non-voting member. I saw that. So that is a part of the process as well. But the time frame is so compressed. Typically, this is happening in August. Well, I did talk to Bruce Johnson from Montpelier, and I got to check back in with him to see where their heads are at. They obviously don't like the piece being cut out on the 14th. Right. So their BCA, I forget when he said their BCA was going to meet, but we could look at their, you know, what they thought that they'd post their notes online, like we will. And just as a reminder, that Calis BCA is accepting written submissions until the 8th. But are they sending them here? Because we can consider. Yeah, for us to consider. Anybody else's comments, but they can also file comments directly to the LAB. All I can think of is like a lab rat. I know, me too. Good, I'm the only one. All right, thank you. We're done. We're done. All right. Thank you.